Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In-Flight Lift-Drag Characteristics For A Forward-Swept Wing Aircraft (And Comparisions With Contemporary Aircraft)
In-Flight Lift-Drag Characteristics For A Forward-Swept Wing Aircraft (And Comparisions With Contemporary Aircraft)
Technical
Paper
3414
_i '_i_
1994
_i:/!ii_
i__ _i:!i_'!_
L " __i___ In-Flight Lift-Drag Characteristics
for a Forward-Swept Wing Aircraft
(and Comparisions With
Contemporary Aircraft)
Edwin J. Saltzman
PRC Inc.
Edwards, California
John W. Hicks
Dryden Flight Research Center
Edwards, California
Office of Management
ABSTRACT 1
NOMENCLATURE 1
INTRODUCTION 2
AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION 4
Wing Characteristics ............................................................... 5
Control Surfaces .................................................................. 5
Flight Control System ............................................................. 5
Propulsion System ................................................................. 6
REFERENCES 17
FIGURES 21
APPENDIX 57
, i:¸'
°°°
111
..! P_ PAG_ ekA_ _'O'l" FfL_Q£D
ABSTRACT TED trailing edge down
Lift (L) and drag (D) characteristics have been TEU trailing edge up
) obtained in flight for the X-29A airplane (a forward-
swept-wing demonstrator) for Mach numbers (M) from Symbols
0.4 to 1.3. Most of the data were obtained near an b 2
A
altitude of 30,000 ft. A representative Reynolds num- aspect ratio,
ber, for M = 0.9 and a pressure altitude of 30,000 ft, is A' aspect ratio based on alternative
18.6 × 106 based on the mean aerodynamic chord. The
reference area, b 2
X-29A data (forward-swept wing) are compared with
S'
three high-performance fighter aircraft--the F-15C,
F-16C, and F/A-18. The lifting efficiency of the A maximum cross-sectional area of
C
CD o
drag coefficient at zero lift
NOMENCLATURE
CD . minimum value of drag coefficient for a
mln
ACC (wing flaperon) automatic camber CDwave transonic wave drag coefficient,
control reference area = A c (in fig. 14,
reference area = S)
BIR buffet intensity rise, as defined in
reference 61
C Fe equivalent average skin-friction
coefficient for turbulent flow
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency L
CL lift coefficient, _._
LE leading edge
AC L
CLa lift-curve slope, -_--_--,deg -1 or rad -1
MAC mean aerodynamic chord
MCC (wing flaperon) manual camber control C Lmi n value of C L at corresponding CD . for
mln
given polar
NACA National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics section lift coefficient
cl
i:i__:ii _
NASA National Aeronautics and Space D drag force along flightpath
Administration
d equivalent diameter
PLA power lever angle
e airplane lifting efficiency factor, 8 canard deflection angle, deg
c
INTRODUCTION
S wing reference area assigned by airframe
builder
In his National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
p alternative reference area (NACA) Technical Note published in 1924, Max Munk
said, "Sweep back was used in some of the early air-
t maximum wing thickness planes in order to obtain lateral stability" (ref. 1).
Though most of the aircraft of the 1920s and 1930s did
t/c wing thickness-to-chord ratio, maximum not use wing sweep, some early tailless gliders and air-
value averaged over the span planes employed sweep (refs. 2 and 3). Reference 2
refers to four experimenters who employed forward
angle of attack, deg or rad sweep over part or all of the span from 1911 to 1928.
Interest in forward-swept wings increased when
o_o angle of attack at zero lift, deg some wind-tunnel tests in 1931 showed that 20 ° of for-
A_ ward sweep provided a greater useful angle-of-attack
lift angle, rad range than did a corresponding amount of aft sweep
AC L
8 (ref. 4). Later, as airplane wings began to experience
deflection angle, deg
the effects of local shock waves, A. Busemann and R.T.
2
Jonesindependently recommended sweepback as a trim drag, and improved low-speed handling qualities.
meansof reducingtransonicand supersonicdrag These findings provided justification for building a
(refs.5-7). flight demonstrator vehicle, and it was decided that it
It wasonlynatural,then,to considerusingforward should be manned rather than a remotely piloted vehi-
sweepfor high-performance aircraft,because forward cle (ref. 35). Further analytical and wind-tunnel studies
sweepofferedthedualbenefitsof reducingcompress- verified the earlier indications of lower drag and in
ibility effectsat transonicspeedsandprovidinghigh- addition found that lift-related drag and wave drag may
lift advantagesat lower speedsas indicatedby also be reduced with forward sweep (refs. 36 and 37).
reference 4. Thismayhavebeena consideration in the As a result of these studies, DARPA sponsored a
designof the Junkersprototypebomber,the Ju-287, contract with Grumman Aerospace Corporation
whichflewbrieflyin early1945(refs.8-10).TheGer- (Bethpage, New York) to design and build a forward-
man-builtJu-287hadabout15° of forward,leading- swept-wing flight demonstrator (refs. 38 and 39). This
edgesweep. airplane was to incorporate several advanced technolo-
Subsequently,interest in forward-sweptwings gies in addition to the forward-swept wing. By the
increased in theUnitedStatesduringtheyearsfollow- early 1980s, interest in forward sweep had grown
ingWorldWarII. References 11through27area repre- enough that an international symposium was devoted
sentative,but incomplete,listing of testsof forward to the subject (ref. 40).
sweepbefore1960. It maybeof interest,especially to The airplane that was designed and built by Grum-
personsawareof the earliestflights to supersonic man was designated the X-29A. The Wright-Patterson
speeds, thatthefuselageandempennage of thequarter Air Force Base X-29A Advanced Program Office pro-
scaleX-1 modelweretestedwithbothswept-back and vided overall program management. The NASA Dry-
swept-forward wings(ref.17).Later,duringthe1960s, den Flight Research Center was the responsible test
moderateamounts of forwardsweepwereusedin two organization and the Air Force Flight Test Center was
subsonicairplanedesignsin Germany,apparently for the participating test organization. More detailed infor-
advantageous positioningof themainspar(ref.28). mation about the test organization and the flight test
Becauseof a warningfromreference16,published program is given in references 41 through 43.
in 1948,concerningaeroelasticstructuraldivergence The X-29A airplane represents the integration of
for forward-swept wings,designers of high-speed air- several advanced technology features. The thin super-
craftwerereluctantto employforwardsweepformore critical forward-swept wing is the most obvious of
thantwo decades. To avoidthis problem,that is, to these (the complete list of advanced technologies will
achievesufficient structuralstiffness,conventional be given later). As indicated in references 41 through
metalwing constructionwouldhaveresultedin sub- 43, one major objective of the flight program was to
stantialweightpenalties.Throughthedevelopment of define the lift and drag characteristics of the X-29A air-
advanced compositematerialsandusingspeciallyori- plane. The purpose of this paper is to report these
entedlaminates,the aeroelasticdivergenceproblem results.
wasalleviated (ref.29).Nowtheforward-sweep con- Because the X-29A was a technology demonstrator,
ceptcould be appliedto high-performance airplanes; it did not undergo thorough aerodynamic design
consequently severalfeasibilitystudieswereinitiated optimization. Components from other aircraft (for
(refs.30-33).Theseandotherstudieswereeitherspon- example, forebody and canopy) were used, and it had
sored or encouragedby the DefenseAdvanced exposed hinges and large actuator fairings beneath the
Research ProjectsAgency(DARPA)andsupported by wing. Consequently, the X-29A lift and drag results
theUnitedStatesAir ForceandtheNationalAeronau- should not be interpreted as definitive for a more opti-
tics and Space Administration (NASA). DARPA then mized high-performance, forward-swept wing aircraft
contracted with three airframe companies to conduct that could be built.
analytical studies for comparing forward- and aft- The X-29A (number 1) was first flown by the
sweep designs for transonic military applications builder on December 14, 1984. There were four
(ref. 34). contractor-builder acceptance flights, and the first
The results of those studies revealed the potential for NASA flight was made on April 2, 1985. This paper
higher lift-to-drag ratios in maneuvering flight, lower
contains results from the dedicated performance flight • Aeroelastically tailored composite wing structure
i ¸ '/ , research phase of the flight program, which followed
• Close coupled, variable incidence canards
the initial envelope expansion work. In the flight phase
i¸ • Hi•
from August to December 1987, a highly instrumented, • Relaxed static stability
i¸,: _ .
