Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NASA-TM-100409, Flight-Determined Subsonic Lift and Drag Char of The X-29A Forward Swept-Wing
NASA-TM-100409, Flight-Determined Subsonic Lift and Drag Char of The X-29A Forward Swept-Wing
Technical
Memorandum
100409
' PreliminaryFlight-DeterminedSubsonicLiftand
'Drag Characteristics of the X-29A ForwardSwept-WingAirplane
John W. Hicks
and Thomas
Huckabone
NOl-29LTl
_-tlC_iT-F,.TI!qMIN[b
bU!_S(JHIC
LIFT
CH_::_A r I-!_i.,TL,TICb _F
TH r _-2_A
A_3L
jPAC,
43
CqCt
August
National
Space
p
eC
Cj/O
_,
1989
Aeronautics
Administration
and
release
August
1991
NASA Technical
Memorandum
100409
iiii
ii
ii
John W. Hicks
Ames Research
and Thomas
Huckabone
1989
National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration
Ames Research Center
Dryden Flight Research Facility
Edwards, California 93523-5000
Research
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
NOMENCLATURE
SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
Forward-Swept-Wing
3
Concept
Benefits
..................................
4
4
.........................................
Wing .................................................
Canard, Strake, and Rudder .....................................
4
5
5
5
Description
MODEL
5
5
.......................................
........................................
AND DATABASE
TEST MANEUVERS
DATA ANALYSIS
Accelerometer
Data Reduction Technique
.................................
In-Flight Thrust Calculation Procedure ...................................
7
7
Noseboom Angle-of-Attack
Drag Correction Procedure
8
9
Calibration
..................................
.........................................
Aerodynamic
Drag Corrections
...................................
Propulsion Drag Corrections
.....................................
Drag Polar Shape Comparison Methods
..................................
Trimmed and Untrimmed Prediction Comparisons
..........................
Comparison
RESULTS
Methods
..............................
AND DISCUSSION
Aircraft Configuration
Changes
......................................
Drag Polar Results .............................................
FUTURE
WORK
9
9
10
I0
10
10
10
11
13
CONCLUSIONS
13
REFERENCES
14
APPENDIX
-- DATA REDUCTION
15
TABLES
18
FIGURES
22
o,
111
SUMMARY
The X-29A
subsonic
determined,
met, or exceeded
predictions,
particularly
with
respect to the drag polar shapes. Induced drag levels were as great as 20 percent less than wind tunnel estimates,
particularly at coefficients of lift above 0.8. Drag polar shape comparisons
with other modem fighter aircraft showed
the X-29A
significant
aircraft
aerodynamic
Oswald
efficiency
process.
factor
These included
uncertainties
ratio. Two
in angle-of-attack
upwash calibration
and effects of maneuver dynamics on drag levels. The latter problem resulted from significandy
improper control surface automatic camber control scheduling.
Supersonic drag polar results were not obtained
during this phase because
to measure
afterburner
fuel flow.
INTRODUCTION
Fighter aircraft need efficient transonic aerodynamics. To achieve this, wing sweep was introduced to increase
the drag-rise Mach number and decrease drag in the early 1950s. Aft sweep was used at that time because of the
structural
divergence
problem
of forward-swept
wings.
Recently,
an aft-swept
of high-strength
materials
and
wing.
To investigate
the potential performance
benefits and to assess the problems
associated with forward-swept
wings, NASA and the Department of Defense have been conducting a forward-swept-wing
technology demonstrator
program.
Dryden
This demonstrator
Flight Research
aircraft,
Facility
termed
the X-29A,
objectives
1986).
has been
(1987)
Ames
Research
presented
Center's
preliminary
flight
phase.
of the X-29A
program
was to determine
the aerodynamic
performance
of the
forward-swept
wing. Dynamic pushover-puUup
and windup turn maneuvers
determined
aerodynamic
characteristics and calculated inflight thrust. These data have been used to calculate drag polar data over the subsonic flight
envelope.
Emphasis
was on aeroperformance
derived
from standard
included
a maximum
These
tailored
to the forward-swept
included
a close-coupled
composite
test techniques
supersonic
Mach number
of 1.50, altitude
of 50,000
ft, angle of
load factor of 5.7 9- This paper presents preliminary drag polar data obtained during the
phase and compares the data to the predictions.
Also presented is a description of the
accelerometer
propulsion
wing/canard
incorporated
configuration,
pitch control,
NOMENCLATURE
A
ACAP
geometric
ACC
AREF
ASW
aft-swept
area, in. 2
inlet capture
area
wing
camber
system,
control
control
system,
several
thin supercritical
instrumentation,
advanced
airfoil
and techniques
technologies
for evaluation.
aeroelastically
CFC
c.g.
CD
CDmin
CL
CS
DINT
coefficient
coefficient
of drag
of induced
coefficient of parasite
coefficient of lift
canard station
nozzle interference
inlet spillage
FDMS
flight deflection
FG
gross thrust,
FGI
FM
FN
FR
ram drag, lb
FRL
FS
fuselage
FVG
g
drag
drag
DSPILL
FSW
drag
drag
measurement
lb
reference
line
fuselage station
forward-swept
wing
fan guide vanes
earth acceleration
HiMAT
enthalpy, Btu
highly maneuverable
HPC
high-pressure
compressor
HPVG
high-pressure
compressor
L/D
LED
LPT
lift-to-drag ratio
light-emitting
diode
M
MAC
system
aircraft
technology
guide vanes
low-pressure
turbine
Mach number
mean aerodynamic chord
MCC
N1
N2
high-pressure
compressorrotorspeed,rpm
aircraft
wind-axislongitudinal
acceleration,
9
r_w
nzw
PCM
PLA
PLF
PS
PT
aircraft
wind-axisnormal acceleration,
9
pulse-codemodulation
power leverangle,deg
power forlevelflight
static
pressure,
Ib/in.
2
totalpressure,
Ib/in.
2
dynamic pressure,
Ib/ft
2
"IT
UFTAS
V
W
totaltemperature,
*F
uniform flight test analysis
WFAB
velocity, ft/sec
mass flow, lb/sec
afterburner fuel flow, lb/sec
WFE
main engine
WFP
afterburner
system
WIT
WL
WS
ot
angle of attack
angle of sideslip
6_
wing station
angle, deg
free
stream
25
compressor
face
high-pressure
compressor
3
4
high-pressure
compressor
combustor discharge
5
558
low-pressure
turbine
low-pressure
turbine
afterburner inlet
exhaust nozzle inlet
6
7
8
9
SYSTEM
discharge
exhaust
nozzle throat
exhaust
nozzle discharge
air mix)
DESCRIPTION
Forward-Swept-Wing
Concept
The forward-swept-wing
regime
inlet
Benefits
(FSVO concept
design
promises
freedoms
significant
performance
and options.
These
advantages
include
in the transonic
speed
in
and sweep.
