AERODYNAMIC DESIGN F E A T U R E S O F T H E D C - 9

RICHARD S. S H E V E L L a n d R O G E R D. S C H A U F E L E
Douglas A i r c r a f t Company, Inc.
3653
Long Beach, C a l i f o r n i a

AIAA P a p e r
No. 6 5 - 7 3 8
n Qi

AIAA/RA@S/JSASS
Aircraft Design and
 AERODYNABIC DESIGN FEATURES OF THE DC-9 capacity exceeding that of a DC-7, and very nearly the cruise speed of B DC-8. Figure 2
8y Richard S . Shevell and Roger D. Sehavfele summarizes the payload-range and takeoff performance of the DC-9 Series 10. The DC-9
Dovglas Aircraft Corn-. Incorporated
Aircraft Division Series 10 carries B 19,800-pound payload 1080 nautical miles. or a 17.200-pound pwload
1325 nautical miles. For shorter ranges, the DC-9 will operate frcm airports with 5,000-
ASSTPACT
fwt mnvays.
The DC-9 aerodynamic design features discussed include the aft engine. T-tail arrangement,
w i n g planiorm, airfoils, high-lift systems. nacelle-pylon design, and aerodynamic control
2. !W.JOR AERODYNMIC DESIGN DECISIONS
systems. The dt-engine design is shorn to have definite advantages for the DC-9. The
The first step in the evolution of an airplane design is the definition of general size I
E-9 comprisee t w o designs. the Series 10 without leading-edge devices and. therefore. with
and layout. Since the desired size of the DC-9 and the available engine type8 dictated a
airfoils having exceptional marimvm lift capability, and the Series 30. with a longer m e -
tvo-engine design, the first major configvration decision vas that of wing configuration.
W e , leading-edge devices, and airfoils more oriented toward minimum high-speed drag.

The discussion Concentrates on design weas associated with the aft engine. T-tail eonfig- wing conripration

uration such 8s design of the nacelle-pylon-fuselage mea to minimize high Mach nwber drag It Vas desirable to have as high a c r u s e speed as was economically consistent with the
and the solution of the deep-stall problem. Causes of "locked-in'' deep stall LLrc shorn to short-field-length performance desired for the E-9. A high-speed cruise Mach amber of
be aOsOeiated with combined effects of ring and nacelle vaker and iuselage Voz'tices On the 0.80 vas selected, aad various X i n g Sueep Bngles and wing thicknesses were studied to de- ,
horizontal tail. The E-9 Configuration assures adequate nose-dorn pitching-moment capa- termine the optimum combination. The optimum combination is defined as the one that yields

bility, eliminating the possibility of "locked-in" deep.stall. An analog sinnlator vas the lorest operating cost for a given cruise speed, payload-range ability. and field-
.:suceessf~~Uy used to interpret extensive deep-stall rind-tunnel data. Flight-test TeSYltS length requirement. The results of our studies shmed that 24O of oxeep at the quarter ,
:In all flight regimes show good agreaent vith characteristics predicted by analytical chord vas approximately the optimum. The ring thickness was noderate. provided adequate ,
,-methoW and wind-tunnel tests. fuel volume. and allwed trailing-edge angles over the control Surfaces aufficiently l m
to avoid high-speed b u s problems.
2'1. INTRODUCTION
:"
Wing aspect ratio was selected from studies of the variation with aspect ratio of weight
..The DOvglaP E-9 series ra5 conceived to satisiy the need lor a highly reliable. economical,
<r empty, ErYiSC fuel, seeond-se~ent-takeofflimiting weight, and operating cost. Payload.
:'.short-ranse, high-performance Jet transport. The ability to Operate from Short runvws vas
~?I
-3
.i range, and field-length requirements "ere held constant. On a tvin-engine transport air- ,
:psSential. The purpose Of this paper is to review the more significant aerodynede design
* plane. single-engine climb performance in the takeoff and enroute configurations often
'features Of the Dc-9 Series 10, the first of the series, and to outline the serodynamie de-
limits the maximum usable weight. Since increased aspect ratio lovers induced drag and
., ~

::;%velopent prosrun. Later developments in the DC-9 series will be briefly described.
. .. increases the critical climb performance. twin-engine airplanes tend toward higher aspect

,"The pertinent physical characteristics of the DC-9 Series 10 are shorn in Figure 1. The ratios than four-engine airplanes. Higher aspect ratio raises the gross weight required
. :bc-9
~ . Series 10 has a wing area (934 square feet) less than that of a E-3. a pwload to perform B mission,because of the higher weight empty associated with higher aspect
.. ,

-1- -2-
 ratio. For a short-range airplane, the weight-empty increase is relatively larger than the representstive of the basic pmfile used. dt the root and tip t h e airfoils a r e modified
gain in fuel due to the reduced inaueed mag. nevertheless, the ability to carry greater to correct for the finite-wing effects, that is. the changes in pressure distribution from
weight from a given a i m o n nore than outweighs the "eight-empty increQ5e until the aspect leading edge to trailing edge indvced by either the root or tip effects of the swept wing.
ratio reaches 8.0 to 9.0. The aspect ratio of the DC-9 Series 10 selected as 8.25.
Engine Location
The wing thickness distribution and the variation of sirfoil shape BCroS3 the span were The next major design decision "89 thet of engine location. The choice of fuselage-
selected to give a Constant drag-divergenee Mach mrmber -on the Foot to the tip of the mounted engines over ring-mamted engine8 vas carehllly considered for the E€-9. One of
wing. For favorable wing StrYeturQl weight and fuel volume. it is desirable to have the the important arguments for the aft engine location is the higher lraximun lift coefficient
inner panel Of greater percentage thickness than the outer panel. It is wssible to that comes from a clean wing leading edge and from a flep uninterrupted by rn opening for
achieve this because of the lover lift Coefficient acting Over the inner part of the Xing Jet exhaust Or for nacelles. Although the latter gain is r e d , the t W clean Uing ha8
and became interference between the fuselage and the srept Uing SupPresSes the nose peak yet to he built. which means that only part of the leading-edge gain has been generally
p r e w n e s on the i m e r part of the ring. me Oc-9 wing thickness varies from 13.2 :percent obtained. Stall-charaeteristics rquirments have usually foxed the Use of some sort of
at the root to approximately 10 percent at the tip. The tvist was ehoIen to be Just B leading-edge fence. dnotber important advantage is the redvetion of drag achieved by
little more than optimm Por induced drag in Order to reduce the lift carried on the outer eliminating xing-pylon inGerferenee. Of course, this gain can be easily canceled by drag
panel of the wing to favor StQll Characteristics. Figure 3 9ho.d. the variations of rhick- due to interference between the nscelles and the fuselage with an aft engine location, un-
ness and twist with spanwise position. less great care is taken in the aerodynamic design of the pylon, the nacelle. and the

fuselage in this area. A third advantage is the reduction in the asmetric-thrust yawing
In the Selection of airfoil sections. it vas fortunate that the DC-8 development had
moment Bsaociated with the one-engine-out condition. With the nacelles located close to
produced a set of airfoiln that had excellent high-speed drag characteristics xhile rosin-
the fuselage, the moment srm oP the asymmetric thrust is reduced. and the minima control
taining exceptionel high-lift p'"pertieo. Since the Dc-9 Series 10 had Severe short-field-
Speed can be made relstively lor without penalty in vertical-tail size. Another signifi-
length requirements and was not to have leading-edge devices. especially effective high-
cant gain is the reduetion in indvced drag at the higher lift coefficienta associated with
lift airfoils were essential. me dragdivergence Mach number of these airfoils is sig-
the takeoff-climb condition. Tests on the Dc-8 had shown a sub8tantial drag in the high-
nificantly greater than that of the ustml NASA 6 series airfoils often w e d in high-speed
lift-coefficient region from the vortex arising f r o m the pylon-Uing intersection (Figure
airplanes, as seen in Figure 4. At the higher lift Coefficients, of less importance to a
6 ) . Since performance in the second-segment takeoff climb is e8pecially important on a
short-range airplane, thaae airfoils do have sonewhat greater early d r a g rise than is pos-
two-engine airplane. the beneficial effect of eliminating the pylon On the wing was prob-
sible with a i r f o i l s vith lover maximum lift coefficients. Eowever. studies of the relative

