.

NATIONAL ADVISORY
.FOR AERONAU

, REPORT No. 407

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A CLARK Y WING

MODEL EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL FORMS
OF LOW-DRAG FIXED SLOTS i

By FRED E. WEICK and CARL J. WENZINGER

FILE C' )PY

1932

For d e by the Superintendent of Documents. Washington, D. C. - - - - - PriCelOcen%

 AERONAUTICAL SYMBOLS
1. FUNDAMENTAL AND DERIVED UNITS

Metric , English

Unit Symbol Unit 1 . Symbol

__ - - - - - -
Force- - - -
Time- -1
meter __________________
second _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
weight of one kilogram--_-
m
s
kg
foot (or mile) _________
second (or hour) _ _ _ _ _ _ _
weight of one pound---/
i
ft. (or mi.)
sec. (or hr.)
lb.
i

I
2. GENERAL SYMBOLS, ETC.
W , Weight=mg mk2,Moment of inertia (indicate axis of the
g, radius of gyration k, by proper sub-
Standard acceleration of gravity = 9.80665
m/s2=32.1740 ftJsec.2 script).
Mass=-
W S, Area.
9 S,, Wing area, etc.
p, Density (mass per unit volume). G, Gap.
Standard density of dry air, 0.12497 (kg-m-* 6, Span.
s2) a t 15’ C. and 760 mm=0.002378 e , Chord.
0b.-ft.-4 sec.2). b Z
Aspect ratio.
Spec& weight of “standard” air, 1.2255 s’
-kg/m3=0.07651 lb./ft.3. p, Coefficient of viscosity.
3. AERODYNAMICAL SYMBOLS
V , True air speed. 0, Resultant moment.
Dynamic (or impact) pressure = - pTT2.
I a, Resultant angular velocity.
q, 2 VI
p--Reynolds Number, where 1 is a linear
L P
L, Lift, absolute coefficient C, = 8 dimension.
D
D, Drag, absolute coefficient CD=8 e. g . , for a model airfoil 3 in. chord, 100
mi./hr. normal pressure, at 15’ C., the
Do, Profile drag, absolute coefficient CD,=
D correspondkg number is 334,000 ;
Pb or for a model of 10 c m chord 40 m/s,
Dt, Induced drag, absolute coefficient CDt=D the corresponding number is 274,000.
qs C,, Center of pressure coefficient (ratio of
D,, Parasite drag, absolute coefficient CDp=D
-’ distance of e. p . from leading edge to
PS chord length).
C, Cross-wind force, absolute coefficient a. Angle of attack.
CC=$
G e,‘ An& of downwash.
ao, Angle of attack, infinite aspect ratio.
R, Resultant force. ai, Angle of attack, induced.
i,, Angle of setting of wings (relative to a,, Angle of attack, absolute.
thrust line). (Measured from zero lift position.)
i,, Angle of stabilizer setting (relative to Flight path angle.
thrust line).
./

REPORT No. 407

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A CLARK Y WING

MODEL EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL FORMS
OF LOW-DRAG FIXED SLOTS

By FRED E. WEICK and CARL J. WENZINGER

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory
 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
N A V Y BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

( A n independent Government estahlishment, created by act of Congressapproved March 3,1915, for thesupervisionanddirectionof the scientific
s t u d y of the prohlems of flight. Its memtarship WRS increased to 15 by act approved htarch 2, 1929 (Public, No. 908,70th Congress). It consists
of nienihers who are apiminled h y the President, all of whom serve as such without conlpensation.)

JOSEPH S. AMES, Ph. D., Chairman,

President, .Johns Hopkiiis University, Baltimorc, Md.
DAVIDW. TAYLOR, D. Eng., Vice Chairman,
Washington, D. C.
CHARLESG. ABBOT, Sc. D.,
H:.cretzr::, s:Eit!:s:>:kiz:1 !::stit::tis:;, Washir,gton, D. c.
GEORGEK. BURGESS,Sc. D.,
Director, Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.
ARTHURB. Coos, Captain, United States Navy,
Assistant Chief, Bureau of A(mii:Lutics, Navy Depart,mcnt, Washington, D. C .
WILLIAMF. DURAND, Ph. D.,
Professor Enicritiis o f Mcclimiicnl Eiiginrcritig, Stanford University, California.
BENJAMIN D. Fourmis, Major C:cwer:il, United States Army,
Chief of Air C o r l ) ~War , Drl)artiiictit, Wtdiingtoii, I). C.
HAHRYF. GIJGGESHICIM, M. A.,
Tlic Aincrican Aiiil)ass:idor, llabaiia, Cuba.
CHARLESA. LINDBI:I~GH, LL. I>.,
New York City.
WILLIAMP. hlACCRACKEN, Jr., Ph. B.,
Washington, D. C.
CHARLESF. MARVIN,M. E.,
Chief, Unitcd St:it,es Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C.
WILLIAMA. MOFFETT, Rear Adniiral, United States Navy,
Cliicf, Bureari of Aeronaul.ics, Navy Dcpart,niciit, Wiidiiiigtoii, D. C.
HENRYC. PBATT, Brigadier Grneral, United States Army,
Chief, Mat6ricl Division, Air Corps, M’riglit Field, Dayton, Ohio.
EDWARDP. WARNER,M. S.,
Editor ‘‘Aviation, ” New Yorli Cit,y.
ORVILLEWRIGHT,Sc. D.,
Dayton, Ohio.

