NASA T E C H N I C A L NOTE NASA TN D-4230

0
m
N

z
4
m
4
z
, --

I . .I

SUBSONIC AND SUPERSONIC FLUTTER ANALYSIS

OF A HIGHLY TAPERED SWEPT-WING PLANFORM,
INCLUDING EFFECTS OF DENSITY VARIATION
AND FINITE WING THICKNESS,
AND COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS

by E. Carson Yates,Jr.
Lctngleey Research Center

1
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. 0 NOVEMBER 1967
 NASA TN D-4230

SUBSONIC AND SUPERSONIC FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF A

HIGHLY TAPERED SWEPT-WING PLANFORM, INCLUDING

E F F E C T S OF DENSITY VARIATION AND FINITE WING

THICKNESS, AND COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS

By E. C a r s o n Yates, Jr.

Langley R e s e a r c h Center
Langley Station, Hampton, Va.

N A T I O N A L AERONAUT ICs AND SPACE ADMl NISTRATI ON

For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151- CFSTI price $3.00
 SUBSONIC AND SUPERSONIC FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF A

HIGHLY TAPERED SWEPT-WING PLANFORM, INCLUDING

EFFECTS OF DENSITY VARIATION AND FINITE WING

THICKNESS, AND COMPARISON WITH EXPERDIENTS~

By E. Carson Yates, Jr.

Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

The f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s e v e r a l w i n g s with an aspect r a t i o of 4.0,

a t a p e r r a t i o of Q.2, and a quarter-chord sweepback of 45' have been i n v e s t i g a t e d
a n a l y t i c a l l y f o r Mach numbers up t o 2 . G . The c a l c u l a t i o n s were based on t h e
modified-strip-analysis method, t h e subsonic-kernel-function method, p i s t o n
theory, and quasi-steady second-order theory. Results of t h e a n a l y s i s and com-
parisons with experiment indicated t h a t : (1)F l u t t e r speeds were accurately
predicted by t h e modified s t r i p analysis, although accuracy a t t h e highest Mach
numbers required t h e use of nonlinear aerodynamic theory (which accounts for
e f f e c t s of wing thickness) for t h e calculation of t h e aerodynamic parameters.
( 2 ) An abrupt increase of f l u t t e r - s p e e d coefficient with increasing Mach number,
observed experimentally i n 'ihe t r a n s o n i c range, w a s a l s o i n d i c a t e d by t h e modified
s t r i p a n a l y s i s . ( 3 ) I n t h e low supersonic range f o r some d e n s i t i e s , a discon-
tinuous v a r i t t i i o r of f l i i t t e r frequency with Mach number was i n d i c a t e d by t h e
modified s t r i p analysis. A n abrupt change of freqxncy aDpeared experimentally
i n t h e t r a n s o n i c range. ( 4 ) Differences i n flutter-speedlcoefficient levels
obtained from t e s t s at low supersonic Mach numbers i n two wind tunnels w e r e a l s o
predicted by t h e modified s t r i p a n a l y s i s and were shown t o be caused p r i m a r i l y
by d i f f e r e n c e s i n mass r a t i o . ( 5 ) F l u t t e r speeds calculated by t h e subsonic-
kernel-function method were i n good agreement with experiment and with t h e r e s u l t s
of t h e modified s t r i p a n a l y s i s . ( 6 ) F l u t t e r speeds obtained from p i s t o n theory
and from quasi-steady second-order theory were higher than experimental values
by at least 38 percent.

INTRODUCTION

Subsonic, transonic, and supersonic f l u t t e r t e s t s of s e v e r a l highly tapered

swept w i n g s have been conducted i n t h e Langley t r a n s o n i c blowdown t u n n e l (e.g.,
see r e f s . 1 t o 3 ) and i n t h e Langley 9- by 18-inch supersonic a e r o e l a s t i c i t y
~

*Supersedes r e c e n t l y d e c l a s s i f i e d NASA TM X-764, 1963.

-
tunnel ( r e f . 3 and unpublished data) f o r Mach numbers up t o 2.55. These d a t a
have indicated (1) an abrupt and r a t h e r l a r g e increase of both f l u t t e r - s p e e d
coefficient and flutter-frequency r a t i o with increasing Mach number i n t h e tran-
sonic range and ( 2 ) an apparent discrepancy at low supersonic Mach numbers between
flutter-speed c o e f f i c i e n t l e v e l s obtained i n t h e two tunnels.

In order t o study t h e s e f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n more d e t a i l , comprehen-

s i v e modal-type f l u t t e r analyses have been made f o r t h e wings employed i n t h e
transonic blowdown tunnel t e s t s reported i n reference 1 and i n an unpublished
investigation conducted i n t h e Langley 9- by 18-inch supersonic a e r o e l a s t i c i t y
tunnel f o r Mach numbers up t o 2.0. These t h i n , homogeneous w i n g s had an aspect
r a t i o of 4.0, a t a p e r r a t i o of 0.2, a quarter-chord sweepback of 4fJ0, and NACA
65A-series a i r f o i l sections. The geometric, mass, and s t i f f n e s s p r o p e r t i e s of
t h e s e w i n g s a r e given i n appendix A. The primary objectives of t h i s study were
(1)t o determine whether t h e sudden change of f l u t t e r behavior at transonic
speeds could be predicted, ( 2 ) t o formulate, i f possible, an explanation f o r t h e
differences between t h e f l u t t e r data obtained i n t h e two tunnels, and ( 3 ) t o
examine t h e r e l a t i v e accuracies of s e v e r a l methods of f l u t t e r calculation.

The majority of t h e f l u t t e r calculations presented herein were made by t h e

modified-strip-andysis method of reference 4. A refinement i n t h e evaluation
of t h e aerodynamic parameters employed i n t h i s method i s introduced i n appendix B
i n order t o represent more accurately t h e load d i s t r i b u t i o n on highly tapered
wings. I n addition, t h e e f f e c t s of f i n i t e w i n g thickness i n f l u t t e r calculations
f o r t h e higher supersonic Mach numbers are i l l u s t r a t e d . Since t h e two previously
mentioned t e s t f a c i l i t i e s operate a t appreciably d i f f e r e n t density l e v e l s , t h e
importance of t h i s density v a r i a t i o n has been examined i n t h e present analysis.
An i l l u s t r a t i o n of some e f f e c t s of tunnel operating conditions on measured f l u t -
t e r boundaries i s included i n appendix C.

Some calculations by t h e modified-strip-analysis method are a l s o presented

f o r two of t h e configurations of reference 2. These wings are t h e same as those
of reference 1, except t h a t ballast weights were added along t h e leading edge i n
an attempt t o r a i s e t h e f l u t t e r speed.

Finally, f o r comparison purposes, some f l u t t e r calculations have been made

f o r t h e w i n g s of reference 1 by t h e subsonic-kernel-function method ( r e f . 5 )
and f o r t h e wing t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 9- by 18-inch supersonic a e r o e l a s t i c i t y
tunnel by p i s t o n theory (e.g., refs. 6 t o 8) and by quasi-steady second-order
theory (e.g., refs. 8 and 9) f o r Mach numbers from 1.7 t o 2.0.

SYMBOLS

ac, n nondimensional distance from midchord t o l o c a l aerodynamic center ( f o r

steady flow) measured perpendicular t o e l a s t i c axis, p o s i t i v e rear-
ward; f r a c t i o n of l o c a l semichord perpendicular t o e l a s t i c axis

br semichord of wing measured perpendicular t o e l a s t i c axis at spanwise

reference s t a t i o n 7 = 0.75

2
bS semichord measured streamwise at w i n g panel root

l o c a l l i f t - c u r v e slope f o r a s e c t i o n perpendicular t o e l a s t i c a x i s
‘Zu, n
i n steady flow

‘%,,n d e r i v a t i v e with respect t o angle of attack of l o c a l pitching-moment

c o e f f i c i e n t measured about leading edge of a section perpendicular
t o e l a s t i c axis i n steady flow

Q c o e f f i c i e n t of s t r u c t u r a l damping required t o maintain harmonic

o s c i l l a t i o n at a p a r t i c u l a r reduced frequency

hi modal d e f l e c t i o n of wing i n i t h uncoupled bending mode (normalized

t r a n s l a t i o n a l displacement of wing measured a t e l a s t i c axis)

M Mach number
-m t o t a l mass of exposed wing panel

AP l i f t i n g pressure

T st at ic temperature

V f l u t t e r speed

VR calculated reference f l u t t e r speed obtained from modified-strip-

a n a l y s i s method by using aerodynamic parameters f o r two-dimensional
incompressible flow

V volume of a i r within a conical frustum having streamwise root chord

as lower base diameter, streamwise t i p chord as upper base diameter,
and panel span as height
-
X streamwise distance from w i n g leading edge, p o s i i i v e rexiiiarii; frac-
t i o n of l o c a l chord
-
Y spanwise distance from wing panel root, f r a c t i o n of panel span

normalized l o c a l t r a n s l a t i o n a l displacement of wing i n j t h coupled

mode

U modal d e f l e c t i o n of wing i n first uncoupled t o r s i o n mode (normalized

angular displacement of wing measured about e l a s t i c a x i s )

d i s t a n c e measured from wing panel root along e l a s t i c axis, f r a c t i o n

of e l a s t i c - a x i s length

Aea sweep angle of wing e l a s t i c a x i s

m a s s r a t i o f o r exposed wing panel, E/pV

3
P a i r density

Lu c i r c u l a r frequency of v i b r a t i o n at f l u t t e r

% c i r c u l a r frequency of kth coupled v i b r a t i o n mode

c i r c u l a r frequency of i t h uncoupled bending v i b r a t i o n mode

%, i

% c i r c u l a r frequency of f i r s t uncoupled t o r s i o n a l v i b r a t i o n mode

Subscripts:

2D two dimensional

3D t h r e e dimensional

DESCRIPTION OF WINGS

All wing panels analyzed i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n represented w i n g s with a

full-span aspect r a t i o of 4.0, a f i l l - w i n g t a p e r r a t i o .of 0.2, a quarter-chord
sweepback of 45O, and NACA 65A-series d r f o i l s e c t i o n s streamwise. All were of
e s s e n t i a l l y homogeneous construction except those with added b a l l a s t along t h e
leading edge. (See r e f . 2.) The w i n g s d i f f e r e d s l i g h t l y i n panel aspect r a t i o
and panel t a p e r r a t i o because of t h e presence o r absence of a simulated fuselage.
Differences a l s o occurred i n thickness r a t i o and i n t h e presence, location, and
amount of leading-edge b a l l a s t . Further details of w i n g geometry a r e given i n
t a b l e I, f i g u r e 1, and appendix A. M d e l p r o p e r t i e s are a l s o discussed i n appen-
dix A, and t h e modal frequencies a r e summarized i n t a b l e 11. For convenience,
t h e wing designations used i n references 1 and 2 a r e retained herein, and t h e
half-span w i n g t e s t e d i n t h e Langley 9- by 18-inch supersonic a e r o e l a s t i c i t y tun-
n e l ( r e s u l t s unpublished) i s designated model B.

