CB No. LXO1

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS .

W’Alrl’mll REPORTORIGINALLYISSUED

June 1945 asConfidentialBulletinL5E’01

OF EIJWAT(IR-I’ROFILEM)D13’ICATIONSAND TRMLING-

EIEE STRIPSON ELEVATORECNGE-MOMEN3!AND

OTHERAEROIKN.M41CCHARACTERISTICSOF A

FULL-SCALEHORIZONTALTA31JSURFACE

By CarlF. Schueller,PeterF. Korycinski,andH. Kurt Strass

LangleyMemorialAeronauticalLaboratory

.,....,,.,

LangleyField,Va.

.“.., .,...... . .“.. .:.. ,->,,

.,...”-

WASHINGTON

NACADMRYr,ANGLEY MEMOW AERONAUTIC

LABORATORYLangley Fe] , v

NACA WARTIME REPORTS are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapl d &tr%mtion ofadvance 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-nically edited. All have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.

.,...

w

>

r-’

L -ill

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930092884 2020-06-30T20:16:05+00:00Z

)T/.,,, 3 1176013649182i.;1

NACA CB No. L5F01

NATIONAT. ADVISORY C@MMITTE@

. .—,– .,,,... ..,

FOR .4ERONAUTICS

CONFIDENTIAL BULLETIN

—

EFFECT OF ELEVATOR-PROFILE MODIFICATIONS AND TRAILING-

EDGE STRIPS ON ELEVATOR HINGE-MOMENT AND

OTHER AERODYNAMIC CH.ARACT??RISTICSOF A

FULL-SCALE HORIZONTAL TAIL SURFACE

By CaPl F. Schueller, Peter F. Korycinskiand H. Kurt Strass

SUMMAIIY

Results are “presented of tests of a full-scalehorizontal tail surface made to determine the effect ofelevator-profile modifications and trailing-edge stripson the elevator hinge-moment characteristics for elevatorshaving fixed plan form and constant balance.

A reduction of 6° in the trailing-edge angle of theelevator produced incremental changes in the slopes ofthe curves of hinge moment against angle of attack andelevator angle of approximately -0.0026 and -0.0013,respectively. The incremental changes in Chb (slope ofcurve of hinge moment against elevator deflection) dueto elevator nose-shape modifications were of about thesame magnitude as those predicted by the method presentedin NACA ACR No. L.4E13; whereas the nose-shape changes hadlittle effect on the values of Cha (slope of curve ofhinge moment against angle of attack). By use of a moreblunt nose and a reduced trailing-edge an~le, the valuesof Cha for the elevator could be reduced from the

unsatisfactorily high value of 0.0020 to O withoutaffecting the values of Cho . Trailing-edge strips werefound to be very effective in,reducing a positive valueof Cha but produced an adverse increase in ch~. NOappreciable loss in trailing-edge-strip effectiveness inprod.ucin:changes in hinge-moment coefficient occurredup to the maximum test Mach number of 0.65

2

INTRODUCTION

NACA CB NOo L5F01

The design of highly balanced control surfaces hasnot been sufficiently developed for the desired controlcharacteristics to be obtained in the first design and,for that reason, the control surfaces. of most new air-planes usually must be modified.

In an investigation in the Langley 16-foot high-speed tunnel of a typical full-scale semispan horizontaltail surface of a proposed fighter airplane, a number ofsystematic profile modifications had to be made to producethe desired aerodynamic characteristics. The presentreport shows the effect of elevator nose shape, trailing-edge angle, and trailing-edge strips on the aerodynamiccharacteristics of the tail surface, the elevator of whichhad a fixed plan form and a constant ratio of balance areato elevator area.

COEFFICIEITTS AND SYMBOLS

CD

Ch

CL

Cm

D

H

L

MCI/4

b

c

cl

&

drag coefficient()Dz

()

H.hinge-moment coefficient –—

0

q~e2belift coefficient -&

(4)Mc f

pitching-moment coefficient \qsc’.

drag of entire model

hinge moment

lift of entire model

pitching moment about quarter-chord point ofmca.n aerodynamic chord

span, feet

chord, feet

mean aerodynamic chord

root-mean-square of elevator chord behind hingeline

3

>- .-–.-. .. .. . .s tctal model area,

M. Mach number

R Reynolds number

‘squar>““feet

v velocity of air, feet per second

x horizontal dist~n~e along chord from leadingedgti,percent ~kiord

Y vertical distance from chord, percent chord

a’ angle of attack of stabilizer, degrees

P mass density of air, SIUCS per cubic foot

6 ancle of elevator cb.o.rclwith respect to stabilizerchor’d (positive when trailing edge is down),degrees

P’i included angle at elevator trailing edge, degrees

Parameters :

cLa =

CL6 =

Cha =

(The subscripts outside the parentheses represent thefactors held constant during the measurement of theparameters. )

Subscripts:

b balance

I:.,

NACA CB No. L5F01

elevator (back of hinge line)

flap (balance and elevator)

DESCRIPTION OF MODEL

For the present tests, the left side of the horizontaltail surface of’a modern fighter atrplane was used as amodel, The airfoil was made according to the profile ofthe NACA 66-oo9 airfoil. For the metal elevator (the orig-inal elevator), thi.gair~oil was modified to have astraight contour behind the 0.72c station.arrangement

The generaland geometrical characteristics of the model

are presented in figure 1. F5.,gure2 is a photograph ofthe model installed inthc:Langley 1~-foothigh-speed tunnel.