GEORGEW. LEWIS,Director of Aeronautical Research.

JOHNE’. VICToizT, Secretary.
HENRYJ. E. REID,Engineer i n Charge, Langley hfemorid Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, V a
JOHN J. IDE, Technical Assistair1 in Europe, Paris, France.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
,JOSEPH S. AMES, Chairnian.
DAVIDW. Tal-Loa, Vice C h n i T ~ f n ~ l .
CHARLES G. ABBOT. CHARLESF. MARVIN.
GEOlloE K. BUltGESS. WILLIAMA. MOFFETT.
ARTIiUIt B. COOK. HENRYC. PRATT.
BENJAMIND. FOULOIS. EDWARD P. WARNER.
CHARLES A. LINDHEHGH. ORVILLEWRIGHT.
WILLIAMP. MACCRACKEN, Jr.
JOHNF. VICTORY,Secretary.
 REPORT No. 407

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A CLARK Y WING MODEL EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL

FORMS OF LOW-DRAG FIXED SLOTS
By FREDE. WEICB and CARLJ. WENZINGER

SUMMARY attempt has been made to reduce the one great dis-
This investigation was undertaken to develop a low-drag advantage of the fixed slot, the high drag at low angles
fixed slot for a n airplane wing which would avoid the of attack.
complications and maintenance disculties of the present The tests were all made using a Clark Y basic sec-
movable-type Handley Page slot. Tests were conducted tion, the shape of the fixed slot being changed system-
on a series ofJixed slots in an attempt to reduce the mini- atically until it appeared that the minimum drag
mum drag coescient without decreasing the maximum could not be reduced further without also reducing the
lijt coescient or the stalling angle of the slotted wing. maximum lift coefficient and the angle of attack a t
The tests were made in the N . A. C. A . 5-foot vertical which it occurred.
wind tunnel o n a Clark Y basic section having a 10-inch APPARATUS AND TESTS
chord.
The best combination of wing andJixed slot that was The present series of force tests was made in the
developed had a maximum lijt coefiient qf 1.751 , which N. A. C. A. vertical wind tunnel, which has a &foot
was 54.6 per cent higher than that of the plain wing. diameter open jet. (Reference 1.) The tests were
The angle of attack for maximum lijt was raised go,from made at the same Reynolds Number as that of a series
15Ofor the plain wing to 24" for the slotted wing. The of standard controllability and stability tests being
minimum drag of the wing withJixed slot was increased made in the N. A. C. A. 7 by 10 foot tunnel, which
56.6' per cent above that of the plain wing, or a value will include further tests with the best fixed slot found.
about 58.8 per cent above that f o r a slotted wing with the Because the two tunnel air speeds are the same the
movable slot closed. Fixed slots might also be used at chords of the wing models were made the same, 10
the tips of the wings only, in which case the total drag of inches.
an average airplane would be increased very slightly, On account of the small diameter of the air stream
causing a loss in high speed of only 1 or 2 miles per hour. in the vertical tunnel, a full-span wing of aspect ratio
6 could not be tested. Consequently a half-span model
INTRODUCTION
and "reflection plane" were used. The main wings,
The wing slots in use on airplanes a t the present of Clark Y basic section, were made of laminated
time are usually of the automatic or controlled type, mahogany; the auxiliary airfoils, because of their
the development of which has been due mainly to small size, were made of aluminum alloy. The ordi-
Lachmann and to Handley Page. When the slot is nates of the wooden sections were held accurate to
open, the maximum lift coefficient of the wing is in- within 10.01 inch and those of the metal portion, to
creased greatly and the angle of attack for maximum within 3 0.003 inch. The metal auxiliary airfoils were
lift is raised considerably above that of the plain wing. supported on the main wing at each end by a thin
With the slot open, however, the minimum drag of the metal plate and, in addition, a small support fastened
wing is ordinarily more than three times as great as firmly to the wooden and metal parts at mid span
that of the unslotted wing. This characteristic neces- prevented any appreciable deflection of the nose under
sitates closing the slot at low angles of attack if an the applied air loads.
appreciable loss in high speed is to be avoided. The The drag forces were transmitted from the wing to
operation of opening and closing the slots, whether or a platform balance above the tunnel by two fine wires
not performed automatically, requires extra mecha- which passed through tubes. The lift forces were
nism with its attendant maintenance and weight. transmitted by a system of bell cranks and rigid rods
A wing with a fixed slot would therefore appear to to two platform balances mounted on the tunnel test
have certain advantages over one with a moving slot, floor. These two balances were so arranged that roll-
the most important of these being greater simplicity ing moments could also be obtained if desired. A
and dependability, less weight, less maintenance, and detailed description of the arrangement may be found
somewhat lower cost. I n the present investigation, an in reference 2.
3
of minimum drag, and then the region of maximum results of previous tests; second, the effect of the
lift. Tests were made also a t a few intermediate auxiliary &foil shape and position; third, the effect

