Comparison between calculated and measured loads on wing and horizontal tail in pull-up maneuvers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Comparison between calculated and measured loads on wing and horizontal tail in pull-up maneuvers
Series Title:
NACA WR
Alternate Title:
NACA wartime reports
Physical Description:
14, 11 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Matheny, Cloyce E
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:
Airplanes -- Wings -- Testing   ( lcsh )
Aerodynamics -- Research   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
Summary: Comparisons have been made of measured and calculated loads on the wing and the horizontal tail in pull-up maneuvers for six airplanes ranging in weight from 4,700 to 48,000 pounds. The calculated loads were based on the control motions measured in flight. The aerodynamic characteristics of the airplanes required for the calculations were either obtained directly from wind-tunnel data or computed. Good agreement was obtained between calculated and measured loads for a specified elevator deflection when reliable wind-tunnel data were available and when the airplane maneuvers were consistent with the assumptions. The fact that only fair agreement was obtained in some of the cases was attributed either to poor quantitative knowledge of the aerodynamic parameters or to the violation of the assumptions on which the method is based.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references (p. 11).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cloyce E. Matheny.
General Note:
"Originally issued October 1945 as Advance Restricted Report L5H11."
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 - 003804742
oclc - 123896353
System ID:
AA00009375:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
WA."r


ARR No. L5Hll


NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS





WrARTIM E REPORT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED
October 1945 as
Advance Restricted Report LH1ll

COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED AND MEASURED LOADS ON
WING AND HORIZONTAL TAIL IN PULL-UP MANEUVERS
By Cloyce E. Matheny

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory
Langley Field, Va.


NACA-


WASHINGTON
NAQA 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 pre-
viously held under a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these reports were not tech-
nicaly edited. All have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.


L 193


- [4 t.


~-: ~-~p
'rj






































Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation


http://www.archive.org/details/comparisonbetwee001ang







A.Crt ARR ITo. L5Hll


NATII'.AL ADVISORY COTITI:7E FOR .TRONAUTICS


.DT:.-ACE R'T.TRIOTED REPORT

COMPARISON .:;T7.:: CALCULLATED AND vEASUE_: L'".-? ON

I.7- A.I? HCRIZOITTAL TAIL I1, FPULL-UP' ..:-T RS

By Cloyce E. Matheny





Comparisons have been made of measured and calculated
loads on the wing and the horizontal tail in pull-up
maneuvers for six airplanes :. .,-:T:i in weight from 4,700
to 8,'000 pounds. The calcula'.i. loads iwere based on the
control motions r:easured in flight t. he acrodmyneaic char-
acteristics of the airplanes r-i.,uired for the calculations
were either obtained directly from wind-tunnel rata or
computed.

Good agreement was obtained between calculated and
measured loads for a specified elevator deflection when
reliable wind-tunnel data ;core available ncnd when the
airplane maneuvers were consistent with the assumptions.
The fact that only fair agreement was obtained in some of
the cases was attributed either to poor quantitative
knowledge of the aerodynami.c parameters or to the viola-
tion of the assumptions on which the method is based.


INTRODUCTION


During the past few years r:-ch ork has ocen
done in an attempt bn relate tail loads omre closely;
to the aerodynamic and geometric characteristics as well
as to the functional requirements of the airplane. In
various reports that have been v;ritten on this subject
either of two approaches has been used: namely, (1) to
proceed from a specified control motion to the determina-
tion of the wing and tail loads, as in reference 1; or
(2) to proceed aiom a specified ving-load variation to
the determination of the tail load and elevator motions,
as in reference 2. Both methods depend on a solution of
the equations of motion for a rigid body and consequently
require a knowledge of the aero:-vn:&.ic and geometric









2 ;._.CA. ARR No. L5H11


c.a.rac eri st cs of the airplne. The loads cc.nuted are
tli remltauit air laad that act over bhe horizontal
;urvfaso '; therefore the ,ollutions obtained do not indicate
possiblec adverse ,hord.:i'e or snanv:riss distributions or
Jthe bu ieting tail-load inclement.

Recently a -ethbo- based on the determination cf the
inr.g aind tall -oid s for a snocifiud control notion has
been r.comrr.ened as a part of the airplane load design
requ.irem.ents for the A-.a (references 5 and .r). Since
the application of this rmethnd requires considerable time,
it sees desirable to determine the :a -..' ent that can be
e2:pected between measured and calculafod results.

