October 2 0 , 1938.

S u p p l e m e n t to

^o^

AIRCRAFT ^ ENGINEER
13th Year October 20, 1933

No. 153.

(Volume X V I

No. 10

'

CHANGING OVER TO "BOOTS"

Some Notes on the Conversion of Landplane to Seaplane
By H . P A R K I N S O N , A . M . I . A e . E .

H E R E " is v e r y little d e m a n d in this c o u n t r y lor float seaplanes, a p a r t from military aircraft, b u t it is a fact t h a t m o s t of o u r successful landplanes below an all-up weight of 8,ooo lb. m a k e a t least a designoffice a p p e a r a n c e in seaplane form. The o u t p u t of n e w t y p e s is steadily increasing, a n d one may reasonably e x p e c t t h a t t h e m a r i n e versions of these will be receiving consideration for purpose of tender or in connection w i t h enquiries. Those who a r e unfamiliar with conversion p r o b l e m s will n o d o u b t be primarily interested in p r o d u c i n g t h e t e n t a t i v e m a r i n e c o u n t e r p a r t with a m i n i m u m of research i n t o t h e various d a t a available. Much of this initial work would finally b e of little interest, and with this in m i n d it is i n t e n d e d t o present t h e essential information which will cover a preliminary investigation. Certain formula?, e t c . , a r e q u o t e d w i t h o u t explanation and readers w h o a r e interested in t h e derivation of this information a r e asked t o refer t o previous articles, Refs. i, 2 a n d 3, which h a v e a p p e a r e d in these pages. The location of t h e floats in relation t o t h e aircraft structure is a basic p r o b l e m in h y d r o s t a t i c s , which one h a s found t o cause infinitely more t r o u b l e t h a n certain complex problems which a r e often h a n d l e d w i t h o u t more t h a n a casual introduction. Referring t o Fig. i A , it is seen t h a t t h e b o d y is in a s t a t e
'G'lG.Q.OF BODr) 'M'(METACENTRE)

of equilibrium in t h a t t h e weight of t h e b o d y is vertically opposed to a numerically equal load (force of buoyancy) acting t h r o u g h t h e centre of b u o y a n c y . I n Fig. i B t h e body is displaced by some external force and is subjected t o a m o m e n t of m a g n i t u d e \VZ (righting m o m e n t ) , which will initially s t a r t t h e body moving back t o t h e position shown in Fig. I A . If it is required t o float t h e body a t a n y angle a (Fig. iC) it will be necessary t o a d d a weight " w " such t h a t t h e e g a n d c.b. a r e vertically above each other. Thus, in t h e case of t h e seaplane it is necessary t o predetermine t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e machine when a t rest, t h e basic d a t a required being t h a t of e s t i m a t i n g t h e c.b. o! t h e flotation system, together w i t h t h e e.g. of t h e completed aircraft This will be dealt with later. Float Shape.In common with t h e advances in general layout a n d design of aircraft as a whole, t h e seaplane float h a s also developed along certain lines, a n d t h e float shown in Fig. 2 is representative of modern British practice. All t h e characteristics q u o t e d herein a r e based on this model. T h e float beam is given b y : B e a m (maximum) inches = 2.01
\ AT
(1)

where AT = t o t a l displacement of one float in lb.

C.S OP W > u

B'(CENTRE OF BUOYANCY)

W-WEIGHT OF BODY

Fig. iA

Fig. iB Flotation data. On the right, Fig. 3, midship section. L- 8'L'B'

Fig. iC

til -IL

-IL T IL

I -ZL

J -IL

/ /

I
i

/ / /
W 2000

y
JOOO 4000 5000 6000 7000 TOTAL 0ISPLACF.MENT OF 0NF. FLOAT m LB 4000

1"
4F7ERB0DY 5ECT.
0

Fig. 2. Float Shape.

Ordinates given in Table A, p. 68.

Fig. 4. Aerodynamic drag of twin floats at 1 ooft. per sec.