the lift and drag curves. the effect of moving the slot farther back from the
The extreme range of angle of attack extended from leading edge.

, Main wing No I 1 fixed v Y

slot. The maximum lift coefficient and angle of

attack for maximum lift determine the landing speed
and stalling angle, respectively, of the airplane. The
,minimum drag coefficient is a measure of the high speed
(b) I attainable, and the ratio of maximum lift to minimum
drag gives an inlcation of the speed rangc possible.
The conditions chosen, which of necessity were n
\
compromise, may be found in Table 11. For the given
\ auxiliary airfoil and main wing combinntion, the aero-
Width
,Main wing No /
dynamic characteristics were :
Maximum lift coefficient = 1. 684
Angle of attack for CLmaz =27'
Minimum drag coeficient = 0. 028
fc)
Katio of C,,, to CDmtn =60. 1
The geometric characteristics, defined RS in Figure
la, were:
\ Slot gap =2.0 per cent chord.
6OZC J \ Slot depth= 1.0 per cent chord above main
W i d /I
Frounr l.-rli riigr? iii slinpo of 1110 iuirilinr) mkiil wing chord.
a t standtird at~iiosplicriccontlitiolis. 'C'lic ltcynolds Slot width = 6.0 per cent chord.
Number bnsed on tlic t ~ h v ctest conditions and tho Tho locution of the auxiliary airfoil with respect to
wing chord of 10 inches u t m Ci00,000, which is about tlic mnin wing for the above conditions is shown to
one-third of that for an ordinary smdl airplnnc while scale in the above-mentioned figure. The ordinates
landing. for the auxiliary airfoil (No. 1) are given in Table VI.
Accuracy.-The lift balances were sensitive to 2. Effect of auxiliary airfoil shape and position,-
within f 0 . 0 6 pound, and the drng balnnce was sensi- An inspoction of the shape of auxiliary airfoil No. 1
tive to within i0.03 pound. The angle-of-attack (fig. l a ) indicated that its minimum drag would
setting was nccurate to ;tO.l', and the dynamic probably be reduced by rounding the sharp lower
pressure was mnintained constant to within f0.5 edge. This edge was rounded and the auxiliary air-
per cent. A comparison of the results of check tests foil then had the shape shown in Figure lb, the ordi-
showed tho variation between values of the maximum nates of which are given in Table VI. The slot
lift to be about i 1 per cent; the variation between the arrangement was kept as near like that of the wing
minimum drag values amounted to about f2 per cent. with auxiliary airfoil No. 1 as possible by keeping the
 THE CHARACTERISTICS O F A CLARK Y WING 5
trailing edge and unchanged upper surface of t’he that thc maximum lift coefficient has remained nearly
auxiliary airfoil always in the same location. the same as that of the best previous slot, but thc
The results of the tests on the wing model with the angle of attack for maximum Iift was reduced from
above rounded auxiliary airfoil are given in Table 27’ to 24‘. The minimum drag coefficient was de-
VII. The maximum lift coefficient was reduced creased appreciably from the best previous value and
slightly and the minimum drag coefficient of the the ratio of CLmax to CDmln was increased, indicating
combination was increased a small amount from the that the new slot arrangement was a step in the right
values of the first combination. These changes direction.
therefore gave a somewhat lower ratio of (;ILmsx to 3. Effect of rounding nose of main wing.-The most
CDmln.The angle of attack for maximum lift was promising way to reduce the miniinum drag still
unaffected. further appeared to be by rounding the sharp leading
An auxiliary airfoil was then designed that in itself edge of the main wing. This was done in successive
would have a relatively low minimum drag. This steps, the largest radius of curvature being 2.5 per
auxiliary airfoil (No. 3) with the corresponding slot cent of the total wing chord. (See fig. 2.) The results
arrangement is shown in Figure IC. The upper sur- of the tests of these arrangements are listed in Table
face, which was unchanged for all three of the aux- VIII. It will be noted that the maximum lift coefi-
iliary airfoils, and the trailing edge were kept in the cient was increased appreciably by the first small
same location as that llsed for auxiliary airfoils Nos. rounding of the sharp leading edge but that furthrr
1 and 2 . The ordinates for this auxiliary airfoil are rounding had little effect. No effect was noticeablc
given in Table VI. on the angle of attack for rnaxiinuin lift. As the
The test results of the wing with auxiliary airfoil nose radius of the main wing No. 2 was increased,
No. 3 are given in Table VII. The maximum lift
coefficient was reduced considerably and the mini- Mom wing Mo. 2
mum drag coefficient was the same as that of the wing
with auxiliary airfoil No. 1. The ratio of CLmax
to CDmln
was the lowest of all three of the combinations tested.
The angle of attack for maximum lift was decreased
by 3 O .
The conclusion inay be drawn from the results of
the foregoing tests that reducing the minimum drag
of the auxiliary airfoil does not necessarily cause a
Sfafions,per cenf of chord
reduction in the minimum drag of the wing-slot comhi-
FIGURE2.-Changes in shape of nose pf main wing. Slot through Clark Y
nation, but may nctually cause an increase. A de- wing
crease in the maximum lift coefficient and in the

