Pressure transonic...Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel; the Mach numbers ranged from 0.70 to 1.20 and data were taken for angles of attack from Oo to approximately 16O at Oo

"-

NASA Technical

1- .

Paper 13 5 5

I

'. A Study of- Canard-Wing -Interference , . Using,. Experimental : Pressure . Data at- transonic ,Speeds ' ' ..

. .

/ , ' I .

I , . . . -

, / !~

\

Blair B. Gloss and Karen E.' washburn , . , . - \

, .

. _ \ , ', - . ' ,

I . -, . ' I

. \ ,

JANUARY 1979 1 . ' I

, . I ' , \

J .

' ,

1 , , . '

I

J

' \ . , ..

. . . ..

TECH LIBRARY KAFB. NM

NASA Technical Paper 1355

A Study of Canard-Wing Interference Using Experimental Pressure Data at Transonic Speeds

Blair B. Gloss and Karen E. Washburn Langley Research Center Humpton, Virginia

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical Information Office

1979

SUMMARY

A close-coupled canard-wing model w a s t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 8-foot t ran- sonic pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.70 t o 1.20 t o determine the canard-wing in t e r f e rence e f f ec t s on canard and wing loadings. The canard had an exposed area of 28.0 percent of the wing reference area and was l o c a t e d i n the chord phne of t h e wing or i n a pos i t i on 18.5 percent of the wing mean geometric chord above or below t h e wing chord plane. The canard leading-edge sweep w a s 51. 7 O , and t h e wing leading-edge sweep w a s 60°.

The resu l t s ind ica ted tha t the d i rec t canard downwash e f f e c t s on t h e wing loading are l imited to the forward half of the wing direct ly behind the canard. The wing leading-edge vortex i s loca ted fa r ther forward for the wing i n t h e presence of the canard than for the wing-alone configuration.

The wake , from the canard located below the wing chord plane, physically in te rac ts wi th the wing inboard surface and produces a s u b s t a n t i a l loss of wing lift. For t h e Mach number 0.70 case, the presence of the wing increased the loading on the canard for the higher angles of at tack. However, a t Mach numbers of 0.95 and 1 .20 , the presence of t h e wing had t h e unexpected r e s u l t of unloading the canard.

INTRODUCTION

Pas t inves t iga t ions ( re fs . 1 t o 13) have indicated that the proper use of canard surfaces on maneuvering a i r c r a f t can o f fe r s eve ra l a t t r ac t ive f ea tu re s such as potent ia l ly higher t r immed-l i f% capabi l i ty , improved pitching-moment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and reduced trimmed drag; these attractive features are manifested t o a higher degree when used i n conjunction with an unstable air- craf t . In addi t ion, the geometr ic character is t ics of c lose-coupled canard configurat ions offer a p o t e n t i a l f o r improved longitudinal progression of cross-sectional area which could result in reduced wave drag a t low supersonic speeds, and would allow placement of the horizontal control surfaces out of the wing downwash and j e t exhaust. Flow-visualization studies (ref. 14) and a n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s ( r e f s . 1 5 and 1 6 ) have ind ica ted tha t the favorable in te r - ference of the canard on t h e wing flow f i e l d can produce a complex flow f i e l d on the wing sur face . Although t h e r e have been several papers publ ished that d i scuss t he t o t a l fo rces and moments produced by close-coupled canard-wing conf igu ra t ions , ve ry l i t t l e da t a a r e ava i l ab le on t h e l o a d d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e canard and wing surfaces for close-coupled canard-wing configurations; references 17 and 18 discuss some o f t he ava i l ab le l oad d i s t r ibu t ion da t a .

This paper reports on a continuation of the work presented i n reference 4. This wind-tunnel investigation obtained aerodynamic load distributions , at transonic speeds , on both the canard and wing surfaces of a model t h a t i s geometr ical ly ident ical to that used in reference 4. The primary purpose of t h i s pape r i s t o improve the understanding of the cause and e f f ec t s o f t he

canard-wing in te r fe rence . The present inves t iga t ion was conducted i n t h e Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel; the Mach numbers ranged from 0.70 t o 1.20 and data were taken for angles of at tack from Oo t o approximately 16O at Oo sidesl ip . Tabulated results from th is s tudy a re p resented in re fe rence 19.

SYMBOLS

The phys ica l quant i t ies used in th i s paper a re g iven in the In te rna t iona l System of Units ( S I ) . Measurements and ca lcu la t ions were made i n U.S. Customary Units.

A

b '

bW

bC

cP

AcP

C

- C

av

Ma3

s, S

sC

va3 W

X

Y

z

2

aspect ratio, bw2/S

dis tance from wing-fuselage juncture to wing t i p

wing span, cm

canard span, cm

pressure coef f ic ien t , Sta t i c p re s su re - Refe rence s t a t i c p re - s sxe s,

pressure coef f ic ien t on lower surface minus pressure coef f ic ien t on upper surface

local chord length, cm

wing mean geometric chord, cm

average chord length, cm

section normal-force coefficient,

free-stream Mach number

Section normal force Qoc

free-stream dynamic pressure, Pa

reference area of wing with leading and t r a i l i n g edges extended t o plane of s y m e t r y , cm 2

exposed canard area, cm2

free-stream velocity, cm/sec

downwash velocity induced by canard, cm/sec

chordwise coordinate measured from wing leading edge, cm

spanwise coordinate measured from wing-fuselage juncture, cm

vertical coordinate measured from mid plane of fuselage, cm

a angle of at tack, deg

rl nondimensional spanwise coordinate , y/b ' A leading-edge sweep , deg Subscripts :

C canard

W wing

MODEL DESCRIPTION

A sketch of the model used i n t h i s wind-tunnel investigation i s presented i n f i g u r e 1. This model w a s designed s o tha t var ious wing and canard planforms could be attached t o t h e common fuse lage and the pos i t iona l re la t ionship o f the l i f t ing sur faces (canards and wings) could also be varied. The wings and canards were instrumented with pressure orifices located as shown i n f i g u r e 1. Tables I and I1 g ive t he o r i f i ce l oca t ions fo r t he wing and canard, respectively. Both the instrumented canards and instrumented wings could not be tested s i m u l - taneously because of space restriction in the model caused by the pressure tube i n s t a l l a t i o n ; t h u s , when both the canards and wings were on t h e model at t h e same t ime , e i t he r t he wings or canards are uninstrumented. Figure 2 i s a photograph of the model w i t h instrumented and uninstrumented canards and wings shown. Table I11 presents the pertinent geometric parameters associated with t h i s model.

The 60° swept, untwisted wing had uncambered c i r c u l a r - a r c a i r f o i l s e c t i o n s and a maximum th ickness d i s t r ibu t ion which va r i ed l i nea r ly from 6 percent of the chord at t he roo t ( t he roo t i n t h i s pape r i s the wing-fuselage intersect ion) t o 4 percent of the chord at the t i p .