FLUTTER ANALYSIS

I n t h i s investigation, all c a l c u l a t e d f l u t t e r p o i n t s were determined from

conventional graphs of required s t r u c t u r a l damping p l o t t e d against airspeed
(V-g p l o t s ) . For an n-mode calculation, n curves are t r a c e d out i n t h e V-g p l o t
by t h e solutions of t h e n-by-n f l u t t e r determinant with reduced frequency as t h e
independently varying parameter. Since t h e p e r t i n e n t s t r u c t u r a l damping values
a r e not known f o r t h e models used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and since t h e damping
c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r homogeneous w i n g s of t h e present type a r e u s u a l l y very s m a l l ,
all calculated f l u t t e r p o i n t s a r e taken t o be p o i n t s f o r which g = 0.

An index t o t h e types of c a l c u l a t i o n s made, t h e v i b r a t i o n modes employed,

and t h e r e s u l t s of t h e analyses i s given i n t a b l e 111.

4
 Modified S t r i p Analysis

Preliminary f l u t t e r calculations made by the modified s t r i p method (appen-

dix B) have indicated t h a t f o r t h e analyses of the present highly tapered w i n g s :
(1)The required steady-flow aerodynamic parameters should be evaluated by d i r e c t
i n t e g r a t i o n of l i f t i n g pressures along wing sections perpendicular t o t h e e l a s t i c
axis. ( 2 ) U s e i n t h e analyses of t h r e e vibration modes should be s u f f i c i e n t .
( 3 ) Separate representative flow d e n s i t i e s should be used i n t h e subsonic and
supersonic Mach number ranges. These t h r e e requirements have been followed i n
all of t h e f i n a l f l u t t e r calculations made by t h e modified s t r i p method.

The f i n a l f l u t t e r calculations employed values of steady-flow aerodynamic

parameters computed from subsonic (ref. 10) o r supersonic (refs. 11 and 12)
l i n e a r i z e d l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e theory. I n addition t o t h e f l u t t e r calculations based
on l i n e a r i z e d aerodynamic theory, one calculation f o r model B a t M = 2.0
employed an aerodynamic correction f o r f i n i t e wing thickness based on t h e Busemann
second-order theory. No general theory i s known t o e x i s t f o r evaluating t h e non-
l i n e a r aerodynamic e f f e c t s of f i n i t e wing thickness on t h e supersonic steady-flow
aerodynamic loads on f i n i t e - s p a n w i n g s . For use i n t h e present f l u t t e r analysis,
therefore, such nonlinear e f f e c t s were approximated by employing t h e two-
dimensional Busemann second-order theory t o modify t h e spanwise d i s t r i b u t i o n s of
aerodynamic parameters calculated from three-dimensional l i n e a r i z e d theory.
Specifically, t h e values of section pitching-moment slope c ~ obtained
, ~ from
three-dimensional l i n e a r theory were multiplied by t h e r a t i o of c obtained
ma, n
from t h e two-dimensional nonlinear theory t o c obtained from two-dimensional
Q,n
l i n e a r theory; t h a t is,
1

A similar procedure f o r t h e s e c t i o n l i f t - c u r v e slope, huwzvcr, l e w e s values of

unchanged. That is,
'xu, n
r 1

= (cz a, )3D, l i n e a r
Local aerodynamic-center p o s i t i o n s are given by
r 1

5
The resulting correction t o l i n e a r theory, which i s a function only of Mach num-
b e r and of t h e a i r f o i l cross-sectional area, y i e l d s a forward s h i f t of l o c a l
aerodynamic center. The Busemann second-order theory, rather than t h e complete
shock-expansion theory, w a s employed here because of t h e complications which are
encountered i n applying t h e shock-expansion theory t o a i r f o i l s w i t h round leading
edges. Analogous calculations employing both t h e o r i e s f o r some t h i n w i n g s with
sharp leading edges have shown t h a t f o r a given Mach number, t h e aerodynamic
centers calculated by shock-expansion theory are s l i g h t l y f a r t h e r forward than
those given by Busemann second-order theory.

Distributions of t h e aerodynamic parameters and a used i n

‘Za, n c,n
f l u t t e r calculations f o r model 1 - l e f t are shown i n f i g u r e 2 f o r t e n Mach numbers
and f o r model B i n f i g u r e 3 f o r s i x Mach numbers. Corresponding q u a n t i t i e s f o r
models hA-right, ballas: I, and b a l l a s t I1 a r e similar t o those shown f o r
model 1 - l e f t . Some s m a l l numerical differences occur, however, because of d i f -
f e r e n t e l a s t i c - a x i s positions. A l l t h e f i n a l modified-strip-theory c a l c u l a t i o n s
employed three calculated uncoupled v i b r a t i o n modes ( f i r s t t o r s i o n and first and
second bending) as indicated i n t a b l e 111.

Subsonic Kernel Function

The subsonic-kernel-function calculations f o r models 4A-right and 2A-left

followed t h e procedure described i n reference 5. Nine downwash collocation points
were used i n each ca,.lculation. These p o i n t s were taken at 30, 60, and 90 percent
of the panel span and at 25, 50, and 75 percent of t h e l o c a l streamwise chord.
Kernel-function analyses f o r o t h e r w i n g s have indicated t h a t t h e calculated f l u t -
t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s generally are not very s e n s i t i v e t o s m a l l changes i n t h e
positions of t h e s e collocation points.

All kernel-function c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r model 4A-right employed calculated

uncoupled f i r s t t o r s i o n mode and f i r s t and second bending modes. The associated
modal frequencies are shown i n t a b l e 11. A l l calculations f o r model 2A-left
used t h e f i r s t t h r e e calculated coupled mode shapes and frequencies as shown i n
f i g u r e 4 and table 11. Neither coupled nor uncoupled modes were assumed t o be
orthogonal, and t h e cross-product generalized masses were r e t a i n e d i n t h e f l u t t e r
determinant.

P i s t o n Theory and Quasi-Steady Second-Order Theory

The piston-theory and second-order-theory calculations f o r model 13 were

similar t o t h e subsonic-kernel-function calculations, except t h a t t h e generalized
aerodynamic f o r c e s were formulated from t h e l i f t i n g - p r e s s u r e expression given i n
equation (16) of reference 8. A s i n d i c a t e d i n reference 8, t h e l i f t i n g pressure
expressions f o r p i s t o n theory and f o r quasi-steady second-order theory d i f f e r
only w i t h respect t o two c o e f f i c i e n t s which depend only on Mach number and t h e
r a t i o of s p e c i f i c heats. A l l of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s based on these two t h e o r i e s
include t h e e f f e c t of f i n i t e wing thickness.

6
 Both coupled-mode and uncoupled-mode analyses were made f o r model B. (See
t a b l e 111.) As indicated i n appendix A, t h e three uncoupled modes ( f i r s t t o r s i o n
and f i r s t and second bending) were calculated by t h e method of reference 13,
whereas t h e f i r s t t h r e e coupled modes were measured. (See f i g . 3 . ) For both
types of modes, however, t h e modal frequencies were obtained from measured values.
(See t a b l e 11.)

P i s t o n theory and quasi-steady second-order theory as expressed i n r e f e r -

ence 8 and as applied herein t a k e no account of streamwise wing t i p s except as a
l i m i t t o t h e region of i n t e g r a t i o n . However, f o r some of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s shown
herein, an approximate t i p correction w a s made on t h e b a s i s of steady-flow l i n e a r
theory. (See r e f . 12.) The streamwise t i p , of course, influences loading only
within t h e t r i a n g u l a r region bounded by t h e t i p , t h e t r a i l i n g edge, and t h e Mach
l i n e from t h e leading-edge t i p . It may be noted t h a t because t h e present wings
a r e swept and highly tapered, t h i s t i p t r i a n g l e covers only a s m a l l portion of
t h e wing panel, and i t s a r e a decreases as Mach number increases. Furthermore,
t h e reduced frequency at f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y decreases as Mach number
i n c r e a s e s so t h a t a steady-flow type of t i p correction should be more accurate
at t h e higher Mach numbers. The t i p correction as applied h e r e i n c o n s i s t s of
multiplying t h e piston-theory o r second-order theory loading at each point within
t h e t i p t r i a n g l e by t h e r a t i o of steady-state load with streamwise t i p t o steady-
s t a t e load without streamwise t i p , both being f o r t h e undeformed wing. For a
given wing, t h i s r a t i o , of course, v a r i e s w i t h t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e point within
t h e t i p t r i a n g l e and with Mach number. Thus f o r p i s t o n theory, f o r example, t h e
corrected l i f t i n g pressure at a point z,? on the wing i s given by

jiJM)piston theory corrected

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

I n order t o determine whether t h e experimentally observed sudden change i n

f l u t t e r behavior a t transonic speeds i s a l s o t h e o r e t i c a l l y indicated, f l u t t e r
c a l c u l a t i o n s have been made f o r models 1 - l e f t and 4A-right by t h e modified s t r i p
method of reference 1. The r e s u l t i n g f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s and f l u t t e r -
frequency r a t i o s a r e compared i n f i g u r e s 6 and 7 w i t h experimental f l u t t e r d a t a
from reference 1. Figures 8 and 9 show e f f e c t s of density v a r i a t i o n on t h e cal-
culated f l u t t e r speeds and frequencies f o r models l - l e f t and 4A-right. Some
f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s have been made by t h e modified s t r i p method f o r models
b a l l a s t I and ballast I1 t o show e f f e c t s of leading-edge b a l l a s t on t h e f l u t t e r
behavior of w i n g s of t h e present planform. These calculated f l u t t e r speeds and
frequencies a r e compared i n f i g u r e s 10 t o 13 w i t h experimental f l u t t e r d a t a from
reference 2.

