TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS No. 771 GROUND EFFECT ON THE TAKE-OFF AND LANDING OF AIRPLANES By Maurice le Sueur La Science Aérienne Vol, YII, No, 1, January-February 1934 Washington duly 1935 jwu Tu i 3.1176 01441 157. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ABRONAUTICS GROUND EFFECT OW THE TAKE-OFF AND LANDING OF AIRPLANES* By Maurice Le Sueur INTRODUCTION The French Society for Air Navigation has asked me to write a report on the muchdiscussed subject: "Interfer~ enco Effect of the Ground on Airplanes." Theory and practice have always been in agreement with the concept that the flight characteristics of a glider or airplane wore distinctly difforent when the air plane flew some 30 feet above or when it flew quite close to the ground. Every boy of tho "aoronautical generation" has built carefully weighted paper airplanes which, after a quite regular gliding descent, seemed to undergo when near tho ground an offoct great enough to make thom start leveling off as if mother earth wanted to help our machines to fight against the resistance of the air. i Obdservations on airplanes in free flight have enabled 1 us to observe certain systematic phenomena such as: the L greater facility of low-wing airplanes for taking off; the P impossibility of certain heavily loaded airplanes to gain ‘ altitude; the prolonged gliding power of low-wing air- / planos at landing, etc. Notwithstanding the relative consensus of the obser- f vations and despite the acquiescence of the principle of q the results with theory, much that is erroneous has deen } published and disseminated ae to the causes of those pho- 4 nomena. *“"L'influence du voisinage du sol sur ltenvol et l'atter- rissage des avions." La Science Aérienne, January- e February 1934, pp. 60-95.2 N.4,C,A, Technical Memorandum Noe 771 Has it not been said that the wing compressed, between it and the ground, an air cushion which increased its max~ imum lift? Certain ones, pressed too closely for an expla~ mation, even hastened to add that the ground effect in- creased the drag. {]6 dispefave once for all these misleading doctrines, permit me to “tate that a11 experiments are in accord with the theory for. showing that the ground interference, rath~ er than raising the drag, actually lowers it, always sup~ posing the lift to be equal, and in quite noticeable pro~ portions. As to the maximum lift, thero is no theory which attests to its increase; in fact, divers experiments in accord with certain theories appear to indicate occa~ sionally a decrease. In support of this theory I shall quote the rosults of a number of reports, and incidentally express my appre= ciation to the technicians and engineers who have aided me in this work: Dr. Ackeret, Zurich; W. Margoulis, Mr. Wood, and Professor Alexander Klemin, of the Guggenhoim Foundation; Mr. Johnston, Assistant Editor of Aviation; Mr, Gourteiiles, of the Central Library; Mr. Fournier, of tho §.T.4d.; and Mr. Toussaint, Chief of the Saint-Oyr Aerotechnical Institute, whose report, published in 1922 (reference 9), contains a lucia and very detailed study of ground interference, I shall take up the four phases of the problem in the following order: 1) The theories on interference effect; 2) The various experimental mothods used to record the phenomenon: a) In the wind tunnel; b) In free flight. 3) The results of the different investigations which upon analysis reveal a more or less satisfac~ tory mtual agreement between themselves and with the theory; 4) The consequences of the phenomenon on the airplane: a) At take-off ; bd) Immediately after actual take-off 5 c) At landing.B.A.Ced. Technical. Memorandum Mo. 771 3 In the last part I shall not fail to touch upon’ the subject which so" often lends this-question-practical rea~ sons for controversy: the comparison of high wing and low wing, and the drawbacks of eack due to their unlike inter ference with the ground. THEORIES ON INTERFERENCE BFFEOT fo begin with, it is obvious that the "introduction of equations," if I may say so, in this problem is diffi~ cult on account of the fundamental discrepancies between the two elements of interference. The fect that the airplane moves while the ground does not, constitutes no insurmountable difficulty; the laws of flow know how to allow for these special condi- tions. , The wing of finito span represents a much, more com plicated case because of the superposition of ground: terference effects and finite-span cffects. It, is certain that, to bo systematic, the theoretical study and the exporiments should first attack the problem of growad effect on an infinite wiag, perhaps in line with the ozperiments made at Saint-Gyr by Mr. Girerd, a pupil of ii. Toussaint, for his thesis - experiments which con- vey the deteruination of the polars of each wing of a dix plane with systematic change in the three parameters of wing gap, stagger, and decalage, aad which bring out phe~ nomena of greatest importance, especially with very small wing gap. However, our study is concerned with tle general study of the biplane. One of the artifices in fact which permits posing the problem consists in assuming that the real wing visu:.lized is not influenced by the ground but by a virtual wing which is its symmetrical image with respect’ to the ground, and to admit that for this simple reason of ‘symmetry the spoeds resulting from the reciprocal influence. of wing and its imago are contained in the plane of the ground. Accordingly one may deduct this