drag of the wing-slot combination. It appeared that ing of the nose of the main wing. The best over-all
the sharp lower edge of auxiliary airfoil No. 1 was characteristics of this slotted wing were obtained when
6 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

The first test was made with the sharp nose on the 1 crease of 21.8 per cent has been obtained in sonic ear-
main wing. The results showed the minimum drag to l lier tests made by Lachmann (reference 3) on a Gottin-
be the same as that of the best foregoing fixed slot gen 422 wing equipped with a fixed slot near the leading
combination for similar conditions. (Table VIII.) edge.
The nose of the main wing was then rounded suc- I n a previous series of tests made a t this laboratory
cessively to a maximum radius of curvature of 3 per (reference 2 ) on a Clark Y wing with a movable type
cent of the whole wing chord (fig. 3), and tested for of slot, the highest maximum lift coefficient obtained
five intermediate nose curvatures. was 1.835 (Table 11) compared with 1.207 for the plain
The results of the test.s are given in Table VI11 wing. These values gave an increase in the maxi-
under the heading: Auxiliary Airfoil No. 1-A, and mum lift of 41.5 per cent. The coefficients, however,
Main wino No. 3 were computed on the basis of the area of the original
wing. Figured on the actual plan-form area with the
slot open, the maximum lift coefficient becomes 1.660,
an increase over the plain wing of only about 28 per
, Moin win9 No 2

B o-iu 4
6 Stofions.per cent of chord
FIcuIth 3.-Chaugos in shape of nose of main wing. Slot moved back in
Clark Y wing

Main Wing No. 3. The maximum lift coefficient ob-

tained by rounding the nose of the main wing in this
I. 8 36
arrangement was about the same as that of the wing
with the best fixed slot obtained so far. (Main wing
No. 2 and auxi1i;;ry airfoil No. 1 . ) The angle of at- 32
tack for niaxiniiilii lift remained the same as before,
24'. The niininiurn drag of this fixed slot cornbina- 28
tion decreased to a certain value and then increased
again as before with increase in the rounding of thc
nose of the main wing. The lowest minimuni drag ,
- - 1 24

coeficient, however, was slightly higher and the ratio

20
of C,,,, to CDmin was slightly lower than for the wing
with thc hest fixed slot so far obtained. Placing the I G
slot farther back from the leading edge of the wing 8 -1 I 6
CD

within the rangr of the tests may be said to have no 1 -I --

I
appreciable effect on the aerodynamic characteristics. I2
Sincc reference 3 showed that little was to be gained
by nioving the slot back still farther, the best slot of 08
those tested was taken R S a sufficiently close approach
to the best obtninahle. 2 04

