CLASSIFICAT40tiaNCELLED R, No.

L4m

NACA
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM
for the Bureau of Aeronautics, Favy Department TANK TESTS OF
2 POi7^'IH'D D11 1.12 IC MOTEL OF THE

COLUMBIA XJL-1 APTHIBIUN - LA.NGLEY TArF MODEL 208 TM NO. N CA

2336

By, Robert F. Havens Langley- Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory

Langley Field, Va.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

WASHINGTON
FEB A 71947

CLASS IFICHRIARELLED

 NACA RM No. L6120`

14

CANCLLLi-o

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOP AERONAUTICS

RESEARCH MEMORAYDUM

for the Bureau of Aeronautics, Nav^ Department TANK TESTS CF 1/' , .r-SCALE POWEIRED DYNAMIC MODEL OF THE
COLITMBIA XJL-1 AMPIIIBIAE' - LANCLEY TANK MODEL 208 TED NO: r?ACA 2^-^6

By Robert F. Havens SLMV RY Tests of a powered dynamic model of the Columbia XJL-1 amphibian were made in Langley tank no. 1 to determine the hydrodynamic stability and spray characteristics of the basic hull and to investigate the effects of modifications on these characteristics. Modifications to the forebed3 , chine flare, the step, and the afte-rbody, and an increase in the angle of incidence of the wing were included in the test rroRram. The seaworthiness and sprat, characteristics were studied from simulated taxi runs in smooth and rough water. The trim 1=wits of stability, the range of stable p ositions of the center of Cravity for take-off, and the lending stability were determined in smooth water. The aerodZne_mic lift, pitching moment, and thrust were detormined at speeds up to take-off speed.

INTRODUCTION Tests of a 1/5.5-scale powered dvnf,mic model of the Columbia XJL-1 amphibian were nade in Lengley tank no. 1. to deterffiine the hydrodynamic stability and s p ray cha-racteristics of the basic hall, and to investigate modifications that might improve its performance on the water.

The investi<,ation included tests of the final desigzt submitted

by CoD mbia Aircreft Co rporation and tests of the model with modified

CLAS

CANCELLED

CCZ7D_11E'1Tr1A1U

rACA RM No. L6120

chine flare on the forebody, with steps of different depth and plan f orm, with several types of of terbodies, and with the an!;lo of incidence of the wing inc.rea3ed. The seaworthiness and. spray characteriatics of the model ;.n rough water were observed during
simulated taxi-runs at speeds below hump speed. Tests were made in smooth water to determine the spray churact.e,: istics, the trim

limits of stability, the range of stable positions of the center of gravity for t;_Lke-off, --uid tha l finding stability. The aerosynanic lift, pitching morient, and thrust we_e determined at
speeds up to take-off speed.

These tests were -reque:3tod by the Burciau or Aeronautics, Navy Department, in lotter to the; Coro-ittee dated Jane 9, 1944, `ter-E-23 -Fl`.L, C 15444 . part of the tests wT observed by Maosrs. G. D. Evans :and M. La,uridsc;n of Colurbia :Aroraft Corponition. Thal tests were madal from December 1944 ) theeugh 1&y 1945. LTON OF MODE, iESCRIPr The basic model, furnished by the C.Uumbia. :',ircr, ,f t Corpor>ation, was designr.-Aed Langley tri k model 208. Tho general a.rran^;ement of the basic model in.d tho body plrn of the hull are shown in photograph of the model is given figures 1 ezid 2, respectively, in figure 3. The principal dimv-is:i.ons of the b,isic model _.nd. of the full-3ize airplarv:; are presented in t:wable 1. The a Sles of the forebody :end 'tes ao:iy i>ec ls, the c,n l i s of incidence of the wing and the st-abilizer are measured rel.ativc to the base line
which is p^.rallel to the thrust line. Trim was measured between the

s iLrai3ht portion of the forobody koel and the free-water surface. In order to facilitate changes in the- form of hull and in the position -end depth of stop, tine hull was con.truc.c;d in four sections as shown in f i&ure 2. Five principal forobodies and. nin; principal :l'tcrbo?ies were tested. '11 forebocaies had keel anglo of -; o . The plating which projects from the forebody chines of tine full-size airplano i -.s simulated from t'ie bcw to the step on forebodi es I and I1. On forebodies III, IV, -:nd V, it extended from the bow to station 210. For convanionce, this ^imulatod plating is neglected. in mo ;t of the sketches of the configurations other than the basic model. The principal. forebodios are 1: scribed
as follows:

Forebody I: 'the basic forebody had a doad rise at the atop of 20 0 excl?za_ng chine flare .9 ar'd 13.50 including chine C0FF=1\TTIAL

NAC.A Rtl No. L6120

CON171DRP1TI'l1q,

flare. The chine flare had a constant down angle of 200 from the bow to the step (fig. 2) . Forabody II: This fo -ebody w^.s identical -to forebody .I
from. the bow to station 160. From station 160 to tha s:ep,

The -Laelo of chine flare anal the lino of t:.,s?gsncy of the flare with the planing bottom was vavied as s.;own in figure 4. The dead rise at the step wua 200 excluding chine: flare, Luld 17.5 0 including chine flare. Forobody III: i"his forobody was identical with forebody I fran the bow to-station 210. F : on station 210 to the Step, the .3 igl o of f fare had a c ons t;mt angle of 0 0 with tizc same line of tangency forebody I . Tria chnvnge in flare p roduce;d a discontinuity in the chine at station 2lo (fig. 5) . The dead rise a thestep was 2 00 0 excluding chine flare, and 17.250 including chine fla _e . Forebody IV: This forCbody was the s<me as forebody III, except that the bottom h--d no chine flare from station 210
to the step U ig. 5).

1 orebod,y V: This forebody was the same as forebody I 1

forward of station 185. From station 185 to station 210,

the flare gradually decreased from down 20 0 to doirn 60. From ;.cation 21G to the s tep, a constant do,.;n-flare of 60 w-us n"intuln:3d ,.s shc^,rn in figure 6. The de_vd rise '.t the step was 20 0 excluding chine flare and 16.5 0 , including chine flare. .fterbodj _ T : The bu.sic afterbody (fig. 2) l I iad a warped button with a maximum amgle of dead_ rise of 29.5 0 Fit approximately st^Itiori 315. The variation of the Ingle of dead rise wit. station location for ?fterboNr I -nd fife other afterbodies isplotted. in figure 7. The keel angla of ,afterbody I was 12.50 and the stcrnpost was at station 442. -fterbokv II: This afto-rbody was the s.Ame _ o aftc;rbody I, except that. th ,.; keel angle w,--o 13.50 . To form aftc:rbody II, :^,Xterbody I w.a.c rotated -.bout a ii ;ar1zonT: 1 axis throub-h the point of the step and tIlie sternpost was r .is:;d 0.57 inchao
fifterbody III: Forward of station 700 the dead rise of

of terbody III was maintained at a constant angle of 290 (figs. 5 sxnd 7). The keel a.njle, the posi:,ion of the sternpost, and the shape of the hull aft of sta.tior). 300 were the same as those of ofterbody H. C0D D IDFNTI?L

COi1F1TE11"sTT_LL,

ITACA IRM ? q- o. L612-0

Afterbody IV: Forwal d of station 315 the angle of dead ri. >e of afterbody 1V was 1"naiiit sain p C a a constant ari E?,le of 29. (figs- 7 and 8). The ke31 atie]_e, the position of the sternpost, and the stispe ai of station 315 were the same as those of a.fterbcdy I. ^,'trbody V: This afterbod_y wa,s the same as az terbody IV, except that the keel angle was 11.5 1 . To form afterbody V, afterbody IV fra y rotLit.ed about a horizontal axis through the
intersection of the keel and the sternpost.

Aftelrbodv VI: This afterbody had a keel angle of 10.5 and a coustant dead rise of 25 0 . The keel at the sternpost was 0.9 inches lower for aftc rb: dy Vl: than for afterbody 1

(fig. I

Afterbody VII: From station ?00 forward to station 233

(step at chine), the bottom of af..erbody VII was warped by decreasing the dead rise linearly from 29 0 to 18 0 (fig. 7) . All other dimensions were the swine as those of of terbody I. Afterbody VIII: This afterbody had a. keel angle of 11.3 0 and a constant dead rise of 20 0 . Thca position of the sternpost was the same --is that of aftarbody I (fig. 6) . Afterbody .IX: This afterbody was thu same as afterbo dy VIII except that the le,igth was increased 5 inches by adding a section aft of the original sternpost. The chines of the added section were stra.io l it linos t,^tngent to the chines of

afterbody VIII (fig. 10) .