The canard had a leading-edge sweep angle of 51.7' and an exposed a rea of 28.0 percent of t h e wing reference area S. The canard w a s t e s t e d i n t h e wing chord plane ( z / C = 0.0) and in pos i t i ons 18.5 percent of the wing mean geometric chord above and below t h e wing chord plane ( z / S = 0.185 and -0.185). To obtain the configuration with the canard located below t h e wing chord plane, t h e model with the canard in the high posi t ion was r o l l e d 180' on t h e s t i n g ; thus, the resul t ing configurat ions had canard-fuselage fa i r ings on the bottom of the fuselage and had a d i f f e ren t fu se l age shape i n t he v i c in i ty o f t he canard. The canard w a s untwisted and had uncambered c i r c u l a r - a r c a i r f o i l sec t ions . The m a x i m u m th ickness var ied l inear ly from 6 percent of the chord a t t h e root (canard- fuse lage in te rsec t ion) to 4 percent at t h e t i p .

APPARATUS, TESTS, AND CORFUXTIONS

This invest igat ion w a s conducted i n t h e Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel which i s a continuous-flow f a c i l i t y . Tests were made at Mach numbers of 0.70, 0 .90, 0.95, 1.03, and 1.20 corresponding t o Reynolds numbers, based on

3

t h e wing mean geometric chord, of 1.35 X l o 6 , 1.52 X l o 6 , 1.54 X lo6 , 1.58 x 10 , and 1.61 x l o6 , respec t ive ly . Because of flow separation at the sharp leading edges of the canard and wing, t h e Reynolds number effect should be small. (See ref. 20. ) Tests were made at angles of attack from approximately Oo t o 1 6 O at 00 s i d e s l i p . Angles of a t t ack were c o r r e c t e d f o r e f f e c t s o f s t i n g d e f l e c t i o n due t o aerodynamic load. A l l t e s t s were made with boundary-layer transit ion f ixed on t h e model by means of narrow s t r i p s o f carborundum g r i t p l a c e d on t h e body, wings, and canards by us ing the methods out l ined in re fe rence 21.

6

b PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Reference 19 presents all the data obtained in this wind-tunnel t es t i n tabula ted form; se l ec t ed po r t ions o f t hese da t a a r e p re sen ted i n t h i s pape r i n p l o t t e d form. An o u t l i n e of the contents of these data plots fol lows:

Figure

Effect of canard flow z / c = 0 .0 : M, = 0.70 . . . . M, = 0.95 . . . . M, = 1.20 . . . .

z/E = 0.185: M, = 0.70 . . . . M, = 0.95 . . . . M, = 1.20 . . . .

z/E = -0.185: M, = 0.70 . . . . M, = 1.20 . . . . M, = 0.95 . . . .

f i e l d on wing surface pressures

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

f o r - . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . 11

Effect of canard location on wing l i f t i n g p r e s s u r e s ACp . . . . . . . . 12 Computedocanard downwash along wing leading edge. M, = 0.70; a - 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Effect of canard location on span load dis t r ibut ion . . . . . . . , . . . 14 Effect of canard location on wing sectional center-of-pressure

loca t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Effect of canard location on wing center-of-pressure location . . . . . . 16 Effect of wing flow f i e l d on canard surface pressures a t -

z / c = 0 . 0 : ~ , = 0 . 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 % = 0 . 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 M m = 1 . 2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

When comparisons are made between configurations with the wing-on and t h e wing-off o r between canard-on and canard-off configurations, it should be noted t h a t t h e two configurations are not exactly at t h e same angle of attack because of st ing bending. Based on t h e d a t a shown i n t h i s r e p o r t , t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n angle of at tack do not appear t o a f f e c t t h e d i s c u s s i o n s made here in .

Reference 19 conta ins the t abula ted results p resen ted i n t h i s pape r p lus o ther data not included herein. In this paper , the phrase high canard refers t o t h e canard being located above t h e wing chord plane ( z / c = 0.185) ; mid canard refers to the canard being located in the chord plane ( z / c = 0 . 0 ) ; and low canard re fers to the canard be ing loca ted below t h e wing chord plane (z/S = -0.185).

Effect of Canard on Wing Flow F i e l d

The d a t a i n f i g u r e s 3 t o 11 show t h e e f f e c t of the canard flow f i e l d on the wing p res su re f i s t r i bu t ions fo r all three canard configurations.

Mid canard.- For t h e mid canard the direct effects of the canard f low f i e l d on the wing m e l i m i t e d t o a region directly behind the canard. (See f i g s . 3 t o 5 . ) The spanwise location of the canard t i p i s between wing sta- t i o n s 5 and 6. A t span s ta t ions 1 and 2 , i n pa r t i cu la r , r a the r d ra s t i c r educ - t i o n i n leading-edge vortex strength ( the leading-edge vortex strength and posi t ion are qual i ta t ively determined by the pressure peaks shown i n t h e f igu res ) i s noted for the wing in the presence of the canard.

The wing lower-surface pressure distribution m a y be a more r e l i a b l e i n d i - ca to r of the canard downwash e f f e c t s on t h e wing, since there i s no leading- edge vor tex there to compl ica te the f low f ie ld . The canard downwash i s seen t o a f f e c t t h e wing lower surface out t o span s t a t i o n 4. The ef fec ts o f the canard downwash tend to be concent ra ted in the forward 50 percent of the wing a t span s t a t i o n s 1 t o 4; t h i s observation can be noted a l i t t l e e a s i e r i n t h e data shown i n f i g u r e 12 , where a p l o t of ACp against x/c i s presented. Also, t h e d i r e c t downwash e f f e c t s decay rather quickly in going from span s t a t i o n s 1 t o 4. (See f igs . 3 t o 5. ) This deca;y, both chordwise and spanwise, of the canard downwash e f f e c t s i s not surpr is ing s ince the downwash from the canard will decay inverse ly w i t h d i s tance from the canard and the canard wake. When at angle of at tack it should be no ted tha t t ravers ing e i ther downstream chordwise or outboard spanwise along constant percent chord lines has the net effect of moving away from the canard wake i n t h e v e r t i c a l d i r e c t i o n . Lower surface pressure d i s t r ibu t ions show no evidence of canard upwash at wing s t a t i o n s 6 t o 8.

By use of an at tached-f low vortex-lat t ice computer program, the canard downwash w a s ca l cu la t ed at t h e wing leading edge and wing 40-percent-chord locat ions. (See f ig . 13.) This p a r t i c u l a r computer program does not account f o r wake rol lup. Since the canard has no camber and has a sharp leading edge , t he re w i l l be a leading-edge vortex and the shed vorticity i s more d i f fuse than

5

fo r a wing with attached flow. Thus , t h e results i n f i g u r e 13 are not m e a n t t o be quan t i t a t ive bu t r a the r qua l i t a t ive ; t hese r e su l t s , however, do ind ica t e a chordwise and spanwise decay of canard-induced downwash, and s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e ea r l i e r d i scuss ion .