The object of the present report is to give
results of comparisons betwoer :s'aaured and calculated
>vindg and tail lo. is in pull-Hp maneuvers for six airplanes
ngin; in weigh: fr'.n I ,730 to 48,000 pounds. The flight
dat a resented iri ,n are trpical end Are taken frcm
unpubl i ed' r~esult.; mreancvred in ffiCht during the past
fi-e years.


S7.;BOL3


Sairol ne eight, pounds

g ecceleration of gravity, feet noer second2

m airplane mass, slugs (C'/)

S gross wing are, including area within fuselage,
square feet

S gross Lori-ontal-tail area including area inter-
cepted 'by fliucla e, square feet

b wing span, feet

b- t tail ~ae, feet

k raIdius of 6;yration about pitching axis, feet

Iv moment of inertia about pitching axis, slug-feet2

x,_ length from center of gravity of airplane to
Ajerodynuric -enter of tail (negative for con-
veoltional airplan js), feet









NACA ARR T-, L5I-11


0 air density ratio (P/P,)

V airspeed, feet per second

Ve equivalent airspeed, miles per hour
/v 1/2


M Mach number

p mass density of air, slugs per cubic foot

q d'cnamic priessuroe, pounds per square foot

pVCI

r7 tall efficiency factor /q/I\

L lift, pounds

CL lift coefficient (L/q3)

Cm pitching-moment coefficient of airplane
without horizontal tail (fcment x br


a wing angle of attack, radians

Cat equivalent tail angle of attack, radians

5 elevator angle, radians

e downwash angle at tail, radians

K empirical constant denoting ratio of damping
moment of complete airplane to damping
iomont of tail alone

n airplane load factor

Kl ', K2', nondimensional constants occurring in basic
differential equation

The notations a and a denote single and double differ-
entiations with respect to time.









FACA ARR No. L5H11


t tail

0 sea-level conditions





Although, as previously stated, there are a number
of rnethods available for compvtin the wing and tail loads
for elato ev r motion, the method used herein for all
the c:o .-ttions is that described in reference 1. This
method is similar, as ar as bas i assiumptions are con-
cerned, to that of reference bout differs in small
details such as '-. of axes used and computational pro-
cedures employed. The basic assumptions underlying the
:ethod are that:

(.) The change in load factor in a pull-up or pull-
out, as a result of attitude change, is small with respect
to tha; due to change in angle of attack

(2) The acrodynamic quantities are linear functions
of angle of attack

(3) T. speed is constant during the maneuver

(!.) The effects of flexibility are n~;lected

'ith these assumintions the differential equation of
motion for a unit elevator deflection becomes


a + fK 'a + K2' Aa = K-' A6(l) (1)


where 7 ', EK', and Ez' are functions of the aerody-
naimic and --.ouetric characteristics. With the unit solu-
tion of equation (1) known, La and a are evaluated for
aay control motion by applying DuhaLmels integral theorem.
increment in load factor An is related to Aa
throu h the equation

"n -q (2)
da* hwis









NACA ARR No, L5HI1 5


The increment in equivalent tail angle of attack is related
to AL and a through the equation


de CL P S xt xpie 21 da
a = Aa i -- + a (
Sda da 2 m _V V \da o F 3


and finally the tail load follows fromr equation (3) as

dCL-
SLt -- L't -St (4)



BASIC DATA FOR CALCTLDTIOIOS


Flight data.- T!.e flight data used in the calcula-
tions io ; n in figure 1. This fgure shows the time
variation of airs.eed and elevator position measured
during either puli-ui)s or cive pull-outs made with the
SB2C-1, P.' -5, P--L*O XP-51, 3T-95, aud .3-24D airplanes.
The wing and tail loaos corresponding to these control
motions and airspeeds are included in the figures giving
the comparisons between calculated and measured values.

Aerodynamic pareameters.- The aerodynamic :.rramneters
required are.

S slope of airplane lift curve. This quantity was
da obtained, whenever possible, from wind-tunnel
tests of eitner the complete airplane or a
model. For the IPB-3 seaplane, was esti-
da
mated from tests of a model of a similar sea-
plane.

dCLt
slope of tail-plane lift curve. This quantity was
dat obtained, whenever possible, from wind-tunnel
tests of the isolated tail or from tail-on
tests made with different stabilizer settings.
When such data were not available from tunnel
tests, they were obtained from reference 5.