SUPPLEMENT TO

66

OCTOBER 20,

1938

FLIGHT 348ft

THE

AIRCRAFT

ENGINEER

The total displacement is a function of the reserve buoyancy which must be not less than 100 per cent. (Ref. 4). The minimum requirement therefore demands that the fully submerged displacement of one float be equal to the maximum all-up weight of the aircraft. I t should be noted that the percentage of reserve buoyancy is denned as : 100(2 AT - W) . , , ; W = gross weight of seaplane. W Incidentally, to those who are interested in the manufacturing aspect, it is seldom desirable to build floats with a minimum reserve buoyancy of 100 per cent, for the prototypes. Subsequent increases in engine power, together with developments, tend to increase the gross weight, which means that the original jigs and fixtures will probably be scrapped. Unless a machine is designed

0 angle between float datum and machine datum. 4> = stalling angle of wing, a = wing incidence to machine datum. This setting is also governed, particularly in small machines, by the proximity of the tail unit to the water-line. A wing section having a large stalling angle would make the ideal float setting prohibitive, due to the tail being swamped during take-off. A setting angle of 3^ deg. is the maximum which one has seen in practice. Airscrew water clearance.A minimum of two feet is advisable, but this can be increased on certain types. Should the seaplane have a longitudinal metacentric height much in excess of the minimum requirement, it would be policy to give the airscrew clearance the benefit of the doubt. Metacentric heights.Fig. i B defines the metacentric height. This is a measure of the statical stability, and experience has shown that the minimum values are : Longitudinal GM = 1.5 3y/~A . ft. .. . . (3) Transverse GM = 1 \/ A . it. .. .. . . (4) Where A = total displacement in lb., i.e., gross weight of machine. In seaplanes the G.M. is a maximum for a small increment of trim, and decreases as the angle of trim increases. The former is the condition which must satisfy the quantities given by these expressions for G.M. In normal seaplanes, the float shown in Fig. 2 will be found to satisfy the requirements of longitudinal G.M. The magnitude of the longitudinal G.M. can be checked as follows : I.L.F. (5) B.M. = (Ref. 6) Where BM is the distance between the c.b. and e.g. I . L . F . is the longitudinal moment of inertia of the two water planes. V is the total displacement in cu. ft.
and
I.L.F. = (O.O3QL 3 B)2 ..

TAKE OFF SPEED

Fig. 5. Hydrodynamic data for twin floats. for racing purposes it is desirable to design for a reserve buoyancy of 10 per cent, to 15 per cent, above the minimum requirements. Within these limits the extra weight and drag will be comparatively small. See Figs. 4, 10 and 11. The basic float is dimensioned in terms of the maximum beam, and the required ordinates may be computed following the solution of the expression for beam. Position of water-line and C.B.In Fig. 2, the positions of the water-line and centre of buoyancy are shown for a reserve buoyancy of 100 per cent. The angle of the water line to the deck varies slightly with independent designs, but the value of 3 deg. may be taken as an average. Setting of floats relative to aircraft.The angular setting of the floats relative to the machine datum is a function of the wing characteristics at take-off speed combined

L = overall length of float. B = maximum beam.

RETRACTED POSITION

(6)

Fig. 7A.

Rudder types.

Fig. 7B.

503

It will be unnecessary to calculate the transverse B.M. as this is automatically fixed when solving the expression for track.
A

50 m
X

/*

Track of Floats.Track

BM x B

0.8=

(7)

z u. X 150

%
*s
A ACTU AL WEIOf- TS

30
TOTAL, DISPLACEMENT OF ONE FLOAT IN L S .

Fig. 6. Weight of duralumin and alclad floats. with the hydrodynamic performance of the flotation gear. If the machine were designed to take off without elevator control, it would be necessary to design for the wing incidence which gives the optimum value of K L at the take-off. The general practice, however, is to give the pilot approximately 2 deg. control over the fully air-borne condition. Reference to Fig. 5 shows that the floats squat at approximately 8 deg. to the datum (deck of float) near take-off. The expression for setting is then 6 = 4, - (8 + 2 0 + a) (2) where