This is primarily
because
the FSW requires less leading edge sweep for the same shock sweep and location, which results in less wing twist
required to control spanwise flow and a reduction in the pressure drag contribution of the shock. The corresponding
greater
sweep of the FSW trailing edge results in a greater shock sweep angle that reduces the shock strength,
in turn,
aerodynamic
efficiency
The FSW is predicted
of the inboard
effectiveness
increase
weight
or, conversely,
allows an increase
advantage
of
and reducing the induced drag of the wing by as much as a predicted additional
to exhibit better lateral control at higher angles of attack than an ASW design
inhibits
wingtip
Other
Technology
Concepts
The technology
of using advanced composites,
coupled with aeroelastic
tailoring
wing skins, allowed the FSW to have enough structural integrity to resist its natural
divergence.
Another
objective
was to demonstrate
advanced
flight control
techniques
of those composites
in the
tendency toward structural
in stabilizing
and controlling
The canard
also improves
aircraft
in contrast
maneuverability
and performance
to an aft-mounted
horizontal
overall aerodynamic
lift distribution than
by contributing
a positive
a download
for trim, reducing net aircraft lift. The canard inhibits the FSW natural tendency toward wing root stall by injecting
high-energy
air into the root region and by reducing the wing local angle of attack with canard downwash.
Other advanced
technologies
to improve
performance
whilemaneuvering.
Aircraft
General
aircraft
performance
aircraft
Description.
incorporating
The X-29A
advanced
technology
concepts
demonstrator
that synergistically
(fig.
1 ) is a single-seat,
improve
aircraft
performance.
fighter-type
A special
not directly
of the X-29A
related
to the advanced
technologies,
including
the F-5A
forward
fuselage
Wing.
The most notable feature is the forward-swept
wing with a 29.3 leading edge sweep, an aspect ratio of
4.0, and a thin supercritieal
airfoil section with a thickness-to-chord
ratio of 5 percent. The FSW has a Grumman K,
Mod 2 supercritical
airfoil cross section with a mean aerodynamic
chord of 86.6 in. and a built-in wing leading edge
root-to-tip twist designed to optimize transonic performance
at Mach 0.90. This aid'oil was originally developed
by the manufacturer
for the HiMAT vehicle research competition.
The wing twist distribution along the semispan
is shown in figure 2. The airfoil has a design coefficient of lift of 0.92 at the transonic Mach 0.90 condition.
The
upper and lower surface
divergence.
The composite
strips of AS/3501/5A
graphite-epoxy
hinged fiaperons
hydraulic
divided
actuator,
housed
in a fairing
to aeroelastically
composite
plies outboard
of 0/90 / + 45 laminated
of wing station
and outboard
fairing
64, oriented
full-span
segments
9 forward
was necessary
because
of the
aerodynamic
efficiency
trailing edge down. The maximum flaperon deflection rate is 68/sec. The wing root forward surface extensions of
the wing were added as an aerodynamic
fairing and have no structural function. The aerodynamic
reference area
of 185 ft2 does not include
wing surface
the canards
body without
extensions
the geometric
projection
of the trapizoidal
edge.
Canard,
Strake,
and Rudder.
20 percent
lift
the aerodynamic
Flight Control
a negative
System.
control configuration.
The presence
Table 1 summarizes
the aerodynamic
surface
geometries.
static margin
better maneuverability.
This high degree of instability necessitates high levels of artificial stability augmentation
provided by the triplex digital fly-by-wire flight control system. The flight control system updates the stabilization
of the aircraft state at 40 Hz and consists of three primary flight modes:
reversion
mode.
known as "up and away," and a power approach gain scheduling. The flight control system provided trim and pitch
control integrally for symmetric deflection of three-surface pitch control configuration.
Differential deflection of
the flaperons
interconnect.
The single-piece
rudder provided
yaw control.
The control
The two wing camber control modes included the ACC, set by the
flight control system as a function of flight condition, and the manual camber control (MCC), set in discrete 5
intervals by the pilot. The MCC mode was primarily a flight test mode. Figure 4 depicts the range and function of
the flaperon
settings.
Propulsion
System.
F404 Engine.
The X-29A
is powered
Inlets.
low-pressure
by a General
This low-bypass
fan engine
Two fuselage-mounted
Electric
F404-GE-400
turbofan
engine,
with afterburner
consists
of a three-stage
high-pressure
compressor
rated at 16,000 lb
fan driven
driven by a single-stage,
5) by a bifurcated
high-
duct, ending
18
Aircraft
Mass
Properties.
Maximum
aircraft
pacity in two fuselage and two strake tanks. Total fuel capacity was divided into 1700 lb in the forward fuel tank,
1700 lb in the feed tank, and 300 lb located in each strake tank. The aircraft had no in-flight refueling capability. The
wings were dry with no integral fuel tanks. Center of gravity range with landing gear up was small, with maximum
fuselage station variation from approximately
MAC, respectively.
Instrumentation
percent
MAC to -13.0
percent
Description
gages,
aerodynamic
pressure
taps, temperature
and pressure
monitors,
a noseboom
pitot-static
system
with
angle-of-attack
andangle-of-sideslip
anglevanes,controlsurfacepositionandratemonitors,anda basicthrust
instrumentation
setfortheengine.Thethrustinstrumentation
consisted
of pressure,
temperature,
compressor
speeds,
nozzlearea,andmainenginefuel flow measurements
for engineoperationmonitoringaswell asa limitedability
tocalculatein-flight thrustlevels.An engineschematic
showingenginestation,enginecomponents,
andmeasured
parameters
is shownin figure6. Theaircraftcontainedtwo body-mounted,
three-axisaccelerometer
packages
for
performance
andothermeasurements.
The X-29Ainstrumentation
system(fig. 7) measured
a totalof 691dataparameters
telemetered
to theground
for recording,real-timeanalysis,andcontrolroommonitoring.The aircraftdid not havean onboardrecording
capability.The 10-bitremoteunitpulse-code
modulation(PCM)systemsampleddatafrom25to400samples/sec,
depending
on the desired frequency range to be covered. The digital data were processed by five PCM units that
merged the data stream along with the output from the flight control computers ARINC 429 (Aeronautical
Radio,
Inc.) data bus using an interleaver device. Onboard filtering was restricted to antialiasing
filters only. The encrypted
data were downlinked
A constant-bandwidth
frequency
modulation
aircraft
instrumentation
control center
included
for real-time
the pitot-static
noseboom
processing
and display.
with angle-of-attack
and angle-of-sideslip
angle vanes (fig. 8). The left side of the aircraft had 176 flush-mounted
static pressure orifices, located
on the canard, five rows on the wing, and one row along the strake and strake flap to measure pressure
in two rows
distribution
excitation
Once
received
system,
in addition
on the ground,
to housing
the midboard
and outboard
and recorded
ftaperon
hydraulic-actuator.
tapes for
WIND
TUNNEL
Several
different
MODEL
wind tunnel
AND DATABASE
and developmental
figuration.
The final configuration
was tested
ft wind tunnels, running at Reynolds numbers
1/8-scale
model,
used to develop
configured
the X-29A
30,000
Facilities,
increments
FSW models
were tested
to determine
on video screens
ft design
condition.