The upper-surface pressure distributions from span s t a t ion 3 and outboard ( f i g s . 3 t o 5 ) i l l u s t r a t e a secondary effect of the canard downwash on t h e wing. The loca t ion of the leading-edge vortex i s f a r t h e r aft on t h e wing f o r t h e wing- a lone configurat ion than for the canard-wing configuration. The a l t e r ing o f t he leading-edge vortex strength and growth rates inboard by the canard downwash delays the leading-edge vortex a f t movement.

The e f f e c t s of canard downwash on t h e wing pressure dis t r ibut ion discussed hold in general with angle-of-attack change and Mach number change. However, t h e d a t a f o r Mach number 1.20 show t h a t t h e downwash e f f e c t s on the lower surface extend t o l a r g e r q values than those for the other Mach numbers.

A t span s t a t i o n s 5, 6, and 7 depending on the configuration (canard on or o f f ) , angle of a t tack, and Mach number, the Kutta condi t ion may appear t o be unsa t i s f i ed ; as a result, t he re i s a pressure discont inui ty a t t h e t r a i l i n g edge. For many of these cases, the leading-edge vortex passes over the wing i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e t r a i l i n g edge and causes t h e r e a t t a c h m e n t l i n e t o f a l l aft of t h e wing t r a i l i n g e d g e ; t h i s t h e n does not al low the Kutta condition a t t h e wing t r a i l i n g edge t o be s a t i s f i e d .

For Mach numbers 0.70 and 0.95 ( f i g s . 3 and 4) at span s ta t ions 1 and 2 , and c1 = bo, there appears to be evidence from the upper surface pressure dis- t r i b u t i o n t h a t t h e wake from the canard i s in t e r f e r ing w i th t he wing. Note i n the leading-edge region of the wing tha t t he p re s su re coe f f i c i en t s are pos i t i ve . From the f low-visualization photographs in reference 1 4 , it i s not surpr i s ing t o f i n d t h e c a n a r d wake i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e wing f o r low angles of at tack.

High canard.- Downwash effects induced by the high canard on t h e wing a re similar in nature but substant ia l ly less than those induced by t h e mid canard. (See f igs . 6 t o 8. ) This result should be expected since the canard wake i s l o c a t e d f a r t h e r above t h e wing. In add i t ion , t he re i s no evidence of canard wake in te r fe rence wi th the wing sur face ; th i s condi t ion i s subs t an t i a t ed by t h e flow photographs shown in re fe rence 14 .

Low canard.- Figures 9 t o 11 present the e f fec t o f the low canard on t h e wing pressure dis t r ibut ion. The pr imary dis t inguishing difference between t h e low- and mid-canard configurations i s tha t t he re appea r s t o be subs t an t i a l canard wake in te r fe rence wi th the wing. The da ta i nd ica t e wake in t e r f e rence f o r all Mach numbers and angles of at tack presented at t h e wing inboard stations. The wake interference appears more severe at an angle of at tack of 12' than for any other angle of at tack. The flow-visualization photographs of reference 1 4 show the canard wake in te r fe rence w i t h t h e wing at low speeds. In general , with the exception of the wake interference problem, the discussion made f o r t h e mid-canard configurat ion holds for the low-canard configuration.

6

The previous discussion on the e f fec t o f canard loca t ion on t h e wing pressure d i s t r ibu t ion i s fo r t he pa r t i cu la r con f igu ra t ion desc r ibed i n t h i s report. Configurational changes such as rounding the canard leading edge s o the re i s attached flow or cambering the canard could substant ia l ly change t h e canard downwash at a given angle of attack. The data i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e downwash from the canard and the canard shed vort ic i ty are t h e mechanisms t h a t cause the canard wing in t e r f e rence ; t hus , a l t e r ing t he cana rd downwash o r s p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of shed vort ic i ty will a f fec t t he p re s su re d i s t r ibu t ion on the wing.

The e f f e c t of canard location on wing span load d i s t r ibu t ion i s shown i n f igure 14 f o r two angles of attack; nominal values of a a r e 4' and 12O. These da ta show t h a t t h e e f f e c t of the canard i s pr imar i ly l imi ted to the reg ion direct ly behind the canard, and t h a t t h e low-canard w a k e i n t e r f e rence w i th t he wing at a 12O has caused substant ia l loss of inboard wing lift beyond even that caused by t h e downwash from t h e mid canard. The e f fec ts o f the loca t ion of the canard on t h e wing sec t iona l cen te r of pressure are shown i n f i g u r e 15. The changes i n wing sectional center-of-pressure location due t o canard locat ion i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h a t r e g i o n of t h e wing inboard of the canard t i p . The d a t a i n f igu re 16 show t h e e f f e c t of canard location on wing center-of-pressure location and, as would be expected, the center of pressure moves outboard because of the previously discussed induced effects.

The data in reference 6 show t h a t f o r low Mach numbers up t o an angle of a t t ack of approximately 32O, t he re i s no favorable canard interference w i t h t h e wing and t h i s r e s u l t i s subs tan t ia ted for angles of a t tack of bo and 12O by t h e data i n f i g u r e 15 . (The model d i scussed in ref. 6 i s geometr ical ly ident ical with the present model.) However, reference 6 shows t h a t a 44' swept wing i n the presence of a canard has l a rge lift gains when compared with the wing-alone configuration for higher angles of at tack. It i s f e l t that the data presented i n t h i s p a p e r and in re fe rence 6 ind ica t e tha t the favorable in te r fe rence o f the canard with moderately swept wings ( A = 44') must be t he r e su l t of t h e canard downwash reducing the effective angle of at tack of the wing at inboard sec t ions where the leading-edge vortex originates , and t h i s then delays the wing leading-edge vortex bursting. Further wind-tunnel testing i s needed f o r t h i s e f f e c t t o be d e f i n i t i v e .

Effect of Wing on Canard Flow F ie ld

The e f f e c t of wing flow f i e l d on the canard pressure dis t r ibut ion i s pre- s en ted i n f i gu res 17 t o 1 9 ; all the da ta p resented a re for the mid-canard configuration. The subsonic data ( f ig . 17) show t h a t f o r t h e non-dnal angles of a t t ack of 8O and 12O, t he re i s very l i t t l e e f f e c t of t h e wing on the canard flow f i e l d . However, a t a nominal angle of a t tack of 16O, t h e upwash from t h e wing produces a measurable increase in canard loading.