'( lift and drag capabilities of these airfoils shaved that the reduction in ring area nade
ably the dominant performance factor in the decision to mount the engines aft.

possible by the higher maximum lift greatly outweighed the weight of additional fuel re- There ere many nonserodynamic factors to be considered in this decision. Placing the en-
quired, even for long-range-cruise operation, B comparatively rare operation for thin air- gines beneath the wing tends to raiae the entire airplane. thereby increasing the length
plane. Figure 5 shows the E - 9 airfoils st three spanvise stations. The midrpan airfoil is and Might of the landing gear and built-in stair. On the other hand. the Center of

-3- 4-
gravity is moved farther aft with aft engine placement, and this tends to shorten tail ~ a i iconrimration

l e w h and increase the Size of the tail surfaces. This effect may he canceled, however, The basic tail arrangement vas the result of extensive study. Of course. some tail posi-

by optimizing the empennage arrangement to minimize tail-surface size. This subJect will tions are ruled out by the aft engine location. It is notcractice.1, for example, to place
be covered nore fully in the discussion of tail configuration. the tail On the fuselage, because of interference vith the nacelles Or the engine exhaust.
is it Practicalto place the horizontal tall below the nacelle, because it would reduce
It is ObVioYS that the net effect of all of these factors C m o t be detedned without a
the attainable ground angle in takeoff and landing. Many vertical positions of the hori-
detailed numerical analysis Of a particular configuration. Our studies shoved that the
zontal tail Were studied. The moat efficient from the standpoint of veight and drag vas
net effects of the aft engine location On drag and veight Yere relatively s m a l l , except in
the high tail position. In this position. the horizontal tail end-plates the vertical tail
the second-sepnent c l i m b condition. xhere a significant drag reduction vas obtained. In
and reducer the required size of the vertical tail. The hi@ sweep of the vertical tail
evaluating this analysis, it is inportant to note that the drag associated with wing-
results in a greater horiaontal-tail length; that is, the position of the horizontal tail
mounted eaginea vas derived f r o m DC-8 experience. KOV on an airplane the size of the DC-8,
can be farther aft "hen the horizontal tail is placed on top of the vertical. Furthemore,
it is relatively easy to place the nacelle vel1 ahead of the wing and thus maintain wing-
the high tail is in a region of reduced domvash from the ving. These t w o factors reduce
nacelle spacing large enough to minimize flow interference. In an airplane of the DC-9
the necess- size of the horizontal tail for both control and stability requirements.
size. maintainability and loadability require a eonfigvration that is close to the around.
The qnestion of the optimum height of the horizontal tail arose agein during the considera-
Such a configuration, having a minimum of room betveen the wing and the growd. requires
tion of deepstall c o n t r o l . Hind-tunnel studies ahwed that tail heiaht -88 not signifi-
that the nacelle be placed very close to the Uing. It is then difficult to place the na-
Cant in this regard for the E-9 ving-fuselage-nacelle qeonetry.
celle ahead of the wing without having the exhaust create unacceptable temperatures and
Bound pressures on the wing. Therefore, the nacelle nust be placed directly under the ni~-Liftsystem

wing. with little clearance. While it nay be possible to create an acceFtable design of Since the DC-9 Series 10 design emphasized simplicity and naintainsbility, leading-edge
this sort, the resultant drag interference and loss of w i n u r n liit coefficient will prob- devices Yere not used. The trailing-edge flap is a powerful, 36-percent-chord, double-
ably he greater than far a pylon-mounted nacelle On an airplane the size of the DC-8 Or slotted flap. which rotates about a fixed external hinge. The position Of the vane with
the 707. Therefore, there night be nore gain in eounting the engine sft On a 3C-9 sire respect to the flap is fixed. The flap span extends to 67 percent of the w i n g span. The
airplane than OUT own calculations indicated. inboard portion of the flap had to be modified because of structural clearance require-
men%%. This inboard section is a 3-slot flap with two vanes, which neat together with the
A6 a result of all of theee Considerations. it vas decided to mount the DC-9 engines on
flap in the retracted position. Figure 7 illustrates the E-9 Series 10 flap geometry.
the fuselage.
cantro1-syatem ConfiRvationr

The primary considerations for selection of the flight-control systems were the use of

proven concepts and proven. reliable hardware to minimize development and maintenance prob-

lems. As sham in Figure 8, the primary flight Controls on the DC-9 consist of

-5- -6-
 conventional ailerons. rudder, and elevators. Lateral control is a l s o provided by the
of all spoilers upon landing touchdown by means of a wheel spin-up signal. The flight
flight spoilers, located ahead of the flaps On the wing upper Surface. The spoilers are
spoilers are powered by tV0 Separate hydraulic system. The left System actuates the aut-
also used as speedbrakes for deceleration in the air and to decrease lift and increase
board Plight spoilers and the right system actuates the inboard flight spoilers.
drag during the landing p u n d roll.
lateral-contro1 system

f Longitudinal-Control System

Conventional aerodyndeally balanced elevators with aerodynsmic bmrt li& tabs are used
A combination aileron and spoiler laters.l-contro1 System is used on the Dc-9. The single
aileron on eaeh wing is aerodynamically balaced and aermamically boosted by a control
for longitudinal control. Two tabs provide the necessary forces to drive the elevator:
tab. The lateral control function of the flight spoilers provides up to 60' spoiler angle
an Inboard control tab and an outbaard geared tab. Motion of the geared tab is designed
with the speedbrakes up Or d m , depending 00 the blowback characteristics. This system
to approximate that of the control tab under no& operating conditions. Longitudinal
V ~ Q selected to provide satisfactory control for all flight conditions, including, par-
trim capability is prorided by the adjustable-incidence horizontal stabilizer. The sta-
ticularly. rolling perfo-ce at Yew 1- and very high speeds and roll control in the
bilizer is electrically driven over an incidence range of +lo to -
9'. Pilot forcer are
--rudder Sideslip and during cross-wind landings.
derived frw both aerodVnamic hinge mments and from a two-rate eontrol-colunn centering

spring. This spring h89 a steep force gradient t h r o w neutral for g m d centering and a The lateralsontrol spoiler effetiveners as a m e t i o n of spoiler angle wries rith flap

lover -adient away irOm neutral. A Maeh trim c w n s a t a r is provided in the longitudinal deflection and becomes quitire nonlinear vith ivll flaps. Cams are therefore used to obtain

control System. This device applies a eol- force and repositions the centering spring the desired aileron-spoiler relationship. The upgoing spoiler cem is shaped to give linear

as a m e t i o n Of Maeh number in the high Mach amber trim change or '"tuck" region. It lor response in the landiw configuration. The dmngoing spoiler cam is shapht to give a

assures a stable force miation w i t h speed thravghout the flight envelope. minimum change in resporue rith the speedbrakes up e? dom and to maintain the same mai-
m control capability with the wound spoilers raised. Spoiler m t i o n does not occw un-
Spoiler system
til aileron control tab deflection exceeds 4".
The ring spoiler system consist8 of three hydi-aulically ponered spoilers in each wing, lo-
cated ahead of the flaps. The inboard spoilers are the grorvld spoilers and operate only on Isteral trim capability is provided by cable-operated trim tans on each aileron.

the ground. The center and outboard spoilers are the flight spoilers, which w r a t e as
Aileron wheel forces are derived from bath aerodynamic tab hi%e m e n t s and frw load
speedbrakes in the air. 89 ground spoilers on the ground, and as latenll-control spoilers
feel springs loeeted at each aileron.
at all times. H a r h Spoiler deflection is 3
0
' in tbe speedbrake mode and 60' in the
w u n d Spoiler and lateral EDntrol modes. Spoiler blowback to angles less than 60° rill oe- Directian-Control System
e m at airspeeds above approximately 180 h o t s because of intentionally limited hinge-nomeat The aft fuselage engine location meetly reduces yawing moment due to asmetric thrust.

