Effects on low-speed spray characteristics of various modifications to a powered model of the Boeing XPBB-1 flying boat

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Effects on low-speed spray characteristics of various modifications to a powered model of the Boeing XPBB-1 flying boat
Series Title:
NACA WR
Alternate Title:
NACA wartime reports
Physical Description:
12, 9 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
King, Douglas A
Mas, Newton A
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory
United States -- National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
Publisher:
Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory
Place of Publication:
Langley Field, VA
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Seaplanes   ( lcsh )
Aerodynamics -- Research   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
Summary: A 1/10 size powered model of the Boeing XPBB-1 flying boat, which was dynamically similar to the full-size flying boat, was tested in Langley tank no. 1 to observe the effects of trim and powered propellers, of lengths of forebody and afterbody, and of various spray strips upon the low-speed spray characteristics. The effects of powering the propellers were to lower the trim and to pick up spray that would not strike the propeller disks when the propellers were windmilling. Lowering the trim increased the height of the spray with respect to the hull.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references (p. 11).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Douglas A. King and Newton A. Mas.
General Note:
"Originally issued June 1945 as Advance Confidential Report L5F07."
General Note:
"NACA WARTIME REPORTS are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapid distribution of advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were previously held under a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these reports were not technically edited. All have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 003804846
oclc - 123899442
System ID:
AA00009373:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

ACR No. L5F07




NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS






WARTIME REPORT

OUGSALLY ISSUED
June 1945 as
Advance Confidential Report L5F07

EFFECTS ON LOW-SPEED SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS OF

VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO A POWERED MODEL

OF THE BOEING XPBB-1 FLYING BOAT

By Douglas A. King and Newton A. Mas

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory
Langley Field, Va.

:'.VERS!T'f OF FLOCiDA.
,. 'L :: ..'."i : .'T 5n ER,3;,T'.i-. Tr
.' DE '. MEN T


4 1' .. "





WASHINGTON

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

I L 162









































Digiiized by Ihe Inlernel Archive
in' 2011 wilh lun'dinlg Irom
Unrierilvy of Florida, George A. Smalhers Libraries Wilh Lipporl from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation
































hllp: Www.archive.org details elleclsonlowspeeOOlang




j 2)


NACA ACR 'o. L5F07

NATIONAL ADVISORY C01"ITTEE FnR AERONAUTICS


ADVANCE CO FTDLDE'"'TAL REPORT


EFFECTS ON LO(-SPEED SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS OF

VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO A POWERED 70ODEL

OF T-E BOEITG XPBB-1 FLYT?.! BOAT

By Douglas A. King and Tewton A. Mas


SUMMARY


A --size powered model of the Boeing XPBB-1 flying
10
boat, which was dynamically similar to the full-size
flying boat, was tested in Langley tank: no. 1 to observe
the effects of trim and powered propellers, of lengths
of forebody and afterbody, and of various spray strips
upon the low-speed spray characteristics.

Th,~ effects of powering the propellers were to lower
the trim and to pic'i up spray that would not strike the
propeller disks when the propellers were windmilling.
Lowering t'pe trim increased the height of the spray with
respect to the hull.

Chanrpes in the length of forebody or afterbody that
increpser the ratio of forebody length to afterbody
len-th raised the trim and reduced the intensity of spray
in the propellers.

Spray strips having the form of thin plates pro-
jecting vertically downward from the forebody chines were
found to be very- effective in preventing spray from
striking the propellers. Fillets between the spray strips
and the bottom of the hull "ari:edly reduced the effec-
tiveness of the Fpray strips. The unfilleted vertical
spray strips were about as effective in controlling the
spray as spray strips of' t"he s...ie Icngth having an angle
of down flare of 50 ard ext--ndi ng out frun' the chine so
as to increEse Lhe beam by al'nost 13 percent.








F'ACA ACR !o. L5F07


TI.TR ODVCTIOir


In a relatively small range of speed, which is just
below, huri speed, the spray from the forebodies of heavily
loaded flying boats strikes the propellers. The quantity
of sp~a7 increases with Frocs load and has become a factor
limiting the grosr load at which scme flying boats can
tal.e off..