7
 I n order t o examine t h e o r e t i c a l l y t h e f l u t t e r behavior of wings t e s t e d i n
. d i f f e r e n t wind tunnels, some c a l c u l a t i o n s by t h e modified s t r i p method have been
made f o r model B. "he calculated r e s u l t s f o r model B a r e compared i n f i g u r e s 14
and 15 with unpublished experimental d a t a and with t h e measured and c a l c u l a t e d
f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r model 4A-right.

I n order t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e accuracies of f l u t t e r p r e d i c t i o n by methods o t h e r

than the modified s t r i p analysis, f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s have been made f o r
models bA-right and 2A-left by t h e subsonic-kernel-function method and f o r model B
by piston theory and by quasi-steady second-order theory. I n f i g u r e s 16 and 17,
t h e subsonic-kernel-function c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r model 4A-right (uncoupled modes)
and f o r model 2A-left (coupled modes) a r e compared with r e s u l t s of t h e modified
s t r i p analysis f o r model 4 A - r i g h t and with experimental f l u t t e r d a t a from r e f -
erence 1. Finally, f i g u r e 18 presents comparisons of piston-theory and quasi-
steady second-order theory f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s and experimental f l u t t e r d a t a
f o r model B.

Table I11 gives a summary of t h e types of f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s made and an

index t o t h e results.

DISCUSSION

Modified S t r i p Analysis

Models 1 - l e f t and 4A-right.- F i n a l f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s -31 models 1-le t

and 4 A - r i g h t i n f i g u r e s 6 and 7 show t h a t at subsonic Mach numbers, both t h e
f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s ( f i g . 6) and t h e flutter-frequency r a t i o s ( f i g . 7)
calculated f o r t h e two wings are very close together, as had previously been
indicated by t h e e q e r i m e n t a l f l u t t e r d a t a from reference 1. It m a y be noted
t h a t t h e flow d e n s i t i e s used i n t h e subsonic c a l c u l a t i o n s ( p = 0.0025 slug/cu f t
f o r model 1 - l e f t and p = 0.0022 slug/cu f t f o r model 4A-right) correspond t o
E = 35.9 f o r model 1 - l e f t and p = 33.0 f o r model 4 A - r i g h t . This d i f f e r e n c e
i n mass r a t i o i s s m a l l , and t h e curves of f i g u r e 8 show t h a t subsonic f l u t t e r -
speed c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e not very s e n s i t i v e t o changes i n m a s s r a t i o . However, a
comparison of t h e two w i n g s on t h e b a s i s of equal mass r a t i o would bring t h e sub-
sonic curves of f i g u r e s 6 and 7 even c l o s e r together. Figures 6 and 7 show very
good agreement between calculated and experimental values of subsonic f l u t t e r -
speed c o e f f i c i e n t and f l u t t e r - f r e q u e n c y r a t i o .

A t supersonic Mach numbers, t h e curves of f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t cal-

culated f o r models l - l e f t and 4A-right a r e more separated than a t subsonic speeds,
although the flutter-frequency r a t i o s remain e s s e n t i a l l y coincident. For t h e s e
calculations, = 15.0 f o r model 1 - l e f t and = 20.8 f o r model 4 A - r i g h t . An
examination of figure 8 f o r t h e s e values i n d i c a t e s t h a t comparison of t h e
two wings on t h e b a s i s of equal mass r a t i o would again y i e l d nearly coincident
curves of f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t . It should be noted, however, t h a t t h e
experimental n o - f l u t t e r p o i n t s f o r t h e 4-percent-thick w i n g s ( r e f . 1) cover
density values up t o p = 0.0080 slug/cu ft. Therefore, i f supersonic f l u t t e r
p o i n t s f o r t h e 4-percent-thick w i n g s had been obtained, t h e associated d e n s i t i e s

8
would have been g r e a t e r than t h i s value. According t o f i g u r e 8(a), t h e r e s u l t i n g
f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r such high d e n s i t i e s should be even l a r g e r than t h e
values shown i n f i g u r e 6 f o r model 1 - l e f t . Supersonic f l u t t e r d a t a f o r t h e 3-
and k-percent-thick wings thus would not be expected t o be e s s e n t i a l l y coincident
as they were a t subsonic Mach numbers. It should be emphasized t h a t t h e s e s t a t e -
ments a r e based on consideration of mass-ratio e f f e c t s only. Since l i n e a r i z e d
aerodynamic theory w a s used i n t h e calculations, no aerodynamic e f f e c t of thick-
ness v a r i a t i o n i s included.

The c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r model 4 A - r i g h t a t M = 6 indicated two f l u t t e r solu-

t i o n s . The f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s associated with t h e s e two s o l u t i o n s a r e
very close together, and both are i n good agreement with experiment. (See
f i g . 6.) However, t h e f l u t t e r frequency f o r one s o l u t i o n i s close t o t h e f r e -
quency l e v e l f o r subsonic f l u t t e r , whereas t h e frequency f o r t h e o t h e r s o l u t i o n
i s appreciably higher and i s close t o t h e supersonic experimental values. (See
f i g . 7.) Thus, i n t h i s range of speed and density, t h e wing might f l u t t e r at
e i t h e r of two frequencies and hence i n e i t h e r of two modes. The occurrence of
t h e high-frequency f l u t t e r f o r models 1 - l e f t and 4A-right w a s found t o depend on
both density and M a c h number (see f i g s . 8 and g), although no attempt has been
made t o evaluate p r e c i s e l y i t s m a x i m u m density l i m i t f o r a given Mach number.
Under some conditions of density and Mach number, t h e f l u t t e r speeds associated
with t h e two s o l u t i o n s became i d e n t i c a l ( f i g . 8), and a discontinuous change of
f l u t t e r frequency i s thus indicated. I n f i g u r e 7 an abrupt increase of f l u t t e r
frequency i n t h e t r a n s o n i c range i s a l s o indicated by t h e experimental data of
reference 1.

As shown i n f i g u r e s 19 and 20, t h e appearance of t h e high-frequency f l u t t e r

s o l u t i o n r e s u l t s from an a r c h l i k e crossing o f t h e g = 0 axis, whereas t h e lower
frequency s o l u t i o n r e s u l t s from a monotonic crossing. These f i g u r e s a l s o show
t h a t even f o r combinations of Mach number and d e n s i t y which do not y i e l d a high-
frequency f l u t t e r point, one of t h e curves may arch very close t o t h e g = 0
axis. Therefore, s m a l l changes i n w i n g properties o r aerodynamic parameters,
-Ai& c m s e only slight changes i n t h e location of curves i n t h e V-g p l o t , could
have a pronounced e f f e c t on t h e occurrence of zne iiigh-freqdeccy f h t t e r solu-
t i o n . Furthermore, i n cases such as those shown i n f i g u r e s l g ( b ) and 20(a), even
though t h e high-frequency f l u t t e r i s not predicted mathematically, a region of
l i g h t l y damped motion would be l i k e l y . me arching behavior of one curve i n t h e
V-g p l o t w a s observed f o r all d e n s i t i e s a t each supersonic Mach number calculated.
The arching curve i n each case w a s t h e one which at low speeds (high reduced f r e -
quencies) w a s associated with t h e second bending mode, whereas t h e monotonic
crossing (lower frequency f l u t t e r ) was associated with t h e first t o r s i o n mode.

Models b a l l a s t I and b a l l a s t 11.- Figures 10 t o 13 show t h a t at subsonic

Mach numbers, calculated values of flutter-speed c o e f f i c i e n t and f l u t t e r -
frequency r a t i o f o r t h e two wings with leading-edge b a l l a s t are i n good agreement
with t h e experimental data. A t subsonic Mach numbers t h e experimental p o i n t s i n
V
and - increase
CD
t h e s e f i g u r e s , however, appear t o i n d i c a t e t h a t both
%
b&iE
as M decreases, whereas t h e calculated curves show l i t t l e change with Mach
number. These slope d i f f e r e n c e s appear because t h e t h e o r e t i c a l curves were

9
calculated f o r constant density while t h e experimental f l u t t e r data were obtained
a t varying density. Although t h e value p = 0.0021 slug/cu f t used i n t h e cal-
culations f o r models b a l l a s t I and b a l l a s t I1 i n t h e subsonic range i s represent-
a t i v e of most of t h e subsonic-experimental-flutter points, t h e experimental den-
s i t y increases rapidly as Mach number decreases. Thus, t h e d e n s i t i e s f o r t h e
experimental f l u t t e r points at t h e lowest Mach numbers shown are
p = 0.00390 slug/cu f t f o r model ballast I and p = 0.00437 slug/cu f t f o r
model b a l l a s t 11. Since f i g u r e s 8 and 9 show t h a t both and - char-
bS%fi %
a c t e r i s t i c a l l y increase with increasing p (see a l s o ref. 14), t h e use of
increasing density with decreasing subsonic Mach number would be expected t o
cause the calculated curves of f i g u r e s 10 t o 13 t o r i s e with decreasing Mach num-
ber. Closer representation of measured d e n s i t i e s i n t h e f l u t t e r calculations i s
shown by t h e diamond symbols i n f i g u r e s 10 t o 13 t o account f o r t h e apparent
slope differences mentioned previously. By comparison, t r e n d s of subsonic
flutter-speed c o e f f i c i e n t with density f o r models 1 - l e f t and 4A-right were much
l e s s pronounced than those f o r models b a l l a s t I and ballast 11, so t h a t t h e i n f l u -
ences of density v a r i a t i o n on t h e subsonic f l u t t e r comparisons ( f i g s . 6 and 7)
were much l e s s evident than those of f i g u r e s 10 t o 13.

A t supersonic Mach numbers f o r model ballast I, t h e r e are no experimental

f l u t t e r points f o r comparison with t h e calculated f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . (See
f i g s . 1 0 and 11.) However, t h e calculated f l u t t e r speed i s somewhat lower than
t h e highest recorded n o - f l u t t e r p o i n t s . For t h e density used i n t h e s e calcula-
t i o n s ( p = 0.0060 slug/cu f t ) , only one supersonic f l u t t e r boundary e x i s t e d at
t h e Mach numbers covered. For model b a l l a s t 11, however, two boundaries were
found ( f i g s . 1 2 and IS), and both w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than t h e experimental
no-flutter points. The i n t e r s e c t i o n of t h e s e two boundaries a t about M = 1 . 2
( f i g . 1 2 ) corresponds t o a condition at which t h e wing could f l u t t e r a t e i t h e r
of two frequencies, and f l u t t e r points on opposite s i d e s of t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n
a r e indicated t o have widely d i f f e r e n t frequencies.

