NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI~E& FOR AERONAUTICS

TECHNICAL NOTE
+. --

_
..... . ---. .. , ..

, .-~ ~:._. -=;. -

No, 1094

.-

. ...

EXPERI1iENTAL DET271:LNATION OF TEEEUFH2TS OF l)~D~AL,-

.
G

VERTIC AL.T AIL AR2A, AND LIFT COEZFICIENT (2NLAT?ARAL - , . STABILITY AND CONE?(XL GEARX7YZRISTICS i, By Marion 0-KcKimey, Jr. Im@ey Memorial Aeronautical Lqbmetory Lqley Field$ V% -. -.-.+_ --

... ----: f , .-. . . . >. .. . .. . ---.._ ._

NATION&

ADVISORY COMM7XTElZ FOR AERC)NAUTICS TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 1.094

EXPERIMEWM.L

BETERMINATICN OF T:EE EE??TCTS OF DIECS12ML,

VERTICAI,=TAIL ARKA , A:f:) L IF~CCzF~IC IEl~T 0-:7 .JJAT~iUL STABILITY AN i)CONTROL CH MUG TZR1STICS By Marion O. McKfnney, Jr.

The effects of wifle variations of dihed?al, verticsls tail area, and lift coofficlent on lateral stability and control and on general flying characteristics kave been determined by fli~ht tests of a model in the Langley --free-flight tunnel. In order to vary the effective dihedral and directional stability of the model, the ~eometric dihedral angle was varied from .20 to 18 and the vertical-tail area, from O to ~~ psrcent of tli~ wing ares. The tests were made over a rang9 of liyt coeflicient from 0.5 to 1.8. T& best general fli~ht behavior was obt=inefl whan the effective dihedral angle was sr.all (a prox. 2 . Increasing the effective dihedral above 28 caused 1he flying characteristics to becozm worse bacause 0ft~i5 reduction in oscillator; stability and. the increased effect of a~verse yawin~ dae to rollin: and ailerons. AS the affective dihedr~ was decreased to -l~, t?~e moqel becama increasi.lSly iiffic~~lt to fly because of an increasing r~te of s:?iral div6Zg8nC~. Increasin5 the directional stability impr~ved the generalfii~ht characteristics b3 increasin~ the oscillatory stability and reduci~g the .atverse y~v:ing for positive eff=ctive dihedral angles and by reduc3ng the sideslipping and spiral instability for negative effectivb dihedral angles. Increasin& the lift coefficient had. a slightly detri. marital effect on general flight behavior, particularly for low values of directional stability. It is believed that the results of the tests can be interpreted. to iildic~te thst an alr~lane with a wing loading less than 35 pounds per square foot and with 7-. --

--

-.

.


NACA TN NO

1094

rolling and yawing radii. of gyr~tion not exceeding 0.2 and.O.5 of the wing spanz respectively, will have the ---best general flying characteristics if th6 effective dihedral is ~reater than zero hut not so great that the exceeds value of the effective-dihedral perar~eter -Cz P one-h..lf the valu6 of the directional-stsbility is greater parameter CnP providing the valuG of Cn ? than 0.0020.

*.

Tests of modern military airplanes have indic~ted that large changes in effecbive dihe2ral xay. occtu? over the speed range of an airplane o~erating under various power conditions. Wfs chang6 In @ff6ctive dihedral may cause an airplane that has n normal armunt of positive effectfve dihedre,l in the hi@.sp6ed condition to hav~ large ncgatlve effective dihedral M a flaps-down, lowspeed, high-power condition (wave-off or ls.ndin~-ap,proach condition), If an ~tte?npt is Kade to satisf~ the requirements of r6ference 1 that the-airplane have pasftfve affecti.v6 dihedral at all speGd,s~ it msy have excessive positive effective dihedral in the high-speed condition. Negativ~ 6ffective dihedral at low spaods and hiSh positive affective dihedral et high spe6ds. .qreknown to cnuse poor flying charact6ristf.cs, Unless the ditiectional stabili~ i.svery high or som6 d6viceJ iS emgloyed that --will give th6 airplane approxir.ately the same effective I dihedral at Gll speeds and power conditions~ howavcr, most hi.gh-powere.d. airvlanos must have poor flying charactcr~stics ~t one or the other af ths extreme speed conditions or must incorporate some coiriprom.ise that will probably not provi~e EOO13 flying chuact-eristics s.t either 6xtr6m6, coridit-ion. The data of references 2 to- )j. show the effect of variation of eff~ctivo dihedral angle on theflying characters tics. The ran~e of dihedral angle covered in these i.nvestigati.ons was ~ather small M comparison with the range of effective dihedral angle that may bo encountered with modern, hi.gh-powored airplanes, A comprehensive investi~ation of the effects of effec-tive dihedral, directional stability, and lift coefficient on lateral stability and control and on general flying characteristics has theref~re been conducted In the Langley

n
z

NACA TN NO

1094

free-flight tunnel. ~G objects of this, investig*ion were to determine t~~eoptimul~l combinations of dihedral and,directional stability over a wi~e range of lift coefficient and.to provtds fiata that wo-~ld aid in the selection of the proper dihedral angles for airplanes that must experience large changes of sffective dihedral over the speed and power ran~e, The results of the investigation are presented ~herein. Some of these re9ul.ts (negative dihedral at hiEh lift coef~icients ) are reported in rsference 5. The present investigatlan consisted in power-off flight tests of a mod61 on which changes in effective . dihedral were obtained by varying the .geomtric dihedrs.1 angle. The tests w6re m=de over a range of~eometric dihedral angle from -20 to 18 for vertical-tail ares.s from O to ~~ percent of the wfn.g area and for lift coefficients of O.~ and 1.0 with flaps up and 1.O.1 1.4, and 1.8 with flaps down. Sufficitint combinations of dihedral angle and vertical-tail area were testefl at each of the lift cosfficimts to determine the effect of fiihedral, vertical-tail .crba, 8*3 lift coefficient on laterel stability and ccmtrol and general fl~in& ch&actsristics over the rm.gc of the vmiables. . The results of th6 fli~ht t6shs of the rLcd61 are pr~scnted in the form of qualitative ratings of the spiral stability, oscillatory stability, an~ g.sneral flight behavior of bhe model for each test condition. From these qualitative fli~ht ratln~s the rr~ge of good flight behavior was established. SYMBOLS Iheforces and moments are referr6d to the stability ax6 s , which are Sefined as an orthogonal system of axes intersecting at tliecenter of gravity in which the Z-axis is in tineplane of symmetr~ and perpendicular to the relstive wind, the X-axis is in the plane of symmetry and perpendicular to the Z-axis, anfithe Y-exis is p6rpendjcul-r to the piano of symrietry. A dia.&am of th6se axes showing the positive direction of forces me moments is presented as figure 1.
,,

Thesymbols and coefficients report ars defined as follows:

used in the present

i$M A TN Xo mass of model, slugs wing area, square feet

1094
n

vertical-tail area, square feet wing span, feet free-stream velcmity, feet per second dynamic pressure, pounds per square foot &% @

time to damp to o~le-nalt amplitude, seconds; negative values indicate tzime to increase to double amplitude , period of lateral oscillation, seconds

radius of gyration of model about longitudinal -. J axis , feet radius of gyration of model about vertical axis, . . feetRouthls discriminant
.

