NASA Contractor Report 172463

" " NASA-CR- 172463

19850016897

AN EXPLORATORY
STUDYOF APEX FENCE
FLAPSON A 74-DEGREEDELTAWING

RichardA. Wahlsand RobertJ. Vess

NORTHCAROLINASTATEUNIVERSITY
Raleigh,NorthCarolina

FORREFERENCE
NOT
TOBETAKEN
FROM
IHISROOM.
Cooperative
AgreementNCCI-46
May 1985

' : LIBRARV
,COp_
_ _,

Fr" 0_-- i
, tlg
NationalAeronauticsand LANGLEY
RESEARCH
CE/JTER
SpaceAdministration LIBRARY
NASA
LangleyResearchCenter HAMPTON,
VIRGINIA
Hampton,Virginia
23665
 fill
;iiiiiiii
rii
3 1176 01416 2748
I
ABSTRACT
.o

An exploratory wind-tunnel investigation was performed to observe

the flow-field effects produced by vertically deployed "apex fences" on

a planar 74-degree delta wing. The delta-shaped fences, each comprising

approximately 3.375 percent of the wing areas were affixed along the

first 25 percent of the wing leading edge in symmetric as well as

asymmetric (i.e., fence on one side only) arrangements. The vortex flow

field was visualized at angles of attack from 0 to 20 degrees using

helium-bubble and oil-flow techniques; upper surface pressures were also

measured along spanwlse rows. The results were used to construct a

preliminary description of the vortex patterns and induced pressures

associated with vertical apex fence deployment. The objective was to

obtain an initial evaluation of the potential of apex fences as vortex

devices for subsonic lift modulation as well as lateral-dfrectlonal

control of delta wing aircraft.

It was concluded that the relatively small apex fences, when

symmetrically deployed, enhanced the average suction level on the wing

upper surface, which may amount to a lO-percent increase in the normal

force over the angle-of-attack range (0° to 20°) of this test.

Indications are that even higher suction levels may occur between the

fences, producing a nose-up pitching moment for longitudinal tri=mfng

(i.e., when trafllng-edge flaps are used for llft increment). The

lateral-directlonal characteristics due to the deployment of a single

r
fence would depend on the side force acting on the fence itself and the

fence vortex-induced effects on the downstream surfaces. To determine

these effects, force balance tests would be necessary, and were not

performed in this preliminary experiment.

 NOMENCLATURE

b Wing span
c Wing chord
Cn Normal force coefficient
Cp Static pressure coefficient
mV Millivolts
x Longitudinal coordinate
y Lateral (spanwise)coordinate
e Angle of attack
_Cn Normal force coefficientincrement
(_Cn = Cn - Cnp)

SUBSCRIPTS

p Planar case
r Wing root
u Wing upper surface

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, much researchhas been directed towardsthe

developmentof supersoniccruise fightersendowedwith a high level of

subsonicmaneuverability. It is well known that the subsonic aero-

dynamics of the highly swept delta wing, which is frequentlyselected

for supersonicfightersdue to its low wave drag characteristics,are

largelydeterminedby the formationand behaviorof leadingedge

vortices. Accordingly,the study of vortex characteristicshas

attractedrenewed interest,particularlyin the context of controlling

and modifyingthem to the aerodynamicist'sadvantage. A variety of %

vortex managementconceptshave been proposed and investigatedin recent

years (Ref. I) which are aimed at developingpracticaldevices for

specific aerodynamicfunctionssuch as lift augmentation,drag

" 2 "
 reduction,and flight path control. Two of these devices (the upper

vortex flap and the apex flap) will be referredto in this report.

The 'apexfence' of this investigation,

was proposed by Dr. D. M.

: Rao as a vortex control conceptfor delta wings (or relatedplanforms

such as crankedand arrowwings havinga highly swept apex region)whose

non-linearaerodynamiccharacteristics,such as the vortex-inducedlift

and pitchingmoment, could be modulatedindependentlyof angle of

attack. The apex fence, therefore,is intended for functionssimilarto

the apex flap (Ref.2), although its geometryand vortex-generation

characteristicshave more in common with the upper vortex flap (Ref.3).