Capability. The use of the wound-spoiler mode of operation increases drsg and redvces lift, campred to ring-mounted engines. However. a p"eriul rudder is Still repvired to obtain

thvs improTing braking effectiveness and reducing stopping d i s k c e s during reJected t&c g m d cross-rind capability and 1- minimum control speeds. The Dc-9 rudder is aerody-

Ofis and landing Blovnd roll. Arming the speedbrake handle prorides antmatie extension aamieaUy balanced and h y d r s u l i c W ponered. Reversion to conventional aeraavnamic tab

-7- -a
control is automatic in case of loss of hydraulic-system pressure. Early development work on the preliminary low-speed model generally verified the estimated

stability levels and control capability. However, directional stability data and tuft
Rudder-pedal forces are supplied by load feel springs for power operation and by the
studies of flaw at the horirontal-tail-verti~al-t~il intersection indicated a potential
springs plus aerodynamic hinge moments vith power off. The rudder trin system utilizes
problem associated with separated flow around the bullet intersection fluring, featured in
the load feel spring5 For both pover-on and pover-off trim.
the original design. Vertical-tail geometry and the placement of the horizontsl tail on

At high airspeeds. protection against the possibility of excessi~etail loads is provided the vertical were changed in order to eliminate the requirement for the large protruding

by a rudder throw limiter. The limiter is actuated by dynamic presswe to limit the maxi- bullet. The resulting smwth intersection has perfamed satisfactorily during all devel-

mum rudder angle 85 a function of airspeed. opment vind-tunnel tests and throughout the flight program.

Directional control on the ground is improved by incorporation of rudder-pedill-nolevheel The complete high-speed model provided valuable information on stability levels and con-

steering. This feature reduces the ground minimum control speed and aids in maintaining trol effectiveness at high Mach number, as well as an e a r l y check on the emiae drag lev-

directional control during the takeoff and landing Found roll. A nosewheel steering angle el and drag-rise characteristics. Figures 9 and 10 r h w a comparison of rind-tunnel data

of flTo is provided through the rudder pedal. on longitudinal and directional stability levels obtained frw the high-speed wind-tunnel

model with the estimates being “sed for design at that time. This close correlation b e
A series yaw damper is included in the directional-control system to inprove dynamic-
tween complete-eonfigurationwind-tunnel data and estimated levels w a s generally true for
stability characteristice for normal operation. The yau damper moves the rudder Up to
all Stability and e o n t m l parsmeterr. Predicted cruise drag characteristie.. corrected to
Soin response to yav rate without feedback through the rvdder p e w s . It may be used
the wind-tunnel-model Reynolds number and wind-tunnel-del Configuration were compared to
throughout takeoff and landing.
the high-speed-del drag data (Figure l l l . At the high-speed-e-re conditions. Mach

number of 0.80 and lift coefficient of 0.2. there was excellent agreement betveen the
3. AERODYNAMIC DEVEWPMMT
rind-tunoel-model measured drag and the predicted drag w e d in performanee analysis. At
Wind Tunael Proqrams
the long-range-cruise conditions. Mach nvmber of 0.76 and lift coefficient of 0.40. wind-
A large portion of the serodyn-c design development of the DC-9 w accomplished thravgh
tunnel-model drag data indicated lover drag levels than the predicted values.
the w e of five ->or vind-tunoel models. These models included (11 a preliminary lov-

speed madel to check basic aercdpamie characteristics. ( 2 ) a complete high-speed model to The largescale aft-Puselage-empennage model provided utensive data on horizontal- and

cheek high-speed Stability and contlol and drag characteristics, ( 3 ) a high Reynolds ram- vertical-tail lift characteristics. rudder effectiveness and hinge-manent characteristics.

ber 10”-speed model to obtain maximum-lift and stall-characteristics data. (41 a rela- stabilizer hinge moments. elevator and control-tab effectiveness and hinge-moment ehar-

tively large-scale aft-fuselag-empemw,e madel to obtain horizontal- and vertical- aeteristiee, and vertical- and horizontal-+ail load distribution data throughat the Mach

tail lift, hing-ent and pressuredistribution data. and (51 a high Reynolds number number range. Data from this mcdel c o n f i n e d the %&isfactory behavior of the aerodynamic

aR-fuselage-nacell-pypylon model for detailed drag optimimtion Studies On the nacelle. h r t linked-tab elevator (iystem at Mach numbers up to and beyond the designed dive Mach

pylon, and fuselage area. number of 0.09. Chordwise pressure diatributions. obtained at several spanwise stations

-9- -10-
 on both vertical and horizontal tail, indicated that airload levels and airlooad diitiibu- a low-aspect-ratio, rectangular wing was placed forward on the fuselage, and its angle of

tions derived from a Douglas-deuelaped T-tail aero4vnanic-load-distribution andysis were incidence vas adjusted by repeated uind-tunnel experiments to create the dovnvash Over the
closely verified by the wind-tunnel-model data. ?his greatly relieved the concern regard- nacelle that had been found to exist in tests of the complete X-9.
ing the ability to correctly analyze the many critical load conditions for the T-tail
The variables evalvated during the test program included the gap between nacelle and fuse-
arrangement.
lage, pylon thicknese and planform. nose-cwl length and camber. afterbody and terminal-
The high Seynolds number aft-fuselage-nacelle-pylon model vas used extensively in the fairing designs, and many others that pertained to detail design problems. Probably the
development of overall nacelle lines. and fuaelage-pylon-nacelle gewnetry for optimum most significant part of the ?rOgram vas the investigation of the effects of nose-cwl
cruise drag characteristics. This -or* is ovtlined in detail in the following discussion length and camber. The Camber was important because it YXS desirable to have a sym-
of nacelle design. netrieal (weambered) nose cowl. so that the left and right nose caw13 vould be inter-

changeable. Sone of the results of this investigation are presented in Figure 13, where
-
Nacelle D e s i ~ n Drag
the drag increment due to the nacelle and pylon is shorn as a finetion of !4ach nmber for
One of the areas of the X-9 design that differed fundanentally from previous Dowlss
four Of the configurations tested. Note the significant drag rise of the short, u11cm-
practice _ E the engine location. Placing the engines at the sides o f the aft fuselage
bered configuration. beginnins at a Mach number below 0.8, as opposed to the drag rise of
introdwed the possibility of a drag pzoblen due to boundq-layer reparation in the di-
the short, cambered configuration. which remained very slight to a Mach number well beyond
vergent Portion of the convergent-divergent channel formed by the nacelle, the pylon sup-
0.8, the highest cruise Mach number of the IK-9. Although the drag rise of the uneambered
porting the nacelle, and the adjacent part of the fuselage. In addition to low drag, the
configuration could be Beatly reduced by lengthening the covling, the added weight kld
ObJectives in the design of the nacelle installation were light weight and simplicity.
friction drag (internal and external) relative to the short. cambered eonfiguration ruled
A special wind-tunnel model vas used to determine the optimvo nacelle-pylon configuration. it out. in spite of the interchangeability advantage. The effect of the canbering m.s to
The tu0 main Considerations dictating the Use of B nonstandard nodel were (11 the need to minimize the acceleration of the f l o w in the channel between the fuselage. pylon, and na-
simulate, at wind-tuonel Reynolds number. the same fuselage bouodq-layer thickness (nan- celle.
dimensional) at the nacelle that would exist on the airplane in flight and ( 2 ) the need to
As a further check on the acceptability of the short. cambered c w l i n g design. the drag.
eliminate the conventional fuselage sting support that would -- uoreslisticslly -- relieve
increment due to the nacelle and pylon w s obtained from the test of the large-scale con-
the f l w divergence over the aft p r t i o n of the fuselage. The resulting model consisted
plete model of the Dc-9 in the N A N h e S U - F w t Wind -el. The results, shorn in
of a foreshortened fuselage and dvmmy wing Supported by a sting attached to the top of the
Figure 14. indicated no compressibility drag rise and B drag level very close to the the-
vertical tail (Figure 12). This model vas tested in the Douglas Aerophysies Laboratory
oretical value. In fact. the drag increment started to decrease at 0.8 Mach number.
[ Trisonic Four-Foot Wind Tunnel. Because of the relatively l a r g e scale of the model. se-
Though the decrease at !keh numbera above 0.8 is not important to the airplane perfam-
lected to get the highest possible Reynolds number. it was not posaible t~ use a scaled
ace. the reason for it is of some ioterest. The drag reduetion is the reault of a de-
X-9 wing. Xovever, the simulation of the wing dovnvash over the aft portion of the fuse-
crease in the wing shock-wave drag due to the Whitcombbody effect produced by the
lage vas essential for the proper PePPeoentation of the flow at the nacelle. Therefore,