Propulsion System
Reference 56 discussed the permissible uncertainty
for several of the most important parameters with
The X-29A was powered by a single General Elec-
respect to the definition of drag coefficient C D. The
tric F404-GE-400 turbofan engine (General Electric, measurement uncertainties considered there were
Lynn, Massachusetts) rated at 16,000 lb of thrust for based on specifications for the various sensors
sea-level static conditions for full afterburner. The noz- that were anticipated, or assumed limitations in the
zle region was relatively clean, as were the various state of the art. Based upon these individual measure-
vents and scoops that accompany turbofan installa- ment uncertainties and on a projected drag coefficient
tions. Additional details about this engine are found in
value from a simulation model, the percentage of drag-
reference 51.
coefficient error was calculated for several flight condi-
Engine air was supplied through two side fuselage- tions. Reference 56 concluded that "to achieve reason-
mounted inlets that merged 18 in. in front of the engine able net uncertainty levels in CD, the maximum limit
face. The inlets were of simple fixed geometry, error in thrust should be near 3 percent." By assuming
designed for optimum performance near M = 0.9 (one a limit thrust error of +3 percent, reference 56 deter-
of the primary design goals). Reference 48 showed
mined that the several other most important error
details of the lip geometry and dimensions.
sources combined to produce a net uncertainty in drag
coefficient of 2.6 and 2.4 percent for level flight and
maximum lift-drag ratio, respectively, at M = 0.9 and
DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
30,000 ft altitude.
6
Table2. Majordata uncertainties. Test Maneuvers and Flight Conditions
Individual
Parameter limit error Pushover-pullup and constant Mach number windup
turns were used to obtain lift and drag throughout the
Longitudinal acceleration _+0.001 g
range of angle of attack covered for this investigation.
Normal acceleration _+0.003 g The pushover (from level flight) covered the lower lift
Static pressure +0.01 percent region; the pullup then reached the medium lift range;
and the windup turn covered the medium to high-
Mach number _+0.004
angle-of-attack range.*
Angle of attack _+0.25° A nominal maneuver began at level flight with
Net thrust +2.5 percent velocity stabilized, A gradual pushover was then initi-
ated followed by a pullup to about a 2-g load factor and
Weight +1.0 percent
a recovery back to level flight. The rate of change in
load factor during the maneuver was about 0.2 g/sec;
and the entire maneuver was achieved in about 20 sec.
Table 3. Uncertainties at M = 0.9 and 30,000 ft.
Maneuvers also were performed at higher and lower
Level flight Maximum L/D onset rates to assess the effects of maneuver rates on
±0.00162 _+0.00196 drag. It was determined from these data (not included
AC D
here) that the 0.2 g/sec rate used for these maneuvers
C D 0.0380 0.0580
provided lift-drag relationships that were not adversely
influenced by the onset rates. To achieve higher load
AC D
, percent +4.3 +3.4 factors windup turns were used. To keep Mach number
C D nearly constant, altitude would sometimes be sacrificed
as load factor was increased. Level flight acceleration
runs also were flown. Reference 59 gave details of
METHOD AND PROCEDURES these and other flight test techniques.
X-29A
The data were reduced through the Uniform Flight
Test Analysis System (UFTAS), a documented but
Basic Drag Polar and Lift Curve Data
unpublished procedure developed by the Air Force-
Flight Test Center, Edwards, California. Reference 48
The basic flight data plotted in figure 6 present lift
described the data correction procedures and the
coefficient as a function of both drag coefficient and
calculation of in-flight thrust. Other significant
angle of attack. The data are presented over the
propulsion-related information is contained in refer-
ences 51 and 53 through 55.
* For the present investigation angles of attack approaching the 15 ° to
200 range are considered high. It is acknowledged that at low speeds the
angle-of-attack range has been extended to 67 ° (refs. 44-46).
Mach-number range from 0.4 to 1.3 in figure parts 6(a) maximum lift-drag ratio over the Mach-number range
through 6(j), respectively. Each part of figure 6 con- of these tests. The breadth of the angle-of-attack
tains trimmed ACC flight data and ACC schedule pre- envelope varies from about 2.5 ° at low subsonic speeds
dictions for trimmed, stable flight. The following to 1.5 ° near the drag-rise Mach number; then the enve-
analysis will concern primarily the ACC schedule flight lope broadens to nearly 3 ° above the drag-rise Mach
data and comparisons with simple theory and some number. The zero-lift angle of attack, ¢x0, also is
contemporary aircraft. The ACC schedule prediction included in the figure.
curves will not be a part of the present analysis. The
only reason that the predicted ACC schedule curves are Lift-Related Drag
included in figure 6 is that they add evidence that the
ACD as
maneuver rates used in the turns and pushovers did not Figure 10 shows the drag-due-to-lift factor
adversely affect the lift-drag characteristics of the air- --z
plane. The data and comparisons for the MCC mode a function of Mach number for the ACC mode. Two
will be limited to one Mach number, M = 0.6. forms of the factor are plotted because the polar shapes
Figure 7 shows drag coefficient plotted as a function for this airplane, in most instances, do not result in a
e
of Mach number for a family of constant lift- linear relationship when C D is plotted against C L .
coefficients (trimmed flight, ACC mode). The solid 2
curves are separated by lift-coefficient increments of Figure 11 is a schematic representation of a plot of C L
0.3. The dashed curve at C L = 0.5 is included because as a function of C D that explains the origin of the open
maximum lift-to-drag ratio occurs close to this condi- and solid symbol values in figure 10. The open symbols
tion throughout the subsonic portion of the Mach- of figure 10 correspond to the slope of the straight-line
number range. At supersonic speeds maximum L/D is fairing, in figure 11, from the upper solid symbol to the
obtained closer to a C L value of 0.6. Excepting the
intersection at CL 2 = 0. The solid symbols of figure 10
dashed curve, notice the increasing increment in drag
coefficient as each 0.3 increment in C L is considered, result from inserting the two C D values represented by
from C L = 0 to 1.2. In spite of the noted increasing lift- the solid symbols of figure 11 into the expression:
related drag, the drag-rise Mach number (indicated by
AC D CD - CDo
tick marks) remains relatively unchanged, except the - (1)
curve for C L = 1.2. The transonic increment of wave CL2 C L2
drag also is evident in this figure. Each of the expres-
sions of drag that have been typeset italic in this for the range of CLfrom 0 to 0.6. This range of C L is
paragraph will be shown and discussed in greater detail considered because it extends near or somewhat
in subsection portions of this paper to follow. beyond the lift coefficient required to achieve maxi-
mum lift-to-drag ratio.
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Figure 10 also shows relationships for the expres-
, . _"
: ...... ?:: _!:i ¸ :_L_)I, '_i
The MDR values from figure 7 have been combined These data are derived from the trimmed flight data of
figure 6, augmented by corresponding data from
with other X-29A data for C L values of 0.8, 1.0, and
reference 47. The level of the lift-curve slope shown in
1.1 and plotted in figure 13 as a function of lift coeffi-
figure 16 is high by usual standards (by a factor of 2 to
cient. The approximate angles of attack that correspond
3). This matter will be discussed in following
to the nearest data symbol are shown.
paragraphs.
It is not surprising that the drag-rise Mach number
An example of how high the values of figure 16 are
decreases significantly for lift coefficients above the
compared with other sources can be seen by relating
design value of 0.92. The legends or captions that
the subsonic values shown and the slope for A --- -30 °
accompany the solid symbols indicate that the
in figure 17. Figure 17, adapted from reference 27,
respective MDR-C L or MDR-a combinations occur
under conditions involving lifting surface buffet as shows an expected CL,_ value between 0.05 and 0.06
for the sweep and aspect-ratio range of the X-29A. This
defined in reference 61. Thus it is reasonable to expect
diminishing values of drag-rise Mach number in this supports the previous comment, in parentheses, about
region, particularly near buffet intensity rise (BIR) for the X-29A slopes appearing to be high by a factor of
from 2 to 3.
the wing.