ground which inter~ cepts no circulation, and the interforence,of the real vy4 N.A.0.4, Technical Memorandum No. 771 the virtual wing. is then computed by Prandtl's method, which allows for the induced drag due to the tip vortices of the ‘image and of the speed change produced by the "bound", vortex of the image. With this theory of Prandtl, Betz expresses the vari~ ations in incidence 4, and the change in Cy (supposing that Cg is equal) at: c,S Ais-o me (in radians) o,?s ACg = = 60 See * oa wherein is the coefficient of induction, oO 2 EL, the aspect ratio When reconciling these formulas with identical terms expressing the induced incidence and the induced drag, it is readily seen that the ground effect is identical with that of an increase in aspect ratio. All this happens as if the wing had a virtual aspect ratio \' which increases as one approaches the ground and which is tied to the real aspect ratio \ through the relation _ X - 6 so that the formas for transposing the angles and the Cx may be expressed with Cn fh 7 au 4 a+ ro ) (in radians) @- Many theoretical or experimental values have been given for coefficient oO. One may admit that it is a fune~ tion of gap/span ratio h/L (h being then twice the height of the wing above the ground). CxN.A.C.4, Technical Memorandum Yo. 771 5 Prandtl gives two interpolation fyrmlas for o as hyperbolic functions of “h/’ wee Rel o for ye< 2 and Lehel os < he for is ~ 4 These are the formulas chosen by Toussaint in the pres viously cited report for comparison with his experimental values for the coefficient in different cases of monoplanes or Diplanes with ground effect (fig. 1). It is noted that these two expressions in hyperbolic form differ very little from each other in the 1/5 to 1/4 zone. On the other hand, the first, aside from being more simple, is also more suitable for extrapolating above (In fact, the second gives o for 1.5, at variance with the majority of experiments.) However, as this analysis is to be of a general nature, we shall not attempt a discussion of this theory by Prandtl as announced in 1921 by Wieselsberger (reference 5), nor compare it with other theories established since then. Qiite to the contrary, we shall admit Wieselsberger's formula as transposition method (with, for example, the first formula for o) and we attribute the experimental de- ta pointed out in our report very objectively to these theoretical data. This is all the more justified as the greater percent= age of exporimenters have offectively used this formula as basis as well as having been accepted by nearly every ono of the authors quoted. Nevertheless, we wish to point out, in passing, the other theoretical studies which have been undertaken since on this problem ané which result in formulas or results which are more or less at variance with the formere There is an analysis by Rosenhead of the lift on a6 N.A.C.4. Technical Memorandum No. 771 flat plane between parallel walls (reference 18) = an anal~ ysis based upon a method of conformal transformation whose results are obtained as functions of Weierstrass and thota functions, with numerical applications for different approx imations, and which the author compares with Glauert's val~ ues. There is further a study by Muller (reference 19) ap~ plying to two symmetrical airfoils visualized in the reflec- tion method, the conformal transformation of Ferrari which, in consequence, is applied to two equal circles and yields a transformation of the type of f) and. )' being conjugated complex numbers and P a real positive inferior number of the radius of the circles The choice of ¢ and (5! affords thin profiles ob tained through the sum of three vectors. It is a general- ization of von Mises' method applied to symmetrical airfoils, The author points out that the results obtained with this method are not in accord with experience because they lead to a decrease in lift, whereas experience indicated an increase due to the fact that the friction against the ground in the vicinity of the wing tends to slow up the flow on the top camber, which promotes circulation. Another report along the same lines is that by Pisto~ lesi (reference 24), in which the author applies his bi- plane theory to the reflection method. Treating first the case of infinite span, he finds that the circulation increases with the angle of incidence up to a certain value of this incidence, beyond which a re~ versal occurs. This angle for which the infiuence changes signs is, moreover, not unaffected by ratio h/L but va- ries with it. Besides, the growth of circulation does not necessarily entail a rise in lift, for it must allow for the horizontal speed. The GC, value in function of Cz of the isolated wing is: 2 r-« (4h - ( VansW.A.C.A, Technical Memorandum No. 771 7 The rise up to the value of the incidence is: A 5 “ga : en bh This formula is to be reconciled with the approximated 1ift given by Roy in his "Aerodynamiqud (edition 1928, page 66): ry Roo er (vo + im) The author then passes to the limited span L, com- putes the mean circulation, and finds that ratio 0,/Cz) ig a fraction of the relative distance h/l, of the inci- dence i, and also of the aspect ratio L/l.s Figure 2 shows the C,/C,, curves as function of 4 for an aspect ratio 5 and for h/t = 1 and h/l = 0.75. The proximity of ground is seen to raise the lift at small i and to reduce it at high 43; conclusions which, as we shall see, agree with the experimental results. Lastly, we cite a Japanese report by Tomotika, Nagami~ dja, and