The effects of load and forebody length, length-beam
ratio, angle of dead rise, spray strips, and chine flare
upon the sprrp characteristics of various models have
hecrn reported in references 1 to o. The tests of refer-
- -.s to 6 were made on uniipl;clrccm models. Other model
-C ,-fercnce 7) have sho,'n ti :t the inflow of air to
p. -. '.propellers picks up sprsy that *c 1s not hit the
o -. rl d lks when che propellers, are windir killing. In
a ., ...-ring the prop-llrs; causes the trim of a
p" -' .:- to be lower th.a.n tlhat of the same model
w.: .o ,. -. The spray charac cc.ristics of any hull are
a'"i. d >. 7 trim.

'T '' fffcte upon the spray characteristics of trim,
po'er:-- 1i pr- .-, lr length-beam ratio of the for'ebody and
after -l,. C.L1 '. several types of spray strips attached
to thE fr\-':1. riinez ,i;er5 investigated by tests of a
po'.' ''."'] otf the Boeing XP7B-1 flying boat. The
eif?c.o of sr.me of these modifications on resistance and
lon-i Liainal stability were also investigated.


SYl.OLS


CA gross-load coefficient (i)
v;.b5/


Cp resistance coefficient (~)



CV seed coefficient ( b)


C ONFIDEIITTAL


C OT' FIDE' TRIAL








iTACA ACR No. L5F07 C3I'TO2"TIAL 3


where

Ao gross load on water, pounds
w weight density of water, pounds per cubic foot
(65.- for these tests)

b beam of hull, feet

R resistance, pounds

V speed, feet per second

g acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 feet per second
per second

and

6f flap deflection

6e elevator deflection

LF forebody length

LA afterbody length
d depth of spray strips of forebodies F10 and F11

T trim, degrees

r radius of fillet between spray strip and bottom
of hull of forebodies F12 and F15

Any consistent system of units may be used.


MODEL


The basic model, Lan-ley tank r.odel 171A- was a

10
dynamically similar to the full-size flying boat. A
sketch showing the general arranr '.-icnt of the model is
given in figure 1. The basic miioi.l was supplied by the
Boeing Aircraft Company.


CONFIDENT IAL







"~ACr ACHR o. L5F07


The model differed from the actual flying boat in
that the bow gun turret and pilot's canopy were replaced
by a sirmpler deck and the waist mun turrets were omitted.
As is customary at the Langley tanks, lcading-edge slats
were added to the model to correct for the loss in maxi-
mum lift that would be obtained with the model wing with-
out slats at the low Reynolds number required in tank
tests of dynamic models.

The model was powered by two 2-horsepower variable-
frequency alternating-current motors, which drove three-
blade metal propellers 1.65 feet in diameter. The pro-
pellers operated at such a combination of blade angle and
rotational speed that the variation of thrust with forward
speed arproximated that corresponding to the full-size
flying boat.

Two forebody lengths, two afterbody lengths, and
seven spray strips were tested. Sketches and designations
of the various parts and modifications of the model are
given in figure 2. The basic forebody F1 (fig. 2(a))
had a length of 42.65 inches and an angle of dead rise
of 17.K1.. The bottom adjacent to the chine was horizontal.
Forebody F_ (fig. 2(b)) was lk inches longer than the
basic forebody.

All the spray strips (figs. 2(c) to 2(h)) were
attached to the bosic forebody Fl. The spray strips
that increased the beam had an angle of down flare of 5o0
and projected 0.8 inch out from the sides of the hull.
They differed only in length. A length of 9.75 inches
was removed from the aft ends of the spray strips of
forebody r6 to form forebody F7. The for, ar1 part of
the spray strips of forebody F7 was faired into the
hull to form forebody F8. The spray strips that did
not increase the beam were formed from --inch metal
16
strips projecting vertically downward from the chines
and had approximately the same shape in elevation view
as the spray strips of forebody F8. The depth of the
spray strips of forebody F10 was 0.8 inch and that of
the spray strips of forebody F11 was 0.4. inch. Fillets
of 1-inch and 2-inch radius were inserted between the
4
spray strips of forebody F11 to form forebodies F12
and Fl7, respectively.

C ONF IDENT IAL


C 0C T7 I DTIA I,









NAUA.ACR Ho. L5F'07 C01?DENTIAL 5

The basic afterbody Ah (fig. 2(i)) had a length
of 33.$ inches and an angle of dead rise of 200. The
length of the extended afterbody A2 (fig. 2(j))
was 43.L inches. The keels of both afterbodies were at
an angle of 5.40 to the forebody keel.