' : _ , _ii 7
A primary reason for these inordinately high slopes The resulting relationship of the flight-measured and
relates to the variable-wing camber feature, which is predicted lift-curves is shown in the upper portion of
used in the ACC mode. This is evident in figure 18(a) figure 21 for M = 0.6 and _f = 0 °. The same relation-
in which the variable-camber slope of the lift curve for ship is evident in figure 18(a).
the ACC mode can be compared with the slopes for The darkly shaded portions of the planform in figure
three different fixed flaperon settings (or fixed camber) 20 show reasonable added increments of reference area
for the MCC mode at M = 0.6. that can significantly influence the relationship of pre-
The slopes for the three fixed flaperon (camber) set- dicted and measured lift curves. Table 4 shows the
tings are nearly the same, and they are significantly effect of the added increments of reference area on
lower than the slope of the trimmed ACC data. In spite total reference area and aspect ratio.*
of the significantly lower slopes for the X-29A with
fixed flaps, they are still greater than would be Table 4. Actual and hypothetical alternative reference
predicted by the method of Diederich, which accounts areas and aspect ratios.
for the sweep and aspect ratio of the X-29A wing (solid
line curve from ref. 62). AS, S, S',
Description ft2 ft2 ft2 A A"
The three nearly parallel lift curves shown in figure
18 for constant flaperon deflections of-5 °, 0 °, and 5° Basic swept-
\
are characteristic of the data pattern for even higher fla- forward wing - 185 - 4.00 -
peron deflections. That is, higher fixed flaperon deflec- Stationary lift
tions would result in ever lower, to negative, values of surfaces, exposed 27 - 212 - 3.49
angle of attack for zero lift. This is, of course, also Stationary lift surfaces,
characteristic of conventional trailing-edge high-lift projected to centerline 79 - 264 - 2.80
devices that have been used over the last five decades
for takeoff and landing. Figure 19 (adapted from
When these increments of reference area are consid-
ref. 63) shows an example of such a conventional data
ered and the resulting values of S" and aspect-ratio are
set. Notice the high apparent slope of the section lift
applied, the relationships of flight-determined and pre-
curve (added dashed line) when the trailing-edge flap
dicted lift curves are as shown in the two lower
deflection was varied accordingly as angle of attack
portions of figure 21. As can be seen, Diederich's the-
was increased. Thus it would be expected that the
ory from reference 62 (which accounts for sweep,
X-29A in the ACC mode would have a correspond-
aspect-ratio, and compressibility effects) does not
ingly high effective lift curve slope when flaperon
approach the flight-derived lift-curve slope until the
deflection varies from near zero at low lift to nearly 15 °
at the higher angles of attack. That is, the variable cam- largest reference area is used. The authors do not pre-
tend to define the most appropriate reference area;
ber aspects of the X-29A would be expected to provide
however, the relationships shown in figure 21 are
an effectively higher lift-curve slope in the same way
believed to provide evidence that the reference area
as was demonstrated by the high-lift, double-slotted
originally used (S = 185 ft 2) is not the appropriate
flap data shown in figure 19.
Another factor, however, inflates the lift curve value if meaningful comparisons are to be made with
force coefficients from other aircraft. Thus, it is
slopes (and other force coefficient parameters), which
include the wing reference area in their definition. As believed that the inordinately high lift-curve slopes of
the X-29A, as shown in figure 16, have two explainable
mentioned earlier, the three MCC curves in figure 18,
sources--variable wing camber, in ACC mode, and
for fixed flaperon deflections, had lift-curve slopes
unrealistic (too small) reference area.
higher than would be predicted by the method
shown in reference 62. Evidence shows that these Furthermore, these two factors would also be
expected to influence other lift-related parameters,
flight-measured slopes are high because the force coef-
especially lift-induced drag, and the unrealistic
ficients are based on an unreasonably small reference
reference area alone will bias any aerodynamic
area. Figure 20 shows this reference area, S = 185 ft 2,
as the lightly shaded area in the schematic planform. * The exposed "rifting canard" area could also be rationalized to be a portion
of the reference area, but it is not necessary to do this to demonstrate that the
reference area actually used for the X-29A is unreasonably small.
10
parameters containing uncancelled reference areas. For should recall that comparisons on the basis of L/D
example, reference area obviously cannot bias a ratio avoid dependence upon the choice of reference area.
CL 2
The lower part of figure 23 compares maximum
lift-drag ratios for the four aircraft. As was the case for
e-_z. A( CD -CDo ) (2)
the zero-lift drag comparisons, only a selected few
Mach numbers are included for the three contemporar- the lift-related drag of the other aircraft would appear
ies of the X-29A. Below the speed of sound the F-16C to be higher than for the X-29A, below M = 1.
and F/A-18 have higher maximum lift-drag ratios than At Mach numbers above 1 the X-29A lifting effi-
the X-29A or F-15C has. At M = 1.3 the value of ciency as defined by factor K" is low. A value for K" of
maximum lift-drag ratio for the X-29A is near the aver- 1 would represent the theoretical drag-due-to-lift for
age of the values for the other three aircraft. The reader zero leading-edge suction, untrimmed. This suggests,
11
as was mentionedpreviously,that the X-29A is C 2
experiencing
eithersignificanttrim dragfor theACC coefficient as a function of (C L- Lmin) where
modeor increasingshocklosseswith lift at Mach CLmin is the lift coefficient that provides minimum
numbersabovethespeedof sound.ThehigherK" val-
drag coefficient. Thus, the equation used in figure 26(a)
ues for the other three aircraft suggest that their trim
drag was lower. Because these other aircraft are opera- C 2
( C L - Lmin )
tional in significant numbers, it would be expected that is transformed to e =
more effort to reduce trim drag would be expended for
7ta( C D - CDmin ) "
them than for the two X-29A aircraft.
This expression has been applied to the polars
The Effect of Load Factor on Efficiency shown in figure 25 using the CDmin and CL,,,i, relation-
Having established that the parameters e and L/D ships resulting from the CLmi_ values tabulated in the
should be reliable means of avoiding bias of perfor- same figure. The resulting lifting efficiency factors
mance definition caused by an unrealistic reference (now adjusted for asymmetry) are plotted in figure
area, it is also reasonable to examine these parameters 26(b) as a function of load factor.
for several maneuvering load factors. Figure 25 shows According to Oswald's criteria (ref. 60), the highest
lift-drag polars and load factor-C L relationships for of these values of e represent somewhat low lifting effi-
the four aircraft previously considered at M = 0.9. Load ciency for a cantilevered monoplane. However, his cri-
factors from 1 to 3 are indicated on these polars for teria was established without consideration of local
each 0.5 increment of load factor. The significant varia- shock losses, which these configurations experience at
tion in C L, for a given load factor, among the four air- M = 0.9. Effective maneuvering flight at M = 0.9 was
craft indicates why comparisons will be made at an important consideration for these four airplanes.
comparable load factors rather than for a range of con- This, apparently, is why the variation of e with load
stant lift coefficients. factor is relatively small for all four configurations
Figure 26(a) shows the variation of e for the at this Mach number. This range of e values for
four aircraft over the same range of load factors at the three production airplanes, over the range of load
M = 0.9. Note that e is defined according to the equa- factors ([] _/% symbols) is probably representative
tion shown on the figure, which inflates the resulting e of this class of fighter-interceptor aircraft at M = 0.9.
where C D , that is, the drag at zero lift, is not the min- The X-29A aircraft was excluded from the preced-
i mum drag 0 coefficmnt.
. This. xs
. why the apparent values ing statement because of the complicating influence of
of e for the lower load factors for three of the aircraft its greater polar asymmetry and the causal automatic
are artificially high and do not, without qualification, camber. The polar adjustment proposed by Wendt
represent the real lifting efficiency of the respective results in lower values of e for the X-29A. However,
configurations. At higher load factors this problem is
because CDm_n occurs at a substantial positive lift con-
diminished somewhat, especially for load factors of 2
dition, C L = 0.08, lifting efficiency derived in this
and above. However, even at elevated load factors
manner will result in an inordinately harsh definition of
these values of e are not reliable indicators of lifting
e for the X-29A lifting system,* because the airplane
efficiency because of polar asymmetry displayed by
has not been credited for the lift increment below the
three of these configurations. By polar asymmetry it is
CL for C D . .
meant that the minimum drag coefficient, or the vertex
Because"_"olar asymmetry complicates the interpre-
of the parabola, does not occur at C L = O.
tation of the lifting efficiency factor e and three of the
Arguably a better way of defining the lift-induced
drag characteristics (or the lifting efficiency factor e) four subject aircraft display some degree of polar
for various configurations in spite of varying
amounts of polar asymmetry was proposed by Wendt
* The expression lifting system has been chosen deliberately. It is intended to
(ref. 65). Wendt defined e by plotting the drag emphasize that the five values of e for the X-29A (for various load factors)
represent as many wing profile shapes because the ACC schedule represents
preprogrammed variable geometry. In other words, each value of e
represents the lifting efficiency for a specific wing profile and load factor.