Conceptually,the apex fence is an upper-surfacehinged panel which is

controlledby varying its upward deflectionanglewith respectto the z

wing plane. However, for the purpose of this exploratorystudy, a fixed

deflectionof 90 degreeswas used. Both symmetricaland non-symmetrical

arrangements(i.e.with fenceson both sides or one side only) were

tested with the latter representinga lateraland/or directionalcontrol

mode. The use of a 74-degreedelta wing was mainly to allow direct

comparisonwith the apex flap,which had previouslybeen tested with the

same model. The scope of this report,however, is limitedto a pre-

sentationand discussionof the main flow and pressure characteristics

observedwith the apex fence.

EXPERIMENTALTECHNIQUE
PRESSURE SURVEYS

Pressuretests were conductedutilizinga transducerwith a 48-

channel scannerwhich measured static pressureson the upper surface of

" 3 "
 the model at a flow velocityof 60 miles perhour and a ReynoldsNumber

of 510,000per foot. Transduceroutput voltages (+-0.005mYaccuracy)

were recordedby hand. All recordeddata were then reducedto pressure

coefficientform by softwarewritten for use on a VAX-IIi750system.

Graphicaloutput was availablethrough the use of a Tektronix4014

graphicsdisplay terminal. All pressure resultswere then integrated

,...

to give an indicationof the local normal force over a specificwing

region.

FLOW VISUALIZATION

Two methods of flow visualizationwere employed. The first of

these was the oil flow method. Thirty-weightmotor oil whitenedwith

Titanic Oxide was sprayedon the model such that small droplets covered

the upper surface. The flow velocitywas then raised to 60 miles per

hour which corresponded,,

as in the pressure survey, to a Reynolds Number

of 510,000per foot. After a flow pattern emerged,a photo was taken of

the upper surface.

The second method involvedusing a Sage Action, Inc. Model 3 bubble

generatorwhich used a combinationof helium,soap, and air to form

streams of neutrallybuoyant bubbles. The bubble source was held

sufficientlyfar upstream of the model in order to allow the bubbles to

follow the natural path of the streamlinesflowingover it. This test

was conductedat a velocity of 15 miles per hour and a Reynolds Number

of 127,500per foot. An arc lamp placed downstreamof the test section

illuminatedthe bubbleswhile avoidingglare on the surface. The flow

patternswere then made visible and could be photographed.

" 4 -

,-
 MODEL

A 74-degreeflat plate delta planformwith a 20 inch root chord was

constructedusing a 0.375 inch thick balsa cQre with fiberglass/poly-

ester resin facings (Fig. I). This techniqueyielded a strong structure

with a smooth exteriorfinish. In the interestof simplicity,the

leadingedges were beveled 45 degrees on the lower surface to provide a

sharp leadingedge and a definiteseparationpoint. Data presentedby

Rao and Moffler (Refs.3 and 4) suggest that, although the leadingedge

experiencesa local negative camber effect that promotespremature

separation,this geometry is perfectlyacceptablesince such experiments

involvedirect comparisonswith the planar-baselineconfiguration.

The model incorporatedthree spanwise rows of upper-surfacestatic

pressure taps (Table I)located at X/Or--0.50

, X/Or=0.65, and X/Cr=0.80,

respectively. All taps were locatedin the right semi-spanof the wing

and extended to approximately95% of the local semi-span.

A pair of apex fences was cut from 0.125 inch thick plywood in the

shape of right triangles. The fence size was determinedwith two

specificationsin mind. First, each would extend along the leading

edge to X/Cr=0.25. Second,when folded onto the main wing, the leading
edge of the fences would meet at the apex centerline. These constraints

provided a total fence area very similarto that of the apex flap (Refs.

2 and 5), that is, approximately 6..75 percent of the total win E area.