A t Mach numbers of 0.95 and 1.20 ( f i g s . 18 and 1 9 ) , the inboard pressure d i s t r ibu t ions show no effect of the presence of the wing for the lower angles of at tack. However, the presence of the wing produced a loss i n canard load on

7

the ou tboard sec t ions . In fac t , fo r the da ta at an angle of a t tack of 16O, t h i s wing in t e r f e rence e f f ec t is obseked inboard as w e l l as outboard. .Careful examination of the da ta p resented in re fe rence 4 shows t h a t t h e t o t a l lift on the canard in the presence of the wing i s less than tha t for the 'canard-a lone conf igura t ion for the Mach numbers and angle-of-attack range discussed.herein. (The model t e s t e d i n ref. 4 i s geometr ical ly ident ical wi th the model discussed herein. ) No explanation for t h i s unexpected phenomena i s given here; further tests are needed f o r a bet ter understanding of this f low phenomena.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

A close-coupled canard-wing model was t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 1.20 t o determine the canard-wing in t e r f e rence e f f ec t s on canard and wing loadings. The primary r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n may be summarized as follows:

1. The direct canard downwash e f f e c t s on t h e wing loading are in genera l pr imari ly l imited to the forward half of the wing direct ly behind the canard.

2. The wing leading-edge vortex is loca ted fa r ther forward for the wing in the presence of the canard than for the wing-alone configuration.

3. The wake fYom the canard located below t h e wing chord plane physically in te rac ts wi th the wing surface and causes substant ia l l o s s of wing lift.

4. For t h e Mach number 0.70 case, the presence of the wing increased the loading on the canard for the higher angles of a t tack. However, at Mach numbers of 0.95 and 1.20, the presence of the wing had t h e unexpected result of unloading the canard.

Langley Research Center National Aeronautics and Space Administration Hampton, VA 23665 October 25 , 1978

8

. REFERENCES

1. McKinney, Linwood W.; and Dollyhigh, Samuel M.: Some T r i m Drag Considera- t i o n s f o r Maneuvering Ai rc ra f t . J . Aircr . , vol . 8, no. 8, Aug. 1971, pp. 623-629.

2. Dollyhigh, Samuel M. : Stat ic Longi tudinal Aerodynamic Charac te r i s t ics o f Close-Coupled Wing-Canard Configurations at Mach Numbers From 1.60 t o 2'. 86. NASA TN D-6597, 1971.

3. Gloss , Blair B. ; and McKinney, Linwood W. : Canard-Wing L i f t In t e r f e rence Related t o Maneuvering Ai rc ra f t at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TM X-2897, 1973.

4. Gloss, Blair B. : Effect of Canard Location and Size on Canard-Wing In t e r - ference and Aerodynamic-Center S h i f t R e l a t e d t o Maneuvering Ai rc ra f t -at Transonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7505 , 1974-

5. Gloss, Blair B . : The Effect of Canard Leading-Edge Sweep and Dihedral Angle on the Longitudinal and Latera l Aerodynamic cha rac t e r i s t i c s o f a Close-Coupled Canard-Wing Configuration. NASA TN D-7814, 1974.

6. Gloss , Blair B. : Effect of Wing Planform and Canard Location and Geometry on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Charac te r i s t ics of a Close-Coupled Canard Wing Model at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7910, 1975.

7. Behrbohm, Hemann: Basic Low Speed Aerodynamics of the Short-Coupled Canard Configuration of Small Aspect Ratio. SAAB TN 60, Saab Ai rc ra f t Co. (LinkGping, Sweden) , JUly 1965.

8. Lacey, David W. ; and Chorney, Stephen J . : Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteris- t i c s of Close-Coupled Canards With Varying Area and Position Relative t o a 50° Swept Wing. Tech. Note AL-199 , Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center , M a r . 1971. (Available from DDC as AD 882 702L. )

9. Ottensoser, Jonah: Wind Tunnel Data on the Transonic Aerodynamic Charac- t e r i s t i c s of Close-Coupled Canards With Varying Planform, Position and Deflect ion Relat ive to a 50° Swept Wing. Test Rep. AL-88, Naval Ship Res. & Develop.

10 . Krouse, John R . : Charac ter i s t ics Evaluation Rep.

11. Lacey, David W . : Horizontal T a i l Evaluation Rep.

Center, M a y 1972.

Effects of Canard Planform on the Subsonic Aerodynamic of a 25O and a 50° Swept-Wing Research Ai rc ra f t Model. AL-91, Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center, May 1972.

Transonic Characteristics of Close-Coupled Canard and I n s t a l l e d on a 50 Degree Sweep Research Aircraft Model. AL-81, Naval Ship Res. & Develop. Center, Aug. 1972.

12. Gloss, Blair B.; Henderson, William P. ; and Huffman, J a r r e t t K.: Effect of Canard Pos i t ion and Wing Leading-Edge Flap Deflection on Wing B u f f e t a t Transonic Speeds. NASA TM X-72681, 1975.

9

13. Re, Richard J. ; and Capone, Francis J. : An Inves t iga t ion of a Close-Coupled Canard as a Direct Side-Force Generator on a F igh te r Model a t Mach Numbers From 0.40 t o 0.90. NASA TN D-8510, 1977.

14. Miner, Dennis D.; and Gloss, Blair B.: Flow Visualization Study of Close- Coupled Canard-Wing and Strake-Wing Configuration. NASA TM x-72668, 1975.

15. Lamar, John E. ; and Gloss, Blair B . : Subsonic Aerodynamic Charac te r i s t ics of Interact ing Lif t ing Surfaces With Separated Flow Around Sharp Edges Predicted by a Vortex-Lattice Method. NASA TN D-7921, 1975.

16. Lamar, John E . : Some Recent Applications of the Suction Analogy t o Vortex- L i f t Estimates. NASA TM X-72785 , 1976.

17. Gingrich, P. B.; Child, R . D . ; and Panageas, G . N . : Aerodynamic Configura- t i o n Development of t h e Highly Maneuverable A i r c r a f t Technology Remotely P i lo t ed Research Vehicle. NASA CR-143841 , 1977.

19. Washburn, Karen E. ; and Gloss, Blair B . : Aerodynamic Load Dis t r ibu t ions a t Transonic Speeds for a Close-Coupled Wing-Canard Configuration: Tabulated Pressure Data. NASA !I'M-78780, 1978.

20. Henderson, William P. : Studies o f Various Factors Affecting Drag Due t o L i f t at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TN D-3584, 1966.

10

. . ."" . .. ..

TABLE I.- WING PFiESSURE ORIFICE LOCATIONS

Span s t a t ion . . .

y (upper and lower surfaces ) , cm . . .

+,Cm . . . . . . .