.-

coefficients in st=bility quartic equation, given in reference 6 roots of stability quartlc equation yawing angular velocity, radians per second rolling anguI.&r velocity,- radians per second mass density of air, slugs per cubic foot angle of s~deslip, degree-s except where otherwise specified flight-path -gle, degrees; positive for climb line,
n

geometric dihedral angle of mean-thickness degrees airplane relative-densityf actor m () n,Sh ,y - -/

NAC A TN liO 1094

G b!

5 ~ psv () Lift

T CL Cy cl Cn Cyp (2Z P

time-conversion factor iift coefflcient

() T lateral-force coefficient rollin~-moment yawing-moment

Lateral force ( .qs ) coefficient (Rollir$z no~ent) \ / qso

coefficient

Yawing woaent qSb )

rate of change of lateral-force coefficient with angle of sideslip, per radi~ (@$ rate of change of rolling-moment .coefficientwith angle of sideslip, per degree excspt where otherwise specified (W+ rate of change of_yawing-moment coefficient with angle of sideslip, per degrea excapt where otherwise specified (~%@@) rate of change of rolling-moment coefficient with rolling-angular-velocity factor (W/a~) _

Cnp

Cz

c Zr

rate of change of rolling-moment yawing-angular-velocity factor

coefficient with (~c2/~*j

(&p

rate of change of yawing-moment rolling-angular-velocity

coefficient with W%) =:

factor

rate oicb.ange of yawing-moment .coefficient with yawing-angular-velocity factor (@#,~)

* APPARATUS XND XODEL The investigation was conductad flight tunnel, which is equipped for dynsmlc airplane models. A complete tunnel and its operation is given in in the Langley fr.eetesting free=--flying description of the reference 7. Force

NM A TITNO s 1094

tests to determine the static lateral-stability derivatives o.tthe model were made on the Langley free-fliXttunnel six-component bal&nce, which is described in reference 8. This balance rotates in yaw so that-all forces and moments are measured with respect to the stability axes. Free-oscillation tests were made to determine the rotary-damping derivative Cnr by the method described in reference ~. The control used on--free-flight-tunnel models Is a .~flickertt (full-on or full-off) system. During any one particular flight the control deflections in the full-on position are constant and the amount of control applied to the model is regulated by the length of tiriethe controls are held on rather than by the magnitude of the deflections used. A tliree-view drawing-of themodel used in the tests is shown as figure 2.and a photograph of the model is presented as figure 3. Figure 4 is a photograph of the model, with flaps down and a geometric dihedral oi-15, flying in the test section of the tunnel. Although the model used in the tests was not a scsle model of any particul= .airplane, it approximately represented . a ~-scsle model of any conventional fighter airplane. 10 The model was equipped with a duplex flap arrWgeThes e ment in order h obtain high lift coefficients, flaps consisted of a ,!+O-percent-cho.rd double slotted flap located inboard over 40 percent of the semlspan and a 20- ercent-ck.ord balanced split flap located outboard over & percent of the semispan. The frontand rear parts of the double slotted flap were deflected 3Q and 700, respectively, with respect to the wing chbrd line. The bal-ced split flap was deflected ~0 with its leading edge located 0.05 wing cho??dbelow thelowe~ surface of the wing and 0.10 wing chord -. ahead of the trailing edge of the wing. As previously mentioned, the effective dihedral was changed by altering the geometric dihedral angle of the wing, as indicated in figure 2. FOUE geometrically similar vertical tails and two end-plate vertical tails were used on the model to produce changes in directional stability.

-.