After bevelingthe leadingedge of the fences (againto provide a

definite separationpoint), they were affixedperpendicularto the wing

leadingedges.
" 5 "
 •FACILITY

Pressuresurveys and flow visualizationwere conductedin the

Merrill SubsonicWind Tunnel at North Carolina State University. The

tunnel is of the closed-returntype with a variablepitch fan and is

capableof speeds up to i00 miles per hour. The vented test section is

45 inches wide, 32 inches high, and 46 inches streamwise. Plexlglass

windows on either side as well as on top of the test sectionpermit

viewing and flow visualizationphotos to be taken. The tunnel has a

turbulencefactorof 1.2.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION

BASIC WING

In order to evaluatethe apex fence effects, it was necessaryto

first establishthe basic wing characteristics. Although the aerody-

namics of a planar 74-degreedelta wing are well known, the large

asymmetric bevel on the leading edges of the wing model simulated a

negative camber and was expectedto influencethe vortex growth

characteristicsand, consequently,the upper surfacepressurewith

increasingangle of attack. The pressuredistributionspresented in

Fig. 2 indicatethat the leadingedge separationalready exists on the

basic wing at _=0, as expected. This is confirmedby the oil flow

pattern for this case (Fig. 3); due to the small scale of the vortex,

however, the helium bubble technique (Fig.4) was unsuccessfulin

revealingits presence. At higher angles of attack,the primaryvortex

developsnormally as indicatedby the rising suctionpeak and its

" 6 "
 inboard movement. The well known secondary separation is also clearly
shown by the oil flow patterns.

SYMMETRIC APEX FENCES

A detailed comparison with the basic wing of upper-surface spanwise

pressure distributions at the three stations and with increasing angle

of attack is presented in Fig. 5. Typically, the fences result in a

suction peak located at 2y/b=0.50 to 0.70, and generally higher in

magnitude than the basic wing suction peak. This boost in the maximum

suction level increases markedly with angle of attack. On the other

hand, the suction level both near the centerline and the leading edges

is reduced, as particularly evident at the forward station (x/cr=0.50).

• The local upper-surface normal force obtained by spanwise integration of

the pressure data,presented in Fig. 6, shows a net improvement in the

normal force in the presence of the fences at all angles of attack

except zero. The average increase in normal force is approxlmately 10

percent over a region comprising the aft 75 percent of the total wing

area. There is also a strong trend of increasing Cntowards the forward

station, implying an even higher Cn over the remaining 25 percent

forward portion of the wing area.

The oil flowpatternswith symmetricfences,Fig. 7, show,in each

case, a vortex pair having a stronger "footprint" than evident at the

same alpha on the basic wing, as judged by the greater spanwise deflec-

tion of the oll streaks. This correlates with the higher induced

" suctionpeaksas already noted in the pressure data. The intense vortex

footprints were also present on the wing surface between the fences

" 7 -
(a region which, unfortunately,is obscured in th_ phe_g_aphs). It iS

thereforereasonableto expect that this apex afe_ Of th_ _ing wili b_

subjectto intense suction,and so generate a high ioC_i normal f0rhe

coefficientin the fence region.

Helium bubble visuallzatlonsof the symmetricfence arrangement

are presentedin Fig. 8. These side vlews clearly shbw the fence1

generatedvortex core trailingat a n&arly €onstanthelg_t ibove t_

winE, except at the highest angle of attack (20 degrees). Vertex

trajectoriesmeasured from planviewheiliimbubble photographs (,or

presented) are shown in FiE . 9 for _=0 to i0 degree_. A prono_ced

outboard bending of the vortex core occurs 6etWeen_=4 _d 6 degre_

which probably indicatesits mergingWith th& leadingedge _o_tex sheet.

ASYMMETRICAPEX FENCES

The upper-surfacepressuresacross the wingspan, with th_ fence

installedonly on the left Slde_ a_e p£esentedin Fig. i0. SinCe 0niy

the right semlspanof the wing was pressure-tapped,two separatetests

were conductedat each angleof attack,With the fence beingshifted

from one side to the other between _ests in Orderto constructthe

"full-span"pressure distributionsdepicted in Fig. 10_ As expected,

these distributionsare unsymmetricalwith the fenc_ side suctionpeaks

occurringmore inboardthan on the oppositeSide Mo_e si_ificahtly,

the suctionpeaks on the Side of the clea_ leadingedg% are considerabl

9

magnifiedin comparisonwit_ the basic wing. A suggestedcause iS the

sidewash inducedtowards the fence whic_ will reduce the effecti#esweep

- 8 -
 and, therefore,increasethe strengthof the vortex of the 'clean'side

. leadingedge as depicted in Fig. Ii. Another cause is the fact that the

vortex on the clean leadingedge side trails closer to the wing upper

surface as compared to the basic wing case.

The vortex flow field generatedby the asymmetricfencedeployment

is revealedby helium bubble photographspresented in Figs. 12a and 12b.