BM (see Fig. 1) = BG + GM. BG is fixed when positioning the floats on the side elevation of the arrangement drawing of the machine. G.M. is obtained from (4). Float weights and e.g. position.The weights shown in Fig. 6 are for floats constructed in duralumin or alclad. This curve is representative of the actual weights of a number of British and foreign floats. The e.g. of a float may be taken as 0.45 of the overall length measured from the bow, and 0.58 of the maximum depth measured vertically below the deck. C.G. of complete seaplane.The relative e.g. positions of seaplane and landplane are such that the former is slightly lower and forward of that determined for the landplane. I t is convenient to use the landplane e.g. for purposes of an initial estimate of the float position. Aerodynamic resistance of floats.The drag of the float shown in Fig. 2 is 2.15 lb. per square foot of frontal area at 100 feet per second. Fig. 3 shows the maximum cross section of the float, the area of which is given by : Area = 0.62B 2 . Drag of twin floats at 100 feet per second, in terms ol the total displacement of one float, is represented in Fig. 4

OCTOBER 20,

1938

67

SUPPLEMENT

TO

FLIGHT

THE

AIRCRAFT

ENGINEER

348c

Fig. 8.

Arrangement of seaplane. + .025W for chassis struts). W i n g inc dence t o machine d a t u m 3 deg. Stalling angle of wing 18 deg Reserve b u o y a n c y of flotation system 100 per r e n t . Max. float beam.B~= 2 . 0 1 ^ ^ 7 = 3 I . 8 i n . from (1). Float shape and positions of C.B. and water-line. F r o m Fig. 2 a n d table A. L e n g t h of float = 8.1 x 31.8m. = 21.4ft. Float position relative to machine. 8 = 18 (8 + 2 0 + 3) = 5 from (2). As 5 deg. is excessive, a n angle of 3 deg. is chosen. W i n g incidence a t take-off is therefore 16 deg. Take-off speed.Estimated a t 90 feet per second. Metacentric heights.Required longitudinal G.M. = .5''V4O00 x/4000 = 23.8ft. from (3). 0.078 x 21.4 s x 2.65 Actual longitudinal G.M. = 62.5 - B.G. from (5) and (6) B.G. (from Fig. 8) = 5.7ft. G.M. = 32.4 5.7ft. = 26.7ft. This satisfies t h e m i n i m u m requirement. R e q u i r e d transverse G.M. = V ^ o o = 15.9ft. from (4). I t is unnecessary to calculate t h e actual transverse G.M. as this r e q u i r e m e n t is satisfied when solving for t r a c k . /21.6 x 2.65 Track = 8.25ft. from (7). As 8.25ft. is t h e t r a c k required t o meet the m i n i m u m G.M. requirement, it will be advisable t o increase this figure t o 8.5ft. Hydrodynamic
14

Hydrodynamic data.These d a t a are a variable of t h e aerodynamic properties of t h e seaplane, a n d i n d e p e n d e n t designs fitted w i t h floats of similar form can be expected t o show different characteristics. Fig. 5 represents average values of float a t t i t u d e a n d h y d r o d y n a m i c resistance a t various speeds over t h e t a k e off. I t is p r e s e n t e d o n a basis which p e r m i t s t h e construction of t h e curves t o suit t h e gross weights a n d t a k e off speeds of p a r t i c u l a r seaplanes. Design of rudder.An empirical figure for r u d d e r area is given b y A x I 0.47 V Where A = T o t a l a r e a of one r u d d e r . / = distance from centre of b u o y a n c y t o rudder hinge V = Displacement, in cubic feet, of one float t o load water-line. /Gross weight of machincx V 128 / R u d d e r t y p e s are shown in Fig. 7. T\-pe 7A is less efficient t h a n t y p e 7B d u e t o interference from w a t e r flow. The m a n u f a c t u r e r s of " E D O " floats (U.S.A.) h a v e for a number of y e a r s used t h e t y p e of r u d d e r which m a y be retracted b y m e a n s of a control in the cockpit. W i t h t y p e 7 B i t is desirable t o provide a m e t h o d of retraction, which can a t least be h a n d l e d b y t h e beaching staff, in order t o p r e v e n t d a m a g e during beaching operations.

vw~
resistance

Application

of

Data

and float attitude.These

data

Following is a n analysis of the seaplane shown in Fig. 8. Particulars.Gross w e i g h t 4,000 lb. (estimated from l u g . 6
SOSCeLES TRIANGLE IN PROPORTION TO DIAGRAM SCALE

1
115% 1 ^ - ^ , 1 1 0 * [ RE51 RVE BUOYANCY

I 2 13
:

SiiL

\ N S //

22 3

5i
3 2 ,,
it- n II

II"
AIRSCREW THRUST LESS AERODYNAMIC RESISTANCE 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5003 6000 7000 iOOO GROSS WEIGHT OF SEAPLANE LB,

Fig. 10.