1

i 2.54

0.0125 .0250 .0500 .loo0 ,1500

.3000

.4500

.7500

.2250

.6000

,9000 9500

27.09

2

5.08

0.0125 .0250 .0500 .loo0 .1500 .2250 .3000 ,4500

.7500

.9000 -9500

,6000

24.38

Wing pressure or i f ice locat ions

3

7.62

0.0125 .0250 .0500 ,1000 ,1500 .2250 .3000 ,4500

.7500

.9000

.9500

,6000

21.67

4

10.16

0.0125 .0250 .0500 .loo0 .1500 .2250 .3000 ,4500

.7500

.9000

.9500

.6000

18.97

5

12.70

0.0250 .0500 . loo0 .1500 ,2250 .3000 ,4500 .6000 .7500 .9000 .9500

16.26

6

15.24

0.0250 ,0500

.1500

.2250

.6000

.go00

. loo0

.3000 ,4500

* 7500

9500

13.56

7

17.78

0.0250 .0500

.1500 . .2250 ,3000 ,4500 .6000 7500

.go00

. loo0

10.84 8.13

8

20.32

0.0500

.1500

.2250

.6000 7500 . goo0

. loo0

.3000

.4500

TABLE 11.- CANARD PRESSURE ORIFICE LOCATIONS

Canard pressure o r i f ice loca t ions

4 6 8 ?pan station . . . . 5 7 2

3.81

0.0250 .0500

,1500 .loo0

.2250

.3000

.4500

.6000 7500

.goo0 * 9500 .9750

13.85

3

5.08

0.0250 ,0500 .lo00 ,1500 .2250 .3000 .4500 ,6000 7500 . gooo 9500 9750

12.50

9 1

2.54

0..0250 .0500 ,1000 .1500 .2250 .3000 .4500 ,6000 . 7 5 O O .goo0 9500

. .9750

15.21

(upper and lower su r faces ) , cm . . 6.35 7.62 8.89 10.16 11.'43 12.40

0.1000 ,1500 .2250

,6000 7500 . gooo

.3000

.4500

4.38

0.0250 .0500

,1500 ,2250

. loo0

.3000

.4500

.6000

.7500 . gooo 9500

0.0250 ,0500

. loo0

.1500

.2250

.3000 ,4500 .6000 ,7590 . gooo * 9500

0.0500 ,1000 ,1500 ,2250 .3000 .4500 .6000 7500 . gooo

.9500

0.0500

.1500

. loo0

.2250

.3000.

.4500

.6000 7500 . gooo

0.0500 ,1000 .1500 ,2250 ,3000 ,4500 I .6000 .7500 . gooo

x/cc (upper and lower surfaces . .

8.44 7.08 11.15 9.79 5.73 cc, cm . . . . . .

TABLE 111.- GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS

Body length , cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.52 Wing (wings I and I1 except when spec i f i ed ) :

A ( % 2 / S ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b,/2, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ffw, aeg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c , m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A i r f o i l s e c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . s (area extended to plane of symmetry), cm '2 ' Root chord, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T i p c h o r d , c m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum thickness at -

Root, percent chord . . . . . . . . . . . . Tip, percent chord . . . . . . . . . . . .

Canard : A (bc2/Sc) . . . . . . A c , deg . . . . . . . . c , cm . . . . . . . . A i r f o i l s e c t i o n . . S, (exposed a r e a ) , cm - 5 bc/2, cm . . . . . . . Root chord, cm . . . . Tip chord, cm . . . . . Maximum thickness at -

Root, percent chord . Tip, percent chord .

-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . 2.5 . . . 25.4 . . . 60 . . . 23.31 Ci rcu lar a rc . . . 1032.2 . . . 29.80 . . . 6.77 . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circu la r a r c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288.73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

13

. 9b.52

Figure 1.- Sketch of model. All l i n e a r dimensions are in cent imeters . (Upper and lower surface pressure o r i f ices a re no t loca ted in same lif ' t ing panel. )

L-77-3463 Figure 2 . - Photograph of close-coupled canard-wing model,

Surface Canard a . deg

0 Upper Off 4.05 0 Upper On 4.19 @ Lower Off 4.05

lower On 4.19

-2 .o Station 1 station 5

-1.5

- I .o

cp - . 5

0

.5

Station 2 Station 6

- 2 . o r Station 3 - z . o r Station I

-1 .o -1.5 t -1 -1 .o

Station 4 -2.0-

Station 8 -2.0-

- I .5- - -1.5

-1 -0 - - -1 .o

cp

a m m - $ @ @ - - Bo 0 f I - . 5 " g 0 B Fj Fj - S m o 0 0

0

0 1 I 1 1 - 1 L I H L ~ . j I - : I i u 0 0

.5 - - .5

I .o 1 ..I . L d I 1 .o 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 0 . I .2 . 3 .9 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0 .'I .P .'3 .Lt .5 .6 .7 .8 .3 1 .O

x/c x/-=

( a ) a 4 4'.

Figure 3.- Effect of canard. f low f ie ld on wing pressures f o r ' z / E = 0.0; M, = 0.70.

16

Surface Canard a , deg

OUpper Off 8.15 D U p p e r On 8.40 @Lower Off 8.15 @Lower On 8.40

:::to

- 2 . o r

Station 2

Station 5

Station 6

8 8 8 : E - .5

.5L

-r Station 3 - ? . o r Station I t t

Station 8

Figure 3.- Continued.


0 Upper Off 12.27 0 Upper On 12.63 @ Lower Off 12.27 Q Lower On 12.63

-'.O t

statim 1

Station 2 -2 .o

- 1 .o

Station 9

-1.5 0

0

-1.0% c O O 0 I'.t -1 .o Station 7



OUpper Off 16.37 OUpper On 16.84 @Lower Off 16.37 mLower On 16.84

-2'oF -1.5 O O Station 1

"F -1.5

Station 2

Station 5

Station 6

-1'5 -1 .o t

Station 9

0

Figure 3. - Concluded.

19


0 Upper Off 4.09 0 Upper On 4.30 0 Lower Off 4.09 0 Lower On 4.30

. .. .

Station 1 Station 5

Station 2 -2 .o -2.0-

-1.5 - I .5 -

Station 6

-1 .o - 1 .o -

cp -3 -.5-00 8 8 8 8 0 0

0 0 I I - I I m I I d u , - . J . a m m 7 -

.5 -

-1 .o -"I -1 .o

Figure 4.- E f fec t -o f c'anard flow f i e l d on wing pressures f o r z / C = 0.0 ; M, = 0.95.

20

I "


OUpper Off 8.19 0 Upper On 8.59 @Lower off 8.19

Lower On 8.59

- 2 . o r

t statim 1

-1 .O

cp - .5

0

.5

t -I .oc

-2 .or statim 3 -I .+

-1 .a

cp -.5

0

.5

- z . o r Station 1

- 1 s t

I .a . 5 L - " u 0 . I .2 .3 .Lt .5 .6 .7 .8 .3 1.0

X/C

Statim 5

. S L

Station 6

.SL

+ o r Station I

t

Station 8

-1.5

-1

(b) a = 8'.

Figure 'k.---Continued.

21

Surface Canard (I. deg OUpper Off 12.33

Upper On 12.89 @Lower Off 12.33

Lower On 12.89

-2 .o Station 1

-1.0 -I.;: O O 0

- 2 . 0 ~ Station 3

-2 .o - Station 5

-1.5 -

B a 0 0

- .5- 0

0 0

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I rn I iIL@-J 5 e

.5, m e e m m

-2-0r Station 6

.51

+or Station 4 - ? . o r Station 8 - I .5/- -1 . S t

Figure 4. - Continued.