NACA ARR 1-. L5H11


d
--rate of change of downwash at tail with angle of
Attack. This factor was determined, whenever
po sible, from results of downwash surveys
behi nJ a particular model or from moment differ-
ences between tail-on tail ai ail-off wind-tunnel
tests. V.hen experimental results were not
available, this factor wass cormputed from the
re ults given in reference 6.

r tail efficiency factor. 1,When possible, this fac-
zr was obtained from. total-head surveys in the
region of the tail. .-en such surveys were not
availle, he meth od. su_ -sed in reference 1
.:as used to d tern:ine this quantity.

Y emnpirical dIampinf factor, ratio of damping n-o:nent
of co--lets airplane to t~at of tail. In the
calculations Lhis value w as taken either as 1.1
or 1.25, sending upon the airplane configu-
ration.

- -Lt
elevator effectiveness Tni s quantity was obtuain.ed
0CI from reference 5 wheneverr specific wind-tunnel
tests vwre not available for its determination.


-- slope of airplane mnoilent-coefficient curve (minus
' tail). Th s quantity v-as deterUined from wind-
tunnel tests of OAther a model or the airplane.
The values obtained from tn, tunnel wore
adjusted for the particular centar-of- 1avity
Position of tUe fl-ght tests, Wor the
dC
p 5 seaplane, -- was estim~ited from tests
dca
of a moe' l oi a similar scaolanc.

_It
--- re of chan-e of tail i .r ent coefficient with
Slevas:o defleccion or isolated tail. Except
in t!-i cise cf the B-P, airplane; this
quantity w*.s c?:ompute. from results similar to
those iven in reference 7.

Tn:e ereo'.:. ic p1rameters for all airplanes under
consziJ. nation are compiled in table I. Lov-sreed wind-
tunnel data .;ere used in all the f-.rc -oir; parameters









E. aR : '. L5H11l


except for a fe'v values on the X-5!1 airplane, which were
tal-en from vind-tunnel data at t`h fllgic -;iachi naulber.
The remainder of tfe narameters for this airplane were
corrected for tne effects of iach nurIbr by the Prandtl-

Glauert factor --o. corrections were made to the
,,12
lnow-soeed values for the other airplanes.

Tn order to check the validity of these calculations,
an individual case w-a1 calculated v-her' j-' the effects of
co.:r -r. sioility were taken intDo county for a dive by the
SB2C-1 airplane at a iach nurnaer of 0.o.l, Results fro U
these calculations snowed that ac. this 1 ach number the
loads calculated using v ,'animtefrs corrected for comoressi-
bility effects were not aopreciably different from the
loads calculated using low-speed values of the parameters.

SI,.- L:i" 1 .-I ..t -: -. -. .' t t.ic Th: physical
and geonoreti ic c-n .ractei- .-'...: -' .T' nes dere deter-
mined princir--.ll1 from manufact:irrs data and are presented
in,-detail in table TI.


R .,' TS


1.:1 increments in accalerab on and. tail loads coi-
puted from the basic data given in figure 1 and in
tables I ano II are shown in figures 2 to 10. In these
figures the dashed lines represent thy calculated values
and the full lines, the measured value es. The measured
tail loads ers obtained by use of pressure distributions,
electrical strain gages, beam deflections, or :-n..-'.:-,.eters.
Table III summarizes the tail load conditions represented
in the various figures and gives the estimated accuracy
of the measurements.

In these comrnarinons (figs. 2 to 10) the tail loads
given as :'measured tail loads" have been converted to air
loads: that is, inertia effects have been eliminated
when necessary. In each case the comparison is made of
the increments in load measured with respect to the loads
at the instant the maneuver was considered to have been
started.

"I.,_: measured accelerations were obtained with a
standard NACA accelerom eter located near the center of









NACA ARR No. L5H11


rravity. Ihe measured accelerations are accurate to
abc. 0.05g.