Two photographswere obtained at each angle of attack with the bubble

wand being moved from the clean leadingedge to the opposite fence-side

leadingedge. ComparingFig. 12a with Fig. 4, it is seen that the

vortex trajectoryis closer to the surfaceon the clean leadingedge

than on the basic wing. ComparingFigs. 12b and 8 shows a higher

trajectorytaken by the fence vortex in the asymmetriccase and,

consequently,lower suction levels (Figs.5 and I0) than in the

symmetricallydeployed fence case. Anothernoteworthyfeature is seen

at e =20 degrees,where vortex breakdownoccurs on the 'clean'leading

edge but not on the fence side. Note that the planar wing itself had

stable vortices at e=20 degrees (Fig. 4). This observationis

consistentwith an augmentedleadingedge vortex in the presence of a

single fenceon the opposing leadingedge as noted previouslyin

Fig. ii. A reductionin sweep destabilizesthe vortex thus causing

breakdownat a lower angle of attack. The oil flow patterns (Fig. 13)

_ also show the unequalvortices generatedby this asymmetricalfence

configuration.

- 9 -
 REMARKS
CONCLUDING

Flow visualizationsand upper surfacepressure measurementson a

74-degreedelta wing fittedwith relativelysmall 'apexfences' (each

3.375 percent of the wing area) have shown significanteffectson the

flow field due to fence generatedvortices. Symmetricallydeployed

vertical apex fences enhance the average suction level on the wing upper

surfacewhich may amount to a i0 percent increasein the normal force in

the range (_=0 to 20 degrees) of the test. Indicationsare that even

higher suctionsmay occur in the apex region between the fences,

producing a nose-uppitching moment for longitudinaltrimming (i.e.

when trailing edge flaps are used for lift increment). The laterali

directionalcharacteristicsdue to the deploymentof a single fence

would depend on the side force acting on the fence itself and the fence-

vortex inducedeffectson the downstreamsurfaces. To determinethose

effects,balance tests would be necessary.

- I0 -
 REFERENCES

I. Rao, D. M.; "VorticalFlow Managementfor ImprovedConfiguration

Aerodynamics - Recent Experiences," 1983, AGARD Symposiumon
: Aerodynamicsof Vortical Type Flows in Three Dimensions,
Paper No. 30.

2. Buret, T. A.; "Experimentaland ComputationalInvestigationof an

Apex Flap Concepton a 74-DegreeDelta Wing," Graduate Thesis
MAE 83-1, North Carolina State University,February 1983.

3. Rao, D. M.; "Upper Vortex Flap - A VersatileSurface for Highly

SweptWings," Vigyan ResearchAssociates,Hampton, Virgina
1983.

4. Hoffler, K. D.; "The AerodynamicCharacteristicsof Upper Vortex

Flaps on a 74-DegreeDelta Wing," AIAA StudentConference
Paper, April 1983.

5. Rao, D. M. and Buret, T. A.; "Experimentaland Computational

Studies of a Delta Wing Apex-Flap,"AIAA Paper 83-1815,July
1983.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors appreciatevery much the assistanceof the following

people:

Dr. D. M. Rao of Vig-yanResearchAssociatesfor initiatingthe project

and providingtechnicalinsight,

Dr. F. R. DeJarnetteof North CarolinaState Universityfor acting as

the universityproject monitor, and

Miss J. L. Vess for providingsecretarialsupport.

- II-
 TABLE 1 - PRESSURE TAP LOCATIONS

TAP NUMBER x/cr = 0.50 x/cr = 0.65 x/cr = 0.80

LOCALSEHISPAN(2y/b)

1, 12, 27 I .0000
I
.0000 .0000 I

2, 13, 28 .0988 .0733 .0662

3, 14, 29 .1871 .1357 .1169

4, 15, 30 .2718 .2091 , .1765

5, 16, 31 .3635 .2715 .2360

6, 17, 32 .4518 .3448 .2868

7, 18, 33 .5400 .4072 .3375

8, 19, 34 .6247 _ .4805 .3971

9, 20, 35 .7165 .5430 .4478

10, 21, 36 .8056 .6163 .5074

11, 22, 37 .8928 .6787 .5581

23, 38
I .7520 .6177

24, 39 .8128 .6772

25, 40 .8799 .7279

26, 41 .9470 .7787

I

42 "_......L.. • 8217
I

43 "'_............... .8762 _
44 I
L,_ .9372
WNote: Tap #8 was defective throughout this _nvestigation and is not
presented in the figures.