m
* .-

~~~A

TN

~T~

1o94

-. ..:

The relative-density I_ actor and radii of g-yration for the model varied during the test yrogra. between tb..e following limits : :&:::::::::::: kZ/b . 8.10 to 8.?2 :::::: 6.161 to O.IC!I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O..2@toO.2qO

_..

The data presented in references 4, 5, and l~indi~ate that changes- in w6iglht and moment 02 inertia of the magnitude invelved in the -present investigation would make no pronounced difference in the stability or flying characteristics of the rtodel. TESTS Scope of Tests Flight tests of. the model were made with the combinations of dihedral .ar@e and vertica-tail area and at the lift coefficient shown in table I. The-values of CLB and Cn~ corresponding to the various cotiigura- , ti&s tested- are shown in figures 5 and 6. These ~a~a - .-. show that the tests covered a range of cz~ from 0.0032 (-16 to 21 effective di~edral~ and a range % p from Clto 0.0066. This range Is considered . representative @ present limits for airplanes assh~wn by the data given in fi@Jre 7. These data show that three high-powered airplanes over their speed rangesfall within the rsnge of values covered by the present tes~s, except at extremely high lift coefficients,
to -0.0fl!+2

. .,

of

Testing Procedure
.

. .

.. . ..,. .~

The model was flown et each test condition by means of ailerons almne and ailerons coupled with rudder. The rudder travels used were selected by visual obi-ervation of flight tests as the amount necessary to eliminate the yawing due to aileron de~lectlon and rolling. Fnr tests in which the rudder control was crossed (left rudder . applied with right aileron and right rudder applied with left aileron), the rudder travel used was the same as

NM~ TN No. 1094

that used for coordinated rudder ~d aileron control at the same test condition, For the tail-off condition the ailerons were rigged up 12 In order to eliminate the adverse yawing due ta aileron deflection. The stability and general flying characteristics of the modelwere noted by the pilot from visual observation and each test condition was assigned graduated ratings for spiral stability, oscillatory stability, and general flightbehav~or. Motion-picture records for later study were made to supplement the pilot!s observations. The spiral stability of the model was determined by the pilot from the rate at which the model, with controls fixed, sideslipped ~d rolled from level flight. An increasing rate of ro~l~ng and inward sideslip was judged as spiral instability. The general oscillatory-stability characteristics were judged by the pilot from the damping of the lateral oscillations of the model after a disturbance. A model could never be allowed to fly with controls fixed for sufficient time to allow measurement of the period and damping from the motion-picture records. The general flight-behavior ratings are based on the over-all flying characteristics of the model. The ratings indicate the ease with which the model can be flown, both for straight and level flight and for performance of the mild maneuvers possible in the L&@ey free-flight tunnel. Any abnormal characteristics of the model me generally judged as unsatisfactory general flight behavior, inasmuch as they are disconcerting to-+hmfree-flight-tunnel pilmts , In effect, then, the general flight-behavior ratings are much the same as the pilotts opinion of an airplane and indicate whether stability and controllability are properly proportioned. CALCULATIONS
.

Boundaries for neutral spiral stability (E = O), neutral oscillatory stability (R = O), and neutral directional st-ability (D = O) were c.a.lculated over the test range by means of the stability equations ofreference 6 and are shown in ~igures 8 to 12.

NACA TN No. 1094

Lines of constant damping of the spiral mode were also calculated for the model by determining tb.e root of the stability quartic h that wouid give the desired value of damping by the following formula (reference 6): A= -o.693~ T

CZ~ and Cnp that would give tkis root h by substitution of the root in the stability quartic. The calculated lines of constant damping are shown In figures ~ ,to 12. Lines of constant period and damping uf the oscillatory mode were calculated from the following appraximate relations given in reference 6: --

and determining various values of

,=_?&
D and T = -0.6g5T

.-

___ - -.

P constant period.and damping of.. The calculated lines o. the lateral oscillation are shown in figures 8 to 12, Values of the static-laterel-stability derivaand the variation of c+ with Cn p used in Cy P P the calculations were determined from force tests of the model. As was previously mentioned, the values of the rotsry derivative Cktr were obtained from f%ee-oscill-ation tests of the model by the method described in reference 9, The other rotary derivatives Ctp, Cnpl ad Ctr were estimated from the charts ofreference 11 and the formulas of reference 12. The values of the mass characteristics m, Values cf the kX, and kZ were measured for the model. stability derivatives used in the calculations are given ..--.. in table 11. tive

._

10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NACA TN NO . 1094
.

P CnG were obtained in the present investigation by changin~ the geometric dihedral .a?@e and the vertical-tail area. Flying characteristics, however, depend onthe values or the stability derivatives, not on the method by which they are obtained; hence, the flying characteristics of the model may be applied to conditions in which changes in the stability derivatives were obtained by some other means, such as power. and di.recta~n al-stability parameter The principal re~ults or the present investigation are g~ven..in figures b to 14 tn the form of ratings of All flight the general flight behavior ofthe model. ratings not h parentheses were obtqinsd with. a total aileran deflection of;00; tlioj=~in par~ntheses were obtained with a total aileron deflection of 500. The maximum values of pb/2V corresponding to aileron defl6ctions-oT 30U. and 50 were determined to be about 0.08 and.0.12, respectively, from roll-offs at a geometric dihedral angle of 0, with the vertical tail having o Qt 0.15 and with coordinated rudder. These valuen of T pb/2V were approximately const~t over the range of lift coefficient covered in the tests. The results of the tests are beiieved tube directly applicable to airplanes having mo@erate wing loadings (Qpprox. 55lb\sq ft or less) and rolling and yawing radii .of gyration not exceeding 0.2 aznd0.3 of the wingspan, respectively. Spiral Stability In general, the tests showed tlnat reducing the effective dihedral or increasing the lift coefficient caused a reductian in spiral stability. The changes in sgiral stabi.li.ty over most of the r=lge tested wore slightj althcugh the spiral divergences were rapid enou at large negative effective dihedr&l angles_(xCZP< -0.Cl12 ? and high lirt coefficients CL > 1.0 to be considered ( ) dangerous. . a .

The variations of effective-dihedral parameter

Ct

4 .

NACA

TN No. 1094

11

These results are in qualitative agreement with the calculated spiral-stability characteristics of the model presented in figures 8 to 12 as lines of constant damping nf the spiral mode . These theoretical results, like the test results, show that reducing the effectivedihedral parameter -Czp or increasing the lift coefficient caused an increase in the time for the spiral mode to damp to one-half amplitude or a decrease in the time to increase to double amplitude over the range of conditions tested. Similarlyl the theoretical and experimental results show that Increasing the d$rectionalcaused a slight reduction in stability parameter Cn P spiral stability for positive ef~eotive dihedral angles and a slight increase in spiral stability for negative effective dihedral angles with very little effect of varying the directional stability for effective dihedral angles near zero. No quantitative check of theory with tests could be obtained inasmuch as a spiral ejvergence could not be allowed to develop far enough in the confines of the tunnel to permit measurement of the rate of spiral convergence. A reasonably good check of the calculated spiral-stability boundary (E = O) was obtained, however, when the nature of flight in the free-flight tunnel is considered. Very low rates of spiral stability cannot be detected in the tunnel because the model cannot be allowed to fly without application of controls in the rather gusty air of the tunnel for suffici.ent time to allow low rates of spiral divergence to be detected. Oscillatory Stability Accurate quantitative measurements af the dsmping could not be obtained for all conditions. The results are therefore presented in the form of qualitative ratings for damping at each test condition. The approximate qu~titative equivalents of these ratings are:

--

,:==_.

- -

12

NAC~ TN No. 1~94

Rat ing A B

Qualitative rating Stable Slightly stable Neutral Slightly unstable Dangerously unstable

Approximate quantit&tive equivalent Dwps to one-half smplitude in less than 2 cycles Danps to one-haif amplitude in more than 2 cycles Zero damping Builds up ta double ~plitude in more than 1 cycle Builds up to double smplitude in less than 1 cycle

c
D E

The ratings in figures ~.to 1.2..sho.w that-,. although increasing the lift coefficient reduced the oscillatory stability for virtually dll model configurations havingpositive effective dihedral, the magnitude of the reduction varied for the different combinations of effective dihedral and directional stability. lilgeneral, the effects oflift coefficien.t on the osclllatary dsmping were more pronounced with high effective dihedral and low directional stability. This variation in the magnitude oflitt-c~ffici.ent eff~cts was in good agreement with the vaiati.on shown by the shifting of the theoreticsLacillatmy-s Lability boundaries and lines 05--constant damping shown in figurgs ~ to 12. .4comparison of the theoretical oscillatory-st&bility bo~darles (R = O, T = ~) in figures 8 to 12 with the ratings for damping of the oscillation obtained in flight tests of the model indicates good agreement between theoretical andtest results for the part- of theboundary within.the positive dihedral .r~ge. Detection of a latwral oscillation is difficult when the spiral instability is great. Apparently, however, the part or t-he oscillatory-stability boundary within the ne~ative dihedral range had no significance or was in error inasmuch as no lateral oscillation could be detected attest conditions near the boundary.

13 Lateral Control Increasing the effective dihe@al caused a reduction in the effectiveness of the ailerons for roll-of~s from a zero-bank condition and an incre&se in the effec- tiveness of the ailerons for recoveries because ofthe sideslips involved in these maneuvers when the controls _-.. were coordinated in a normal manner. No measurements of this effect of dihedral on rolling velocity were made but the pilotts comments indicated that recoveries were __ more rapid than roll-offs at l&rge positive effective dihedral angles, whereas the roll-offs were r.uch more rapid than recoveries at all neg~tive effec<tive_ dihedral . .. .._ angles. Roll-offs-and recoveries appe=ed t-obe equall~~ rapid at small or moderate posit~ve effective dihedral angles. The over-all effect of dihedral on lateral control was adverse inssmuch as the slow recoveries at the negative dihedral angles were objectionable when the pilot attempted to prevent the model from falling off . into a spiral. and the slow roll-offs at high positive dihedral were objectionable for maneuvering. Use of only ailerons for lateral control caused the .flying characteristics at large positive dikedral angles to become worse as may be seen from a comparison of the general flight-behavior ratings of figures 13 and 1,4wi.ththose of !?igures 9 to 12. The adverse yawing in a.ile.ron. rolls caused an appreciable reduction in the rolling velocities In roll-o~fs, which the pilots considered objectionable . At negative effective dihedral angles, however, use of ailerons alone caused the rblling velocities In recoveries to be slightly more rs.pid thti if both ailerons and rudder were used. Much of this . -~ favorable effect of adverse yawing was lost, however, inasmuch as the pilots considered the yawzng mction objectionable. The differences between the rolling response OZ the model when controlled by ailerons alone or by ailerons and rudder were, of course; increased 8.t higher values of lift coe.fficient, which caused an increase in the adverse yawing. The effect of use of ailerons . alone for control with flaps deflected might be expected to be greater for most airplanes than was indicated by the preserit tests inasmuch es the ailerons used on the model give less adverse yawing moment tkan the types of . aileron generally used on full-scale airplanes. .. Control by means of rudder alone was generally fairly good for test configurations having an effective -

14
dihedral angle greater than 10

NACA TN ~~o 1094

G