DISCUSSION
0
The best fixed slot coiiibinatiori is drawii to scale in -4"
Angle o f offock, d
Figure 4a. The lift and drag coefficients of both the
4.-Chnracteristics of Clark Y wing with best fixed slot
FIGURE
plain and slotted wings are plotted against angle of
attack in Figure 4b. It will be seen that a t a given w n t . It appears, therefore, that the present fixed slot
tingle of attack up to thc stdling cuiglc of the plain has a greatrr effect on the inaxiiniini lift. The angle
wing, the lift of the slottcd iving, is somewhat lojvcr of attuclr for masiinum lift has bren invrcnsed go (from
m d the drag is highcr than thr corrrsponding vsluc~s 15' to 24') with the fixed slot, conipnred with cin in-
for the plniii \\-ing. Beyond this angle, howevrr, n i i d ("USC of 13' (from 1 5 O to 28') obtained with thc
up to the stall of the s l o t t d wing the drag of 111r 1 iiiovable slot giving thc highest maxinium lift coefi-
slotted ning is lowcr than that of thc plain wing. cien t .
The maximum lift coefficient given by the slotted
.. -____
, The miniriiuin drag coefficient of the wing with fixed
wing was 1.751 (Table V l l l ) compared with 1.297 for I slot was 0.0229 (Table VIII) compared with 0.0150
~

thc plain wing-an increase of 34.6 per cent. An in- for the plain wing, giving an increase of 52.6 per cent.
 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A CLARK Y WING 7
The results previously mentioned of the tcsts on the say the outer 40 per cent of the semispan, for improv-
Oottingen 422 slotted wing showed an incrtwse in llle ing lateral stability and control at the high angles of
minimum drag coefficient of about 85 per cent over attack. With this arrangement, the increase in drag
the value for that plain wing. If thc minimum drag would be very small compared to the total drag of an
value of the plain Clark Y wing is incwasrd by 10 per rtverage airplane so that the maximum speed of the
crnt to correspond with the minimum drag of a uing :rirplane would be decreased by only one or two miles
with movable type of slot closed (reference 4),the in- per hour.
crease in minimum drag of the wing with fixed slot CONCLUSIONS
then becomes 38.8 per cent of the value for the wing
with movablc slot closed. 1. A maximum lift coefficient of 1.751, an angle of
It is interesting to consider the effrct of placing the attack for maximum lift of 24O, and a minimum drag
best fixed slot in an ordinary Clark Y wing of an aver- coefficient of 0.0229 were obtained for a Clark Y wing
age airplane. Judging by the speed range ratio with the best fixed slot developed, compared with the
(CLmax/CDmlo) of 76.4 for the slotted wing as compared corresponding values of 1.297, 15O, and 0.0150 for the
with 86.4 for the plain wing, it might be expected that plain wing.
an airplane with the slotted wing would have a smaller 2. Fixed slots might be used a t the wing tip only t o
actual ratio of maximum to minimum speeds. If, improve lateral stability and control at large angles of
however, thc entire airplane is unchanged except for attack, in which case the maximum speed of the aver-
tho addition of the fixed slot, the speed range is not age airplane would be decreased by only one or two
reduced. The drag of the rest of the airplane is much miles per hour.
greater than that of the wing alone a t high speed, and 3. For airplanes having low landing speeds and es-
the relative decrease in the maximuin speed would be cessively large wings the fixed slot enables the attain-
appreciably smaller than the reduction in the minimum ment of the desired minimum speed with a smaller
speed which is dependent almost entirely on the wing wing and little if any loss in high speed.
alone.
Although the speed range would thus be increased
by tho fixed slot if the wing area uere held constant,
it would not be increased if the minimum speeds were LANGLEY
MKMOHIAL,ZERONAUTICAL LAEWI~ATORY,
kept the same. If the area of the plain Clark Y wing NATIONAL
ADVISORYCOMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS,
were enlarged to give the same minimum speed as with FIELD,
LANGLEY YA., August 27,1931.
the fixed slot, and the rest of the airplane could be left
unchanged, the maximum speed would be slightly REFERENCES
higher with the plain wing. When the extra weight of 1. Wenzinger, Carl J., and Harris, Thomas A.: The Vertical
the larger wing and the extra tail size are taken into Wind Tunnel of the National Advisory Committree for
account, the higher speed with the plain wing would Aeronautics. T. R. No. 387. N. A. C. A,, 1931.
be very slight if existent at all. For airplanes having 2. Wenzinger, Carl J., and Stiortal, Joseph A.: The Aero-
low landing speeds and excessively large wings the dynamic Characteristics of a Slotted Clark Y Wing as
Affected by the Auxiliary Airfoil Position. T. R. No.
fixed slot enables the attainment of the desired mini-
400, N. A. C. A., 1931.
mum speed with a smaller wing and little if any loss in
3. Lachmann, G.: Results of Experiments with Slotted Wings.
high speed. T. M. No. 282, N. A. C. A., 1924.
The foregoing discussion dcnls with a fixed slot 4. Irving, H. B., Batson, A. S., and Williams, D. H.: Model
clstending along the entire span of the wing. Fixed Experiments on R . A. F. 31 Acrofoil with ITandley Page
slots might also be used a t the tips of thc wings only, Slot. R. & M. No. 1063, British A. R. C., 1026.
8 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMIl'TEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TABLE I TABLE I11

SLOTTED CLARK Y WING RESULTS SLOTTED CLARK Y W I N G RESULTS
MOVABLE T Y P E SLOT MOVABLE T Y P E SLOT
R. N.=609,000 IO-inch chord-c. 80 m. p. h . R. N.=609,000 lO-inch chord-c. 80 m. p. h.
~- -.