Tho modU numbers and descriptioas of modifications using these prinoipa.l forebody and ._:f texvody forms are given in table II.
Sketches of the various modifications are given in figures 1 through 18, as indicated in table Il. Trti angle of incidence of

the wirf; was 4 0 (relative 'to the thzust line) for modals 2081,11
208N, and 208P. For all othar modals includjng the basic model,

the angle of win;3 incidence was 0 0 . Tho stabilizer was scat at an angle; of -20 (relative to the thixust line). Early in the tests, the area of the stabilizer wus increased 27.5 percant by adding panels to the tips of the original tail, as shoran in figure 1. The added surface had the same airfoil section as the original tail. Slats were attached to the leading edge of the wing to delay the stall and increase the mhxiinimi lift, coefficient. The power plant consisted. of two ? -horsepower altt;rnating current induction motors mounced in t;ui.deLi with tho shafts ,joined 0017IDE1:TI L

NACa. R14 DT,-). L6120

CGP'FDEiETIP-1

by a flexible coupling. This power plant turned a three-blade

propeller having a dia-ne for of 1.94 feet and a blade angle of

i4 o at 0.75 radius.

The pitching moment of inertia of th:; ballrast3d model was determined by swinging the model as a compotuld pendvlum. The
results are as follows: Center of gravity Moment of inertia

(percent M.A.C.)
20

(slug-f t2)
4.57

4o

3.94

F.PP?R, :TUS APM7 PROCEDURE

Apparatus

The towing carriage and taxik are described in reference 1.

The test apparc-tus was essentially the same as that described in

reference 2, except t'ha.t the- model was towed under the main carriage. For the tests in rough water, fore-and-12.ft freedom relative to the towing caia-iage waa obtained. by the use of the apparatus
described in reference 3.

Aerodynamic Tests The effective thrust of Lho model w ;as determined with flaps at 00 and the thrust line parallel to and 21 inches above. the

surf ace of the water. Daring the- tests to determine thrust, the lowest point of the forebody keel w. , -,.s approximately 1 inch above the water. For the tests to detorraine lift and pitching moment, the model was raised so that the sternpost ,just c.loared the water
at ra trim of i6 0 . The aerodyn_mic lift and pitching moment were determined for the following conditions:

Angle of wing St--,.bilizer area

incidence

IF1aps
1

Propeller Center of moment

(rpm)
o 5500 2750 55 00 i (percent M.A.C.)
24

cle
0

(percent basic) I (deg)

100 0, 3c, 60

0 o

}
E

100 127.5
127.5

30 60
^0

i
,

24 ?6
36

0
4

155 0 0

127.5

30

Moments not

C01,7 1 TD:E TT!AL

C011F IDMITIF L

YACA RM rro . 1,6120

Brief tests were made with the model free to trim in the air to inve:3tigatc the aerodynamic longitudintl stability.

Spray Characteristics

Observation of the spray cliara,ct:eristics of several of the

modifications in smooth water were supplemented by still photographs and motion pictures. i+or the tests in rough water, model 208M

was accelerated slowly through: waves, to s-i mulate taxiing at speeds

below hump speed. The propeller thrust aZ.iiroximated that required for self-propiilsion. Tests were made in waves (length-to-height

ratio of 20) of three --3izas: - HeiF ,;ht, model Size

13 I f !

Height, full size

6 3
1

62
G

Hydrodynair-.c. Stability Tests The trim liri.ts of stability were determined for the greater part of the testa with a flap deflection of 300 , take-off power
(5500 rpm), and a gross lord of 77.4 pounds (13,000 pounds full size). The variation of trim with speed with determined by towing the model with .fixed-elevator settings at an acceleration of

approximately 1 fact per second per second to take-off. Data

were obtained with elevator defLectiona from 0 0 to - 30 0 and with the center of gravity at positions from 22 to 44 percent of the amplitude of porpoising, the hump Lrim, and take-off characteristics of the model were obtained. Landings were made by trimming the model in the air to the

mean aerodynamic chord. The effer. is of load, power., and. flap setting were also inveAigate'... From these data, the maximal-a

desired landi:.g trim and decelerating the towing carriage at about 2 feet per second per second. Landings of all modifications havinCj a wing incidence of 0 0 were made with the flaps deflected. 600 and the propeller turning at 2750 rpzn. Landinr;s of mod ;l 20814,
2081, and 208P, with a wing incidence of ^+, were made with the

COMFITERITIAL

NACA R14 No. L6120

CONFIDENTIAL

fl_a.ps deflected 45 0 end a propeller speed of 270 rpm. The effect of position of the center of ;:cavity and gross load. was determined
for the basic model only. RESULTS PJM DiSCUSSTON

Aerodynamic Tests
The variation of effective thrust and air drag with speed is

plotted in figure 19. The results show that the thrust of model 208, with a propelle- speed of 5500 rpm, was in close aCreemer.t with the requi ^ed scale thrust (Columbia. Aircraft Corporation, Report E-20)
at speeds from. 16 to 60 feet per second. The power absorbed by the propeller when turning at 5500 rpm was desirTmated as talre-off power. The variation of aerodynamic lift and pitching moment with

speed for the basic model is shown in fi t_nure 20. The aerodynamic lift and pitching- moment coefficients of the m^^. 1 with the basic and the increased tail area are given in fi:-,ure.s 2l through 23.
The aerodynamic lift coefficients -4th the Increased angle of wing

incidence is plotted in f'g.i e 24. The coefficients are of the

li.ch is about standard NACA form, bas-d however, on car:ri.age steed vh 95 percent of true air speed., Results of the force tests and the tests made free to trim in the e.ir showed that: 1. Less lift was developed with flaps set at 60 than at 300. 2. The effect of applying take-off power was to increase t}e lift coefficient by about 20 percent at a trim of 10 and a speed of 50 feet per second.

3.

The basic model

was

longitudinally unstable at speeds

near 54 feet per second, -i.th the center of gravity at 36 percent mean a.erod: ,namic chord ) flaps set at 6001

and the 'propeller turning at 2750 Mra. Under the see

conditions, the model with the increased stabilizer area was stable. At trims above 12 0 and belaw 4 0 , however, small changes in elevator deflection caused appreciable changes in attitude and resulted in a tendency to over control the model. 4. The increase in wing incidence from 0 0 to 40 (model 208I)

increased. the lift at all trims investigated.

COFFIDEDITIIJ,

CONFIDEUTIAL Spray Cha racter; ati c

NACA RM P?o . L6120

mode3. at a gross Joe .d.0. f ?7. 1: pounds (13,000 lb, full size) with take-off power and the center ofriavity at 26-percent mean es 2", end. 26. No spray broke acrod-,;me.mi c chord are given in f' ,.Tares over the bow at low speeds, and only li?ht spray entered the propeller at specds near 9 feet per second (11 knots full size). Spray wet the flaps moderately withl.n the ranee of speeds from 13.5 to 22. r feet per second (19 to 31."'. knot, full size) . Before str=king -the flaps,
the water which emerged from the bottom of the folebody was broken Grp into large drops by the combined action of the chine flare and the slipstream. With the elevators deflected -30 0 , some spray hit the tips of the horizontal tail at; speeds from 17 to 25 feet per second and the outboard ends of the flaps at speeds from 28 to 34 feet per second. Motion pictures and obscrva.tions of the taxiing tests of model 203M in rough water showed that the bow d_d not submerge in any of the waves. Some i-rater from the 6.5 -inch waves broke over the bow at speeds near 5 feet per second. When the model contacted the crests of the Fl -i.no h and 13-inch waves at speeds near 8 feet

Photo^;rapha showing the spray cha.racteristico of the basic

per second, a moderate; amo,znt of water was forced from under the chines into the propeller. Tht; chino flara was effective in dispersing the
water to each side of the hull when contact was made with wave crests at speeds higher than 10 feet per second. The spray characteristics of most of the modifications were not appreciably different from those of tho basic model. Modifications

having hump trims hi. her than the hump trim of the basic model gener, lly had inferior spra:, T characteristics. Increasing the angle
of incidence of the wing (model 209M) lowered the trailing edge 0.93 inch (5.1 inches, fall size) and increased slightly the amount of spray which wot the flaps. The flaps of model 2O QN were

wet within a .range: of specds from 13.5 to 19 . .`i feet per second. This
range was less extensive than the -ranC<;e for the basic model, inasmuch as the mothod. of reducing the chine flare at the stop p roduced a lower spray blister at speeds higher than 1.5 feet per socond. This effect was also noted during tests of models 20 g -5 and 20'^A-1. The spray on the flaps of both model 20 gH (with the chine fla.rc faded out

lust ahead of the step) an<_'. model 2 O g --` (without chino flare at the step) was heavier than that of the basic model.

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM No. L6120

CONFIDEN IAL
Hydrodynamic Stability Tests

Representative data, obtained furing investigation of the

take-cff stability, are given in figures

2'7

through 45. The model

number, gross load, flap deflection, amount of power, and position of the center of gravity are indicated on the figures. Tests of the model with and without the increased stabilizer area showed no effects on the hydrodynamic characteristics. No distinction is made, therefore, between modifications with different sizes

of the st=abilizer.
Trim limits of stabi lity.- The trim limits of the basic model

are s1i o win figuures 27 and 23. In addition to the lo g-!er and upper
trim limits of stability there was a region of instability extending from the upper limit at intermediate planing speeds to the lower

limit at higher planing speeds. Porposising in this intermediate

region was erratic (sometimes requiring a disturbance for activation) and was characterized by rapid changes in trim with little change

in rise. The amplitude of intermediate porpoising generally

increased as the intermediate region a-proa.ched the upper limit. The upper limits were difficult to define at the juncture with the intermediate .region of porpoisin;^. The mcdel frequently commenced upper limit porpoising at this liuicture when the amplitude of intermediate porpoising was sufficient to trim the model above the upper limit. The position of the lower limit was indefinite at speeds above 3'.5 feet per second. If the moO_el was disturbed, lower limit porpoising occurred t o to 1.5 0 above the lower limit obtained. without disturbance. During lower limit porpoising at low trims, the forebody chines were wet as far forward as the plane of the propeller. The flo g of water from under the forebody appeared to be disturbed irregularly by the chine flare. Porpoising in the inter!^odiato region of instability occurred

in varying degrees for all configurations tested, except models 208D, 208F, and 208K. This t ype of porpoising occurred while the afterbod' was wet heavily r; jets of water which emerged from the step as shown in figure 29.
The wetting of the afterbody was accentuated bbl the slipstream, increases in the load on the water, and decreases in the clearance

of the afterbody from the wake of the forebody. The effects of

load and the application of power car_ be seen by comparing the curves given in figures 27 and 28. In general, the extent of the intermediate region was increased by increasinG the load on the water and by applying power. The effect of increasing the wing incidence was similar to the e f fect of a decrease in gross load, as shown in figure 30. The extent of the region of intermediate porpoising was reduced. by progressively changing the plan. form

COW IDETI?TIAL

10

CONF=1VTIAL

13ACA Ril No. L6120

of the step from 45 0 - vee to 30 0 - vee, 20 0 - vee, and transverse, while the depth of step at the keel was wield constant (models 208,

2C8A, 208B, and 208C; figs. 27 and 31) . It 91iould be noted

that the greatest reduction was obtained with the transverse step,

model 208C. Inasmuch as the oft,,rbody of model 2080 was raised 0.54. inch :above the position of the of terbodi oes of models 208, 208A, 208B to peimit installation of the transverse step, the effects of both plaza foam and afterbody cic;ar^ance were included in results of tests of model 208C. results of tests of other configurations that had. an afterbody clearance (above the wake from the forobo^V . ) gn3, ater than that of the basic model showed that afterbody clearance was the most sigiuf icant hull par,.eter affecting the region of intermediate porpoising. The effect of different amounts of afterbody cl;;rtrance on the trim limits and the into mlediat;e type of porpoising i;, shown by a, compari3on of figures 27, 32, and 33 (models 208, 208G, and 208F) and by figure 34 (models 2088 and 23811 - 1?-). The results of tests of model 208-8 showed_ that with the angle of dead. rise of the basic a.fterboa,;! increased behind the step,
the region of intermediate porpoising was diminished slightly. Decreasing the dead rise behind the step to form a shallow vee step (model 208L) lowered the upDer limit, decreasing trim, nearly to -the lower limit, but did. not affect t il-e other limits or the intermediate region of instability. The addition of chine flare to the o;_'terbody increased the amplitude of the intezmediate type of porpoising as shown by a coraparison of figure 27 (model 208) and figure 35 (model 208-2) . Ala increase of 5 inches (27.5 inches, full size) in the length of the afterbody of model 208N lowered the upper trim limit but had no significant of fect on the intermediate region of instability.

Take-off stability.- The variation of trim of the basic model with speed is shown in figures 36 and 37 for gross loads of 60,5 pounds (10 ) 164 pounds, full size) and 77.4 pound: (13,000 pounds, full size) . From figure 36 it can be seen that with take-off power, the model trimmed dawn a.fte- the true hamp (at- a speak of about 15 fps) ^..ad then suddenly trimed up to a, second hump. At the: light load, the second hump was generally nigher than the true hump. Motion pictures of the basic model and of the model with t:.,e wing removed
(model 208E-3) show that the .rapid increo,se in trim to the second

hump v%^s accompanied by the elev-ation of the f orebody chines above the surface of the; w;,ter and a sudden wotting of the chines and bottom of the afteibody. Without power, the model showed only
a slight tendency to grim to a second hump. Comparison of figure 36 with figure 37 shows that tha effectiveness of the elevators in

trimming, the model was greater with power then without power.
.)77T]:ATu C Ql^,L'

RACA. R4 11c. L6120

COTIFID' PITIAL

1.1

The relation between the froe-to-trim curves and the trim limits of stability is shown in figure 38. The model porpoised when the f ,' ee- Lo -trim curves entered either the intermediate region of instability or the regions outside the trim limits of stability. The maximum mplitule of porpoising that occurred during takeoff of the basic model is platted in figure 39. Tire effect cf gross lead on the maximum am litude of lower-limit porpoising is shown to be small. Figure 39 shows that take-offs with an amplitude of lower-limit porpoising of less than 2 0 (which are assumed stable) were possible when the center of gravity was at 24- penient mean aerodynamic chord and the elevator was set at -10. The amplitude of porpoising in the intermediate region of instability was increased when the gross load was increased from 60.5 pounds to 77.4 pounds. At a gross load of 77.4 p ounds, the model porpoised 2 c in the intermediate : egion of instability with the center of gravity aL 26-percent mean aerodynamic chord and the elevator set at -10 0 . True upper-limit porpoising was first encountered with full up-elevators (-30 0 ) and the center of gravity at 32-percent meals aerodynamic chord. The manufacturer e:%pected that positions of the canter of gravity roquirod for operation of the full-size airplane would be from 23.5- 1035- percent mean aercdynaii , c chord. The abrupt change in trim after the true hump was eliminated when the chine flare .forward of the step was decreased according to the lines of model 203G. The effect :;f decrea .inn the chine flare is shover: in figure 40 (models 208G and 208G-12) . it can be seen that the trim at either of the two humps was unaffected by the chine flare, but that the trim betwoen tha humps was raised when the chine flare was reduced. A constant chine flare of do,.n 5 0 (model 20811) did not eliminate the change in trim <?.fter the hump, but did prouiuco an .a.ppreciable decrease in the amplitude arid rapidity of the trim change comp red with that of the basic model. The effect of changing the plan form and the effective position and depth of the step on the ma-:i=-m amplitude of porpoising is shown in figure 41 (models 208, 208_, 20RB, ana 208C) . The shift in the range of stable positions for the center of gravity was nearly the samo as the chango in position of the centroid of the step. Due to the small amount of intermediata porpoising obtained. with the tr ansverse step (model 2080), stable take-offs could be made with an elevator setting of -10 with the center of gravity as far aft as 35- Y.,, rcenk mean -aerodynamic chord. The rualge of stable positions for the center of gravity was greater than that Of the 'hesic model. Similarly, with r deep transverse step COT T'IDEITTI J1

12

C0171)ENTIAL

NACA RM No. L6120

(modol 208F) stable take-offs could be made with the center of gravity in a greater ranee of positions than for the basic model.
Although the results of tests without an afterbody (model 2C8D, fig. 42) showed conclusively that increased afterbody clearance was desirable for the elimination of intermediate porpoising, models

hiving; afterbod.ies with a clearance greeter than that of the basic model (such as models 208C, 2 0083 , 208F, 20817 -13, and 208K) gage
extremely high hump trims and s pray characteristics inferior to

those of the basic model. tsod^.fi :^.tion-_ which incorporated means of ch::.nging the flow of water anOl air over the tiftarbody without changing the position of the forebode or afterbod y were not satisfactory as a substitute for r-si.s_ng the afterbody. The addition of hydroCL^n.^ic spoilers at the aft end of the afterbody (model 208-9) increased the aml,litude of inteimedia.te porpoising.
The same spoilers behind. the step (model 208-10) had no effect on

the variation of trim dv.rir_g take-off. Long'tudina,l steps on the

forobody (model 208G-11) r:.->ised the hu.up trim and increased the hump speed but hac. no a,pprecia-ble effect on the intermediate perpoising. Longitudinal strips on tho afterboy (model 208E-14)

had no effect on the hydrorlynarric stcbility. The ?mitior. of

a hook on the forebody of model 203H at the step (model 20317-15) lowered the trim tracks at speeds beyond the hump -ma eliminated the intermediate porpoising at trims from 8 0 to 9 o , as shown. in figure 43. Use of a hoof: cf this ty p e would require that the step

be ..eves. forward to avoid porpoising .a,t forward positions of the center of gra`rity. Results of tests with an angle of afterbod.i r keel of 11.50 (mo(lels 2081 and 208J) are gi v en in figure 44. The results show that some intermediate porpoisin was encountered at trims above 7 0 . Similar results were obtained from tests of models 202P? and 208P. A comp arison of the results of the take-off tests of the model with an increased angle of wing incidence (model 208M) with the results obtained from the basic model showed that increasing the wing incidence by 4 0 decreased the extent of the region of intermediate porpoisi.ng ; lowered the get-away speed, and had no appreciable effect on the change in trim to a second hlm'ip. The results of typical take-offs of model 208M are given 5.1-1 figure 45. The maximum amp_litiide of porpoising obtained during take-offs of model 20al 450

vrith flap deflection of 0 0 , -40 0'.9 and is shown in figure 46. Comparison of figure 46 (model 208M) with figure 39 (model 208) shows that increasing the angle of incidence shifted aft the range of stable positions for the center of gravity. Increasing the angle of flap setting from 0 0 to 45 0 decreased slightly the extent of the region of intermediate porpoising and shifted aft the range of stable positions of the center of gravit;.

C0117IL'EI,ITIAL

NACA RM No. L 0 120

CONFIDENTIAL

1-3

Landing stability..- Results of landing tests of the basic v gross load of 60.5 pounds (10, 164 pounds, model a full size) and with the center of gr_.vity at 24-percent main
uorodynamic chord, stable landings could be made at trims from 40 to 120. ^t a gross load of 77.4 pounds (13,000 pounds, full siz:;), LLndingo Made with the center of gravity at 24-and 32-percent mean aerodyrnmic chord were stable ;t tri: -, Lq from 4 0 to 7 0 . At tries from 7 0 to 10, the mod^,l heaved slightly. Above 100,

the nuilber of skips increased with trim until as mta,ry as 5 skips were ob3erved at a tri p of 14 0 . Control of the basic model in the air was extremely difficult with thi- center of gravity at the raft
Pos itions;
a.

satisfactory landing technique could not be obtained

until the area of th0 s"tabil.izer was increased.. in general, the l.n-nding characte r istic3 of the modifications which had vee steps of greater depth thali the step of the basic
model were superior to the lending characteristics of the basic

model. Model 208N, wi-rh an of terbody having a constant dead-rise angle of 20 0 , skipped lightly throughout the range of trims investigated from 2.5 0 to 15. Models 208E, 208G, 208H, 2081, 208J,
and 208K landed stably at all trims investigated from 4 0 , to 130 with the center of gravity at 28-percent mean aerodynamic chord. The landings made with model 208C were generally similar to the landings obtained with the basic model. Model 208F landed stably at trims from 4' to 15 0 Keith the center of gravity at

24-percent mean aerodynamic chord, but skipped once at all trims

investigated from 4 0 to 13 0 with the center of gravity at 36-percent

mean aerodynamic chord. Model 208L, with the d-ead -rise of the afterbody decreased
gust behind the step to give a very shallow Step, skipped violently at trims above 70 but landed stably at trims of 5 0 and 6 0 . Model Model 208- 0 5, with the hook on the step, landed stably at trims 4 , 7.5 , and 12.5 0 , but trimmed. down rapidly immediately

after contact. A comparison of the results of landing tests of models 208N and 208P showed that lengthening tho afterbody increased
the number of skips after landing at trims above 6 0 , but had no affect at trims below 60. Model 208M, with the angle of incidence of the wing increased, had about the same landing characteristics as the basic model.

CONFUT)FI?TI._AL

14

cnr ITTI 17 11,

r;l^,cA RM Nc . L6120

CONCLUSIONS The investigation of the hydrodynamic stability and spray characteristics of the basic model Showed that:
1. The spr ay characteristics were satisfactory in both smooth and r. ough water at a gross load o:f 77.4 pcunde (13,000 pounds,

full size) . The bow showed no tendency to .Jubmerge while taxiing in rough water. 2. In addition to the upper and .lower trim limits of stability, there was P. region of intermediate porpoising which extended from
the upper limit e.t intermed.iar.e planing speed, to the lower limit

at high planing 3peeds . The extent of this intermediate region of

instability was decreased by decreasing the gross lead and decreasing the amount of power. The lower trim limit: of stability was difficult

to define at high planing opeeds due to the disturbance in flow caused by the forebody chine flare. 3. The variation of trim with speed was characterized by the formation of a second hump a ter the tru3 hump, and by porpoising
which occurred when the trim crosses.. the intermediate region of

instability. At a gross load of 77.4 pounds, some porpoisLo.g . occurred for all elevator settings from .O c to -30 0 and center- ofgravity positions from. 22- to 32-percent of the moan aerodynamic chord.^ .^ -_t gross loads of either 60.5 pound) or 77.4 pounds (10,164 pounds or L3,000 pounds, full size), take-offs could be
made with an amplitude of lower-limit porpoisino of less th,^n 20, with the center of gravity at 24-percent mean aerodynamic chord and the elevator at - 10 0 . Upper limit porpoising was not encountered with an elevator setting les .3 than -30 0 and the center of gravity

forward of 32-pe-ce;nt mean aarodynLmic cixord.

4. At a gross load of 77.4 pounds, the model landed stably at trims frora 4 0 to 70, heaved during landing a t trims from 70 to 10 and skipped during l:^.n.ding at trims above 10 . At a gross load of 60.5 pounds, the model landed stably at trims from 40 to
120.

Results of tests of several modifications showed that: 1. The amount of spray wetting the f lF ps was decreased by
reducing the chine flare just ahead of the step from down 20 0 to

down 60 . With the elimination of all chine flare, however, the spray on the flaps was much heavier than wi da a flare of dot:Tn 200. Cc_lr'l+'^ 7D LL

,jaC.p, t . 4 No. L6120

COITFIDTITTIAL

15

2. Configurations which had higher hump trims also had less satisfactory spray characteristics than the basic model.
3. The change in trim to a second hump was eliminated by fading out the chine flare juit forward of the atep.

4. The extent of the intermediate region of instability was decreased by changing the plan form of the step from 450 - vee to transverse while maintaining a constant depth of step at the ]reel and by increasing the cieirance of the afterbody above the wake from the forebody.. 5. Configurations with less extensive regions of intermediate porpoisi.ng than the basic model also had wider ranges of stable positions of the center of gravity for take-off. 6. An increase in the angle of wing incidence decreased slightly the extent of the region of intermediate instability and shifted aft the range of stable positions of the center of gravity.

7. `fhe landing characteristics of modifications having vea-steps of greater dap th than the step of the basic model were superior to the landing characteristics of the basic model.
8. The additions of chine flare and transverse spoiler steps on the afterbody aggravated the porpoising in the intermediate region. 9. .Longitudinal steps on the forebody, longitudinal strips on the afterbody, a hoof; on a r.he step, aerodynamic spoilers on she sides of the of terbody, Maid an increase in the length of the afterbody were inei'f ective mean:3 of improving the hydrodynamic stability.

Langley Memorial .Aeronautical Laboratory National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Langley Field, Va.

Robert F. Havens Aeronaatical Engineer Approved: dbhn B. Parkinson Chief of H; rdrodTiamics Research Division ORB C OI FIDITUTTIAL

16

COTT=T?TiAL RM,'MSIMCES

ITACA RM No. L6120

1.

Truacott, Starr: The Enlarged. N.A.C.A. Tr:.nk, and Some of It.s Work.
NAC A Trf Yo. 918, 1939-

2.

Olson, Fole,nd E., and Land, Norman S.: the Longitudinal Stability of Flying Boats as Dote?-mined by Tests of Models in the N_?CA Tank. 1 " - Methods Used for thu Investigation of Lun3itudinal-stability Characteristics. NAC.i AT-'l:, Pdov. 1942.
1/5 Full Size Dynbmically Similar Model of the Airy OA-9

3 . Parkinson, John B.,aid Olson, Roland E.: Ta^nI: Tests oa a

Finphibian vith Motor-Driven Propellers - N L CA 114ode1 117. ,', '-CA ARP, Dec. 1941.

COn i .=)ETT?TI J,

TABLE I COMP;,RISON OF PPI: ,iCIPPL DIMENSIONS OF 1 5.5-SCALE DYNAMIC MODEL AND FULL-SIZE COLUMBIA &7L-1 AIRPLANE Hull: Model Full size Beam, including plating projecting from 76.o chines, in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.84 Lengths parallel to straight portion of orebody keel, in. 41.69 Forebody, bow to eontroid of step 229.3 Afterbody, centroid of step to sternpos t . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.27 199.5 Tail extension, sternpost to

trailing, edge of rudder . . . . . . 18.18

Over all, bow to trailing edge of

100.0 523.8

. . . . . . 96.14 rudder . . . . Depth of step (pl:^n form 45 vee) in.

Atkeel Angle of li ne, Angle of line, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14

6.27

At centroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atchine . . . . . . . . . . . . .
forebody keel relative to base deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . afterbody keel relative to base deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.93 1.44
-5.0
12.5

5.11 7.93 -5.0

12.5

Angle between keels, deg . . . . . . . . . . Angle of dead -rise of forebcdy at step, deg
Excluding chine flare . . . . . . . . . Including chine flare . . . . . . . . .

7.5
20.0
1^.5
24.0

7.5
20.0 13.5
24.0

Pingle of dead rise of afterbody, deg

Step at station 233 . . . . . . . . .

Maximum, at station315 . . . At sternpost . . . . . . . . . . Center line of pivot holes below tilrust i n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . line,
. . .

29.5 20.0
4.37

29.5 20.0
----

Wing: Area s q ft
Span, ft

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . . . . . . .

.13.65
. 9.1

413.0
50.0

Root chord (section t;ACA4413)in. . . . . . . Tip chord (section NACA 4412) in. . . . . . .

20.0 12.0

110.0 66.o

Angle of wing setting, deg Reference to base line

0
5.0 101.17

Reference to forebody keel 5.0 Mean aerodynamic chord, M.A.C., in. . . . . 13.39 Leading edge M.A.C. parallel to base line . .

Aft of bow, in.

Below
thrust

. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

32.0
3.27

176.0
13.0

line, in.

NATIONAL, ADVISORY COMMI`?'TEE FOR .AERONAUTICS

TAME I - Concluded COMPARISON OF PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF 115.5- SCALE DYN^;MSC MODEL AjID FULL SIZE COLUMBIA XJL-1 AIRPLANE - Concluded

Wing (continued):

Model

Full size

Flap se Lting, deg Take off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Horizontal tail:

30

45
3.64 20.0

Area, elevator, sq ft . . . . . . . . . . To-.al Area, sq ft . . . . . . . . . . . .

Angle of stabilizer to base line, deg Vertical tail: . .

Span, f t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chord (:sec ti on VACS 0012), f t . . . . . . Area, stabilizer, sq ft . . . . . . . . .

0.91

5.0 100.0
-2.0

1.27 3 .3
-2.0

.03

61.3 38.7

Total area (section NACA 0012), sa ft PI-opellar:

Blades

. .

1.25
3
`x1.94

38.2
3
10.5

Diameter , f t Blada angle, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tako-off power, rpm . . . . . . . . Landing power, rpm . . . . . . . . .

14
y5500

1800

a2750

^.ngle of thrust line to base line, deg Thrust line above keel at centroid of
step perpendicular to base line, in. Static thrust, lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading conditions:

0
17.4
27.5

0
208.8
4410

Normal gross load, lb. . . . . . . . . . .

Maximum design load, lb. . . . .

60.5
77.4

10,164
13,0001

Canter of gravi t y (28-percent M. k.C. ) Forward of centroid of s Lep parallel

tc strai3ht portion of fore -body

keel, in . . . . . . . . . . . . . Above f orebody keel perpendicular to

straight portion of forebody keel,
in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average pitching moment of inertia,

3.94
13.44

21.7
74.0

slug-ft2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aThese values not to scalo

a4.25

19,400

NrTION^L x>D'TISOi Y COMiiIT` ^+,E FOR r.ERONAUTICS

TABLE II. DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS Model 208 I 208-2 1 208-5 ! ' 208 -6 208-7 j 208-8 208 -9 E 208-101 208 AForebody I 1 III ITI IV I I I I , i I I Afterbody I 1 Ti III_ III IV IV IV I Figure 1)213 11 5 5 12 12 13 ! Remarks Basic model; 45 0 -vee step, 0.93 in. deep at centroid. Chine flare on basic afterbody. 450-vee step in basic position, 0.93 in. deep at centroid. 450 -vee step in basic position, 1.23 in. deep at centroid. 45 0 -vee step in basic position, 1.28 in. deep at centroid. 450-vee step in basic position, 1.32 in. deep at centroid. Hydrodyn:^mic spoiler on afterbody at station 365. Hydrodynamic spoiler on a f terbody at station 300. 300-Vee step, 1.23 in. deep vt centroid. Centroid 1.91 in. eft of centroid of basic step. 20 -vee step, 1.39 in. deep at centroi . Centroid 2.87 in.

208k-1
203B

I
I I j

I
I I

1
1? 13

' Chine flare of basic model fil- ed with moulding clay ^plastilone) to give; 0 0 angle of flare.
!

aft

of centroid of basic step.

i 208C

Transverse step, 1.42 in. deep at distance of 1/3 beam from

keel.
2088 4 208D I I I I ----15

Formed by lowering the forebody 0.54 in. pe^^pendic-

I
208E 1

!
I
14

ular to baseline. Location, 0.14 in. forward of centroid of basic step. Aerodynamic spoilers on sides of afterbody of model 208C. 0 Afterbody removed. 45 -vee, approxim 'ely 9 in. deep at

centroid. Yodel sealed aft of step along parting line

(waterline 95). 200-vee step, 1.42 in. deep at centroid.

Formed by lowering)

208F
206F -3!

I
I

I
,i I

14

the forebod y 0.54 in. perpendicular to baseline. Centroid 0.14 in. forward of centrois of basic step. Transverse step, 2.00 in. deep at distance of 1/3 beam from j
keel. Formed by lowering forebody 0.54 in. and raising

afterbody 0.52 in. perpendicular to baseline.

at centroid of basic step.

Location

W ing remove d fr om model 208F.

NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOR AM I ONAUTICS

TABLE II.- IES;CRIPTIOPT OF MODIFICATIONS - -Concluded Modal

208G
a

ForebotV , Afterbody !II Ficure

II II I II VI ( ! VI VI IV j I 4 ! i 16 ! I 8 I

Remark s
45 0 -vee step, 1.48 in. deep at centroid. Position of centrcid., same as basic step. Longitudinal steps on forebody of model 208G. Basic chine flare restored. on forebody of model 208G. 45-vee step, 1.4 in. deop at centroid. Position of centvoid, same Us basic step.

208G-11 1208G-12^ 20811

208H-13 20811 .14

II 11

IV IV

17 I Afterbody aft of station 30 0 raised ^ in. -in. square strips each side of keel and Three ^ in. by parallel to keel. Spaced at 2 in. intervals from keel,
I extending from station 280 back to intersection with Position of cent-

208H-15
2081 208J , 208K 208E
1208M

II
II II II I I i V I

IV
V V IV VII I '

17

afterbody chine. I Hook on forebody of model 20811 at the step.

4-,' -voe

9 1

step, 1.9 in. deep at centroid.

roid sazno as basic step.

9 f 30 0 -vet step, 1.9 in. deop at centroid. Position of centroid same; as basic model. 30 0 -vee stop, 2.34 in. deep at controid. Position of cent18 { 4 5 0 -vee stop, 0.5 in. deep at centroid, 0.84 in. deep at chine. Position of centroid same as basic model. ( Basic model with angle of incidence of wing changed to 40 relative to baseline. Rotated about point midway between upper and lower surface at 35 - percent roct chord. 6 30 0 -veo step, 1.23 in. deop at centroid. Position of cent- void came as basic model. !

roid

samo

as basic model.

208N

VIII

208P

IX

10 I Length of afterbody of modal 208N increased 5 in.

NATIONAL ADVISCRY

y J

COI,IMIT= FOR AEP.OTTAUTICS

NACA RM No. L6I20

I CONFIDENTIAL

:s

23'30 i -Added stabilizer

area

^^
26.91 22.^5M }

82

20 percent M.AC. 327

- -

40 percent MAC.

Wing incidence 0 m 4.3 Thrust + -- -line Centroid. of std_

-^L14
1230
1.44 I I -- -{-1230" 1712

45:

3.66

B.L.

4670 5

452 31.IG
CONFIDENTIAL

B.L.

NATIONAL ADVISOFY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure I.-Model 208.General Arrangement.

NACA RM No. L6I20

CONFIDEN

//0
-....

/2 88 52 42

/43 88 38 00 G7

/43 //0 233 2/O

3/ 52 73

PARTING LINE3 ON MODEL

14 52 //0

210 2G7 338

442 488

IL /30

CONFIDENTIAL

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

FIGURE 2.-MODEL 208. BODY PLAN

. . ... J. .^

CONFIDENTIAL

z a
a

z
0 r rn

Figure 3.- Side view of Model 208. CONFIDENTIAL

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS LANGLEY MEMORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY - LANGLEY FIELD, VA.

N O

. ... ... ..

. . . ... ..

.... .

CONFIDENTIAL 420

25 constant deadrise

340
=300 ,260

step 220 190

160
Lines

Model 206 ( basic model) ------Model 209 G

of tangency

Chine flare decreased aft .5". 160,

5 z
a a

Z z 0

r
NATIONAL ADVISORY

CONFIDENTIAL

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure 4. Comparison of model 208 G with basic model, Forebody II and afterbody a,

N O

CONFIDENTIAL

29 cons

340

forward

500 260 240

220 210 160

Model -- 2OB-5
- - 208-7

Fore body After body

III IL M

O
0

00 - N

cvN a cv

`^ O

^0

00

O It

OD 0

2,

z a n a z 0
CONFIDENTIAL
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Q1

Figure 5.- Models 208-5 and 208-7. Fore lbod ies III , IY and after bod ies

IL JIL .

N 0

CONFIDENTIAL 20 0 constant

40 300 260

Model 208(basic hull) -- - - Model 208 H

n:
LL

Chins flare transition From station 185 to 2-10.

4-6
00

(v N

^ cu

8
------------ '
12-30"

I!

N '.^
d

Centroid
of ste P

I 1 zo'

5^
z

^^ 5-T ,

^^
2.61
a

/^

a n a
B. L.

30-vee Step

.12.18 "

35.62"
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOP AERONAUTICS

z 0
r-,
r rn

CONFIDENTIAL

F;9 r e. 6. Comparison of model 208N with basic model. Forebody 'y and after-body

N
O

to

CONFIDENTIAL
f e b _ V'II VIII - I I
I

^ I 0 _N1-tin

I i I I

I I - JI

Eite n'o t

V II

I
ill, t

r+
CONFIDENTIAL - t F
I

z NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

a
C7

ao

eo d

ie i d t

te6 -t inlcain^
_
I

a 3

I
I

z
0

i .I
I

Ii M

rn

Jill

... ..

... ..

..

CONFIDENTIAL

420 X380
,340 315 300

Gonstarrt deatirise ) 29.5 forward sta.315

240 Chine flare same as model 2086-^ Step220-

190160'

Model 206 (bosic model) ------Model 206 H

o
^

a ^ ^v

0
N

g m m

Position of maximum deadrise (a9.5') ^ns measured on the model. 0 0 m

A

z
a

a
Z
z
0

^^55

CONFIDENTIAL""""` ,;".Z'

_rn

Figure 8 . Comparison of model 208 H with basic model. Forebocly

II and, aft(--V-body =,

COMMITTEE FOA AERONAUTICS

N 0

... ..

. . ... ..

CONFIDENTIAL Same as basic a{ta, body aft sta. 315

Constant deedrise, 295, fWO: .Std. J/S Chines f/ere decrCesed dt Stco
same as Mode/ ?O,?H-\

- - -

-208 (basic ^ata7e/J

2081

2./6

/2 - 16

/LS

4.52 ste Centroid -

(c7)

Mode/ 2081 K.5,9me as Mode/ 208 H, with sfterbody rotated et 5tCrr)p0,5t t'o irycre zac

depth o` stcp)

Same os basic afCerbody aft sta. 3/5 Constant deadrise, z9.5, fwd sta 315 Chine /tare dccrro.sa-d at step same ds Mode/ 208H-^

208 J - - - - .Z08 Gl^asic mode/)

218

s 40 761 ^^^
4,

_--

/15*
Ste,

c^ a

$2

9i3

Centroid

^
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE

CONFIDENTIAL
Mode/ 208J (s(3me as Mode/ 2081 , with 30- Vee steo)
Figure

FOR AERONAUTICS

Comparison of mode-/s 2081 and 208J wi th basic mode/. Forebody

II and after,body - .

.. . . .. . . .. . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . ... .. . ... ... ..

CONFIDENTIAL
4b0

^ 4zO

- Strd igkt l i ne tan en't to origimal chine4F

208 N

t4
SO
20

0 Chine

Model - - - 208 N

After body ^[L

208 P
^ O

Ig
o

a n a

35.62N -- 40,52CONFIDENTIAL

^ 4 9^^
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

z
0 r
rn
r-+

Figure 10. Comparison of cafterbocdies of models 208N and 20BP. Afterbo,lies=and

Ig

(V

.. . . .. . . :.

..

CONFIDENTIAL

Stck . 300
A^

Stc,.300__

4
^I

Sta. 365 `

------------

it

16

z a
Model Location
a

CONFIDENTIAL

- - - ?08 -9
Zoe-10

Sta. 365
StcL 300

z
0 r
rn

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure I I.- Model 208-2. Afterbody

chine F Tare.

Figure 12. M odeI5 208-9 and 208-10. Hydvodynamic spile r5 on cxfterbody

.. :. _. . . . . . . .
0:0

oi . 9:9 .

Chine -pr^ect n9, I

P/at^^y 5r^fp

CONFIDENTIAL Chine

l-, jedin9
P/at^^9 Nalfbread rh Step .3e

6.78 Halfbreadth 45

WL 72

WL 72

a n a
s ra Z/p s ra 300
s re.

210

S Ta.

Soo

(a) Model Z08 tfasie 4S' Vrcr Stco)

CONFIDENTIAL

(b) 208A Modol (30- Vfe step)

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

2 O

r
0

Figure 13. - Model 20e. Details of siclo modifications. Dimensiol^s Gs measured a) wode/.

CONFIDENTIAL
Ch

h ProJec^ing
S tep P/ati n^ 6.78
Step

_ Pro` j ectinq
j^/u ti n9

_/A
6 78

HalfbrPadth

20'

Ha

Ifbrl-ad th

L --- -
k 72 W172

a a

z
0

sta. 2 /o (C) Mode/ 206'5 (20 *,f step) Figure 13, - Concluded.

s ra,
&00

S td.

z /o
CONFIDENTIAL

s to

r _rn

.goo

(d)

Model 208C ^Trdnsver.5e srrp)

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Ch i Re ProJecti^9^^ p/aT^Hy

CONFIDENTIAL

Chine---__

Step

Pro,f ectin^
Plating

Halfbre,50dth

20'

7e" Na/ {preadth

fep

WL 72 WL 72

z a n
JTa. 2/0

Soo
(a) Model 208E (deep 20--lee- step)
CONFIDENTIAL

Sta.

2i0

Soo (b) Mode/ 208F(deep trghsverse step)

56

z 0 r rn

^9urEl4. Mode/ 208. Defg i/s ofste/n modifications. Dimensions

05

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

measured on mode/.

... ..

... ..

...

..

CONFIDENTIAL

i Step I '-

z a a z
0

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 15 . - Mode l 208C-4. AcYo6y navr i c spoilers oVI sides of afteyiM

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

rn
N 0

Figure 16.- Model Z08G-11 . Lovgitudinal steps cn Fove body .

.. . . .. . . ... ... .. ... .. ... .

CONFIDENTIAL Constant deddrise, 29.5', fwd std. 21S

Chine f/are deceased at step

208 H-13 300 3iS

sto. sta. - - - - 208(bg5 c. `node/)

same as Model 209H -^

42.le'

S' Centroid

9.76

1S. 86 u

(d) Model Z08H-13 (sam(? as Mode/ 208H with aftcrbody raised .75 in.) 1.65 '
Constant dcodr se , 29.5-, fwd. sta. 21S Chine flare decreased at step same as Model 2OeH - ----I
b./9
^_

-_

6.78

z
n
208H-15 108 (bps)c model)
4 sz --^
Std.

z
O

CONFIDENTIAL 19

Centroi

315-

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

(b) Model 208H-15 (sam(? as Model 208H, with hook on step) Fi9urc 17 . - Mode/.s 20,FH-13 and 2O8H-16- . Modificatlons of hul/.

rn N O

...

. ...

. ..

... ..

... ..

CONFIDENTIAL

Same as basic afAcrbody aft stq. 3iS Constant deadrice , 29.5, fwd. sta. 315 Chine Oarc decreascd at step same os Mode/ 208H-\ Z08 s - - - - -'OF (basic model)

z
2.6 i ^^
-^ o

3/5

Sta

Cen troid

4. S2

z a
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

CONFIDENTIAL

z 0
r rn

Figure

18, -

boay c7ffer rr, Model zo8 K (c%30' lee, step) FOrebooly z ana/

N 0

. ... . . . ... .. ... ..

. ... ... ..

z a n a z
0 r
rn

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM No. L6I20

.0..

NACA RM No. L6I20

--

1-` ^

- ^

- CONFIDENTIAL

_ -E _

I6__

4
_
w in
0
x a 1A z

_
4
S 0 _

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTI

CONFIDENTIAL

(0) El vtrde 1c
F .-;Mdl

in,

on iud

NACA RM No. L6I20

FIDENT
0000

0.000.

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TIAL

... ..

... .. .... ...

CONFIDENTIAL

C
t C .0

TT

4 F_

d
x -

esNATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

-- -

'C

ONFIDENTIAL_1

--

z a n
a

z 0

LIU

V i -Md1 -- h tr _ i_~

ito w

f it o a i 1 z r^

t t i

^ci

e'

- h

f s

r rn N

Center of moments, 24 percent M. A. C.

---- - --

- --

-I

-- -TTT --------CONFIDENTIAL-----

a,

a
z a
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAU TICS

n
a

--CONFIDENTIAL

- -- -

--

--^

1
di Fi

1 ;,

z 0
r rn

N O

.. . . .. . . . . .. ... .. ... .. .... ...

CONFIDENTIAL

U^ s
Oa

...

a
^r

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS.

z a
a

CONFIDENTIAL 12
deg

z
0 r rn

H -,

d fl
AOL

- 11 ic

- ---------

_ - CONFIDENTIAL

jz

- -

S
NATI6NAL

ADVIS

z a
a

COMMITTEE FOR AER01

---

- CONFIDENTIAL
I I I

_^

-Trim, dex
h^

-.1
'

z 0
r
rn

e,- oe
c s f c e

Tr

Lei

^_^io

f1 t e'c' n

1 4 o f[ -_e ( Te i h t im ')U fps. E6 wing chord; flaps, 30 ; speed, Center of moments, 24 percent M. A. C.

s a il z

CONFIDENTIAL-

i
10 14-

c a

C
4Q C

o
-

0
"'1

PL 1

--- - --

- CONFIDENTIAL --

- --

--

--

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMNITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS_'- --_._

^

z
-

a a

(a).

to r

aite-off powe

f 1p

z 0
r _rn

ecn ). Variation f 1i_1 Q. -M)del _s_ais_zrar_a. _ic_e e_ Z. f o e t m n c e f c i en t h_ i h . tr_ _ e_ ue c_ o f c_' _ t t ed M s ce . bill A._e..^-_^17 _ 1 i

... ..

... .. .... ..

CONFIDENTIAL

- --

--

or

_. --

is - CONFIDENTIAL

'

e
of MO del o 1

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

e
-b)

T
_-

--

1 5 e

4d

z a n a z
0

T-Ft
- -

- r _rn
N O

_-

"+-

.... NACA RM No. L6I20

I __ '; :t ... ^.... ^:::: { I: :^ : :: S t

t ;

i+ _ _ I'.

CONFIDENTIAL-

:^^

II

:'

'rte

__

.... --

If

i:: ....

1 iit 't'

'j'

It

1:. a{I

:1.

EII

:t

it

.It 3'I

a;

??j.'

,_.._

.. ... ... .........

is

......... .....---- __......

oer

ea........

^.
i

om
CONFIDENTIALa f
hi t
e t! t

NATIONAL ADVISORY
MMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

_.
;.

Ste

_.....

...... ... ... .......

ii

CONFIDENTIAL

NACA RM No. L6I20

T,

1.9

V, 5.9

T,

4.1

V, 7.2

T,

5.1

V, S.1

T , 5.9

V, 9.1

Figure 25- Model 208 Spray characteristics in speed range where spray wets propeller. Take-off power; flaps, 300; gross load,77.4 lb. (13,000 lb. full-size); elevator,00, -r, trim, deg; V, speed, fps.
CONFIDENTIAL
EATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS LANGLEY MEMORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY - LANGLEY FIELD, VA.

 CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM

No. L6I20

T,8.0 V,13.0 Se,O

T,9.2 V,14.1. se,0

T,

10.0

, 1 5-9 Se,O

Figure 26- Model 208. Spray characteristics in speed range where spray wets flaps. Take-off power; flaps,30 0 ; gross load, 77.4 lb. (13,000 lb. full-size). r, trim, deg; V, speed, fps; 8 e , elevator deflection, deg.
CON

FIDENTIAL

AERONAUTICS FIELD, VA. ABORATORYA I AL AERONAUTICAL L LAYGLEY Y EYOR Y

i'

^-o 00
CONFIDENTIAL NACA RM No. L6I20

T, 10.5 V, 18.1 s e , 20

T, 9.8 V, 19.1 se, 20

T, 9.1 V, 20.1 s e , 20

V, 21.2 se 20

Figure 26.- Model 208. Concluded. _ n A7IOWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS CONFIDENTIAL LANGLEY YEUORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY - LANGLEY FIELD,

VA..

...

..

...

..

....

::

:..:

.:

.:

CONFIDENTIAL
.I1 .I

774

44
' .

-iI

a"

ii
t I; I t II

:11. t ;

fl

I.

;i

ii

I;:

t ^i

;it l; jf
iti

,
t t

.r'

'

.... :i
:1 :1

it.i
::

t i

;:

ii .

L"

''..:

_i

'1*

III

1' I ,

^^

^.

,:

:^

^^ [!:T t' " -

III {'

I '{ 1101

1't: ^ I i. '!' fI

L '1 ` ;!" i r ;i: ': I I ii

^i:

:l Il ti

71

^.

SMIO
i c;f t

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

a a
;U

'I. i {i

ii { r` t't " #

r I,

z 0
r rn

CONFIDENTIAL

1444

 . .. .. ... .... .
. . .. . .. . .. ... ..

CONFIDENTIAL

E T17
-

-._.
T

A , -t-- -

_t

ur 9

:.

I TT i'i 'i' t `I

'r; t

a: .....

IJ i; ;;

I :..

.. :
^'

C ON FI D ENTI A

L -

--` -

NATIONAL ADVISORY+ - COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 4

is

zx

(V

 . .:.

. 06 . .. '

.". .: . . . . . . ' .:. '..' :.. .o

z a a z 0 r H

NACA RM No. L6I20

e Re-Pei e

T, S.0

V, 25.0

T, 9.0

V, 25.0

1 .^ X

T, 10.0

V, 25.0 T, 5.0 V, 35.0

T,

7.0

V, 35.0

T, '4.0

V, 4U.0

Figure 29.- Model 208H-14. Flow around afterbody. Take-off power; gross load, 77.4 lb (13,000 lb, full-size); flaps, 30 0 ; stabilizer, -2 0 ; V, speed, fps; T, trim, deg.

CONFIDgHTIAL LANGLEY MEMORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY - LANGLEY FIELD. VA .

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

...

. ..

..

. ..

... ..

... ..

z a
a
3
i f
-t -

'i: _
is

I2

2L

1 i^

t
U

^i
^i ik=i
t

i
#

z 0
t ?i

'I

't t: i'

r
i n

N 0

.. .

...

..

.. . .

z a n a z 0
r a^ O

vw

H,
CONFIDENTIAL

1 -

}i
4

Aid V
r Y.aI

3
;i

71

N ^t

7.

Lip

rm

z ........ ......... : _.

M7 T

...-......

-.._ :..:
--;-CONFIDENTIAL

-_.

w -_-

. ..

. -COMNITTEE FWl_AERONAUTICS-: _

z a

7F
-

z 0
r ro 0

rna
n z

- --- ^ ..

. ^i^ ...

. .

. . . . .

z
a a

z
0 r 0

........ . . . . ... ... .. ... ..

.. ..... . ..

CONFIDENTIAL -

1:.

sil

tti

77
_:. s

I ...

!-

J^r&e

..
XIL4-AT i

:P

+41
I _

tH
.. :..

t
r

- -

CONFIDENTIAL

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

4
^^-" 4 y

---

ii
-

O
C

:.

.. . . .. . . ... .. ... .. ..

. . ..

- ` CONFIDENTIAL

77. W - ... ...-- -- --- -- - - i-: ^,

_. ---- -------- ------ ----- j t

_:
---_

to
Ll

-- - --

_--

-ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

z a
-

{ IW

-CONFIDENTIAL

a -

_
208-2 etb3djr

z 0
r rn

c i


..

_x

. . . ... . ... ..

,.

. ..

. . . . . . . ... ..

..

N. . 00 .

. .. ... . .. ..

Center of gravity,
22 percent M.A.C. 12

CONFIDENTIAL
24 percent Elevator deflection, deg 12 Elevator deflection, deg

IO

_30

10

I,^^.I

- 30

I
2

,^
^

-10 ^
-5

x X-^,
^^^5

0
50 0 10 20 30

10

20

30

40

40

50

dElevator r28 percent

H 12
10

FA

eflection, deg 0 0
12

E+

30

10

O
_ o

-10 -20
-30

-20

6
4 2

10

6
4 2

z a a
z

CONFIDENTIAL

0
40 (a) 50

0 10 20 30 Speed, fps

r
0 10 30 20 Speed, fps 40 50

Gross load, 60.5 pounds.

Figure36.-Model 208. Variation of trim with speed. Takeoff power; flaps, 30 0 ; stabilizer, -20.


1 to . .

22 percent
I2

CONFIDENTIAL
12

24 percent Elevator deflection, de

^30

Elevator 10 deflection, de 10

`^ I ,0.
AJY

- 30 ^-a
0 '^^`I ^a -10 2
- 5

2
O m Q) b 0 10 i 20 30

0x

O
0 10 20 30 40
SO

40

50

awi

Elevator
deflection, deg

H
12
10

12 10

-a -x
0
- - o - - v a

-5
-10 -20
-2.5

8.
6 4 2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50

a
6
4

-30

a a

O
2

3 z 0

10

20

30

40

50

rn

Speed, fps (b). Gross load, 77.4 pounds. Figure 36.- Model MS.- Concluded.

Speed, fps

N 0

CONFIDENTIAL
Center of gravity, 32 percent,M.A.C. , Elevator

deflection Elevator +\\

10+^
4D 8

^,
^

deg deflection, deg

-30 _ O O
o -30

Q 4`,-+'

2
^

CONFIDENTIAL
10
40 30 Speed, fps Gross load, 60.5 pounds.

20

50
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

a
z

z a

(a) .

Figure37.- Model 208. Variation of trim with speed. Without power;

flaps, 30 0 ; stabilizer, -20.

CONFIDENTIAL
Elevator deflection, deg 0 0 -- + -15 o -30

12

10

n,
6
1+

0 b
I~

10

20

30

40

50

s.

28 percent 12
10

32 percent
12
10

I ^^

8
30 6

8 6
4
2

z a
a 0 0

^r-

2 NFIDENTI AL
0

z 0
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

10

30 20 Speed, fps

40

50

10

20 30 Speed, fps

40

50

rn

tv
0

(b). Gross load, 77.4 pounds. Figure37.- Model 208.- Concluded.

 .. . . .. . . ... . . . . .. . .. .

CONFIDENTIAL
Second hump 14 Elevator deflection, deg 12
1

Upper limit (increasing trim)

30
-30

i --Topper limit

( decreasing trim) I -0- 0_ Take-cf f curve

10

-20 _ -10

br _

^ 8
n
s^ E

6
'x'

\^
Lower limit -, z

a a

---j

^T 0

0i
0

CONFIDENTIAL 1i
5 10 15 20

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

z 0
I
r a^

>

40 25 30 35 50 45 Speed, fps Figure35.- Model 206. relation between free- p c-trim curves and trim limits of stability. C. G., 32 percent Ni.A.C.; take-off power; flaps, 30 0 ; gross load, 77.4 pounds.

z a a a7 z

r N O

0:00 *0: 0060 0000

NACA RM No. L6I20

0000.. 0000
00

Model 208G (decreased chine flare) 14

CONFIDENTIAL
12
10
- -v^ PI) ,

Elevator

0000..

1
Se _^ I20

deflection, 8e, deg v- - -v _30

o--o -20 D--a -10

E-

60
A
4

x-5

'
^a

0 L Model 20EG-12 (basic chine flare)

14
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

12
10 - - _ IV _ 8e_30_

V11

E_

x,

- --

4----, I 0

-
CONFIDENTIAL I I I

-o
I

10

20

30

40

50

Speed, fps
Figure 40.- Models 208G and 208G-12. Variation of trim with speed. Gross load, 77.4 pounds; take-off power; center of gravity, 28-percent mean aerodynamic chord; flaps,300; stabilizer, -20.

..

NACA RM No. L6I20

,
1

0000

0000. 0 s

('C)NGIn97AIT1 A1 ..- 0000 ^., ^., ^

^
! !
I

^
r

I
! I ' i I

0000

I
i I

I
I
I 1-- cdnt4erl o

L40

r vi

A.

f
'

1( I ) kc, e 208 (ba

! ig, r

d1

I
!

i I

I I
1 {

As
I

'
;de

01

!
1

^
I^ I ^ 1

If

10

CP
I

Ai I G
RAN E !

a^

I T

f d ! -i f I

i I

g lop

d 1-

I
i i
I
,-iC n e

i
I,
+

^E
I M A C.

l
i

l
I

i
^

^
off' 1 vit e
o-^

1
! 1

e,

i
I

I
-

Y;
! NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

i ( ) M de ( tr_ansve_rse s e ) r 4 - M d 1 . 'V i^t# o of a i u e of With I oi.in!of!cner!o rvt;, rs 1^a

tak e- o f

r 'oi in ! V . 4 ;i;

owe 'fl

! stat^i 'iz rj-

CONFIDENTIAL

i ^

NACA RM No. L6I20

0.000

C. G. 26 percent M.A.C. CONFIDENTIAL

14 12 10

Elevator deflection,

fie, deg .----o-20

o -15 ----0-10 X -5 ----0-0

6
I~ 4 I

2 0
C. G. 36 percent M.A.C.

14

be
-^ 1-30

12

-20 1-15
1

-----

Q)

hD 6

- = -

x,-^.

I -x,

-^
x- ac-,

=5
-

- ^--

s~ 4

-0
^-

CONFIDENTIAL
0 0 10 20

NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

30 Speed, fps

40

50

Figure 42.- Model 208D (Afterbody removed). Variation of trim with speed. Gross load, 77.4 1 -0; take-off power; flaps, 300; stabilizer,

NACA RM No. L6I20

14 12 10 ^ S

i e 1 208H

Elevator deflection,

Se, deg v-- - v -30

o---o-20 A--- 0-15
q - - El -10

X---x-5

6
4

o- - -0
,-5

X- X_ X

2 0 0

14 12
b^
10

t
Se^ ,d v I,?-

-20-

S ^ E6

=10

4
2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Speed, fps Figure43.- Models 20SH and 20SH-15. Variation of trim with speed. Center of gravity, 26 percent M.A.C.; gross load 77.4 lb; take-off power; flaps ?O o ; stabilizer -20.

NACA RM No. L6I20

-(a) Model 208 I

Elevator

CONFIDENTIAL
12ie,

deflection,
deg
^I

o,
^

W0

10

'-

x, X

-Do

v- -- v -30

_ ". 1

-Z-0 o-- n-15 p 0 -15 0---a-10 - LL -^ - o' 5

100---0 0 X,) I^x

2 0

0 -

-5

l_

(b) Model 2108 J

12

be`

10
aD

__ ' '
,

^J`2J ,v^0' ' 15

I

^'
4 --

^
\ x^
I

I/-5 x

2
CONFIDENTIAL 0 0 10 20 Speed, 30
fps

0 40 50
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure 44.- Models 208 I and 208 J. Variation of trim with speed; Gross load, 77.4 lb; take-off power; center of gravity, 28 percent M.A .C.; flaps, 30 0 ; stabilizer, -20.

0000
0000

NACA RM No. L6I20

0000

CONFIDENTIAL
1 1 1
a.> b

0.000.

0000 0 0
00000.

Elevator deflection,
be,

deg
_

v-- --vr-30
o ----Q20

o-^ 0 I~

01 0

10

20

30

40

50

14 Gross load 61.4 lb; without power. 12 I --

10
-^,
b S X\

6e, deg -V -15

10 ^ x K, -5

E 6 c4I

0--L-0 10

2- 1
CONFIDENTIAL

20

30

40

50

Speed, fps

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure L+5.- Model 208M. Variation of trim with speed. Center of gravity, 2S percent M.A.C.; flaps 30 0 ; stabilizer, -20.

of

NACA RM No. L6I20

....
o .. .

i r 1

t ;

i'

^dPlcin d i6 a
t
10 1

1+
I'
t
i }
11

-r --

-41

i
I

-- i

1
i i

IO
1-9 -

j
oU

^'

I Tc nte

r4vi tvl.

el

t # I

p
1 1I(
I

I
i 1

i 71
,F , ^- }

1
;

)`F I

a s,l 3001
i

!
I j

rl
e f

-3

^2d
^I G in
I ^_ 1^-^ ! j I

t
i3ATIONAI ADVISORY

of
! C

dLvl
S'

ALA

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTI CS

r}

now