TESTING APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE


Tests were conducted in langley tank no. 1 with the
apparatus substantially as described in reference.8
except that in the present tests the model was towed
under the main carriage.

The ranges of speed in which spray entered the pro-
pellers were determined visually during: runs made at low
accelerations.

Tests were made at gross-load coefficients CA
of 0.91, 1.14, and 1.28, which correspond, respectively,
to gross loads of 65, ,82500,, and 92,400 pounds. The
condition for the tests was for full-power operation,
free to trim, at a flap deflection 6f of 200 and an
elevator deflection 6e of -100. The center of gravity
was located at 28 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord.

Measurements of resistance were made during runs at
constant speed with propellers wind:-.:illing. The resist-
ance includes both the water resistance and the air drag
of the r.iodel but not the air drag of the towing gear.

In the tests made to determine the effects of trim
and of air flow into t-he propelle.%rs on the spray charac-
teristics, the gross-load coefficient was 0.91 (full-size
gross load, 65,500 pounds) and the flaps were deflected 45
Photographs of the spray were taken at several constant
speeds at po,'er-off and power-on conditions. For each
speed tested, two fixed tri-is were used, which corre-
snonded to the free-to-trim trims for the two conditions
of power.


CONFIDENTIAL


(_111 1_ __ _____~


~__~_








NICA ACR No. L5FU7


RESULTS AND DISCTISSIOIT

Effects of Trim and Powzred Propellers


The effects of trim and powered propellers on spray
nhpracteristics are shown in fil,-ue 3. These photographs
vJere ta:-en with the model operatin- at a gross-load coef-
ficient of 0.91 and a speed coefficient of 1.73.
..owrng the trim approximately 2c' increased the height
of the bcw spray approximately 1 inch with respect to the
mode 1. The powered propellers piclk-ed up spray from the
bow blisterss" even though the blisters were relatively
far bClow the propcller disks.


Effect of Length of Forebody and Afterbody

The effect of length of forebody and afterbody on
the ranige of speeds in which spray struck the propellers
is Five-n in figure [ ai:d in tt following table:


Range of C .,n;r.e of CV
in which Trim in .hich Trim
TL spray struck (deg) spray struck (deg)
Model propellers propellers
LA
Co = 1.14 C = 0.91

PFlA, 1.29 1.5 to 2.5 6.0 to8.9 1.6 to 2.0 6.2 to 7.0
F4A2 1.0.5 1.1 to 2.6 b.4 to6.7 1.6 to 2.2 h.4 to 5.0
FIA2 .'S 1. to 2.7 3.7 to7.0 2.6 to 2.5 3.8 to 5.3

For convenience, the length of the forebody is taken as
the distance, measured parallel to the base line, from
the s3e to the intersection of the !keel and chine at
the bow.

extendingg the basic afterbody 50 cprcent of the
original length (80 percent of the beam) to form
model 174.FA2 lo,;werd the trim approximately 50 in the
range- of speed in which spray struck the propellers and


CONFIDED IIAL


COIFIDE'TTIAL








NACA ACR No. L5F07


greatly increased the intensity and volume of spray in
the propellers.. The range of speed in which spray struck
the propellers was greatly increased. Extending the
length of the forebody of model 17LFiA2 9 percent of the
originall length (32 percent of the beam) to form
model 174F7A2 raised the trim approximately 1 and
decreeazd the intensity of the spray that struck the
propellers. This decrease in intensity would be expected
from the results of reference 1.

Decreasing the ratio of forebody len-th to afterbody
length lowered the frt-e-to-trim trim, increased the
ran-ge of speed in which spray struck the propellers, and
increased the intensity of the spray. As has been shown,
lowerin;- the trim increased the height of the spray and
brou-ht it more under the influence of the inflow to the
propellers.

The effect of length of forebody and afterbody on
the variation of trim and resistance with speed is shown
in figure 5. The extended afterT'c..y A2 lowered the
trim in the speed range in which spray struck the pro-
pellers approximately 30 and caused a'high'peak in the
resistance curve at a speed less than hump speed. At the
high trims caused by the'load coefficient and elevator
deflection in the planing range, the extended afterbody
lowered the trim approximately 20. The hump resistance
was decreased approximately 15 percent and the resistance
at high speed was decreased sli-htly. Extending the
length of the forebody (changing from model 174FIA2 to
model l7-P A2) raised the low-speed trim approximately 10
and decreased the resistance at all speeds to a value
below that of the 'basic model. These trends are in
accordance with the'results of reference 3.