- 12-
FIGURE i - 74 DEGREE DELTA MODEL

- 13-
 2.5

-CPu 1.0 x/Cr=-65

15

oo
o.o
_F_--__o
_"_"-- -<o
2.0-

1.5

lo
t
0.5

0.0 ' I '

0
I
80
0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0
Local 2ylb

FIGURE 2 - UPPER SURFACE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

BASIC WING

- 14 -
 = 0° e = i0°

c_ 5°

= 15° _ = 20°

FIGURE 3 - SURFACE OIL FLOW VISUALIZATION

BASIC WING

- 15 -
 = 0o

= 5°

= i0°

-- 15°

= 20 °

FIGURE 4 - HELIUM BUBBLE FLOW VISUALIZATION

BASIC WING

- 16-
 1.0
-I--0--.25c
-4
fences

0.5 J--A--planar : ' " . c_ -- 0 °

J

ct=5 °
0.5 "

1.0_,
0.0
1.5-

1.0 (_ = 10°

-CPu °'s
0.0 _
(
2.0-

1.5

0.5

0.0
2.5-

2.0

1.5
_ = 20 °
1.0

0.5
!
0.0 ' I ' I ' I ' i
0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0

local 2_y.
b
FIGURE 5(A) - UPPER SURFACE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
SYMMETRIC FENCES, x/cr = 0.50

- 17-
 1.0 "1
]--0--.25c fences

O.50.O_D_m planar o, = 0 °

0.5 _ = 5°

0.0
1.0_
1.5-

1.0 ____ ^ __^ _ = 10°

-CPu0.5
0.0 ('t

2.0-

1.5
°

1.0 _ = 15°

0.5

0.0 _l
2.0

1.5

1.0 o. = 20 °

0.5

0.0 ' I ' I ' I ' I

0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0

local 2_y --
b

FIGURE 5(B) - UPPER SURFACE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

SYMMETRIC FENCES, x/c r = 0.65

- 18-
 1.0 7 --0--.25c fences
0.5 (_ = 0 o

0.0

0.5 (x = 5°

. 0.0
1.0_
1.5-

1.0

-CP uO.s
0.0 _ a = 10°
_JL_

2.0-

1.5

1.0 _ = 15 °

0.5

0.0

2.0

1.5

1.0 U = 20 °

0.5

0.0

0.0 .25 .50 .745 1.0

local 2_.y
b

FIGURE 5(C) - UPPER SURFACE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

SYMMETRICFENCES,x/cr = 0.80

- 19 -
 1.98.
"0" symmetric fences "0- symmetric fences
-_- beelo wing

t .00 • 1.00 • ._
1"28 1 ///
o,g o,.I
Oe,.. 0%'t -
0.8O- . 0.80 1 _
0.2g • 0.287/ '

O.OO ............ # i a .... ,

t'-
o.00 I .......
" " " I ......
g to 15 20 o g t_ t's 2'o
Angle of attack Angle of attack

(A) X/Cr = 0.50 (B) X/Cr = 0.65

1.28- 1.20-
"0" symmetric fences -0- eymmetria fences
•_s-beclc wing -_-baclo wing
1.00. t.O0,

Cnlon Cn
0.$0- 0.60"

0.28 ° 0.26'

0.00 .... m .... , .... , .... , O.O0 .... m .... , .... , .... ,
0 6 tO t6 20 0 6 10 16 20
Angle of attack Angle of attack

(C) X/C r
= 0.80 (D) AVERAGE

0.3 m

Alpha
-O--- 5 deo.
10 deg.

0.2- -0- 15 deg.

20 deg.

ACn/Cnp

0.1-

0.0 _
t I ' I ' I ' I ' I
0.! 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/Cr
(E) .NORMAL FORCE INCREMENT

FIGURE 6 - NORMAL FORCE DISTRIBUTIONS

- 20 -
 CZ = 0 ° C_ = i0 °

C_ = 5 °

= 15 ° e = 20 °

FIGURE 7 - SURFACE OIL FLOW VISUALIZATION

SYMMETRIC FENCES

- 21 -
 (_ = 0 °

= I0°

= 15°

= 20 °

FIGURE 8 - HELIUM BUBBLE FLOW VISUALIZATION

SYMMETRIC FENCES

- 22 -
 1.0

.75

1
A
2yro c_
.50

.25
1°
O_ I i I
0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0
xlc r

A) merged leading edge and fence vortices

vortex- "_" /
fence-__--_ _E. vortex
/ B) separate fence vortex
-/
FIGURE 9 - TYPICAL VORTEX TRAJECTORIES

- 23 -
 2.5-
FENCE ON FENCE OFF
2.0

1.5 _o
-- X/Cr= .50
1.0 20:

0.5 to
5
0.0 o_-- _-_
2.0-

1.5
.