Stabilizer.- The stabilizer was of metal constructionand metal covered. All rivets were flush and the surfacehad been filled, rubbed with abrasive cloth, and waxed toincrease the surface smoothness; however, considerablesurface waviness existed. The gap between the elevatorand the stabilizer was approximately 1/,4inch and was con-stant for all elevator angles. In order to reduce undesir-able air flow through the elevator Iiingepockets, coverplates attached to the top and bottom of each stabilizerhinge bracket were included.

Elevators.- Four modifications of the metal elevatorwere tested. The plan-form dimensions of all elevatorswere the same. The hinge line was located at 0.72c andthe elevator balance was 0.48ce (cb/ce = 0.48). No trimtab is used on the elevator ‘oecause the angle of incidenceof the stabilizer is adjustable in flight.

The metal elevator was constructed of aluminum andhad a semielliptical nose and a straight taper behind thehinge line; this arrangement resulted in a trailing-edgeangle of approximately 13°.

The coordinates of elevators 1 to 4.are given intable I. These elevators were constructed of spruce andsincorporated systematic modifications to the elevator pro-file as shown in figure 3. ‘Elevator 1 had a blunt noseand a straight taper behind the hinge line with a trailing-edge angle of 13°, the same as the metal elevator.

NACA C13?!?o.L5F01 5

Elevator 2 had the same blunt nose as elevator 1 and a-..cusped,contour ,beh>nd the hinge-line (@i = 70). Elevator 3

had a modified blunt nose and the-’”same”cu”Spedcontow- -behind the hinge line ($i = 7°) as elevator 2, Elevator )4had the semielliptical nose profile of the original ele-vator and the same cusped contour behind the hinge line($i = 7°) as elevators 2 and 3.

Examination of the model showed that the stabilizerbrackets were approximately 3/32 inch above the chord line,The center line of the hinge pins for the metal elevator,however, was found,to be slightly above the chord line.The net effect of these constructional defects was to causethe upper surface of the metal elevator to project approxi-mately 1/16 inch above the contour of the tail when theelevator was in the neutral position. These defects causedthe hinge-moment curves to be asymmetrical, but the incre-mental changes of a ~iven coefficient, which result fromthe elevator modifications described herein, are believedto be correct.

Trailing-edge stri~s.- Strips of-- ~ ‘inch- or .1.~-inch-

diameter tubing were attached to both surfaces of the metalelevator at the trailing edge. The method of attachingthe tubing to the elevator is shown in figure ~. Thelen,gthof the trailing-edge strips was varied first bytesting the full-span length.and then ‘bycutttng equallengths from the root and tip ends of the strips.(See fig. 4.)

APPARATUS AND MTZTHODS

Model installation.- Inasmuch as a semispan modelwas used for the tests made in the Langley 16-foot l~i;Jk-speed tunnel, the center line of the horizontal tail sur-face had to be located in the plane of the tunnel-wallflat in order to produce air-flow conditions that approxi-mated, those of flight. (See figs. 1 and 2.) Labyrlinth-type seals were useclat the openinSs where the modelsupport went through.the tunnel-wall flat to minimize theleakage of air from the test chamber to the tnmnel.

HinEe-moment measurement.- The elevator control tubewas so e.xt~~t It passed through the tunnel-wallflat and two self-alining bearings mounted on the

,,! . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . -.-—.—

6 NACA CB lTOoL5F01

tunnel-balance frame. The.elevatb~ hinge moment wastransferred through the elevator torque tube to a 6-inchcrank and then through a jackscrew to the platform of ascale. The jackscrew was also used to vary the elevatorangle, The platform scale was rigidly attached to thetunnel-balance frame and, since all other related partswere also attached to the tunnel-balance frame, the ele-vator hinge-moment measurements could not interfere withthe measurements of’lift, drag, and pitching moment. Allforce and moment data were recorded simultaneously.