12
asymmetry for M = 0.9, lift-to-drag ratio is probably diameter of a body of revolution having the same
a more definitive way of comparing these aircraft at maximum cross-sectional area as the respective
these flight conditions. Consequently figure 26(c) fuselage plus wings, canopy, and empennage. For the
shows the variation of /_/D with load factor for X-29A the maximum cross-sectional area was derived
the same four airplanes. The F-16C and the F/A-18 from the area development curve shown in figure 15.
have lift-drag ratios that are significantly higher Nine-tenths of the inlet capture area was subtracted, for
than the X-29A and F- 15C results for load factors up to all four contemporary aircraft, in an attempt to approx-
2.5. At a load factor of 2 the F-16C and the F/A-18 lift- imate mass-flow ratio effects.
drag ratios are on the order of 1 unit higher than the The results for the X-29A, F-15C, F-16C, and the
X-29A value. The X-29A lift-drag ratio for this condi- F/A-! 8 are included on a plot adapted from reference
tion is about 0.3 units greater than the F-15C. At a load 66 (fig. 28). The ordinate is referenced to the maximum
factor of 3 the X-29A lift-drag ratio is about the aver- cross-sectional area from which the equivalent diame-
age value for the various airplanes. ter was derived (rather than wing reference area). The
Figure 27 presents similar comparisons of e and L/D author of reference 66 included more than 20 other
for three of the airplanes (F-15C data were not avail- configurations in his correlation; and he concluded that
able) for M = 0.6 where compressibility effects should there were three identifiable generations of supersonic
be negligible. Note that for a load factor of 1, all e aircraft, with each subsequent generation tending to
values are below unity, in contrast to the data for have lower wave drag coefficients. It was recognized in
M = 0.9, figure 26(a). This indicates that all three reference 66 that a few of the latest aircraft displayed a
polars for M = 0.6 are essentially symmetrical about regressive trend toward higher transonic wave drag.
zero lift.
This observation is consistent with the wave drag
/ •
Considering both lifting efficiency parameter e and characteristics currently shown for the X-29A, F-15C,
L/D in figure 27, somewhere throughout the load-factor F-16C, and F/A-18 airplanes. The author of reference
range shown each configuration experiences small 66 states that most of the data in his original correlation
advantages or disadvantages in relation to at least one are derived from flight.
of the other airplanes. Note that the rate of loss with Another format for correlating wave drag was
load factor, for each lifting efficiency parameter, is suggested by Bellman in reference 67. This format
nearly the same for the three configurations. For the
retains the wave drag coefficient based on the wing ref-
load-factor range considered and for subcritical speeds, erence area as the ordinate, while the maximum cross-
both of these parameters tend to rank these three air-
sectional area is used in the abscissa as (Ac) to the 5/3
planes as nearly equal. In retrospect, the inequalities
power (an exponent associated with the trSansonic simi-
seen in figure 26, for M = 0.9, would seem primarily to
larity rules) (fig. 29). In this figure all data were derived
represent losses caused by compressibility effects at
lifting conditions. Thus, the lifting efficiency of the from flight. The four contemporary aircraft compared
X-29A was probably penalized significantly by the in previous figures are represented by the solid sym-
actuator fairings and hinges on the wing lower surface bols. Again, as for the format of figure 28, these four
(which would cause greater shock losses than would aircraft are revealed as having relatively high wave
otherwise occur). These protuberances would likely be drag as compared with some significantly older config-
refined or even eliminated for a production version of urations. This is especially evident for the F-15C. The
such an airplane. data which supplement Bellman's original plot were
derived from references 68 through 84.
Wave Drag, Transonic
13
areaS, by S, so that the possibility of having used an Table 5. Zero-lift aero-efficiency: X-29A and con-
arbitrary or debatable reference area is avoided. Then temporary aircraft.
the resulting parasite area, f, is either plotted against
:,I¢
the aircraft wetted area or divided by the wetted area Aircraft C Do C Fe l]a
* For the aircraft configurations considered here, wetted area can be defined
conclusively for nonlifting conditions.
14
transonicspeeds.The designpriority for the X-29A The X-29A lift and drag characteristics are com-
was to get the forward-sweepconcept(alongwith pared with corresponding flight data from contempo-
close-coupledcanardandvariablecamber)into flight rary high-performance operational aircraft. Serious
quickly.Someexternallinesof the X-29A were defined comparisons are made only for those aerodynamic
by components borrowed from other aircraft (the parameters that avoid uncertainties associated with the
forward fuselage, including the canopy, was obtained choice or definition of force coefficient reference area.
from an F-5A), and the fixed inlet was not optimized, A few comparisons are made for cases in which uncan-
which probably caused spillage drag for some flight celled wing reference areas remain so that the risk of
conditions. In addition, it could be argued, the incre- this practice can be demonstrated.
ment in drag or _a between the baseline and clean- The subsonic range of the Oswald lifting
wing values (or at least a significant portion of the efficiency factor, e, for the X-29A is about average for
increment) is a penalty that should be charged to the a monoplane of cantilever construction. When e for the
variable camber feature of the wing. Thus the drag X-29A is compared with the contemporary aircraft at
caused by the external hinges and fairings on the lower elevated load factors (up to 3) for M = 0.6, all three air-
surfaces of the wing can be thought of as a constant craft experience a similar decrease in e as load factor is
increment to be added to the lift-related drag.* increased. Somewhere throughout this load-factor
Referring back to the three contemporary aircraft range each airplane experiences a small advantage or
(F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18) it is obvious that they disadvantage relative to at least one of the other
have relatively high zero-lift drag compared with aircraft.
the empirically established equivalent friction refer- A comparison of the X-29A with these same air-
ence value of 0.003. The X-29A aerodynamic planes on the basis of L/D for M = 0.6 provides similar
efficiency for zero-lift was also challenged by this cri- results. That is, all of these aircraft experience similar
terion. All four of these aircraft were designed to have decreases in lift-to-drag ratio as load factor increases.
high maneuverability at M -- 0.9. It is suggested that Likewise, each airplane has a small advantage (or dis-
this common feature may be an important factor advantage) relative to another aircraft somewhere over
regarding their somewhat low values of lqa. This the load-factor range.
commonality of function is also believed to have influ- At M = 0.9 the X-29A lift-to-drag ratio is compared
enced the cross-sectional area distribution in a manner with those of three contemporary high-performance
that caused these configurations to have relatively high aircraft over the same, 1 to 3, load-factor range.
wave drag coefficients (figs. 28 and 29). Although these kinds of comparisons at M = 0.6
showed results that were similar, at M = 0.9 where
15
. . ,j r i =
fairingsandhinges.Theseprotuberances wouldlikely contemporary aircraft (based on the ratio of the lift
berefinedfora productionversionof suchanairplane. angle to the drag-due-to-lift factor). This is believed to
All fourairplanes werecompared withaircraftof the be caused by high trim drag, perhaps inherent in the
previousthreeto four decades on the basisof wave particular blending of the three longitudinal control
dragandsubsonic aerodynamic cleanness.As a group surfaces of the X-29A in the automatic eamber control
thesefour aircraftarecharacterized by highwavedrag mode. Because the other three aircraft are operational
andhigh equivalentparasitearea(pooraerodynamic and produced in large quantities, it would be expected
cleanness) whencompared with theolderairplanes. It that greater effort would be devoted to reducing trim
is suggested thatthedesignmissionsof theX-29Aand drag for them than for the X-29A, which was an exper-
thethreecontemporary aircraft(thatis,highmaneuver- imental technology demonstrator.
ability for M --- 0.90 and altitude in the 30,000-to
40,000-ft range) were important factors in causing the Dryden Flight Research Center
relatively high wave drag and equivalent parasite area. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
At supersonic speeds the lift-related drag of the Edwards, California, September 14, 1993
X-29A is high compared with that for the three
16
REFERENCEs 15. Conner, D. William and Patrick A. Cancro,
Low-Speed Characteristics in Pitch of a 34 °
1. Munk, Max M., Note on the Relative Effect of the Di- Swept-forward Wing With Circular-Arc Airfoil
hedral and the Sweep Back of Airplane Wings, Sections, NACA RM No. L7F04a, Jan. 1948.
NACA TN-177, Jan. 1924. 16. Diederich, Franklin W. and Bernard Budiansky,
2. Lademann, Robert W.E., Development of Tailless Divergence of Swept Wings, NACA TN-1680,
and All-Wing Gliders and Airplanes, NACA 1948.