22


OUpper Off 16.49 U U p p e r On 17.20 @Lower Off 16.49 MLower On 17.20

Station 5

Station 2 Station 6

-2'ol -I .5 Station 4

- I .5

"L ."" I . I . I .2 .3

Station 8

Figure 4.- Concluded.

23


0 Upper off 4.08 0 Upper On 4.34 0 lower Off 4.08 I4 Lower On 4.34

statim 1 Statim 5

-1.5 -z.ol statim 2 Station 6 -1.5

-1 7 .o station s Statim 7

7 -1 .o station 4 -1 :.( .o Station 8 .5 .5 -

1 .o I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 0 . I .P .3 .q .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1 .o 6 - 1 .Z .3 .9 .5 1 .6 1 .7 1 .8 1 .9 1 1 .O 1

Figure 5.- Effect of canard f low field on wing pressures f o r z / E = 0 . 0 ; M, = 1.20.

24

I

Surfke Canard a , deg 0 Upper Off 8.19 OUppr On 8.68 @ Lower Off 8.19 H Lower On 8.68

-1 .o t statim 1

- I .o t Station 5

Statim 2 Statim 6

7 - 1 .o - IT - I .o

- 2 . o r

Station 3 -?.or Station 7

- I l - 1 .o - I .o t

Station 4 Station 8

- 1 .o t - IT -1 .o

Figure 5 .- Continued.


0 Upper Off 12.33 Upper On 13.01

0 Lower Off 12.33 0 Lower On 13.01

-t

-1.51 -1 .o Station 2

- 2 - o r

Station 9

-1 -1'5L .o

7 -1 .o Station 4

k B . 0 O : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cp -.5 0 I O n

station 5

- I - T .o

- 2 . o r Station 6

-1 st

- 1 - l T .o

+ . o r

Station 8

- I . s t

-1

( c ) a =: 12O.

Figure 5 . - Continued.

26

I


OUpper O f f 16.48 0 Upper On 17.32 . @ Lower Off 16.48 El Lower On 17.32

- 1 "I .5 Station 1 Station 5 cp

-1 .o t t

-1 7 .o t

-r Station 8 - 1 - I T .o

t - 1 . o t

I.0L. I L_ 1- L_..I."l. I I I I 0 . I .Z .3 .Y .5 .6 .7 .B .9 1.0

x/c

(d) 01 z 16O.

Figure 5 .- Concluded.


0 Upper Off 4.08 0 Upper On 4.22 0 Lower Off 4.08 I4 Lower O n 4.22

-?.or . station 1 - I .+ .

cp "'"1 -.5 0

t cp ""t -.5 0 0

.sL

+ o r

Station 4

-1 - T .o

Station 5

-1 -1 .o - 2 . o r

Station 7

Figure 6.- Effect of canard f low - f ie ld on wing pressures f o r z / c = 0.185; M, = 0.70.

28


OUpper Off 8.19 OUpper On 8.44 @ Lower Off 8.19 E]Lower On 8.44

-?.or Station I

- L o p 0

-?.or Station 2

-?.or Station 3

Station 5

- I .o p 0 0 0 O 0 0 - .5

0 0

.5L

+or Station 6 t

. s L

- ? . o r

Station 7

. 5 L

Station 8 Station 4

(b) 0: =: 8'.

Figure 6 .- Continued.

Surface Canard a , deg.

0 Upper Off 12.30 0 Upper On 12.67 0 Lower Off 12.30 I3 Lower O n 12.67

- ? . o r

Station 2

- 2 . 0 ~ Station 5 I

Station 6

-1.5

.5

0 0 0

0

-+A

t

.sL


30

Suiface Canard a , deg

OUpper Off 16.43 0 Upper On 16.94 @Lower Off 16.43 0 Lower On 16.94

Station 1

Station 2

- I .OF

Station 5

0 0 0

+ o r

Station 6

t

- 2 . 0 ~ Station 9

I 0

Station I

Station 8 Station 4 -2.0-

- I .5 -

-1 .o- 0 0

-.5- 0 0 0 0 0 0

m m ~ 9 a 0- I I I I"* I

.5 -

0 . I .2 .3 .Lt .5 .6 .7 .E .3 I ! , 1.0 I I I I I_ I 1 1 1 1 0- . I .2 .3 .Lf .5 .6 .7 .E .3 1.0 x/c x/c

Figure 6 . - Concluded.

31


0 Upper Off 4.12 0 Upper On 4.33 0 Lower Off 4.12 13 Lower On 4.33

Station 1

- ? . o r

Station 2

t -1 . O F

Station 3

- z . o r

- I S /

Station 5

+ o r

Station 6

t -1.Of

+ o r Station I

Station 4

;:i - I .o Station 0

I .o "L1 0 . I .2 .3 .Lt .5 .6 I .7 I .8 I .9 1.0 I 1 .o . ' t t _ I L - 0 .1 .2 . 3 . 9 .5 .6 .7 .E .3 1.0 J

32

I _I "" ~ """_. ._ . . .. , , . .~ . - -..""".."....""". c


OUpper Off 8.25 0 Upper On 8.66 @ Lower Off 8.25 19 Lower On 8.66

- ? . o r

Station 2

t

. S L

-2'ol - I .5 Station 5

.5 L

. 5 L

- ? . o r

Station I

t

Station 8

I "

Figure. 7.- Continued.

33

Surface Canard u, deg 0 Upper Off 12.39 0 Upper On 12.97 @ Lower Off 12.39 E] Lower On 12.97

- I -1" .5 Station 1

-1.5 -"F Station 2

Station 5

-"F -1.5 Station 6

0 0

- I .5

Station 3

Station 8

34

a


I


0 Upper Off 16.53 0 Upper On 17.36 @ Lower Off 16.53 El Lower On 17.36

-2.0L -1.5 Station 1

- 1 st-

Station 5

-?'or Station 2

CP - . s t 0 0 0 e o

+ o r

Station 6

Station I

Station 8

Figure 7 . - Concluded.

35

Surface Canard a , deg 0 Upper Off 4.13 0 Upper On 4.36 @ Lower Off 4.13

Lower On 4.36

Station 1

- I - T .o -?.or Station 3

I

-1 - 1 .o Station 4

.sL

- I -2'ol .5 - L O /

0

0

P

.6 I

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

0

1'1 ? . J

Station 8

8 B I I ... 1 J

.7 .8 .3 I .o 1 - 1 . I . I

Figure 8.- Effect of canard flow field on wing pressures f o r z / F = 0.185; M, = 1.20.

36


0 Upper Off 8.24 0 Upper On 8.70 @Lower Off 8.24 B L o w e r On 8.70

-1 .st

-1

-1 - I .o -2 .o

-1 -I .o Station 3

-1 .5 t

Station 1

-1.5

- 2 ' o r

Station 4

-1 .st-

- I

+or Station 8

- I -1'51 .o


37


0 Upper Off 12.38 0 Upper On 13.06 @ Lower Off 12.38

Lower On 13.06

-2 .a

- I .o

"T -1 .o

-2 .o -f -1 .o

Station 1

Station 2 -2 . o r -15t - I . o t

t

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

.7 .8 .9 1 .o I I -1 .J

( c ) a = 12O.