-ll- -12-
installation of the nacelle. This effect is illustrated by the pressure distributions on the distortion paraaeter is well below 5 percert.
the upper surface of the wing ahead of the nacelle at 0.825 Kach number (Figure 15) which
The conc1~6ionsreached as s result of all the inlet survey tests _re there: (1)the
clearly show that the installation of the nacelle and pylon reduces the Shock-wave Yach
fuselage vake does not enter the inlet at sideslip conditions. (21 the totBl-pre8Sure dir-
number and also moves the shock farther forward on the wing.
tortions created by the ingestion Of the spoiler w a k e never exceed the nominal 5-percent
Nacelle Desim - Hake Ingestion limit, (31 the total-pressure distortions caused by the ingestion of the wins wake at the
hother problem area associated with engines mounted on the aft fuselage vas the possi- stall do not exceed the 5-percent licit, and ( 4 ) at high Mach nwbers. the 5-percent linit
bility Of engine operating difficulties due to ingestion by the engines of wakes from is exceeded only at airplane lift coefficients corresponding to conditions vel1 beyond the
various component* of the airplane. These wakes include the wake from the lateral-control buffet boundw. It vas later found from flight tests that, at and beyond the stall with
and speed-brake spoilers. the wing vake at stall and in the buffet regime, and the fuse- power on, there is considerable engine surging or popping. However, this not only does
lage wake at sideslip conditions. Extensive wind-tunnel tests vere conducted st both lov not interfere with engine operation but is actually considered a favorable factor in t h a t
and high Speed in ofler to determine the total-pressure distortion patterns that appear at it provides an additional, mistakable stall warning.
the engine compressor face when rakes are drawn into the inlet. The variables that were
Stall and seep Stall
iwestigated included ground effect. inlet mass-flov ratio (engine power setting), flap
Satiafactory stall characteristics have always been one of the nost important design eri-
deflection, spoiler deflections. angle of attack. yaw angle, and Xach number. Both normal
teria for any airplane, but they are particularly important for transport aircraft. This
and ertreme operating conditions were studied. A distortion parameter defined as the suo-
has been funbental in the desim Of all Douglas transport airplanes. The DC-9 was no
tient of the average total pressure minus the minimum total prea8ure divided by the aver-

age total pressure vas used to evalvate the data. The nominal limit for stall-Cree engine
exception. Requirements for adequate stall warning -- stmng natural pitehdoun at the
stall for inherent recovery and good lateral control through the stall - were established
operation was defined as 5 percent by the engine manufacturer. Preliminary inlet-
during the conceptual stages of the E-9. Transport-airplane characteristics at angler of
distortion tests were conducted in the GAICIT Wind T u e l at the California Institute of
attack far beyond the stall have not Ysually been given ~ e r ymuch Consideration, for 5eY-
Technolow. Hwever. the most important of the potential problex areas were later inves-
era1 reasona. First. transports are almost never stalled except in test programs; second.
tigated in the NAS4 hms 12-Foot Pressure Tunnel at larger Reynolds numbers. about 50 per-
stall is so clearly indicated that, with reasonable airplanes. rationsi pilots recover e o m
cent of full Scale. Figure 16 shows the test setup in this facility. Note the duet used
the stall before the angle of attack increases much beyond the stall angle; and third,
to control the airflow necesasry to create the proper inlet mass-flov ratio. A typical
there never has been any reason to explore the ver/ high-angle region. It has been b o r n
exsmple of the results Obtained from this facility are presented in Figure 17. where the
for some tine that pitehing-marent e w e s of certain T-tailed designs tended to Show an
variation of the total-pressure contours and distortion parameter with engine airflov is
unstable region at angles vel1 beyond the stall. This region was browht into sharp fOCY5
Shorn for a landing Condition with the ground spoilers fully deflected. The condition
by the unfortunate accident of the BAC-111. As s result of this accident. fear of the
ah- corresponds to an overspeed landing with a 35-knot eI.006 wind blowing across the
high-angle-of-attack sta;ll became widespread, and studies of the region of extreme angle
spoilers into the inlet. he airflow variation sirnulatea t h e engine acceleration to maxi-
of attack were initiated all over the world. Those of us varking with the Dc-9 became
mym ContinYoYs power with the t h m t reverser extended. Even at this extreme condition.

-13- -1b-
 deeply involved. The pitching moment becomes less and less negative and finally at angles of about 32' and

Before discussing the Physics of the deep stall, we must first define it. beyond actually becomes positive. or nose up. Above about 42' the Curve bends, again be-
The normal

i
-
stall r e e o n can be defined as the angle-of-attack range starting vith the angle for m i -

lift and extending for from bo to 6' beyond it. very fer flight explorations of the
angle-of-attack range beyond this region had been carried out in the past. Since airplane3
coming stable. At these W e s of attack. the elevator effeetiueneas is ~ e r ylow, so that

application or full nose-dm moment is not adequate to produce the negative pitching no-

merit (Figure 19). The airplane is then stable and locked into a deep stall. Pitching no-

SEntS without the nacelle Yere Similar up to about 28O but then becsme stable and did not
normally stall in the region from 15' to.'02 @ea of attack beyond 25' have not usually
show "locked-in" deep-stall characteristics. It vas clear that the nacelle contributed
been erperieoced. Tbe deep s t a l l might be delined ss anything beyond that region, but, ia
significantly to the problem.
truth. the deep stall with which We w e concerned occurs in t h e region Rom about 35O to

50° angle of attack. NO". if Ye Call this the deep stall. Ye must M h e r define t h e term The next Phase of the investigation armlyred the f l w indvced by each airplane component
knm as the "locked-in" deep stall. This represents a stable condition at an angle of contributing to these pitching-moment curves. Considerable voik w a s done vith tuft and
attaeh of 40° to 50' from which no recovery is possible. AD intermediate case might be a
*&e-flov patterns and vith probes. V i s a investigations of the wing and naeelle rake
condition in which. vith certain settings of controls, the airplane can a s s m e a stable patterns Yere carried out by means of long tuftz. Streamers from the leading and trail-
trimmed attitude at a Very high angle of attack in the d e e p s t a l l region and thereloare ing edses of the wing and the nacelle pylon shoved the locations of ring and pylon wakes
have a stable deep stall but still be recoverable t h r o w motions of the controls. This and the effect of nacelle rake on the wing wake. Figurer 20 and 21. which are examples of
vovld not he a "locked-in" deep stall.
this type of observation, show that the +.ail remains in the wing rahe to a much higher

angle of attaeL than it does with lw-tail arrangements. The figures also s h w that when
The Stnll Problem
the tail begins to move out of the w i n g uahe. it m s into the naeelle wake. 60 that the
The first phase of the Dc-9 deepstall study was a -ic experimentnl investigation to en-
e- pressure over the +.ail is adversely affected t h r o w a very large angle-of-attack
hance vnderstaoding of the aerodynamics of the deep stall. Figure 18 shows vind-tunnel
range.
pitching-ment result8 from an aftengine. T-tail eonfiguration that has a stable and