TM-666, Apr. 1932. 17. Spearman, M. Leroy and Paul Comisarow, An In-
3. Heinze, Edwin P.A., The Dreieck I Tailless Airplane vestigation of the Low-Speed Static Stability Char-
(German), A Low-Wing Cantilever Monoplane, acteristics of Complete Models Having Sweptback
NACA AC-159, Mar. 1932. and SwepO_orward Wings, NACA RM No. L8H31,
4. Knight, Montgomery and Richard W. Noyes, Span- 1948.
Load Distribution as a Factor in Stability in Roll, 18. McCormack, Gerald M. and Woodrow L. Cook, A
NACA Report No. 393, 1931. Study of Stall Phenomena on a 45 ° Swept-Forward
5. Busemann, A., "Aerodynamischer Auftrieb bei Wing, NACA TN-1797, 1949.
lJberschallgeschwindigkeit," [Aerodynamic Lift 19. McCormack, Gerald M. and Woodrow L. Cook,
at Supersonic Speeds], Luftfahrtforschung, vol. 12, Effects of Several Leading-Edge Modifications on
no. 6, Oct. 3, 1935, pp. 210-220. the Stalling Characteristics of a 45 ° Swep-Forward
6. Jones, Robert T., Properties of Low-Aspect-Ratio Wing, NACA RM No. A9D29, 1949.
Pointed Wings at Speeds Below and Above the 20. McCormack, Gerald M. and Woodrow L. Cook,
Speed of Sound, NACA Report No. 835, 1946. Effects of Boundary-Layer Control on the Longitu-
7. Jones, Robert T., Wing Plan Forms for High-Speed dinal Characteristics of a 45 ° Swept-Forward
Flight, NACA Report No. 863, 1947. Wing-Fuselage Combination, NACA RM No.
8. Bowers, Peter M., Unconventional Aircraft, 2nd ed., A9K02a, 1950.
Tab Books, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, 1990. 21. Graham, Robert R., Lateral-Control Investigation
9. Walker, Bryce, Fighting Jets, Time-Life Books Inc., at a Reynolds Number of 5,300, 000 of a Wing of As-
Alexandria, VA, 1983. pect Ratio 5.8 SwepO_orward 32 ° at the Leading
10. Hoerner, Sighard F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Dr.-Ing. Edge, NACA RM No. L9H18, Feb. 1950.
S.F. Hoerner, Midland Park, NJ 07432, 1965. 22. Martina, Albert P. and Owen J. Deters, Maximum
11. Stone, Ralph W., Jr. and Lee T. Daughtridge, Jr., Lift and Longitudinal Stability Characteristics at
Free-Spinning, Longitudinal-Trim, and Tumbling Reynolds Numbers up to 7.8 x 106 of a 35°Swept -
Tests of 1/17.8-Scale Models of the Cornelius forward Wing Equipped With High-Lift and Stall-
XFG-1 Glider, NACA MR-L5K21, Jan. 1946. Control Devices, Fuselage, and Horizontal Tail,
12. Alexander, Sidney R., Drag Measurements of a 34 ° NACA RM No. L9H18a, Feb. 1950.
Swept-Forward and Swept-Back NACA 65-009 23. Hopkins, Edward J., Lift, Pitching Moment, and
Airfoil of Aspect-Ratio 2.7 as Determined by Flight Span Load Characteristics of Wings at Low Speed
Tests at Supersonic Speeds, NACA RM No. L6111, as Affected by Variations of Sweep and Aspect Ra-
Feb. 1947. tio, NACA TN-2284, Jan. 1951.
13. Whitcomb, Richard T., An Investigation of 24. Whitcomb, Richard T., An Experimental Study at
the Effects of Sweep on the Characteristics of a Moderate and High Subsonic Speeds of the Flow
High-Aspect-Ratio Wing in the Langley 8-Foot Over Wings With 30 ° and 45 ° of Sweepforward in
High-Speed Tunnel, NACA RM No. L6J01a, 1947. Conjunction With a Fuselage, NACA RM
•- ,,•/ 14. McCormack, Gerald M. and Victor I. Stevens, Jr., No. L50K28, June 1951.
An Investigation of the Low-Speed Stability and 25. Purser, Paul E. and M. Leroy Spearman, Wind-
Control Characteristics of Swept-Forward and Tunnel Tests at Low Speed of Swept and
Swept-Back Wings in the Ames 40-By-80 Foot Yawed Wings Having Various Plan Forms,
Wind Tunnel, NACA RM No. A6K15, 1947. NACA TN-2445, Dec. 1951. Supersedes NACA
RM No. L7D23.
-5:' •
17
5/< "_••
_!,i_¸,1/? ':i
26. Furlong, G. Chester and James G. McHugh, A 37. Uhuad, G.C., T.M. Weeks, and R. Large, "Wind
Summary and Analysis of the Low-Speed Longi- Tunnel Investigation of the Transonic Aerody-
tudinal Characteristics of Swept Wings at High namic Characteristics of Forward Swept
Reynolds Number, NACA Report 1339, 1957. Wings," J. Aircraft, vol. 20, no. 3, Mar. 1983.
•u ¸, 27. Hoerner, Sighard F. and Henry V. Borst, 38. Spacht, G., "The Forward Swept Wing: A
Fluid-Dynamic Lift, Mrs. Liselotte A. Hoerner, Unique Design Challenge," AIAA-80-1885,
Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick Town, NJ AIAA Aircraft Systems Meeting, Anaheim, CA,
08723, 1975. Aug. 4-6,1980.
28. Taylor, John W.R., ed., Jane's All the Worlds
39. Moore, M. and D. Frei, "X-29 Forward Swept
Aircraft 1970-71, Jane's Yearbooks, London Wing Aerodynamic Overview," AIAA-83-1834,
W1A 2LG, England, 1971. AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Dan-
29. Krone, Norris J., Jr., Lt. Col., "Divergence vers, MA, July 13-15, 1983.
Elimination with Advanced Composites," AIAA 40. Nangia, R.K., ed., Proceedings International
Paper No. 75-1009, AIAA 1975 Aircraft Sys- Conference, Forward Swept Wing Aircraft, Uni-
tems and Technology Meeting, Los Angeles, versity of Bristol, Bristol, U.K. March 24-26,
CA, Aug. 4-7, 1975. 1982.
30. Huffman, Jarrett K. and Charles H. Fox, Jr., Sub- 41. Putnam, Terrill W., X-29 Flight-Research Pro-
sonic Longitudinal and Lateral-Directional Stat- gram, NASA TM-86025, 1984.
ic Aerodynamic Characteristics for a Close- 42. Sefic, Walter J. and Cleo M. Maxwell, X-29A
Coupled Wing-Canard Model in Both Swept Back Technology Demonstrator Flight Test Program
and Swept Forward Configurations, NASA Overview, NASA TM-86809, 1986.
TM-74092, 1978.
43. Sefic, Walter, J. and William Cutler, "X-29A
31. Huffman, Jarrett K. and Charles H. Fox Jr., Sub- Advanced Technology Demonstrator Program
sonic Longitudinal and Lateral-Directional Overview," AIAA-86-9727, AIAA/AHS/CASI/
Static Aerodynamic Characteristics for a Model DGLR/IES/ISA/ITEA/SEP/FTE 3rd Flight Test-
with Swept Back and Swept Forward Wings, ing Conference, Las Vegas, NV, Apr. 2--4 1986.
NASA TM-74093, 1978.
44. Fisher, David F., David M. Richwine, and
32. Huffman, Jarrett K. and Charles H. Fox, Jr., The
Stephen Landers, Correlation of Forebody Pres-
Effect of Canard Relative Size and Vertical
sures and Aircraft Yawing Moments on the
Location on the Subsonic Longitudinal and X-29A Aircraft at High Angles of Attack, NASA
Lateral-Directional Static Aerodynamic Char- TM-4417, 1992.
acteristics for a Model with a Swept Forward 45. Del Frate, John H. and John A. Saltzman, In-
Wing, NASA TM-78739, 1979.
Flight Flow Visualization Results from the
33. Ricketts, Rodney H. and Robert V. Dogget Jr., X-29A Aircraft at High Angles of Attack, NASA
Wind-Tunnel Experiments on Divergence of TM-4430, 1992.
Forward-Swept Wings, NASA TP-1685, 1980.
46. Webster, Fredrick R. and Dana Purifoy, "X-29
34. "Forward-Swept Wing Potential Studied," Avi-
High Angle-of-Attack Flying Qualities," AF-
ation Week and Space Technology, Jan. 29, FTC-TR-91-15, July 1991. (Available to U.S.
1979.
government agencies and contractors; others
35. Krone, N.J., Jr., "Forward Swept Wing Flight should contact WL/FIMT, Wright-Patterson
Demonstrator," AIAA-80-1882, AIAA Aircraft AFB, OH 45433-6523.)