I
~

aCLrn..
I
rest I
Gap Depth Width C L-
m r

~~
I
~ ~~
CLrn,,
degrees No, per cent per cent pcr cent
I c. I e.
CLma.

~~
CDrnto
CDrnto

0 Plain wing 1. 297 15. 0 0.015 86.4 Plain wing 1.297 15.0 0 015 86.4

i
~ ~ -- - __ - -. ~ ~~

1 1.5 3.5 3.4 1.519 23. 0 .027 56.2 41 2.5 3.5 3.4 1.329 26.0 ,030 44.3
1
~

2 1. 5 3. 5 1.527 69. 0
21 1.5
1.5
3.5
3. 5
6. 0
9.0
12. 0
1.355
1.073
19. 0
15.0
10.0
.021
.a24
.a31
72.7
56.4
34.6
2;44 2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
6.0
9.0
12. 0
1.657
1.599
1.300
23.0
19.0
18.0
,024
.023
.a28
69. 5
46.4
5 1.5 3.5 15. 0 1.041 25. 0 .037 28.2 45 I 2.5 3.5 15.0 1.183 18.0 .036 32. 9
6 1 1. 5 1. 0 3.4 1.290 29.0 .029 44. 5 46 2.5 1.0 3.4 1.253 31.0 .035 35.8
7 1.51 1.0 6.0 1.671 25. 0 .0% 59.7 47 2.5 1.0 6.0 1.586 30.0 .031 51. 1
8 1. 5 1.0 9. 0 1. 645 21.0 .031 53. 1 48 2.5 1.0 9.0 1.780 24.0 .om 61.4
9 ' 1. 5 1. 0 12. 0 1.421 16. 0 .037 38.4 49 2.5 1.0 12.0 1.645 19. 0 .035 47. 0
10 I 1.51 1.0 15.0 1. 164 21.0 .044 26. 5 50 2.5 1.0 15.0 1.293 22.0 .041 31.5
ii I. 5 -i. D :I. 4 1.248 35.0 .048 26.0 -1. 5 3.4 1.270 37. 0 .056 22. 7
12 1.5 -1.5 6.0 1.635 32. 0 .043 38.0 -1. 5 6. 0 1.510 35. 0 .048 31.5
1:i 1. $5 -1.5 9. 0 1.781 27. 0 .039 45. 7 -1. 5 9. 0 1.769 27. 0 .040 44.2
14 1.5 -1.5 12. 0 1.621 21.0 ,046 35.2 -1. 5 12. 0 1.818 24.0 ,043 42.3
15 1.5 -1 5 15. 0 1.302 14. 0 ,057 22.8 -1. 5 15. 0 1.580 18.0 ,054 29. :I
16 1.5 -4.0 3.4 i 1.298 41. 0 .064 20.3 -4.0 3.4 1.290 44.0 ,077 16. 8
17 1.5 -4. 0 0. 0 1. 582 39. 0 .058 27. 3 -4.0 1;. 0 1.520 41.0 .067 22. 7
I
I

18 1. 5 -4. 0 9.0 1. 820 32.0 .052 35. 0 -4. 0 9.0 1. 641 36. 0 ,056 29.3
I9
2o I ~
1.5
1.5 I 4.0
14. 0
12.0
15.0 1
1.757
1.558
24.0
19. 0
.054
.a64
32. 5
24.3
-4.0
-4.0
12. 0
15.0
__
1.804
1.733
25.0
22.0
.050
.059
36. 1
29. 4

1 Terms deflned in Figure la.

TABLX I1 TABLE I V
SLOTTED CLARK Y WING RESULTS SLOTTED CLARK Y W I N G RESULTS
MOVABLE T Y P E SLOT PtlOVABLE T Y P E SLOT
11. N.=009.000 10-inch chord-e. 80m. p. h.
R. N.=GO9,000 IO-inch chord-c. 80
- -.
'l'ost CI'.?fI
~