Some
to 12 at discrete
hours
were
Mach numbers
con-
up to 1.4. Control
measurements
made at each
configuration
setting. The main objectives of the wind tunnel tests were not to develop accurate drag polar models,
but rather to gather structural load information
and to develop an aerodynamics
database for the development
of
the flight control system. Airframe drag component
buildup measurements
were made, but sensitive wind tunnel
drag balances were not used to measure full configuration
drag levels. Inlet and nozzle model drag measurements
were not made. The wind tunnel-generated
analytical
6
predictions.
Details
aerodynamic
database
was corrected
and Bowers
effects
(1984).
using
FLIGHT
TEST
MANEUVERS
Drag polar data was obtained using pushover-pullup and windup turn dynamic flight test technique maneuvers
and 1-g stabilized points. The pushover-pullup
was initiated from a stabilized 1-g flight condition at power for level
flight (PLF). The aircraft
method
completed
calibration
by increasing
maneuver.
The constant
Mach
engine
the 20-sec
power
to keep constant
points determined
techniques
position
was
(1987).
DATA ANALYSIS
Accelerometer
Data
Reduction
Technique
The computer analysis program used was the uniform flight test analysis system (UFTAS) developed by the Air
Force Flight Test Center. This program consists of several subroutines that can compute flightpath accelerations
by
several
methods,
including
several
accelerometer
techniques.
and computes
test day
point-performance
or drag polars. The UFTAS contains an in-flight thrust subroutine that not only allows propulsion
and test-day performance
calculations,
but with other subroutines in the program calculates standard-day
thrust and
performance.
program
appear
AFB (1973).
Aerodynamic
drag polar data reduction was accomplished
using the accelerometer
method to determine longitudinal and vertical (normal) accelerations
in the aircraft flightpath axis system. The results were used to compute
coefficient of lift (CL) from the vertical or normal acceleration and coefficient of drag (CD) by using the longitudinal
acceleration
to compute
drag. A body-mounted
accelerometer
or fine accelerometer
system,
which covered
a smaller
of two separate
instrumentation
and, thus,
packages.
acceleration
This range
package
linear c.g.
accelerations.
this correction.
the aircraft
to measure
In addition,
wind-axis
these angular
Each accelerometer
once corrected
accelerations
to the aircraft
Thrust
Calculation
by using noseboom-measured
and correct
the sensed
accelerations
for
were transformed
to
sensed
to purely
accelerometers
pitch, noseboom
True angle
bending,
Procedure
The test day in- flight thrust calculation method used was the G.E. F404 gas generator technique, developed
F404 engine to give accurate engine airflow and thrust over the flight envelope. The in-flight thrust program
was developed
from an extensive
six-engine
test program
at the Naval
Air Propulsion
envelope.
Center
altitude
This extensive
for the
model
test facility
database,
an accurate
modeling
of the engine
gas generator,
afterbumer,
and
envelope.
method
relies on modeling
ments
thrust
model.
An in-flight
calculation
flow chart
is shown
in figure 11.
This gas generator ideal gross thrust is calculated based on the assumption of a fully expanded nozzle, and it is then
corrected for the actual nozzle performance
by the nozzle gross thrust coefficient (GFC). The calculation
procedure can calculate
(nozzle
throat)-area
method
throat)-total
temperature
method. The pressure-area
method is sensitive to an accurate measurement
throat area, whereas the airflow-temperature
technique relies on an accurate exhaust gas temperature
exhaust
The X-29A
inlet conditions,
afterbumer
efficiency
of the nozzle
measurement,
model.
inlet pressure
recovery
to calculate
and pressure)
discussion
coupled
with a single-point
procedure
is given in Rooney
and
measurement,
resulted in estimated uninstalled thrust accuracy levels of from 5 to 8 percent, depending on flight condition.
computed thrust to obtain a reliable measure of parasite drag (Co,ni,_) is not accurate enough. This deficiency
less effect on determining
drag polar shapes. The engine was also not thrust-calibrated,
the accuracy of the existing instrumentation
system. The afterburner fuel measurement
supersonic
Noseboom
Angle-of.Attack
The noseboom
modified
The
had
Calibration
angle-of-attack
calibration
than desired.
pitch attitude
The noseboom
method
system
was a
flight
condition was used to obtain data. Another test technique was a flightpath reconstruction
technique (Whimaore, 1985)
using data from radar-tracked
pushover-pullups
and windup turns. Both methods gave inconclusive
results due to
an unusually
and a larger-than-normal
apparent
data bias.
The aircraft
was difficult
to stabilize
angle-of-attack
methods,
although
the indicated
ibrations
are accurate
bias of up to 1 developed
bias error was not consistent.
in the upwash
Normally,
calibration
that complicated
the
of
to
angle-of-attack
cal-
in the upwash
calibration.
Noseboom misalignment,
vane calibration, vane or noseboom damage
nificant results to help understand the problem. Evidence indicates the pitch attitude
enough
proven
tributing
Analysis
resolution
was inadequate,
of the flightpath
acceleration
turns
to be a significant
con-
and 30,000
ft
wasperformedtocomparetheresultsderivedfrom
(fig. 12).
The accelerometer
method
the accelerometer
method
in obtaining
aircraft
acceleration
whereas the energy height method uses airspeed and altitude only and is, thus, independent of c_ measurements.
As
the energy height method shows, ftightpath acceleration
in a stabilized turn should be zero, which is in agreement
with the accelerometer
bias was approximately
upwash
correction
A drag polar sensitivity analysis was made to determine the impact of this cz uncertainty
on drag polars. A more
complete sensitivity study of factors affecting drag polar modeling can be found in Powers (1985). The bias error is
introduced
Drag
thrust components
transformation
particularly
affecting
of the body-axis
The effect
accelerations
to the aircraft
13, which
drag levels.
shows
The
of the 1 bias moves the flight test polar results closer to the wind tunnel predictions.
The decision
standard NACA
noseboom.
the a and/3
was made at the end of the X-29 flight envelope expansion phase to replace the noseboom with a
flight test noseboom and recalibrate the system rather than try to continue flying with the original
Correction
Aerodynamic
and incorporated
is a well-proven
Procedure
Drag Corrections.
A drag correction procedure was developed by the aircraft manufacturer
into the UFTAS performance
analysis program. The purpose of this subroutine was to correct the
noseboom
trimmed
surfaces
in the ACC-schedule
The procedure
assumed
configuration
small perturbation,
for
linear
aerodynamic
corrections about the trimmed-aircraft
configuration.
Thus, the method was developed to provide trim
drag corrections for control surface configurations
that were no more than 4-5 o off the ACC schedule and for angles
of attack that were no more than 4-2" from the ACC trim schedule.
The trim drag correction procedure could not be used on some flight data because of the large trim drag errors.
These came from large control surface deviations from the ACC trim schedule during highly dynamic maneuvers.
