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

R=19740006639 2019-05-16T12:31:14+00:00Z

NASA CONTRACTOR NASA CR-2337

REPORT

CO
CO
CVI

FLIGHT TEST DATA

FOR A CESSNA CARDINAL

by David L. Kohlman
Prepared by
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH, INC.
Lawrence, Kansas
for Langley Research Center

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION • WASHINGTON, D. C. • JANUARY 1974

 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA CR-233?
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
JANUARY 1974
FLIGHT TEST DATA FOR A CESSNA CARDINAL 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

DAVID L, KOHLMAN FRL 72-QQ1

10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
736-60-01
11. Contract or Grant No.
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
LAWRENCE/ KANSAS NGR 17-002-072
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
CONTRACTOR REPORT
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

WASHINGTON. D.C. ?fB<R

15. Supplementary Notes

This is a topical report.

16. Abstract

THIS REPORT CONTAINS THE RESULTS OF A FLIGHT TEST ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF
A STANDARD CESSNA 177B CARDINAL AIRPLANE. THE AIRPLANE WAS FULLY INSTRUMENTED TO
OBTAIN STEADY STATE PERFORMANCE, STICK-FIXED DYNAMIC STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS, AND
ROLL RESPONSE DATA. RESULTS OBTAINED INCLUDE GRAPHS OF CL VERSUS a, CTJ VERSUS Ci ,
AND SPEED-POWER RELATIONSHIPS. DYNAMIC DATA INCLUDE PHUGOID AND DUTCH ROLL CHARACTER-
ISTICS, AND ROLL RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

HIGH-WING LIGHT PLANE

PERFORMANCE UNCLASSIFIED - UNLIMITED

STABILITY AND CONTROL

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price*

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 34 $3.00

For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Nomenclature 1

Summary 2

Introduction 2

Instrumentation System 2

Lift and Drag Characteristics 5

Trim Characteristics 18

Roll Performance 18

Longitudinal Dynamic Characteristics 24

Dutch Roll Characteristics 26

Stall Performance 26

References 26

Appendix 30

iii
 NOMENCLATURE

Symbol Definition Units

Airplane Angle of Attack Deg.

Sideslip Angle Deg.

Density Ratio, p/p

Standard Sea Level Density 0.002378 Slugs/Ft"

Dutch Roll Damping Ratio

Flap Deflection Deg.

flap

5 Stabilizer Deflection Deg.

stab
AR Aspect Ratio

CAS Calibrated Airspeed MPH

C, Zero Lift Drag Coefficient

Airplane Lift Coefficient

Airplane Drag Coefficient

D
e Induced Drag Efficiency Factor

R/C Rate of Climb Ft/Min

S Wing Area Ft2

w
THP Thrust Horsepower Horsepower

THP Equivalent Thrust Horsepower Horsepower

Equivalent Velocity MPH

Gross Weight Lbs.

 SUMMARY

This report contains the results of a flight test analysis of the perfor-

mance of a standard Cessna 177B Cardinal airplane. The airplane was fully in-

strumented to obtain steady state performance, stick-fixed dynamic stability

characteristics, and roll response data. Results obtained include graphs of

C versus a, C versus C , and speed-power relationships. Dynamic data include

phugoid and dutch roll characteristics, and roll response characteristics. Flight

test data agree quite well with handbook cruise data for the production airplane.

INTRODUCTION

In July, 1970, a Cessna 177B Cardinal airplane was donated to the Flight

Research Laboratory of the University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. by

the Cessna Aircraft Company. This airplane, N1910F, serial number 17700002,

was the second Cardinal manufactured, and was subsequently modified for use

as a 1970 model prototype. Aerodynamically, it is almost identical to a pro-

duction 1970 Cardinal, and it has the same type of engine. The only external

differences are the presence of an instrumentation boom on each wing tip and a

slight permanent deformation of the wings, due to a previous structural integrity test.

The purpose of the tests reported herein is to provide a set of base data

on the Cardinal to compare with the performance of the same airplane after

advanced technology wings have been installed. The new wings were designed

and manufactured as a part of a program to investigate aerodynamic improve-

ments in the design of light aircraft. The program is being conducted under

NASA Grant NCR 17-002-072 by the staff of the Flight Research Laboratory.

Results of flight tests of the modified Cardinal will be reported in a

subsequent document.

INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM

The instrumentation system was designed, fabricated, installed, and

calibrated by the Cessna Aircraft Company according to specifications of

the Flight Research Laboratory. The instrumentation was designed as a

complete unit module to facilitate easy installation and removal. It con-

sists of a baseplate on which is mounted an oscillograph, attitude gyro,

static inverter, signal conditioning box, accelerometer, airspeed-altitude

recorder, intervalometer, 'and 24-volt batteries. The signal conditioning

box provides bias and balance controls for the transducer outputs.

The control surface transducers (linear potentiometers) are connected

directly to the surfaces to eliminate the effect of cable stretch.

The airspeed transducer consists of a swivel-head airspeed boom on the

left wing tip and a differential pressure transducer. Sideslip and angle of

attack are measured by vanes mounted on a boom on the right wing tip and

attached to precision potentiometers.

Manifold pressure is sensed by an absolute pressure transducer connected

with the existing indicator plumbing. Engine speed is measured with a mag-

netic sensor.

Photographs of the instrumentation module and wing tip booms are shown

in Figures 1, 2,- and 3. Table I lists the parameters which are recorded

on film strips in the two recorders.

Table I Measured Parameters and Design Specifications for

Cardinal Instrumentation System
Variable Range Accuracy
Airspeed, V 40 - 170 mph ± 1%
Altitude, h ' 0-10,000 ft. ± 1 %
Angle of attack, a -4° - +20° ± 0.5°
Sideslip, 6 -15° - +15° ± 0.5°
Pitch angle, 9 -15° - +15° ± 0.5°
Roll angle, $ -75° - +75° ± 0.5°
Rudder deflection, 6 -24° - +24° ± 0.5°
Stabilator deflection, 6 -20° - + 5° ± 0.5°
e
±
Right aileron deflection, 6D -20° - +20° 0.5°
K.
±
Left aileron deflection, 6L -20° - +20° 0.5°
Normal load factor, n -1-+3 ±0.01
Engine speed, RPM 500 - 2800 ± 1%
Manifold pressure, PM 5 - 3 0 in. Hg ± 1%
 Figure 1
Cardinal Data
Sensing and Recording
Instrumentation System

Figure 2
Angle of Attack
and Sideslip Vanes,
Right Wingtip Boom

Figure 3
Weathervaning Pitot-
Static Tube, Left
Wingtip Boom
 LIFT AND DRAG CHARACTERISTICS

The lift and drag characteristics of the Cardinal were determined from
i
a series of steady, level flight data points conducted at two altitudes, 2500

ft. and 7500 ft. MSL pressure altitude. Two different center of gravity lo-

cations were tested.

Engine brake horsepower was determined from engine manifold pressure,

rpm, pressure altitude, ambient temperature, and the power chart supplied by

the engine manufacturer. The power predicted from the engine chart was then

reduced by 5% to account for losses from inlet temperature rise and miscellaneous

losses.

Thrust horsepower was determined from brake horsepower, propeller rpm, air

density, true airspeed and propeller performance charts. The actual calculations

were performed with the aid of a computer program supplied by Cessna Aircraft

Company. The program output consists of propeller efficiency, horsepower, and

thrust.

Lift and drag were determined by the following equations:

D = T cos6 (1)
L = W - T sin6

Weight was determined for each point by plotting the approximate fuel

consumed versus time using the known fuel consumption characteristics and approx-

imate power settings, and the initial and final weight of the airplane.

Drag characteristics were determined as follows. As shown in Reference 1,

thrust horsepower may be expressed in the following manner:

.—, Cd p S V ' 2
W 6
T a-
Va - - P. ° ++275lTeAR
^ sv
(2)
W
owe
C
d p S 4 ..2 it
P W
° V + = MKi V + Ko
2 (3)
1100 e 275ireARp oSw e
it
Thus if THP (V ) is plotted as a function of Ve , a normal drag polar
e e
will appear as a straight line, and C, and e can be determined from the slope,
P
K} and intercept, K2 of the line. (Note that V is converted to ft/sec in

Equations 4 and 5) .
1 "}AR A
(4)

403.4irARp S K2z • (5)

o w

Data from flights 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 were plotted in Figures 4

through 9. A straight line approximation was drawn using the least squares

method. An average slope and intercept for all flights were then computed to

determine C, and e for both the clean and full flap configurations.
P . . . .
The Cessna 177 Handbook cruise performance was developed by Cessna from

their flight test data. For comparison, the specified altitude, manifold

pressure, rpm, and airspeed in the Handbook were treated as flight test data

and THP was obtained in the same manner as all other flight test data in

this report. The resulting Handbook points are plotted in Figure 10 along

with data from flights 9, 10 and 13, converted to a 2500 Ib. gross weight.