NO. CLrne.1
CD,.,.
Tcst aCLo,.. CLrnnx ~

So. C.
degrees
0 Plain wing 1.297 86 4 ~~ ~ ~~~

0
~

Plain wing 1.297 15.0 0.015 86.4

~

21 2.0 3.5 3.4 1.482 24.0 .035 42. 3 -

22
23
24
2.01
2.0
2.0'
3.5
a. 5
3.5
6.0
9.0
12. 0
1.630
1.451
1. 200
21.0
16.0
.024
,023
67. 9
63. 1 61
82
3. 0
3. 0
3. 5
3. 5
3. 4
6. 0
I. 305
1.675
28.0
25.0
.a31
.0%
42. 1
59. 8
i
18.0 ,028 42.8
251 2.01 3.5 15.0 1.1Oil 19.0 .037 29. 7 63 3. 0 3. 5 9.0 1.690 20.0 .026 65.0 ,
1 64
65
3. 0
3. 0
x. 5
3. 5
12.0 1.308 21.0 ,027 61.7 1
' 2 I i l 2.01 1.0 3.4 1.202 40.4 15.0 1.258 20.0 .035 35. 9

,
27 , 2. 0 1.0 6.0 1.684 1 Fo. 1

i
28
29
30
'
I1 2.0
2.0
2.0 j
i 1.0
l.O
1.0
9.0
12. 0
15.0
3.4
1.736
1. 500
1.230
1.249 36.0 ,051
59. 8
40. 5
28.8
24.5
66
67
68
69
70
3.0
3. 0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.4
6.0
9.0
12. 0
15. 0
1.270
1.518
1.762
1.719
1.398
33.0
32. 0
26.0
20.0
15.0
.038
.033
.030
.033
.040
33.4
46.0
58.8
52. 0
1
6.0 1 1.542 34.0 .044 35. 1
9.0 , 1.805 27.0 .039 46.3 71 3.0 -1. 5 3.4 1.285 39.0 ,063
12.0 1.705 22.0 .046 37. 1 72 3.0 -1.5 6. 0 1.505 380 ,051 29.5
15.0 , 1.440 16.0 1 ,056 25. 7 73 3.0 -1.5 9.0 1.644 33.0 .042 39.2
74 3.0 -1.5 12. n 1.800 25.0 .a40 45.0 ~

42.0 ,069 IR. 8 i5 3.0 -1. 5 15. 0 1.6i2 20. o .os0 33.4
-Io. 0 061 25. 6
35.0 055 30.5 76 :I. 0 -4.0 3. 4 1. 269 45.0 .a83 15.2 '
28.0 I ,051 :16. 0 77 3. n -4.0 6.0 1.431 43.0 .071 50.2
21. 0 .1164 25. G 78 :i. n -4.0 9.0 1.660 39.0 .n57 a.1 ~

79 :I. 0 -4.0 12.0 1.659 23.0 .051 32.5 1

80 :i. n -4.0 15.0 I . 758 24.0 ,058 30. :i
1Iinhrst CL,".. obtnincd. ___
 THE CHARACTERISTICS O F A CLARK Y WING 9
TABLE V TABLE V I 1
SLOTTED CLARK T WING RESULTS AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
MOVABLE TYPE SLOT CLARK Y WING WITH F I X E D SLOT
Effect of changing auxiliary airfoil shape
R . N.=609,000 10-inch chord-c. 80 m. p. h.
- R. N.=609,000 10-inch chord--e. 80 m. p. h.

rest
NO.

~
0 Plain wing
~
15.0 1
_ _
0.015
_
86.4
0.0150 1 86.4

Auxiliary airfoil No. 1 Main Wing No. 1

81 1.285 41.5
82 1.647 61.0
I 1 1
~

83 1.760 70.4
84 1.517 56.2 Sharpnose ____.........._..
1.684 27.0 0.0280 60.1
85 15.0 1.324 37.8
86 3. 5 1.0 3.4 1.255 34.0 .042 29.9 Auxiliary airfoil No. 2 Main wing No. 1
87 3.5 1.0 6.0 1.476 33.0 .036 41.0 -

I
~~ ~~ -
88 3. 5 1.0 9.0 1.747 28.0 .032 54.5
89
90
3.5
3. 5
1.0
1. 0
12.0
15. 0
1.790
1.512
22.0 .034 52. G
37.8
Sharp nose .._... I.
1.660
.._ _ _ _ 27.0 0.0290 57.2
___-__
91 3.5 -1.5 3.4 1.283 41.0 .067 19. 1 Auxiliary airfoil No. 3
92 3.5 -1.5 6.0 1.451 38.0 .055 26.4
Main wing No. 1
93 3.5 -1.5 9.0 1.627
94
95
3.5
3. 5
-1.5
-1. 5
12.0
15.0
1.780
1.752
34.0
26.0
21.0
.044
.041
.049
37.0
43.4
35.8 0.0250 1 56.0
96 3.5 -4.0 3.4 1.230 45.0 .085 14.5
97 3. 5 -4. 0 6. 0 1.481 42.0 .076 19.5
98 3.5 -4.0 9.0 1.841 39.0 .060 27. 4 TABLE VI11
99 3.5 -4.0 12.0 1.635 34.0 .053 30.8
00 3.5 -4.0 15.0 1.711 22.0 .057 30.0 AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
CLARK Y WING WITH F I X E D SLOT
TABLE VI.-ORDINATES FOR AUXILIARY AIRPOILb (Whole profile is Clark Y)
CLARK Y WING WITH F I X E D SLOT
Effects of rounding nose of main wlng and moving slot back
[Values in per cent auxiliary airfoil chord]
__ R. N.=609,000 10-inch chord--e. 80 m. p. h.
- -
1
~ ~-
Auxiliary No. 1 Auxiliary No. 2 Auxiliary No. 3
______ ~~~

stations Ordinates Ordinates Ordinates

-

8 -
Upper I Lower Upper Lower Lower

1
-I

0 7.84 7.84 2.88 Slot cut in Clark Y wing

1.25 13.10 4.06 1.09 1 ~~ ~ __ ~

2. 50 15.02 2.44 0.65 1-

5.00 16.91 0.68 0.28 kuxiliary airfoil ~ Main wing No
7.50 18.10 0. 10 0.08 No. 1

1
10.00 18.78 0.00 0.00
15.00 22.55 4.60 19.w 1.62 0. 12
20.00
30.00
40.00
23.15
23.20
22.10
6.36
9.27
10.94
20.55
20.80
20.00
3.71
7.03
9.03
0.44
1.46
3.08
Sharp nose--- _...___......
i
1.655
Rounded 1.0 per cent c ..... 1.720 ,
Rounded 1.5 per cent c ..-.. 1.722
ii:O"
24.0
0.0235
.om
,0225
70.4
72.2
73.3
I
~

50.00 20.05 11.66 18.38 10.12 4.78 Rounded 2.0 per cent c _.__ 1.751 24.0 0229 176.4
60.00 17.25 11.35 15.68 9.89 5.63 Rounded 2.5 per cent 6. .. 1.740 24.0 :OM3 74.6
70.00 1270 9.08 5.79
80.00 9.0% 6.97 4.68
90.00 5.16 3.92 2.67 Slot moved back
95.00 3.20 1.90 1.32
100. 0 1.20 0 0
1 _____ ~~

1
-~ - __
1 ""G -?'Oil ~ Main wing No. 3

Sharp nose_________________
Rounded 0.4 per cent c_____1.672
1.700
24.0 ~ 0.0235 71.2
24.0 ' .OM5 72.3
1.714
Rounded 1.0 per cent c ..___ 24.0 ' .0235 73.0
Rounded 1.5 per cent e..- 1.719 24.0 .OB2 73.2
Rounded 2.0 per cent c _._._
1.718 24.0 .OB2 73.2
Rounded 2.5perrent e-.... 1 738 24.0 .OB5 75.9

U. 5 . GOYERNMEHT PRINTING OFFICE: 19S2

 Positive directions of axes and angles (forces and moments) are shown by arrows

I Axis ' I Moment about axis ' 1 Angle

I Velocities
I
(parallel Linear
Sym- t o axis) Positive Designa- Sym- (compo-
Designation symbol Designation direction tion bo1 nent along
axis)

1 Longitudinal--_(
_- _
Lateral - - - _ _
Normal _______ IP1
X rolling
pitching
yawing
_ _____
___
_____
L
M
N
Y-
2-
X-
2
X
Y
roll ______
pitch _ _ _ _ _
yaw _ _ _ _ _
9
0
$
U
V
W
P

Absolute coefficients of moment Angle of set of control surface (relative to neu-

L M I?
c,=-!?bS u
Gal position), 6. (Indicate surface by proper
cz=aax cm=-
PCS subscript.)
4. PROPELLER SYMBOLS

D, Diameter. P
P , Power, absolute coefficient C P = r n 5 .
p, Geometric pitch.
p / D , Pitch ratio.
V', Inflow velocity.
'c7g, Slipstream velocity.
Cs, Speed power coefficient =
q, Efficiency.
4%. 5

T n, Revolutions per second, r. p. s.

T, Thrust, absolute coefficient CT=-Pn2p

Q, Torque, absolute coefficient C o = m

Q
@, Effective helix angle = tan-' (A)
r.
d X TVI.*JAI.I
I. TlRN17DT~>s~ EELATIONS

1 hp = 76.04 kg/m/s = 550 lb./ft./sec. 1 lb. = 0.4535924277 kg.

1 kg/m/s =0.01315 hp 1 kg = 2.2046224 lb.
1 mi./hr. = 0.44704 m/s 1 mi. = 1609.35 m = 5280 ft.
1 m/s=2.23693 mi.@. 1 m=3.2808333 ft.