The upper trim-limits of stability of model 174F1A2
(basic forebody, extended afterbody) were-about 1o lower
than those of model 174FIAI. (basic model) and about the
same as those of model 174FLA2 (extended forebody and
afterbody). The low-speed peak of the lower trim limit
of stability of the models with the extended afterbody A2
occurred at a lower trim and higher speed than that of the
basic model. At higher speeds the lower trim limits of
stability of all three models -were approximately the same.
These trends are in accordance with the results of refer-
ence 9, in which a general discussion of trim limits of
stability is presented.


CON0FIDENTIAL


CO!T ID2ITTIAL







NACA ACR No. L5F07


Effect of Anrile of Dead Rise

As shown in figure 4, the range of speed in which
spray entered the propellers -f the r;oiel with an angle
of i-lea rise of 253 was about the fanje as that of the
basic model, which had an ancle of dead rise of 17.90.
The intensity of spray in the propellers was approximately
the s ame for both models. Tneuc r-=u.lts are not in
accorda.icu with the results of refe-rrnc:.-s 3 and 4, the
tests of which were made on unpo-.ered models.


Effect of Various Spray Strips

In indication of the eff.ctiv-ntss of the various
spray strips on the ba.ic forebody in controlling the
spray is giv:n in table I.

Spray :-.trips that incr. -asidc bco.-.- The spray strips
of Iorbholi FI, F', tLd Fg J proJ-ctLd O.u inch
(0.06c4 b...ai.) bLyond the chin. :, ':h-ich !incr.asd the bzam
15 ptrcnt, and had an an.ile of m';n flarc. of 500. They
differed only in length. The, lc.a) and lo .d coefficients
of tlhe models with fortbodi.o. F6, F7, and F8 were
based on the beam at the step, which was the linear
dilmensicon used in computinL the coefficients of the basic
molel. Lqual load and speed 0oofficients therefore
represent equal loads and speeds in all cases.

The pray strips were similar to spray strips that
had been shown to be effective in tests of another model
in the Langley tank no. 1. These spray strips were
report by the manufacturer to be effective when applied
to the full-size flying boat. In thu present tests, the
spray strips of forebodics F6, FT, and F8 were also
eff.;ctivt in keeping spray out of the propellers. Short-
ening the spray strips made the spray slightly more
intense,, but, as shown in a photograph in table I, the
spray of the model with three shortest spray strips
(model 174FA4 ) did not strike he propellers. The spray
appeared in the form -f individual drops instead of the
smooth blister that m&y bU observed in tests of most
models.

The angle of down flare of the spray strips of fore-
body F8 was changed from 500 to 200 with a resulting

CONFIDEW'TIAL


CONFIDENTIAL








'ACA GACR No. L57 0


slight loss in effectiveness in controlling the spray.
Only visual obser-vations were -:ia_'e. and no model number
was assigned to this modification.

The variation of trim and resistance with speed of
model 174FSA is compared with that of the basic model
in figure 6. Below the hump speed, the spray strips
increased the trim and resistance slirh-tly. The hump
resistance of model 17).F8A was about 5 percent greater
,than that of the basic model.

The-addition.of these spray strips to the forebody
lowered the trim limits. of stability slightly.

Spray strips that did not increase beam.- The soray
string of forebodies F10, Fll, F32, and F13 were
formed from --inch metal stri-s projecting vertically
16
downward from the chines.

The spray strip of for'bo y F7O, having a depth
of 0.8 inch (0.064 beam), was very effective in keeping
spray out of the.propellers. -Only occasional and-momen-
tary splashes of spray struck the propellers at speed
coefficients from 1.55 to 2,07.

Decreasing the depth of the spray strips to 0.04 inch
(0.032 beam) to form forebody F11 increased the inten-
sity of the spray very slightly. As shown by the photo-
graphs in table I, the vertical spray strips of
forebody Fll were about as .effective in controlling
the spray as were the spray strips of forebody F8.