Model B.- I n f i g u r e s 14 and 15 both calculated and measured f l u t t e r char-

a c t e r i s t i c s f o r model B are compared with t h e r e s u l t s shown i n f i g u r e s 6 and 7
f o r model 4A-right. A s i n t h e case of model hA-right, t h e calculated f l u t t e r -
speed c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r model B a t t h e lower supersonic Mach numbers are i n good
agreement with t h e one experimental point ( f i g . 14) but t h e corresponding cal-
culated f l u t t e r frequencies are about 20 percent low. I n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r
model B, t h e following experimental values of density w e r e used:

M p, slug/cu f t i;
1.30 0.00133 36.0

1.64 .00101 47.4

2.00 .ooc8g 53.8
b

10
For o t h e r Mach numbers, density w a s interpolated l i n e a r l y between t h e s e valires.
For t h e d e n s i t i e s used i n t h e calculations f o r model B, no second f l u t t e r solu-
t i o n was indicated.

It i s evident from fi.gure 14 t h a t t h e differences between experimental values

of f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t f o r models B and 4 A - r i g h t a r e not caused by d i s -
crepancies i n t h e measurements but a r e actually p r e d i c t e d by t h e theory. These
d i f f e r e n c e s are a t t r i b u t e d t o four f a c t o r s . F i r s t , t h e major portions of t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s shown appear t o be caused by differences i n density. For example,
at M = 1.30 t h e values = 36.0 f o r modelB and E = 20.8 f o r model 4A-right
apply t o both t h e o r e t i c a l and experimental f l u t t e r p o i n t s . A n examination of t h e
lower M = 1.30 curve of f i g u r e 8( a) ( s i n c e both model 1 - l e f t and model B a r e
4 percent t h i c k ) shows approximately t h e magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e i n f l u t t e r - s p e e d
c o e f f i c i e n t t h a t can be accounted f o r by t h i s much d i f f e r e n c e i n F. Figure 8
a l s o shows t h a t t h e higher t h e Mach number, the more rapidly t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d
.
c o e f f i c i e n t decreases with decreasing density ( i n c r e a s i n g a l t i t u d e ) Second,
t h e modal frequencies % and ua f o r model B a r e f a i r l y c l o s e together,
,2
whereas t h e corresponding values f o r models 1 - l e f t and 4A-right a r e not. (See
t a b l e 11.) This closeness of modal frequencies would be expected t o c o n t r i b u t e
somewhat t o t h e lowness of t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r model B. Third,
because of t h e presence of t h e fuselage on models 1 - l e f t and hA-right, t h e panel
espect r a t i o f o r t h e s e w i n g s i s somewhat smaller t h a n t h a t f o r model B. (See
t a b l e I and f i g . 1.) This difference would also be expected t o raise s l i g h t l y
t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r models 1 - l e f t and 4A-right, r e l a t i v e t o
model B. Fourth, models B and 4 A - r i g h t d i f f e r i n a i r f o i l thickness. (See
t a b l e I.) However, comparisons between figures 8(a) and 8 ( b ) f o r M = 1.30
i n d i c a t e t h a t thickness alone should have an almost n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t on f l u t t e r -
speed c o e f f i c i e n t . It should be remembered, though, t h a t a t low supersonic Mach
numbers all c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r models 1 - l e f t , 4A-right, and B employ l i n e a r i z e d
aerodynamic theory. Thus, although t h e mass and s t i f f n e s s e f f e c t s of d i f f e r i n g
thickness a r e included, any aerodynamic e f f e c t s a r e not.

F i g ~ r e s14 and 15 show t h a t at t h e higher supersonic Mach numbers g r o s s l y

erroneous estimates of f l u t t e r speed and frequency can r e s u l t frm iisc of zero-
dynamic parameters obtained from l i n e a r i z e d theory. I n t h e s e f i g u r e s , t h e c a l -
culated curves f o r model B i n d i c a t e t h a t caution should be observed i f l i n e a r i z e d
aerodynamic theory i s used i n t h e modified s t r i p method when t h e leading edge i s
supersonic and t h e l o c a l aerodynamic centers a r e i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e l o c a l
centers of g r a v i t y . The abruptness of t h e r i s e i n t h e calculated f l u t t e r - s p e e d
and flutter-frequency curves beginning near M = 1.66 i s associated with t h i s
close approach of l o c a l aerodynamic centers t o t h e e l a s t i c a x i s and l o c a l centers
of g r a v i t y . As Mach number increases s l i g h t l y above M = 1.66, t h e aerodynamic
centers c a l c u l a t e d from l i n e a r i z e d supersonic-flow theory a c t u a l l y move rearward
of t h e e l a s t i c a x i s and centers of g r a v i t y over an outboard portion of t h e wing.
Under such conditions a s m a l l change i n aerodynamic-center l o c a t i o n can have a
l a r g e e f f e c t on t h e s e c t i o n pitching moment about t h e e l a s t i c a x i s and can even
change i t s sign. I n contrast, s i m i l a r calculations f o r two homogeneous unta-
pered w i n g s with 15' and 300 of sweepback and with aspect r a t i o s of 5.34 and 4.16,
respectively, have shown only a gradual r i s e of f l u t t e r speed w i t h increasing
supersonic Mach number. For those wings, however, t h e e l a s t i c axes and l o c a l

11
 centers of g r a v i t y were at midchord so t h a t t h e l o c a l aerodynamic centers could
never be rearward of t h e s e l o c a t i o n s . Under t h e s e conditions, no change of sign
i n t h e section pitching moment occurred.

It i s well known t h a t l i n e a r i z e d aerodynamic theory c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y

p r e d i c t s aerodynamic-center p o s i t i o n s t h a t a r e too f a r rearward and t h a t t h i s
condition, i n turn, m a y y i e l d excessively high calculated f l u t t e r speeds. (See
r e f . 15, f o r example.) One approach t o t h i s problem i s t o use aerodynamic param-
e t e r s based on nonlinear aerodynamic t h e o r i e s , f o r example, shock-expansion theory
o r t h e Busemann second-order theory. Results of such a c a l c u l a t i o n employing t h e
Busemann second-order theory f o r model B at M = 2.00 a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 1 4
and 15. A comparison of t h e associated linear-theory and second-order-corrected
aerodynamic parameters i s shown i n f i g u r e 3 ( f ) . The f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t
calculated from t h e corrected aerodynamic parameters i s i n e x c e l l e n t agreement
w i t h t h e experimental value at M = 2.00, although t h e calculated f l u t t e r f r e -
quency i s somewhat low. References 14 and 15 show t h a t as t h e Mach number
increases and t h e l o c a l aerodynamic centers move c l o s e r t o t h e l o c a l centers of
gravity, t h e calculated f l u t t e r speed and frequency become increasingly s e n s i t i v e
t o s m a l l changes i n t h e aerodynamic-center positions. Under t h e s e circumstances,
accurate f l u t t e r prediction requires aerodynamic-center v d u e s more accurate than
those yielded by l i n e a r aerodynamic theory. The present a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e
Busemann-second-order-theory correction t o t h e linear-theory aerodynamic-center
positions f o r M = 2.00 ( f i g . 3 ( f ) ) moved t h e aerodynamic centers from behind
t o ahead of t h e centers of g r a v i t y and hence caused a l a r g e reduction i n t h e
calculated f l u t t e r speed.

Flutter-boundary surface.- I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

f o r a given wing a r e functions primarily of t h e two independent v a r i a b l e s , mass
r a t i o and Mach number, it should be h e l p f u l and i n s t r u c t i v e t o view t h e f l u t t e r
boundary as a surface r a t h e r than more conventionally as a l i n e . This surface
f o r a given wing may be t r a c e d out by t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t ' (or
bS%@

f l u t t e r - f re quency r a t i o "-)
wa
p l o t t e d as a function of t h e v a r i a b l e s Mach numr
b e r M and mass r a t i o E. (See f i g . 21.) Cross s e c t i o n s of such surfaces f o r
constant values of M a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 8 and 9 of t h i s report and f i g u r e s 59
t o 80 of reference 14. Sections f o r constant values of a r e shown, f o r
example, by t h e calculated curves of f i g u r e s 6 and 7 of t h i s report and f i g u r e s 81
t o 104 of reference 14. Some e f f e c t s of v a r i a t i o n s i n mass r a t i o and t h e concept
of a flutter-speed surface a r e discussed i n reference 16 I n connection with two-
dimensional f l u t t e r problems. The importance of mass r a t i o i n t h e dynamic s c a l i n g
of f l u t t e r models has long been recognized.

I n athree-dimensional p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s s o r t a f l u t t e r boundary f o r a
given l i f t i n g surface measured i n a given f a c i l i t y would g e n e r a l l y appear as a
s i n g l e curve o r narrow band l y i n g on t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d surface .l (See, e .g.,
t h e data of ref. 1.) T e s t s of t h e same w i n g i n a d i f f e r e n t f a c i l i t y may t r a c e
~~ ~~

'If tunnel temperature were independently c o n t r o l l a b l e over a wide range, a

broader area of t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d s u r f a c e could be covered experimentally.

I 12
out a d i f f e r e n t curve on t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d surface. Such d i f f e r e n c e s m a y occur,
f o r example, because of temperature differences between t h e two tunnels, o r
because of d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e p r o p e r t i e s of t h e two t e s t media. Thus, pro-
j e c t i o n of data from two f a c i l i t i e s onto t h e - v M plane may y i e l d f l u t t e r
bS%6
p o i n t s which do not form a continuous curve. (See, e. g., f i g . 14. ) Similarly,
f l u t t e r conditions associated with f l i g h t i n the atmosphere would a l s o appear on
t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d surface as a s i n g l e curve which may o r may not be closely
approximated by t e s t s i n a given f a c i l i t y . The implications of t h e foregoing
discussion with regard t o t h e e f f e c t s on f l u t t e r data of wind-tunnel operating
conditions and wing s i z e a r e examined i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l i n appendix C.

Subsonic Kernel Function

F l u t t e r speeds and frequencies calculated by t h e subsonic-kernel-function

method ( r e f . 5 ) f o r models 4A-right and 2A-left are compared i n f i g u r e s 16 and 17
w i t h experimental data and with t h e modified-strip-analysis c a l c u l a t i o n s previ-
ously discussed. Although kernel-function f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s were made only
f o r t h e two 3-percent-thick wings, measured f l u t t e r p o i n t s f o r both 3- and
4-percent-thick wings a r e included i n f i g u r e s 16 and 17 f o r continuity because
both experiments and modified-strip-method calculations ( f i g . 6) i n d i c a t e i n s i g -
n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s of t h i c h e s s i n %he subsonic range.