The agreement is very close.

Table II.shows a comparison of e and C, calculated from flight test

P
data for Cardinal N1910F and the Handbook data.

Table II Drag Characteristics Determined From Flight Test

and Handbook Data
C
d
£ e __

Handbook - Clean 0.0258 0.564

Flight Test - Clean 0.0267 0.564
Flight Test - Full Flaps 0.0462 0.545

Clearly the agreement is quite good for the clean airplane. As might be

expected, the induced drag efficiency factor, e, is identical, but the zero

lift drag of the test airplane is slightly higher than indicated in the
 0
<

0
(fi
u ui
- cvi (fi
w

T
p'o

3
V

•*t « 0

0
0 0 0
N 0 CO 0

SSTATTEr
~ P-V-ISUT
 o
til

(0 w

'

ifl
o

Q Q o
w Q 0
 9
t t*fly
0

iw (0

3-j"
5i3l°<»-
- N <ri Cs

Oco"
N 'n

0 Q
0 (D

A x eiHJ_

P\<=» . 7 — STAT&

VO
10
 Q
(0

" » ""
j tf > O er
u. 0 tf
•0
- N (0

'0
X
s_/

*,t
0

0
Q 0
0 (6

(=\e* . s ~ STATS

11
 (__0l X) ~ A* cll-U.

12
 t
0
(fj
0 <

w (0 if!
N
^\ +\
a-
\ V

\.

ASv-l 0
Q
(D

OF-

(=V_\e,VJTT TEST AKJO

13'
 Handbook. However, the test airplane had instrumentation booms on each wing and

was not in the brand new condition of the airplanes used for the Handbook data.

Furthermore, the wings on the test airplane had a slight permanent deformation due

to a previous structural integrity test.

The full flaps configuration increased C, substantially and reduced e

P
slightly, as would be expected.

The final averaged drag polar and horsepower-velocity curves for the test

Cardinal are presented in Figures 11 and 12. These will be the basis of compari-

son with the modified Cardinal. Note that in the clean configuration the maxi-

mum lift to drag ratio is L/ = 11.0.

max
As a further check on the data recorded and the accuracy of the thrust

horsepower program, the maximum rate-of-climb and corresponding airspeed were

calculated using the curve in Figure 12 for two altitudes. The results are shown

in Table III. The computed rates of climb are slightly lower than Handbook values

because of the higher zero lift drag coefficient, and the speed for maximum

rate-of-climb is in perfect agreement.

Table III Cardinal Climb Performance

Computed From Cardinal

Altitude Fit. Test Data Handbook

2500 Ft. Max. R/C 706 Ft/Min 712 Ft/Min

Best R/C Speed V 90 MPH 90 MPH
7500 Ft. Max. R/C 416 Ft/Min 457 Ft/Min
Best R/C Speed V 85 MPH 85 .5 MPH

Note that the computed maximum airspeed at 2500 ft. and 7500 ft. are

146.5 mph and 130 mph CAS respectively. These are very close to observed

values.

Figure 13 is a plot of lift versus angle of attack for the clean and

full flaps configurations. The data is in good agreement except for the low

C. data of flight 13 which showed a consistent deviation for which no expla-

14
 o
O

u
O
ul
00 U.
p u
'O
O

(3

N
O

00 (0 < cvi
O d e 6
n
O ~ -LN3IOIJJ30O

FICa. II ~ FUGHT TC.ST

15
 l<40

I*

120

f
IOO

I"

U)

<oO IOO

VJOTE:

RIG. J2 — TES.T

16
 2-t

<M

•>^v-i

17
 nation could be found.

The trimmed lift curve slopes are as follows:

Clean C = 0.0582 per deg.

Li
a
Full Flaps CT = 0.0651 per deg.
Li
a
The shift in angle of attack caused by full flap deflection at constant

CLI is approximately 7.5° at CTL = 0.6.

TRIM CHARACTERISTICS

Horizontal stabilizer angle as a function of airspeed was measured. The

results are shown in Figures 14 and 15 for the clean and full flaps con-

figurations. The stick-fixed speed stability is positive over the entire

speed range but decreases with the flaps down. As expected, there is a linear

relationship between 5 , and C.. While the stability decreases with an aft

shift in center of gravity, the difference was not large enough to extrapolate

to the neutral point with acceptable accuracy.