Twin float weights in terms of seaplane gross weight, based on Fig. 6.

1-5

JXl
I'll

_"

-"

TAKE OFF

L
2000 3000 A000 S0O0 6000 OR055 WEI0HT OF SEAPLANE L B .

50

45 60 SPEED ON WATER F.P.5.

Fig- 9.

Diagram for estimating take-off performance.

Fig, 11. Effect of increase in reserve buoyancy on gross weight of machine, ioo per cent, reserve buoyancy as parameter.

SUPPLEMENT TO

FLIGHT
3 4 8rf

68

OCTOBER 20,

1938

THE

AIRCRAFT

ENGINEER

are e s t i m a t e d from F i g . 5, a n d t h e resistance is p l o t t e d on Fig. 9. T h e a e r o d y n a m i c resistance h a s been e s t i m a t e d in conjunction w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from t h e t r i m curve. This is d e d u c t e d from t h e airscrew t h r u s t a t v a r i o u s speeds, a n d is also p l o t t e d on F i g . 9. Take-off time and run.This is o b t a i n e d b y t h e m e t h o d of Ref. 3. F r o m Fig. 9 take-off t i m e = 1 5 seconds a p p r o x . T h e length of r u n required for take-off is given b y t h e Sum of the m e a n speeds for each second from s t a r t t o take-off. No. of Seconds from Start.
1 2

T h e effect of w i n d on take-off p e r f o r m a n c e is a n imp o r t a n t a s p e c t which is t r e a t e d fully in Ref. 5. TABLE A . O R D I N A T E S FOR FLOAT SHOWN IN FIG. 2. Except for Column 2 the Ordinates are given in Terms of Max. Beam. Distance from Bow.
0

Station. ' V ' at End of Each Second.

13
22

Deck Chine below below Datum. Datum.

.14 05
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keel below Datum.

Half Breadth at Chine.

0

Mean ' V ' = VI. 6-5 17-5

25.0 31.0

Distance moved = Vl.t 6-5

17-5 25.0 31.0

3 4 5
6

28

7 8 9
10 11 12 .

13 14 15

34 39 43 49 53 58 63 68 73 79 84
90

36-5
41.0 46.0 5IO

36-5
41.0 46.0 5IO

Row A B C D E Step Ford. Step Aft F G H Stern

.14

.05 ' L ' .1 ' L ' .2 ' L '

36 .48
.60 65 .66 63 58 50 .42

M 54 .69
.81

32 39

55-5
60.5

55-5
60.5

3 * L ' .4'L' 537 ' L ' 537 ' L ' .6'L' 7'L' .8'L' .9.' L 'L-

85
875

85 .82
g A

475 5 5 -.48 .46

.41

"3)
3 u

36
31 .41

34
25
0

.41

655
70.5 76.0 81.5 87.0

65-5 7-5 76.0 81.5 87.0 751.0 feet

REFERENCES 1. Longitudinal stability calculations of seaplanes on water. H. Parkinson A raraft Engineer, Sept., 1934. 2. Notes on the design of twin seaplane floats. H.Parkinson. Aircraft Engineer Feb., 1933. 3. Seaplane take-off calculations. H. Parkinson. Aircraft Engineer Dec, 1930. 4. A.P. 1208. 5. R. & M. 1593. 8. ' T e x t Book of Naval Architecture." Attwood.

Total . . 751

L e n g t h of r u n

250 y a r d s .

Take-off t i m e a n d r u n h a v e been e s t i m a t e d for zero wind.