38

I


OUpper Off 16.54 OUpper On 17.40 @Lower Off 16.54

Lower On 17.40

Station 1

- ? . o r

Station 4 - ? . o r Station 8

-1 -lil .o

( d ) .a .% 16O.



OUpper Off 4.10 UUpper On 4.21 @Lower Off 4.10 OLower On 4.21

Station 5 Station 1

Station 2 Station 6

-2.or Station 3 -2.or Station I

-1 -1.51 .o - 1 - l t .o .5L .5L

Station 4 Station 8 -2.0-

-1.5 -

- I .o-

-.5--0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

m a

0 0

0 I I 1 I I I m I P l ....i I .5 -

L .I" . I 1 .o I I I I I - I ~ . I I J J 0 , I .2 . 3 .Y .5 .6 .7 .E .9 1.0 0 . I .2 . 3 . Y .S .6 .7 .E .9 1.0

x/c x/c

Figure 9.- Effect of canard f low f ie ld on wing pressures for z/C = -0.185; M, = 0.70.

40


OUpper Off 8.18 OUpper On 8.38 @Lower Off 8.18 EILower On 8.38

- z . o r

-1 st

Station 1

. . . . . ..

Station 5

Station 2 -=r Station 6

Station 3

-1.5

-1.0 0 0 0

- .5 [ o o o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Station 7

-?.or Station 4 +or Station 8 t t

(b) a = 8'.



OUpper Off 12.31 UUpper On 12.55 @Lower Off 12.31 QLower On 12.55

Station 1 Station 5 -2.or

I


42

b

I


OUpper Off 16.42 UUpper On 16.68 @Lower Off 16.42 @Lower On 16.68

-2'oFo -1.5 O O - I .ot 0

Station 1

-2'ol - I .5 Station 5

l 0

Station 3

::::[ -1 .o

Station 6

- I .o

Station 7

Station 4 Station 8

n o

-1 .o 0 0

0 0

0 -1 .o


43


OUpper Off 4.12 OUpper On 4.29 @Lower Off 4.12 ELower On 4.25'

- 2 . o r Station 1

I :'t c, -.5

-z.or Station 2

-1 I .o .5 c

- 2 . o r

Station 3

-"I -1 .o c p -.5

0

.5

Station 4

- I .o

.5 t

( a ) 01 4'.

-2 .o

-1.f

-1 .o

Station 5

. sL

-?.or Station 6 ""ir - I .o - .5 p e e 0

-2 .o- Station 7

-1.5-

- 1 .o -

-.5- 8 8 8 g 8 8 E

I I I 1 - 1 I I m l I I 0

O @ O I - .SL

7 -1 .o Station 8

Figure 10.- Effect of canard flow f i e l d on wing pressures for z / E = -0.185; M, = 0.95.

44

I


OUpper off 8.24 OUpper On 8.53 @Lower Off 8.24 RLower On 8.53

-2.01 -1.5 Station 1

-1.5

Station 5

station 2 Station 6

Station 3

-2'ol -1.5 -2.01 -1.5 Station I

Station 4 -2 .o -2.0-

- 1 .s - I .5 -

Station 8

-1 .o -1 .o -

cp -.5 - s - 8 g 8 e g o 0 I 1 1 B

O . m

0 . l .2 .3 .9 ' "+++.o

1

.s .5 -

I .o I 1 1 0 . I .2 .3 .q .5 .6 .7 .E .9 1.0

1 .o

xlc xlc


45

SUrfXe Canard a , deg OUpper Off 12.38 UUpper On 12.73 @Lower Off 12.38 ejlower On 12.73

Station 2 Station 6

t -IT

Station 3 Station 7


46

I

Surface Canard a , deg 0 Upper Off 16.53 UUpper On 16.97 @Lower Off 16.53 E] Lower On 16.97

Station 5

- 1 . 5 1

-2 .o r

Station 4

- 1 . s t

cp -.st- 0 0

-"I - I .5 Station 6

- I l -I .o

Figure 10.- Concluded., . I .

. ?

47


OUpper Off 4.10 0 Upper On 4.33 @Lower Off 4.10 B h w e r On 4.33

Stition 1 Station 5 -2 .o -2.0

-1.5 -1.5

- I .O - I .o

ql -.5 - .5

0 0

.5 .5

Station 2 Station 6

-1 - IT .o . I .o

- 1 T .o Station 3 Station 7 -,.or

- I t - I .o

':E -1 .o Station 4 Station 8

Figure 11.- Effect of canard flow f i e l d on wing pressures for z/Z = -0.185; % = 1.20.

48


0 Upper Off 8.22 Upper On 8.64

@Lower Off 8.22 OLower On 8.64

Station 5 Station 1 - 2 . 0 ~ .

t

Station 2

:'::E - 1 .o Station 6

Station 3 Station I

-1 .o

Lra- 1 8

Station 4

+ o r

Station 8 -2.or

- I - I .o -1 .o 0

0

(b). a 8O.

Fi,gure 11. - Continued.

Surface Canard a , deg 0 Upper Off 12.35 0 Upper On 12.88 @Cower Off 12.35 HLower On 12.88

- I .o

Station 1

:“I -1 .o Station 5

Station 2 -2.0-

Station 6

-1.5 -

-1.0-

O O B B g 8 8 O B -.5-

0

.5 8 W a 0

1 1 1 1

0

-

-“C - I .5 Station 3 -z’ol -1.5 Station 7 - I .o c -1 .o c


Surface Canard a , deg 0 Upper Off 16.52 0 Upper On 17.16 @Lower Off 16.52

Lower On 17.16

Station 1

Station 2

+ o r Station 6

-?.or Station 3 -r Station 7 t t


51

zlc

0 Off 0 0.185 0 0.0 A -0.185 Station 2

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o xlc

(a) & = 0.70.

Station 5

-.2h .2 I .4 I .6 I 8; I I 1.0 XlC

Figure 12.- Effect of canard location on wing l i f t i n g p r e s s u r e s . a a 12'.

c

zlc

vl W

0 Off CI 0.185 0 0.0 A -0.185

Station 2

2.0 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0 AC

P e8 .6 .4

W 0

-.6 7 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

xlc

-.2 -.4

-.6 I


Station 5

I I I I J .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o

xlc

zlc 0 Off 0 0.185 0 0.0 A -0.185

2.0

1.6

Station 2

.6

.4

.2 0

I I I I 1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .o

xlc

2.0 .r 1.8

1.6 1 1.4

Station 5

1.2

1.0

Acp .8.

.6

.4

021 0 -.2h .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 1 1 .8 1.0

xlc

(c) M, = 1.20.

Figure 12 .- Concluded.