Stability derivatives obtained from the data were as follows:

Clean CL = - 0.126 deg"1

6
stab _ CG = 19% MAC
1
Full Flaps CL = - 0.235 deg"
6
stab

ROLL PERFORMANCE

Roll data were obtained by two methods. In the first, the airplane was

stabilized in level flight. The ailerons were then given a full deflection

as rapidly as possible and held until the roll angle reached 60°. The rudder

.pedals were held fixed. Data were recorded for two airspeeds, 80 mph and

120 mph CAS. In the second, the airplane was rolled past a bank angle of

45°, then rolled with full aileron deflection through an opposite bank angle

of 45°. Rudder pedals were held fixed and the initial airspeed was 120 mph CAS.

The data are summarized in Table IV. In addition, Figures 16 and 17

show time histories of rolls from 0° through 30° for 80 mph and 120 mph CAS.

18
 _° uJ
I
CO fi
o 0

$
o
t
j
«
o

N
0

0
0 w 0
T I

19
 -IO

-e
k
to
Nl
x
t
'X

ia
% "A-C
?A *

!
-2

<£0 80 100 120 14O

"* N/_e. *~
Kiore-:
1. o ^ -, ca = MAC.
D 10 ; C<=t =.
A \-*> ; ce, = MAC.

2. •
= -7500

20
 VO vD rH • oo ON in ON m O sr
CTN in CM o in O ON oo ON
^~\ F-l 00 00 OO CO ON ON ON oo ON OO
9j> 0 o o o o o O o o 0
^ 0 o o o o o O 0 o o
CJ o
W
CO (/)
X
<jj o o
Ig VQ m in rH I-H O rH CM co
.en rH rH rH rH rH i—1 i—1 rH iH rH
1 1 + + ' I 1
+ +

O o O
VO 0 0 O CM
. o O O <J" OO • •
CO O *sf in • • rH CM
CM CM CM r^ oo rH rH
1 1 + + II -f

o
O o o O
CO in o o o in m o
II . rH ON CO • co
CO CQ -©- co rH CO CO
l 1 + + I I .f. -I-
i-l 4-1

•s rt
u
w
co
o
I xj ON ON rH <N r^ r- t-. oo
td
• -s-
§ in
CO
in
co
*3"
co
CO
co
-3"
in
-3"
in
-o-
in
co
in
oo
m
CO
m
rt l l + + II + l +

o
o w
4-1 w
o
Q) O rH 01 CM CO CO O N^- o
6 co O rH o r- r» f^ | i
'H II 1 1
H -e- 1-1
rH rH rH O O 0 o

3
oo 13
0) /-^
a) to
t>
H U) hH
O
00 § o
OO
o
OO
o o
ol
rH
CM
rH
o o
CM
rH
01
rH
0
CM
t-H
o
CM
r-H
0)

O o o o o o
O o o o o o
o o o o
-3-

in
o
4H 14H W) 00 MH 00 00
0) 0) •rl (U •H -H a:
US Oi &
in

jj
c

21
 LJECT

0°- =0

eo

-to
RUDDER
o
4- 10°
RXCd-TT
o

o
- io-

cs
ROU-
- 30°

TIME- (SEC)

22
 ROL.L-

12O

-10
RUDOGft

RIGHT
LTV

10

O
30°

3 4
(sec)

. IT— MVaH SPEED «OU_ TtM6

 Note that there are two roll criteria used in handling quality specifi-
i
cations, time to $ = 30° and steady state helix angle, pb/2V. For light

aircraft, the normally specified criteria are: time to roll to 30° should

be less than 1.0 sec. as a desirable level, with the minimum acceptable

level being a roll to 30° in 2.0 seconds or less (Reference 2); roll helix

angle, pb/2V should be greater than 0.07.

At low speed, the time to roll to 30° is just slightly above the minimum

desirable level. At high speed, this criteria is easily met. The pb/2V cri-

terion is satisfied easily at all speeds.

At low speed the average maximum roll rate is 34.8°/sec. At high speed,

the average maximum roll rate is 54.5°/sec. There is good agreement in the

steady state roll rates achieved in the 0° to 30° rolls and the 45° to 45°

roll maneuvers.