THE SLOPE OF THE LIFT CURVE

By W. R. A N D R E W S , A . F . R . A e . S

H E p r e s e n t article is a m o n o g r a p h showing t h a t t h e slope of t h e lift curve of a r e c t a n g u l a r wing is practically a c o n s t a n t fraction of t h a t of a n elliptical wing of t h e same aspect r a t i o . F r o m this it is concluded t h a t for a n y given p l a n form of wing t h e slope is readily o b t a i n e d from t h a t of t h e elliptical wing b y t h e use of a suitable r e d u c t i o n factor. T h e numerical value of this factor will a l w a y s be less t h a n u n i t y . T h e elliptical wing represents t h e a e r o d y n a m i c ideal. F o r a given thickness a n d aspect r a t i o s t h e slope of t h e lift K, 6-3 = aA(A+2)
a,

difference between t h e angle for a n infinite wing a n d t h a t for aspect r a t i o = A is given b y CL a A a 0 = - r ( J + r) (i)
7rA

where aA a n d a a r e t h e angles of incidence of wings of aspect A a n d Infinity respectively. C L as Lift Coefficient. A = A s p e c t R a t i o == S p a n 2 / A r e a . T = C o n s t a n t v a r y i n g w i t h plan form a n d A/a for infinite wing da. = o for a n elliptical wing for all values ol Aspect Ratio. L e t t i n g aA0LA = C L = aa 0 a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g in (i) gives
i i i

*, A x A +2x

w h e r e a

dtL

62

aA 61 <i 4 Fig. i. -6 -8
* T I P CHORD ' ' * ROOT CHORD

a 0 a, aA =

77. A . n . A . a0

(i +

<*o(l + r) + w A I +T

or aA ^^

Straight-tapered wings.

curve is t h e m a x i m u m o b t a i n a b l e a n d t h e induced, or aerodynamic, d r a g is a m i n i m u m . In m a k i n g t h e correction from one a s p e c t r a t i o t o a n o t h e r it is convenient t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c h a n g e in incidence a t which t h e same lift coefficient is realised. T h u s t h e

T h e theoretical value for a0 is 277, b u t t h e actual value is usually smaller t h a n this, so t h a t in general we m a y write a0 = 2 . IT . x where x is t h e reduction factor and is m a i n l y a function of t h e thickness/chord ratio 2 . JT . x . A , , t h e n aA = - ; ; W A + 2(1 + T) . x which for an elliptical wing w h e n T = o resolves t o 2 . it. x . A (3) A + 2.x

OCTOBER

20,

1938

99

S U P P L E M E N T TO

THE AIRCRAFT ENGINEER

The theoretical value for a n elliptical wing when x = 1.0 is 2 . IT . A Glauert (Ref. 1) gives t h e t h e o r e t i c a l values for t h e ' t o t a l lift on a r e c t a n g u l a r aerofoil in t h e form of a c o n s t a n t A TT / A , \ fl C . = ~ A .I a 2 \/ua/ 4 . s . which when a 0 = z-nx resolves t o
A 7T 2 C /A,\ A

FLIGHT 34**

(6)

K2
1-0

= .A .- .x .( .a. 4 5 Kfia./

b u t for a parallel wing = A therefore when a = i.o

(7)
A

= I
2 \IIX/

a
.

$3
2

Similarly for t h e tapered wings, when = i.o A A = - A . 96

(8)

A, The numerical values of are t a k e n from page 147 of

liOL

04.

"6

-4
\ '

-6
_ T I P CHORD "" ROOT CHORD

-8

1-0

Fig. 2. Correction factor to be applied to the slope of the lift curve for an elliptical wing to obtain that of rectangular or straight-tapered wings. dependent u p o n aspect r a t i o from which t h e slope of t h e lift curve is obtained, a s u n d e r

Glauert's book a n d reproduced in T a b l e 1 together with t h e values of a A determined b y m e a n s of 7. A column is also included in t h e table showing values of 6-05 A .. A = , (9) A
104

1
O 61UNT NOSE SHARP NOSE

102

+
30

* ^ \
.

aA = - . A
2

\ a
_A,

(5)

093 a, 03fi a0 = (-io:l - - s t 5 r

The numerical values of h a v e been o b t a i n e d when a a = 1 R a d i a n so t h a t resulting slope is p e r r a d i a n . Incidentally e q u a t i o n 5 a n d t h e d a t a h a v e been modified to agree w i t h t h e n o w accepted lift coefficient C\ instead

004

092 a0 104

132

4 ^
+
a,= ( - l 0 3 l -

'.
^ n

tf^tv.
st5)-"-""

ii
'^

+ X 3 C > <J

SYMMETRICAL 23 SERIES 24 25 43 > 44 45

030

05

25

Fig. 4. Effect oi nose radius on the slope of the lift curve. Symmetrical sections of infinite aspect ratio. Over t h e practical range of aspect ratio a n d within t h e accuracy of t h e calculations this agrees with t h e theoretical values, so t h a t generally, for rectangular wings of finite thickness, we m a y write 6.05 . x . A

098

&
ao(l09 7 - 0 7 t ) ( D / t f K

+ \

RANGE OF SECTIONS USED Cambers O to 4.7 Max Camber position 0-3 ro 0-5c 090

>V \
-IS -20 -25

Oftfl OS -10

Fig. 3

t The slope of the lift curve.

flA= <IO) A ' + 2 . This shows, b y comparison with 3, t h a t t h e slope for t h e 6.05 rectangular aerofoil is = .96 t h a t of the elliptical 2n aerofoil of t h e same thickness a n d aspect ratios. I t is argued from t h e above t h a t for different plan forms t h e ratio between t h e slopes of t h e lift curves a t equal aspect ratios will be practically constant, which leads t o t h e expression: K,*A

Infinite aspect ratio.

=AT^

(II)

of K L as used b y Glauert. A s is a c t u a l l y t h e first t e r m of the Fourier series representing t h e spanwise loading of the aerofoil. The value is used for t a p e r e d aerofoils a t a given
A v I value of = i.o, b u t for rectangular aerofoils of varying

aspect ratio use is m a d e of t h e p a r a m e t e r where no.

o
M
c

Table 2 a n d Fig. 1 show how t h e value of K j varies with degrees of taper on a straight tapered wing. I t will be noticed t h a t for t h e rectangular wing (A = 1.0) t h e value of K , is 6.02 instead of 6.05 given in 10. This is less t h a n 1 p e r cent, a n d is a t t r i b u t a b l e t o slide-rule errors. Another method of expressing t h e slope, favoured b y the writer, is t o replace K , by 2 . w . K 2 = A', (12) K 5 ll . -n . X . A \ when aA
A

.. x ;

4.s. C == chord of wing S = semi-span using this p a r a m e t e r , w e g e t

K , now becomes t h e multiplying factor for o b t a i n i n g the slope from t h a t of t h e elliptical wing of t h e same thickness a n d aspect ratios, which is given b y t h e p a r t within t h e brackets. Fig. 2 gives t h e variation of K 2 with t a p e r showing a value of .958 for t h e rectangular wing when A = i.o.

SUPPLEMENT TO

OCTOBER

20,

1938

FLIGHT 348/

THE AIRCRAFT

ENGINEER

T o c o m p l e t e t h e investigation i t is required t o k n o w how " x " varies with thickness r a t i o a n d / o r t h e leading edge r a d i u s as suggested b y T h e o d o r s e n (Ref. 2). Fig. 3 shows t h e v a r i a t i o n w i t h t h e t h i c k n e s s r a t i o w h e n t h e

A t a p e r e d wing, h a v i n g a large v a r i a t i o n in t h e thicknesschord r a t i o between t i p a n d r o o t strictly requires special t r e a t m e n t . Referring t o F i g . 7 a fictitious p l a n form is d r a w n b y dividing t h e chord a t a n y p o i n t b y t h e approp r i a t e value of x o b t a i n e d from F i g . 5. T h e m e a n straight line d r a w n t h r o u g h t h e p o i n t s o b t a i n e d will give t h e fictitious r a t i o of t i p chord t o r o o t chord a n d t h e value of K 2 corresponding t o this v a l u e of A is o b t a i n e d from Fig. 2. T h e m e a n value of x is t h e n t h e p l a n a r e a of t h e wing divided b y t h e fictitious area. Using t h e s e fictitious
<{: OF WING

Fg- 5L . E . r a d i u s is 1.1 . t . T h e p o i n t s are from t h e results of t e s t s in t h e N.A.C.A. Variable D e n s i t y W i n d T u n n e l (Ref. 3) a t a R e y n o l d s n u m b e r of a p p r o x i m a t e l y full scale. T h e m e a n curve t h r o u g h t h e p o i n t s (as d r a w n on t h e graph) follows t h e law aa (per degree) = 0.1031 0.9 t3 .. .. (13) from which x = 0.94 8.2 t3
.1097
2

NOTE Cp = MEAN X -

Area ABDE Area ABFG

Fig- 7values t h e slope of t h e lift c u r v e is t h e n o b t a i n e d b y m e a n s of e q u a t i o n 1 1 . U s u a l l y this refinement is n o t justified unless v e r y t h i c k wings (say 25 p e r cent, t o 30 p e r cent.) are being used near t h e centre. F o r convenience Tables 3 a n d 4 are added, giving the values from which t h e c u r v e s h a v e been p l o t t e d . TABLE 1.
RECTANGULAR AEROFOILS AT I.O RADIAN FROM Ai ZERO-LIFT.