Figure
14 shows
prediction
program
an example
estimated
surface
schedule
changes
dynamic
database.
The
program used flight test time histories of flight conditions, angle of attack, e.g., and actual control surface positions to
query the aerodynamic
database for the polar and lift curves. In this way, untrimmed flight results could be compared
to the wind tunnel predictions
where needed.
Propulsion
Drag Corrections.
Other drag data corrections included propulsive drag adjustments
to the test
day-computed
gross thrust. These included ram drag corrections based on engine airflow adjusted by a wind tunnelderived inlet pressure recovery factor. Data for this inlet recovery factor (fig. 15) were limited because of a limited
wind tunnel test and a simplified, flow-through
inlet model. The inlet spillage drag (fig. 16) and nozzle drag (fig. 17)
component
estimated,
corrections
thrust
on wind tunnel
model
esti-
mates were considered typical of this class of aircraft and constituted at most some 2 to 3 percent of the total gross
thrust. Other polar data adjustments
included corrections for the thrust moment and trim drag adjustments
for offreference
e.g.
Drag
Polar
Shape
Trimmed
Comparison
and Untrimmed
Methods
Prediction
Comparisons.
Because
schedule maneuver dynamics effects, it was difficult to correct thc flight drag polars to the trimmed condition or
to compare these polars with the wind tunnel-predicted ACC-trimmcd polar shapes. In most cases, the flight test
drag polars wcre not trim-drag corrected.
ing of the ovcrall
performance
These
includcd comparing
understand-
aerodynamic
performance
comparison
thc aircraft
was supposed to achieve with the optimum ACC trim schedule at a given coefficient of lift. For completeness,
the
flight untrimmed polars were compared with both predicted ACC trimmed and dynamic untrimmed polar shapes.
Comparison
test correlation
parison with the ACC trimmed polar dctermincd how wcll the untrimmed flight acrodynamic
so-called optimum lift-to-drag performance
of the ACC schcdulc configuration.
Comparison
Methods
With Other
Aircraft.
Another
analytical
method
performed
undertaken to obtain a measure of the aerodynamic performance improvements of the FSW in comparison with
acknowledged modem ASW fighter designs. Several analytical approaches are possible when comparing aircraft
drag polars with other aircraft. Two techniques arc to compare the absolute polars using the reference area or the
span-squared method. The technique used here is based on the classical Prandtl method of comparing
the induced
drag polar shapes
All comparison
by subtracting
aircraft-induced
the in-flight-measured
aircraft.
coefficient of lift range, the polar shapes are then primarily a function of the overall aircraft configuration
Oswald
aerodynamic
efficiency factor. The Prandtl method relies on the assumption that angle of attack is less than 20 and
that all aircraft
requirement.
RESULTS
Aircraft
aerodynamics
textbooks
aircraft
such as Clancy
fulfill this
(1975).
AND DISCUSSION
Configuration
The X-29A
program.
of the technique
external
The changes,
Changes
aircraft
configuration
summarized
in table 3, included
the addition
expansion
excita-
tion system. In an effort to keep track of all external aircraft configuration changes affecting aerodynamics,
dynamic
pushover-pullups
and windup turns were flown to measure the drag polar changes. These effects, though small, are
evaluated
in figures
18 to 21.
on the upper
surface
loads clearance
increases
increasing
An attempt
monitoring
of wing deflections,
the overall
parasite
added
the FDMS
a protuberance
drag by increasing
this drag component
10
was
drag
of as
from
flow cones were added during flights 12, 13, and 16. These devices
drag.
Beginning with flight 19, the flaperon shaker excitation system was added on each wing mid- and outboard
flaperon at the aft end of the outboard flaperon actuator housing. A modified shaker fairing was necessary in order
to enclose
in the thrust-derived
modification
to correct
can be seen in figure 20. The polar shows an effect on the drag level above
beginning
for a saturated,
a CL of
flaperon
fully down
of the canards
and strake
but the integration logic did not work properly when the flaperons were being used for aileron control. The FCS
computers subsequently
failed to recognize a full-down flaperon condition. A software change corrected the problem
by allowing
to recognize
the fully-down
flaperons
as saturated
inputs.
Fig-
ure 21 shows the changes in the drag polar above a CL of 1.20 as a result of this trim schedule change. The change
affected the overall trimmed ACC schedule tracking of the canard and strake flaps during maneuvers and resulted
in slightly
Drag
improved
Polar
aircraft
performance.
Results
Figures 22 to 27 show the results of the subsonic X-29 drag polars in comparison
with both untrimmed and
ACC-trimmed
drag polar predictions.
Results demonstrate
that the polar shapes met or exceeded predictions.
Data
are shown primarily at an altitude of 40,000 ft with some additional data for Mach 0.60 at only 30,000 ft. The Mach
0.90 polar is shown at both 30,000 and 40,000 ft, where the 30,000-ft design condition only reaches a maximum CL
of 1.10 and is shown in comparison
with the 40,000-ft results. The polar shapes were studied as a function of Mach
number and angle of attack only. Such effects as dynamic pressure and Reynolds number or skin friction drag on
the drag polars
of attack by structural
expansion
buffet considerations.
phase.
obtained
in angle
to Mach 0.95 at angles of attack up to 15" at the lower subsonic region and up to 12 to 13 in the transonic region.
Flight test data scatter was :t:5 percent for each polar, which was considered nominal flight quality and sufficient for
a preliminary
assessment
of polar shape.
Figure 22 shows the drag polar and lift curve C'L - oeresults at Mach 0.60, 30,000 ft. In the drag polar (fig. 22(a)),
the flight data are 15 to 20 percent lower in drag over the entire angle-of-attack
range than the polars predicted,
based on the trimmed
improvements
ACC schedule
over predicted
dynamics
dynamics.
in lift curve
the same
ACC schedule and the dynamic flight results. This is due to the slow (30 sec) maneuver
Using the C 2 as a function of Co form of the polar (fig. 22(c)), the data lose linear behavior
between
the predicted
was found to be true over the Mach number range. The Oswald aerodynamic
efficiency factor
ratio (L/D) at the design C'L of 0.92 were determined to be 74 percent and 8.36, respectively.
the predicted 70 percent efficiency factor and an L/D of 7.13. Table 4 shows summarized
results of aerodynamic
efficiency factors and L/D for each Mach number compared with the predicted ACC schedule and the predicted
dynamic
condition.
Figure 23 shows the drag polar and lift curve for Mach 0.70 at 40,000
ments over predicted
15 to 20 percent,
particularly
above a CL of 0.80.
The effects
of higher dynamic maneuver rates (10 sec) can be seen in the difference between the two predicted polar fairings
(fig. 23(a)) and in the lift curve predictions (fig. 23(b)). Figure 23(b) also shows the maneuver dynamic effects on
11
the measured
flightdatawith a largevariationin Ct,
a rapid pushover-pullup
maneuver.
The apparent hysteresis band is due to the control
positions (up to 4 difference for the canards and up to 9 difference for the flaperons)
is attained during different phases of the maneuver.