Also of interest is the amount of adverse yaw generated by aileron inputs.

As shown in Table IV, at low speed the slideslip angle ranges from 8.5° to 11°

at <j> = 30° with sideslip rates exceeding 15°/sec. At high speed the side-

slip magnitude is reduced because of the higher roll rate, but sideslip rates

are approximately 11°/sec. During the recovery maneuver the sideslip angle

increased to over 20° at low speed. As can be seen in Figures 16 and 17,

the large sideslip angle caused some rudder deflection due to cable stretching,

even though the rudder pedals were held fixed.

LONGITUDINAL DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Longitudinal dynamic data were taken in the following manner. The air-

plane was stabilized and trimmed in level flight. The elevator was deflected

to provide a longitudinal disturbance, then returned to the original trimmed

position. The resulting phugoid mode was then allowed to oscillate through

several cycles. Lateral inputs were made as required to keep the wings level.

The results are summarized in Table V. Frequency and damping ratios

24
 <! O
H W
CM
I

O
vO vO OO O

vO VD O O

It
c CO O
VO VO
in
CM

ON ON ON

O
oo oo oo 00

in
u
•H
4-1
cn T3
•rl Q) /^
Jj 0) PC
0)
U O O O O
u oo oo oo oo
tfl
M
n)

00
o a o
2 •H -H1 VO
a. -i- O o o o
•n 6 (8
•H M fd, o d o
o Q

PM

o i—. (Tv -3-

CO CO CM
CO CO co CO
,£>
n) o
H

T3
O O
•H
CT>

c
o
p. -H
n] 4-J
rH -H O O
fe Ul CO CO
O

3 O o
eS 2 CM

25
 were determined from analysis of the oscillograph data assuming a standard

second order dynamic system model. Note that there is only a slight difference

in characteristics with flaps deployed, with both frequency and damping

appearing to decrease with increased flap deflection.

DUTCH ROLL CHARACTERISTICS

As is usually the case with light, single engine aircraft, the dutch roll

mode was highly damped. A time history of a typical dutch roll excitation is

shown in Figures 18 and 19. The maneuver was initiated by inducing a large side-

slip angle with the rudder, then centering the rudder and aileron quickly while

allowing the oscillation to damp. The high damping ratio makes it extremely

difficult to extract accurate quantitative results from the data, but the fre-

quency appears to be approximately 1.60 rad/sec and the damping ratio 5, in excess

of 0.5 at 80 mph CAS. At 120 mph CAS, the frequency is approximately 2.1 rad/sec

and the damping ratio in excess of 0.4.

STALL PERFORMANCE

A total of 21 stalls were performed to" determine the stall speeds for both

the clean and flaps down configurations. Stalls were initiated by reducing the

power to idle and decelerating at approximately one knot per second from an air-

speed of about 10 to 15 knots above anticipated stall speed. Stall speed was de-

fined as the calibrated airspeed at which the nose of the airplane pitched down

involuntarily.

Table VI summarizes the stall data. The measured stall speeds of 64.7 and

55.0 mph for the clean and full flap configurations compare with Handbook values

of 63 and 53 mph respectively. Note that C was somewhat higher for flights
max
with a rearward e.g. location as would be expected.

REFERENCES

1. Petersen, F. S., "Aircraft and Engine Performance"; Naval Air Test Center,
Patuxent River, Maryland 1958.

2. Ellis, David R., "Flying Qualities of Small General Aviation Airplanes,

Part 4"; Report No. FAA-RD-71-118, Dept. of Transportation, FAA, December 1971.

26
 10
Al UEROXI

RUOO6R
10"

-10-
aoeaup

90
«OU_ O
-acf

t=ie>. is - uow «ou_ exc \TATIOM

ao

27
 io-
o

RUDOER

-.0°

30
ROU- o

»«9 ~ V-UG»V-A DUTCH «OU_ &>Cl\TA.T\OKi

28
 Table VI Summary of Cardinal Stall Data

Fit. Run IAS-MPH C.G. Location Alt.