Systems and Technology Meeting, Anaheim, 47. Huckabone, Thomas C., and Harry C. Walker
CA, Aug. 4-6, 1980. III, "Performance Evaluation of the X-29A Re-
36. L6bert, G., "Spanwise Lift Distribution of search Aircraft," AFFTC-TR-87-51, Mar. 1988.
Forward-and Aft-Swept Wings in Comparison 48. Hicks, John W. and Thomas Huckabone, Prelim-
to the Optimum Distribution Form," AIAA
inary Flight-Determined Subsonic Lift and Drag
81-4187, J. Aircraft, vol. 18, no. 6, June 1981. Characteristics of the X-29A Forward-
Swept- Wing Airplane, NASA TM- 100409, 1989.
18
49. Hicks, John W. and Bryan J. Moulton, Effects of 60. Oswald, W. Bailey, General Formulas and Charts
Maneuver Dynamics on Drag Polars of the X-29 for the Calculation of Airplane Performance,
• /7:
Forward-Swept-Wing Aircraft With Automatic NACA Report No. 408, 1932.
Wing Camber Control, NASA TM-100422, 1988. 61, Friend, Edward L., Initial Flight Buffet Character-
50. Gera, J., J.T. Bosworth, and T.H. Cox, X-29A istics of the X-29A Airplane Including Compari-
Flight Test Techniques and Results: Flight Con- sons With Other Contemporary Designs, NASA
trols, NASA TP-3121, 1991. TM-4159, 1990. (ITAR restricted; available from
•_i; •31
51. Alexander, R.I. and R.J. Ray, Development and AFWAL/FIF, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.)
Flight Test of a Real-Time Thrust Measurement 62. Diederich, Franklin W., A Plan-Form Parameter
Technique on the X-29A/F404 Advanced Technolo- for Correlating Certain Aerodynamic Characteris-
gy Demonstrator, NASA TM-101707, 1989. tics of Swept Wings, NACA TN-2335, Apr. 1951.
i"
(Available to U.S. government agencies and con- 63. Abbott, Ira H., and Albert E. Von Doenhoff, Theo-
tractors; others should contact WL/FIMT, Wright- ry of Wing Sections, Dover Publications, Inc., New
Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6523.) York, NY, 1959.
52. Richardson, Norman R. and Albin O. Pearson, 64. Peters, G.E., S.L. Parker, C.M. Pulley, and B.R.
IL• • i'_• Wind-Tunnel Calibrations of a Combined Pitot- Williams, "F/A-18 Basic Aerodynamic Data (U),"
Static Tube, Vane-Type Flow-Direction Transmit- Report No. MDC A8575, McDonnell Aircraft
ter, and Stagnation-Temperature Element at Mach Company, St. Louis, MO 63166, Mar. 1984.
Numbers from 0.60 to 2.87, NASA TN-D-122, 65. Wendt, R.E., "A Method of Airplane Performance
1959.
Calculation Applicable to Any Polar," J. Aeronaut.
53. Ray, Ronald J., Evaluation of Various Thrust Cal- Sci., vol. 14, no. 4, Apr. 1947, pp. 243-250.
culation Techniques on an F404 Engine, NASA 66. Jobe, Charles E., "Prediction of Aerodynamic
TP-3001, 1990. Drag," AFWAL-TM-84-203, Flight Dynamics
54. Bums, Maureen E. and Thomas A. Kirchgessner, Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Labo-
Airflow Calibration and Exhaust PressureTemper- ratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH
ature Survey of an F404, S/N 215-109, Turbofan 45433, July 1984.
Engine, NASA TM-100159, 1987. 67. Bellman, Donald R., A Summary of Flight Deter-
55. Conners, Timothy R., Measurement Effects on the mined Transonic Lift and Drag Characteristics of
Calculation of In-Flight Thrust for an F404 Turbo- Several Research Airplane Configurations, NASA
fan Engine, NASA TM-4140, 1989. MEMO 3-3-59H, Apr. 1959.
56. Powers, Sheryll Goecke, Predicted X-29A Lift 68. Nugent Jack, Lift and Drag of the Bell X-5 Re-
and Drag Coefficient Uncertainties Caused search Airplane in the 45 ° Sweptback Configura-
by Errors in Selected Parameters, NASA tion at Transonic Speeds, NACA RM No. H56E02,
TM-86747, 1985. July 1956.
57. Keller, Thomas L. and Robert F. Keuper, Compar- 69. Saltzman, Edwin J. and William P. Asher, Tran-
ison of the Energy Method With the Accelerometer sonic Flight Evaluation of the Effects of Fuse-
Method of Computing Drag Coefficients From lage Extension and Indentation on the Drag of a
Flight Data, NACA CB No. 5H31, Oct. 1945. 60 ° Delta-Wing Interceptor Airplane, NACA
58. Beeler, De E., Donald R. Bellman, and Edwin J. RM No. H57E29, Sept. 1957.
Saltzman, Flight Techniques for Determining Air- 70. Carman, L. Robert and John R. Carden, Lift and
plane Drag at High Mach Numbers, NACA TN- Drag Coefficients for the Bell X-1 Airplane
3821, Aug. 1956. (8-Percent-Thick Wing) in Power-Off Transonic
59. Hicks, John W., James M. Cooper, Jr., and Walter Flight, NACA RM No. L51E08, June 1951.
J. Sefic, Flight Test Techniques for the X-29A Air- 71. Saltzman, Edwin J., Flight Measurements of Lift
craft, NASA TM-88289, 1987. and Drag for the Bell X-1 Research Airplane
Having a lO-Percent-Thick Wing, NACA RM
No. L53F08, Sept. 1953.
19
72. Rolls, L. Stewart and Rodney C. Wingrove, An tained in Exploratory Flights to a Mach Number
Investigation of the Drag Characteristics of a of 2.0, NACA RM No. L54F03, Aug. 1954.
Tailless Delta-Wing Airplane in Flight, Includ- 83. Bellman, Donald R. and Edward D. Murphy,
ing Comparison with Wind-Tunnel Data, NASA Lift and Drag Characteristics of the Douglas
MEMO 10-8-58A, Nov. 1958. X-3 Research Airplane Obtained During Dem-
73. Purser, Paul E., Comparison of Wind-TunneL onstration Flights to a Mach Number of 1.20,
Rocket, and Flight Drag Measurements for NACA RM No. H54117, Dec. 1954.
Eight Airplane Configurations at Mach Num- 84. Saltzman, Edwin J., Donald R. Bellman, and
bers Between 0.7 and 1.6, NACA RM No. Norman T. Musialowski, Flight-Determined
L54F18, Sept. 1954. Transonic Lift and Drag Characteristics of the
74. Nugent, Jack, Lift and Drag of a Swept-Wing YF-102 Airplane With Two Wing
Fighter Airplane at Transonic and Supersonic Configurations, NACA RM No. H56E08, July
Speeds, NASA MEMO 10-1-58H, Jan. 1959. 1956.
75. Arnaiz, Henry H., Flight-Measured Lift and 85. Corning, Gerald, Supersonic and Subsonic
Drag Characteristics of a Large, Flexible, High Airplane Design, 3rd edition, College Park,
Supersonic Cruise Airplane, NASA TM X-3532, MD, 1970.
May 1977. 86. Stinton, Darrol, The Design of the Aeroplane,
76. Pyle, Jon S. and Louis L. Steers, Flight- Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1983.
Determined Lift and Drag Characteristics of an 87. Perkins, Courtland D. and Robert E. Hage, Air-
F-8 Airplane Modified With a Supercritical Wing plane Performance Stability and Control, John
With Comparisons to Wind-Tunnel Results, NASA Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1949.
TM X-3250, June 1975. 88. Wong, Kent J., "AFTI/F-111 Mission Adaptive
77. Cooper, James M., Jr., Donald L. Hughes, and Wing Lift and Drag Flight Test Results, Volume
Kenneth Rawlings III, "Transonic Aircraft • I," AFFTC-TR-87-02, Apr. 1987. (Distribution
Technology--Flight-Derived Lift and Drag restricted to U.S. government agencies only.
Character-istics, Volume I of II," AFFTC-TR- Other requestors should contact AFTI/F-111
77-12, July 1977. (MAW) Program Office (AFWAL/FIMF),
78. Finley, D.B., "Final F-16XL Aerodynamic Sta- Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6503.)
tus Report and Flight Test Results," CDRL Se- 89. Fox, M.K. and E.A. Wadsworth, "Correlation of
quence Number 3008, DI-E-3135/M) Contract the Supersonic Thrust and Drag of the B-58A
F33657-78G-0004-0009, Sept. 1985. Airplane," General Dynamics Report
79. Saltzman, Edwin J. and Darwin J. Garringer, FZA-4-415, Dec. 1963.
Summary of Full-Scale Lift and Drag 90. Ames Research Center, Collected Works of Robert
Characteristics of the X-15 Airplane, NASA TN T. Jones, NASA TM X-3334, Feb. 1976.