72 percent and 7.67, respectively.
The. efficiency
Figures 24 and 25 show the drag polar and lift curve for Mach 0.80 and 0.85, respectively,
than-predicted
12 percent
the transonic
compared
from
at 40,000
decreased
were
to approximately
10 to
ACC-trimmed
and dynamic untrimmed curves
lift curves are shown in figures 24Co) and 25Co).
efficiency
with 70 percent
ratios.
Figure 26 shows the transonic drag polar and lift curve for Mach 0.90. The Mach 0.90/30,000-ft
design condition flight data are shown along with the Mach 0.90/40,000-ft
data in the drag polar of figure 26(a). The Mach
0.90 lift curve
(fig.
26(b)) contains
approximately
5 to 7 percent
only 40,000-ft
flight data.
comparison
and 6.27.
polar results are 5 percent better than predicted above a C,L of 0.90. Below this CL, the flight data have increasingly
more drag than predicted up to 20 percent as coefficient of lift decreases to zero. Although the lift curve results
are not as clearly defined, the data (fig. 27(b)) show the same type of trend above an angle of attack of 7 . The
aerodynamic
efficiency factor and L/D were 63 percent and 6.46, respectively.
A more accurate calculation of CD,ni, is required
Where maneuver dynamic effects were large enough,
a higher drag level than the more optimum-trimmed
between
Windup
tum maneuvers
predictions
are in general
were significant
more dynamic
occurred
windup
tum maneuvers.
maneuvers
28 shows
modem-day
fighter aircraft flight test-derived
for Mach 0.6 is also presented for comparison
results have not been trim-drag
FSW configuration.
loading
corrected.
the X-29A
against
a band of several
polars at the same Mach number. The X-29A predicted polar shape
with the flight results. It should be noted that the X-29A flight test
and thrust-to-weight
of the aeroperformance
aircraft performance
role in the ultimate
advantages,
performance
potential
of the X-29A
of an aircraft.
To
derive an aerodynamic
efficiency factor, the slope was taken between a CL of 0 and 1.0. The respective efficiency
factors in this range do not represent any mission design CL of any of the comparison aircraft, including the X-29A.
It was simply a convenient place to take a useful slope and is a typical coefficient of lift range at which fighter-type
aircraft maneuver. At Mach 0.60, X-29A flight results yielded an Oswald efficiency factor of 74 percent compared
with a predicted
12
value of 70 percent.
values of 34 to 52 percent.
FUTURE
WORK
Future
performance
and propulsion
the differences
between
flight enve-
drag measurements
results
aeroperformance.
and to correlate
the pressure
distribution
the separate
aerodynamic
performance
of the wing and canard and to analyze the wing/canard
aerodynamic
interaction. In addition, more emphasis will be focussed on obtaining point performance
data, especially at the Mach 0.9 and Mach 1.2
design points at 30,000 ft. This will include thrust-limited
turning performance
analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
A preliminary
and compared
investigation
with predictions.
of the subsonic
of the X-29A
aircraft
was conducted
in the subsonic
flight envelope
This was
especially true at coefficients of lift above 0.90 for the induced drag polar shapes. The absolute drag level and polar
shape compared slightly better than predictions at the subsonic design point of Mach 0.90. Drag data was consistent
within itself and exhibits a typical data scatter of +5 percent.
and contain maneuver dynamic effects due to being significantly
drag correction
procedure
large off-schedule
developed
effects.
to correct
Angle-of-attack
calibration
on the X-29A
was particularly
was unable
difficult,
to correct
especially
for such
with the
upwash correction.
Limited flight data indicate that the apparent upwash bias was zero. The apparent t_ calibration
uncertainty
could have an effect on drag polar data of up to 200 drag counts and can affect the assessment of the
aircraft
between
aeroperformance
predicted
Ames Research
Dryden
Further
analysis
the difference
Center
Flight Research
National Aeronautics
Edwards, California,
Facility
13
REFERENCES
Air Force Flight Test Center, Documentation
Calif., June 1973, vols. 1 and 2.
of the Uniform
R., Series
i TransonicSupersonic
Testing
on a 12.5% Scale
System
Supplemental
Grumman
Elimination
Flight TestAssessment
With Advanced
Composites,
Transonic
Design
A.F.B.,
Wind Tunnel
712, X-29A
of In-flight
Uncertainties
AIAA 75-1009,
Caused
Thrust Measurement
Technology
Demonstrator
Whitmore,
Stephen A., Formulation
and Implementation
of Nonstationary
Application
to Air-Data Reconstruction,
NASA TM-86727,
1985.
14
Edwards
Forward-
Hicks, John W., James M. Cooper, Jr., and Walter J. Sefic, Flight Test Techniques
0082, Jan. 1987.
Krone,
(UFTAS),
Aug.
Technology
Program
Adaptive
Demon-
1975.
by Errors in Selected
Procedures
AIAA 87-
for Afterburning
Overview,
Estimation
Parameters,
Turbofan
AIAA 86-9727,
Algorithm
With
APPENDIX
-- DATA REDUCTION
To compute
aircraft
performance
accelerometer
system,
to the aircraft
or correct
those body-axis-sensed
to the aircraft wind-axis system. Drag polar and other aircraft performance
are measured
The transformation
was accomplished
through the aircraft angles of attack and sideslip.
The angular
corrections
of the accelerometers
to the aircraft
accelerations
in the wind-axis
system.
e.g. are
(1)
and
- I_ + (p2 + r2)iv
anz
= 1/g(qlx
_ rqI_ - pqI_)
(2)
where
= measured
longitudinal
= measured
lateral acceleration
= measured
vertical
rl,_b
= body-axis
e.g. longitudinal
nv_
= body-axis
_b
= body-axis
e.g. vertical
or normal
A_
= body-axis
longitudinal
accelerometer
A_
= body-axis
lateral accelerometer
A_z
= body-axis
normal
7_,rr_
r_
longitudinal
acceleration
or normal
acceleration
accelerometer
displacement
lateral displacement
acceleration
angular
angular
angular
vertical
earth acceleration
aircraft
roll rate
aircraft
pitch rate
aircraft
yaw rate
aircraft
roll acceleration
aircraft
pitch acceleration
displacement
of the accelerometer
rate correction
rate correction
rate correction
of the accelerometer
of the accelerometer
acceleration
e.g.
e.g.