DISCUUSTC-


The comparisons given in figures 2 to L for the
S.23-1 airplane iAdi ate good agreement between the calcu-
iated and measured t.il loads for the three typical dive
pull-cuts chosen. The measured data hvere obtained at
1ach nu.nbers belwcr the critical value for this airplane,
0.67, and In relatiTly quick null-ups. Such conditions
favor thse assumption: on -which the calculations were
based: nar.ie.ly, linear variation cf a rodyna .Aic quantities
with angle of attack, and small attitude and speed c.. nes
curing the maneuver. A great deal of consistent wind-
tunnel da a were vo available fo: this airplane in the
for of force est3s ..ed w.ke surveys behind a model.
Altho::i hle filg-h conditions shovn in fiouros 2 to I are
not th-e critical ones for which calculations would ordi-
narily bS made, the fct Sfat t.he calculated and measured
tail icads rpr g are approximately the same indicates that
thz method could be used to predict lods with good accu-
racy for conditions other than coso tested.

The cc: rz:arison showvn in figure 5 for a oull-up with
the PB.-3 seapolre sio'ws good agreement in the acceleration
increments tainted. This calculation represents one for
which a minimum of Wind-tunnel data was available. The
pull-up was iade from a shallow d.ive and in such a way
that oth ermall attitude and velocity ch e-. resulted.
Although no tail loads ,veere measured in flight on lhis
seaplane, the calculated tail ioads are thought to be of
interest.

The results shorn in figure 6 for a dive pull-out
with the P-I40 airplane show poor a-reement between the
acceleration and tail-load increments. The disagreement
can be attributed only to a lack of quantitative knowledge
of the aerodynamic :paramters rather than to ,y large
depart"ures. fro m. the assumptions on wLich the methods are
based, rlhe dorodyn~ ic paraieters believed to be princi-
rally at fault in tae P-.i-K results are dCin/da and
and de /da,. the determination of these quantities,
data were available from low-speed tests made at the
Air Tecinical Service Co;mmand, VWright Field on a small
prope1lerless model of an early version of tne P-40 series.









>.- ARR No. L5ni11


In addition, some tests vere available from the Langley
full-scale tunnel of the XP-lO0 and P-01)Oi airplanes. Data
from the Langley tests were sonme:Phat limited since the
tests :ere conducted for other purposes. I'.- data that
could be pieced together from these sources indicated not
only a large value of de/da but also considerable
scatter,

In the light of the results given in figure 6, it
may be stated that a smaller value cf either dCm,/da
or de/dca would have resulted in a closer agreement as
regards the maximum loacs at the expense of a poorer
agreement in the loads sequence. This reasoning is based
on exoeriences wi~h crvmnutations of this nature (see
reference 6) and on the fact th1~ tihe ifeential equa-
tion ofn ot~oin on LiLch the calculations are based corre-
sponds to tnat of a forced vibration with viscous damping.
For such a system relatively large c :.: s in damping
would produce only sli :' t changes in the frequency;
whereas changes in tn- factors Lnfluencing tne restoring
force -- that is, 'dc/3a and d ~-/cia would change the
frequency. Closer agreement would result in this par-
ticular case if either or both dC./da and dE/da should
be decreased simultaneously itkl an increase in the damping
factor K and/or the radius of .-r:tion ky The
increase that would be required in these factors to obtain
a close c .:ernent would have to be larger than could be
attributed 'to possible inaccuracies in these q-uantities.

In figure 7, for the X?-51 airplane, poor agreement
.vas obtained between measured and calculated wing loads-
in spite of the fact that extensive wind-tunnel data u7ere
avail-. le for this airplane: whereas in figure 8 closer
agreement was obtained. Figure 1(a) shows that large
speed changes occurred with the pull-out shown in figure 7,
and the corresponding attitude changes were probably
large. Figure 3 indicates that better agreement in
acceleration increments was obtained in a relatively
short-period pull-cut uhan in the pull-out represented by
figure 7, which required l6 seconds. The ex.erilental
accuracy of tail-load measurement wa's relatively poorer
than for the SE2C-1 and P-O1_K airplanes (figs. 2 to i
and 6)

The agreement shown in figure 9 for the BT-9B air-
plane is only fairly close in spite of the fact that com-
plete aerodynamic data were available for the actual










CkLA ARR No. L5H11


airplane o:J^ t il surfaces from te:ts made in the Lcngley
full-scale to.nrrel. ..11 the fli.i, tests available from
which a rull-up could be chosen, however, 'ere of such a
n .vure thaIt 1crge changes in both steel and attitude
occurred during t.e maneuver and on tnis account ':.,or
agreement emi Lt be e?.--cted. ilso the flight tests were
conducted ac a center-of-gravity location and speed such
that the -easura i tail clads -.ere relatively small.