"locked-in" deep s t a . Curves are shorn for (1) the wing and body alone; ( 2 ) ving, body,
A c w l e t e survey of the angle of attack and dynamic pressure at the tail was obtained for
and nacelles; (3) wing, body. nacelles. and tail; and ( 4 ) ring, bady, and tail. Notice angle of attack up to .'53 Figure 22 shows t h e location of the probes across the span of
that the tail-off case is mildly unstable, as is to be expected for "y deeign. and shows the tail. The dynamic pTeaaUres -e show in Figure 23. It can be seen that the dynamic
a stable n o s e d m moment break at the stall. At high angles far beyond the stall, no un- preSSure at the tail is close to that of the free stream and suite unilom across the span
usual characteristic is seen. Adding the Wacelles to t h i s configuration increases the up to the @e of stall; above this a l e the dynamic pressure Starts to decrease. The

( stability slightly, since the nacelle and pylons act

l e w h tail.
&s B low-aspect-ratio, short-tail-
Adding the tail to the configuration producer n e r n e that has a small w-
decrease rapidly becomes very lar~e,and at angles of attaeX around 35' the 1099 in dy-

namic pressYle becomes &s high as 80 percent of the free-strem Value across most of the
Stable break at the stall. which is uoacceptable. followed by a narroY pitch-dm region. tail span. But it is notable that as the angle of attack iscreases beyond 26". the dy-

followed at angles Of attack beyond about 21' or 22' by B strong unstable characteristic. namic pressure of the most outboard station tested begins to increase r%Pibly.

-15- -16-
Figure 24 shows t h e tail-ankle-of-attack results from the same survey. The angle of at-
the stall. there must be a strong natural pitchdom; lsteral-control effectiveness mast
tack of the horizontal tail is uniform and shows just about the predicted domrash up to
be retained throvgh the complete atall region; and control response must be immediately
the stall, but shortly beyond the stall the pettern takes on extreme characteristics. The
effective When recovery from the stall is initiated by the pilot. It vas allso desired
inboard Section of the tail shows tremendous domrash w h i l e the outboard section shows very
that as the stall is entered. pilot cues indicating the presence of the s t W become
large upwash. F i v e 23. the Vmiation Of dynamic pressure. shows that the decrease in
increasingly obvious. Far the deepstall region, the requirement w a s established that
dynamic pressure was much less mer the imer pOrtion than Over the ovter portion of the
normal recovery capability with elevator control d o n e be available from "ly angle of
tail, so that the part of the tail with high dynamic pressure is the part with the dovn
attack, even though it would be slmost impossible for a rstional pilot to go beyond the
load due to the high downwash. This contributes ~tronglyto the pitchup tendency.
nolmal *tau region.

Such an extreme d o m a s h pattern is indicative of a vortex. An expioration vith probes

The E-9 r i n g was designed to stall first at about 35-percent remispan, leaving the outer
and smoke pictures indeed Proved that this donwash pattern r a s a result of lifting "or-
Panel and the r m t vnrtalled for about '2 beyond the initid stall angle of attack. It
tieea shed from t h e furelage. F i v e 25 is an example of t h e smoke pictures obtained dur-
wes originally thoUght to be important to avoid stalling the iMt. Por fear of vahe
ing our investigation. Various attempts were made to change t h e characteristics of this
ingestion by the engine. The maximum lift Coefficient vas Controlled acr-088 the ring
vortex pattern, but none were significantly s u c ~ e s ~ f l l l .
by varying the shape of the leading edge. Mrly wind-tuel tests shored that this

Figure 26 Shows the results of investigations of control effectiveness. The variation of philo~ophywas not -equate. although t h e same procedure had worked very vel1 on the

pitching-moment coefficient with stabilizer incidence. CMia. and the variation o f pitch- E-8. Spawise flow on the ving caused s t d too early On the outer panel, resulting
ing moment with elevator W e . W b e , are plotted as functions of angle Of attack. It is in Some minor pitchup at the stall. huthermore. the pitchdorn moment available in the

clear that there is a very large decrease in control-surface effectiveness at the higher deepstall legion Y- not adeqwte to assure positive pitchdam capability to the pilot

angles of attack, w i t h cOntro1-surfaCe effectiveness approaching 10 percent of no& in at the critical aft center-of-wavity position. A very extensive wind-tunnel program

t h e deepstall region. The deepstall instability is thvs s h m to be due to a combina- ybs undertaken which involved t h e m i a t i o n of a i r f o i l s across the span. many types of

tion of wing and nacelle-pylon rakes degrading t h e tail-surface effectiueness vith an fences On both upper and lover wing surfaces, leading-edge-atall Strips. various vortex-

additional adverse eontribvtion frw fuselage vortices. generator configurations. and tail-size and tail-location variations. Various devices
On the aft fuselage Bnd nacelle were tested to create _re n0se-d- pitching moment at
DeveloDiniI the E - 9 S t d l Characteristics
the very high angles of attack. Analysis of many dozens of confiwations tested in the
Once an understanding of the basic characteristics involved in the stall and deepstall

-
wind tunnel led to a simple and most satisfactory configuration.
phenomena had been developed, a philosophy for the design of the a'-9 1- eatablished.
First, t h e problem was divided into two p a n e . the no& stall. up to prhapr 5O or 6' The solution to the normal-atall problem an under-wing fence, which we a d B

beyond the a t d and the deepstdl region at angles of attaek UP to about 50'. For the "vortiion", and m inereare in the span of the horimntsl tail (Figure 27). ~n the
normal stall, the philosophy was no different from that u e d for any Douglas transport deepstall regime, the larger span horizontd tail and an auxiliary pver-augaentation

airplane. Specifiedly. there m u t be strong natural or artificial stall warning. At system O n the elevator solved the problem.

-17- -18-
 Bmounted to abavt 20 percent of the original span. an excellent pitchdown vas obtained at
A leading-edge fence Creates an excellent pitehdom Characteristic st the norms1 stall.
5oo flap deflection ana at all intermediate flap deflections. one very interesting aspect
However. a leading-edge fence also creates vortex drag at angles of attack important to
of this is that the tail alone could not do the Job. With flaps .
'
0
5 removing the "Or-
the second-segment clinb. The Vortex is the same 8s that produced by a wing-mounted
tilon resulted in a pitchup at the stall even vith the large tail. The vortilon was neCeS-
Wlon. The fence also has s m e cruise drag penalty due to the disturbing effect on the
3- at all flap angles, but it w-3 not sufficient at .'05
ring aerodynamic sweepback. A special type of undenring fence v a s therefore developed,
t
which Ve called a vortex-generating Pylon. or vortilon. This underring device does not The use of the larger span tail vas also the solution to obtsining pitehdow capability at
ereate a vortex except at angles of attack beyond those of any interest to perfomance.
any angle of attack up throvgh and beyond the deep stall. Effectiveness of the larger
The wing stagnation point for Cruise and t e e o f f climb conditions is ahead of the leading span in this Fegard CM be vnderstmd by referring again to Figure 23. vhere the dynamic
edse of the vortilon. AS angles Of attack Close to the stall are reached, the stagnation pressure at the most outboard tail station. probe 5 . shovs a marked increase above about
P i n t =Yes aft Of the interSRtion of the leading edse of the vortilon vith the w i n g , and 26' angle of attack. hbaard of this station. at station 4, close to the previous tip
the interference vitb the leading-edge cross flow creates a strong vortex that goes over loeation of the horixontal tail, the dynamic-pressure loss is very large at all angle8 Of
the top of the wing. This vortex has two basic effects. First, the vortex scours the attack up through 33O. the highest measured angle. huthermore, the extended tip. with
bovndary layer floving Proa the imer to the outer part of the wing upper Surface and the improved dynamic-pressure environment, is in a region vhere there is considerable UP-
reducer the detrimental effect on the outer-panel maximum lift. Therefore outer-panel vaah induced by the fvselage TOrtiCeE. The horizontal tail praduced the desired negative
stall is delayed. Furthermore. the vortex Creates an upvash field inboard of the vortilan. moment at the most &t center-of-gravity position at any angle of attack. provided iull-
This d a s h acts on the tail to create a pitchdom Just as the stall is reached and for dwn elevator position (lk9 attained. This led t~ the second Confipation change to meet
more than loo beyond the stall. Figure 28 shows the pitching-moment eUVe with and with- our d e e p s t a l l design requirements. namely, a pore=-awentation. system for the elevator.
out the uortilon, for the flaps-up configuration and the original E-9 tail. The vortilon
At angleo of attack beyond about .'03 the effectiveness of the aerodynamic-booat linked
change8 an unstable bresd at the stall to B sharply stable one. Figure 29 shows the piteh-
ing-mmnt contribution of the vortilon, tail On and tail off. and it is seen that more tab thst drives the elevator decrekses rapidly. The tab is then unable to drive the ele-
vator to the full trailing-edge-dm position. For this condition, a hydraulic pwer a x -
than halfbf the effect is from the tail contribution. Figure 30 Shors.the change in d m -
mentation eystem YBQ developed to provide fulldm elevator control under extreme adverse-
vaah due to the vortilon at the uarioys probe positions at the tail. It is clear that the
angl-f-attack conditions. This Dyatem a P P l i e I . t r a i l i n g - e d g e - d m elevator hinge monent
W e Of attack at the tail is significantly more positive during the stall region with
whenever the control trb exeeeds an -le of 10' trailing edge up. The highest tab angle
tbe VOOnilon in place. Results Of testing the vortilon in Several spanvise positions
shoved the 35-percent-semispan location to be most effective. normally used is 8'. The 8ystem does not Operate in the trailing-edge-up elevator di-