15
that the
the body-axis
angular velocity
e.g. acceleration
"-
Olra
and
acceleration
measurements
For performance
of/3 were used,
A Ot u +
otq
Otbb
sensors
be collocated
with
system,
the lin-
the nose-
tests, maneuvers
were flown at essentially zero
where small /3 angles have little effect on the
A Ot fb
A Ogmi
Br=
and
a c_ = tan-I
(3)
sin c_,n) ]
where
OfT
_,n
A c_u
= angle-of-attack
upwash
A oq
= angle-of-attack
A c_bb
= angle-of-attack
noseboom
A cvb
-- angle-of-attack
fuselage
A _,ni,
= angle-of-attack
/3,n
= measured
B'r
= true sideslip
Vr'
= true airspeed
correction
bending
bending
correction
misalignment
correction
sideslip angle
angle
correction
accelerations
_II1/
n_
rh_
are determined
cos
- sin Br'
0
from airborne
to the aircraft
sin B.r
cos Br
0
0
1
or ground calibrations.
wind-axis
coso_r,
0
0
1
sin a_
A zero upwash
system by
-sina_
0
cos c_T
(4)
rhb
where
= wind-axis
e.g. longitudinal
nv,,,
= wind-axis
rhw
= wind-axis
e.g. normal
acceleration
Electric F404-GE-400
acceleration
where
Propulsive
drag corrections
were applied
to the
and
F_
F.
F.
Fm
Aircraft
excess
drag
from
Fe_ = _w Wt
(6)
where
Fen"
Wt
= aircraft
Excess
gross weight
was computed
thrust
of drag
by
an untrimmed
drag-corrected
CL = [ r_W_
(7)
- Fgt sin(otr
+ i) ]/qS
from
(8)
where
= engine-thrust
incidence
When the angle of attack and control surface deflection fell within the specified limits, the trim drag corrections
were applied to the data to obtain trimmed drag polars. Otherwise, the untrimmed values of CL and CD were used
to compare
polar shapes
with predictions.
17
TABLE
1. AIRCRAFT
GEOMETRY
Total height,
ft ....................................................................................
Total length,
ft .....................................................................................
Wing
Reference
planform
Reference
Reference
14.29
48.1
185.0
span, ft ...............................................................................
chord, ft .............................................................................
27.2
7.216
ratio
Taper ratio
Airfoil
9.72
......................................................................................
4.0
.......................................................................................
....................................................................
Airfoil thickness
(root), percent
0.4
GAC K-Mod
....................................................................
6.7
4.9
0
.........................................................................................
Root incidence
angle, deg
Quarter-chord
Leading-edge
Vertical tail
.........................................................................
-5
".................
-33.73
-29.27
Area, ft 2 ......................................................................................
33.75
Span, ft ..........................................................................................
Chord, ft ........................................................................................
5.5
6.67
7.75
..................................................................................
Airfoil thickness
Quarter-chord
Leading-edge
Canard
Planform
(roo0,
percent
....................................................................
area, ft 2 ..............................................................................
Span, ft ........................................................................................
Chord, ft ........................................................................................
Root chord,
Aspect
ft ...................................................................................
ratio
.....................................................................................
..................................................................................
thickness (root), percent
....................................................................
Airfoil thickness
Symmetrical
4.0
41.05
47.00
37.00
13.63
5.46
7.61
1.47
0.318
Symmetrical
5.0
......................................................................
3.5
0
23.08
Deflection
(tip), percent
2.64
0.306
18
2 supercritical
range, deg
..................................................................
....................................................................
42.00
+30 to -60
TABLE 1. CONCLUDED
Wingflap
Hingeline,percentof wingrootchord .............................................................
Half-span,ft ....................................................................................
Area,ft2 ......................................................................................
Rootstation,percentof winghalf-span.............................................................
Rootchord,ft ...................................................................................
Hinge-linesweepangle,deg ......................................................................
Deflectionrange,deg .....................................................................
Strakeflap
Half-span,ft ....................................................................................
Area,ft2 ...........................................
.............................................
Rootstation,percentof strakehalf-span..............................................................
Rootchord,ft ...................................................................................
Hinge-linesweepangle,deg ........ . ................................................................
Deflection
Rudder
range, deg
............................................................................
of vertical
stabilizer
chord
0.75
9.35
14.32
0.28
2.43
42.0
-10 to +25
2.08
5.21
0
2.50
0
-/-30
......................................................
0.70
Span, ft .........................................................................................
Area, ft 2 ........................................................................................
6.67
7.31
0.18
2.33
Hinge-line
Deflection
Masses
27
............................................................................
+30
13,948
3882
weight,
3662
Ib ...............................................................................
Powerplant
Engine ............................................................
Sea level static thrust, lb .......................................................................
17,830
single General
Electric
F404-GE-400
16,012
19
0
_0
o
0
0
'.'-
cO
,_.
20
TABLE
3. AIRCRAFT
Flight number
1
CONFIGURATION
FDMS
None
Flaperon shaker
None
CHANGES
Tufts
None
ACC
Original
Installed
None
None
Original
12
Installed
None
Installed
Original
13
16
Installed
Installed
None
None
Installed
Installed
Original
Original
19
Installed
Installed
None
Original
23 to 104
Installed
Installed
None
Modified
TABLE
4. SUMMARY
OSWALD
OF SUBSONIC
AERODYNAMIC
AND
EFFICIENCY
LIFT-TO-DRAG
Mach number
DRAG
FACTOR
RATIO
Aerodynamic
efficiency
POLAR
factor
Lift-to-drag
ratio
0.60
Flight data
Predicted ACC
0.74
0.70
8.36
7.13
Predicted
0.70
7.05
Flight data
Predicted ACC
0.72
0.66
7.67
6.84
Predicted
0.63
6.57
Flight data
Predicted ACC
0.72
7.48
0.63
6.64
Predicted
0.63
6.31
Flight data
Predicted ACC
0.70
0.62
7.19
6.44
Predicted
0.61
6.30
Flight data
Predicted ACC
0.63
0.59
6.53
6.27
Predicted
0.59
6.22
Flight data
Predicted ACC
0.63
6.46
0.58
6.29
Predicted
0.58
5.92
dynamic
0.70
dynamic
0.80
dynamic
0.85
dynamic
0.90
dynamic
0.95
dynamic
21
47 in..-7
l /
j /-90
percent
hinge
91.3
i
in.--/
/
--,_
_ <--_-_
_-o'"_-_-_'_ \
/--75
_,
4zo_--i2_'-'_l
c tab
line
percent
c flap
hinge line
_-30 in..
-_i_--._/
27 ft 2 in.
)_._..'_. _
------
F
";l'-'_--'_B;'"
WS
Horizontal
127._WS
flap
_-Wing
127
WL
reference
view
reference
line WL 7S
- _
u
"---Stroke
cane_---_--'_,._.
J"!_2__MAC,., ,..
,s.,_,J L/.--_///----_
wing
,en,,o.
/----_s.o.. ''_,g.
3
Top
, , _.uader
48 ft 1 in.
plane--
81 at 70 percent
I
7 ft 6 in. "-'''__t
FS 117.0
Front
Horizontal
view
reference
14 ft 4 in.
line WL
75 _-_._
._L.
Side
view
8437
Figure
22
1. X-29A
aircraft.
AerooleetJc
side
\
Canard tip.._
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0.9 M, 3O,0OOft
S-g maneuver
Canard
twist-- /
/f
S,
increment
.2
.4
.6
.8
Semispan
Reference
Otwlet _
F_.RRL
....
line
airfoil
section
chord
..._.