,"-Leading edge of wing

VI VI

High canard

' 0

-. 02 -. 04

(t) -. 06 Canard -.08

Mid canard

Canard t ip location /J

-.IO -.I2 -.14

"::;:[, I , ! I I I -.20 ,o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

I I I I I I I I I I 1 0 .2, .4. .6. .8. 1.0

Figure 13.- Computed canard downwash at various wing locat ions. M, = 0.70; cc 12'.

. I

zl€ 1.0

.8

.6 c c n

- .

'av .4

.2

.O

M, = 0.70 M,= 0.95

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 ylb'

0 Off 0 0.185 0 0.0 A -0.185

M,= 1.20

I I I I I 1 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

yl b'

Figure 14.- Effect of canard location on spanload distribution.

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

= 0.70 ' Moo= 0.95

I I I I I I

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 yl b'

L I I I I 1

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 . L O y! b'

( b ) a = 12O.

0 Off 0 0.185

M, = 1.20 0 0.0 A -0.185

1 I I I I I

0 .2 .4 .6 '.8' 1.0 ylb'


zlc'

0 Off 0.185

0 0.0 A -0.185

,= 0.70

M,= 0.95

( a ) a 2 4'. ( b ) a 2 12'.

Figure 15.- Effect of canard location on wing sectional center-of-pressure locations.

zlE 0 Off 0 0.185 0 0.0 A -0.185

Figure 16.- Effect of canard location on wing center-of-pressure location. I

Surface Wing a , deg

OUpper Off 8.37 17 Upper On 8.47 @Lower Off 8.37 E Lower On 8.47

Figure 17.- Effect of wing on canard pressures . z / c = 0.0; M, = 0.70.

60


OUpper Off 12.51 0 Upper On 12.68 @Lower Off 12.51

Lower On 12.68

:::F" 8 - I .o

statim 1


61

Surface Wing a . deg

0 Upper Off 16.64 CI Upper On 16.91 63 Lower Off '16.64 I3 Lower On 16.91

I

8 m I. - 1


62

Surface Wing 0 , deg

O U p p e r Off 8.60 0 Upper On 8.59 @Lower Off 8.60

Lower On 8.59

0 0 0 e Station 5 0 0

il 3ij

(a) c1 8'.

Figure 18.- Effect of wing on canard pressures. z / F = 0.0; M, = 0.95.


0 Upper Off 12.82 0 Upper On 12.88 @Lower Off 12.82 E L o w e r On 12.88

Station I

-1 .s

Station 6

Station 7

(b) a x 12'.


64

SUrfXe Wing a , d q 0 Upper off 16.99 0 Upper On 17.22 @ Lower Off 16.99

Lower On 17.22

Station 1

-,.or

Station 2

- 1 .SI-

+ . o r

Station 3

- I . 5 c

( c ) a =: 17'.



OUpper Off 8.65 0 Upper On 8.67 CB Lower Off 8.65 [II Lower On 8.67

station 1

-2'ol -1.5 I

- L o t

Station 3

- I .5 I

+ . o r

station 4

-1.0 - I

-1 .o statim 5

- .5 ~ o o o 0 0 D 0 0 8

+.or

Station 6

t

:::.I Station 9

Figure 19.- Effect o f wing flow f i e l d on canard surface pressures. z/F = 0.0; M, = 1.20.

66

Surface Wing - a. deg 0 Upper Off 12.91 0 Upper On 13.01 @ Lower Off 12.91

Lower On 13.01

-2.or Station 1

I

-2 .o .5F

Station 6

Station 1

Station 8

Station 9

Fi'gure 19. - Continued.

Surface Wing a. deg

O U p p e r Off 17.12 0 Upper On 17.33 0 Lower Off 17.12 E L o w e r On 17.33

- I .o E 8 0 0 0 0

0 0

Strtion 5 0 0 0 n g

J 1 I I I I

I

I

0 m

Station 1 Station 6

t - l " F

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- .5

0 0

1 1

0

0 0 0 D O

I

m

I l l

I I @

Station 7 Station 2

0 0

8 0 f l 8

I I I I

a @

Station 8 Station 3

-1.5

8

Station 4 Station 9

- I .oc 0 G 0 0 0

-.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8

& '

.7 .8 .3 :.1 1 1 1 :


6%

1. Report No. 3. Recipient's C a t a l o g No. 2. Government Accession No. NASA TP-135 5

4. Title and Subtitle ~~

5. Report Date

A STUDY OF CANARD-WING INTERFERl3NCE USING EXPERIMENTAL PRESSURE DATA AT TRANSONIC SPEEDS

Blair B. Gloss and Karen E. Washburn 10. Work Unit No.

L-12491

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-11-23-13

NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23665

11. Contract or Grant No.

I 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20546

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract ~~

A close-coupled canard-wing model was t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunne l at Mach numbers from 0.70 t o 1 .20 to determine the canard-wing interference e f f e c t s on canard and wing loadings. The results i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e d i r e c t c a n a r d domwash e f f e c t s on t h e wing loading are l imi t ed t o t he fo rward ha l f o f t he w ing direct ly behind the canard. The wing leading-edge vortex i s loca ted fa r ther forward f o r t h e wing in the presence of the canard than for the wing-alone configurat ion. The w a k e , from the canard loca ted be low the wing chord p lane , phys ica l ly in te rac ts w i th t he wing inboard surface and produces a s u b s t a n t i a l loss of wing l i f t . For t h e Mach number 0.70 case , the p resence o f the wing increased the loading on the canard for the h igher angles o f a t tack . However, at Mach numbers of 0.95 and 1.20, the presence of the wing had the unexpected result of unloading the canard.

~- -~ " - 17. Key Words (Suggested by AuthorM I

" - ~ 1 18. Distribution Statement Canard wing Transonic loads Canard in t e r f e rence

Unclass i f ied - Unlimited

Subject Category 02 ". . " . ~ . .~.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 22. Rice' 21. NO. of Pages 20. Security Classif. (of this p a g e )

Unclass i f ied $5.25 68 Unclass i f ied " _ _ ~ _ - .- -

*For sale by the Natlonal Technical lnformatlon Servlce, Sprlnefield. Virginia 22161 NASA-Langley, 1979

~~

- National Aeronautics and T H I R D - C L A S S B U L K R A T E Space Administration . .

Washington, D.C.. - 20546 . .

. .

-

. - Official Business

I , ' I '

' 'Penalty for Private Use, $300 . . 1 '.. . .

2 . .

, , '

f

' , I , , .

3 1 1U,A, 010879 S00903DS DEPT OF TEE A I R FORCE AF WEAPONS L A B O R A T O R Y ATTN: TECHNICAL L I B R A R Y (SUL) K I R T L A N D AFB N t l 87117

Posta$.and Fees Paid ' National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA-451 ' I

Documents

Pressure transonic...Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel; the Mach numbers ranged from 0.70 to 1.20 and data were taken for angles of attack from Oo to approximately 16O at Oo