• Version
• 142 Downloads
• 2.24 MB File Size
• 1 File Count
• January 20, 2017 Create Date
• January 20, 2017 Last Updated

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Technical Notes - Comparison Between Theory and Experiment for Interference Pressure Field Between Wing and Body at Supersonic Speeds

Pressure-distribution data were obtained for a wingébody combination
at Mach numbers of l.h8 and 2.00 and at Reynolds numbers of 0.6, 1.2, and
15des to investigate the effects of wing-body interference. The model
was a single-wedge, rectangular wing mounted on a cylindrical body with
an ogival nose. The body angle of attack ranged between +60 and -6° and
the wing-incidence angle ranged from 00 to -5.7°. The experimental
pressure-distribution and span-loading results are compared with the
linear, wing-body interference theory of NACA TN 2677.

For small values of angle of attack and wing-incidence angle it was
found that the experimental pressure-distribution results compared well
with linear theory, but for larger angles, nonlinear effects of angle
caused large differences from linear theory. The nonlinear effects of
angle on the wing were fairly well predicted by shock-expansion theory
for the wing incidence case. In contrast with the pressure-distribution
results, the lift loading was found to be very nearly linearly dependent
on angle. Reynolds nuMber and Mach number were found to have only a small
effect on the difference between experiment and linear theory except near
the wave traversing the body from.the wing-body juncture where the effects
of both of these parameters were large.

In recent years much interest has been manifested in wing-body
interference. Some of the theories that have been developed for computing
the effects of wing-body interference on pressure distribution have been
compared by Phinney (ref. 1) and Lawrence and Flax (ref. 2). Ferrari
(ref. 3) presented an iterative method based on linear theory. Morikawa
(ref. h) obtained an approximate solution by solving a boundary-value
prOblem, and also Obtained a closed solution by approximating the three-
dimensional model by a planar model. Bolton Shaw (ref. 5) obtained a
solution by satisfying boundary conditions at a finite number of points
rather than over a surface.