Gammal, Abraham A

Kennedy, Thomas L

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

RM L54D28 
~~------------------~~----~~------------------~ 
'I ~ . 
> ~ 
J 
~ 
o 
~ 
RESEARCH MEMORAN DUM 
F LIGHT INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE LIFT AND DRAG 
CHARACTERISTICS OF A CANARD RAM -JET MISSILE 
CONF IGURATION rn THE MACH NUMBER 
RANGE OF 0.8 TO 2.0 
By Abraham A. Gammal and Thomas L. Kennedy 
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory 
Langley Fie ld, Va. 
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
FOR AERONAUTICS 
WASHINGTON 
1957 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930088289 2020-06-17T07:45:26+00:00Z
.. 
I 
I 
LC 
L 
NACA RM L54D28 
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM 
FLIGHT INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE LIFT AND DRAG 
CHARACTERISTICS OF A CANARD RAM-JET MISSILE 
CONFIGURATION IN THE MACH NUMBER 
RANGE OF 0.8 TO 2.0 
By Abraham A. Gammal and Thomas L. Kennedy 
SUMMARY 
A flight investigation has been conducted on a canard ram-jet mis-
sile configuration to determine its lift and drag characteristics at low 
values of lift. The configuration consists of two ram-jet engines mounted 
on a composite wing having leading-edge sweepback of 00 inboard of the 
engines and 60 0 outboard of the engines; the canard is of the delta type 
with a 600 leading-edge sweepback angle. Two rocket-boosted models) dif-
fering only in the size and deflection of the canard) were employed in 
the investigation. 
The lift and drag data were obtained in the Mach number range of 0.8 
to 2.0 with the Reynolds number varying from 3 X 106 to 14 x 106 ) based 
on wing root chord. 
It was found that in the supersonic speed range of the tests the 
effectiveness of the canards in producing model lift is nearly directly 
proportional to their exposed areas. 
INTRODUCTION 
In recent years) there has been an increasing interest in canard 
missiles capable of cruising at supersonic speeds. One of the problems 
associated with such configurations is that of properly assessing the 
effect that a canard has on the aerodynamics of the missile. Experi-
mental aerodynamic characteristics for canard configurations having con-
ventional wing shapes are presented in references 1) 2) 3) and 4 and a 
method for predicting lift and center of pressure is presented in refer-
ence 5. Because of the unconventional wing configuration which occurs 
2 NACA RM L54D28 
when wing-mounted ram jets are used, with a portion of the wing extending 
outboard of the ram jets, the data of above references cannot be readily 
compared with this configuration. Therefore, the Langley Pilotless 
Aircraft Research Division has conducted a flight investigation on a 
canard wing-mounted ram-jet engine configuration suitable for applica-
tion as a cruising missile. 
Flight tests were made at the Pilotless Aircraft Research Station 
at Wallops Island, Va., to determine the lift and drag characteristics 
of the configuration under trim conditions and the effect of varying the 
canard size on these characteristics. Two models, differing essentially 
only in canard size and deflection, were employed in the investigation 
and the desired data obtained in the Mach number range of 0.8 to 2.0. 
The flight techniClue was such that some information on longitudinal sta-
bility characteristics was obtained in each flight at approximately the 
maximum Mach number of the individual flight. 
SYMBOLS 
b exponential damping constant in e-bt , per sec 
c wing root chord, ft 
M Mach number 
P period, sec 
PB base pressure 
Po free-stream static pressure 
R 
dynamic pressure, ~V2 2 
Reynolds number based on wing root chord 
exposed canard area, sCl ft 
wing reference area, sCl ft 
velocity 
angle of attack, deg 
canard deflection, deg 
NACA RM L54-D28 
CD drag coefficient based on wing reference area 
CL lift coefficient based on wi ng reference area 
Cm pitching-moment coefficient based on wing reference area 
and root chord 
nacelle annular base pr essure coefficient, 
Subscripts: 
A model A 
B model B 
trim trim condition 
MODEL DESCRIPTION 
PB - Po 
q 
3 
Configurational features of the two models tested are indicated in 
figure 1. The prime difference between the two models is the canard 
size; the model with the smaller canard is designated model A and that 
with the larger canard, model B. Photographic top and side views of 
model B are presented as figure 2. 