(M)

This is shown in Fig. 5. T h e s t r a i g h t line d r a w n on Fig. 3 is t h e a p p r o x i m a t i o n suggested b y Diehl (Ref. 4), which over t h e range of practical aerofoils agrees well w i t h t h e m e a n curve t h r o u g h t h e points. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e slope of t h e lift curve for elliptical wings (see Fig. 6) t h e value of x . from Fig. 5 a n d t h e m e a n curve of Fig. 3 only h a v e been used. T h e effect of v a r y i n g t h e L . E . r a d i u s is shown in Fig. 4. T h e o d o r s e n ' s theoretical c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e slope is
09

A a0 5 75
1.0 . 125 i-5

When a0 = = A

27r/Rad.
A

6.05 A A + 2 3-64
4.24

0.748 0.859
0.928

3M2 4-713 6.284 9.426 10.997

3-7
4.24 4-59 4.82 5.00

0.976
1.011 1.038

7-855

4-59 4-83 4-99

5-12

i-75

5-13

TABLE 2.
TAPERED
a 1.0

AEROFOILS
FROM

A
ZERO-LIFT.

RADS.

A
1.0

A/a
0.232 0.236 0.240 0.241 0.232

aX 4-57 4-^5 4-73 4-75 4-57 TABLE 3.

A (A + 2) \ 2 J
when a 0 = 217
6.02 6.12 6.22 6.25 6.02

o.75
5
. SPAN 2 -

6,

0.50 0.25 0

Fig. 6.

The slope of the lift curve.

Elliptical wings.

reduced with increased r a d i u s d o e s n o t seem t o be confirmed. I n fact, t h e a c t u a l p o i n t s show t h a t t h e smallest slope is w i t h t h e sharp-nosed aerofoils, which m a y be fortuitous. W i t h i n t h e limits of e x p e r i m e n t a l accuracy, t h e p o i n t s confirm t h e m e a n curve of Fig. 3, showing t h a t with a given thickness t h e r e is little or no variation of t h e slope of t h e lift c u r v e w i t h leading edge radius, a n d t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n in slope is a function of thickness r a t i o only. T h e slope of t h e lift curve for a n elliptical wing of k n o w n thickness a n d aspect r a t i o is o b t a i n e d directly from Fig. 6. F o r a r e c t a n g u l a r or s t r a i g h t t a p e r e d wing t h e correction factor is given in Fig. 2. Alternatively, t h e slope m a y b e calculated b y m e a n s of e q u a t i o n 11 in conjunction w i t h Figs. 2 a n d 5.

SLOPE OF L I F T CURVE FOR ELLIPTICAL

WINGS.

(Slope given in terms of Q, and degrees.)

t 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 A=1.0 0.0358 0.0357 0.0354 0.0348 0.0339 1.5 0.0457 0.0455 0.0451 0.0442 0.0428 2.0 0.0532 0.0529 0.0523 0.0511 0.0491 3.0 0.0033 0.0630 0.0622 0.0604 0.0578 4.0 0.0701 0.0698 0.0687 0.0607 0.0633 6.0 0.0784 0.0779 0.0767 0.0742 0.0700 9.0 0.0853 0.0847 0.0832 0.0803 0.0755 13.0 0.0900 0.0892 0.0877 0.0844 0.0792

LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S . 1. Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory. H. Glauert, B.A. 2. N.A.C.A. Report. 383.On the Theory of Wing Sections with particular reference to the Lift Distribution. Theodore Theodorsen. 3. N.A.C.A. Report. 460.The Characteristics of 78 related Aerofoil Sections from tests in the Variable Density Tunnel. E. N. Jacobs, K. E . Ward, and R. M. Pinkerton. 4. Engineering Aerodynamics. Walter S. Diehl.