Adding fairings of 1-inch 'and --inch radii to form
4-
for3bodies F12 and F13, respectively, almost com-
pletely nullified the effectivOn:iss of the spray strip
of forebody P11 in keeping t'ie s:ray out of the pro-
pellers. The intcnslty 6f t^o soray of forebodies FI2
and F13 was somewhat lss than that of the basic fore-
body F1, and appeared in the form of individual drops
rather than in the more usual relatively smooth blister.

The effects of the spray strips of forebodies Fl
P11, 12, and F13 upon the resistance and stability
characteristics of the model were not determined.


rCO FIDE INTIAL


C177 TTDF'r T TAL








NIACA ACR No. L5F07


The addition of spray strips to any flying boat
would probably increase the air drag of the flying boat.
In this regard, the vertical spray strips of forebody F11
offer an advantage over other types in that they could
be retracted vertically upward on the sides of the hull.


C OTC LUS IONS


Tests of a --size model of the Boeing XPBB-1 flying
10
boat, which was dynamically similar to the full-size
flying boat, were made with propellers operating in order
to determine the effects of trim and powered propellers,
length of forebody and afterbody, and various spray
strips on the low-speed spray characteristics. The tests,
which may reasonably be expected to apply to other types
of flying boat, indicated the following conclusions!

1. Spray strips that extend vertically downward
from the forebody chines without a,.preciably increasing
the beam were about as affective in controlling the bow
spray as spray strips that extend outward and downward
from thc chines and inorcase the beam. Both types of
spray strips were effective in keeping spray out of the
propellers.

2. Changes in the length of forebody or afterbody
that increased the ratio of forebody length to afterbody
length raised the trim and decreased the intensity of
spray in the propellers.

3. Lowering the trim increased the height of the
bow spray with respect to th.i hull.


Lan-ley P'emorial Aeronautical Laboratory
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
Langley Field, Va.






A


CON IDE ITr IAL


CONFIDENTIAL







:TA"A A,2 No. L5F07


1. Parkinson, John B.: Desig Criterions for the Dimen-
sions of the Forebody of a LonoP-Raroge Flying Boat.
'?,C ATPF No. 35'03, 194,.

2. Bell, Joe W., garrison, Charlie C., and Zeck, Howard:
."fect of Length-Beam Ratio on Resistance and Spray
of Three Models of Flying-Boat Hulls. NA.SA AER
No. 3J25, 1943.

3. Parkinson, John B., Olson, Roland E., and House,
Rufus 0.: Hydrodynamic and Aerodynamic Tests of a
Family of :o'dels of Seaplane Floats with Varying
A..Sles of Dead Rise. N.A.C.A. models s 57-A, 57-B,
and 57-C. -IACr TN No. 716, 1939.

4. Bell, Joe W., and '.illis, John Y., Jr.: The Effects
of Angle of Dead Rise and Angle of Afterbody Keel
on the Resistance of a i'odel of a Flying-Boat Hull.
TTCA ARR, Feb. 1953.

5. Truscott, Starr: The Effect of Spray Strips on the
Teke-C'f Performance of a 'Todel of a Flying-Boat
Hull. :rI..C Rep. No. 503, 1954.

6. Bell, Joe W., and Olson, Roland E.: Tank Tests to
Determine the Effects of the Chine Flare of a
71ying-Boat Hull N.A.C.A. Model Series 62 and 69.
NACA 7: Ho. 725, 1399.

7. Parkinson, John B., and Olson, Rolan' E.: Tank Tests
of a 1/5 Full-size Dynamically Similar Model of
the Army OA-9 Amohibian with Yotor-Driven Pro-
pellers NACA Todel 117. NACA ARR, Dec. 1941.

8. Olson, Roland E., and Land, oi'an S.: The Longitu-
dinal Stability of Flying Boats as Determined by
meets of Miodels in the IT.CA Tank. I Iethods
UsEd for the Investigation of Loni-tudinal-
Stability Characteristics. I'ACA AT.?, Nov. 192.

9. Truscctt, Starr, and Olson, Roland E.: The Longitu-
dinal Stability of Flying Boats as Determined by
Test- of odels in the IT.iA' Tan:.. II Effect of
VPr-atioJ s ".n Forri of Hull on longitudinal Stability.
Ti.CA ATR, lTov. 1942.