rection. The angle to which the elevator is driven by the power 8ystem is determined by
While the vortilon was very effective, it did not solve all of the normal-stall poblema.
haw far the pilot pushes the wheel forward. The hinge-ament capability of the system is
Its pmerful effect occurred with flaps up and at lor flap angles. but at fvll flap de-
moderate, since it is requird to work 0 0 at the l m b a m i c pre88UeQ associated with
fleetion it _E relatively ineffective. It vas found that the extension of the horizontal m e prer system actuates 0 i f bath len-hand and right-hand elevator
deep s t d . 0

tail. ya8 very helpful in this r e s a d and that with the horizontal-tail extension. which
control tabs exceed loo deflection,to ensure failsafe operation.
-19- -20-
The wind-tunnel rake studies indicated that aerodynamic stall Yarning before the actual
pitch-dorn mmOent is almyr obtained. In flaps-don cases. it is possible vith large
et811 would probably be light. Therefore the DC-9 vas equipped with two completely re-
up elevator angles to achieve excessive angles of attack. but only after passing artifi-
dundant stall-nuning System. W o tab-type leading-edge angle-of-attack 8enSOTE a r e e m -
cial stall "arning, and overpowering a 5tronB pitchdovn. which requires considerable up
bined with completely independent electrical and stick-shaker systems.
elevator deflections with corresponding pilot force increases. W h e n n o r e , the wind-
The final wind-tunnel pitching-noment characteristics obtained at a Reynolds number Of tunnel model indicated W w e r n i l aerodwamic buffeting st angle of attack beyond the
approximately 7 million in the NASA Ames Research Center 12-Foot Wind Tunnel are Shorn in Stall to further reduce the liklihood Of en inadvertent deep s t a l l . It was canelvded
Figures 31, 32 and 33, f o r 0.' .
'
0
2 and 50' flaps, respectively. f o r the most a f t center- that these represented ereellent characteristics.
of-gravity position. In each ewe the stick-shaker stall warning occurs well before the
Analoe Connuter and Simulator Studies
stall. ht the stall, a strong PitChdoVn Occurs. follwed at B considerebly higher angle
In order to evaluate the data obtained from the wind tvmel in terns of dynsmic mneuvers.
of attack by a reduction in pitchdown moment. The pitching moment then becomes lesa and
extensive Bnalog-computer studies were conducted. Hundreds of runs using wind-tunael
less negative. but requires 7O to loo of angle-of-attack increase above the stdl before
data vith different Configurations and various assumed pilot inputs were studied in
the pitching mmOent is less negative than it was at the Stall. Eventually. at very high
order to determine desirable static-pitching-~omentcurve8. Later in the program. the
&e*, the pitching moment becones slightly positive with zero elevator angle; but if
analog computer vas connected with a simulated cockpit to ereate B very e f f e c t i v e
the pilot pushes forward on the uheel. the pitching monent will always become negative.
simulator. Many Of the possible pitchdon characteristics at the stall and the pitch-
One sigoificant p i n t i a that as the center of gravity moves folvlvd from this mDst aft
ing-moment characteristics through the deep stall were evaluated by o w flight personnel
and rarely encountered location the obtainable negative moment rapidly becomes very large,
in order to determine the optimum configuration. Figvre 37 shore the simulator.
until at mid center-of-gravity positions it is not psaible to get to these extreme angles
CWntities evaluated included angle Of attack. airplane attitude with respect to the
of attack even with iull-up elevator.
would, flisht-path angle. elevator angle, norm& acceleration. air speed, and altitude.
In order to interpret these pitching-mcment characteristies in terms of the flying q d - On the basis of these results. our flight personnel expected the DC-9 to have excellent
ities (control force and elevator angle), the control force and elevator angle to trim to longitudinal stall characteristics. They yere not disappointed when the airplane ?lev.
zero moment were computed functions of angle of attack. The resYltS are sh- in
Figures 34. 35, and 36. for 0.' .'02 and 50' flaps, respectively, again f o r the most sit b. FLIGHT nmwmm
center-of-wavity position. For .'0 the data shar that it is not possible to reach a deep- herodynamic design developlent was continued during the fipet portion of the DC-9
s t d l attitude without exceeding the maximum up elevator angle of 25
0
. Here the m i n u flight-test and certification program. The primary items requiring Continued develop-
angle of attack obtainable is about 27' with a pull force of over 65 pounds. For a stall ment in the aerodynamics area were roll characteristics at the stall and lateral-control-
entemd at a very high rate, the data indicate the possibility of 4ynamicaUY coasting to System responrer Improvenents in takeoff-elinb perfolrnanee yere also achieved.
the d e e p s t a l l region with this Canflguation. XOYeVCr, when nose-dm elevator is applied.

-22-
-21-
 truly outstanding, while providing a level of stall speeds conppatible with the Sholt-field
Stall Characteristies
pel'fomance requirements. During the stall prosam on the E - 9 , over 1800 stalls Yere
Stalling characteristics were evaluated early in the flight develo-ent program. The
made at all flap configurations, engine power on and o f f , straight and turning flight, and
stalls were characterized by essentially no aerodpanic buffet prior to the operation of
with Ving Spoilers Up and dovn. These tests have been carried out up to w l e s of attack
the artificial stick shaker. a Yell defined g break at the 18 stall, a good airplane
i n o s e d o m pitching at the g break. and, an the majority of the stalls, a strong randoni.
of 28' at full aft center of gravity at approach rates in excess of 4 knots per second.
Final stalling characteristics _ e characteiized by very light aerodynamic h f f e t DCCYIIing
rolling tendency at or imedialely falloving the lg break. This rolling tendency,
s f t e r the dual stick-sh&er warning, strong inherent n o s e d o v n pitching beyond the g
when it Occurred. was 50 rapid that bank angles YP to 3
0
' could easily be generated before
break. Yew little rolling tendency, moderate to heavy buffet after the stall in ConJunc-
lateral-control action by the pilot could Stop the bank-angle buildup. The lg stall
tion vith pronounced engine popping Or banging at all vraetical in-flight p w e r settings.
speeds obtained during these flight tests Yere somewhat lower than those used in the per-
By virtue of it4 strong inherent recovery characteristics and the existence of
formance predictions.
unmistakable pilot warning Cues that stall has been reached. the E-9 has been ahovn to be
Plight tests conducted w i t h ring tufts indicated that stalling occurred first st the lead- extremely resistant t o entering the deepstall region. Pitching characteristies dvrlw
ing eage at about midspan and spread rapidly inboard and outboard. men this occurred the stall. both in f l i g h C and in the simulator, Yere found to be in excellent qualitative
aoymmetrically. a strong, rolling tendency developed. The r o l l i n g tendency v.s aggravated agreement.