-Ctp > 0.002). ~~n ( the effective dihedral angle was less. -than 10but greater than Oo, it was possible to pick up a low wing by means of rudder alone although control by rudder alone was not satisfactory. General .FlightmBehavlor The results of the tests are best summarized by the general flight-behavior ratings. Spiral stability, oscillatory stability, and controllability are all considered desirable but a proper balance of ~e.s? f.actors~.. with consideration of their relative tiPort&n.ce~ is necessary to give satisfactory flying characteristics. The general flight-behavior r~tings~ for which the overall flying characteristics have been considered, are therefore thought to be the most significant results of the tests. Effect of dihedral,- The general effect of variations of effective dihedral on the genera flight behavior 1s evident from the ratings of ~tg~es 8 to 140 Increasing or decreasing th effective dihedral frcm a moderate caused the general positive vslue -CJP = c1 to 0.001 r ) flight behavior to become-worse, particularly when the directional stability was low. The causes of the unclesirable general flight behavior In both the positive and different. negative effective dihedral P@es yere quite~. The oscillatory stability seemed to be the predominant factor affecting the general flight behavior within the range of positive effect-ive dihedrsl. This conclusion is fairly well borne out by the generd.flightbehavior ratings of figures 8 to 14.. These rat-ings show that the boundary regions of go~d, fai~l .or pooPgeneral ~light behavior are roughly similar in shape to the oscillatory-stability boundary and lines ofconstant damping of the ~scillatgry rnodej whereas these ratings in the spirally unstable regions--show no prono~ced adverse effect of spiral instability ~or posiiive e~fective-dihedral regions. Oscillatorily unstable configurations were generally considered to have poor general flight behavior although the model was never so oscillatorily unstable as to be unflyable when the directional stability was positive.
,

NAC A TN NO
.

1094

15

The oscillatory-stability cha~acteristics, however, were not the only factcrs affecting the general ~light behavior in th positive effective-dihedral. ragfcn. - Increasing the etfective dihedral angle cmmed the flying character~sti.cs to become worse because of the abrupt rolling ad lateral oscillations that followed each *t disturbance in the normally rou&h afii uf the tunnel &ndbecause of the adverse ef~ects of higln dihedral angles cn the lateral cor.trol. The rOlling oscillations resulting from ~sts were particularly object~onable at high airspeeds, whereas the contiaol characteristics were the more predominant CaU38 or the poor flyin~ ohWacter,., --- -.:istics at low spseds. . ..The rate of spiral divergence for the test conditions at wh].ch the r&odel had positive effectfve- dikedzzal was observed to be s~,!all foi~ the ran~e or lit% coefficient cuvorod in the present invest igation,- ~d--tl= control s-~ixed Iatersl motion wtis characterized by a slow gentle roll-off aridsides l.ip ironthe steady Statea The di.vei-gence could be controlled readily by occ~si~nal application of a total aileion deflection .of 30Undo r these conditions, the nodel. was as easy to -fly Qsif Lt had been spirslly stable and because oi the gusty _Qiy i-n the tunnel did not seem to require mope frequent- coritr-ol than iiit had been sli Ghtly spirally stable. - -----=-Within the rmgat ive a~ie ctive -dihedral rangy, P.owVL:C pr%d.ominant factor ever, the spiral stability WW3 afiectin~ tlze gerteral fli~ht behavj.ori and the eif~ cts of tho oscillatory stability wsre hardly discei+ii.blc. At s~~~l v~ueg o~ ~~gatj.v~ cffect~ve dihedp~~, fli~ht characteristics wer:, not nvch yors e than thoss at small values of positive cfficctive dih~dral and the slow spiral divergences wer~ readily controlled by appliThe Pate Of cation of the aileron and rudder controlss spiral divergenc9, .howcver, was fffund to becom l~.crcas ingl;r rapid witln ne Sative ef~ective di:hedral until, at an effective dihsdral of about -l~oz We divergence i~as quitm violcmt for lift coe~ficients of1 G C and ovor. As irLt% case of small positive eftectiva dihctiral, tho motions wore characterized by a roll-otf -d sideslip from steady flights As the negativ~ eifec hi%-edihqdrd. was incre ascd, the rat~ of spirsl div>rge~ce increasad Until$ for the largest negative dihedral angles, the notion appeared to be as rapid as a fast ai16ron rolls

. .

16

NACA TN ITo s 2.094

The controls had to be applied almost immediately after the divergence was noticed because, when there was only a slight lag in t~ application of corrective control following a disturbance, the unstable moments resulting from spiral instability becsm.e sufficiently large to overpower the moments of the controls so that return to straight flight was impossible. It was generally found impossible to fly the model with negative effective dihedral angles greater than about -10 -c~p z -0.002 with a total aileron deflec( ) tion of 300. The rate of-spiral divergence apparently had become great enough by the time the pilot applied opposite control to make recovery Impossible. Aileron application retarded but did not- stop the divergence. In order to obtain data for the whole test range, the total aileron deflection was increased from 300 to ~0 for almost all test conditions far which CL < -0.002. It was therefore possible to control the P spiral divergence over the complete range of negative dihedral angle. Flight was difficult, however, when because constant attention to the con-CZ* < -0.002, trols was required. The lar,gest negative effective dihedral angles -CL6 z -0.003~ seemed to be the maximum for which the ( modei could beflown with a total aileron deflection of 50, inasmuch as even slight delays in applying lateral control allowed the madel to continue_lto diverge. Many eras?.ss, therefore, occurred during th%.tests at ofabout -0.003M. valuea of -Czp The model was found to be unflyable at low lift coefficients with large negative effective CL = 05 ( ) dihedral angles and low directional stability. Such a condition is probably only of academic interest- ln!a~ much as theory indicates that the spiral instability is not so great- as for some conditions at which the model has been flown at hig~er lift-co-efficients; however, the cause of the bad flying characteristics seems to be worth mentioning. The tests agreed with theory in thatthe spiral instability was not so great at low lift coefficients as at higher lift coefficients. The yaw

-.

ITAOATN NO. 1094

17