Elevator-angle measurerfient.-An Autosyn WaS used tomeasure the elevator angle. The transmitter of thisAutosyn was rigidly attached to the stabilizer at theinboard hinge cut-out. A sm.al.lpinion gear on the trans-mitter shaft was driven by a large sector gear that wasrigidly attached to t~~eroot of the ele~ator~ Any elevatordeflection that occured was therefore multiplied by thegear ratio (aFprox. 12:1) and was electrically transmittedto the receiver. A calibrated dial.attached to thereceiver provided a continuous visual indication of tbieelevztor angle. A template W:LSused to check the zeroreading of the Autosyn ir.dicator. This arrangement isbelieved to ti~.vemeasured the elevator root angle within~o.loo

An&le-of-attack measurement.- An inclinometer located.—on a reference surface of the model support system wasused to m.easu.rethe angle of attack of the chord line ofthe stabilizer root. The measurements are believed, to beaccurate within *0.050.

TESTS

In general test data were obtained for ay -5?, 0°,- 6° tc 8°, and-ti= 0.35. Some conbina.tions~yd ~~~,~:~1~= 7~variables could not be tested because of the

allowable loac lirlitatior~son the model. One of thetrailing-edge -strip modifications on the metal elevatorwas tested at Lack numbers as high as 0.65.

Tests to determine the aero&ynami.c characteristicsof the original inetal elevator and the effect of tra:iling-edge anp;le (elevators 1 and 2) were made with the originalhinge location; whereas tests to determine the effect ofnose shape (elevators 2, 3, and 4.)were made with the

lTACACB No. L5F01 ~’ 7

stabilizer hinge brackets lowered 3/32 inch in order to, locate thehinge line exactly on the chord line of the

tail section.

REDUCTION OF DATA

The data presented herein have been co~rected fortunnel-wall effects by the use of the reflection-planetheory given in reference 1. The projected frontal areaof the model was such a small part of the tunnel areathat tunnel-constriction corrections were negligible.Corrections to pitching moment due to model deflectionand balance-frame deflection also were found to be negli-gible. The corrected data were cross-plotted and thevalues used herein are for selected angles of attack,elevator angles, and Mach numbers. The average dynamicpressure and average Reynolds number corresponding to thetest Mach number are shown in figure 5. The Reynoldsnumber is based on the calculated mean aerodynamic chordOf 4.27 feet. Tests in which the gap around the modelsupport was varied from 1/)4inch to O showed that nocorrections due to end leakage were necessary for thissetup.

~~sTJLTs AND

Basic Data with

DISCUSSIONS

Metal Elevator

The variation of hinge-moment, drag, lift, andpitching-moment coefficients with elevator angle atM“ 0*35J and a = -30, Oo, and 30 are presented.infigures 6 to 9, respectively.

Hinge-moment coefficient.- For the data shown onfigure 6, Ch = -0.0015

~and— Cha = 0.0020, A construc-

tional defec in the hinge-bracket locations (see sectionentitled llDescription of Model’l) is the main cause of theasymmetry of’the curves; a slight asymmetry in the ele-vator contour is probably also a contributing fac,tor.

D:ag Coef’ficientO- No unusual drag characteristics(fig. 7Toccurred. The minimum value of CD, however, is0.011, which is a relatively high value as compared with thevalues for surfaces havina less profile discontinuity.

8 1 NA(!ACB NO. L5F01

Lift coefficient.- The lift coefficient varieslinearl

~with elevator angle for the range shown in

figure The lift parameters GLa and CL6 are 0.058and 0.02~5, respectively.

Effect of Trailing-Edge Arigle

Flight investigations have shown that the value ofCh

Pshould be approximately O in order to avoid adverse

ef’ects on the stability and control characteristics, par-ticularly in gusty air, and that the value of 0.0020obtained for the original elevator was unsatisfactorilyhigh. Preliminary calculations based on unpublished dataindicated that a value of Cha = O could be obtained by

decreasing the trailing-edge angle from approximately130 to 7°. This change in elevator shape is illustratedin figure 3S and its effect was evaluated by a comparisonof the results obtained for elevators 1 and 2.

Hinge-moment coefficient.- The effect of trailing-edge angle on t>=r=~~–~~nge-mo~lent coefficient isshown in figure 10 for t~lreeangles @f attack and forM = 0*35* The nonlinearity of these curves prever~ts theexact use of the usual parameters, but the 60 change inelevator trailing-edge angle resulted in the following.changes in the parameters: ACh~ = -0.0013 andACha = -0.0026. The change in Ch due to a reductionin trailin~-edge angle was of the 8esired magnitude, butthe accompanying increase in Ch

f?was undesirable because

the control moment was about dou led for the metal elevator.The undesirs.ble increase in Cho due to a reduction intrailing-edge angle may be nulllfied with no appreciablechange in Cha by changing the elevator nose shape(discussed in section entitled ‘tEffectof Nose Shap:) .Figure lo(a) indicates a reversal in Cha at a=

This undesirable variation is believed to be a result”ofthe asymmetry of the hinge-bracket location.