C OmTFI DE PT TAL


CO nTFIDE NTIAL








NACA ACR No. L5F07



TABLE I.- EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS SPRAY STRIPS


Tranaverse half-seotlon


w-B4-


Forebody


Pg and P7


p-^
F11
JLO.0056


1Fo0 d = O.06bb
PF1: d = O.O 2b


0.003S
O. Otf b

P2.; r = 0.08b
P13; r = 0.02b


ii


Spray oharacteristie at Co = 1.14


FIAL; Cv = 1.90
Heavy spray In propellers at speed
coeffiacents from 1.47 to 2.55
Some reduction in intensity of spray
and in range of speed in which
spray struck the propellers
No spray struck the propellers


PFAh; C, = 1.90
Spray slightly more Intense than for F6,
but no spray struck the propellers
Only occasional and momentary splashes of
spray struck the propellers at speed
coefficients from 1.55 to 2.07


F11A;: Cv = 1.90
About th.e same as F10 except
splashes more frequent
Heavy spray struck propellers at
speed coefficients from 1.55
to 2.07; somewhat less spray
struck propellers than for PI


About the same as for P12


NATIONAL ADITSTOR
COMWTTEE FOR AERDGAUTICS


JO*


0.060l
J\ L- 0.064 6


~I







NACA ACR No. L5F07


NATIONAL ADVISORY
COPNITTEE FOI AEIOhIUTICS


Figure /- Generl arrangement of Boeing XPB-I1 flying boat.


Fig. 1







NACA ACR No. L5F07


42.65'"

(a) Basic forebody, F,.


(b) Extended forebody, F .


(c) Forebody F6


3^


NATIONAL ADVISORY
CONNITTEE FOR AEONAUTICS


Figure 2.- Sketches of forebodies and ofterbodies
used in tests.


Fig. 2a-c







NACA ACR No. L5F07


(d) Forebody F,.


(e)Forehody Fe.


(f) Forebody Flo.


Figure 2.- Continued.


I















NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMNITT FO AENWMUTICS


Fig. 2d-f







NACA ACR No. L5F07


(g) Forebody F,,.


(h) Forebody F, .


Figure 2.- Continued.


//4'radius

(i) Forebody F13.


NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE tL AEIONAUTICS


Fig. 2g-i







NACA ACR No. L5F07


68.0'


(j) Basic afferbody A,.


(k) Extended afterbody, A2.



Figure 2.- Concluded.


NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS


Fig. 2j,k






NACA ACR No. L5F07 Fig. 3






a .
>0 O

'eo
>E




r

u L






-4:



t3
VQr
I' 4 q
















SOs
I..
______





NACA ACR No. L5F07 Fig. 4










a a









+ _, N-c
9 ^ .IT S3 T 1^ .
z 3



-i -j


-0- U). k
-.^ -TT^"i z
C~3 ^---_~ a i ^ s s
^^o^J *-. ^- S Z Ql
------ P ^-P -l- E 8Z-
.*-_U sp_ 5 |tj






NACA ACR No. L5F07 Fig. 5


















.2Speed coefficient, C,
S32 -- -


FO A,
/6- __^^9 -----
0 3 4 5 6
Speed coefficient, Cy










0 basic model 17IF A4
S08 ----a- Basic fo-od-- extended aferbod /-4

SI IONAL ADVISORY




afterbody on the vfaritod an of trim 4nd
resis.tane with speed. Gros-s-lod
coefficient C /./4 ; power off.






NACA ACR No. L5F07


IAj




-_-_ __A4_ _








S2 3 4 5 6


-coefkficientU 3*


o o Basic model /74FJA4
-- pray .-ips on fore bodj /74 4
/


I I I I


NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS


S / 2 3 4 5
Speed coefficient, C


Effec of adding spray strips of forebody /2- fo
Mte basic /ode/ on /te Vr/it//on of fr/n and
're5s/5/nce wi/h spee. Gross-/oqd coefficient
CA /./4 Dower off.


.2


'r

5 .16
qj


-.0,
\l
n
h

P1-


Figure 6


Fig. 6


.32
.32.


I


fS eAd


I l







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA I

3 1262 08106 449 4



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
DOCU- ENTS DEPART .IENT
, .. .TN s.CVI:.CE UBRPARY
,. "~I '1j- U1
1i-' L "'261 -7011 USA


























I "




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EQ6JOBWGF_ENBC6H INGEST_TIME 2012-03-02T21:19:02Z PACKAGE AA00009373_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES