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

R=19700033422 2018-03-16T23:53:24+00:00Z
- 1

NASA TECHNICAL N O T E

FLIGHT EVALUATION OF *

GROUND EFFECT O N SEVERAL

LOW-ASPECT-RATIO AIRPLANES

by Paul A . Baker, Willium G. Schweikhard,

and William R. Young
Flight Research Center
Edwurds, Cub$ 93523

N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N WASHINGTON, D. C. OCTOBER 1970

R
/
i
& B
 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

I111l1l1ll1111lllIl1llI1
l
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. .."...r."..." --._=
-I

NASA TN D-6053

NASA Flight Research Center

P. 0. Box 273 11:Contract or Grant No.

13. Type o f Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D. C. 20546 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

A constant-angle-of-attack-approachtechnique was used to measure

ground effect on several low -aspect-ratio aircraft. The flight results
w e r e compared with results from constant -altitude flybys, wind-tunnel
studies, and theoretical prediction data. It was found that the constant-
angle -of-attack technique provided data that were consistent with data
obtained from constant-altitude flybys and required fewer runs to obtain
the same amount of data.

The test results from an F5D-1 airplane modified with an ogee wing,
a prototype F5D-1 airplane, two XB-70 airplanes, and an F-104A airplane
indicate that theory and wind-tunnel results adequately predict the trends
caused by ground effect a s a function of height and aspect ratio. However,
the magnitude of these predictions did not always agree with the flight-
measured results. In addition, there was consistent evidence that the
aircraft encountered ground effect at a height above one wing span.

..
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s1 1 18. Distribution Statement

Ground effect Unclassified - Unlimited

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. NO. of Pages 22. Price'

Unclassified Unclassified 46 $3.00

~

'For sale b y the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 221 51
 FLIGHT EVALUATION OF GROUND EFFECT ON SEVERAL

LOW-ASPECT-RATIO AIRPLANES

By Paul A. Baker, William G. Schweikhard, and William R. Young

Flight Research Center

INTRODUCTION

When an airplane flies close to the ground, at a height of one o r two wing spans,
it experiences an increase in lift and significant changes in drag and pitching moment.
This phenomenon is known as ground effect. Interest in ground effect has recently
been renewed because of its significance for both V/STOL and conventional low-aspect-
ratio aircraft such as the supersonic transport. In wind-tunnel tests the effect of the
ground can be simulated by moving the aircraft model progressively closer to the
wind-tunnel floor o r ground board. In the limited flight measurements of ground effect
made in the study of reference 1, a flyby technique was used which required that an
airplane be flown at a constant altitude and airspeed. Both flight and wind-tunnel
methods require numerous passes o r runs to obtain data throughout the altitude and
angle -of -attack range.

A different flight-test method f o r analyzing ground effect was proposed in refer-

ence 2. With this method, a low approach is made in a test airplane while constant
angle of attack and power setting are maintained. The measurement of engine thrust,
which is difficult but necessary for most methods, is not required for this method
because the power setting remains fixed throughout the approach. This method was
used in a flight investigation at the NASA Flight Research Center in which ground effect
was evaluated on five low-aspect-ratio aircraft: an F5D-1 modified with an ogee wing
(ref. 3), a conventional F5D-1, two XB-70’s (XB-70-1, XB-70-2), and an F-104A.
These airplanes were selected because of their low aspect ratios and their similarity
to some supersonic -transport configurations and because the effect of the ground on
the modified F5D-1 had been measured previously using the constant-altitude-flyby
technique (ref. 1).

The results of this flight study with the five airplanes are presented in this report.
The measured changes in lift and pitching moment are presented as a function of the
height of the airplane above the ground. The results obtained from the modified F5D-1
with the flyby method and results obtained using the constant-angle-of-attack method
are compared. In addition, the data for all five airplanes are compared with wind-
tunnel studies and theoretical prediction data calculated from equations presented in
reference 4. A t the time the constant -angle -of -attack technique w a s validated, the
mathematical analysis associated with the theory was expanded. The expanded analysis
is included in appendix A.
 SYMBOLS

A l l quantities in this report are presented in both U. S. Customary Units and the
International System of Units (SI).

wing span, ft (m)

drag coefficient , mag

qs
drag-coefficient increment, CD - C D ~

Lift
lift coefficient, -
Csl
lift -coefficient increment , CL - CLo

change in lift coefficient with change in longitudinal control deflection,

per deg

pitching -moment coefficient

change in pitching -moment coefficient with change in longitudinal -

control deflection, per deg

wing mean aerodynamic chord, f t (m)

drag force, lb (N)

drag increment, D - Do, lb (N)

acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2 (m/secz)

height of quarter chord of wing mean aerodynamic chord above

ground, f t (m)

vertical velocity, ft/sec (m/sec)

v e r t ic a1 acceleration , ft/s ec2 (m/sec2

height of g e a r above the ground, ft (m)

lift force, lb (N)

lift increment, L - Lo, lb (N)

dynamic pressure, lb/ft2 (N/m2)

dynamic-pressure increment, q - q,, lb/ft2 (N/m2)

2
S wing area, ft2 (m2)

T aircraft net thrust, l b (N)

t time, sec

V t r u e velocity, ft/sec (m/sec)

W aircraft weight, lb (kg)

X horizontal distance, ft (m)

i horizontal velocity, ft/sec (m/sec)

..
X horizontal acceleration, ft/sec2 (m/sec2)

a angle of attack, deg

flight -path angle , deg

longitudinal -control -surface deflection, deg

longitudinal -control -surface-deflection increment, 6, - 6, , deg

0

e pitch-attitude angle , deg

Subscript :

0 initial value

TEST AIRCRAFT

The airplanes used in the program were a Douglas prototype F5D-1 modified with
an ogee wing, a conventional Douglas prototype F5D-1, the two North American
XB-~O'S, and a Lockheed F-104A. The pertinent dimensions for each airplane are
given in table 1, and three-view drawings of the airplanes are shown in figures 1t o 4.
The modified F5D-1 airplane has a planform similar to that of the Concorde (ref. 5).
It has an aspect ratio of 1.70, whereas the conventional F5D-1 airplane has an aspect
ratio of 2.0. Each of the XB-70 airplanes has an aspect ratio of 1.75, with a size and
weight similar t o the foreign and domestic supersonic transports (refs. 5 and 6). The
F5D-1 and XB-70 airplanes have delta wings and elevons for their main control s u r -
faces. The F-104A airplane, with an aspect ratio of 2.45, has a straight wing and a
high horizontal stabilizer (T-tail) which is used as an elevator.

TEST PROCEDURE AND PILOT TECHNIQUE

The technique proposed in reference 2 requires the pilot to fly the test aircraft at

. .. . ..-
a constant angle of attack and power setting during a shallow, descending approach to
the runway. It was found that pilot proficiency was v e r y important in flying approaches
if useful data w e r e t o be obtained. Also, atmospheric conditions greatly affected the
test results. Consequently, flights w e r e scheduled in the e a r l y morning to take ad-
vantage of calm wind conditions and the absence of turbulence due to differential s u r -
face heating. F o r the two F5D-1 airplanes and t h e F-104A airplane, a maximum of
5 knots of surface wind was tolerated; however, f o r t h e larger and heavier XB-70 air-
planes, usable data w e r e obtained with winds as high as 11knots.

The Air Force Flight T e s t Center (AFFTC) tracking facility provides optimum
data when an airplane is n e a r the midpoint on the runway. It was found that a glide-
slope indicator light (fig. 5) aided the pilot in establishing t h e initial conditions of con-
stant angle of attack and steady sink rate. The indicator was used as a reference from
which to initiate t h e airplane's descent so that it would be in the proximity of the
ground n e a r the midpoint of t h e runway.

In the F5D-1 airplanes and the F-104A airplane, t h e angle-of-attack display was
placed just inside the windshield directly in front of the pilot. This location enabled the
pilot t o determine his relationship t o the ground without interrupting his concentration
on angle of attack. Because of lack of space in the windshield a r e a , the normal loca-
tion f o r t h e angle-of-attack display was used in the XB-70 airplanes.

DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS

Aircraft Instrumentation

Each of the airplanes was instrumented to r e c o r d angle of attack and control-

surface deflection. In addition, the XB-70 a i r c r a f t w e r e instrumented to r e c o r d power-
l e v e r position. The accuracies and ranges of t h e s e n s o r s installed in each airplane
are listed in table 2. Also listed are the ranges and resolutions of the cockpit angle-
of-attack displays. Time correlation was attained by using a tone switch mounted on
each of the pilot's control sticks o r columns. When on, the switch transmitted a
1000 -cycle-per-second tone over the U H F communication channel which was received
by the tracking facility.

Tracking Facility

The AFFTC Takeoff and Landing Facility provided t h e external tracking required
for the program. The Facility maintains two Askania cinetheodolite stations, one n e a r
each end of the main runway, as shown in figure 6 . Precision position data as a
function of time w e r e obtained f r o m the Facility during each low approach. Wind speed,
wind direction, and air temperature were also recorded by the Facility. The installa-
tion is described in detail in reference 7.

Method of Analysis

In addition to the assumptions of constant angle of attack and power setting, the
constant-angle-of-attack technique assumes a shallow flight path ( y 2 3"). While

4
approaching the runway, the pilot establishes the initial conditions. The angle of
attack corresponds t o a particular speed and the power setting to a particular sink rate.
These steady-state conditions are disturbed by ground effect, causing the aircraft t o
change both speed and sink rate. The relationship between these accelerations and the
normalized lift coefficient is given by the following equation:

..
-ACL
C
LO
q g
..
=40[(hcosy-~s~ytcosy
g
..
) -($os XO
-yo - -g
sin yo + cos yo ,I-..
q
(1)

Data Reduction

The Askania cinetheodolite c a m e r a system began tracking the test airplane's

descent when it was approximately 200 feet (61 meters) above the ground. Because the
airplane was still out of ground effect, initial sink rates and approach speeds could be
determined. The parameters provided by the tracking facility and atmospheric pres -
s u r e s obtained from the Edwards Air Force Base weather station were used as inputs
to a computer program which calculated the aircraft's vertical and horizontal position
and dynamic p r e s s u r e each one-fourth second during a run.

The time history in figure 7 of an approach made in an XB-70 airplane is typical

of the data that can be obtained with the constant-angle -of-attack-approach technique.
As required, the throttle angle was absolutely constant. The angle of attack decreased
slightly, but the increase in lift due to ground proximity still caused the airplane t o
flare. Corrections were applied for minor deviations from the reference angle of
attack. Ground effect also changed the pitching moment. The 3" to 4" change in elevon
deflection was required to maintain angle of attack. The eventual decrease of 1 0 ft/sec
( 3 . 1 m/sec) in t r u e velocity is qualitative evidence of increased drag resulting from
the nearness of the ground; however, conclusive quantitative analysis of these data in
t e r m s of drag increments was not possible.

The position data calculated by the computer were reduced to obtain the vertical
..
and horizontal velocities and accelerations. Two methods were used to obtain h, x,
h, and G. One method was to plot the altitude versus time and then f i t a smooth curve
to the points. The slopes of the resulting curve represented the rate of sink at each
time interval. Similarly, plotting the horizontal position v e r s u s time and taking slopes
provided horizontal velocity. Repeating the procedure by plotting rate of sink and hori-
zontal velocity versus time produced the required vertical and horizontal accelerations.

The quantities h and 2 w e r e also obtained from the following relationships:

5
 The rate of sink and horizontal velocity w e r e obtained in the manner described in the
preceding paragraph. The slopes from a curve of altitude v e r s u s rate of sink r e p r e -

sent the quantity ~ Similarly, the slopes of the curve of altitude v e r s u s hori-

zontal velocity represent ~ dh Once the accelerations were obtained, they w e r e

used in equation (1)t o calculate'the normalized increase in lift coefficient.

Obtaining the vertical and horizontal accelerations by either of these methods was
tedious. Consequently, s e v e r a l computer smoothing routines w e r e t r i e d to determine
if they could fit the plotted c u r v e s , but none was able t o do a satisfactory job. They
w e r e overly influenced by s t r a y points and calculated extraneous accelerations.

PRECISION

Accuracy of the Position Measurement

The accuracy of the position data from the tracking facility was evaluated (ref. 7)
t o be z t l . 5 feet (h0.5 meter). F u r t h e r , the velocities and accelerations obtained from
the hand reduction methods are accurate within 50.3 ft/sec (+O. 1 m/sec) and
&O. 06 ft/sec2 (h0.02 m/sec2), respectively. F r o m these values, the variation in
dynamic p r e s s u r e was calculated to be &O. 5 lb/ft2 (32.4 N/m2).

Accuracy of the Angle -of -Attack Measurement

Because the low approaches w e r e flown at constant angles of attack, only the
changes in the influence of upwash i n and out of ground effect on the angle-of-attack
vane affected t h e data. A comparison of onboard and Askania measurements indicated
no perceptible change in upwash influence on the vane.

Because lift v a r i e s sharply with angle of attack, deviations in this angle during an
approach caused significant changes in the measured results. Hence, any deviations
which occurred were c o r r e c t e d by using wind-tunnel data from the sources listed in
table 3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the ground-effect t e s t s are shown as a function of quarter-chord

height and angle of attack in figures 8 t o 20. The lift increments are presented as
percent increases in the lift coefficient, and the pitching-moment change is indicated
by the deviation of the longihdinal-control input f r o m the out-of-ground-effect t r i m
condition. The basic aerodynamic characteristics f o r each a i r c r a f t , obtained from
references 8 and 9 and unpublished data, are presented in appendix B. Because

6
longitudinal-control inputs a l s o cause changes in lift, the t r i m change is responsible
for the difference between the percent increase in the t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift-
coefficient increments shown. The untrimmed lift coefficient represents the lift which
could be expected if t h e r e w e r e no t r i m change. Moreover, it allows direct com-
parison with wind-tunnel and theoretical results.

It should be pointed out that each set of symbols representing the data for one
angle of attack w a s obtained f r o m one approach. The initial and final values of the
cmtrol-surface position, airspeed V, sink rate h, dynamic p r e s s u r e q , and flight-
path angle y f o r each of the data runs are tabulated in tables 4 t o 7.

General Comments and Observations

In every approach the aircraft encountered increased t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift

increments and an increased negative pitching moment as they approached the ground.
With the exception of t h e XB-70, measurable lift increments w e r e experienced above
the classic one wing span; however, significant effects w e r e not encountered until the
airplane descended t o lower heights. These lift increments generally preceded any
measurable pitching-moment changes.

The pilots in the program made several qualitative observations about t h e extent
of ground effect encountered. There w e r e consistent comments on the strong flare
and float characteristics of the F-104A airplane, whereas the XB-70 airplanes were
noted t o become m o r e stable laterally. On the other hand, the F5D-1 airplanes did
not "float" as much as the XB-70 and F-104A airplanes. Quantitatively, the flare and
float characteristics can be related to the airplane's initial sink rate. An initial sink
r a t e as low as 4 . 3 ft/sec (1.3 m/sec) caused the F5D-1 airplanes t o touch down; where-
as, on one approach the XB-70 airplanes had an initial sink rate of 7.3 ft/sec (2.2 m/
s e c ) but did not touch down. Similarly, the increase in the lift of the F-104 airplane
due to ground effect reduced sink rates of 20 ft/sec ( 6 . 1 m/sec) t o zero and caused the
airplane t o stabilize a few feet above the runway for the r e s t of the approach.

A mathematical analysis of the d r a g change due t o ground effect is presented in

appendix A; however, attempts t o quantitatively measure the change in drag produced
inconsistent results. The problem is believed t o lie with the relatively small magni-
tudes of the accelerations that must be measured. These accelerations a r e easily lost
among the inadvertent inputs associated with flying the airplane. Although the change
in drag was not measured, some deductions w e r e made by observing the change in
t r u e airspeed during the low approaches. A s an approximation, a reduction in t r u e
airspeed may be interpreted as a n increase in drag, and an increase in t r u e airspeed,
as a reduction in drag. On the b a s i s of the general reduction in speed (tables 4 to 7 ) ,
it appears that the drag generally increased as the airplane encountered ground effect
during the constant -angle -of -attack approaches. Analytical methods and test tech-
niques for extracting d r a g data due t o ground effect need further research.

F5D-1 Airplane Modified With an Ogee Wing

The effect of ground proximity on the lift and pitching moment of the modified
F5D-1 airplane is shown in figure 8. A s can be seen, the pitching moment due to

7
 ground effect is s m a l l (less than I" change in elevon position). Consequently, the
t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift increments are approximately equal at 24 percent at touch-
down.

A comparison of flight r e s u l t s obtained by two different flight-test techniques is

shown in figure 9. In the constant-altitude-flyby tests of reference 1, measurements
w e r e assigned altitude bands r a t h e r than discrete heights; consequently, i n this figure,
the horizontal line is at the center of the original altitude band, and its length covers
the spread of the data within that band. The vertical line at each end of the horizontzl
line symbolizes the width of the band. The individual measurements within each band
are indicated by the tick m a r k s on the horizontal line. These data are superimposed
on the constant -angle-of -attack-approach data f r o m figure 8. Although the lift-
coefficient data show general agreement at the lower heights, the constant -angle -of -
attack data a r e more consistent than the constant-altitude -flyby data. The disparity
between the two sets of data increases with increasing airplane height above the ground.
Also, it should be noted that t h e constant -angle -of-attack data w e r e obtained during
5 r u n s , whereas the constant -altitude -flyby data required 44 runs.

Figure 10 is a comparison of wind-tunnel data and theoretical predictions with data

f r o m a 10" constant-angle-of-attack approach. A s can be s e e n , the flight data and the
predicted data from reference 4 are in close agreement in both trend and magnitude;
however, extrapolating the wind-tunnel results indicates a lift increment n e a r the
ground substantially greater than either the flight o r reference 4 results. On the other
hand, it should be noted that the wind-tunnel data go t o z e r o below one wing span, but
the flight and analytical r e s u l t s show lift increments above one wing span. It s e e m s
reasonable that the wind-tunnel incremental-lift r e s u l t s go to z e r o at lower heights be-
cause of the negative effect produced by the ceiling of the tunnel. This is especially
t r u e of the full-scale tests in which the model is nearly in t h e center of the tunnel at
the one-half span, and, as expected, the ground effect measured in the tunnel is zero.

Flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical ground-effect data for the modified F5D-1 a r e
summarized in figure 11 as a function of angle of attack at 0.30 wing span. T h e r e is
some correlation of trends but little correlation of magnitudes between the various
s o u r c e s of data. The NASA Ames Research Center's constant -altitude -flyby and wind-
tunnel data and the data of reference 4 indicate a slightly decreasing incremental lift
coefficient with increasing angle of attack. On the other hand, the constant-angle-of-
attack flight data and the NASA Langley Research Center and Lockheed wind-tunnel
data indicate increasing incremental lift coefficient with increasing angle of attack. A l l
the wind-tunnel pitching-moment data show the s a m e increasing t r e n d with angle of
attack; however, both sets of flight r e s u l t s indicate a relatively constant t r i m change
with angle of attack.

Basic F5D-1 Airplane

Figure 12 shows the effect of ground proximity on the lift coefficient and elevon
deflection f o r the basic F5D-1 airplane. The r e s u l t s are s i m i l a r to those for the
modified F5D-1 airplane, in that t h e r e is little change in pitching moment due t o enter-
ing ground effect, as indicated by the small change in elevon position (0" t o 2.4"). Con-
sequently, the trimmed and untrimmed increases in lift coefficient a r e nearly the
s a m e , increasing t o approximately 14 percent at touchdown. The difference between

8
this lift increment and the 24-percent value for touchdown of the modified F5D-1 air-
plane (fig. 8) shows the influence of the planform modifications.

In figure 13, a typical midrange angle-of-attack approach f o r the basic F5D-1 air-
plane is compared with corresponding reference 4 data and wind-tunnel results. The
increase in lift coefficient predicted by reference 4 agrees well with the flight results;
however, the wind-tunnel measurement is considerably higher than either the p r e -
diction o r the flight data. The t r i m changes shown by the reference 4 and wind-tunnel
r e s u l t s were both substantially greater than the flight -measured change.

In figure 14 the flight, wind-tunnel, and reference 4 results indicate s i m i l a r trends

in change in lift coefficient with angle of attack but differ with r e g a r d to the magnitude
of the change. Both the wind-tunnel and reference 4 data predict g r e a t e r lift in-
crements in ground effect than w e r e measured in flight. Similarly, the reference 4
and wind-tunnel data suggest a greater t r i m change than was measured in flight. The
flight-measured t r i m changes a l s o indicate no functional dependence on angle of attack,
whereas the predicted and wind-tunnel data indicate an increasing t r i m change with
increasing angle of attack.

XB-70 Airplanes
The effect of the ground on the lift and pitching moment of the XB-70 airplanes is
shown in figure 15. Because the only difference between the two aircraft is a positive
5" dihedral of the wing on the XB -70 -2 airplane, the results from approaches made by
both a i r c r a f t a r e plotted in the s a m e figure. Again the results show that the t r i m
change and incremental lift coefficient increase as the airplane approaches the ground.
A t touchdown the t r i m m e d and untrimmed lift coefficients increase t o approximately
18 percent and 24 percent, respectively. The elevon increment of the XB-70 is large
compared with that for the F5D-1 airplane, probably because the XB-70 elevons are
l e s s effective than those of the F5D-1 airplane. Significant changes begin below one
wing span and increase to 3" o r 4" change in elevon deflection at touchdown.

It may be noted that these results do not necessarily a g r e e with the XB-70 results
in references 3 and 10. The data from these references a r e from e a r l y flights that were
not specifically flown to obtain ground-effect data. It appeared that the data used in
those references met all the c r i t e r i a f o r the descent method described herein except
for seemingly small variations of approximately 1" in angle of attack and 500 pounds
(2224 newtons) to 1000 pounds (4448 newtons) in thrust. It was thought that corrections
could be made for these variations; however, subsequent experience showed that the
magnitudes of the corrections w e r e g r e a t e r than the ground effect being measured.
Consequently, the adequacy of the correction became v e r y sensitive to inaccuracies in
the wind-tunnel data upon which the corrections were based. The most useful data a r e
obtained when the magnitude of the correction is kept to a minimum.

The greater s c a t t e r in the XB-70 untrimmed lift data a s compared with the F5D-1
data is probably due to a s t r o n g e r dependence of the XB-70 l i f t increment on angle of
attack, as indicated in figure 16. Both the wind-tunnel and the reference 4 predictions
follow the s a m e t r e n d s in the changes in lift with angle of attack. The flight data
diverge from these t r e n d s at the higher angles of attack, but they are generally inter-
s p e r s e d with the other data. The change in elevon deflection with angle of attack

9
 agrees well with the NASA Langley Research Center wind-tunnel results above a.n
angle of attack of 8". In addition, t h e trends are similar f o r both wind-tunnel and
reference 4 predictions at these higher angles.

Figure 17 compares flight, wind-tunnel, and predicted ground-effect data for the
XB-70 airplanes f o r an angle of attack of 9.3". The 7- by 10 -foot wind-tunnel data are
unpublished r e s u l t s obtained from tests on a 0.03-scale model at the NASA Langley
Research Center. Although the general trend f o r the increase in lift and the trim
change is the same f o r all t h r e e sets of data, there is considerable disparity in the
magnitudes of the results. The lift increment predicted by reference 4 is lower than
that shown by the flight data, but the pitching moment is higher. A t touchdown, how-
e v e r , the flight data lift and pitching-moment r e s u l t s lie between the r e s u l t s of the
two wind-tunnel measurements. As shown previously f o r the modified F5D-1 airplane,
the wind-tunnel ground-effect data go t o z e r o prematurely; whereas, the flight and
reference 4 results indicate ground effect up through one wing span.

F-104A Airplane

A s shown in figure 18, the influence of the ground on the F-104A airplane was
found t o begin at a height well above one wing span but did not reach a significant
magnitude until the airplane was below a height of 0 . 6 wing span. Below 0.6 wing span,
the effect increases quite rapidly to a maximum near touchdown, where both the
trimmed and untrimmed lift coefficients indicate increases near 20 percent. Sufficient
flight data were not available near touchdown for a meaningful comparison because the
pilots found it difficult t o touch down while holding constant angle of attack. Touch-
down was experienced only when the initial rates of descent were v e r y high, g r e a t e r
than 24.0 ft/sec (7.3 m/sec). Similar to the F5D-1 airplanes, the trim change meas-
u r e d on the F-104A airplane was less than 1" of stabilizer. This is attributed t o the
fact that the high horizontal stabilizer on the F-104A airplane is outside the flow field
of the wing and is never close enough t o the ground t o experience ground effect.

Figure 19 compares flight, wind-tunnel, and predicted ground-effect data f o r an

angle of attack of 6,9". Although the incremental lift predicted from reference 4 data
is slightly low when compared with the flight r e s u l t s , the wind-tunnel and predicted
pitching moments agree well with the flight data.

Figure 20 shows the variation of lift and pitching moment with angle of attack at
touchdown heights for which wind-tunnel data were available. Only slight reductions
in lift increment with increasing angle of attack are indicated by the predicted and the
wind-tunnel results, whereas the flight r e s u l t s indicate an increasing trend. A pos-
sible reason for the low lift increment predicted by reference 4 could be the negative
dihedral angle of the F-104A airplane which places the wing tips closer t o the ground
than the projection of the quarter chord on the wing root that was used as the basis of
the prediction. The pitching-moment changes with angle of attack shown by the flight
and the wind-tunnel r e s u l t s agree, but the predicted data do not.

Although this observation is not readily rationalized on the basis of the data pre-
sented in figure 18, wind-tunnel data (see appendix B) indicate that the lift increase
is greater than 25 percent of the free-air value. Flight data were difficult t o obtain
in this region because the pilot felt that the nosewheel would contact the ground first
at these high sink rates.
10
 Summary of Results

Trends predicted by using the data of reference 4 agree with flight results; how-
e v e r , the magnitudes of the data do not. The predicted lift increments are iower than
those measured in flight f o r all the low -aspect-ratio configurations tested. Similarly,
at the higher heights wind-tunnel measurements underpredicted the lift increment due
t o ground effect, possibly due to the effects of the tunnel ceiling as the model approached
the centerline of the tunnel. Pitching-moment changes due to ground effect predicted
by reference 4 w e r e consistently high at all heights f o r all delta-wing configurations
tested; however, the F-104 flight r e s u l t s were predicted correctly. One important
point concerning predictions of lift increment due to ground effect is that the t r i m
change always results i n reduction of the trimmed lift increments that will be ex-
perienced in flight such that in extreme instances in which the untrimmed lift increment
is small and the pitching-moment change is large it is possible to experience negative
trimmed lift increments in flight.

Because the a i r c r a f t tested represent a c r o s s section of planform, an attempt was

made t o correlate the flight r e s u l t s at 0.20, 0 . 3 0 , and 0.40 wing span with the results
predicted by reference 4 at corresponding conditions. Figure 2 1 compares flight data
with t h e prediction f o r a conventional airplane with a horizontal stabilizer and a delta-
wing airplane. The figure shows the increased lift increment that should be expected
for the lower-aspect-ratio planforms. The lift increments shown by the flight data
are consistently higher than predicted at all heights f o r all the a i r c r a f t tested. A l -
though the flight r e s u l t s tend t o follow the same t r e n d s , m o r e data on higher-aspect-
ratio a i r c r a f t are needed before aspect -ratio effects can be established conclusively.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A constant -angle -of -attack-approach technique was used t o obtain ground-effect

data on s e v e r a l low-aspect-ratio aircraft. These flight r e s u l t s w e r e compared with
results obtained from constant -altitude -flybys , wind-tunnel studies , and theoretical
prediction data. The test r e s u l t s indicated that the constant-angle-of-attack technique
provided data consistent with those obtained from the constant -altitude-flyby method
and required fewer r u n s to obtain the s a m e amount of data.

A s was expected, when the test aircraft approached the ground, ground effect
caused significant changes in lift, drag, and pitching moment. Although the trends of
these changes agreed with the theoretical and wind-tunnel predictions , the magnitudes
did not. The measured lift increments were consistently higher than t h e theoretical
prediction, whereas the measured pitching moment was generally less. Improved
prediction methods are required to determine t h e magnitudes of the lift and pitching-
moment changes. The consistent evidence of ground effect above one wing span and
the qualitative pilot comments on the improvement in handling qualities of the XB-70
and F-104A airplanes while in ground effect w e r e unexpected.

11
 APPENDIX A

DERIVATION OF GROUND-EFFECT EQUATION

The forces acting on an airplane during a shallow, constant-angle-of-attack

approach are shown i n the following sketch:
\ L

Instantaneous
flight path
Ground plane

F i r s t , summing the forces perpendicular to the flight path,

L + T sin a - W cos y = -(h

w * *
cos y + x sin y )
g

Solving f o r the lift,

w
L=-(hcosy+xsiny)+Wcosy-Tsina
g

The initial lift is given by

Lo =
wo
-(ho
.. cos yo
..
+ xo sin yo) + Wo cos yo - To sin a
g

A s indicated in reference 2 , the constant -angle -of-attack-approach technique r e -

quires that angle of attack and throttle be held constant. This results in thrust r e -
maining constant throughout the approach because there is no change in the inlet
recovery as long as angle of attack is constant. Also, the change in thrust due to a
change in density is v e r y small because the altitude range is small. Weight may also
be assumed to be constant (W M Wo), since the run is of short duration (less than

12
 APPENDIX A

30 seconds) and the power setting is low. Therefore, thrust, weight, and angle of
attack are treated as constants in this analysis. Thus, the equation

becomes
.. .. ..
XO
-AL
=(.cos y+ s i n y + cos cos yo+- s i n yo+ cos yo
W !z !z

For y I 3”
Lo = Lo cos yo = wo “w
or

Lo =w
and
.. .. ..
“=(:cos
LO
- sin y + cos y - - cos y
y+ X
g ) O
+-XO s i n y o + cos
g
)
yo
(A2)

It is also t r u e that

AL = L - Lo = CLqS - CLoqoS
Dividing by Lo = CLoqoS,

then canceling S and substituting CL = ACL + CL ,

0

Since q = Aq + q,,

-AL
- AcLq -
- &
Lo CLoq0 qo

13
 APPENDIX A

or

Substituting f r o m equation (A2) yields the following expression (eq. (1)):

AcL
-
cLO
40
q
=-E- ..
h
g
X
..
cos y + - s i n y + cos y
g
..
XO
c o s yo + - sin yo
g
+ cos

This, then, is the final equation for analyzing the lift increment due to ground effect.

Now, summing the forces tangential to the flight path,

T cos a - D + W s i n y = -(x
w .-c o s y - h..s i n y)
g

Solving f o r D and following the s a m e procedure as was used to obtain equation (A2),

.. ..
AD- h0
cos yo - - s i n yo -
)
s i n yo
- ($cosy h
--
g
siny+ siny
LO g

Likewise,

AD = D - Do = CDqS - CD0qoS

and

so

Then, normalizing with respect to the initial lift,

because

14
 APPENDIX A

and

which, upon rearrangement, gives

Substituting f r o m equation (A4),

.. .. ..
"D -go h0
cLO q [: cos yo -- s i n y o -
g
(A5)

CD0
However, - - - , which may be obtained from wind-tunnel data.
CT L

Therefore, equation (A5) becomes

.. .. ..
AcD
C LO
-0
'

4 [(> o g
h0
cos y - - s i n yo - s i n yo) - (E cos h
y - -sin y
g
- sin

which is the final equation f o r the analysis of the d r a g increment due to ground effect.

15
 APPENDIX B

WIND-TUNNEL DATA

Throughout this r e p o r t , comparisons have been made between the flight results
and wind-tunnel r e s u l t s obtained from both published and unpublished sources. The
wind-tunnel comparison data are presented in more complete f o r m in figures 22 t o 25.
Figure 22 presents data f r o m reference 1 on the F5D-1 airplane modified with an ogee
wing. Wind-tunnel data f r o m reference 8 for the basic F5D-1 airplane are presented
in figure 23. In figure 24 unpublished data obtained i n the Langley 7 - by 10 -foot wind
tunnel with a moving-belt ground plane are shown for the XB-70 airplane. Lockheed
wind-tunnel data on t h e F-104A airplane were obtained from s e v e r a l unpublished
reports and are shown in figure 25.

16
 REFERENCES

1. Rolls, L. Stewart; and Koenig, David G. : Flight-Measured Ground Effect on a

Low -Aspect -Ratio Ogee Wing Including a Comparison With Wind-Tunnel Results.
NASA TN D-3431, 1966.

2. Schweikhard, William: A Method f o r In-Flight Measurement of Ground Effect on

Fixed-Wing A i r c r a f t . J. A i r c r a f t , vol. 4 , no. 2, March-April 1967, pp. 101-
104.

3. Rolls, L. Stewart; Koenig, David G. ; and Drinkwater, F r e d J. 111: Flight Investi-

gation of t h e Aerodynamic Properties of a n Ogee Wing. NASA TN D-3071, 1965.

4. Anon. : USAF Stability and Control Datcom. A i r Force Flight Dynamics Lab. ,
Wright-Patterson A i r F o r c e Base, Oct. 1960 (rev. Aug. 1968).

5. Anon. : Specifications. Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 18, 1968, pp.
192, 204.

6. Winston, Donald C. : Aeroflot Accelerates Plans t o Place SST into Commercial

Service. Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 29, 1968, pp. 24, 25.

7. Taylor, Albert E. : Evaluation of Take-off and Landing Facility. Tech. Memo.

FTFF-TM-58-12, U. S. A i r F o r c e Flight T e s t Center, Apr. 1958.

8. Radoll, R. W. : Aerodynamic Data f o r Model F5D-1 Operational Flight Trainer.

Rep. No. ES 26257 (Contract No. N O a ( s ) 54-321), Douglas Aircraft Co. , Inc.,
Apr. 26, 1956.

9. Bowman, Paul V. : Estimated Performance Report for the XB-70A A i r Vehicle

No. 2. NA-65-661, North American Aviation, Inc. , July 26, 1965.

10. Rolls, L. Stewart; Snyder, C. Thomas; and Schweikhard, William G. : Flight

Studies of Ground Effects on Airplanes With Low -Aspect-Ratio Wings. Confer-
ence on Aircraft Aerodynamics, NASA SP-124, 1966, pp. 285-295.

17
 TABLE 1. - DIMENSIONAL AND AERODYNAMIC DATA FOR THE TEST AIRPLANES
-
Modified
F5 D-1 I Basic
F5D-1
XB-70
-
F-104A

S, ft2 (m2) 661.0 (61.4) 557.0 (51.8) 6296.0 (585.0) 196.1 (18.2)
b, ft (m) 33.5 (10.2) 33.5 (10.2) 105 (32) 21.9 ( 6 . 7 )
E , f t (m) 22.6 (6.9) 18.3 (5.6) 78.5 (23.9) 9. G (2.9)
Leading-edge sweep, deg 77.0 52.5 51.8 18.1
Dihedral, deg
Fuselage length, ft ( m )
0
46.8 (14.3)
lo 46.8 (14.3)
0 , XB-70-1
5 , XB-70-2
185.75 (56.62)
-10
52.4 (16.0)
h at touchdolvn, ft ( m ) 6.1 (1.9) 5 . 0 (1.5) 17 (5.2) 4.6 (1.4)
Aspect ratio 1. 70 2.0 1.75 2.45 1
Elevon a r e a , ft2 ( m2 ) 24.3 (2.3) 26.0 (2.4) 197.7 (18.4) 48.2 (4.5)
Dry weight, lb (kg) 19.000 (8,620) 17,800 (8,080) 264,000 (120 ,000) {13,700 (6,220) ~

C 0.01025 at 6, = 4"
0.0155 0.0162 0.00945
~

'e 0.013 at 6e =8"

C
'e
I -0.0365 at h/b > 0.3
-0.0340 at h/b = 0.2
-0.0310 at h/b = 0.15
-0.0270
1
 TABLE 2. - ACCURACLES OF AIRCRAFT SENSORS AND RANGE AND
RESOLUTION OF COCKPIT DISPLAYS

I Tzil
1-
Modified Basic
XB-70
F5D-1 F5D-1
~

I I Sensor accuracy
Indicator range -10 to 30 5 to 19
Indicator resolution 0.25
Instrument accuracy 0.50 -1;7
Instrument range
(trailing edge up, positive)

TABLE 3.-SOURCES OF WIND-TUNNEL DATA FOR THE AIRPLANES TESTED

' Airplane Source Facility Scale of model Ground plane

Ames 40- by 80-foot Full scale Fixed
wind tunnel
Modified Reference 1 Lockheed 8 - by 12- 0.15 Fixed
F5D-1 foot tunnel

F5D-1 Technology 10-foot

low speed wind tun-
nel (GALCIT)

by 11-foot low-
XB-70 Reference 9 speed wind tunnel
Langley 7 - by 10 -foot 1 .03 Moving belt
wind tunnel
~~

F-104 Manufacturer Lockheed Aerody- 0.17 Fixed

namics Laboratory
8 x 12 foot wind
P
W tunnel
 TABLE 4. -INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEASURED ON THE
APPROACHES MADE IN THE F5D-1 AIRPLANE MODIFIED WITH AN OGEE WING

Control- I I U. I
- -
Initial Final In it ial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
3.6 4.4 293.8 (89.6) 286.1 (87.2) 6.0 (1.8) 0 . 8 (0.2) 93.7 (449) 88.9 (426) 1.2 0.2
4.0 5.1 285.8 (87.1) 274.3 (83.6) 10.8 (3.3) -. 8 (-. 3) 88.6 (4240) 81.6 (3910) 2.2 O N
1.8 2.6 249.7 (76.1) 248.4 (75.7) 1 3 . 1 (4.0) 4 . 3 ( 1 . 3 ) 76.8 (3680) 76.1 (3640) 3.0 1.0
13.4 4.3 4.6 254.9 (77.7) 257.8 (78.6) ,
7 . 6 ( 2 . 3 ) 5 . 3 ( 1 . 6 ) 77.7 (3720) 79.4 (3800) 1.7 1.2
14.4 I 4.4
- 5.1 2 4 6 . 1 (75.0) 243.8 (74.3) 13.6 (4.2) 11.2 ( . 4 ) i 73.7 (3530) I 72.4 (3470) , 3.2 .3
1

TABLE 5. -INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEASURED ON THE

APPROACHES MADE IN THE BASIC F5D-1 AIRPLANE

7-
Run

1
2
3
,
a, deg

11.1
14.4
15.8
Control -
surface

[nitial
2.9
3.5
6.8
..,
Dosition.. deg
1 Final I
2.9
4.2
7.4
4 0 4 . 3 (123.2)
307.3 (93.7)
314.0 (95.7)
v,
ft/sec ( m / s e c )

Initial Final
398.7
303.0
311.1
(121.5)
(92.4)
(94.8)
I

I
8.1
8.0
ft/sec (m/sec)

Initial
9.5 (2.9)
(2.5)
(2.4)
I Final
1 . 6 (0.5)
1 . 4 (.4)
1.3 ( . 4 )
I

I Initial
181.2
104.9
109.8
(8670)
(5020)
(5260)
g,
lb/ft2 (N/m2)

176.8
101.9
108.2
Final
(8470)
(4880)
(5180)
Initial
1.3
1.7
1.5
Final
0.2
.1
.2
4 16.0 5.8 , 5.9 317.0 (96.6) 313.4 (95.5) 6.8 (2. 1) 1 . 4 (.4) 111.2 (5320) 108.7 (5200) 1.2 .2
5 I 16.6 2.5 2.5 338.0 (103.0) 335.5 (102.3) 10.5 (3.2) 4 . 3 (1.3) 120.4 (5770) 118.6 (5680) 1. 8 .7
6 17.2 4.7 5 . 5 ' 340.2 ( 1 0 3 . 7 ) 328.5 (100.1) 12.7 (3.9) 1 . 5 (.5) 124.7 (5970) 116.2 (5560) 2.1 .3
7 ' 17.5 5.7 8 . 1 269.5 (82.1) 264.1 (80.5) 5.8 (1.8) 1.1 ( . 3 ) 80.8 (3870) 77.3 (3700) 1.2 .3
5.6 6.2 308.7 (94.1) 299.9 (91.4) 4.7 (1.4) 3 . 6 (1.1) 98.9 (4730) 93.2 (4460) .9 .7
4.9 4.9 330.0 (100.6) 317.8 (96.9) 14.7 (4.5) 2 . 1 (.6) 118.0 (5650) 110.0 (5270) 2.6 .4
 'T.\BLE 6. - INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEXSPRED ON THE
APPROACHES MADE IN THE XB-70 AIRPLANES
-
Control- v, h. cl9
ft/sec (in/sec) ft/sec (m/sec lb/ft2 (N/m2) y. deg
-7,

Initial hi it i a1 Final
1 6.0 412.0 (125. G ) 383.7 (117.0) 6.3 (1.9) 1 . 3 (0.4) 191.9 (9190) 167.2 (8010) 0.9 0.2
2 6. e 392.7 (119.7) 355.9 (108. 5) 5.4 (1. 6 ) 3.0 ( . 9 ) 147.8 (7080) 121.9 (5840) .8 .5
3 7.8 404.5 (123.3) 392.6 (119.7) 7.0 (2.1) -. 8 (-. 3 ) 188.1 (9010) 177.3 (8490) 1.0 -. 2
4 7.9 393.0 (119.8) 372.0 (113.4) 12.2 ( 3 . 7 ) -. 1 (-.03) 156. 1 (7480) 139.6 (6690) 1.8 0
5 8.0 412.8 (125.8) -414.0 (126. 2) 7 . 3 (2.2) .5 (.a) '200.6 (9610) 201.8 (9660) 1.0 .1
ti 8.2 11.6 416.4 (126. 9) 407. 1 (124. 1) 7.2 (2.2) .
6 (.a) 207.4 (9930) 198.4 (9500) 1.0 .1
7 9.1 341.8 (104.2) 328.8 (100.2) 9.9 (3.0) 1 . 3 ( . 4 ) 12ti.7 (6070) 117.3 (5620) 1.7 .2
8 9.3 384. 6 (117.2) 374.8 (114.2) 12.8 (3.9) 1 . 0 (. 3 ) 1tiO.2 (7670) 152.1 (7280) 1.4 .2
9 9.4 341. 3 (104.0) 336.8 (102.7) 6.2 (1.9) . 2 (. 1) 120.6 (5770) 117.4 (5G20) 1.0 0
10 10.0 314.5 (95.9) 299.0 (91.1) 5 . 0 (1. 5) 2.2 ( . 7 ) 99.1(4740) 89.0 (4260) .9
- .4

TABLE 7. - INITIAL AND FINAL VALUES O F SIGNIFICANT PARAMETERS MEASURED ON THE

APPROACHES MADE IN THE F-104A AIRPLANE

I I I
Control- '
I surface v, h,
Run (y' deg position, deg
ft/sec (m/sec) ft/sec (m/sec) j Ib/ft2 (N/m2)
I

~ Initial
7

Final
7
Initial
~~
Final ~ Initial ~ Final I Initial Final Initial
-
Final
1 3.0 3.9 4.1 483.7 (147.4) 477.1 (145.4) 16.4 (5.0) 1 . 3 (0.4) 263.1 (12,600) 256.0 (12,260) 1.9 0.2
2 3.8 3.8 3.7 449.2 (136.4) 448.3 (136.6) 19.3 (5.9) 3 . 3 (1.0) 238.8 (11,430) 237.8 (11,390) 2.5 .4
3 4.6 4.5 4.5 386.0 (117.7) 383.1 (116.8) 11.1 (3.4) 2 . 1 (.6) 174.2 (8,340) 171.6 (8,220) 1.7 .3
4 4.7 4.5 4.5 416.2 (126.9) 411.4 (125.4) 1 3 . 1 (4.0) 2 . 8 (.9) 194.4 (9,310) 190.1 (9,100) 1.8 .4
5 4.7 4.1 4.1 389.5 (118.7) 386.4 (117.8) 14.1 (4.3) 1.2 (.4) 170.2 (8,150) 167.5 (8,020) 2.1 .2
6 5.5 4.6 4.8 367.7 (112.1) 360.7 (109.9) 20.5 (6.3) 2.9 (.9) 158.0 (7,560) 151.9 (7,280) 3.2 .5
7 6.9 4.7 5.1 345.6 (105.3) 340.8 (103.9) 11.8 (3.6) 0 (0) 139.7 (6,690) 135.8 (6,500) 2.0 0
8 7.5 5.0 5.0 338.2 (103.1) 337.1 (102.7) 13.1 (4.0) 9 . 3 (2.9) 131.0 (6,270) 130.1 (6,230) 2.2 1.6
9 8.0 6.0 6.8 341.8 (104.2) 340.4 (103.8) 9.4 (2.9) 0 (0) 133.1 (6,370) 132.0 (6,320) 1.6 0
-
10 9.3 5.8 6.9 325. 6 (99.2) 320.0 (97.5) 14.4 (4.4) 1 . 7 ( . 5 ) 119.1 (5,700) 115.0 (5,510) 2.5 .3
 I
L

46.8
I
a
(14.3)

Figure 1. Three-view drawing of the F5D-1 airplane modified with a n ogee wing.
Dimensions in feet (meters).

22
 F i g u r e 2. Three-view drawing of the basic F5D-1 airplane.
Dimensions i n feet (meters).

23

i
Figure 3. Three-view drawing of the XB-70 airplane. Dimensions in feet (meters).
 I n I I
52.4
(16.0)
-4
Figure 4. Three-view drawing of the F-104A airplane.
Dimensions in feet (meters).

25
 West tower East tower

--- -- rGIide-scope indicator Iight

__-_--

Top view

Flashing white light, above glide path

White light, on glide path
Red light, below glide path

Glide-slope indicator

Side view

Figure 5. Two-view sketch of the glide-slope indicator light.

 d

- 2807
(855.317-
I West tower
8691
(2648.1) 1
i-4-
I
5164 I
(1573.5)

\ /
\
\ /
\ /
I 1 t - +

Figure 6. Sketch of the A i r Force Flight Test Center runway tracking system.
Dimensions in feet (meters).
I1llI1111111l11l11~11111l1111

Throttle angle, 30 I
deg 28 1

Trailing edge 10
8
6 -
4 -
2 I
I I I
1 ! 1 I
130
390 r I
I v,
380 mlsec
370 _I
120
80
240 r I
60

hR,
40 m

20

t, sec

F i g u r e 7. T i m e h i s t o r y of a constant-angle -of-attack
approach i n the XB-70 -1 airplane.
 a, deg
Q 9.4
0 10.0
A 11.9
0 13.4
u 14.4

2.0

1.6

h
- 1.2
b

.8

.4

I I I
0 8 16 24 2 0 -2 0 8 16 24
Percent increase in C Trailing Percent increase in CL
Ltrim edge Ab,, deg
down

Figure 8. Effect of ground proximity on lift and pitching moment of the

F5D-1 airplane modified with a n ogee wing.

29
 a, deg

Constant -an g Ie-

of-attack approach
A 13.4
u 14.4
1-1 Constant-altitude flyby (ref. 1)
1.2

1.0

.8

h .6
-
b

.4

.2
h at touchdown
1 ~~ 1. _1
0 8 16 24 32
Percent increase in CL Trailing
edge A6 e t deg
down

Figure 9. Comparison of constant -angle -of -attack and constant -altitude -flyby
flight data for the modified F5D-1 airplane.

30
I

o Constant-angle-of-attack approach
Prediction (ref. 49
---- Langley 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel (ref. 1)
--- Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind tunnel (ref. 1)
---- Ames 40- by 80-foot wind tunnel (ref. 1)
1.2

1.0

.8

h
b .6
-
L\ \

.4

.2

Figure 10. Comparison of flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical g r o u n d e f f e c t

data for the modified F5D-1 airplane at 10" angle of attack.

31
II 11111111-111111111111.11.1

o
Constant-angle-of-attack approach
0 Constant-altitude flyby (ref. 1)
- Prediction (ref. 4)
---- Langley 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel (ref. 1)
-- - Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind tunne! Ired. I1
---- Ames 40- by 80-foot wind tunnel (ref. 1)
16

I
O \

12
"i
I
OI i
a, deg 10 0

O 1I

i
\ I

4 L

0 8 16 24 32 2
Percent increase in CL Trailing
edge
down

Figure 11. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with *
angle of attack for flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical ground-effect data
on the modified F5D-1 airplane at h/b = 0.30.

32
 9 deg
0 11.1
o 14.4
0 15.8
A 16.0
b 16.6
D 17.2
0 17.5
0 19.0
0 19.5
2.0

1.6

1.
2 k
h
-
b
.8

.4
L

0 8 16 2 0 -2 -4 I

Percent increase in Tra iIing Percent increase in

edge Ab,, deg CL
%rim down

T Figure 12. Effect of ground proximity on lift coefficient and elevon deflection of t h e
basic F5D-1 airplane.

33
 o Con sta n t -a n gIe-of -attack approach
- Prediction (ref. 4)
o GALCIT 10-foot low-speed wind t u n n e l (ref. 8)

2.
,

1.

1.
h
-
b
i- t

h at toychdowll_l3 I 1
0 8 16 24 32 2 -2 -4 -6 -8
Percent increase in CL Tra i Ii n g
edge
down

Figure 13. Comparison of flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical ground-ffect

data f o r the basic F5D-1 airplane at 15.8" angle of attack.

34
 . 4

o Con sta nt -a ngIe-of -a ttack approach

- Prediction (ref. 4)
_--- GALCIT 10-foot low-speed wind t u n n e l (ref. 8)
22 -I -
I

\ /
\ /
\ 0 /
\ 0 I

18 - \ c
I
\ 0 /
0 I /
0 0 I /
I /
0 I -
0 /
14 I
I
12
10 14 18 22 26
Percent increase in CL Trailing
edge
down

Figure 14. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with angle of
attack for flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical ground-effect data on the basic F5D-1
airplane at h/b = 0.16.

w
en
 W
Q,

a, deg
1.2 o 6.0
i
0 6.2
0 7.8
A 7.9
h 8.0
D 8.2
0 9.1
0 9.3
0 9.4
h
-
I

(3 10.0
b .6 b

.4 -
-
. 2 *-
A
0
I h at touchdown1
0 - U L 'A
-8 0 8 16 24 0 -2 -4 0 8 16 24 32
Percent increase in C L ~ ~ ~ ~ Trai I ing Percent increase in CL
deg edge
UP

Figure 15. Effect of ground proximity on lift and pitching moment of the XB-70 airplanes.
 o Con sta nt -a ng le-of -attack approach
d Extrapolated
Prediction (ref. 4)
- ---- Langley 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel
--- North American 7.75- by 11-foot low-speed wind
t u n n e l (ref. 91, -
h = 0.16
b

I
I
/
O/I

P
8 16 24 32
Percent increase in CL Trailing
Abe, deg edge
UP

Figure 16. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with angle of
attack f o r flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical ground-effect d a t a on the XB-70
airplanes at h/b = 0.20.

37
 0 Constant-angle-of -attack approach
Prediction (ref. 4)
---- Langley 7- by 10-foot wind t u n n e l
0 North American 7.75- by 11-foot low-speed wind
tunnel (ref. 9)

0 8 16 24 32 0 -2 -4 -6
Percent increase in C L Tra iIi n g
Abe, deg edge
UP

F i g u r e 17. Comparison of flight. \vind-tunnel. and theoretical ground-effect

data for the XB-'io airplanes at 9. 3" angle of attack.

38
 2.4 r
0 3.0
0 3.8
0 4.6
2.0 A 4.7
h 4.7
0 5.5
1. n 6.9
0 7.5
0 8.0
1. 6 9.3

0 8 16 24 2 0 -2 0 8 16 24
Percent increase in C L ~ Trailing
~ ~ ~ Percent increase in CL
edge A6e, deg
down

Figure 18. Effect of ground proximity on lift and pitching moment of the F-104A airplane.

w
W
 o Constant-angle-of -attack approach
Prediction (ref. 4)
o Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind t u n n e l

1.6

h
- 1.2
b

.8

.4

0 0 -2
Percent increase in CL Trai Iin g
edge Ade, deg
down

Figure 19. Comparison of flight, wind-tunnel. and theoretical ground-effect

data for the F-104A airplane at 6.9” angle of attack.
 Constant-angle-of-attack approach, hlb = 0.3
o
CY Extrapolated flight data
- Prediction (ref. 4)
--- Lockheed 8 x 12 foot wind tunnel

!
\ /
\ I
o\
\
a, deg 8 I
I
0-
I
I
I
4 I -1 J
8 16 24 32 0 -2
Percent increase in CL Trai Iing
edge A6e, deg
down

Figure 20. Variation of incremental lift coefficient and elevon deflection with
angle of attack f o r flight, wind-tunnel, and theoretical ground-effect data
on the F-104A airplane at h/b = 0.22.

41
 Flight Predicted
0 Delta wing (no horizontal stabilizer)
0 -- -- Conventional wing (with horizontal stabilizer)

1 1
h l b = 0.30 h l b = 0.40

Percent
increa se
in CL

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Aspect ratio Aspect ratio Aspect ratio

Figure 21. Variation of lift coefficient with aspect ratio f o r flight and theoretical ground-effect data.
 -12 -8 - 4 0
Tra iIing
edge Equivalent be,
UP deg

Figure 22. Basic ivind-tuimel data for the F5D-1 airplane modified with an ogee wing (ref. 1).
 1.2 -
/ /
/ - 1
1.0 / /
/
.8

cL .6

.4

.2 -.

0 -.05 -.10
Cm

Figure 23. Basic wind-tunnel data for the basic F5D-1 airplane (ref. 8).
 h lb
0.938
---- .266
--- .160
1.0

.8

.02 .04 .06

Cm

Figure 24. Basic wind-tunnel data (unpublished) for the XB-70 airplane.
 Out of ground effect
---- In ground effect
1.2
/
/
1.0

.8

cL .6

-
.4

.2

0 5 10 15 20 0 .2 .4 -. L
1 -.08 -.12 -.16
a, deg CD Cm
c
10

2:

I
N
Figure 25. Basic wind-tunnel data (unpublished) f o r t h e F-104A airplane.

c ,-
NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS
A N D SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20546
OFFICIAL BUSlNESS FIRST CLASS MAIL
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION

0 4 U 001 27 51 3DS 70286 00903

A I R F O R C E WEAPONS L A B O R A T O R Y / k i L O L /
K I R T L A N D A F B T NEW M E X I C O 87117

A T T E. LOU B O W M A N T CHIEFVTECH, L I B R A R Y
. A,

If Undeliverable (Section 158

Postal Manual) Do Not Return

"The aeronaiitical and space activities of the Uiaited States shall be

coizdircted so as to coiztribute . . . t o the expamioft of hziiiian knowl-
edge .bf pheiaoiiiena in t h e at?ilosphere and space. T h e Adiizim3ration
shall provide for t h e widest practicable aizd appropriate dissenziimtioia
of iizf oriuntioiz coizcerniizg its actizjities aizd the reszilts thereof.''
-NATIONALAERONAUTICS
A N D SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: In format ion
technical information considered important, published in a foreign language considered
/ .
X.

complete, and a lasting contribution to existing to merit NASA distribution in English.

knowledge. .' .
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad derived from or of value to NASA activities.
in scope but nevertheless of importance as a Publications include conference proceedings,
contribution to existing knowledge. monographs, data compilations, handbooks,
sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS :
Information receiving limited distribution TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
because of preliminary data, security classifica- PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology
tion, or other reasons. used by NASA that may be of particular
interest in commercial and other non-aerospace
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and applications. Publications include Tech Briefs,
technical information generated under a NASA Technology Utilization Reports and Notes,
contract or grant and considered an important and Technology Surveys.
contribution ro existing knowledge.

Details on the availability of ihese publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION

NATIONAL AERO NAUTICS AND SPACE ADM I N ISTRATI0 N
Washington, D.C. 20546