Drag coefficient.- The variation of the drag coef-—.ficie~~r~vators 1 and 2 (@i = 13° and 7°, respec-tive~~) with elevator angle is presented in figure 11 forthree”values of a and For Mficient for a given incrementslightly .sgreaterfor elevatorelevator 1 (@i = 130).

=- 0*359 The drag coef-of elevator deflection is2 ($i = 7°) than for

NAGA C13h?OO L5F01 9

Lift coefficient.- A decreasem,,

edge’angle-was usuafiy ac.com~aniedin elevator trailing-by,a slight increase

in-lift; A reduction-in tra~ling-edge angle from 130 to~“ increased CLa from 0.061 to 0.064 and increase~ CL5from 0.031 to 0.032.

Pitching-moment coefficient.- Reducing the trailing.-—edge angle from 130 to 70 caused a rearward shift of thecenter of lift. when the lift was varied by changing theangle of attack at 6 = 0°, the center of lift shiftedfrom 22.6 to 2)+.2percent of’the mean aerodynamic chord;wheil the lift was varied by cb.ailgingthe elevator anglefor a = (-)0, the center of lift was shifted from 56 to57-? Percent of’the mean aerodyn=iic chord.

Effect of Nose Shape

Hinge-moment data obtained for tke various trailing-ed~e modifications indicated that the desired value ofCha could.be obtained with a t~ailing-edge angle of

approximately 7°. The reduction in trailing-edge angle,however, caused Ch5 to increase f’roi~-0.0015 to about-0.0028. Since the original value of Ch~ obtained forthe metal elevator (-0.0015) was consider~d satisfactory,it was beiieved desirable to reduce the new value of eh~ ●

Reference 3 shows that the value of ch~ can be changed,without appreciably affecting the v::lueof Cha, byaltering the elevator nose shape, Two alterations wereaccordingly made to the nose profile (see fig. 3) in anattempt to obtain a satisfactory value of ChG . Compari-son of elevators 2 and 3 with el~vator 4 shows the changesin elevator contour.

Hinge-moment coefficient.- The effect of the nosemodif~cations on the hinge-m=ment coefficient at M = 0.35is shown in figures 12 and 13. Because of the differencein structural stiffness between the wooden and metal ele-vators and because of the asymmetry of the metal elevator(see section entitled ‘[Description of Model” ), elevator ,4,,which had a semielliptical nose profile the same as thatof tfi.emete.1 elevator, was used as a reference. Figures 12and 13 indicate that modifyin[$ the nose profile of themetal elevator to the modified-blunt shape (elevator 3)would result in hcha = 0.0010 and ACha = 0.0002; thesefigures indicate also that modifying the nose profile ofthe metal elevator to the blunt shape (elevator 2) would

result in ACh6 z 0.0020 and Cha = 0.0004. An elevatorwith a balance-moment area intermediate between elevators2 and 3 would provide the desired decrease of 0.0013 in

8;: tralllng-edge angle to 7°.and would thus nulli.~y the adverse effect of reducing

. ,>The tests of the wooden

elevators therefore indicate that the desired values ofCh z O, Cha = -0.0015 at M = 0.35 may be obtained if the

pr~file of the metal elevator is so modified that it hasa more blunt nose (intermediate between elevators 2 and 3)and a cusped contour behind the hinge line (elevator 2)with a trailing-edge angle of’about 7°.

h. exact quantitative check ‘of the experimental andpredicted effects (reference 3) ~f the elevator-nose modi-fications cannot be made because of the nonlinearity ofthe curves of hinge-moment coefficient against elevatorangle. The incremental changes in Ch

Qdue to modifica-

tions of the elevator nose, however, a e of about the samemagnitude as cb.anges calculated by the method of refer-ence 3. Very poor agreement is obtained when the value ofCha for any one elevator is calculated from unbalancedsection flap data and corrscted for balance effects by themethod of reference 3.

Lift ~oefficiento- The effect of elevator-nose con-tour cn CLa is show~ in figure 1)+for 5 = 0°, M = 0.35,

and a = -30 to 30. Figure 14.shows that CLa increasesslightly as the surface discontinuity between the rearwardportion of the stabilizer and the elevator nose is reducedby making the elevator nose more blunt because, as thecontour of the tail surface approaches that of tb.etrueairfoil, optimum pressure distribution and lift areobtained.

Drag coeff’icient.- The effect of elevator-nose con-

tour on drag is also sh~wn in figure 1,4. The dragdecreased slightly as the surface discontinuity betweenthe rearward portion of the stabilizer and the elevatornose was reduced.

Pitching-moment coefficient.- The eff~ct of elevator-

nose contour on tblepitching moment was not appreciableand no data are presented.

- -.-—. ,,

NACA CR No. L5F01 A

Effects of Trailing-Edge

11

Stripsa -., -,-.. .