Model 4 A - r i g h t . - Calculations f o r model 4A-right employed calculated

uncoupled first and second bending modes and first t o r s i o n mode as used i n t h e
modified s t r i p analysis. Figure 16 shows t h e calculated f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i -
c i e n t s t o be i n good agreement with experimental values up t o about M = 0.85.
Above t h a t Mach number, t h e r e a r e no subsonic experimental d a t a f o r the 3-percent-
t h i c k wings, but t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e about 25 percent higher than d a t a f o r t h e
4-percent-thick w i n g s a t M I. 0.95.

Close agreement throughout t h e Mach number range i s indicated between t h e

kernei-function riutter speeds ail t h e VEL~IPSrrhtained from t h e modified s t r i p
analysis. The l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e between them i s about 5 percent at M = 0.
Similar comparisons f o r a wing with an aspect r a t i o of 4.0, a sweepback of 45O,
and a t a p e r r a t i o of 0.6 have shown kernel-function f l u t t e r speed a t M = 0 t o
be about 10 percent higher than t h e value obtained by t h e modified s t r i p a n a l y s i s .

Model 2A-left.- Calculations f o r model 2 A - l e f t employed t h e f i r s t t h r e e

coupled modes c a l c u l a t e d by a matrix-iteration method as i n d i c a t e d i n appendix A.
The r e s u l t i n g f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s shown i n f i g u r e 16 are i n good agreement
with experimental values f o r Mach numbers up t o 0.96. The kernel-function f l u t t e r
speeds f o r model =-left, however, are somewhat lower than values f o r model
4A-right (uncoupled modes) throughout t h e Mach number range with t h e g r e a t e s t
d i f f e r e n c e occurring at t h e higher Mach numbers. Figure 17 shows l i t t l e d i f f e r -
ence between t h e kernel-function flutter-frequency r a t i o s f o r models =-left and
4A-right, except at t h e highest Mach numbers.
 Piston Theory and Quasi-Steady Second-Order Theory

All t h e f l u t t e r speeds calculated f o r model B by p i s t o n theory and by quasi-

steady second-order theory
iair f o r c e s e s s e n t i a l l y proportional t o -M1 and t o

!EJ
respectively
) a r e higher t h a n t h e experimental values.

However, both the speeds and t h e frequencies ( f i g . 18) obtained by use of

(See f i g . 1 8 ( a ) . )

uncoupled modes a r e considerably c l o s e r t o experimental values than are those

obtained w i t h coupled modes. These r e s u l t s a r e i n c o n t r a s t with t h e subsonic-
kernel-function c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r models kA-right and 2A-left ( f i g s . 16 and 17)
i n which r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e appeared between coupled-mode and uncoupled-
mode f l u t t e r speeds and frequencies. Figure 18(a) shows t h a t f l u t t e r speeds
obtained from quasi-steady second-order theory are lower and c l o s e r t o experi-
mental values than are those obtained from p i s t o n theory, although t h e r e i s l i t t l e
difference between t h e corresponding f l u t t e r frequencies . .
( See f i g 18(b ) ).
Also, use of t h e steady-state t i p correction described previously y i e l d s lower
f l u t t e r speeds and improves t h e comparison w i t h experiment.

Best r e s u l t s w i t h regard t o both f l u t t e r speeds and frequencies were

obtained from t h e uncoupled-mode second-order-theory a n a l y s i s employing t h e
steady-state t i p correction. However, at a Mach rlumber of 2.0, t h e r e s u l t i n g
f l u t t e r speed i s s t i l l about 38 percent higher than experiment. A t l e a s t p a r t
of t h i s deviation i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y low Mach number combined w i t h
t h e moderately high sweepback of t h e leading edge. A t M = 2.0, t h e Mach number
component normal t o t h e leading edge i s only 1.30. A t higher Mach numbers, both
p i s t o n theory and quasi-steady second-order theory would be expected t o y i e l d
more accurate r e s u l t s . "he round leading edge of t h i s wing gives r i s e t o a
region of subsonic flow which probably a l s o contributes t o t h e discrepancy i n
t h e calculated f l u t t e r speeds. Such regions of embedded subsonic flow a r e not
accurately represented by p i s t o n theory and second-order theory as employed
herein.

For each of t h e piston-theory and second-order-theory c a l c u l a t i o n s shown i n

f i g u r e 18, only s i n g l e f l u t t e r s o l u t i o n s occurred so t h a t the question of double
f l u t t e r boundaries d i d not a r i s e . However, a second-order-theory c a l c u l a t i o n
at M = 2.0 employing uncoupled modes and t h e steady-state t i p correction but
neglecting f i n i t e wing thickness yielded no f l u t t e r solution. This r e s u l t again
p o i n t s out t h e importance of including w i n g thickness i n f l u t t e r analyses at t h e
higher supersonic Mach numbers. The e f f e c t s of f i n i t e wing thickness were pre-
viously indicated i n connection w i t h t h e modified-strip-theory c a l c u l a t i o n s of
f i g u r e s 1 4 and 15.

CONCLUSIONS

The f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a highly tapered swept-wing planform have

been investigated a n a l y t i c a l l y by s e v e r a l methods. The r e s u l t s have been com-
pared w i t h experimental f l u t t e r d a t a f o r Mach numbers up t o 2.0. The following

14
conclusions are indicated with regard t o t h e f l u t t e r frequency and t h e f l u t t e r -
speed c o e f f i c i e n t , which i s t h e f l u t t e r speed divided by t h e streamwise root
semichord, by t h e frequency of t h e f i r s t uncoupled t o r s i o n mode, and by t h e
square root of t h e mass r a t i o :

1. F l u t t e r speeds calculated by t h e modified-strip-analysis method of NACA

RM L57IJ-0 are i n good agreement with experimental values at subsonic and low
supersonic Mach numbers. An abrupt increase i n f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t w i t h
increasing Mach number, observed experimentally i n t h e transonic range, i s a l s o
indicated by t h e calculations.

2. I n t h e supersonic range, some of t h e modified-strip-theory calculations

y i e l d two f l u t t e r speeds which are very close together. Under some conditions
of density and Mach number, t h e s e two solutions i n d i c a t e a discontinuous change
of f l u t t e r frequency. An abrupt increase o f f l u t t e r frequency i n t h e transonic
range has previously been observed experimentally.

3 . Differences i n flutter-speed-coefficient l e v e l s obtained from t e s t s at

low supersonic Mach numbers i n two wind tunnels a r e a l s o predicted by t h e modi-
f i e d s t r i p theory. These differences are a t t r i b u t a b l e primarily t o differences
i n mass r a t i o f o r t h e two s e t s of t e s t s .

4. A t t h e higher Mach numbers (silpersoaic leadir?g edge), use i n t h e modified

s t r i p a n a l y s i s of aerodynamic parameters obtained from l i n e a r i z e d aerodynamic
theory y i e l d s excessively high f l u t t e r speeds. However, use of aerodynamic
parameters based on t h e Busemann second-ordertheory, which includes e f f e c t s of
f i n i t e wing thickness, gives an accurate prediction of f l u t t e r speed..

5 . Flutter-speed c o e f f i c i e n t s calculated by t h e subsonic-kernel-f’unction

method a r e i n good agreement with experimental values and w i t h calculations m a d e
by t h e modified-strip-analysis method. L i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e appears between coupled-
mode and uncoupled-mode f l u t t e r speeds except a t t h e highest subsonic Mach
numbers.

6. F l u t t e r calculations were made f o r t h e higher supersonic Mach numbers by

p i s t o n theory and by quasi-steady second-order theory, both w i t h and without t i p
corrections and with coupled and uncoupled vibration modes. The r e s u l t s f o r t h e
second-order theory with uncoupled modes and with an aerodynamic correction f o r
t h e f i n i t e w i n g t i p are c l o s e s t t o experimental f l u t t e r speeds and frequencies.
These calculated f l u t t e r speeds, however, a r e about 38 percent higher than t h e
experimental values.

Langley Research Center,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Langley Station, Hampton, Va., December 3, 1962.
 APPENDIX A

DETAILS OF WING DESCRIPTION

General

As mentioned previously, a l l wing panels analyzed i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n

represented wings with a full-span aspect r a t i o of 4.0, a full-wing t a p e r r a t i o
of 0.2, a quarter-chord sweepback of 45O, and NACA 65A-series a i r f o i l s e c t i o n s
streamwise. A l l were of e s s e n t i a l l y homogeneous construction except those with
added b a l l a s t along t h e leading edge. (See ref. 2.)

Wings t e s t e d i n Langley t r a n s o n i c blowdown tunnel.- A l l of t h e wings t e s t e d

i n t h e Langley transonic blowdown tunnel ( r e f s . 1 and 2) were f u l l span and were
cantilever mounted i n t h e midwing p o s i t i o n on a s t a t i o n a r y c y l i n d r i c a l s t i n g
fuselage with diameter equal t o 21.9-percent span. Models 1-left, bA-right, and
2A-left of reference 1 were employed, as were models ballast I and ballast I1 of
reference 2. All of t h e s e wings had NACA 65AOO3 a i r f o i l sections streamwise,
except model 1 - l e f t which had NACA 65A004 a i r f o i l sections, a l s o streamwise. The
w i n g designated b a l l a s t I had an added mass equal t o 6.25 percent of t h e b a s i c
wing mass d i s t r i b u t e d along t h e leading edge between = 0.75 and = 1.00.
The wing designated b a l l a s t I1 had an added mass equal t o 6.50 percent of t h e
b- a s i c wing mass d i s t r i b u t e d along t h e leading edge between = 0.50 and
y = 0.75.

Wing t e s t e d i n Langl e y supersonic.aeroelasticity tunnel.- The wing t e s t e d

i n t h e Langley 9- by 18-inch supersonic a e r o e l a s t i c i t y tunnel ( r e s u l t s unpub-
l i s h e d ) w a s a semispan model which w a s c a n t i l e v e r mounted on t h e tunnel w a l l with
no simulated fuselage. This wing had NACA 65A004 a i r f o i l s e c t i o n streamwise and
i s designated model B.