_..1.--.-.-'"
Airfoil
true
chord
Ilne_
Note:
Twist angle plotted
above refers to angle
between
airfoil true chord.
line and fuselage
rat line,
"_
as shown in sketch at dght
_"
Figure
2.
Canard
and wing
s,_
twist
distribution.
23
82.5 percent c
15 percent
rear spnr_
75 percent c--_
frontaper7
M .....
, _
7
_
Tab
Flaperon actuator
Section D.O
WS 127
Figure 3. X-29A
wing scction
_39
and flaperon
actuator fairing.
Trace
O.gOC
I
Tab surface
(geared 1:1 to
flap motion) 7
""
"\
/_Full
, _
Figure 4. Nap-tab
24
geometry
(section
normal
to 0.75C).
down
_ltkm
FS 324.5
Oulboardlupper
3:1
Ellipse
--_ ,_......,.._-_"----
Splitter
2 in. radius
(typical)-
llp
,-
..--
+ ,,,
_+
2,. r.O,.s
______
2 in._
2 in. 7
I\
'X
I1
! ,n,.,t_._.t
lS*L
Inlet
/-_
helght.to.width
rstio
is 2.10
radlu
Lower
Capture
Throat
area
area
Contraction
lip
,R 650 in.2
:
473.5
ratio
In.2
2:,E,,ip..
\_
(typlc,I)_
:s
%6
1.375
3:1 Ellipse
(typical) -t_
....
_:2
_a40
Figure 5. X-29A
inlet design.
25
HPC
discharge
Free.
Stream
Compressor
face
HPC
inlet
2s
Combustor
di h---SC -,vw
t
LPT
rotor
/_
/
/
I
LPT
discharge
measuring
plane
Exhaust
nozzle
discharge
Exhaust
nozzle
inlet
Exhaust
nozzle
throat
/- Afterburner
0=7o.r
I ,o,.,
Figure
558 6
locations.
frequency
signal
input
conditioning
.--ira
Pilot's
voice
Signal
inlets
FM signal
conditioning
unit
_
|
Pmmodulatkm
mixer
l
I
I
conditioning
unit
r
___
TU_3er
Telemetry
Diptexer
transmitter_ .
=I
wef
transmitter
Telemetry
Figure
26
Telemetry
antenna
Digital
interlea_r
Temperature
subsystem :
Inputs
control
computer
Flight
input
L._
_
7. Aircraft
instrumentation
system.
ORIGINAL
BLACK
Tip
FS 46.69
Stub
FS 85.30
Grumman
/_ vane
FS 97.50
AND
PAGE
WHITE
PHOTOGRAPH
Reference
FS 130
head
FS 91.50
/
-----_-
Total
Tip
FS 46.69
pressure
FS 47.88
Static
reference,
$2
FS 54.60
Static
reference,
$1
FS 55.24
FDMS
\ "_:,_,_.\_/-"
///"--_
targets
FIiJ:ats udreef
linectit n
_system
(FDMS)
FS 91.50
(15 ports)
FS 97.50
Resonant
"CS 65 0 _
20.5 Hz
frequency
of arc)
- 1.4 pitch I-
1.2 yaw
30.51
Weight
Center
of gravity
_ .....
_//_/ZWS
32.5
ports)
0,4 roll
(minutes
--
(28
ooU_/-/-::::
WS 1140(45
Alignment
WS 500(27
ports )
oo.,,,
ports)
lb.
FS 101.47
"This
tunnel
model
_445
Figure
FDMS
receiver
A=
FDMS
target
Figure
LED
sensor
measurement
system.
27
TT1
PT1 IFVG
_r_,
I__..I
-I
M---_'I
NI
N2
Inletmodel
-nd alrllow
I Wll
_
Fsnllnd
calculation
.-/PT558
W_.EI
lnergydal
I cOrnp'lmlOr
I
i
PT31
W31
WFA8
balance
energy
TI_T61
Aftwbumer
pT$ [
-i I.
analylls
Nozzle
model
c.,
11"' Ft -' Ft
Rlm dill
FR -Wl
All PS0
gross thrull
x V0
FGI ,,W8
iroll
x V91
FG"
thfuet
JJ
Net lhruet
FGI x CFG
FN =,FG - FRI
_ FR
L
_
FN
9156
Figure
l 1. 1:404 in-flight
0.90 Machl20.O00
ft conslant-g
stabilized
turn
.O4
02
__
Zero e bias
0
nxw'
g
._ -_
- .02
Energy
height
+0.4
- .04
_
_ blas-_
+ 1.0 or bias-
10
12
14
16
18
Time,
SiC
l__J
20
22
_444
1.2
Mach
method.
= 0.9
1.0
\0
Zero
.8
+ 1 * bias
CL
.8
--
.2
Predicted
---_l
0
.04
data
Flight calibration
band
I.P-
_C D = 100 drag
counts
08
.12
.16
.20
.24
.25
CD
4442
Figure
28
13. Angle-of-attack
calibration
uncertainty
effects.
ACC
---
deg
schedule
Flight
test
10
dc,
deg
_ 10
df,
lO
deg 20
i'--'i
F-
30
(Is'
n z,
I
4
Time,
Figure
14. Off-ACC
10
12
se
14
8040
schedule
effects.
1.0
.95
.9O
H
r_H
.85
H L_ H t_f_:t_
rl
_'p.
pressure
recovery
0
0
/',
+
.8O
Mach
0
0.16
0.6O
0.80
1.20
L_
Inlet
.,_
O t.4o
_7
.75
1.60
1.70
1.80
1
>(
.70
[
.|-
4W
2.00
.025
---1
.050
;,
-T-
-1-
.075
.100
- -_
.125
Corrected
Figure
15. X-29/F404
......
.150
airflow/capture
inlet recovery
F ....
.175
.200
area
.225
.250
.275
B463
factor.
29
1.50
.................
1.25
v
tA
v
1,00
Estimated
spillage drag
coefficient
.75
(spillage drag -*
ACAP x Q)
t, ,
v_
t,
.50
rj
'pj
.2S
Lt
t _ f LJ
.025
t J
lit
Figure
30
t I
.050
.075
16,
X-29
.100
.125
.150
Corrected stdlowlcapture
estimated
irdct
spi]iagc
.175
area
dr._g.
8464
200O
Mach
........................................
:
1000
.................................
Estimated
Interference drag
(interference drag
x AREF)
N
O
A
+
x
0
0.40
0.60 ..........
0.80
0.90
0.94
_'
_
)_
!.15
1_0
1.30 .......
2.00
S00
Figure
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Nozzle exit diameter, ft
nozzle drag.
31
Flight data
Predicted data
---
0
Wing cross
section -_
CDml n
O
/-/_C
r
2
O
D = 100
drag counts
_
/
Aircraft configuration
change with FOMS
targets
10
12
14
16
outboard flspemn
actuator talflng
haker
installed
6012
60t_
Figure 19.
modification.
Flaperon
shaker
aerodynamic
CL
CL
/
/
/r
-_M
P_-
CD
CD
6013
32
fairing
60_4
drag effect.