5 14 65 2440 19% c 0° 7500 1.28

15 65 2400 19% 0° 7500 1.28
16 55 2400 .19% 30° 7500 1.80
17 55 2400 19% 30° 7500 1.80

7 26 65 2500 21% 0° 7500 1.32

27 65 2500 21% 0° 7500 1.32
30 53 2500 21% 30° 7500 1.98
31 53 2500 21% 30° 7500 1.98

9 21 65 2290 14% 0° 7500 1.21

22 65 2290 14% 0° 7500 1.21
25 54 2290 14% 30° 7500 1.75
26 53 2290 14% 30° 7500 1.82
27 54 2290 14% 30° 7500 1.75

10 12 62 2460 19% 0° 7500 1.42

13 63 2460 19% 0° 7500 1.38
14 62 2460 19% 0° 7500 1.42
18 55 2460 19% 30° 7500 1.82
19 55 2460 19% 30° 7500 1.95
20 53 2460 19% 30° 7500 1.95

13 25 55 2450 19% 30° 7500 1.80

26 65 2450 19% 0° 7500 1.29

Average (Flaps=0) = 1.35 For Wt. = 2500 LBS.

L
MAX Stall Speed = 64.7 MPH
Average (Flaps=30°) = 1.84 (6p = 0)
L
MAX Stall Speed = 55.0 MPH

29
 APPENDIX

Configuration Details of the

Cessna Cardinal

30
 Configuration Details of the Cessna Cardinal

The following data on the Cessna Cardinal are taken from the Cessna

Aircraft Co. Drawing No. 1703001, "General Arrangement Model 177".

WING

Total Wing Area 175 ft.2

Wing Span 36 ft.
Aspect Ratio 7.4
Taper Ratio 0.7
Dihedral Angle 1.5°
Incidence:
Root 3.5°
Tip .5°

FLAP
Area (both) 29.5 ft.2
Type Single Slot
Deflection 0° up; 30° down
% of Wing at L.E. 70
Span (each) 116 in.
HORIZONTAL STABILATOR
Area 35 ft.2
Tab Area 2.59 ft.2
Span 11.83 ft.
Aspect Ratio 4.0
Taper Ratio 1.0
Deflection 20° up; 5° down ±1°
Tab Deflection 2° up; 7° down ±1°
VERTICAL STABILIZER
Area (including rudder) 18.81 ft.2
Span 4.78 ft.
Aspect Ratio 2.031
Taper Ratio .553
L.E. Sweep Angle 39°42'
Rudder Area 6.41 f t . 2
Rudder Travel 24°L; 24°R ±1°

31
 Table VI Summary of Cardinal Stall Data

Fit. Run IAS-MPH Weight C.G. Location Flaps Alt. HlAX

5 14 65 2440 19% c 0° 7500 1.28

15 65 2400 19% 0° 7500 1.28
16 55 2400 .19% 30° 7500 1.80
17 55 2400 19% 30° 7500 1.80

7 26 65 2500 21% 0° 7500 1.32

27 65 2500 21% 0° 7500 1.32
30 53 2500 21% 30° 7500 1.98
31 53 2500 21% 30° 7500 1.98

9 21 65 2290 14% 0° 7500 1.21

22 65 2290 14% 0° 7500 1.21
25 54 2290 14% 30° 7500 1.75
26 53 2290 14% 30° 7500 1.82
27 54 2290 14% 30° 7500 1.75

10 12 62 2460 19% 0° 7500 1.42

13 63 2460 19% 0° 7500 1.38
14 62 2460 19% 0° 7500 1.42
18 55 2460 19% 30° 7500 1.82
19 55 2460 19% 30° 7500 1.95
20 53 2460 19% 30° 7500 1.95

13 25 55 2450 19% 30° 7500 1.80

26 65 2450 19% 0° 7500 1.29

Average (Flaps=0) = 1.35 For Wt . = 2500 LBS.

HlAX
Stall Speed = 64.7 MPH
Average (Flaps=30°) = 1.84 (6F = 0)
L
MAX
Stall Speed = 55.0 MPH

29
 Configuration Details of the Cessna Cardinal Cont'd

AILERON
Area (both)
Aft of hinge line 14.09 ft.2
Forward of hinge line . A.77 ft.2
Deflection 20° up; 15° down ±2°

32 NASA-Langley, 1974 2 CR-2337

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O546 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
OFFICIAL BUSINESS SPACE ADMINISTRATION

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $3OO SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE 4SI

BOOK

POSTMASTER : If Undeliverable (Section 158

Postal Manual) Do Not Return

"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be

conducted so as to contribute . . . to the expansion of human knowl-
edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. The Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination
of information concerning its activities and the results thereof."
—NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

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

Details on fhe availability of these publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C. 20546