Integral with the wing are twi n ducted nacelles, the external lines 
of which simulate a twin-engine ram- jet installation; internally, the 
ducts have a constant diameter of 2. 70 inches and thus produce an annular 
surface at the base of the nacelles . The thickness ratio of the inboard 
section of the wing is 0.04-4- and that of the outboard section at the 
nacelle juncture is 0 .030 . The wi ng r eference area, taken to be the area 
bounded by the curve consisting of the leading and trailing edges of the 
inboard and outboard wing sections and their extensions to the point of 
intersection, is 1.517 square feet . 
The canard of both models is of t he delta type and has a 600 leading-
edge sweepback angle; details are given in figure 3. The ratio of exposed 
canard area to wing reference area is 0 . 0211 and 0 . 04-58 for models A and B, 
respectively. Considering the part of the body intercepted by the canard 
leading and trailing edges as included i n the total canard area, the ratio 
of the total canard area to the wing reference area is 0.0533 and 0.0817 
for models A and B, respectively . 
4 NACA RM L54D28 
Inasmuch as the usual vane-type angle-of-attack indicator available 
was large relative to the size of the canards employed and therefore very 
likely would unduly influence the flow field about the model, the angle 
of attack was obtained by measuring the pressure differences between the 
upper and lower surfaces of a cone. The nose of the model, near its tip, 
was accordingly made a 300 cone. 
Weight and pitch moment of inertia were 73.9 pounds and 
8.32 slug-feet2 for model A and 66.9 pounds and 8.05 slug-feet2 for 
model B. 
INSTRUMENTATION 
Both models contained a four-channel NACA telemetering system cap -
able of continuously transmitting normal and longitudinal acceleration, 
nose-cone differential pressure, and nacelle annular base pressure; the 
latter was obtained as a manifold pressure at the base of one of the 
nacelles. 
Ground equipment complementary to the flight instrumentation included 
a CW Doppler radar unit and a radar tracking unit for determination of 
model speed and trajectory. A radiosonde was used to obtain atmospheric 
data. 
APPARATUS AND TECHNIQUE 
The models were boosted to their peak flight Mach numbers by a 
single-stage booster consisting of two solid-fuel rockets, each capable 
of delivering an average thrust of about 6,000 pounds for 3.0 seconds. 
There was no rocket motor contained in the models. A photograph of 
model B and the booster in the launching position is presented as figure 4. 
During the boost phase of the flight, the canard, which was spring 
loaded, was held in the undeflected position by a pin-locking mechanism, 
the pin being tied to the model adapter by means of a wire. As the 
booster separated from the model, it pulled on the locking pin and then 
broke the wire connection between model and booster. Release of the 
locking mechanism allowed the canard to flip up to a predetermined deflec-
tion; the deflection was 4.920 for model A and 6.060 for model B. The 
spring held the canard up against a fixed stop at the desired deflection 
for the remainder of the flight. 
The impulse given to the canard caused the model to go through an 
initial oscillatory phase in pitch followed by essentially a trimmed-
out flight condition. Data were obtained during the coasting portion of 
" 
• 
NACA RM L54D28 
the model flight, with the short oscillatory phase providing the data 
from which the model stability characteristics were obtained. 
DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS 
5 
For presentation in a more informative and usable form, nacelle 
internal and annular base drag coefficients were subtracted from the 
total drag coefficient obtained for the models as tested. Nacelle 
internal skin-friction coefficient based on the duct wetted area was 
taken to be 0.0017 (based on data of ref . 6) for the entire Mach number 
range of the tests. This gave a corresponding internal-drag coefficient 
of 0.0029 based on the wing reference area of this configuration. 
No allowance could be made for the effect of the nacelle internal 
lift on the model lift, angle of attack, and stability characteristics 
inasmuch as these correspond to given canard deflections and are con-
se~uently interdependent. It may be pointed out, however, that the con-
tribution of the internal lift to the total lift is small, being 2 to 
3 percent of the total lift, and that it acts close to the model center 
of gravity. 
The model angle of attack was obtained from the cone differential 
pressure by using the M.I.T . cone tables (refS. 7 and 8). Angle-of-
attack data were obtainable only in the essentially trimmed out portion 
of the flight for, as expected, in the initial oscillatory portion of 
the flight the volume in the pressure lines and cell combined with the 
high rate-of-pressure change to give substantial pressure lag. The 
angle of attack could not be determined much below M = 1.30 because 
of inapplicability of the cone tables in that range. 