by the platively large lift 1055 typical of high-lift airfoils at the stall and by the

Pmgrsm -
lor moment of inertia in roll of the E - 9 ait engine configuration. ~n intensive flight
carried out in order to develop a configuration that would achieve

exeellent atall characteristics considered essential POT the E-9. and at the same rime
the

Lateral-control system
obtain the 101 stall speeds reqvired f o r takeoff and landing perfomace. This pmgram Another area of flight developent related to aerodynamics v a g the lateralsontrol system.
developed three minor but effective mOdirications in r i n g geometry. shorn in ~ i g u r e38. Early flight tests of the DC-9 confirmed the powerful lateral-ccntrol capability associsted
The first modification is an inboard stall strip, approximately 42 inches long, located with the spoiler-aileron lateral-control System, eapecially in the landing e o n f i w a t i o n .
on the wing leading eape at the ring root. This device assurea initial ving stalling at However. flight-test data obtained during landing approaches in w t y conditions shoved
the ving root. Next, a s n m u 1eadJng-edge fence v- incorporared at approximately midspan. that pilots had a tendency to over-eontrol and had some difficulty in msintaining bank
The Priman action of this fence Was to confine the initial s t a l l to the inboard area Of angle within desirably tight limits. huther flight tests indicated thst lateralsontrol-
the ring. so that both right and left r i n g s would stall i n b d before the s t d progress- system spring-force characteristics. friction level, and spoiler-aileron mixing were the
ed tovard the tip. Third, two rovs of vortex generators yere added on the Outer r i n g prime contributors to this over-c0ntrOl tendency. Intensive design effort has produced a
panel from approximately 60- to 85-percent semispan, in order to redvce the severity of system rith pleasantly light forces. extremely lov friction. and nearly Optimvm response,
the outer-Panel stall when it oocurred. not only in the landing-spproaeh eonfigur8tion. but also in the takeoff. climb. c r u i s e .

and descent conditions. The eharacteriatics of this lateral-control 8ystem are O h m in

These ving mcdifieations resulted in stalling characteristics that pilots describe BS

-24-
-23-
 5. FUTURE D F X E L O r n l T
Figurer 39 and 40.
Almost all airplanes have fallau-on versions, but very feu have them under COnStrYCtion

Performance before the original aimlane enters service. The DC-9 Series 30 has 8 iuselage longer

The stall-characteristics fixe9 had JOme adverse effect on takeoff-climb drag, an ex- than that of the Series 10 by 179 inches. w i n g span greater by 4 feet. a wins chord in-

tremely important factor in determining payload capability iron high-altitude airports crease of 6 percent. leading-edge slats. and triple-slotted flaps. Figue lib shows a
or from airports where hat-day conditions prevail. It vas feud that reserve wing omparisan of the external dinensions of the two airplanes. and Figure b5 illustrates

strength incorporated in the DC-9 Series 10 configuatian would permit the addition of the difference in the high-lift systems. There are maoy interesting developments in the
a 1-fwt wing-tip extension on each side. This improvement essential* counteracted the IC-9 Series 30 that Vi11 JustirY a future paper. At this time we shall merely touch upon
drag of the stall strip end fence. Further climb-drag improvement w&3 obtained through a few points.

the incorporation of several segments O f vortex generators in the vicinity of the Joint
Since the Series 30 is equipped vith leading-edge slats, and since the naximvm lift coef-
between the inboard flap and the main flap.
ficient is much less dependent on the airfoil leading edge vhen slats are used, the air-

Although a flight developnent program in the aerodynenic a r a a MSrequired for the three foil ahead of the front spar is entirely different on the Series 30 airplane. The chard

eraples diseusaed, the najority of the aerodynamic CharacteriStics required no flight is extended by 6 percent and the contour redesigned to minimize the gradual drag rise be-

research. Particular examples are crvise perfomance. aerodynamic flight-control systens, fore the drag-diversenee Mach number, at the expense of basie-airfoil m i m m lift eoef-

and engine-inlet nacelle and pylon configurations. For example, P i g u e s 41 and 42 S h w ficient. Yith slats extended. there is very little difference in marinm lift coefficient

a comparison of estimated range Eonstants vith flight-test range constants at two ratios fron “hat would have been obtainable if the original airfoil had been retained. The

of weight to pressure, w/a I 200,000, corresponding to 0.8 Milch number cruiie at about result is B considerable increase in specific range in the cruise region and a very W g e

25,000 feet, and Wf8 = 300,000, corresponding to long-range-cruise operation st about increase in the msxinum lift coefficient in the takeoff and landing regimes vfth slats

0.76 Kach number at 30.000 to 35.000 feet. This comparison shows that cruise performance extended. Use of slats required extensive wind-tunnel optimization of slat angle and

Bgrees well with predictions at 811 conditions, and at long range exceeds the estimted position to optimiie maximum lift coefficient. slat drag in ground acceleration, and slat
l w e l by about 4 percent. drag in the takeoff climb configuration.

Required takeoff and landing ‘ m a y lengths and takeoff-climb performance a r e still being The increase in fvselaee length brings the seating capacity up to a8 naw as l l 5 passengers

determined hy flight test 8.5 this paper is mitten. It is h o r n f:om existing data. how- in the tourist version. Comparison of the payload-range capability for the Series 10 and

ever. that these important perfo-ce Characteristics will be v e r y close to the predicted Series 30 is Shorn in Figure 46. Figure 47 conpares takeoff performance and Figure 48 con-

values. pares landing perfornee.

Figure 43 shows an inflight pierwe of the E - 9 that proves again that one picture is The flight-control systens of the Series 30 are essentially identical to those Of the

worth a thousand words. Series 10. The r o l l problem experienced at the stall with the Series 10 is not expected

to occur with the Series 30, since by the n a t Y e of the slat design and the variation oE
-25-
-26-
 slat effectiveness across the span, there is very little lass of lift until several

degrees beyond the stall. Therefore there is easentially no rolling m ~ m e n tduring this

regime. No need for such devices as the leadineedge fence or the stall strip is antiei-

patea.

1,

-27-
 SEA LEVEL STANDARD DAY
7 r-
I 11
0
-4'.

25
I 1
15
PAYLOAO
(1000 LB)
-89.4' I
5

0'
0 200 400 6M) 800 1 x 0 1200 1400 16M)1800
FIG. I GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF DC-9 SERIES IO
RANGE ( NAUTICAL MILES )

FIG. 2 DC-9 SERIES IO PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

INCIDENCE
FROM WlNG
REFERENCE
PLANE.
si, OEG P,ERCENT SEUISPfN
1 I I I I NASA 65-SERIES
AIRFOIL
SPANWISE VARIATION OF ZERO-LIFT L I N E O F ELASTIC WING

THICKNESS

7. CHORD 5n
OO 20 40 60
PERCENT SEYISPAN
SPANWISE WING THICKNESS D l S T R l W T l O N
80 IW .4 .5 .6
MACH NUMBER
.7 .a

FIG. 3 WING THICKNESS AND TWIST FIG. 4 AIRFOIL DRAG COMPARISON

 /
FIG. 6 VORTEX AT PYLON-WING INTERSECTION

FIG. 5 DC-9-10 AIRFOILS

INBOARD

FIG. 7 DC-9-10 HIGH-LIFT SYSTEM

 80 ~~ ~

W I N D TUNNEL
-~~
I
1
-~~~ ~

'
70
% ESTIMATED
MAC 60
i!
50

40
~
1 ~~~ l-~- ~

I I
ob
~

2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
MACH NUMBER

FIG. 9 TAIL-ON AERODYNAMIC CENTER LOCATION (NEUTRAL POINT) ~ FIG. 10 STATIC DIRECTIONAL STABILITY

.045

025
0

-
n

u
<

-
r

-
,.
L
~
.
..
.60 -65 .70 75 .80 .85
MACH NUMBER
.'L

FIG. I1 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND WIND-TUNNEL DRAG CHARACTERISTICS FIG 12 MODEL USED FOR NACELLE CONFIGURATION INVESTIGATION
 - ~

LONG CAMBERED
i
---
-
-----e

-
LONG UNCAMWERLD
SHORT CAMBERED
SHORT UNCAMBERED

75 80 35
MACH NUMBER FIG. 14 NACELLE-PYLON DRAG INCREMENT FROM TEST OF COMPLETE MODEL
FIG.13 EFFECT .OF N O S E - C O W L LENGTH AND CAMBER ON NACELLE-PYLON INCREMENTAL DRAG AT C L = 0.2

+O 5

FIG. 15 E F F E C T OF NACELLE ON WING-UPPER-SURFACE PRESSURES

mllas : .".tlr,:#,
FIG. 16 INLET-DISTORflON
,r.a*!:ici! 'il'
TEST SETUP IN AMES 12-FOOT WIND TUNNEL
$ 1
 WING + FUSELAGE

NOMINAL LIMIT SPECIFIED FOR STALL-FREE ENGINE OPERATION

-05

Mo = 0 2
DISTORTION 35.KNOT CROSS WIND
PARAMETER,

.04

pGvs -pTw,~

Pb"G

.03 ~ ~-
MPX
CONTINUOUS
POWER 0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
ANGLE OF ATTACK, UF (DEGI
.02
100 150 200 250 300 FIG. IS PITCHING MOMENT BUILDUP. FLAPS UP.
FULL-SCALE CORRECTED AIRFLOW, W m 6 2 / S ~ 2 LBlSEC
, TYPICAL MODEL WITH DEEP STALL PROBLEMS
FIG. 17 INLET DISTORTION WITH OPERATION OF GROUND SPOILERS

.2

.I

0
3 ' PAST STALL
cm.400c
-.I

-2

-.3

-.4

FIG. 19 PITCHING MOMENT CHARACTERISTICS. FLAPS UP. FIG. 20 WAKE LOCATION BEYOND STALL. aF = 210, aF = 260
TYPICAL MODEL WITH DEEP STALL PROBLEMS. FLAPS UP. LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER.
 I3 * PAST STALL

18 PAST STAL

FIG. 21 WAKE LOCATION BEYOND STALL. QF = 31°, (IF= 36-

FLAPS UP. LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER. FIG. 22 WIND-TUNNEL-MODEL PROBE LOCATIONS

PROBE

QH
PROBE iDEG )
5 OUTBOARD
4LOCAL
I INBOARD
TWNEL

c
I , J
0 ' .-
0 5 10 I5 20 25 30 35 -5
ANGLE CF ATTACK, UF (DEG)
-10

FIG. 23 DYNAMIC PRESSURE RATIO AT THE TAIL. FLAPS UP FIG. 24 ANGLE OF ATTACK AT THE TAIL. FLAPS UP
 -.02 , . .

-.01 ,

0.
0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
ANGLE OF ATTACK.(IpIDEG)

FIG. 2 6 STABILIZER AND ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS

FIG. 25 F U S E L A G E VORTICES

, r N EW iw=-5' Sp:oD
-OLD

FIG. 27 DC-9 MODIFIED HORIZONTAL TAIL AND VORTILON FIG. 2 8 EFFECT OF VORTILON ON PITCHING MOMENTS.
FLAPS UP. HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER.
 OUTBOARD

0
5
1 ~~ .~ ~~ fin ~2
0
5 . ~
, ,, ~
...
T-~-1
I

FIG. 29 CONTRIBUTION OF VORTILON TO PITCHING MOMENTS. FLAPS UP.

O
I

I- 1I INBOARD
0 5 IO 15 20 25 50
ANGLE OF ATTACK,C(F IDEGI

FIG. 30 EFFECT OF VORTILON ON ANGLE OF ATTACK

AT HORIZONTAL TAIL. FLAPS UP.

-.I
IC
-.2
ELEVATOR
-.3

-4
-.5
NORMAL STALL
..
0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
ANGLE OF ATTACK, KF (DEGI ANGLE OF A T T A C K . a , (DEG I

FIG. 31 PITCHING-MOMENT COEFFICIENTS FOR FIG. 32 PITCHING-MOMENT COEFFICIENTS FOR

DC-9-10 CONFIGURATION. FLAPS UP. DC-9-10 CONFIGURATION. FLAPS 20°.
 3 TRIMMED AT 1.3Vs C.G. AT 40% h.

FORCE

-.I
Cm.40 C
-2
-20
~

1
ELEVATOR -I5
I
-.3

- .4 6, (DEG) -5 '
0 .
- ! I I I I I Y - ,
5
-.5 I ' -
IO
I
-6 .
0 5 IO 15 JO L5 ,O 5: ;O 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 ANGLE OF ATTACK. CCF (DEGI
ANGLE OF ATTACK. CiF (DEGI
FIG. 34 CONTROL FORCE AND ELEVATOR ANGLE REQUIRED
FIG. 33 PITCHING-MOMENT COEFFICIENTS FOR TO BALANCE PITCHING MOMENTS. FLAPS UP.
DC-9-10 CONFIGURATION. FLAPS 50'

TRIMMED AT 1.2 VS C.G. AT 40% MAC

PULL M) .-
I I g S T A L L n 1
I I i i/l \ I i I

I I 1 .- , I ~~u.25
1 IgSTALL -20
ELEVATOR -15 I I i if?, 1 I
ANGLE -10 ELEVATOR:::
6, (DEGI - 5 ANGLE -5
0
5 Be 0
IDEGI
IO
IO
TED l 5
0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 I I I I I I 1 I
TED l5
ANGLE OF ATTACK, CCF IDEG) 0 5 10 15 2a 25 30 35 40 45
ANGLE OF ATTACK, c(F (DEGI

FIG 35 CONTROL FORCE B ELEVATOR ANGLE REQUIRED FIG. 36 CONTROL FORCE a ELEVATOR ANGLE REQUIRED,
TO BALANCE PITCHING MOMENTS. FLAPS 20° TO B A L A N C E PITCHING MOMENTS. FLAPS 50.
 . ..

-
FiG. 37 ANALOG SIMULATOR

SPOILER RETR&CTiOi.I CURVE SPOiLER EXTENSION CURVE

-FLAPS 50'
-_
.__.-.FLAPS
_-__
" _ _ FLAPS
_
UP
UP. SPEED SRAkXES EXTENCED

40)
I ~

: .: s>
. : ~

' :
:
,, .
, .
/ . , , , .
, < .

-IO0 -80 -SO -40 -20 0 20 40 60 BO !OO 120 0 20 LO 60 30 io0 0 20 4C 60 BO 100

CONTROL WHEEL ANGLE, S:y (DEG) AILERON WEEEL POSiTiON AILERON WiiEEL POSITION
(DEG) !DEGl

FIG. 39 DC-9 FLiGHT SPOILER CiiAIIACTERiST!CS FIG. 40 DC-9 LATERAL CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS
 \SPAR
DC.9-10
PAYLOAD
( 1 0 0 0 LE)

,
/
\ I
‘SPAR
DC.9.30

AUXILIARY FLAP
RANGE (NAUTICAL M I L E S )

FIG. 45 HIGH-LIFT SYSTEMS FIG. 46 DC-9 PAYLOAD-RANGE PERFORMANCE

SEA LEVEL STANDARD DAY

61 I
-*I xs

*__---.__--
SERIES 10

5
___---
___-----
____.--.-*- / SERIES 30. ,
LANDING *-I”

FIELD LENGTH
(1000FT) 4 - I
~

i I
I

75 80 85 90 95
GROSS WEIGHT (1000 LE)
100 I05 110
3T
265 70 75 80

GROSS WEIGHT (1000LE)

a5 90 95

FIG. 47 TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE FIG. 48 LANDING PERFORMANCE