of the model due to gust disturbances appeared to be tl+e -. . cause of the trouble. llhen the model yawed around due w to a wst disturb~ce the leading wing dropped very rapld !t--y, because of the high airspeed, and the roll had developed so f&r by the time the controls were applied that no recovery was possible. . . .-. - The general flight-behavior ratings in figures 8 to 12 were given when the rudder was coordinated with the ailerons in the normal manner (right rudder with right ailer?n). The flight tests, however, showed that when the ailerons alone were used cm even when the rudder control was crossed the flying characteristics of the model were improved throughout the negative dihedral range and the model was slightly easier to fly. This improvement evidently occurred because the sideslip resulting from adverse yawing opposed the inward angle of sideslip caused by the spiral divergence and, in spite of the adverse effect of rolling due to yawing, .reduc_e.d____ the rolling divergence. This reduction of inward sideslip improved the response to the controls. The large amplftude of the yawing motions causad by crossing the rudder control, however, was objectionable to the freeflight-tunnel pilots. Application of opposite rudder.. :..... with ailerons would probably be objectionable to the pilot of an airplane because it is an unnatural motion and would cause a loss of altitude. In a crucial moment; the pilot would probably react by ~plying coordinated rudder and aileron control rather than thinking to apply rudder opposite to the ailerons. A pilot might, however, be trained to apply no rudder with aleron contr~l when flying a??airplane in conditions that are known to give negative dihedral effect. Thus improve.r.ent in the control response for recovery may be obtained. The wave-off, take-off, and landing-approach conditions are believed to be dangerous for airplanes that have large negative effective dihedral because, when these conditions are encountered, there is only a limited altitude in which to apply corrective control. Flight with as much negative effective dihedral as was encountered in the present tests should be possible if the airplane ailerons are as p0W8rfUl as t~iose Of the. ___ model tested and careful attention is given to controlling the airplane. Flight with greater negative effective dihedr~ angles than were encountered in the preSent tests might be possible inasmuch as the rate of divergence of the airplane would be @ times as fast as

. - ..-

-. ---

.-

18

NACA TITNo. 1094

that af the model, where N is.the scale of the model as 1/10, 1/15, and- so forth. Nb. information is available, however, concerning the relative reaction time and the time to deflect the.controls for.free-flight and airplane pilots , Because no correlation has been made of time to damp with the boundaries of the region in which flight i.s impossible in the Langley free-flight tunnel, an extension of the results to more negative dihedral angles i-s difficult. Inasmuch as the rate af..spiral divergence of full-scale airplanes 1sslower tian that o~the model, however, it is believed that the amount of negative effective dihedral that-would constitute a dangerous condition would be greater for airplanes than for the model. The results of the tests have- bgen summarized in figure lj as boundaries of the region within which good general flight behavior of ths model was obtained. These results, as shown in figure 15, are believed to be directly applicable to airplanes having mass characteristics similar to the model. This criterion, hewever, should be modified to take into consideration differences in the mass characteristics of airplanes from those of the model. The data of-references 3, ~, and 10 may be used to interpret the present data f~r tb~eeffects of wing loadlng, altitude, and mass distribution. The results of the present tests may be applied directly to airplanes having moderate wing loadings and radii of gyration to Indicate that the effective dihedral should be greater than 0 and that the ratio of -CL tQ en,, ~ should not exceed 1/2. The data of references 3, 4) k and 10 considered together with the present data indicate that airplanes having high wing loadings and/or him radii of gyration should have m-effective dihedral angle greater than 0 -d that- the ratic of L~ to Cn~, should not exceed 1/4. Effect of directional stabilit .- Increasing the directional stability improved ~~ + ne general flight behavior of the model over the range of dihedral angle @id lift coefficient tested, as shown in figures 8 tu 1,4. The tests showed that for the range of small pcsltive effective dihedral angles, adequate directional stability was more desirable than the slightly lower rate of spiral divergence associated with lewer directional stability, because excess~ve y-awing was ericountired

. .
G

NA~A TN NO

1094

19

with low directional stability. The rates of spir8.1 divergence within the positive effective dihedral range were, as previously discussed, quite slow even with a high degree or directional stability. . . For higher positive values of effective dihedral, at which the oscillatory stability is sm important factor =fecting the general fllght behavior, increasing the directional stability caused a great improvement in the general flight behavior by increasing the.oscillatory stability as well as reducing the rolli~ and yawing due ~ to gusts and improving the control characteristic as--was previously discussed. The detrimental effect on general flight behavior of the slight decrease in spiral stability with increasing directional stability was thus F.eavily overbalanced by the tiprovemen$ of tineoscillatory characteristics and lateral cunii.rol, When the effective dihedral was negative, increasing the directional stability caused a slight reduction in the spiral instability as well as a reduction in the yawing due to gusts and aileron control and resulted in an improvement in the general flight behavior. The motions of the model with tails off, geometric dihedral angle of -20, and at lift coefficients of 1.4 and 1.8 appeared to be directional divergences. Imme diately after taking ~f~, the model CQW.enCed a divergence in yaw that was followed by rolling in the opposl~e direction caused by the negative dihedral. No other indications of directional divergence were observed in the tests with t-ailsoff although several tests were made at values of Czc and Cnn that were below the directional divergenc~ boundary: The minimum values of the directional-stability parsmeter Cn required to obtain good general flight F characteristics are shown in figure 15 for the r~ge of values of lift coefficient and effective-dihedral paranpter covered in the present tests. If an airplsne has the optimum value of effective dihedral and can attain a.maxim~m lift coef$icien~ of- ~~o-ut-1~8, afidif the critical control condition is considered to be control by ailerons alone, figure 15 shows that a value of cnfi> 0.002 is required to obtain good general flight befiavfor.

20

NM A TN !?0 . lc>~

Effect of lit% coefficient.- Figure 16 was prepared by interpolation from figu~es 8 to 12 to show the effects of lift coefficient on the general flight behavior inasmuch as the effect of lift coefficient w&s slight and col~ldnot readily be ascertained from an inspection Of the separate figures Figure lb shows that increasing the lift coefficient caused the general flight--behavior of the model to become slightly worse for the range of effective dihedral angle presented exceptfor the condition of negative effective dihedral and low directional stability, which h&s previously been discussed. The effect of lift coefficient was slightly greater at low values of the directional-stability parameter Cn.. The f detrimental effect af increasing the lift -coefficent was greater when the ailerons were used as the sole means of control, as may be determined from figures 13 to 16, because of the increase in adverse yawing due to rolling, and ailerons at the higher lift coefficient-s. CONCLUSIONS
.

Tests were made in the Langley free-flight tunnel to determine the effects c$ effective dihedral, vertical-tail area, and lift coefficient on the lateral stability and control and general flying ch&racteristics of a freeflying dynamic model. The following conclusions are believed to be directly applictible t-oairplanes having moderate wing loadings (approx. 35 lb/sq ft or less) and rolling and yawing radii of gyration not exceeding 0.2 and 0,~ of the wing span, respectively:
G

1. In order to obtain the best flying characteristics over the range of lift coefficient tested the following conditions should be-satisfied: (a) The effective dihedral parsmeter be positive -CL>O. ( ) P CZ~ should
.

.-

(b) The directional-stability parameter be greater than 0.002. (c) The ratio -Czppnp

CnP

should

should be less than 1/2.

-.

k.ACA TN No

1094

21

These criterions are believed to be applicable to airplanes having tiass characteristics siruil&r to those of tne model tested. 2. The model w&s found to be flyable over the range of posltlve effective dihedral angle tested, profilded it was directionally stable. As the effective dihedral was increased from an optimum value of &pproximately 2, however, the flying characteristics b9came worse and more critically dependent upon the ase of the correct amount of rudder control in conjunction with the ailerons. At high speeds the use of large rudder travels caused - unnaturally rapid rolling, and at Zow speeds the use of too little rudder caused serious adverse yawing with accompanying reduction in rolling. 3. The mcdel was found to be ~lyable for effective dihedral angles as low as -l~ for lift coefficients of ___ 1.0 or greater. As the effective dihedral was decreased from 0~ to -15, h,owevmr, the model became increasingly difficult to fly. ~;ith an effective dihedral or _150 -Czp< 0,003 the flying ch&racteristics were considered ) ( ~o be dangerofis because when there was only a slight lag in the application of corrective control following a disturbance, the unstable moments resulting from spiral instability became suf~iciently large to overpower the moments of the controls so that return to straight flight was Impossible. Inasmuch as full-scale airplanes because of their greater size will diverge at a slower rate than free-flight-tunnel models, the amount of negative effective dihedral that would constitute a dar,gerous condition is expected to be greater for full-scale airpl~nes. ke Increasing the d~rectionai stability improved the general flight behavior over the entire dihedral range in spite of reduction in spiral stability with increasing directional staoility within the positive effective dihedral range.
.

.-

--

..-

~ . Increasing the lift coeff icfent h&d a slightly detrimental effect on the general flight behavior, particularly when the ailerons were used-as the snle later&l

22

NAcA TN No o 1C54.
.

control because the adverse yawing due to rolling and ailerons was Increesed by an increase in lift coefficient.

Langley

Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory National AdVi90ry Committee Ior Aeronautics Langley Field~ Vs., Jaum?y 18, 1946

...

. ,.

1. Gilruth, R. R.: Requirements for Satisfactory, ~lying @alities of Airplanes. NACA ACR, April 1941. . 1943. ) (Classification changed to Restricted Ott. 2. Weick, Fred E., Soule~ Hartley A., and Gough, Melvin N. : A Fli@t Investigation of the Lateral Control Characteristics of Short wide Ailerons and Various Spoilers with Different .Amounts of \Ving Dihedral. NACA Rep. No. 45&, 1?34. 3. Campbell, John P. , and Seacord, Charles L., Jr.: Effect of Wing Loading and .A1.titude on Lateral stability and Control Characteristics of ariAir-plane as Determined by Tests of a Nodel in the Free-Flight Tunnel. NACA ARR NO. 3F25, 19/!+3.

-.

~. Campbell, John P., and Seacord, Charles L., Jr. : The Effect of Mass Distribution on the Lateral Stability amd Control Characteristics of an Airplane as Determined by Tests of a Model in the Free-Flight ~~ne 1. NACA ARR No. 3H31, 19~3 . 5. McKinney, Marion O., Jr.: Experimental Determination of tb.eEffect of Negative Dihedral on Lateral Sta-- bility and Control Characteristics at High Lift Coefficients . NACA ARR ~!O. L5J02, 19~. 6. Zimmerman, Charles H.: An Analysis of Lateral Stability in Power-Off Flight with Charts for Use in Design. NACA Rep. No. 589, 1937.

-.

~. Shortal., Joseph A., and Osterhout, Clayton J.: Preliminary Stabillty and Control Tests in the NACA Free-Flight Tunnel and Correlation with FullScale Flight Tests. NASA TN NO, 810, :941. =8.
.

ShOrtal, Joseph A., and Draper, John Vi.: Free-FiightTunnel Investigation of the Effect of the Fuselage Length and the Aspect Ratio an~ Size of the Vertical Taii @n Lateral Stability and Control. NACA A-RR No. 3D17, 1943.

9. Canpbell, John P. , and Mathews, Ward O. : Experimental Determination of the Yawing Moment Due t-o Yawing Contributed by the iving,Fuselage, and Vertical Tail of a Midwirig Airplane Model. NACA
kFiR NO. 3F28, 1943.

10. Bryant, L. W., and pugsley, A. G.: The Lateral Stabilit of Highly Loaded ~e~oplanes . R. i? M, No. 1540, British A. R. C,, 1938. 11. Pearson, Henry A.j and Jones, Robert T. : Theoretlca~ Stability and Control Characteristics of Wings with Various Amounts ofTaper and Twist. NACA Rep. No. 635, 1938. 12. Bsmber, tiillard J.: Effect of Some Present=l)ay Airplae Design Trends on Requirements for Lateral Stability. NACA TN NO. 814, 19@.

--.

NACA TN No. 1094

Fig. 1

NATIONAL COPIMTTEE

ADVISORY FOR AERONAUTICS

. .

figure /. - Sysf em of s+abili+ y axes. ca+e posI A ve dlmc+lom of mments, conhl - su#C%ce de fk+lona.

Arrows indl forces ~ and

Fig. 2

NACA TN No. 1094

. ..

.
,0

. ,,

,.
*
d. .,}

40~1

-J

7WS 5and6

..

,
,h:, ~<

.,,>

+Sc Z,r
=

./
Tell +nflI 3 82 a?. .

.. .

.)+ a.

.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMUITIEE FM AERONAUTICS

P .=

8 ... -. .<;

F/gure 2- Three- view sketch of model tes}ed )n .Lon /ey free - fhgh! bine/ showtng runge of dheord o~us ! med and d}ernaf e verfical- }uI/ arrung em ents. ,

,= -,.

*
.,/
G 

I
1

z
P

o .

o a
I@

Figure s.- Three-quarter front view of the variable-dihedral model with vertical tails 30 percent Of Wing area. l?lapsdown.
w

Fig. 4 NACA TN No. 1094

.-,-

Figure A.- Variable-dihedral model flying in-the Langley free-flight tunnel with -15 dihedral.

NACA TN NQ. t1094 .

Fig. 5a,b

.m
.U4 R

0 %U6

+x

-,LU2

.U2?

.004

d%

Eflecfived/hedr~/ pmmeter,

-Clfi, paerd~
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMHITTEE FORAERONAUTICS

figure

5.

VOhs

of ~p

combmutiom

of d]hz?!ul

Cnfl for the mcziel wjth wrmus ungk ud Yepzky-fail drd. F/ups up.
d~~

Fig. 6a-c

NACA TN No. 1094

figtire 6.-Values of48 ad ~B for the modelwith~mous combmtiom of d~hedrul offg/e md Yert/cu/-tuil ureaiiapdom

?11

Fig. 8
.029 1
I

0 Mg + Pid. 7=-2 --s T=oo DQQ J j / / D ~

I DAD - -c

)94 NACA TN No. 1(

.a%

T;5 / A

Lines of Ccv?stw?t dumyw?g of the spw/ mode WI Splmf-shwlty rut}ngs A B C D E Stable Sltght/y stobie Neutrwl . 31Jght& unstoble llmgews~ w?.stubk

.ax

\ D
+, =. .

.a2

~ I
A ,/

A
A

so
&WJ \

Ones of constant
pnoo and

aampfng

Fiu \ $ Q .02% P=1 -- -A g Lvz ~ * \ s GO

AAA

~ A A

of tie owlknory mode Cm oscillatory-~obd~ty mtlngs A Stub/e

B S1/ght~ stubk
C Neutral 0 Sl@t& unstable E @ngemus&un.stuble

I
It, r

I Illluhm
1

c.

t I

tiab//)i-y boundaries md @?neru/fllght-bahlmv rutmgs A B D Good Fuw Poor F1/ghtmyzss/ble

.
NATIONAL ADVISORY IxWNITTES ~ AEAOIAAUllcs

W-t-ta7 r+
I

I
!
,

A
,,. /# --

B+,

.022
I l, Y-

i -,

%+5

-.4 -Do? a. .52? .GW E#ecz/ve-dih.edrwl pmzmete~ +&, per Ay

.m roi?ngs fir fh? tip; @O, 5.

figure 8.- Sfub~l~~ und generql fllght-behowor mode/. Gwtro/ by av&oAs cwdrimt?br; f/op

NACA TN No. 1094 1

Fig. 9

a-z?
,(2%

T=;/

\ .034 \
\ 9 -

Lmsofcomtunt damp}q of the qvro/ mode and spmldabdity rwtmgs A B C D E tWb/e Slightly stubie A4tutr01 Sltght& umtt2tYe Duqen@ wshz~e

.@2 %0 $%

Lfnes of constunt jwwiano duzq.p)nj of the ~Jtory mwi? osclliQtwy-stabl@Y ratings

A
B C

D
E

Stable Shghf@ StUbb Neutruf Shghtfy unsfuble i27~r0u5YyuMaAe

.

-am [i
m
,. ,.. \ . \ ?,

gkwwl fllght-bebavw ratings

Gmd

B c D

Fufr Pam Fhghtfmxwble

NATION.U
mMMITmE

. AbVISORY
Fm AIROHAUrKS

%6

:Co4

422

figure q , Stab//ity ma general fllght-behovlor m5wgs for z%e mocie/. Control by uderons und riddw; flops up; ~=l.o.

Fig. 10

NACA TN No. 1094

.
I
I I I I I I I I 1 I 1

mr

1117-=?

1117=-211111

Lines of constunt damping ~f the qvrul mod? und spwa)-dalvhty rzz?n~

G 

A B

Stable
SJf9htjyStOL&e

m
o
@98 I I I I I

C D E ()

Neutrul S1/ghz7yunstable &zgera@ U.ZMJ4 Wz71akrofl z%ukel krease~ 30~0 60

Lmas of constunt perlodunddompmg of the asciltutoryma+? and oscWzory&ob/dy Yiatlflffs

) fhi:k

1 I

I A
:

Stob~e SJ:MI){ stable

.

D .Wghtly umtable E Dangerouslyomifubk ( J ZZz71 Qllerm iruvel

mreased, 300f0

60

&.Lw
.094
I

S,

t5tub//ty bowdurjes und general fljgh$behavor rfftmqs A B C D 6000 Fum Poor Fhght ~mposwble

.&%

L %%

-.004 7002
Eflectwe-d/hed)w/

0
purzvmete~ Lip, Wd@

NATIONAL

ADVISORY

COMMllTff FM ASIIIJMAUTICS

F/gure /0 . StiUWIty and genera} fllght-tiwor mtmgs for the model. Gnfrol by alemm afld rvddeC flops down; ~=AO.

NACA TN No. 1094

Fig. 11

--77H
Lines of constant period and dampmg of the Osu/lutorym&e and Osclllatiwyatabihty ruiwgs
A Stoble B SIIght~ S2t7b/.4 C Neutral R Sllght~ unsfable E Donj7efvkIsiy wxtff~e ( ) Gtol c7&40 i?%til

% k

111

[17.1 I I

t %1

!-Al. c1 I

I I

Ill I

wd--k=&-!
I

mcreaseaj 3Dt0 I i
StabMiy boundorles and general fl@&bdzww rotmgs
I . ..

64

I
.

I I /r] !_.

#f& A B: p
A-

A B
D

Good

FOK Poor Fl\ght im.oossMe ?&W 071%9 z)-wel increme@J 30 to @

NATIONAL ADVISORY
FW AMONAUWS

I
:Co4

IR=oc%% L) &
434 7d2z

()

,tITP5E

B-

03-

? .acz

.524

.m 6

COMMITTSS

FigOre 1/ . StabIhty und gwetw/ fight-A?hawor ratu?gs for the model, Co@ro/ by tzoerons dwwdder; f/c@s Ob)im; ~=14 .
.

Fig. 12

NACA TN No. 1094

Lines of constant oumpq of the Splruln?oo!e and spJlw/-stoblhty rotwgs A 6 C D E () StablG Sllghtly Sfm$le Neutral Sllght/y unst.obk LWgmavjtuz?shble
T&/a&ton Z%nd //-zn7?@& J@& &j~

Lines of Cons.tunt peflod Ond Ompmg of z%e oscdlatwjmcde and oscd)atory-stob}hty ratln~ A 0 c : )
G

A 6 c D ( )

Gcd Faw Pm/ f71ght )mpowbk 7bh71 ujlerm twvel JMA%.Wd~ 30 to 60

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTES m AEROUAUTKS

Ei%?etwe->V?et#rol pzrffmete< -Gp,

perof?g

figure /Zi 5utvlIty

n7t9dW. ConzW &

und genww/ tight-behowor rotmgs for the. u/lerMs &Mde~ flops dow~; G=A8.

NACA TN No. 1094

Fig. 13

Figure

/3 . Generffl fl~ght-hhuv~or r~kmgs b. the model. Con tirol hy ffllerons olone; flops up.

Fig. 14

NACA TN No. 1094

6enera/ flight-behww ratings

A B. (boo

c
D

FuIr Pcw Flight lmposslb)e

&

.,

NATIONAL ADVISORY mMMmEE FIX AEADNAUTICS

~~

W4 ,LU2 X424 w? o Ef?fectwi+dheo!rd purumeter, ~fl, per deg

.0%

Figure

/4. Gemro/ flight-behovzw mtmgs fir themode/. Conz9Vl by ajlerom Aone; f/ups down.

NACA TN No. 1094

Fig. 15a,b

.-J

-Y
I. J/.

2
\

oderonsonuruuoer
e

Alll

l=

/.81

I A//.4

I /c/l/

/.0

I I

&.a22 & g
~u I
I
I I I

,
I I

,
I

!/

1/1

,,

0 ,5
-

.Loz

/
o
I

4~

F1

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTS

%
figure

/5 .
-.

oetenmeo

.,

Fig. 16a-c

NACA TN No. 1094

Geflerul flighf-behuvzw A Good

ruh!!gs

c
D

/%Q/r POOP F/IgM mpossdle

.4

.6

./3

LO

L2

14

1.6

Oft coefflcien~

CL

NATIONAL ADVISORY CONMITTES~ ASROMAUTKS

F/gure [6.- E#ect of //ft coeflicietion genml Ailerom und wdderused for cunfd

t%ghz behuviofl

EDnroao (BICXT)

1 DIVISION: Aerodynamics (2) OBIG. AGENCY NUMBEB MeKinney, M. 0. IsECTION: Stability and Control (1) TN- 109i| j I CROSS BEFEBENCES. Lateral stability (5li5^9-7); Air1 planes - Control characteristics (06393) REVISION 1 AUTHOa(S) Experimental determination of the effects of dihedral, vertical-tail area, and lift coefficient on lateral stability end control characteristica FOBG'N. TITLEi ORIGINATING AGENCY: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D. C. TRANSLATION: COUNTRY LANGUAGE |FOBG'N.CLASS| U. SXXASS. DATE PAGES ILLUS. FEATURES Eng. u. s. Unclass. Jul 'Ij6 i|0 16 photos, diagra, graphs

lAtfO- 7253

An airplane model was tested in Langley free-flight tunnel over range of lift coefficients from 0.5 to 1.3- Geometrical dihedral an^le varied from -20 to 18 and vertical tail area from 0 to }$% of wing area. Best results were obtained with effective dihedral angle about E. With angle above 2, flying characteristics became worse. With angle decreased to -15, model became increasingly difficult to fly. Increasing lift coefficient had detrimental effect on flying characteristics. .NOTEi Hequests for copies of this report must be eddressod to: Washington, D. C.
AlR
"DKHNICAI DNDEX

N.A.C.A.,

T-2. HQ, AIR MATERIEL COMMAND

WRIGHT FIELD, OHIO. USAAF

t^o-JI HAG 47 tr=3