Fi. re 10 shs toe com-arison between calculated
and measured increments of acceleration and tail load for
the 3-2ID airplane. e No conclusions can be drawn concerning
tne lach of asreexient in the curves for tail-load increment
because of the soarse st-ain-gage installation used in
ota.inc"I the tail letds. I the irterpretalon of the
flight results to obtain tail loads, it vas necessary to
erir:iae b th chordwise and spane. is load centers. Errors
in tio estimation of these centers vI ouid cause errors in
til l oad in ir.dividual runs that are even larger than
those onreeioTly listed.





C o::nart ns 'i;e been nace of r.eas:~rt: and calculated
loads on the -'ing -nd te hori-ontal tail in pull-up
mn~vers for six airplanes ruani in weight from n,700
to S.

1. The s reerae.t between calculated and measured
,;ingc- and tail-lod intcre.ents for a snecified elevator
defl.ection :wa' good wThen reliable .ind-ctvnnel data x.ere
available &and v;hen the airplane maneuvsrs were in accord
with the assumrptions .

2. aoor -reemrnnt ':as obtained for several com-,r:
par'ison s. The poor agrecrent could be traced either to
po-;r quantitative knodi~:u of the cero dnanic :' meterss
cr to the violations of the assu:nptions on wnlch the
n.ectlod is based.


L anlev ?.veorifl A<.ron. ical La oratory
iuior.al Av.isory Co, rrit :e for Aerornauclcs
Langley Field, Va.









NACA ARR ::-j. L511


1. Pearson, Henry A.: Derivation of Charts for Determining
the Horizontal Tail Load Variation .ith n:,- Elevator
;.otion. N-C i- RR, TJan. 19135.

2. Dickinson, H. B.: LManeuverability and Control Surface
Strength Crit' iia for Lar-e Airplanes. Jour. hero.
Sci., vol. 7, no. 11, Sept. '191-0, pp. )69-,77.

3. Perkins, Courtland I'., and Lees, Lester: maneuverr
Loads on Horizontal -11 -,.-rfaces of Airolanes.
AAF TR No. L8352, Kateriiel Div., ,Army Air Forces,
Nov. 19, 19l2.

;.. Perkins, Courtland D.: 7:n-Dimensional Chart Method
for Comnputing the Maneuver Loads on the Horizontal
Tail Surfaces of .:- ,lanes. AA? TR Io. 41925,
Materiel Conmand, Army Air Forces, Tay 13, 1943.

5. Silverstein, Abe, and Katzoff, S.: Aerodynamnic Charac-
teristics of Horizontal Tail Surfaces. NACA Rep.
Io. '3, 19i+0.

6. Silverstein, Abe, and Katzoff, S.: Design Charts for
Predicting Downwash Angles and '.;,'.:e Characteristics
behind Plain and Flapped "..ings, NACa Rep. No. C. ,
1939.
7. i-eet, illiam G., and rares, Milton B., Jr.: Pressure-
Distribution Investigation of an N.A.C.A. 0009 Air-
foil with a 50-Percent-Chord Plain Flap and Three
Tabs. :.,CA T No. 73L, 1939.

8. Person, H. A., and Garvin, J. B.: An Analytical Study
of 'nr. and Tail Loads Associated with an Elevator
Deflection. NtAC. ARR, June 19l1.











NACA ARR No. L5H11


0'~ -J
* 1^
c '












m
to
CD "
0 '.4







* O


0 -
0 -.
* 'tO


0

0 -Z






4-.
o ,
B,


0
to
0 CD-
o i e-"
0 0 I''.
Lf\ tj~ i
NM 0
o\
aI


0


0\


I -.




o ol
0+ -


COO
0
rcm o o0\
.- 0 CO Os '*0 tf0 Os
4 4\ ot ~t t *'

m -> 4 N o 1 0


c) A -a a bo p a 4~
_I o I I _
1 % o0 1' 0 1 0 .4
u Cy\ i, o .0 V V to 0 4 (
(D > ^ U O '^ rH .- _