-Cp u 1.0 x/Or=.65

0.5

0°0 --

2.0

1.5

1.0 x/c_ .80

0.5

0.0
-1.0 -.50 0,0 .50 1.0

Local 2ylb

FIGURE i0 - UPPER SURFACEPRESSURE DISTRIBUTION

ASYMMETRICFENCE

- 24 -
 -I--I,
I¸

altered streamline
fence )attern

streamlines drawn into

stronger fence vortex

fence side clean L.E.

FIGURE ii - ASYMMETRIC FENCE EFFECT ON

FLOW FIELD

- 25 -
 (_-- 5°

= i0 °

= 15°

= 20°

FIGURE 12(A) - HELIUM BUBBLE FLOW VISUALIZATION

ASYMMETRIC FENCE, CLEAN L.E. SIDE

- 26 -
 _ = 0°

_ = 5°

C_= i0°

c_= 15°

= 20 °

FIGURE 12(B) - HELIUM BUBBLE FLOW VISUALIZATION

ASYMMETRIC FENCE SIDE

- 27 -
 FENCE ON FENCE

= 15° d = 20°

FIGURE 13 - SURFACE OIL FLOW VISUALIZATION

ASYMMETRIC FENCE

- 28 -
 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Reclpient's'Catal_ No.
NASA CR-172463
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

An ExploratoryStudy of Apex Fence Flaps on a May 1985

74-DegreeDelta Wing s. Performing
Organization
Code
T
7. Author(s) 8. Performing
Organ{zationReportNo.
Richard A. Wahls and Robert J. Vess
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing
Organization
NameandAddress

North Carolina State University 11.Contract

or Grant
No.
Mechanicaland AerospaceEngineeringDepartment NCC1-46
Raleigh, NC 27695
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Contractor Report
National Aeronauticsand Space Administration
Washington,DC 20546 14.
Sponsoring
Agency
r_A}de
505-31-53-08
15. Supplementary Notes

Langley Technical Monitor: W. Elliott Schoonover, Jr.

16. Abstract

An exploratory wind-tunnel investigation was performed to observe the flow-field

effects produced by vertically deployed 'apex fences' on a planar 74-degree delta
wing. The delta-shaped fences, each comprising approximately 3.375 percent of the
wing area, were affixedalong the first 25 percent of the wing leadingedge in
symmetricas well as asymmetric(i.e., fence on one side only) arrangements. The
vortex flow field was visualizedat angles of attack from 0 to 20 degrees using
helium-bubbleand oil-flow techniques;upper surface pressureswere also measured
along spanwise rows. The resultswere used to constructa preliminarydescription
of the vortex patterns and inducedpressuresassociatedwith vertical apex fence
deployment. The objectivewas to obtain an initial evaluationof the potentialof
apex fences as vortex devices for subsonic lift modulationas well as lateral-
directional control of delta wing aircraft.

It was concludedthat the relativelysmall apex fences,when symmetrically

deployed, enhanced the average suction level on the wing upper surface, which may
amount to a lO,percentincrease in the normal force over the angle-of-attackrange
(0° to 20°) of this test. Indicationsare that even higher suction levels may
occur betweenthe fences, producinga nose-up pitching moment for longitudinal
trimming (i.e., when trailing-edgeflaps are used for lift increment). The
lateral-directionalcharacteristicsdue to the deploymentof a single fence would
depend on the side force acting on the fence itself and the fence vortex-induced
effects on the downstreamsurfaces. To determinethese effects, force balance
_'_f_ wniJld h_ np_rv _nd wArA nnt n_rfnrmpd in thi_ nr_liminarv exnPrimPnt.
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)F " ' 18. Distribution Statement "

Apex fence flap

Leading-edge vortices Unclassified - Unlimited
Delta wing
Wind-tunneltest Subject Category 02

19. SecurityQassif.(ofthisreport) 20. SecurityClassif.(of thispage) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Uncl assi fi ed Unclassi fied 29 A03
r-

N-30S ForsalebytheNational
Technical
Information
Service,
Springfield.
Virginia
22]6!
"1 I.;

IllL_iiiiiniiiiiIll
II
3 1176 01416 2748

b,