Accuracy 
On the basis of statistical data compiled by the Langley Instrument 
Research Division, it is believed that model instrumentation is accurate 
to within tl percent of the full-scale range for pressure measuring 
instruments and tl~ percent for the accelerometer-type instruments. The 
Mach number obtained by Doppler radar is believed to be accurate to 
tl percent. 
Based on these assumptiOns, the following probable ~uantity errors 
are listed for a Mach number of 1.8; for a Mach number of 1.3 the prob-
able error would be twice that of the ~uantities listed: 
6 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
NACA RM L54D28 
±0.007 
±O.l 
. . . . ±O .01 
. ±0.004 
Variation of Reynolds number based on wing r oot chord with flight 
Mach number for models A and B is shown in figure 5. 
Trim Lift Characteristics 
Trim lift coefficients for both models are presented in figure 6. 
Due to lack of angle-of-attack data below a Mach number of 1.3, the trim 
angle of attack was assumed to be 1.80 for model B and 0 .80 for model A. 
Since these values of angle of attack are small, it is felt that the 
data below a Mach number of 1 . 3 represent essentially the trim lift ~ 
characteristics of the configuration. The difference in the trim lift 
of the two models is attributable largely to the 117 percent greater 
exposed canard area of model B, and somewhat to a 23 percent greater 
canard deflection angle. 
The effectiveness of the two canards in producing model lift is 
indicated in figure 7; the assumption was made that CLtrim at 5 = 00 
was negligible for the actual models. Figure 8 shows that the trim lift 
produced by the canards is nearly directly proportional to their exposed 
areas in the supersonic range of the tests. Use of total, instead of 
exposed, canard areas would have yielded values 
for SCAfcLtrJ /t!LtrJ greater than 1.42. It should be noted 
SCB \ 65 I J '\ 65 I A 
that the ratio of model B canard area to that of model A is 2.17 for 
exposed area and 1.53 for total area. 
Trim angle - of-attack variation with Mach number is presented in fig-
ure 9 only for the flight Mach number range from 1.30 to 1.80 for model A 
and from 1.30 to 1 .85 for model B. The reasons for the restricted ranges 
were indicated under "Data Reduction and Analysis." 
The approximate trim lift-curve slope of both models is s~own in 
figure 10. Data of reference 4 indicate that the lift produced by the 
canard is a negligible amount compared to the total lift of the configura-
tion. Considering the relatively small canards and angle-of-attack range 
i 
1-
• 
NACA RM L54D28 7 
used in the present tests CLtrtmlutrim is a good approximation to the 
lift-curve slope. 
Drag 
Nacelle annular base manifold-pressure data are presented in fig-
ure 11 in the form of pressure coefficient. There is little difference 
between the pressure coefficients for the two models, which is to be 
expected in view of the fact that the angle of attack is small for both 
models and that the canards, the only major difference between the models, 
are well ahead of the nacelles. 
Measured trim drag coefficients minus nacelle internal and nacelle 
base drag coefficients for models A and B are presented in figure 12. 
The portions of the curves below M = 1.30 are shown dotted because of 
the lack in that region of angle-of-attack data needed for determining 
CD from the longitudinal- and normal-accelerometer readings; the 
trim 
angle of attack was taken as 0.80 for model A and 1.80 for model B below 
M = 1.30. 
stability 
Stability characteristics of the models are presented in the fol -
lowing table; the method of computation is that presented in reference 9. 
Data are available at only one Mach number for each model because of 
flight-testing-technique limitation. 
Model M P b Cm a, 
A 1.85 0.165 2.82 - 0 . 0286 
B 2 .02 .168 2·57 -.0232 
CONCLUDING REMARK 
Results of the flight test of two models having a canard wing-mounted 
ram-jet missile configuration and differing only in the size and deflec-
tion of the canard showed that the effectiveness of the canards in 
producing model lift in the supersonic range of the tests is nearly 
directly proportional to their exposed areas. 
Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 
Langley Field, Va., April 15, 1954. 
8 NACA RM L54D28 
REFERENCES 
1. Hamilton, Clyde V., Driver, Cornelius, and Sevier', John R., Jr.: 
Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Ram-Jet Missile Model Having a Wing 
and Canard Surfaces of Delta Plan Form With 700 Swept Leading Edges. 