Test’s’’w”eremade also to-deter-mimecombinations oflength and diameter of trailing-edge strips that could“be.used on the metal elevator as a temporary expedientto obtain %a = O for flight tests of the first experi-mental airplane having this tail surface. Various lengthsof ~-inch- and

8. &-inch-diameter strips were tested at

M,= 0.35 and a = -30, 0°, and 30.

Hinge-moment coefficient.- Figures 15 and 16 show thevaiia%lon of hinge-moment co~fficient with elevator angle

. .for various lengths of ~-inch- and fi-inch-diameter traiwg-

edge strips, respectively, at M = 0.35 and.at a = -30,0°, and 3°. Decreasing the length of the strip decreasesthe slope of’the hinge-moment curves, and no abruptchanges in the trend of the curves occur. The data pre-sented in these figures have been used to obtain thehinge-moment parameters fiha and Chb shown in figure 17.The desired value of Cha= O can be obtained by using-1‘-inch-diameter strips 2)~percent of the span in length8,

‘-inch-diameter strips 38 percent of the span in‘r 16length, but with an accompanying adverse increase in ChGover the desired value of -0.0015. The effect of speedon the effectiveness of the trailing-edge strips iS shown

in fipyre 1~. No serious reduction of hinpe-moment coef-ficient Ch occurs up to the maximum test Mach number(M = 0.65) with the full- span ~-inch-diameter strips on

uthe elevator trailing-edge.

Lift coefficient.- Figures 19 and 20 show the effectof thm%h of the trailing-edge strips on lift coef-.ficient for ~-inch- and ~-inch-diameter strips, respec-

tively. The-use of stri~~ of either diameter usuallyresults in an increase in lift at the higher elevatorangles.

Drag coeff[citint.-Figu.re”s21 and 22 show the effectof th~ength of trailing-edge strips on the drag coef-.l’icient for ~-inch- and ~ -inch-diameter strips, respec-

tively. Theincrease in”drag d.u.eto lengthening the-1L-inch-diameter strips is usually twice the increase which8

12 NACA CB No. L5F01

. 1——-inch-diameter strips. The maximum

occurred ‘=th ‘he 16increase measured with —-inch-diameter full-span strip~

;was 15 percent.

pitching-moment coefficient.- The change in pitching-—moment coefficient due to trailing-edge strips was negli-~ible and no figures are presented herein. The center oflift, however, was shifted from 25 percent to 25 percentof the mean aerodynamic chord for 5 = 0° when the lift

was increased by changing the angle of attack for ~ -inch-8

diameter full-span. strips. The maximum shift in the aero-dynamic center was from 52 percent to 58 percent of themean aerodynamic chord for a = 0° when the lift wasincreased by changing the elevator angle.

CONCL~TSIONS

From tests made in the Lan@ey ~6-foot high-speedtunnel of a full-scale horizontal tail surface to determinethe effect of elevator-profile modifications and trailing-edge strips on.the elevator hinge-moment characteristicsfor elevators having fixed plan form and constant balance,the following conclusions were reached:

1. ~ reduction of’ 60 in the trailj-n~-edge angleresulted in incremental changes in the slopes of curvesof hinge moment against angle of attack and against ele-vator angle of approximately -0.0026 and -0.0013~ respec-tively.

2. ~h-e incremental cb.an-~esIn Ch5 (~lo~e of curveof hinge moxnent against elevator an~le] due to elevator-nose modifications were of the same mag~-itude as thechanges predicted by the use of methods given in NACA ACPLNo. ~@~ . These nose-yrofile changes had.virtually noeffect on Cha (slo”~eof curve of hinge moment against

angle of attack).

3. A reduction in trailing-edge angle and an increasein the bluntness of the nose profile reduced the values of‘ha for the metal elevator from 0.0020, which ‘wasunsatis-

factorily high, to O without affecting the value of Chb .

)4. Trailing-edge strips were found to be very effec-tive in reducing a positive value of Cha, but an adverse

-.—- .

NACA CB No. L5F01 13

increase in the values of Ch/j accompanied the use ofthese str.i.ps,N.o.apprec3,ableloss i_nthe effectivenessof the trailing-edge strips in”-produ’cingchan”ges inhinge-moment coefficient was apparent up to the maximumtest Mach number of 0.65.

Langley Memorial Aeronautical LaboratoryNational Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Langley Field, Va.

1.

2.

3*

Swanson, Robert S., and Toll, Thomas A.: Jet-BoundaryCorrections for Reflection-Plane Models in Rectangu-lar Wind Tunnels. N.~?A ARR NO. 5E22, 1943.

PUrSer, ?aul E., and Riebe, John M.: lVind-Tunne1Investig~tion of Control-Surface Characteristics.xv - Various Contour Modifications of a 0.50-Airfoil-Chord Plain Flap on an N.4CA66(215)-014. Airfoil.N=lCA ACR Nc). 5~,,20,19~3 .