D-3343, 1966. 91. Munk, Max M., The Minimum Induced Drag of
80. Bellman, Donald R., Lift and Drag Characteris- Aerofoils, NACA Report No. 121, 1921.
tics of the Bell X-5 Research Airplane at 59 ° 92. Prandtl, L., Applications of Modern Hydrodynam-
Sweepback for Mach Numbers From 0.60 to ics to Aeronautics, NACA Report No. 116, 1921.
1.03, NACA RM No. L53A09c, Feb. 1953. 93. Prandtl, L. and O. G. Tietjens, Applied Hydro- and
81. Bellman, Donald R. and Thomas R. Sisk, Pre- Aeromechanics, Dover Publications, Inc., New
liminary Drag Measurements of the Consolidat- York, 1957.
ed Vultee XF-92A Delta-Wing Airplane in Flight 94. Walker, Harold J., Performance Evaluation Meth-
Tests to a Mach Number of 1.01, NACA RM No. od for Dissimilar Aircraft Designs, NASA
.... ii
L53J23, Jan. 1954. RP-1042, 1979.
82. Nugent, Jack, Lift and Drag Characteristics of
,_'L_ _
the Douglas D-558-H Research Airplane Ob-
_i._i_
__i_i•i_
ii 20
_ii_
i:_.
_
r ¸ "IH _ '_'/ ' < " L " ', ,_(_ • "_, " L . •, • _' , '. •_ _ • , r ¸
Wing flaperons
Nose strakes
Strake flap
A
48ftl in.
section
F-5A nose ._
14ft
9.5 in.
/
Strake flap
Figure 1. X-29Aairplane.
21
-i _ _E i ¸, _ i • •
Figure 1. Concluded.
22
6
Aeroelastic
_-- Inlet side increment
\
\
Canard 0.9 M, 30,000 ft
tip 5og maneuver
wing --,\
/
/
/
/
/
\\\1 /
/
/
Otwist,
deg
Device
increment
/- Body side
I I I I
.4 .6 .8 1.0
Semispan
/
Airfoil true chord line --/
23
" .?_
Forward
i__ _,
position
Maneuver
position
930612
40
TED Note: Limits obtained
30 from ref. 47
20
\\\\\\\\_
10
\\ \\ \ \-,X,,x \ \ \ x x x x x x _..x._
0 Maxi m um =afl:°r_wab/e_
_
canard deflection
Canard -10
position,
m
deg -20
-30
Minimum allowable
-40 canard deflection
_\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \_
-50
-60 "\\\\\\\\\\\\
TEU
-70 I I I I I I I I I
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Angle of attack, deg 930613
(a) Canard.
Figure 4. Permissible longitudinal control surface deflections.
24
25 //I/Ill/IllIll
TED
20
Limit
15
Flaperon 10
deflection,
/ ii1,,',;
deg 5
-5--
TEU
-10 I I I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930614
(b) Flaperon.
Pressure altitude
35--
15,000
TED, 20,000 ft
TEU
30--
lO,OOO
it /- zo,ooo
25--
Sea level
Strake 20
flap
deflection, 15
deg
10
I
i
" i'I, , I I I I I I
L.:
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930615
Figure 4. Concluded.
25
Basic parameters Structures
• Airdata (9) • Strain gauges (112)
• Angles of attack and sideslip (4) • Optical deflection measurement
• Pitch, roll, and yaw attitudes, rates, system (12)
and accelerations (10)
• Center-of-gravity accelerations (6) Aerodynamic
• Engine speed, temperature, pressure, • Wing/strake static pressure (152)
and nozzle positions (21) • Canard static pressures (29)
• Surface positions (9)
Miscellaneous
Flight-control system • Hydraulic (9)
• Computer parameters (429 bus) (64) • Electrical (10)
• Stick, rudder pedal position, and • Temperature (46)
forces (6) • Vibration (8)
• Cockpit accelerations (2) • Other (22)
_ 26
1.6
I I I I I I Io I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(_
1.6
I I I I I I Io_ol I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I I I I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 930617
Figure 6. Lift curves and drag polars for Mach numbers from 0.4 to 1.3; ACC schedule.
27
16 I I I I I I I _# I
O Trimmed flight data __.
1.4 m _ ACC
1.2
)
1.0
• ", • ,
CL .8
i_i i_
,_
i_:?i¸ .6
i I:, "_: i
4/
.2
0
I I I I I I I i 0
1.6
1.4
1.2
1,0
CL .8
.6
I I I I I I I I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 930618
Figure 6. Continued.
28
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
L i
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 -- -- ACC schedule
1.2
_ !i ¸_:
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(x
I I I I I I I I I
0 Trimmed flight data
ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I
•05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 930619
Figure 6. Continued.
29
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(X
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 -- ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I¸ I
.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 93_20
Figure 6. Continued.
30
I J ! I I I I o
I f I I I I
% m
ID
E_
rm
GO
_D
!
mEC_
_O
I I I J I I I I I I I I I I
0
_ _ Tm • m • 0
Tu lira Tm Tm
ml
.... I L • • • r
1.6
I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 _
I I I
ACC schedule
I I I I
1.2 m o d_r_
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
C_
1.6 I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 m _ ACCschedule
1.2 o°_°
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 ,30 .35 .40 .45 .50
:7.... i
CD 930622
32
1.2
/
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
C_
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6 B
.4 m
.2 m
I I I I I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 •25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 930623
Figure 6. Continued.
33
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 -- ACC schedule
J
1.2 --
!_ 'i i _
1.0 --
CL .8 --
i< '"
•6 --
•4 --
•2 --
I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2O
C_
1.6 I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1,4 -- ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL
I 1 I I I I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 930624
Figure 6. Continued.
34
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
C_
1.6
I I I I I I I I I•
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I I
0
.20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD
930625
Figure 6. Continued.
35
1.6
I I I I I I l I I
O Trimmed flight data
1.4 -- ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
C_
1.6
I I I I I I I I I
0 Trimmed flight data
1.4 ACC schedule
1.2
1.0
CL .8
.6
.4
.2
I I I I I I I
0 •05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD 930626
36
LE
•opotu DDV 'lq_.tlJ pztutu.ul '.luo!3_oo3 1j.z1 ltrelsuoo aoj .Ioqttmu qOelAI tlI.ZA_
luo.zoUjzo_ _e.lp JO uo.zle.UeA "Lz.m_El
L_90_6
.zeqmnu qoelN
tz'L _'1. O'L 8" 9" t," ;_" 0
I I I I I ] ;_0"
t'O"
90"
_0 "_/ _" ""-'-
80"
OL"
i gL'
00
-- tTl."
9L"
8L"
0_" ]-
. (-
_"
I I I I I [ t'i:"
10
8
[] [] []
LID
[] []
-O-
[] Maximum (for= hp
At design (M 0.9)= CL
30,000 ft)
of 0.92 "'0.
4 I I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930628
Figure 8. Variation of lift-drag ratio with Mach number; trimmed flight, ACC control mode.
38
1.0
.8
CL range for 95
percent of __._
(L/D)max --_
CL .6
.4
.2 I I I I I I I
10
range for 95
percent of
(LID)max _
deg
4
2 (x0
I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930629
Figure 9. Lift coefficients and angles of attack that provide 95 to 100 percent of maximum lift-drag ratio; and angle
of attack for zero-lift; trimmed flight in ACC mode.
39
.20 I I I I I I
ACD/ACL 2
•
o o o
.08 1//_A_
.o4 I t I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930630
Figure 10. Variation of drag-due-to-lift factor with Mach number; trimmed flight, ACC mode.
CD at CL = 0.6
CL2
CD at CL = 0, CD0
0
CD 930631
9
Figure 11. The CL-C o relationship for illustrating the origin of two definitions of drag-due-to-lift factor for a
constant Mach number.
40
L ,
Sz •
1.0 1.0
I I I I I I []
0 • []
0 • []
.8 --
0 0 •
e
0
These data derived from 0
•6 m
respective solid or open
.6
symbols of figure 10
O e scale
[] K' scale
.4 I I I I I I .4
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930632
Figure 12. Variation of airplane lifting efficiency factors, e and K', with Mach number;, trimmed flight, ACC
mode.
MDR
.8
L.%o
I L/D max -I I
,o
.7
I I D ,go \
I CLfor I CL _ 9.5 °
.6
.5
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2
, 1.4
CL
Figure 13. Relationship of drag-rise Mach number with CL , angle of attack, and some secondary flight conditions;
ACC mode.