N o



oN


1-4
1-4
00 l) 0 0' C
41% 0%' 41% 0 '.4 -~ -,t .1 0 -
.4 N 0 .4 .4 '. J *M N


E: j -i Ip
SV o 4 .
t


i I a I- -. I
a / as B -u I >
g *3I I I G
44








c c c ar,
3 ~ ~ / I.- s I i 5 s .--



s. 4



f. d| 5
I r





4. E N
o o o c















o Ix o

o o c a 0. )-)
SE4 0 > 4 'P 0P .
j o (0 0:: 0 0 C
f ^1 al *> 4i 0Il l v1 > / I
fI aI Il \ ~
j~ G <- B a a i
/ ~ ~~~ a 0. t ^ ^i a> a l g 3
/ r-l t' 0 0 &. 0a <^ C!
f Q. f- *< Ac! fi O E: I- 1- OJ


I a .H a d l rt r G 0
w I hI I4 .c ai t, a EI a O c
/ E 0 0 B ^< 0 9l 6

( ~ ~ &. 0 0 l CT o' Q E^ wa 4 cO `- > a.


.-4

0


* S



. .-U4 0

u :o






44 0 S.
1 .


















h 40 0 o
o.ID 4. r
* JQ4 P











r





































-C
C



ap 0 *0 0
a o

















-4 .4 6










00 I
* 5.4 -
g*> t,


















itr
0
r-4


ON ca) 01 0 oN K o





o o- 0 f -
r4 7\ MN i
r4 10 to N1 1 rv
oo cr\ [~- o >- 1
.r- N1 t* i- '0
'- N -4 t- rC' '.0 N


.4 N 10 0 O O r- -

'1 '-4 E- 'C\ it' 0a
A N -t N- ( N -H I O-. N


O 0' it' 0
o 0 co ora r 4d
0 N 001 0 N 1 0
H a 8
l r^ aQ -) t rM( 0







I N1
0fto OD u o





1-4
H 0

> C- N N:
B N o 0o 0 0 it' .0
a) 4- .-4 0. 10 -1 i' (V
-4 1 1 4


-4 0
O _* i' -t C(- N Ox
N 4) N C- o. 0 0 it o 4
t > 4 o if'. C- 0
0 1 '0 i' N






io 01
H -4 1 4
M e 0' 0 0 _' '



N> t o t- C-
0 4 r0 '0 ul N


S-4 -4 l-4 I -4


0.









0

C..
h 1







/ *i



S"


C.
4

O

to
0
0s


f4

4-4
0


o
b -









a
0
400
04


NACA ARR No. L5H11


I I I


4K\ VC
I 1-
















SPI
Po !
-0 '
gP 0 I 0 0 0 0
SLP Ld'o LrN 0
4 3 r +1 +1 -4 +1 I
-+ + +9 H,-1
I0 1 +1 +1




01 4


0 >
0) bd



0 4) 0
I- )d -- -) -
a ( 4 a
0 p 04' i ) 0 WO(


43 r 0 4)0 9: 2
0 p 4) w ; 0
o(U 'd I O 00 (U
Ho a a a0H
0o o 4) i G s
02 w p. Go-4 "p 4

Cd ; 4 o 4-
r H4 0 r(U (Ua
0 0 0 as
(L| EHi CO u c1



4P +' 41
o O >
0 0 4 0 01
F I I i .H 4'l
D rHl I 3 : I |
> H H r OH HI

0 1 P4 1
(U 0 H 0 0 0 H r






0 IH
1 r-4 Q j

I CQ Co
( / I, pi 9 0





0 od Lr\ ^o ^- co Io|
iJXi L i I


NACA ARR No. L5H11


0



o
H




o
oo











00
CO

OM
HM

MH

0
0








Fig. la NACA ARR No. L5Hll







___ Di' 6I

300 --


400 --- 2C-
Dive /0

0 0 Z 3 4 5 G 7

330


3/0 -




0 0- -- -..... -""



420 -- -' I
40---
C 3 A 1 I L-

380 o _






438 40 4. .-


/50
S---51 -- r

Fliht / -----Ued in caiculatic#o
300 o / z 3 4


'I0 I.----=-^4----!-2------2


/20 --------------- -- ---
260
B -24D NAToW M AoVIs*Y
I" --- COI IHMITTU FOR -EWN n"KS

240
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, _ec
(a) Airpeed time hjaori/s.

F re ~-ic ft'ght do'ra foro ol/ arplane.s under
consaideraoon. 0 <, o.







NACA ARR No. L5Hll


-4

582C-/



O ,
S / 3 4 6 7





-0 -



I _

1 2 3 4 6 r

---- ^------- --
^ ~~ P_-


-2


0


2


4 -,-


SI-


_. _,, .. 5_ _" J
) .-) <. -i. '* 2-." ^ t?