Force and Moment Characteristics of Various Combinations of Compo-
nents at a Mach Number of 1.6. NACA RM L53Al4, 1953. 
2. Spearman, M. Leroy: Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch of a Series 
of Cruciform-Wing Missiles With Canard Controls at a Mach Number 
of 2.01. NACA RM L53I14, 1953. 
3. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Robinson, Ross B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics 
of a Cruciform-Wing Missile With Canard Control Surfaces and of Some 
Very Small Span Wing-Body Missiles at a Mach Number of 1.41. NACA 
RM L54Bll, 1954. 
4. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Robinson, Ross B.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation 
of a Ram-Jet Canard Missile Model Having a Wing and Canard Surfaces 
of Delta Plan Form With 700 Swept Leading Edges. Longi t udinal and 
Lateral Stability and Control Characteristics at a Mach Number 
of 1.60. NACA RM L52E15, 1952. 
5. Nielsen, Jack N., Kaattari, George E., and Anastasio, Robert F.: A 
Method for Calculating, the Lift and Center of Pressure of Wing-Body-
Tail Combinations at Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds. 
NACA RM A53G08, 1953. 
6. Judd, Joseph H.: Flight Investigation of Engine Nacelles and Wing 
Vertical Position on the Drag of a Delta-Wing Airplane Configura-
tion From Mach Number of 0.8 to 2.0. NACA RM L53L21, 1954. 
7. Staff of the Computing Section, Center of Analysis (Under Direction 
of Zdenek Kopal): Tables of Supersonic Flow Around Cones. Tech. 
Rep. No.1, M.I.T., 1947. 
8. Staff of the Computing Section, Center of Analysis (Under Direction 
of Zdenek Kopal): Tables of Supersonic Flow Around Yawing Cones. 
Tech. Rep. No.3, M.I.T., 1947. 
9. Niewald, Roy J., and Moul, Martin T.: The Longitudinal Stability, 
Control Effectiveness, and Control Hinge-Moment Characteristics 
Obtained From a Flight Investigation of a Canard Missile Configura-
tion at Transonic and Supersonic Speeds. NACA RM L50127, 1950. 
o I I A I I CG ) (5 5./.0) ~9 
I 
1 ( 
~ QJ 
1= ".39 • i. "." ___ n __ , I 
station A 
St at.ion CG 
Exposed canard a rea , sq 1't 
Total canard area, sq 1't 
Hine reference area, sq ft 
Canard deflection, deg 
9 
L 
Model A Model B 
8.68 
50.68 
.0319 
.0808 
1.517 
4.92 
9.23 
50.52 
.0694 
.]238 
1.517 
6.06 
Figure 1.- Top and side views of model configuration. 
are in inches.) 
(All dimensions 
~~-----~-----n 
~ 
(") 
:x> 
~ 
t-< 
V1 
{::-" 
t:J 
I\) 
OJ 
\0 
10 NAeA RM L54D28 
r-i r-i . 
• ro C'-
0 0 
0'\ 0'\ ro ro C'-C'-
I I 
H H 
. 
(:Q 
r-l 
Q) 
cd 
~ 
~ 
0 
"f' 
tI.l 
0 • ~ 
'n 
> 
Q) 
cd 
'n 
tI.l 
cd 
~ 
Pl 
. 0 0 
E-i 
I 
. 
C\J 
Q) 
. ~ 
'n 
Ii; 
NACA RM L54D28 11 
Model B canard 
.9~ r-.9~~ 
~r-~----------------4. 505------------------~~ 
t ( ). 
.200 
Model A canard 
.821 1--.821 
r-------- 3.050 ---------i 
=:::=! ~=======r(:):::::==--
.159 
Figure 3. - Canard details . (All dimensions are in inches . ) 
12 NACA RM L54D28 
-
L-79722 
Figure 4.- Photograph of model B and booster in launching position. 
r 
14'" 
12 
10 
R 8 
6 
4 
2 
.6 
6 
/ 
/ / / / 
-
/ V Model B / / 
Model A / V / / /' 
/ V /~ 
:Y V I I 
/ 
/' 
~ 
~/ 
./ V, 1/ 
",,/ /' , 
~ V /'" :..-, 
./ 
, 
I , ./ 
-I.-.- -
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 
M 
Figure 5.- Reynolds number variation with Mach number. (Reynolds number 
based on wing root chord.) 