1.6
--
1.6
L)
1.4
CL
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
.8
CL
,6
.4
.8
.6
,_
_r
Test
Predicted
0
ACC
.4
---
.2
--m
.05
.10
.15
.20
Predicted
Test
Predicted
ACC
Predicted
dynamic
.2
dynamic
.25
.30
.35
.40
10
12
14
16
18
20
_', deg
CD
8446
H445
2,50
--
2.25
--
0
2.00
1.75
--
0
0
1.50
C 2 1.25
0"
"" " _ " " " -
1.00
.75
.25
---
Lit
0
.04
Predicted
.08
.12
.16
.20
,24
dynamic
.28
.32
.36
J
.40
CD
_44 7
(c) C_ - CD.
Figure 22. Comparison
of flight-measured
and predicted
aerodynamic
characteristics,
= 30,000 ft.
33
1.6
1.6
1.4
CL
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
.8
CL
O_
.8
1.4
.6
.6
.l_
.4
.2
'_
I
05
.10
1
,15
Test
Predicted ACC
---
Predicted dynemlc
.20
.25
.30
.4 --
_C_,70 '_
/_,'-
._u
a2
-_
.35
.40
0
--
Test
Predicted ACC
---
Predicted dynamic
10
12
14
16
18
20
a, deg
CD
8449
8448
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.2
O
_
Test
Predicted ACC
.2
0
,_
---
.04
Predicted dynamic
.08
.12
.16
.20
.24
.28
I_
.32
I
.36
I
.40
CD
(O
Figure 23. Comparison
34
of tlight-measured
- CD.
haracterisdcs,
1.6
1.4
--
1.2
,6[
1.4
_
O_
0_-_
0
_ "
_._..z_
1.2
--
,/
1.0
t.O
Q
CL
.6 J
.4
CL
--
,6
--
Test
--
Predicted
ACC
---
Predicted
dynamic
.4
.8 f
.2
,8
--
-2
.05
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
_j
--
1
2
Predicted
ACC
Predicted
dynamic
Test
10
12
14
16
18
20
_r, deg
CD
_451
(a)
8a52
2,0 E
1.8
1.6
1.4
-0
1.2
0 _"
o/
C 2 1.0
.8
,./
.4
.2
---
.04
.08
.12
.16
.20
Test
Predicted
ACC
Predicted
dynamic
.24
.28
.32
.36
.40
CD
8453
(:)
Figure 24. Comparison of flight-measured and predicted aerodynamic characteristics, M = 0.80, a.kimde = 40,000 ft.
35
CL
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
OT
.8
.6
.4 _"
_"
1.0
CL
.8
.6
.4
Predicted ACC
m_
--
_
2(_j_',O "
.2
_wl
0
.05
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
r-f i
2
4
i
6
I
e
t
_0
O
--
Test
Prldicted
---
Predicted dynamic
I
_2
I
_4
1
te
J
20
a, deg
CD
8455
_454
(a)
I
is
ACC
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
CL2 1.0
.8
.8
.4
l_'"
---
.2
.04
.08
,12
.16
.20
.24
Test
Predicted ACC
Predicted dynamic
.28
.32
.36
.40
Co
8456
(c)
Figure 25. Comparison
36
of flight-measured
- co.
characteristics,
M = 0.85, altitude
= 40,000
ft.
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
CL
Q_
1.2
--
1.0
--
,8
--
1.2
"_
1.0
CL
.6
E]
_Bi
_1
0
.05
.8
Test 40,000 It
PrIKIIcted ACC
---
Predicted
_IT
.4
-.2
dynamic
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
_
4
10
12
Test
Predicted
ACC
P redicted
dynamic
1,,.[
14
16
18
20
_, deg
CD
8458
_457
2.0
1.8
1.6
_/i
1.4
1.2
C 2 1.0
.8
.8
.4
I
.2
r0
.04
_
.08
J
.12
.16
.20
Test
Predicted
-_ Predicted
.24
.28
.32
dynamic
ACC
.36
.40
CD
_459
(c)
Figure 26. Comparison
and 40,000 ft.
of flight-measured
and predicted
- cD.
aerodynamic
characteristics,
M = 0.90, altitude
= 30,000
37
1.6
CL
--
1.6
--
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
.8
CL
.6
.6
.4
.4
.2 I
l _
----
m_
.05
.I0
.15
.20
I
.30
--
,_
.2
Predicted dynamic
ACC
Predicted
.25
/:T.
.8
.35
.40
--
PredictKI ACC
---
Predicted dynamic
lay
10
12
14
16
18
20
Co
o, deg
_461
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0/'_'_.-"
CL2 1.0
r
i
_r
.f
0
Test
Predicted ACC
----
4'
.04
.08
.12
Predicted dynamic
.16
.20
.24
I
.28
.32
.36
l
.40
CO
8462
(c)
- cD.
38
1.4
1.2
Dd_
O0
1.0_
CL
0
0
I;_
._
0.6 Machl30,O00
fl
0.7 Machl30,O00
ft
Predicted
(0.6 M|ch)
---
Predicted(O.7
.2
(_
I
0
.05
.10
.15
.20
.2S
.30
I
.3S
CD
Mach)
J
..,d
9_
to current
fighter aircraft.
39
Report
4.
Page
2. GovernmentAccessionNo.
1. R_port No.
NASA
Documentation
3. Reciplent'sCatalogNo.
TM- 100409
endsdbt
5. ReportDate
August
Preliminary
Flight-Determined
of the X-29A
Subsonic
Forward-Swept-Wing
6. PerformingOrganizationCode
Airplane
7. Author(s)
John
1989
8. PerformingOrganizationReportNo.
W. Hicks
and Thomas
H-1431
Huckabone
Ames
Research
Dryden Flight
P.O. Box 273,
RTOP
end Addrl=
Center
Research
Edwards,
533-02-51
Facility
CA 93523-5000
Aeronautics
Washington,
and Space
14. spornmr_
Administration
Memorandum
A_
Cads
DC 20546
15. S_tary
Notes
16. Abstract
The X-29A
respect
mates,
particularly
aircraft
aspect
subsonic
certainties
problem
shapes.
at coefficients
the X-29A
Two
significant
from
of lift above
problems
upwash
significantly
subsonic,
test, forward-swept
NASA FORM 1_
as great
polar
shape
surface
this phase
with other
Oswald
efficiency
and analysis
of maneuver
automatic
because
particularly
comparisons
aerodynamic
and effects
predictions,
as 20 percent
process.
dynamics
camber
modem
factor
These
of a lack of engine
estifighter
on drag levels.
control
with
tunnel
un-
The latter
scheduling.
Super-
instrumentation
to
Subject
category
22. Price
05
18. DistributionStatement
wing,
X-29A
Drag
aircraft
control
during
were
calibration
improper
0.8.
overall
arose
met, or exceeded
determined,
drag levels
to have a better
in angle-of-attack
resulted
Induced
A03