-4








L NATIONAL ADV SO



SI I rt I I _I i _
--CONMMITTEE F04 AEROltITICS


7Tne.,dec
I? ,Inrmer erftol- e/evaoor-deflec ion ft,ne h/,~ortes.

F/cqure I.- Corclutded.


Fig. lb






NACA ARR No. L5H11


t)

6



(o


4x /l


3


2


0/


0


6


4


2


0


5 6


2 3
T77me ,ec


Fpure.- Cormpoor/ion bet een measured on7d

calcu/laed ta/'/-/oad an od cele/erafoon incremen ts

during a d/ve pu//-ou/i hn n 2C-/ airplane. Dive 6.


Fig. 2


-7





____ V_____
Mea red
----Calcu/olted









NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
_ __I I






NACA ARR No. L5H11


-t-r




'Z$r
.0




c:
T)
Il


3


; 2




-


I'


----Calculated







/

--- -- NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
S2 3 4- 5 6
T/me, cec


F /ure3. Comnpoaion between measured ond ca/cu-
/afed ALol /-/ood and occe/elraoon hecremeni duriIy

a di/e pu//-ouf n o5, 52 C-/ 'rpl/ane. D/1e /O.


Fig. 3





NACA ARR No. L5H11


/x/03


2 3 4 5 6
7-/72e, -ec


Fgure 4.- Comnpor/ior be i wen meo.ured and
co/u/ afed hi/7-/od d rnd acce/era /'on /ncrements
during a d/,e pu//-ou/ /i on B52C-/ a//plone.
D/ive // NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS


Measured /
- -Calculated


Fig. 4


I~
~" ~i
g,





NACA ARR No. L5H11


C4 "I


q,' '`~7V'


6up~80Z2Vw


-b











o N












K0
e










.1^


Fig. 5






NACA ARR No.


L5H11


0-
F
u


P
Q)
^
O


3


Figure 6.- Comior/anO bew/een measured ornd co/cu-

Iafed lo-/load rnd acee/erafion iOcremen t during9
a d/ve pu//-ou/ a P-40K airplane.


Fig. 6


/ \


I \
I \










/ \ -





/\



I \
---_-eur1d









T/-/e, ,6ec


I3xd





NACA ARR No. L5H11


(\)

-^ ^


la

si s

E

i|

S P
P ^i
C b
Q ?
*? 5 *
'S. -S
s 0


(^II
~Tj

I^


LC) cz


6 uruwr~r
ug//vo~d/ala3 V/


0/J 7v dvaua/ E2U/pCQ/-//o_


Fig. 7






NACA ARR No. L5H11


6








0
<3




S3x/0








o

-I


NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

7m//?e ec


Fi ure 8. Comar/or eon be6 ern measured ondc
ca/cu/afed fo/i-/oad cnd oc cceerao/i>n /ncre -
meni) during a d/i e pu//-o/ i on XP- 351
orp/lone. F//g h /0.


Fig. 8







NACA ARR No. L5H11



C:


^ -- I---


I'-
*S; 0

.^ -
ser __

c,
^>/ -
Q>


6xlOl







O


M eo6dred
--- Calculated




/t


o 7


3
Ti4me,, ec


Figure 9.-Compor/3on between meoaured and

calculated fail/-lod and acceleration ncremenki

during a pull-up in aBT-99B airplane.


Fig. 9


NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOI AERONAUTICS
I i I I I


, !






NACA ARR No. L5H11


.A-
S Measured
1s' __-- 4-__- --


^ .3 ---f--_ _- --









S_ ...5 6
/ _l_____l.__ ---
^ 0- ------K-
i \ i


4 /I- 3 | I _








F79-ure /o. p/ -/ /en meure and







caculd a/eraon n nted
lur *ng a dle 0R--n
Y, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -e --_- -- ---__ .------ ---~----1



4 ___ ______ __
0 / 3 2 4- 5 6
77/7n7, &ec NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOB AERONAUTICS



dur(g dive p/l!/-oui~ in oB-2/ID cl/'J'n.'


Fig. 10



























ii



Ii




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

3 1262 08106 4668


-- -, O: FLCoP DA


.0. .
; :. ,i1




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 ERS0F1DM9_WX2DPW INGEST_TIME 2012-03-02T21:20:26Z PACKAGE AA00009375_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES