1x

.... .. . .
0.
0 .

0
om
.
.

.
..e
0..
0 .

m.
.
0 '

0
0. 0. . .
..e

.
0..

0 . .
0 .
0..
0.

0
0
0.
.
.

1 -

NATIONAL AEROMUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

' -

TECHNICAL MEMOFANDUM X-637

FLIGHT-SIMULATED OFF-THE-PAD ESCAPE AND LANDING MANElTvERs

FOR A VERTICALLY LAUNCHED HYPERSONIC GLIDEB*

By Gene J. Matranga, W i l l i a m H. Dana, I

H and Neil A . Armstrong
2
7
5 SUMMARY

A s e r i e s of subsonic maneuvers simulating t y p i c a l off-the-pad

escape and landing procedures f o r a v e r t i c a l l y launched hypersonic-
g l i d e r config..ration was flown w i n g a delta-wing a i r p l a n e having a
peak e f f e c t i v e l i f t - d r a g r a t i o of 4.7.
w
None of t h e required maneuvers posed any p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t or
t a x i n g s i t u a t i o n s f o r t h e p i l o t s . C i r c u l a r , overhead landing p a t t e r n s
.
I
flown a t 240 knots i n d i c a t e d a i r s p e e d were r e l a t i v e l y easy t o perform
and r e s u l t e d i n touchdown l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n s of l e s s t h a n
+1,200 f e e t .

A reduction i n t h e p i l o t ' s v i s i b i l i t y from t h e cockpit d i d not

n o t i c e a b l y impair h i s a b i l i t y t o navigate except when view of t h e a r e a
d i r e c t l y beneath t h e a i r p l a n e was required. However, p o r t i o n s of t h e

-
escape and landing maneuvers were adversely a f f e c t e d by t h e reduced
v i sibilit y .
I INTRODUCTION

From a s a f e t y - o f - f l i g h t standpoint, take-off and landing are,

g e n e r a l l y , two of t h e most c r i t i c a l f l i g h t c o n t r o l areas. For a hyper-
sonic g l i d e r , which i s launched v e r t i c a l l y from t h e ground a t o p a l a r g e
b o o s t e r rocket and i s landed unpowered, t h e s e areas a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y
c r i t i c a l i n t h e event of an emergency p r i o r t o launch. One proposal f o r
providing f o r s u r v i v a l of t h e p i l o t and v e h i c l e i f a main b o o s t e r m a l -
f u n c t i o n s on t h e pad or s h o r t l y a f t e r l i f t - o f f i s t o propel t h e v e h i c l e
d w e l l away from t h e danger a r e a by means of an a u x i l i a r y b o o s t e r on t h e
v e h i c l e . I f t h e v e h i c l e i s boosted high enough and fast enough, t h e
z
p i l o t can r i g h t t h e a i r p l a n e and land on a nearby runway. The problem
V i t l e , Unclassified.
2 . . .... . .
0
0.

.
0.
0. . 0. 0. . ....... ....
. ......
0.
0..
0 .
0.
.

0.

of landing the glider, however, could be critical, since the lift-drag

ratio of several proposed hypersonic-glide configurations is low
(about 4), and the vehicle will land unpowered. To further complicate
the landing problem, thermal-structural considerations generally dictate
that window areas be minimized, thus limiting the pilot’s view from the
cockpit.
Low-speed X-15 landing maneuvers were successfully simulated in the
study reported in reference 1. Based on this program, a series of
analytical and flight-simulation studies is being conducted at the
NASA Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., to investigate the sub- H
sonic, off-the-pad escape and landing maneuvers of a typical vertically 2
launched hypersonic glider. This paper considers the results of a brief 7
flight-test program in which an attempt was made to match predicted 5
escape and landing maneuvers with flight data. Also considered is the
effect on the maneuvers performed of limited pilot visibiljty from the
cockpit.

SYMBOLS

normal acceleration, g units

airplane lift coefficient

acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2

geometric altitude above touchdown point, ft

effective lift-drag ratio

time, sec

true airspeed, ft/sec

derivative of airspeed with time, E, ft/sec2

indicated airspeed, knots

vertical velocity, ft/sec

longitudinal distance from touchdown point, ft

lateral distance from touchdown point, ft

trim angle of attack, deg

 . 3
I
-

The t e s t a i r p l a n e i s a single-place, delta-wing f i g h t e r - i n t e r c e p t o r

powered by a t u r b o j e t engine equipped with an a f t e r b u r n e r . A t h r e e -
view drawing and a photograph of t h e a i r p l a n e a r e s h a m i n f i g u r e s 1
and 2, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e a i r p l a n e a r e
presented i n t a b l e I.

The wing has an a s p e c t r a t i o of 2.02 and varies i n t h i c k n e s s from

H 5 percent a t t h e r o o t t o 3 percent a t t h e t i p . The average w i n g loading
2 during t h e t e s t s was 36 l b / s q f t . Speed brakes l o c a t e d on t h e upper and
7 lower s u r f a c e s of t h e wings were used i n conjunction with t h e landing
5 gear t o provide t h e a d d i t i o n a l drag required f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

To f u r t h e r reduce t h e e f f e c t i v e l i f t - d r a g r a t i o , t h e t h r o t t l e was
modified s o that when i d l e power was s e l e c t e d t h e a f t e r b u r n e r nozzle
was forced t o t h e full-open p o s i t i o n . This reduced t h e i d l e t h r u s t t o
s l i g h t l y l e s s than 200 pounds, compared with a normal idle thrrrst of
about 700 pounds.

Longitudinal and l a t e r a l c o n t r o l of t h e a i r p l a n e a r e provided by

elevons l o c a t e d on t h e t r a i l i n g edge o f t h e wing. D i r e c t i o n a l c o n t r o l
I . i s provided by a conventional rudder. Two completely independent
h y d r a u l i c systems operate t h e outboard elevons. The inboard elevons
a r e e l e c t r i c a l l y slaved t o t h e outboard elevons and a r e a c t u a t e d by
e l e c t r o h y d r a u l i c valves. Longitudinal-control f o r c e s a r e supplied
a r t i f i c i a l l y by a bungee and bobweight combination and a r e programed as
a f u n c t i o n of Wch number. Lateral-control f o r c e s a r e supplied a r t i f i -
c i a l l y by a bungee. The rudder i s operated by a h y d r a u l i c a l l y powered
system providing no e x t e r n a l f o r c e feedback. Pedal f o r c e s a r e supplied
a r t i f i c i a l l y with a bungee. N o a r t i f i c i a l damping was provided during
any of t h e maneuvers performed i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

INSTRUMEXCATION

No i n t e r n a l recording instruments were used during t h e t e s t s . A l l

f l i g h t d a t a presented were obtained from A i r Force F l i g h t Test Center
Askania c i n e t h e o d o l i t e cameras operating a t 1 frame per second. Three-
s t a t i o n s o l u t i o n s of t h e s e d a t a determined t h e a i r p l a n e p o s i t i o n i n
space a t any time. By d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e p o s i t i o n data, forward
v e l o c i t y and v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y were obtained. From a knowledge of a i r -
* plane forward v e l o c i t y , a l t i t u d e , and wind conditions, i n d i c a t e d a i r -
speeds were determined.
 .
4 -

TESTS

Before attempting any simulated landing

- or off-the-pad escape
~

maneuvers, a series of constant-speed, wings-level glides was performed

to ascertain the lift-drag-ratio variation with airspeed. Tests were
made at several engine power settings with only the gear extended and
with the gear and the speed brakes extended. For most of the maneuvers
discussed, the configuration consisted of gear and speed brakes in the
extended position and engine at idle power with the afterburner nozzle
open. H
2
The escape maneuvers were entered into by executing a high-speed 7
run about 1,000 feet above the ground in the clean configuration. At a 5
predetermined point, the pilot performed a pull-up. At the vertical-
attitude position, engine power was reduced to idle and the speed brakes
were extended. This position corresponds to glider auxiliary-booster-
rocket burnout and is where the simulation begins. As the pull-over
continued, the gear was extended at the gear-extension-limit speed
(260 KIAS). When the inverted, horizontal position was attained, the
pilot rolled the vehicle to the erect, level attitude, accelerated to
approach speed, and landed. Figure 3 aids in visualizing the relation
between this maneuver and the escape maneuver of a vertically launched
vehicle. This perspective sketch shows that the two trajectories merge
when the test airplane reaches the vertical attitude and when the glider's
.
booster rocket burns out; succeeding portions of the trajectories are
coincident. It should be noted that two different speeds were utilized
in the high-speed run, resulting in different speed and altitude combi-
nations at the vertical attitude, thereby simulating a variety of
auxiliary-booster-rocket capabilities.

To simulate the approach and landing maneuvers, a series of

360' '-spiral,overhead landing patterns was performed at speeds from
180 KIAS to 290 KIAS and bank angles from 30" to 60". Several straight-
in landing patterns were also performed at about 240 K I A S . All landings
executed by the five participating pilots were made on the lakebed of
Rogers Dry Lake at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

During most of the tests, the airplane canopy was fitted with an
amber Plexiglas mask cut out to provide the pilot with a field of vision
comparable to that of a currently proposed boost-glide vehicle. The
pilot, with a blue visor in place, could see only through the cut-Out
portions of the mask. With the visor raised, the pilot could utilize
the full field of view of the test aircraft.
 .
I 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For convenience of presentation, the results of the various phases

of this investigation are treated individually in the following dis-
cussion. First, the ranges of lift-drag ratios and angles of attack
utilized are noted and compared with corresponding values anticipated
for some hypersonic-glider vehicles. Succeeding subsections consider
the off-the-pad escape maneuver; the landing, both following escape and
during normal operations; the flare and touchdown; and the pilot's
H evaluation of the influence of cockpit visibility on his performance of
2 the various maneuvers. Because of the lack of on-board instrumentation
~7 and the importance of qualitative evaluation in the critical flight
~5 areas being studied, pilot comments are relied upon heavily throughout
this paper.

Glider Performance

The variations of angle of attack and effective lift-drag ratio

with lift coefficient for the test airplane with the gear and the speed
brakes extended, the engine at idle power setting, and the afterburner
nozzle open are presented in figure 4. The angle-of-attack data were
obtained from unpublished reports of the manufacturer's flight tests.
The effective lift-drag ratios were determined from data obtained during
constant-speed glides from an altitude of 20,000 feet to 5,000 feet by
utilizing the forward speed and the rate of descent to determine the
glide angle y . Also, the rate of change of true airspeed was readily
calculated, since the pilot flew a constant indicated airspeed during
the approaches. These quantities were then combined in the following
equation to obtain the effective lift-drag ratio

g
( L/D) =
g tan 7 - V

The average lift coefficient was determined as a function of wing

loading and the average dynamic pressure in the glides.

The faired data of figure 4 show that the peak lift-drag ratio
of 4.7 occurred at a lift coefficient of 0.38 and an angle of attack
of about 10'.

The trim angle-of-attack and effective lift-drag-ratio data from

figure 4 are presented in figure 5 as a function of indicated airspeed
at a wing loading of 36 lb/sq ft. For comparison, similar data for a
proposed boost-glide vehicle at a wing loading of 28 lb/sq ft are
6

included. The data for the two configurations are in good agreement,
which indicates that the test airplane should closely simulate the
performance of the proposed vehicle. In fact, the comparison is better
than achieved in the successful simulation of the X-15 airplane dis-
cussed in reference 1.

Off-the-Pad Escape Maneuver

More than 40 simulated off-the-pad escape maneuvers were accom-

plished during this phase of the study. The maneuver is preceded by a H
low-altitude, high-speed run followed by a pull-up to a vertical attitude. 2
At this point, power is reduced to idle and the speed brakes are extended. 7
The pull-over is continued, and the landing gear is lowered at approxi- 3
mately 260 KIAS. When a horizontal, but inverted, attitude is reached,
the pilot rolls to the erect, level attitude and accelerates to the
proper approach speed.

Two sets of conditions exemplifying typical auxiliary-boost-rocket

capabilities were considered. Figure 6 presents a typical trajectory
of a high-energy escape and landing maneuver, and figure 7 presents a
time history of the escape phase only. From an initial airspeed of
about 500 K I A S during the low-level run, a 3.5g pull-up is performed.
The vertical attitude is reached at an altitude of about 10,000 feet
with a speed of less than 400 K I A S . With the pull-over continued at a
reduced normal acceleration (approx. 2g), the peak altitude of
14,300 feet was realized with a speed of 1.72 K I A S about 32 seconds after
the initiation of the maneuver. The approach pattern was flown at
240 KIAS with an average bank angle of 30".

The trajectory and time history of a low-energy maneuver are

presented in figures 8 and 9, respectively. With an initial speed of
about 400 K I A S and a 4.5g pull-up, the airplane reaches the vertical
attitude at an altitude of about 5,000 feet with a speed of about
320 KIAS. Normal acceleration is again reduced to about 2g, and the
airplane goes "over the top" at an altitude of about 8,000 feet and an
airspeed of l5O K I A S . Although the approach pattern shown in figure 8
is flown at 240 KIAS, it is considered to be a much tighter pattern
than that of figure 6 because of the lower initial altitude on the
downwind leg of the pattern. There is also much less margin for error,
since little excess altitude is available anywhere around the pattern.
 .
I
* 7

The following t a b u l a t i o n summarizes t h e average c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e

I -
more t h a n 40 maneuvers performed:

L +
Simulated
Entry Over-the-t op
burnout point over
Vi, knots h, f t an, g Vi, knots h, f t an, g Vi, knots h, f t
525 1,000 3.5 400 9,500 a2.0 190 15,000

H
400 1,000 4.5 32.5 5,000 ~2.0 155 8, ooo
I 2
7
5
The p i l o t s reported t h a t t h e escape maneuvers, as performed i n t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , were not p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t o r taxing and showed no
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n handling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between t h e two t y p e s
of maneuvers flown. This opinion i s based upon t h e a b i l i t y of t h e p i l o t
t o place t h e a i r p l a n e on t h e downwind l e g of t h e p a t t e r n a t a more
p r e c i s e p o s i t i o n and energy l e v e l i n the escape maneuvers t h a n i s
normally a t t a i n e d i n power-off approaches.

Landing P a t t e r n s

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e landings performed a f t e r each escape maneuver,

a series of power-off landing approaches was performed over a speed
range from 180 KIAS t o 290 KIAS. S t r a i g h t - i n approaches as w e l l as
360°-spiral, overhead p a t t e r n s using from 30" t o 60" of bank angle were
made.

I n t h e s e approaches it i s most s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e p i l o t w a s
c o n s i s t e n t l y a b l e t o p o s i t i o n t h e aircraft a t t h e approach end of t h e
runway a t t h e proper landing speed. Also, a l l f i v e p a r t i c i p a t i n g p i l o t s
agreed t h a t a c i r c u l a r , overhead p a t t e r n s i m i l a r t o t h a t shown i n
f i g u r e 10 was easiest and most comfortable because it afforded a proper
balance of excess energy without an excessively l a r g e rate of descent.
This p a t t e r n ( f i g . lo), flown a t 240 KIAS with a bank angle between
30" and 40", i s entered a t a high-key a l t i t u d e of about 15,000 f e e t .
The average r a d i u s of t u r n was about 7,000 f e e t and r e s u l t e d i n a
downwind-leg a l t i t u d e of 8,000 f e e t and a base-leg a l t i t u d e of 3,500 f e e t .
The average r a t e of s i n k i n t h i s p a t t e r n was about 120 f t / s e c , and t h e
peak r a t e w a s about 140 f t / s e c .
i
I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e s e landing t e s t s showed t h a t , with an a l t i t u d e
of 7,000 f e e t and a l a t e r a l displacement of 2.5 n a u t i c a l m i l e s on t h e
downwind l e g of t h e p a t t e r n (as with t h e lower-energy off-the-pad
escape maneuvers), some i n d i c a t i o n s o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e p a t t e r n
 .
8

could be determined. A v e l o c i t y of 240 KIAS w a s flown i n t h e p a t t e r n s

so t h a t s u f f i c i e n t energy would be a v a i l a b l e t o s u c c e s s f u l l y execute
t h e f l a r e and touchdown. The combinations of geographic boundary
conditions and m i n i m u m f l y i n g speed required t h a t a bank angle of about
30" be u t i l i z e d . Any f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e i n speed would r e q u i r e increased
bank angles with reduced t r a n s i t times and increased p i l o t response,
thereby making t h e maneuver more taxing f o r t h e p i l o t .

A s i n t h e t e s t s of reference 2, t h e p i l o t s found t h a t t h e slower

approach speeds and s i n k r a t e s a s s o c i a t e d with a wing loading of
30 l b / s q f t t o 40 l b / s q f t r e s u l t e d i n more comfortable p a t t e r n s than H
experienced i n s i m i l a r t e s t s ( r e f . 3) using a v e h i c l e with a wing 2
loading near 80 l b / s q f t . 7
5
F l a r e and Touchdown

The advantages of low wing loading a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n t h e

execution of t h e f l a r e . The slow approach speeds and low r a t e s of
descent a v a i l a b l e with a low-wing-loading v e h i c l e allow t h e p i l o t t o
d e l a y t h e f l a r e t o a lower range of a l t i t u d e s where he can more accu-
r a t e l y judge h i s p o s i t i o n . The change of f l i g h t path during t h e f l a r e
w a s d e f i n i t e and t h e r a t e of l o s s of a i r s p e e d during t h e f l a r e w a s
s m a l l enough t o allow t h e p i l o t t o t a k e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n without
decelerating t o a dangerously low speed.

The time h i s t o r y of a t y p i c a l f l a r e maneuver i s presented i n

f i g u r e 11. The f l a r e - i n i t i a t i o n speed w a s 233 KIAS, and t h e a l t i t u d e
w a s about 500 f e e t . A t t h e completion of t h e f l a r e , t h e speed dimin-
ished t o 205 KIAS. A t t h i s p o i n t , approximately 10 seconds remained
f o r the f i n a l g l i d e and d e c e l e r a t i o n t o touchdown a t a speed of 174 KIAS.
During t h i s f i n a l f l o a t i n g phase, no a d d i t i o n a l drag could be added t o
t h e t e s t a i r p l a n e t o simulate t h e g e a r extension on t h e hypersonic
v e h i c l e . However, even i f average speed bleed-off of 3 knots/second
t o 4 knots/second could have been doubled i n t h e s e t e s t s , t h e t e s t a i r -
plane would b e i n a c l a s s with t h e X-13 ( s e e r e f . l), and t h e touchdown
maneuver s t i l l would not b e c r i t i c a l .

The average touchdown speed during t h e s e t e s t s w a s about 170 K I A S .

The r a t e of s i n k a t touchdown w a s l e s s t h a n 3 f t / s e c and averaged about
2 ft/sec . Touchdown l o n g i t u d i n a l d i s p e r s i o n s ranged between +1,200 f e e t
of t h e intended touchdown point, which i s similar t o t h a t measured with
.
t h e X-15 a i r p l a n e ( r e f . 1)
i
 .
9

P i l o t Vision-Field Simulation

During a p o r t i o n of t h e s e maneuvers, t h e t e s t - a i r p l a n e canopy was

r e s t r i c t e d t o g i v e t h e p i l o t a f i e l d of view comparable t o t h a t
a n t i c i p a t e d f o r a c u r r e n t l y proposed boost-glide v e h i c l e . Figure 12 i s
a n i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h e a i r p l a n e canopy f i t t e d with two d i f f e r e n t amber
P l e x i g l a s msks. With a b l u e v i s o r i n place, t h e p i l o t could see only
through cut-out p o r t i o n s of t h e mask; however, with t h e visor r a i s e d ,
t h e p i l o t w a s free t o u t i l i z e t h e view f i e l d normally a v a i l a b l e from
the t e s t aircraft.
H
2 The r e s t r i c t i o n of v i s i o n d i d not n o t i c e a b l y reduce t h e p i l o t ' s
7 high-altitude-navigation c a p a b i l i t y except when it w a s necessary t o
5 l o c a t e some geographical landmark d i r e c t l y beneath t h e a i r c r a f t . The
r e s t r i c t e d v i s i o n d i d cause considerable d i f f i c u l t y because of t h e l a c k
of a horizon r e f e r e n c e during t h e p o r t i o n of t h e escape maneuver from
t h e v e r t i c a l - a t t i t u d e p o s i t i o n t o t h e point where t h e horizon reappeared.
This segment of 3 t o 4 szconds extended throxgh a p p r e x b a t e l y 45" of
r o t a t i o n i n p i t c h . Once t h e horizon appeared during t h e pull-over, t h e
r e s t r i c t e d v i s i o n posed no added hardship, however. It was noticed that
t h e amber P l e x i g l a s without t h e v i s o r lowered was s u f f i c i e n t l y r e s t r i c -
t i v e t o cause a n o t i c e a b l e d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n t h e q u a l i t y of t h e maneuver.

Location of t h e high-key p o i n t was d i f f i c u l t with t h e r e s t r i c t e d

v i s i b i l i t y , s i n c e t h e v e h i c l e passed d i r e c t l y over t h i s p o i n t . Other
d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered on t h e downwind l e g of t h e approach
p a t t e r n where l a t e r a l v i s i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t , and during t h e 135" t o
4'3" segment p r i o r t o r o l l o u t of t h e t i g h t p a t t e r n s where a view through
t h e masked c o r n e r of t h e canopy was desired. Otherwise, v i s i o n w a s
adequate a f t e r t h e a i r c r a f t had a r r i v e d w i t h i n 45" of t h e runway heading
on t h e f i n a l approach and remained adequate throughout t h e f l a r e and
landing.

CONCLUSIONS

A delta-wing a i r p l a n e having a maximum e f f e c t i v e l i f t - d r a g r a t i o

of 4.7 w a s used t o perform a s e r i e s of subsonic, f l i g h t - s i m u l a t e d o f f -
the-pad escape and landing maneuvers o f a v e r t i c a l l y launched hypersonic
g l i d e r . From t h i s study t h e following conclusions can be made:

1. The off-the-pad escape maneuvers were not considered d i f f i c u l t

o r t a x i n g by t h e p i l o t and were such t h a t t h e p i l o t could p o s i t i o n t h e
a i r p l a n e on t h e downwind l e g more p r e c i s e l y t h a n he could i n normal
power-off approaches.
10

2. After performing a series of straight-in and circular, overhead

approaches, the pilots concluded that a circular pattern flown at
240 knots indicated airspeed was most desirable.
3. The flare maneuver was easy to judge and control. The touch-
down longitudinal dispersions could be kept within ?1,200 feet without
exceeding a touchdown rate of descent of 3 feet per second.

4. A reduction in the pilot's visibility from the cockpit did not

noticeably decrease his high-altitude-navigation capability except when
it was necessary to observe the terrain directly beneath the aircraft. H
However, portions of the off-the-pad escape maneuver and landing 2
approaches were adversely affected. 7
5
Flight Research Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Edwards, Calif., January 22, 1962.

REFERENCES

1. Matranga, Gene J.: Analysis of X-15 Landing Approach and Flare

Characteristics Determined From the First 30 Flights. NASA
TN D-1057, 1961.
2. Matranga, Gene J., and Menard, Joseph A.: Approach and Landing
Investigation at Lift-Drag Ratios of 3 to 4 Utilizing a Delta-Wing
Interceptor Airplane. NASA TM X-125, 1959.

3. Matranga, Gene J., and Armstrong, Neil A.: Approach and Landing
Investigation at Lift-Drag Ratios of 2 to 4 Utilizing a Straight-
Wing Fighter Airplane. NASA TM X-31, 1959.
 11

wing :
......................
A i r f o i l section, root W A 0005-1.1-306" (Modified)
......................
A i r f o i l section, t i p W A 0003-1.1-306° (Modified)
A r e a , s q f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
span, ft ....................................... 33.50
Mean aerodynamic chord, f t .............................. 18.25
Root chord, ft .................................... 25.08
Tip chord, ft ..................................... 8.33
Aspectratio ..................................... 2.02
Taperratio ...................................... .33
Sweep at leading edge, deg .............................. 52.50
Sweep a t quarter chord, deg .............................. 46.50
..............................
s e e p a t t r a i l i n g edge, deg 16.50
Incidence, deg .................................... 0
Dihedral,deg ..................................... 0
' Irn- Geometric twist, deg ................................. 0

c)J Outboard elevon:

X Area ( p e r s i d e ) , sq f t ................................ 24.26
S p n (normal t o fuselage reference l i n e ) , f t ..................... 11.73
Mean aerodynamic chord, f t .............................. 2.04
Mutimumdeflection, up, deg .............................. 40
Mutimum deflection, down, deg ............................. 20

Inboard elevon:
Area (per s i d e ) , sq f t ................................ 9.04
spm ( n o m a 1 t o fuselage reference l i n e ) , f t ..................... 2. j 5
Mean aerodynamic chord, f t .............................. 3.75
ELurimum deflection, up, deg .............................. 30
ELurimum deflection, dam, deg ............................. 5
Slat:
Area ( p e r s i d e ) , sq ft ................................ 7-96
Spn,ft . . . . . . . . . ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ . .
Mean aerodynamic chord, ft
4.56
1.10
S l a t chord/wing chord ................................. -13
Vertical tail:
A i r f o i l section, root. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nncn OOOj-l.l-256° (Modified)
.....................
A i r f o i l section, t i p WCA 0003.2-1.1-506° (Modified)
Area, s q f t ...................................... 69.07
Spn, ft ....................................... 9.46
Mean aerodynamic chord, ft .............................. 7.85
Aspect ratio ..................................... 1.28
Taper r a t i o ...................................... .46
Sgeepback of quarter chord, deg ............................ 48.22

Rudder :
Area, s q f t . . .................................... 9.29

. . . . . . . . . . .. ................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Span ( n o d t o fuselage reference l i n e ) , f t 6.26
Mean aerodynamic chord, f t 1.23

Upper-wing speed brakes :

Area (per s i d e ) , sq f t ................................ 3.26
S p n , ft ....................................... 2.38
Mutimum deflection, deg ................................ 45
Lower-wing speed brakes:
Area ( p e r s i d e ) , sq ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.26
S p n , ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.38
Mutimum deflection, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Fuselage:

Length, f t . . .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Frontal area, sq ft

Fineness r a t i o
18.70
53.80
7.86
Wetted area, sq ft .................................. 466

Test center-of -gravity location, percent mean aerodynamic chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Weight:
Gross, 1 b . ...................................... 26,100
m y , l b . . ..................................... 17,100
12

k
0

d
t
 .. .. -.,+
...
. ... .
....
.... .
..
0. 0.0 *.-e

14
.. ...
0
. a
. 0 . .
. e
0 ..e 0. 0..
0.

0.

n u-
 .... ..
0.
0

0 .
0.
. 0

0
0.0

0..
0 .

0.

0 .2 .4 .6
CL

Figure 4.- T r i m angle of a t t a c k and e f f e c t i v e l i f t - d r a g r a t i o as a

f u n c t i o n of l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e t e s t a i r p l a n e . Gear and
speed brakes extended; engine a t i d l e power w i t h a f t e r b u r n e r
nozzle open.
 a. 0.. . .
.
e a .a a. . . . ... 0.

16 J

Up 16

12

4
-L-- . \
1

(LID)'

0
120 I60 200 240 280 320
Vi, knots
Figure 5 . - T r i m angle of a t t a c k and e f f e c t i v e l i f t - d r a g r a t i o as a
function of i n d i c a t e d a i r s p e e d f o r t h e t e s t a i r p l a n e with a wing
loading of 36 l b / s q f t and t h e b o o s t - g l i d e v e h i c l e with a wing
loading of 28 l b / s q f t .
2x
.

Touchdown
/
0

Y1 f t

2 IO
4
d

20

h, f t

10 0 IO 20 30 x 103
x, ft
- Trajectory of typical high-energy off-the-pad escape and
Figure 6'.
landing maneuver. Initial Vi = 500 KIAS; glide Vi = 240 KIAS.
18 J

V i , knots

S t a r t of simulation

1
I
I

ft

2
t, sec

Figure 7.- Time history of typical high-energy off-the-pad escape

maneuver.
 .
U'

IC

Y, f t

IO

2c

h, f t

0 0 IO 20 lo3
x, ft
Figure 8.-Trajectory of typical low-energy off-the-pad escape and
landing maneuver. Initial Vi = 400 KIAS; glide Vi = 240 KIAS.

c: t
 0. ... :. -. . ..
0..

. 1.:.. .: ::
e..

..
0.

20 ::
0 . 0 :0 . 0 . .

0. 0.. 0.. 0. J

V i , knots

I
I
Start of simulation
I
I
I
I
I
I

-
h, f t

0 8 16 24
t, sec
Figure 9.- Time history of typical low-energy off-the-pad escape
maneuver.
.

4
c
21

Y, f t

IO
i
20

h, f t

IO 0 IO 20 lo3
x, f t
F i g u r e 10.- Typical landing p a t t e r n . Vi rr. 240 KIAS; angle of bank = 30";
g e a r and speed brakes extended and engine a t i d l e power with a f t e r -
b u r n e r nozzle open.
22

300-

Vi, knots 200

100

h, f t

Touchdown
1, sec

Figure 11.- Time h i s t o r y of t y p i c a l f l a r e maneuver.

 .
. 0. ..0 . . 0 0. 0. . eo. 0 0,. 0.

23

F i g u r e 12.- I l l u s t r a t i o n of a i r p l a n e canopy f i t t e d w i t h t w o d i f f e r e n t
amber Plexiglas masks.

NASA-Langley, 1962 H-275