41
.08
I I I I I I
.O6
CD 0 .04
s °wav __
.O2
I I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mach number
930634
Figure 14. Variation of zero-lift-drag coefficient with Mach number and illustration of transonic wave drag
increment; trimmed flight, ACC mode.
20
Cross 16
sectional
area,
ft 2 12
I /
I I I I I I
0 1 O0 200 300 400 500 600 700
Fuselage station, in. 93o_s
42
•i _?_•,i_i 'ii"il _
.24
I I I I I I I I I
O From fig. 6
12 Averages from
.20 ref. 47
CL_' .16
deg-1
.12
.08 I I I I I I I
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Mach number
93063
Figure 16. Variation of lift-curve slope with Mach number; trimmed flight, ACC mode
1 1
_'_- oTheory in 2-dimensiona
w, dC L/do_ - cosA_
\'._,_ -
\_
k
-30 0
Angle of sweep A°I4
J
30
1
60
. 90
'/
930637
Figure 17. Lift-curve slopes of wings having aspect ratios between 3 and 4 (ref. 27).
43
1,6 R
1.2 - "_'_*" o
(a) Lift-curve.
I I _e_ I I o I I I "1 I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50
CD
930639
Figure 18. Comparison of results from ACC and MCC modes for,X-29A at M = 0.6 and h = 30,000 ft (MCC also
trimmed flight data).
44
/
3.6
3.
deg 7 _' >/ ' _t>55
x: i ¸¸ • !
,/I ¢
,,/
cI
/ /
y.
_ 'x'!
-1.2
-24 -16
5/ -8 0 8 16 24
_, deg
930640
Figure 19. NACA airfoil section with 0.309c double-slotted flap (low speed) (ref. 63).
E
45
Wing reference area,
S = 185 ft 2
46
Flight
!_ _ i¸ .... Theory,
ref. 62
/ ,r ,
i•: ¸¸ •i
.6--
S' = 212 ft 2
A' = 3.49
CL
.4 __
.2 -- ,-"
o-'"_/I f I I
.6|,--- S' = 264 ft2
/ A' = 2.80
.4
CL
::
I
0 2 4 6 8 10
(x, deg
93O642
Figure 21. Comparison of flight-measured lift-curve with theory for three reference areas; M = 0.6, _5/ = 0°;
X-29A in MCC mode.
47
•uoil]az popeqs ,_q paugap 'S 'gaae
a_ua_o_ia_ '.l_a_o_ ,qaletu!xo_dd_ s! uo!lg_nl]guoo q_eo jo oIe_S '.l,Ie.Io.[!ethe_odtualuo'o aa_tO ptm V6E-X jo sttuojueid "EE o_n_!: I
oO
.08
I I I
O X-29A, ACC mode 0
0
[] F-15C
,O6 O0
F-16C
A F/A-18
.04 0
CD 0
0 0
0 0 0
A
.02
0 I I I I I I
12
I I I I I I
<>
A
10
O
O O
2
O
[]
L/D, 8--
maximum O
6 m
O
O
4 I I I I I I
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach number
93O644
Figure 23. Variation of zero-lift-drag coefficient and maximum L/D with Mach number for X-29A and three con-
temporary aircraft.
49
.3
I I
O X-29A, ACC mode a
[] F-15C
.2
_ F-16C
[]
o
AC D a F/A-18 O
ACL2 O
O
.1 O O 0
O C) C)
0
I I I I I
1.2
I I I I I
J_
e
1.0 I I I
(no flags) o" o"
and o.o"
K' O
a
(flags) .8 _ O 8O
a
.6 I I I [] I I
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.I 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach number
930645
Figure 24. Variation of drag-due-to-lift factor and lifting efficiency factors (e and K') with Mach number for
X-29A and three contemporary aircraft.
_i:.i ¸
I]_L" i
?L i_!_ _,.
_I_-'i_:/!i
;:__!ii
_ .... ,,i ¸ ' -i, '
:i _ i ¸ ii:_i i/
, !c
_i _ : i
.8 m
CLmin denoted by <
0.05 /_ F/A-18
az, g
0 [] F-15C
.7-- 0.04 _F-16C
i ; 0.08 O X-29A, ACC mode
Example: solid symbols for az = 2.0
M=0.9
o6 --
hp = 30,000 to 36,000 ft
;[ i( : •5 --
CL .4
•3 -- 1.5<
I o
I I I I I
0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10
CD
930646
Figure 25. Relationship of lift and drag coefficients for contemporary aircraft at several constant load factors.
,:' [
7i' i ,_
: i _ •_,i:i
51
-5 :•
2.0
• X-29A, ACC mode
(
[] F-15C
_ F-16C
1.6 -- A F/A-18
Z_ CL2
Where e =
_. A(C D - CD0 )
m
e 1.2<>---
<>
.8[ []
[]
[] l
.4 I I I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
az, g 930647
1.6
I I
Wheree= (C L-C Lmin) 2
• X-29A, ACC mode
[] F-15C _;" A(CD- CDmin)
,4 I I I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.[
az' g 9_,,,=8
Figure 26. Variation of efficiency parameters e and L/D with load factor for four contemporary aircraft;
M = 0.90.
52
12
I J I
10
2 O
A
<
L/D 8< --
[]
4 I I I
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
az, g 930649
53
1.2
I I I 12
I I
CL2 • X-29A, ACC mode
Where e =
1.0 F-16C
F _" A(CD- CD0 ) --
10'
A F/A-18
.8 8
O LID
.6 6 O
•4 -- 4
.2 I I 2 I I I
1.( 1,5 1.0
2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
az' g az' g 930650
Figure 27. Variation of efficiency parameters e and L/D with load factor for three contemporary aircraft; M = 0.60.
4 -02 • ff]24
" _ 40 1-127
' _ c_5 Generations
CDwave .3 _ 30 ...__4k__2_O _26 of supersonic
I __ 1_ aircraft
.1 _- {-S_ars_:aCdkra _ TShiC;nd
0 Y I I I I I
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fineness ratio, _/d
930651
Figure 28. Comparision of transonic wave drag as determined for X-29A and three contemporary aircraft, with
correlation of reference 66.
54
ii/ i •
.10 • X-29A O
• F-15C
F-16C
.08 • F/A-18
O
O Other aircraft
.06 OO
O
AC
"-_-" CDwave
0 0
.04
•0 0
.O2
I I I I I I I I
o .ol .o2 .o3 .o4 .o_ .o8 .o_ .o8
(Ao/s)S/3 930652
Figure 29. Relationship of wave drag increment to reference-area ratio factor for X-29A, three contemporary air-
craft, and several other airplanes.
55
C_
CFe
CFe = CD0-
f,
equivalent
parasite
area, 101
ft 2
• X-29A
• F-16C
A. F/A-18
[7 Ref. 85
/_ Refs. 69,70,74,75,
77,78,81,82,88,89,
and unpublished
10 0 I I I IIIIII I I I IIII /
10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5
Wetted area, ft 2
930653
Figure 30. Relationship of equivalent parasite area and 6_e to total wetted area for several aircraft at subsonic Mach numbers; flight data.
APPENDIX problem and to accredit a means of circumvention,
Having emphasized the problem and offered a solution,
COMMENTS ON PROCEDURES FOR mention of this will be added to the concluding
DEFINING AIRCRAFT DRAG remarks.
57
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form
Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
6. AUTHOR(S) WU 505-68-50
7.
PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
NAME(S)
ANDADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
P.O. Box 273
H-1913
Edwards, California 93523-0273
SPONSORING/MONOTORING
AGENCYNAME(S)
ANDADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORINGJMONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES
Unclassified--Unlimited
Subject Category 05, 02
Lift (L) and drag (D) characteristics have been obtained in flight for the X-29A airplane (a
forward-swept-wing demonstrator) for Mach numbers (M) from 0.4 to 1.3. Most of the data
were obtained near an altitude of 30,000 ft. A representative Reynolds number, for M = 0.9 and
a pressure altitude of 30,000 ft, is 18.6 x 106 based on the mean aerodynamic chord. The X-29A data
(forward-swept wing) are compared with three high-performance fighter aircraft--the F-15C, F-16C,
and F/A18. The lifting efficiency of the X-29A, as defined by the Oswald lifting efficiency factor, e, is
about average for a cantilevered monoplane for M = 0.6 and angles of attack up to those required for
maximum L/D. At M - 0.6 the level of L/D and e, as a function of load factor, for the X-29A was
about the same as for the contemporary aircraft. The X-29A and its contemporaries have high tran-
sonic wave drag and equivalent parasite area compared with aircraft of the 1940s through 1960s.