Model Properties

Mode shapes and frequencies.- Uncoupled bending and t o r s i o n a l mode shapes

f o r models 1 - l e f t , 4A-right, B, b a l l a s t I, and b a l l a s t I1 were calculated by t h e
method of reference 13. The r e s u l t i n g first t h r e e bending mode shapes and f i r s t
t o r s i o n mode shape f o r model 1 - l e f t are given i n figure 22. Mode shapes f o r
models 4A-right and B are generally s i m i l a r t o those f o r model 1-left and are
not shown. The f i r s t two bending mode shapes and t h e f i r s t t o r s i o n mode shape
f o r b a l l a s t I and ballast I1 are given i n f i g u r e s 23 and 24, respectively.

Modal frequencies used f o r t h e uncoupled modes w e r e obtained from measured

coupled mode frequencies. Following t h e procedure of reference 1, measured fre-
quencies f o r coupled bending modes were used d i r e c t l y as uncoupled bending mode
frequencies. Measured coupled t o r s i o n mode frequencies were "uncoupled" by
means of the r e l a t i o n used i n reference 1. It m a y be seen from node-line posi-
t i o n s given i n references 1 and 2 t h a t t h e n a t u r a l modes f o r t h e s e models are

16
not highly coupled, although some camber appears i n t h e higher modes. Fre-
quencies f o r both coupled and uncoupled modes are l i s t e d i n t a b l e 11.

Some of t h e f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n employed coupled

v i b r a t i o n modes. The required f i r s t t h r e e coupled mode shapes and frequencies
f o r model 2A-left were calculated by a m a t r i x - i t e r a t i o n method which employed
measured s t r u c t u r a l - i n f l u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s and mass d i s t r i b u t i o n . The r e s u l t i n g
mode shapes a r e shown i n f i g u r e 4, and t h e corresponding frequencies a r e compared
with measured values i n t a b l e 11. The calculated frequencies f o r t h e f i r s t t h r e e
modes a r e seen t o d i f f e r from measured values by no more than 6 percent. Table I1
a l s o shows t h a t although models 2A-left and 4A-right were intended t o be i d e n t i -
cal, model 2A-left appears t o have been s l i g h t l y weaker than model 4A-right.

For model B, coupled mode shapes and frequencies were measured. The meas-
ured shapes f o r model B shown i n f i g u r e 5 a r e generally similar t o t h e c a l c u l a t e d
mode shapes f o r model 2A-lert ( f i g . 4 ) except t h a t considerably more camber
appears i n t h e higher modes f o r model 2A-left than f o r model B. This s i t u a t i o n
would be expected s i n c e model 2A-left i s thinner than model B. It should a l s o
be noted t h a t t h e coupled mode shapes f o r model B ( f i g . 5 ) have been normalized
with respect t o maximum modal deflection, whereas t h e mode shapes f o r model
2A-left ( f i g . 4) have been normalized with respect t o d e f l e c t i o n at t h e t i p
q u a r t e r chord.

Mass and s t i f f n e s s properties.- Model properties o t h e r than t h e mode shapes

and frequencies j u s t discussed were obtained from t a b l e I of reference 1 f o r
models 1 - l e f t and 4 A - r i g h t and from t a b l e I1 o f reference 2 f o r ballast I and
b a l l a s t 11. For model B, t h e required d i s t r i b u t i o n s along t h e w i n g of e l a s t i c -
axis position, l o c a l c e n t e r of gravity, and l o c a l radius of gyration were not
a v a i l a b l e . These q u a n t i t i e s were t h e r e f o r e obtained from corresponding d i s t r i b u -
t i o n s f o r model 1-left by extrapolating t h e values inboard from t h e wing root t o
t h e model center l i n e . These extrapolations were required because model 1 - l e f t
had a fuselage, whereas model B d i d not. The two nodels should otherwise have
been d i r e c t l y comparable. The extrapolations a r e considered t o introduce i n s i g -
r i i f i c x t e r r n r s 2nt.o the f l u t t e r r e s u l t s because amplitudes of motion near t h e
root of a c a n t i l e v e r wing a r e s m a l l so t h a t values of q u a n t i t i e s i n t h a t regiori
a r e not heavily weighted i n the f l u t t e r solution. D i s t r i b u t i o n s of e l a s t i c - a x i s
position, l o c a l c e n t e r of gravity, and l o c a l radius of gyration were not needed
f o r model 2A-left because only coupled mode f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s were made f o r
t h a t wing.
 APPENDIX B

PREW%IINARYFLUTTER ANALYSIS By TEE MODIFIED STRIP METHOD

C a l c u l a t ions

Preliminary f l u t t e r calculations f o r model 1 - l e f t were m a d e by t h e modified

s t r i p method as described i n reference 4; t h a t is, t h e required d i s t r i b u t i o n s
of steady-flow aerodynamic parameters were calculated f o r subsonic speeds by t h e
l i f t i n g - l i n e method of reference 17 and f o r supersonic speeds by t h e l i n e a r i z e d
l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e method of reference 11 (when t h e leading edge w a s subsonic) o r
reference 12 (when t h e leading edge w a s supersonic). The aerodynamic parameters
required f o r wing sections normal t o t h e e l a s t i c a x i s were obtained from values
f o r streamwise sections by a p p l i c a t i o n of simple sweep theory. Although t h i s
procedure proved s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r t h e untapered and moderately tapered wings of
reference 4, it w a s considered t o be questionable f o r t h e highly tapered plan-
form of t h e present report. Accordingly, f o r t h e f i n a l f l u t t e r calculations
discussed i n t h e body of t h i s report, t h e aerodynanAc parameters required were
obtained by d i r e c t i n t e g r a t i o n of l i f t i n g pressures along wing s e c t i o n s perpen-
d i c u l a r t o t h e e l a s t i c axis. I n connection with t h i s modification, figure 2
shows t h a t f o r supersonic speeds, values of c obtained by use of simple
la,n
sweep theory are i n very good agreement with values obtained by d i r e c t integra-
t i o n . However, simple sweep theory y i e l d s aerodynamic-center p o s i t i o n s a
c,n
t h a t are too f a r forward at supersonic speeds. Also, t o provide more accurate
determination of t h e section l i f t - c u r v e slopes and e s p e c i a l l y t h e l o c a l aero-
dynamic centers, t h e aerodynamic parameters used i n t h e f i n a l calculations f o r
subsonic speeds were computed from subsonic l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e theory, e s s e n t i a l l y
t h a t of reference 10. For subsonic Mach numbers, values of c la, n ( f i g . 2 )
obtained from t h e l i f t i n g - l i n e theory of reference 17 are i n s a t i s f a c t o r y agree-
ment with those obtained from l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e theory, but t h e corresponding values
of aC,n show appreciable differences near t h e wing t i p . These differences how-
ever, would not be expected t o cause l a r g e differences i n t h e r e s u l t i n g subsonic
f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A s shown i n reference 14, subsonic f l u t t e r characteris-
t i c s are generally not very s e n s i t i v e t o changes i n l o c a l aerodynamic-center posi-
t i o n . A s a r e s u l t of t h e preceding comparisons, t h e aerodynamic parameters used
i n all subsequent calculations were obtained from l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e theory by d i r e c t
i n t e g r a t i o n of l i f t i n g pressure. A s i l l u s t r a t e d i n reference 15, transonic f l u t -
t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be calculated by t h e modified s t r i p method if t h e aero-
dynamic parameters are obtained from measured t r a n s o n i c pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
However, such data were not avaiilable f o r t h e wing of t h i s investigation, s o t h a t
continuous d i s t r i b u t i o n s of f l u t t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s through t h e transonic range
could not be calculated.

Most of t h e modified-strip-theory c a l c u l a t i o n s i n t h i s r e p o r t employed t h e

calculated uncoupled f i r s t t o r s i o n mode and f i r s t and second bending modes. How-
ever, a few of t h e preliminary c a l c u l a t i o n s included t h e t h i r d bending m d e f o r
comparison. Also, f o r comparison, some of t h e preliminary c a l c u l a t i o n s used t h e
first torsion mode and t h e first and second bending modes of a uniform c a n t i l e v e r

18
 beam. As i n d i c a t e d previously, t h e uncoupled modal frequencies employed were
obtained from measured frequencies and a r e l i s t e d i n t a b l e 11.

Results

The r e s u l t s of t h e preliminary f l u t t e r calculations a r e shown i n f i g u r e s 25

t o 27. The f l u t t e r speeds a r e compared i n figure 25 i n t h e form of t h e f l u t t e r -
speed c o e f f i c i e n t ’ and i n f i g u r e 26 i n t h e form of f l u t t e r - s p e e d r a t i o
bs4$
-.V I n t h e l a t t e r comparison, t h e normalizing reference f l u t t e r speed VR f o r
VR
each t h e o r e t i c a l o r experimental point was calculated by t h e modified s t r i p
method with t h e density associated with t h e numerator V and with aerodynamic

parameters f o r two-dimensional incompressible flow

(‘la, n
= 271 and a C y n=
2
-&).
The mode shapes and frequencies used i n t h e VR c a l c u l a t i o n s were t h e same a s
f o r t h e numerator V. Values of VR f o r t h e experimental p o i n t s were calculated
by use of calculated f i r s t t o r s i o n and first and second bending modes.

Both t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d - c o e f f i c i e n t and f l u t t e r - s p e e d - r a t i o foms of d a t a

p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e employed because each has s p e c i f i c advantages which should not
be obscured by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n g curves a r e generally s i m i l a r i n shape.
For example, t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t is, f o r a given wing, proportional t o
’
t h e square root of t h e f l u t t e r dynamic pressure. This form of p r e s e n t a t i o n i s
t h e r e f o r e u s e f u l f o r i l l u s t r a t i n g changes i n t h e dynamic pressure caused, f o r
instance, by changes i n flow density. The f l u t t e r - s p e e d r a t i o , on t h e o t h e r
hand, i s u s e f u l i n examining r e s u l t s especially f o r t h e modified s t r i p analysis,
because t h i s r a t i o tends t o i s o l a t e aerodynamic e f f e c t s . That is, t h e normal-
i z i n g reference f l u t t e r speed VR i s calculated from t h e same input q u a n t i t i e s
as t h e a l x e r a t n r V, cxrept t h a t two-dimensional incompressible-flow aerodynamic
parameters a r e used f o r VR. Thus, t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d r a t i o conveniently r e f i e c t s
t h e e f f e c t s of f i n i t e planform and nonzero Mach number. As a matter of f u r t h e r
i n t e r e s t , t h e f l u t t e r speeds presented i n figures 6, 8, and 16 a r e a l s o shown i n
f i g u r e s 28 t o 30 i n t h e form of V
5
.
The preliminary f l u t t e r calculations shown i n f i g u r e s 25 t o 27 were made
f o r model 1 - l e f t only. This 4-percent-thick wing w a s i n i t i a l l y chosen f o r t h i s
a n a l y s i s because it w a s thought t h a t camber deflections would be l e s s evident i n
t h e v i b r a t i o n modes f o r a 4-percent-thick wing than i n t h e modes f o r a 3-percent-
t h i c k w i n g . (Compare f i g s . 4 and 5.) The use of uncoupled beam-type modes
(required f o r t h e modified s t r i p analysis as p r e s e n t l y formulated) should t h e r e -
f o r e be more appropriate f o r t h e t h i c k e r wing. The d e n s i t y p = 0.0060 slug/cu ft
used i n all of t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s shown i n figures 25 t o 27 w a s chosen as repre-
s e n t a t i v e of t h e values f o r t h e highest Mach numbers at which experimental f l u t -
t e r p o i n t s were obtained f o r model 1-left.
 The four-mode calculations i n f i g u r e s 25 and 27 show t h a t even f o r t h e
highly tapered planform of t h i s investigation, t h e use of simple sweep theory
f o r t h e evaluation of aerodynamic parameters y i e l d s reasonably accurate f l u t t e r
r e s u l t s i n t h e subsonic range. A t supersonic Mach numbers, however, t h e more
accurate evaluation of aerodynamic parameters by d i r e c t i n t e g r a t i o n of l i f t i n g
pressure ( f i g . 2) gives appreciably b e t t e r r e s u l t s than simple sweep theory.

Figures 25 and 27 a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t i n c l u s i o n of t h e fourth mode ( t h i r d

bending) i n t h e f l u t t e r analysis does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s . Even
use of uniform-beam modes does not appreciably a l t e r f l u t t e r speeds at subsonic
Mach numbers. Figure 25 does indicate, though, t h a t use of accurate modes becomes
more important at supersonic speeds. I n accordance with t h e s e r e s u l t s , t h e f o u r t h
mode w a s not included i n any subsequent c a l c u l a t i o n s .

The flutter-speed values shown i n f i g u r e 25 are r e p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 26 as

flutter-speed r a t i o V -.
The r e l a t i v e l e v e l s of t h e calculated curves and t h e
VR
experimental p o i n t s i n f i g u r e 26 appear t o be d i f f e r e n t from those of f i g u r e 25.
Moreover, t h e r e l a t i v e l e v e l s of t h e c a l c u l a t e d curves themselves a r e d i f f e r e n t ,
most notably at subsonic speeds. These d i f f e r e n c e s a r i s e f o r two reasons. F i r s t ,
t h e values of VR f o r t h e various calculated curves a r e d i f f e r e n t because of t h e
d i f f e r e n t types and numbers of modes employed. Second, t h e e f f e c t of d e n s i t y i s
taken i n t o account d i f f e r e n t l y i n t h e two presentations. I n t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d
coefficient t h e f l u t t e r speed i s divided by a parameter which i s
bS%fi
inversely proportional t o t h e square root of density, whereas t h e value of VR
i s r e l a t e d t o density i n a more complicated way. (See ref. 14.) Although all
of t h e calculated curves of f i g u r e s 25 and 26 are associated with t h e same d e n s i t y
( p = 0.0060 slug/cu f% o r E = 14.96), t h e experimental p o i n t s and t h e i r nor-
malizing VR values were obtained at varying density. Hence, t h e density d i f -
ferences between t h e o r e t i c a l and experimental p o i n t s a r e accounted f o r d i f f e r e n t l y
i n t h e two f i g u r e s .

The f a c t t h a t t h e calculated subsonic f l u t t e r speeds and frequencies i n

f i g u r e s 25 t o 27 a r e higher than t h e experimental p o i n t s i s a t t r i b u t e d , a t least
i n p a r t , t o t h e f a c t that t h e density used i n t h e preliminary c a l c u l a t i o n s
( p = 0.0060 slug/cu f t ) w a s appreciably higher t h a n t h e values associated with
t h e experimental subsonic f l u t t e r points. Reference 14 showed t h a t both f l u t t e r -
speed r a t i o and flutter-frequency r a t i o JL increase as density increases.
VR Cctr
Therefore, i n order t o represent experimental conditions more accurately, all
f i n a l subsonic f l u t t e r c a l c u l a t i o n s employ a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e n s i t y f o r t h e
experimental subsonic f l u t t e r points, and a l l f i n a l supersonic f l u t t e r calcula-
t i o n s use a representative d e n s i t y f o r t h e experimental supersonic points.

The comparisons of f i g u r e s 25 and 26, t o g e t h e r with t h e foregoing discussion,

emphasize the need f o r caution i n choosing a form f o r presenting f l u t t e r d a t a
l and i n choosing t h e density ( o r m a s s r a t i o ) f o r use i n t h e o r e t i c a l analyses. It
may not be s u f f i c i e n t simply t o attempt t o c o r r e l a t e r e s u l t s a t d i f f e r e n t den-
s i t i e s on t h e b a s i s of some combination parameter, such as t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d
coefficient v
bS%6

21
 APPENDIX C

EFFECTS ON FLUTTER DATA OF WIND-TUNNEL OPERATING CONDITIONS AND h'ING SIZF:

Comparison of F l u t t e r Conditions f o r a Given W i n g

i n t h e Atmosphere and i n a Wind Tunnel

As mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s report, t h e t r a c k t r a c e d across t h e f l u t t e r -

speed surface f o r a given w i n g ( f i g . 21, f o r example) by f l u t t e r speeds measured
i n a p a r t i c u l a r wind tunnel may be d i f f e r e n t from t h a t t r a c e d out i n another
tunnel o r i n t h e atmosphere. Such differences may result, f o r example, from
differences i n static-temperature l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n blowdown wind tunnels.
As an i l l u s t r a t i o n , consider t h e Langley transonic blowdown tunnel, i n which t h e
data of references 1 and 2 were obtained. Mach number and a i r density may be
varied independently i n t h i s tunnel, but during a run, t h e s t a t i c temperature
i n t h e t e s t section may drop from ambient atmospheric temperature t o 410° R o r
lower.

For t h i s example consider t h e f l u t t e r conditions f o r model 4A-right a t a

Mach number of 1.30 i n standard atmosphere and i n t h e Langley transonic blowdown
tunnel. Figure 31 shows a cross s e c t i o n of t h e calculated f l u t t e r - s p e e d surface
f o r t h i s w i n g at M = 1.30. F l u t t e r f o r model 4A-right a t t h i s Mach number i n
standard atmosphere would correspond t o point Fa i n f i g u r e 31, f o r which
-pa = 27.87. If t h e values Ea = 27.87 and M a = 1.30 are duplicated i n t h e
Langley transonic blowdown tunnel at a temperature T t = 448.1' R, which i s
s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than T a = 530.2' R, than t h e speed of sound and hence t h e
free-stream v e l o c i t y w i l l be less than t h e corresponding values f o r f l u t t e r i n
standard atmosphere. The point a t t a i n e d i n t h e tunnel then w i l l be point t i n
f i g u r e 31, f o r which t h e v e l o c i t y i s

and t h e wing w i l l not f l u t t e r . If then t h e Mach number Ma i s maintained and

t h e tunnel a i r density i s increased, a path such as t h e dashed curve shown i n
f i g u r e 31 from points t t o F t w i l l be followed u n t i l t h e wing f l u t t e r s i n t h e
tunnel at point F t . If t h e temperature T t i s constant during t h i s operation, 1
t h e free-stream v e l o c i t y V t w i l l remain constant. The f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t
associated with point Ft, however, w i l l be g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r point Fa. Of
course, the c l o s e r T t i s t o Ta, t h e c l o s e r point t w i l l be t o point Fa, and
hence t h e closer point F t w i l l be t o point Fa with regard t o both f l u t t e r - s p e e d
coefficient and m a s s r a t i o . Thus, if t h e t u n n e l temperature T t were raised,
'During t h e operation of t h e Langley t r a n s o n i c blowdown tunnel, t h e t e s t -
s e c t i o n temperature changes continuously. However, f o r s i m p l i c i t y i n t h e present
discussion, t h e temporal aspects of t h e t u n n e l operation are ignored.

22
o r i f t h e temperature Ta associated with t h e f l u t t e r point Fa were lower, t h e
p o i n t s Fa and F t would be c l o s e r together. However, i f t h e d e s i r e d mass r a t i o
were increased above pa (increasing a l t i t u d e ) , t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t
obtained i n t h e tunnel, point Ft, would become increasingly unconservative w i t h
respect t o point Fa, p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e higher Mach numbers.

I n t h e preceding discussion t h e influence of v i s c o s i t y has not been men-

tioned. Certainly changes i n t h e wing boundary l a y e r with changing Reynolds
number could affect t h e onset of f l u t t e r . Possibly more important, though, i s
t h e l e v e l of turbulence i n t h e tunnel. Turbulence would be expected t o a c t as
a driving f o r c e f o r t h e wing and hence lower the observed f l u t t e r boundary.

I n t h e present i l l u s t r a t i o n t h e dynamic pressure associated with point Ft

i s about 14 percent g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r point Fa. This d i f f e r e n c e could be
even l a r g e r , of course, i f t h e comparison were made f o r a density corresponding
t o an a l t i t u d e g r e a t e r than sea l e v e l Pa >
( osea For instance, some
level).
a i r p l a n e s c u r r e n t l y operate at m a s s r a t i o s near 50.

It should be remembered t h a t t h i s example r e f e r s t o f l u t t e r conditions i n

t h e atmosphere and i n a wind tunnel f o r a Biven w i n g . I n general, it does not
apply t o model-prototy-pe coxparisens i n which f l u t t e r conditions f o r t h e proto-
type i n t h e atmosphere are derived from wind-tUMel t e s t s of a model scaled t o
represent t h e prototype near a L,M point a t which f l u t t e r was obtained i n t h e
tunnel. The discussion would apply, however, f o r scaled f l u t t e r models w h i c h
a r e t e s t e d at off-design mass r a t i o s .