2.2 
s; 
~ 
~ 
~ 
\Jl 
-t="'" 
tJ 
I\) 
co 
I-' 
\..N 
-, 
14 NACA RM L54D28 
. 32 
. 28 
J 
- V 
.24 
\ 
\ . 20 
\ 
C4.riln .16 I~ 
-- '-.... ~ 
-....... 
....... r---I-
-
Model B 
. 12 
.08 
-- -
"-
' ... 
.... 
.... 
"-
-
---1--_ 
-
-
--
-
Model A 
-
-
--1---
.04 
o 
.6 .8 1 . 0 1.8 2. 0 2. 2 
Figure 6.- Trim- lift-coefficient variation with Mach number . 
.05 
.04 
.03 
/:::,c Ltrim 
/:::'8 
.02 
.01 
o 
-
I-
.6 
l-/\ 
\ 
~ 
\ 
~ 
~ t-
---......... ~el B 
...... , 
r--, ...... 
.... , Model A 
---I-- -
-1-- - 1---
---
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 
M 
Fi gure 7.- Canard effectiveness in producing model lift . 
2.0 2.2 
~ 
~ 
t-< 
\Jl 
+:-
t:::l 
f\) 
CP 
f--' 
\Jl 
(6C~rim) 
SCA \ B 
SCB (6CLtrim ) 
6(5 A 
1.8 
II 
1.6 I 
I 
/ \ 1.4 
/ \ 
\ 1.2 
"--~ ------1.0 
.8 
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 
M 
Figure 8.- Trim lift characteristics of canards of mode l s A and B in 
producing model li f t. 
.. 
-
1.S 2.0 
., 
I-' 
0\ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
t-I 
\J1 
+"" 
t::j 
f\) 
OJ 
.. 
3.0 
2 . 0 
--
I--
i-. 
atrirn Model B __ 
1.0 
1--__ 
--- -- I-- - t---
Model A 
o I __ J_~ 
1.0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 1.8 
M 
Figure 9 .- Trim angle-of-attack variation with Mach number. 
2 .0 
(A) 
n 
s; 
~ 
~ 
t-t 
VI 
+ 
tJ 
f\) 
():) 
t--' 
-.J 
t 
CL trim 
atrim 
o 
.08 
.06 
.04 
.02 
1.0 1.2 
~ I--.... I 
............. ~ ---
-----
--Model A --~ Model B 
I 
-- ... 
---
_-:::r-- -
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 
M 
Figure 10.- Variation of approximate trim lift-curve slope with Mach number. 
I( 
t-' 
CD 
~ 
&; 
~ 
t""' 
\Jl 
+=-
d 
I\) 
CD 
• 
NACA RM L54D28 19 
-.80 
m 
: 1\, I -.72 
I "\, , ~\ I 
I ~, I I -.64 
: \' I 
I \ I I 
-.56 
I \ 
I ~\ I 
~/ \\ / -.48 
V \, 
// 
.... V/ 
Model ~\ .... -.40 
-.32 1'\, 
" ~~ Model A 
~ --~ -
--
---
I--
----
-.24 
-.16 
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1. 6 1.8 2.0 
M 
Figure 11.- Variation of nacelle annular base pressure coefficient with 
Mach number . 
~ 
z 
r; 
> 
~ 
" 
'" ;; 
'< 
., 
.07 
.06 
• 05 
eDt-rim .04 
.03 
.02 
.01 
/ ~, 
I 
" f 
"-I 
" I Ir · ...... , 
"-
"'-
I I , I " I'--.. I I ..... 
I ..... I-- r--. I I--I I I-- ............... Model B I 1.. 
J 
---
r--- ~ / / Model A ~r--- r---I I 
V I I 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
V-
- - -
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 
M 
Figure 12.- Variati on with Mach number of measured trim drag coef f i ci ent 
minus nacelle i nternal and base drag coefficients • 
I 
2.2 
I\) 
o 
~ 
~ 
~ 
t-t 
Vl 
+=-
t;I 
I\) 
OJ 


Flight Investigation to Determine Lift and Drag Characteristics of a Canard Ram-jet Missile Configuration in the Mach Number Range of 0.8 to 2.0

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server