Purser, PalulE., and Toll, Thowias A. : Analysis ofAvailable Data on.Control Surfaces Having plain-Overhang and Frise Balances. NACA ACR No. L@3,19)J+.

I/

N’ICICB No. L5F01 14

TABLE I

CCCRDINATES FC!RELEVATORS 1 TO 4 IN PERCENT C

!.. . . . . .

-1

-Elevator 1 ?levator 2, Elevator 3 Elevator 4x “--

(:)Y Y Y“

0 0 0 0 0.51 3.91

k

3.91?,19 2.!+~

1*O3 5.0 5.0k

.19tz

● 32.06 6.2 6.2

i

5.33.09 7.10 7.10 6.19 512~.12

i.61

i.61 6.71 5.80

5.14 ●OS .03 7.20 ~.$y6.~7 8.23 8.23

i k

7.47● 20 8. 6 8.]6

8.~27*75 7:0

.23 8. 21:~~ 7.2k

9.26 8. 5i ::$?

7*510.29 8. 5 8. 1

t797i

11.32 :.;; 8.91 :.5:i994

12.35 8.93 .071$2:: 8195 8.95 8:59 8.23

1 8.99 ‘ 8.99 8.63 8.27I ●46 8.95 8.95 8.69 8.4418.52 8.87 8.87 8.65 ~.~20.58 I 8.76 8.76 8.6022.63 /3.64 8.64 8.54 8:44

b2..69 8.1+1+ 8.!+4. 8.38 8.512 .81 8.05 Cooj 8.01 7.9952.92 ---- ;.~; 7955 7*53~7 .04{

---- 7.10 7.10+1● l? ---- 6:59 6.59 6.5945.27 ---- 6.15 6.15 6.1349.38 ---- 5.58 5.58 5.5853.50 -.---

i-.04 5.04

2.04

~p61 ---- ‘3 4.53 ‘3

65;li

---- 3:23?- ?

3* 3 3:)36 .9 I ::::

3. 8

i

;.;: ?3. 83.01 3.01

7 ;:: ---- 2.47 2:47 2.47

$---- 2.02 2.02

7

2.02J2. i ---- 1.56 1.56 1.5666.+2 1.13 1.13 1.13yo ● 54 , :::: .82 .82 .82

k9 .65 ---- .52 .52 .529 ●77 ---- .27 .27 .27

T.E. radius = 0.05 inch

aDashes indicate straight taper behind 0.324 c.

?!T’.’TIOIT),.,\DVISORYCOMMTT’T.T?’RFOR LRROIT’lUTi7TCS

—

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 1

.

l/4mwn aoradynomic

o*.

a

)Ite*

!Y

t

1~ ‘s&I Hinoo PWM COWM

,1

+-—.—.—. -—. —

Hlngc lhm~1

I

--

10” Oihdml

‘L Q of airfoil ondbingo Ilns

iRaat-moon-squam of ●lwatar ohad bohhrd hings Iiw. in. . . . . . . . . . . . 13.74

Moon awadynomlc shard, in.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 51.3

Stabilizer amo, sq in. .. .. .. .. .... .. ..... ... . ..... ... . .. . .. . . . . . .... .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..325SO

Elewtor area, sq in . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1429-0

Owrhang area, sq in...... . . .. .. .. ... .. . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 596.0

NATIONAL AOVISORYCONNITTEE FOI MOOIIAUTICS.

Figure 1.- General arrangement of the horizontal tail surfacein the Langley 16-foot high-speed tunnel. (All dimensionsin inches and measured in plane of section. )

.,)

-’=_’

Figure 2.- Installation of model in tunnel.

91-m,

co

Nose shape Elevotor

FBlunt <;

~Modified blunt 3

) // r Semiellipticol <~rigino,

●

@i Elevator(dog)

/-’3 ‘~i’-i{~:-r--~~~—r—. —

<

2/-. 7

/A -- ---------

—. =- - - +=-------~

T@ling- edge ongle

Figure 3. – Contours of original metal elevator

NATIONAL ADVISORYcolamla ra MMllAulKs

and elevators I to q.

w

1

I J

1. ‘“R:’S;::”LI- Full span -.

[Elevator skin

rLinen tape

Tubing

~- -

TypicaI section

Figure 4 .— Location and installation of trailing-edge strips

NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FDRAEROMAUTICS

z0●

‘zl1-

a)●

on metal elevator.

,)

I

.

NACA CB

,.

No. L5F01 Fig. 5

540 /m / 17

}

500 16

r

460 / . 15

420 / /14

/’

380/

// 13//

340/

/12

/ f

300’ /1 II//(

260 r 10/I

220d

9

180 8

140 7.