E f f e c t s of wing Size2

Independent P r i n c i p a l dependent Related dependent

variable variable variable
~

Mach number F l u t t e r speed Speed of sound

Mass r a t i o F l u t t e r frequency

2This discussion i s not intended t o be a t r e a t i s e on model scaling, because

only a l i m i t e d c l a s s of wings i s discussed. The implicatians of d i s s i m i l a r
models, weakened models, o r models w i t h i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r e n t from proto-
type a r e not considered. A more general discussion of model scaling m a y be
found, f o r example, i n reference 18.
23
More s p e c i f i c a l l y , f o r a given w i n g ,

and

For w i n g s of d i f f e r i n g s i z e t h a t are geometrically s i m i l a r and constructed

of t h e same m a t e r i a l ( o r of d i f f e r e n t materials f o r which t h e Young's modulus,
t h e shear modulus, and t h e m a t e r i a l d e n s i t y are proportional), t h e n a t u r a l fre-
quencies w i l l be inversely proportional t o t h e length scale. Also, equations ( C l )
and ( C 2 ) are independent of t h e length scale, so t h a t t h e surfaces of f l u t t e r -
speed coefficient and flutter-frequency r a t i o represented by these equations
w i l l be t h e same f o r all t h e wings of t h i s type. Thus, f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s
of w i n g s t h e f l u t t e r speed as w e l l as t h e f l u t t e r - s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t w i l l be
independent of s i z e . Further, inasmuch as equations (Cl) and (C2) are independ-
ent of length scale, t h e reduced frequency i s a l s o independent of s i z e . F i n a l l y ,
if t h e geometrically s i m i l a r wings of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s are constructed of materials
of t h e same density, t h e n t h e f l u t t e r dynamic pressure w i l l a l s o be independent
of l e n g t h s c a l e .

24
 REFERENCES

1. Unangst, John R.: Transonic F l u t t e r Characteristics of an Aspect-Ratio-4,

450 Sweptback, Taper-Ratio-0.2 Plan Form. NASA TM x-136, 1959.
2. Unangst, John R.: Transonic F l u t t e r Characteristics of a 45' Sweptback Wing
With Various Distributions of B a l l a s t Along t h e Leading Edge. NASA
TM X-135, 1959-
3. Stonesifer, John C., and Goetz, Robert C.: Transonic and Supersonic F l u t t e r
Trend Investigation of a Variable-Sweep W i n g . NASA TM X-598, 1961.

4. Yates, E. Carson, Jr.: Calculation of F l u t t e r Characteristics f o r Finite-

Span Swept o r Unswept W i n g s at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds by a Modified
S t r i p Analysis. NACA RM L57L10, 1958.

5 . Watkins, Charles E., Woolston, Donald S., and Cunningham, Herbert J.: A
Systematic Kernel Function Procedure f o r Determining Aerodynamic Forces on
Oscillating o r Steady F i n i t e Wings a t Subsonic Speeds. NASA TR R-48, 1959.

6. Lighthill, M. J. : Oscillating A i r f o i l s at High Mach Number. Jour. Aero. Sci.,

vol. 20, no. 6, June 1953, pp. 402-406.

7. Ashley, Holt, and Zartarian, Garabed: Piston Theory - A New Aerodynamic Tool
f o r t h e Aeroelastician. Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 23, no. 12, Dec. 1956,
.
pp 1109-1118.

8. Morgan, Homer G., Huckel, Vera, and Runyan, Harry L.: Procedure f o r C a l -
culating F l u t t e r at High Supersonic Speed Including Camber Deflections, and
Comparison With Experimental Results. NACA TN 4335, 1958.

9. Van Dyke, Milton D.: A Study of Second Order Supersonic Flow Theory. NACA
Rep. l&l, 135-3. (Sqersedes NACA mJ 2200.)

10. Falkner, V. M.: The Calculation of Aerodynamic Loading on Surfaces of Any

Shape. R & M No. 1910, B r i t i s h A.R.C., Aug. 1943.

,
I

1
11. Cohen, Doris: Formulas f o r t h e Supersonic Loading, L i f t , and Drag of F l a t
Swept-Back Wings With Leading Edges Behind t h e Mach Lines. NACA Rep. 1050,
1951-
12. Lagerstrom, P. A., W a l l , D., and Graham, M. E.: Formulas i n Three-Dimensional
Wing Theory. Rep. No. SM-11901, Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., J u l y 8, 1946.

13. Houbolt, John C., and Anderson, Roger A.: Calculation of Uncoupled Modes
and Frequencies i n Bending o r Torsion of Nonuniform Beams. NACA TN 1522,
1948.

25
14. Yates, E. Carson, Jr.: Some Effects of Variations i n Density and Aerodynamic
Parameters on t h e Calculated F l u t t e r Characteristics of Finite-Span Swept
and Unswept Wings at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds. NASA TM x-182, 1960.

15. Yates, E. Carson, Jr.: Use of Experimental Steady-Flow Aerodynamic Parameters

i n t h e Calculation of F l u t t e r Characteristics f o r Finite-Span Swept o r
Unswept Wings a t Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Speeds. NASA TM x-183,
1960.

16. Bisplinghoff, Raymond L., Ashley, Holt, and Halfman, Robert L.: Aeroelas-
ticity. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. , Inc. ( Cambridge, Mass. ) , c. 1955.

17. DeYoung, John, and Harper, Charles W.: Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading
a t Subsonic Speeds f o r Wings Having Arbitrary P l a n Form. NACA Rep. 921,
1948.
18. Head, A. L., Jr.: A Philosophy of Design f o r F l u t t e r . Proc. N a t . S p e c i a l i s t s
Meeting on Dynamics and Aeroelasticity (Fort Worth, Texas), I n s t . Aero. Sci.,
Nov. 1958, pp. 59-65.

26

-
 \
\\ ''
\ '
\ \

4
R ln
3
N

N
0

rl
I m
(u
H c9
rl

H
w
N cu

H
H

m 3
rl

m 9 as

27
 3""

H
H H

PI
3
PI

28
I 1 I l l I
I I I l l I
I 1 I l l I
 .1 -.l

(a) M = 0.

(b) M = 0.50.

Figure 2.- D i s t r i b u t i o n s of steady-flow aerodynamic parameters c a l c u l a t e d for model 1 - l e f t from

l i n e a r i z e d aerodynamic t h e o r i e s at s e v e r a l Mach numbers.
 -.9

-.8

-.I

-.6

-.$

aC,n

-.L

-.3

-.2

-._

0
0
T

(c) M = 0.65.

(a) M = 0.75.
Figure 2.- Continued.
 (e) M = 0.80.
.9 .9

.8 .e

.7 .7

.6 .6

.5 -.5

.I -.*

.3 -.3

.2 -.2

.1 -.l

0 .; ' .; ' .I ' .; ' .; ' .k I .; I .b .6 I ll0

1

(P) M = 0.85.
Figure 2.- Continued.

33
 I

(g) M = 0.90.

1.0

-.9

-.8

-.?

-.6

'c.n

-.5

-.L

-.3

-.2

-.l

(h) M = 2 / 6 .

Figure 2.- Continued.

34
10 -1.0

9 -.9

8 -.a

7 -.7

6 -.6
ac ,n

5 -.s

I, -.b

3 -.3

2 -.2

1 -.l

C
ll

(i) M = 1.30.

n
. n

0 .I .2 .3 .L .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

(j) M = (F.
Figure 2.- Concluded.

35
 I2 -1.2

11 -1.1

-1.0
10

9 -.9

8 -.8

7 -.7

6 -.6

'ta,n ac,n

5 -.5

Ir -.&

3 -.3

2 -.2

1 -.l

0
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

Figure 3 . - Distributions of steady-flow aerodynamic p a r m e t e r s calculated by d i r e c t i n t e g r a t i o n f o r

model B a t s e v e r a l Mach numbers. A l l values were obtained from l i n e a r i z e d l i f t i n g - s u r f a c e theory
unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d .

36
 -1.2

-1.1

-1.0

-.7

-.a

-.7
n c ,n

-.6

-.5

-.h

-.3

-.i

-.l

0 .1 0

ll

(b) M = 1.30.

Figure 3 . - Continued.

37
11

10

(c) M = fi.
Y

(a) M = 1.64.
Figure 3.- Continued.
 8

5
=la,n

Ir

1.0
0I .1 .2 .3 .& .5 .6 .7 .a .9

(f) M = 2.00.

Figure 3 . - Concluded.

39
 1.2

1.0

.a
I

.6

.L

.2

.O
0
x

(a) F i r s t mode.

(b) Second mode.

Figure 4.- F i r s t t h r e e coupled v i b r a t i o n modes c a l c u l a t e d for model = - l e f t .

40
 1.2

1.0

.e

.6

.k

.2

=3
0

-.2

-.lr

-.6

-.a

-1.0

-1.2

-1.h

-1.6

( c ) Third mode.

Figure 4.- Concluded.

41
 -
X

( a ) F i r s t mode.

(b) Second mode.

Figure 5.- F i r s t t h r e e coupled v i b r a t i o n modes measured on model B.

42
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 5. .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

( c ) Third mode.

Figure 5 . - Concluded.

43
45
 f 0 a
N. N. -i

46
m
b
.-I
 Gt2
k d
W h
urn
oc,
a a
w w
W d
2l 2a
h O
w
P f i
P
3
rl
VI
k

C
.rl
P
4
d
>
I
0
rf
W

d
F
2l

48
49 I
rl d d

50
x
P

!
M
rl
53
54
55
 rl
N. 9
rl d 4
k
 (a) p = 0 . ~ 5 4slug,/cu ft.

(b) p = O.Oo60 slug/CU ft.

Figure 19.- Effect of flow density on high-frequency f l u t t e r boundary f o r model 1-left a t M = p.

57
 (a) M = 1.30.

(b) M = E.
Figure 20.- Effect of Mach number on high-frequency f l u t t e r boundary f o r model 1-left at p = o.W* SlW/CU f t .
 a
B

d
W
16

59
 f
f
I z
a,
7

1
I

.1 .2 .3 .7 1.0

Figure 22.- Calculated uncoupled v i b r a t i o n modes f o r model 1-left.

60
0 .1 .2 .4 -5 .6 07 .8 -9 1.0

Figure 23.- Calculated uncoupled vibration modes f o r model b a l l a s t I.

61
 0 .1 .2 -3 .4 -5 .6 .a 1 .o
rl

Figure 24.- Calculated uncoupled v i b r a t i o n modes f o r model b a l l a s t 11.

62
 d d

64
65
66
n

67
 a

68
 Condlt ion Polnt p, slug/cu f t T , deg R V, ft/sec - V
bs%dT
Flutter i n standard Fa 27.37 0.002610 530.2 1,468 0.4424
atmosphere

Figure 31.- Comparison of f l u t t e r boundary f o r model 4A-right at M = 1.30 with standard atmosphere
and with conditions f o r Langley transonic blowdown t u n n e l .

NASA-Langley, 1967 -1