https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19930093736 2018-02-16T16:09:22+00:00Z
NACA RM L53I22c

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITFEE FOR AERONAUTICS

RESEARCH MEMORANDUM

PRESSURE DRAG OF BODES AT MACH NUMBERS UP TO 2.0

By Robert L. Nelson and W i l l i a m E. Stoney, Jr..

The drag of bodies has now assumed g r e a t e r importance because, as

shown i n references 1 and 2, t h e transonic drag r i s e of an airplane can
be t h e same as i t s equivalent body. Obviously, the airplane designer
would l i k e h i s airplane t o have a low-drag equivalent body. This paper
shows some of t h e f a c t o r s which minimize the drag of bodies a t transonic
and supersonic speeds and shows some of the p e n a l t i e s caused by deviating
from low-drag body shapes.

Drag reductions can be obtained i n two ways, f i r s t , through

increasing t h e body fineness r a t i o , and second, through b e t t e r shaping
of t h e body p r o f i l e a t a given fineness r a t i o . The e f f e c t s of fineness
r a t i o are discussed f i r s t and then, more completely, detail-shape e f f e c t s .

Largest reductions i n body drag r e s u l t from increases i n body

fineness r a t i o ab i s shown i n f i g u r e 1. In f i g u r e 1 t h e v a r i a t i o n of
airplane drag v i t h equivalent-body fineness r a t i o a t M = 1.05 i s
p l o t t e d . In osder t o do t h i s t h e pressure drag of an airplane i s
assumed t o be t h e same as t h a t of i t s equivalent body and CD i s based
on wing area i r order t o get the r e s u l t s i n more f a m i l i a r terms. For
the calculations, airplane volume and wing a r e a are assumed t o be con-
s t a n t . The values used a r e representative of a bomber-type a i r p l a n e .
The d a t a points a r e from f r e e - f l i g h t model t e s t s of parabolic bodies
having d i f f e r e n t maximum-diameter positions and base s i z e s ( r e f s . 3 and
4 ) . The curve simp%: connects t h e lower drag points. The difference
between t h e total-drag curve and t h e friction-drag curve represents t h e
minimum pressure b . a g f o r a given volume and fineness r a t i o f o r these
body shapes. The minin~umtotal-drag curve shows t h e . l a r g e reduction i n
airplane drag ob-kained with an increase i n equivalent-body fineness
r a t i o . Largest red zctions i n drag occur a t fineness r a t i o s below 12
and t h e minimum drag occurs a t about a fineness r a t i o of 24. This value
w i l l change sanewhav f o r other Mach numbers and Reynolds nlunbers . Care-
f u l a t t e n t i o n must be given t o t h e nose and afterbody components which
make up t h e body as indicated by t h e spread of t e s t p o i n t s a t a given
fineness r a t i o . Although not shown i n f i g u r e 1, two wing-body configura-
t i o n s from reference 5 had approximately the same r a t i o of volume t o
wing area as t h a t f o r the configurations represented i n t h i s p l o t . One
configuration, of fineness r a t i o 6.5, had a CD of 0.036 while t h e other,
having an equivalent-body fineness r a t i o of 9 and a b e t t e r shape, had a
2 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM L33122c

CD of 0.022. This e f f e c t of fineness r a t i o and t h e l e v e l of drag there-

f o r e i s v e r i f i e d by t h e a c t u a l wing-body t e s t s . The prime importance of
fineness r a t i o on drag has been shown and t h e problem i s now analyzed i n
more d e t a i l .

In f i g u r e 2 i s shown t h e breakdown of a t y p i c a l curve of drag coef-

f i c i e n t p l o t t e d against Mach number f o r a body neglecting base drag.
For bodies with bases, the base drag can be calculated by using t h e
r e s u l t s of Love, Chapman, Cortrigh't and Schroeder ( r e f s . 6 t o 8), and
o t h e r s . The f r i c t i o n drag can be calculated by the usual methods. The
supersonic pressure drag f o r good bodies can be calculated a t Mach num-
b e r s above t h a t f o r shock attachment b by t h e second-order theory of
Van Dyke ( r e f . 9). This paper considem mainly t h e range of Mach number
below Ms, where t h e problem i s d i f f i c u l t t o analyze t h e o r e t i c a l l y .
This range i s defined by t h e Mach number f o r peak drag Mp and t h e drag-
r i s e Mach number MDR.