100 / / 6I / NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

60 & I I 1 I5

.1 .2 .3 ,.4 .5 .6M

.7

Figure 5 .— Variation of the average dynamic pressureand average Reynolds number with test Mach number.

a

.

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 6a-c

. . .. .. .. .

.02

0 \

\

-.02 i.

(b)(%=OO.I

.02

0

-.02

-8 -4 04 8

Figure 6 .—

NATIONAL ADVISORY

d, deg COMMITTEE FOR ASSWAUTICS

Variation of hinge- moment coefficient

with elevator angle; metal elevator.

M= 0,35,

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 7a-c

?>. . -.04

\7

.02 \

~ / R

o ‘

(a) a=-3”o

.04

.02 \\ _

o .

4b) a=

.04

// ‘

.02- /\ _

/

0’

[c) a= 3 ‘..

-0 -4 0 4 8

d, degNATIONAL ADVISORY

CONNITTEE FDS ASRDNAUTICS‘

Figure 7.-VdriCltiOll Of drag coefficient with

elevator angle; metal elevator. M = 0.35.

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 8a-c

_,4,,

0

-A

0

0

4-.

I [ I

.

// ‘

/ ‘/

(a)C=-3”.

I I I

//

/

. f/ ‘

NATIONAL ADVISORY

(C) C! C=3’. CONMITTEE FOS AEAWAVTKS

f I I

-12 -8 4 04 8 12

~ deg

Figure 8 .— Variation of lift coefficient with elevator

angle; metal elevator. M = 0.35.

I IlmmllIllmlll 11Ill 111 11111 ,.,,, ,,

NACA CB No- L5F01 Fig. 9a-c.

.0I=. >

,. —.. . .

,..

0 \

\ ,Q

-.01‘

\

.(a) a= ’-3°.

.o1-

\

EO ,0 1

.za

1.- -.0Is. (b) a= OO.

-8 -4 0 4 8

~ J,degNATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOS AERONAUTICS

Figure 9,- Variation of pitching- moment coefficient

with elevator angle; metal elevator. M= 0.35.

NACA CB No. L5F01

Elevotor “.>. ., .02 ._ ,.,. ‘. .... (d:)\\ —,1 13. -------=.. 2 7

0 .-.----------/ .

702 - (a)cx =-3”.

.02

0

=02

.02

0

-.02

-. - . .

‘..x,

.— .-.

-- --.

TEE3EEE-. .. =.

.--. ,

.

L_L_l. (c)a=3 ‘. I

-8 -4 04

$, deg

Figure 10 .— Effect of elevotor tmiling - edge

moment coefficient. M= 0.35.

8

NATIONAL ADVISORYCOMNITTEE FOBAERONAUTICS

angle on elevator hinge-

NACA CB No.

-.

.03

.02

.0I

L5F01 Fig. ha-c

.I I I I 1 1 n 8

r 1I / I

\

\ ,\\\ \ /“’. ..

(a)a=-s”o ~ “ =9

.03I

.03

.02

.0I

//

/~

~,,” ///‘/k

& /--- _-

[c) Gr=3°.

OiElevator (deg) .

—1 13------ 2 7

-8 -4 0 4 8

J, deg NATIONAL ADVISORYcoUMITTEE FIX AERONAUTICS

Figure IL- Ef feet of elevator trailing-edge angle on drag

coefficient. M= 0.35.

NACA CB No. L.5F01 Fig. 12a-c

=a).-0.-.

-

.04

0

-.04

,., .-_, ,._,

. .

.04\

o . F Elevator—“= ‘7- -----._~ I

‘ —3-.04 \

(b)a =0~ ‘2,

.04

0

-.04

\

El~votor_K \’ -- --

1 :‘- 4

7‘2

(C)oc=-3°.

-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12

$, deg NATIONAL ADVISORYCOMMITTEE F~ ASRONAllTKS

FigureiZA/ariation of hinge-moment coefficient with elevator

angle for the three nose”shapes. M=0.35.

..

9

.0 I

o

Ch -01.

-.02

-—— Elevator——.__ ——__ -_ _

— —. _- _ 2

~ - ~ ~, 3

4

-NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEEFDRAERDNAUTICS

-2 -1 0 I 2 3a, deg

Figure /3 .— Effect ot nose shape on hinge-moment coefficient.&&; M435,

zo8

1-

CA

NACA CB ~Oc L5Ff)l Fig. 14

c.

. . . . .

Elevator

-4 -2 0 24a , deg

.04 IElevator

—.__ — ———_ ,2.03

—-,1

4

.02

NATIONAL ADvIsoRY

1 ICOMMITTEEFORAERONAUTICS!

-4 -2 02 4<, deg

Figure 14.-V0riatkn Of CD and CLJ with a

for various nose shapes. M = 0.35#= O“.

~ ,—- . . .. .

.-

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 15a-c

Length of trailing-edge\

.04 ~_ -—-—

.=.

0\. -.I

---

?04

.

.

\ \-.

‘..~ _ -, \

-i-\\. > --l .

-- - . .\

\\ -. - --

;b) a=o”. \ \+

.04 \

-.— _Yl----=

o \‘. --. 1 .,’.\

.\ =. \

‘.-.04 \

\-

(c)a= 3”. \ NATIONAL ADVISORY

700COMMITTEE FOl AERONAUTICS

Q

-12 -0 -4J ,~eg

4 0 12

strips

figUrO 15.- VOriOtiOn Of Ch with elevator angle for fOUr k)n ths!5of ~-inch-diameter trailing-edge strips. M = 0.3 .

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 16a-c

.

a

trailing-edge stri~ percent span100

—-—-- 50—-- —-. o

.04 \ Length of.,

\=. \

o \\*\--Y-\ -- ~.

-.04 (a) OL=-30.\

\

-

.04

0

–.04

.04

\— ~.o %- >

\ .\

\

\ \.-.04 \ \

(c) cc= 3°. \

-8 -4 0 4 8 12

~ deg NATIONAL ADVISORYCONNITTEE F* AERONAUTKS

Figure 16.— Variation Of C h with elevator angle for threelengths

of ~-inch- diameter trailing- edge strips. M = 0.35.

I

NACA CB No. L5F01

.004

& Diameter of trailing-edge strips&o

\\ . .(in.)

~\

-- --- !4F-

+ \ 1/8-.004

0

-.012

.

\NATIONAL ADVISORY

Ill I coM~lT~EEF~MRONAUTICS t II I I I I I 1 , I J

o 20 40 60 80 100

Length of trailing-edge strips, percent span

Figure 17.— Effect of length of trailing-edge strips of

~-inch and ~ - inch diameter on C ~6

and Ch Qa

M= 0.35..

.:

.0I

o

-.01

0=-.02

-.03NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEEFORAERONAUTICS, L I I 1 I I J

.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 7M

Figure 18.—Variation of eievotor hinge-moment

Mach number for ~ -inch-diameter truiiing-dge

J = 00,

-3

0

3

.:

coefficient with

strips. Full span; ?Q*

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 19a-c

. . . . ..2

,>0

-. 2

-.4

.2

0

i-.--1

4

.2

Q

.,, . .r [deg )

“ 9— — — — — — — —

5

0

-4

_(a)ti=-3 ‘.0“

9—

5

‘“o

— -4

8

(b)a=o”.

9~ “

5— —

o’NATIONAL ADVISORY

CONMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS# I ‘4

I I Ir 1 1

8(c)cc=3°.

0 25 50 75 100

Length of tmiling-edge strips, percent b

Figure 19.—Variation of lift coefficient with length of -&-inch-

diameter trailing-edge strips. M= O.35.

a

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 20a-c

>— -. —. .. . . ... ....2

.,.

0

-4

4

.2@.-0 0.-w-

m

8-.2

4-

w-.--1

.4

.2

0

k(deg )

. .—. ... ,,,9

5

0

4— .

— -8_(a)a=-3°.

9

5

0NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMHITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

“4I

4 -8

(c)a= 3”.I I I 1 i

25 50 75 1~0

Length of

Figure 20.—Variation

trailing+dge strips, percent b

of lift coefficient with length

diameter trailing -edge strips. M =0.35.

of ~-inch-

e

NACA CB No. L5F01 -

&(deg)

IL---II I 1

I

/ ~

9’

F / ‘ — -8— — — -

5

/ ~ / ~ ——

—— — — -4

— — -o.

*

Fig. 21a-c

..

/ -9

.04

.03,5

~ —

/ ‘~ ~

NATIONAL ADVISORYCOMMITTEE FOl AERONAuTIcs

.02 —. o— — — — -8

9 ~ — “4

.01’ (c)a= 3‘.4

0 25 50 75 100Length of tmiling-edge strips, percent b

Figure 2 I _ Variation of drag coefficient with length of %-inck

diameter trailing- edge strips. M= 0.35.

NACA CB No. L5F01 Fig. 22a-c

-—..04—,.

.03

.02

.0I

.03

.02

0°.

.03

.02

.01

/ —

(a) a=–3°.

(deg )

-8

~ ~— -

(b) a= O”.

-

/ ‘/ ‘

— ~ —— -—— —

NATIONAL ADVISORYCDMNITTEE FDA ASROIAAUTICS

~ — — ===——

-— —

—

(c)a= 30.

9

-8

5-4

0

9

5

=0-8-4

I I I 1 1

0J

25 50 75 100

Length of trailing- edge strips, percent b

Figure 22 .—Voriation of drag coefficient with length of ~-inch-

diameter trailing- edge strips. M = 0.35. “

Iillllllllmll[[i[flllllllllllll~3 1176013649182...—.—