Figure 3 shows c o r r e l a t i o n s of drag-rise and peak-drag Mach numbers

f o r a number of parabolic bodies ( r e f s . 3 and 4 ) . For the upper s e r i e s
of t e s t p o i n t s t h e Mach number f o r peak drag i s p l o t t e d against nose
fineness r a t i o . The curve shown i s t h e Mach number f o r shock attachment
t o parabolic noses. The curve and t h e t e s t points show t h e same general
trend and i n d i c a t e t h e dependence of t h e Mach number f o r peak drag on
t h e Mach number f o r shock attachment.

For t h e lower s e r i e s of t e s t points, t h e drag-rise Mach number i s

p l o t t e d against t h e nose o r afterbody fineness r a t i o , whichever i s t h e
l e a s t . The nose and afterbody t e s t points f a l l within t h e same band
and i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e drag-rise Mach number may be determined by e i t h e r
t h e nose o r afterbody and i s dependent mainly on fineness r a t i o .

Before discussing t h e peak drag of bodies, an examination i s made

of some of the e f f e c t s of nose shape on drag a t various Mach numbers.
Figure 4 shows t h e drags of a number of fineness-ratio-3 noses. Although
drags a t t h i s fineness r a t i o a r e r e l a t i v e l y high, t h i s fineness r a t i o was
chosen so t h a t t h e drag increments between t h e d i f f e r e n t shapes were more
e a s i l y measurable. The r e s u l t s are presented i n bar-graph form a t
M = 1.05, 1.24, and 2.0. The nose shapes include the cone, t h e parabolic
nose having i t s vertex a t m a x i m diameter, the L-Y Haack nose (designed
f o r minimum drag f o r a given volume and l e n g t h ) , t h e hypersonic optimum
I ,

o r x3/4 nose, t h e Von Karman nose (designed f o r minimum drag f o r a

given length and diameter), and t h e x1/2 nose (which i s a parabolic
nose having i t s vertex a t t h e t i p ) . A t M = 1.05, t h e r e s u l t s a r e from
f r e e - f l i g h t model t e s t s from t h e Langley helium gun ( a t t h e t e s t i n g s t a -
t i o n a t Wallops Island, Va. ); a t M = 1.24 and 2.0, t h e r e s u l t s a r e from
t h e Ames 1- by 3-foot supersonic tunnel ( r e f . 10) except f o r t h e parabolic
nose. For t h e parabolic nose, t h e r e s u l t s a r e from second-order theory.

CONFIDEM! IAL
NACA RM L53122c C O W IDENTIAL 3

At M = 1.05, the x1/2 nose, which has a relatively blunt tip, has the
least drag and is followed by the Von ~&m& nose. At M = 1.24, the
same result holds true. At M = 2, the hypersonic optimum nose has the
least drag. This result also holds true at Mach numbers greater than 2.
The x1l2 nose at M = 2 has higher drag as a result of its blunt tip.

Although the Von K

& nose has good drag characteristics over the
Mach number range tested, it inust be remembered that this nose was
derived for vanishing thickness. For finite thickness, this slender-
body-theory result does not apply. Recent work at the Langley Laboratory
has solved the minimum-drag problem for finite thickness by using linear-
ized theory. The resulting nose shapes have finite slopes at their maxi-
mum diameters.
Another indication that noses with finite slope at maximum diameter
can have lover drag than noses with zero slope at maximum diameter is
shown by some results for a family of noses generated by parabolic arcs.
In figure 5 the nose pressure-drag coefficient is plotted against the
shape parameter K which is related to the slope of the nose at maximum
diameter. For K = 1, the parabolic nose has zero slope at maximum
diameter. Reducing K gives slope at maximum diameter and for K = 0,
the result is a cone. Both helium-gun tests at M = 1.2 and second-
order theory at M = 1.4 show the same trend; therefore, minimum drag
in the vicinity of K = 0.7 is indicated. This result indicates that,
for parabolic noses, removing the restriction of zero slope at maximum
diameter has resulted in a reduction in nose drag. For complete bodies,
the reduction of nose drag by the use of such shapes may be offset by a
greater interference drag of the nose on the afterbody.

In order to obtain an explanation of this drag reduction, the

geometrical changes in the noses with a change in the shape parameter K
have been examined. Examination of the nose profile shapes and the nose
area distributions yielded no significant clues. However, the slopes of
the nose-area-distribution curves give an important result as is shown
in figure 6.

The nondimensional slope of the nose area distribution is plotted

against nose station x/2 for a number of values of K. Note that in
going from K = 1.0 to 0.75, the peak slope of the area distribution
curve is reduced, whereas a further decrease of K to 0.5 and to 0
causes an increase in the peak slope; therefore, the lowest drag nose
has the lowest peak slope. In figure 5 is also shown the drag value
at M = 1.2 for the x 2 nose, which had the lowest drag at low super-
sonic speeds of all the noses presented earlier. The slope of the area-
distribution curve for the x1l2 nose is the lowest value possible and
is constant as is shown in figure 6. Thus, from this experimental and
theoretical study of the effect of nose shape on drag, the peak slope of
the areasdistribution curve is seen to be an important parameter which
4 C ONF ]DENT IAL NACA RM LfS3122c

influences t h e drag a t low supersonic speeds. This parameter has l e s s

importance a t higher Mach numbers since the x314 nose with a r e l a t i v e l y
high peak slope had t h e l e a s t drag a t M = 2.

A c o r r e l a t i o n of t h e peak drag of bodies using as p a r t of t h e correla-

t i o n parameter a function which i s proportional t o t h e slope of t o t a l b o d y -
area-distribution curve has been made.

Figure 7 shows 39 body shapes included i n the drag c o r r e l a t i o n f o r

smooth bodies. The bodies have d i f f e r e n t fineness r a t i o s , maximum-
diameter locations, base s i z e s , and p r o f i l e shapes. In f i g u r e 8 t h e
peak pressure-drag c o e f f i c i e n t i s p l o t t e d against a shape parameter which
includes t h e function f which i s r e l a t e d t o the slope of t h e body-area-
d i s t r i b u t i o n curve, the base-diameter r a t i o , and an effective-body fine-
ness r a t i o , which neglects any p a r a l l e l portion of t h e body. The neglect
of t h i s c y l i n d r i c a l section presupposes small interference e f f e c t s between
t h e nose and afterbody. The drags of a l l t h e bodies a r e from f r e e - f l i g h t
model t e s t s a t high Reynolds numbers s o t h a t t h e flow i s turbulent a t both
subsonic and supersonic speeds. The peak pressure drag was obtained by
taking t h e difference between t h e peak t o t a l drag and the subsonic drag.
For bodies having base areas g r e a t e r than 20 percent of t h e maximum area,
t h e drags were corrected f o r base pressure. F i n drag was subtracted f o r
a l l models. The peak pressure drag c o r r e l a t e s well by using t h i s correla-
t i o n parameter; t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r these body shapes t h e
i n t e r f e r e n c e drag i s amall. The one body f o r which t h e c o r r e l a t i o n i s
poor has a low-fineness-ratio, highly convergent afterbody. This corre-
l a t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o a transonic drag c o r r e l a t i o n made by t h e Fort Worth
Division of Convair i n t h a t t h e slopes of t h e area d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e
weighted i n t h e same manner.

Since t h e c o r r e l a t i o n appears good, one would obviously seek low drag,

f o r a given fineness r a t i o , by minimizing t h e quantity f - 2 (1 -5
amax
).
However, t h i s minimization cannot be done d i r e c t l y since base drag must
be included and t h e proper combination of base s i z e and afterbody length
must be found f o r low drag.

Figure 9 shows the r e s u l t s of some t e s t s ( r e f . 4 ) i n which t h e a f t e r -

body drag included both afterbody pressure drag and base drag. The t e s t s
were made with f r e e - f l i g h t models flown from the helium gun. The noses
on a l l t h e models were of high fineness r a t i o t o minimize the interference
of t h e nose on t h e afterbody. The s t a b i l i z i n g f i n s were t h i n and swept
back t o reduce the interference drag between the f i n s and t h e afterbody
and t o minimize t h e e f f e c t of t h e f i n s on t h e base pressure. A t M = 1.05,
t h e t e s t Reynolds numbers f o r a l l models were over 8 x 106 ; a t these
Reynolds numbers and with the presence of t h e f i n s , t h e flow a t t h e base
i s turbulent and thus t h e r e s u l t s are representative of f u l l - s c a l e values.
NACA RM L53122c CONFIDENT IAL 5

Twelve bodies had parabolic afterbodies of t h r e e fineness r a t i o s and four

base s i z e s , whereas four a d d i t i o n a l models had conical afterbodies. I n
the left-hand p l o t of f i g u r e 9 a t M = 1.05, t h e pressure plus base drag
c o e f f i c i e n t of t h e afterbody i s p l o t t e d against t h e base radius r a t i o
% Irma f o r t h e t h r e e afterbody fineness r a t i o s . The p l o t shows t h a t ,
as t h e afterbody fineness r a t i o increases, t h e base s i z e f o r minimum drag
approaches zero. The right-hand p l o t shows t h e base s i z e f o r low drag
against afterbody fineness r a t i o . It can be seen t h a t the t h r e e points
f a l l on a s t r a i g h t l i n e through r = 1 a t 2/d = 0, which corre-
sponds t o a conical b o a t t a i l angle which i s constant and equals 4.5'.
This angle of 4.5' corresponds with previous b a l l i s t i c experience. Since
the afterbodies have bases a t fineness r a t i o s below 6, any j e t flow
through t h e base must not cause higher base drag.

By using t h i s p l o t of base s i z e f o r low drag against afterbody 2/d

i n conjunction with t h e peak-drag c o r r e l a t i o n parameter, a s e r i e s of
bodies have been designed which should have low drag based on body f r o n t a l
area a t M = 1.05. The bodies had p r o f i l e s of t h e x1l2 shape with
maximum diameters located so as t o minimize t h e c o r r e l a t i o n f a c t o r f
f o r a given base s i z e .

However, drags of these supposedly reduced-drag bodies were no lower

than those of the lowest drag p a r a b ~ l i cbodies presented i n f i g u r e 1. The
drag reduction indicated by the c o r r e l a t i o n parameter therefore was not
r e a l i z e d . A comparison of t h e peak pressure drags of two of these bodies
with t h e drags predicted by t h e c o r r e l a t i o n i s presented i n f i g u r e 10.
A s indicated by t h e v e r t i c a l distance between the mean l i n e from t h e
c o r r e l a t i o n and t h e d a t a points, t h e predicted drags a r e 40 t o 60 percent
below t h e a c t u a l values. This difference i s due t o interference between
t h e nose and afterbody components. The 39 bodies f o r which the d a t a
correlated w e l l had e i t h e r zero slope of t h e nose a t maximum diameter
o r had f i n i t e slope followed by a long p a r a l l e l portion; as a r e s u l t ,
the interference drag was small. However, f o r these two models, t h e nose
with f i n i t e slope a t maximum diameter was followed by t h e afterbody which
a l s o had f i n i t e slope a t maximum diameter. Also shown i n f i g u r e 10 i s
t h e peak-pressure drag f o r a body having the same nose and afterbody com-
ponents a s t h e fineness-ratio-8.91 body, but with a fineness-ratio-3.59
p a r a l l e l portion. The drag of t h i s body f a l l s on t h e c o r r e l a t i o n curve
and i n d i c a t e s t h a t the interference drag has been g r e a t l y reduced. As
a r e s u l t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n should be used with caution i n designing low-
drag bodies f o r body shapes f o r which t h e interference drag can be high.
A q u a l i t a t i v e estimate of t h e interference drag between t h e nose and
afterbody i s given i n a recent paper by Fraenkel ( r e f . 1 1 ) .

Up t o t h i s point only smooth bodies have been discussed. Designing

an airplane t o a good a r e a d i s t r i b u t i o n , however, i s d i f f i c u l t and bumps
m a y occur i n t h e area-distribution curve. Figure 11 shows t h e a r e a dis-
t r i b u t i o n s of twelve bumpy bodies which were equivalent bodies of airplane
6 COMFDENTLAL NACA RM L33122c

configurations. I n order t o g e t a rough indication of the e f f e c t s of t h e

bumps on the drag, a comparison of t h e drag f o r each model with t h a t f o r
a parabolic body having the same length, maximum diameter, maximum-
diameter location, and base s i z e was made. Figure 12 shows a p l o t of
the measured peak pressure drags of t h e twelve bumpy bodies against t h e
peak pressure drags of t h e corresponding parabolic bodies, calculated
by using t h e c o r r e l a t i o n shown e a r l i e r . The v e r t i c a l distance from t h e
dashed l i n e t o t h e d a t a point represents t h e drag increment due t o t h e
bump. Except f o r one case, the drags of t h e bumpy bodies a r e from about
20 t o 60 percent g r e a t e r than f o r t h e parabolic bodies. The one case f o r
which t h e drag of t h e bumpy body appears lower probably r e s u l t s from t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e drag of t h e bumpy body i s low a s a r e s u l t of separation of
flow over t h e afterbody, and, of course, t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of the parabolic-
body drag does not account f o r t h i s e f f e c t .

Since the e f f e c t s of t h e bumps can be large, it i s of i n t e r e s t t o

see whether the peak-drag c o r r e l a t i o n f o r smooth bodies w i l l hold f o r
bumpy bodies.

Figure 13 shows t h e peak-drag c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the twelve bumpy

bodies. The peak pressure drag was obtained i n t h e same manner as f o r
the smooth bodies except t h a t an a d d i t i o n a l correction was made f o r
bodies with forward-facing s t e p s i n t h e area-distribution curves. It
was assumed t h a t t h e pressure over t h e s t e p area corresponded t o t h e
pressure r i s e through an oblique shock ahead of a two-dimensional
forward-facing s t e p as given i n a recent paper by Love ( r e f . 6 ) . The
peak drags f o r t h e bumpy bodies show t h e same trends a s f o r smooth
bodies; however, the s c a t t e r about t h e mean curve i s much g r e a t e r .
Again, two bodies with highly convergent low-f ineness-rat i o afterbodies
do not agree with t h e c o r r e l a t i o n .

The drag-rise Mach numbers f o r these twelve bodies followed t h e

same t r e n d as f o r the parabolic bodies shown e a r l i e r . The Mach numbers
f o r peak drag were more complex, being more a function of d e t a i l nose
geometry, than f o r t h e smooth bodies.

I n conclusion, f i r s t , l a r g e s t reductions i n drag a r e possible through

increases i n both total-body fineness r a t i o and t h e fineness r a t i o of t h e
component p a r t s . Second, t h e drag-rise Mach number i s dependent mainly
on t h e fineness r a t i o of t h e s h o r t e s t body component, whereas t h e Mach
number f o r peak drag i s a function of nose fineness r a t i o and shape.
NACA RM L53122c COW IDENTIAL 7

Third, t h e peak drags of smooth bodies and bumpy bodies can be correlated
by using a simple parameter which depends only on body shape i f t h e i n t e r -
ference drag i s small.

Langley Aeronautical Laboratory,

National Advisory Committee f o r Aeronautics,
Langley Field, Va., September 11, 1953.

CONFIDENTIAL
 8 COW IDENTIAL NACA RM L53122c

REFERENCES

1. Whitcomb, Richard T . : Recent Results Pertaining t o t h e Application

of the "Area Rule. 'I NACA RM L53115a, 1953.

2. Jones, Robert T . : Theory of Wing-Body Drag a t Supersonic Speeds.

NACA RM ~53Hl8a, 1953

3. Hart, Roger G., and Katz, E l l i s R.: F l i g h t Investigations a t High-

Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds To Determine Zero-Lift
Drag of Fin-Stabilized Bodies of Revolution Having Fineness Ratios
of 12.5, 8.91, and 6.& and Varying Positions of Maximum Diameter.
NACA RM LgI30, 1949.

4. Stoney, , W i l l i a m E., Jr.:

Some Experimental Effects of Afterbody
Shape on t h e Zero-Lift Drag of Bodies f o r Mach Numbers Between 0.8
an3 1.3. NACA RM L53101, 1953.

5. Smith, Norman F., B i e l a t , Ralph P., and G u y , Lawrence D.:

Drag of
External Stores and Nacelles a t Transonic and Supersonic Speeds.
NACA RM L53123b, 1953.

6. Love, Eugene S. : The Base Pressure a t Supersonic Speeds on Two-

Dimensional A i r f o i l s and Bodies of Revolution (with and Without
E n s ) Having Turbulent Boundary Layers. NACA RM L53C02, 1953.

7. Chapman, Dean R.: An Analysis of Base Pressure a t Supersonic Veloc-

i t i e s and Comparison With Experiment. NACA Rep. 1051, 1951.
(supersedes NACA TN 2137. )

8. Cortright, Edgar M., Jr., and Schroeder, Albert H.: Investigation a t

Mach Number 1.91 of Side and Base Pressure Distributions Over Conical
B o a t t a i l s Without and With J e t Flow Issuing From Base. NACA
RM ~ 5 1 ~ 2 61951. ,

9. Van Dyke, Milton Denaan: P r a c t i c a l Calculation of Second-Order

Supersonic Flow Past Nonlifting Bodies of Revolution. NACA TN 2744,
1952 a

10. Perkins, Edward W., and Jorgensen, Leland H. : Investigation of t h e

Drag of Various Axially Symmetric Nose Shapes of Fineness Ratio 3
f o r Mach Numbers From 1.24 t o 3 67. NACA RM ~ 5 2 ~ 2 81952.
,

11. Fraenkel, L. E. : The Theoretical Wave Drag of Some Bodies of Revolu-

t i o n . Rep. No. Aero. 2420, B r i t i s h R?A.E., May 1951.

CONFIDENTIAL
NACA RM L53122c CONFIDENTIAL 9

EFFECTS OF FINENESS RATIO ON DRAG

M:1.05; VOLUME, 3,000 CU FT; WlNG AREA, 1,000 SQ FT

t
0
0 FREE-FLIGHT MODEL TESTS
OF PARABOLIC BODIES
03
CD
BASED ON .02t oo
WlNG AREA

MIN. TOTAL DRAG

-
* n

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ,
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
FINENESS RATIO OF EQUIVALENT BODY

Figure 1

BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL DRAG CURVE

I
FRICTION DRAG dM
-= 0.1
PEAK

Figure 2

COlUIDE%TLAL
 COlTIDENTIAL NACA RM L53122c

DRAG RISE AND PEAK DRAG MACH NUMBERS

PARABOLIC BODIES
'9- \

DMp AGAINST Z/d OF NOSE

\

@ 8 i~~~
AGAINST ,A OF
00
SHORTEST COMPONENT

t
.6
0 2 4
I
0

6
AFTERBODY
0 NOSE

I I
8
I
1
I I
0
I
1
I I
2
l /d

Figure 3

EFFECT OF NOSE SHAPE ON DRAG

Z/d =3

0 . 0 4 $08 .I2 .I6 0 .04 .08 .I2 0 . 0 4 . 0 8 .I2

PRESSURE -DRAG COEFF.
=qz&7

Figure 4

C ONFIDE3lTIAL
NACA RM Lfj3122c CONF IDENTIAL

PRESSURE DRAG FOR A FAMILY OF PARABOLIC NOSES

.I6 r
l/d = 3
\
HELIUM GUN TESTS, M.1.2
SECOND-ORDER THEORY M =1.4

PRESSURE -
DRAG .08 -
COEFF.
- d T M A X x'l2 NOSE; M-1.2='\
C?4
.04 - -= r ~(x/z)-K(x/z)~
- 'MAX 2-K
K = SHAPE PARAMETER
I I I I I I I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .O
SHAPE PARAMETER, K

Figure fS

SLOPE OF AREA-DISTRIBUTION CURVE

Figure 6

CONFIDENTIAL
 NACA RM L53122c

SMOOTH BODIES IN PEAK-PRESSURE-DRAG CORRELATION

v 1 I A I
D 3 < ! " J
3
<
- d V I -3
C a== I

e o I I C D i I
cL~
-C-
0

O I
1

> -
-

m
a !
0

0
!
1
>
7

1
1
0 ! I
( I 0 1 1
00
i I F I a I
<1 ~i >
1 1 0 >

Figure 7

PEAK PRESSURE DRAG FOR SMOOTH BODIES

.5 r d

PEAK
PRESSURE-
DRAG
GOEFF. .2

Figure 8
NACA . RM L53I22c

AFTERBODY DRAG
M = 1.05
.40
o PARABOLIC
CONICAL
.8 'b

PRESSURE +
BASE
DRAG
COEFF.

I
,, ,
, , , ,, ,I
, ,
,, ,, h
0 .2 A .6 .8 ID 0 2 4 6
MAX MAX 'Id

PEAK PRESSURE DRAG

"REDUCED" DRAG BODIES

PEAK
PRESSURE- .2
DRAG
COEFF.

Figure 10

CONFIDENTIAL
 C O W ]DENT IAL NACA RM L53122c

AREA DISTRIBUTIONS FOR BUMPY BODIES

Figure 11

EFFECT OF BUMPS IN AREA DISTRIBUTION ON DRAG

MEAS. PEAK
PRESSURE DRAG COEFF.
OF ACTUAL BODY

ACTUAL BODY
PARABOLIC BODY

x/z

V I I I I
0 .I .2 .3 .4
CALC. PEAK PRESSURE DRAG
COEFF. OF PARABOLIC BODY

Figure 1 2
NACA RM L53122c CONFIDENTIAL

PEAK PRESSURE DRAG FOR BUMPY BODIES

/
/ n
PRESSURE-DRAG
COEFF:
.2 0

Figure 13