Takenouti (reference 23), entitled: "The Lift on a Flat Plate Placed Near a Plane Wall, with Special Reference to the Effect of the Ground upon the Lift of a Monoplane Airfoil! Having posed the problem of perfect fluid, the writers start by defining the function of the complex velocity by conformal transformation; then thoy compute the lift con- ponent with Blasius'! formulas, one boing zero and the other fairly confirming the lift equation without interference for the case of a wall at infinity. The authors then give some numerical applications BeST a X Figure 3 gives for angles of attack varying between 4° 30' ad 36° the algebraic percentage of lift increase versus the relative distance of the wall. Their final result is identical with that of Pisto~ lest: Y At low incidence the 1ift increases when the, ais« tance from the ground decreases; A At high incidence, however, the lift decreases con~ currently with the distance of the ground.8 N.A.C.4. Technical Memorandum No. 771 For low incidences, more or less, this law is not at variance with Weisolsberger - no more than with wind~ tunnel and free-flight tests made in England, the United States, Germany, and Frances II, BXPERIMENTAL MEANS FOR RECORDING GROUND INTERFERENCE These were twofold: first on small-scale models in the wind tunnel or on the aerodynamic carriage; subse- quently in free~flight tests while recording the charac- teristics at different attitudes of flight near the ground, at take-off and landing. A. Tests with Scale Models Not wishing to go back as far as Betz! experiments in 1912 (reference 1) (which, while revealing negligible in~ terference values, were quite inaccurate), we have found an interesting report by Cowley aad Lock, entitled "Cush~ joning Effect on Airplanes Close to the Ground" (reference 3). This study was based on tests made in England in July 1920, in the 4-foot No. 1 wind tunnol at 13 m/s (40 ft./ sec.) wind spoed, for a R.A.F, 15 biplane of no stagger, im connection with the "Tarrant" triplano. The ground was represented in the one case (iso, stationary flat~plate method) by a vertical sheet of tin 4 fect high, 3 fect long; in the other case, that is, with the reflection method, a duplicate modol was made with wings which, except for a slight modification in the un~ der surface, were of R.A.F. 15 soction. This model was supported in the reflected position upon a turntable in the floor of the tunnel. Measurements were mado of the lift, drag, and pitgh= ing moment for angles of attack ranging from -6° to 14°, and for ground distances of 37 mm (i-i/2 ain.) and 68 mm (2-3/4 in.), which is equivalent to h/L = 0+167 and 0.306. At about the same time the Hassachusetts Institute of Technology also made some similar tests in the 4-foot tun= nel, at wind speeds of 30 miles per hour except in two cases, where it was increased to 40 and 45 miles per hour. These tests, reported by Arthur 3, Raymond (reference 6), were made on threo & by 18-inch models: a Martin No, 2, an R,A.F. 15 special, and a U.S.A. 27. These experiments vereN.A.C.a, Tochnical Memorandum No. 771 9 x if? also made by the flat-plate method (3eply birch 3/8 inch Le. _ thick, 4 feet high, 3 feet wide, with leading edge cham- Uk feFed on the sideway from the model), and. by reflection ih method. q . In both cases the tests were run at a fixed angle of ig incidence, for different ground distances varying from 1/4 ie chord to 2 times chord. ¥ The same experimental method was used in 1921 in Ger~ many to check Wieselsberger!s formula and subsequently, Wunk's method for biplanes, deduced from the Prandtl theo~ ry. These experiments (reference 5) were made on a mono~ plane model of 124 em (48,82 in.) span, aspect ratio 96 Some years later Toussaint made a series of syste- matic experiments in the 6$-foot No. 1 wind tunnel at t Seint-Cyr (reference 9). The ground was represented by a sheet of aluminum 4 mm (0,157 in.) thick, 1.60 m (5,24 ft.) long. The recordings wore effected on a wire balance, the wires passing over grooves in the sheet above, The wind speed was 32 to 33 m/s (105 to 108.3 ft./sec.) in the open» and in the closed-throat wind tunnel. The models were & Lioré [.C..133a wing, a Fokker S.C. 106a wing, a Fokker S.0, 106atd biplane wing, as well as two Breguet 1442 air plane models of 1/10 and 1/20 scale. Ze measured both lift and drag, Cy, and Ox, in stages of 3° each, from ~9 to +15, and for three distances: 04530, 04438, and 0.240 m (1.74, 1444, and 0.787 ft.). The interference factor o in each case was deduced from the test data with Betz! formila, and the obtained figures checked against the the~ oretical figures of Prandtl's formula, We shall refer to the results again later on, SS From among other wind-tunnel tests we wish to mention those made in the Eiffel tunnel, whose equipment has re~ cently been described in this periodical, In the tunnel where the model is attached to the balance by an upper surface support, a platform representing the ground may be shifted and fixed at varying heights. Among the tests in this tunnel at 25 m/s (82 ft./sec.) wind speed, we cite from memory the tests on a Caudron R220 model, for which the distance of the platform was , succossively spaced at 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 mn (3.94, 7.87, 11.81, 15.75, and 19,69 in,).10 N.4.0,A4. Technical Memorandum No. 771 Unfortumtely, as far as the angles are concerned, the experiment is far from being systematic enough: one, 0° inthe range of COxa3, and the other, 12° in the zone of Cmax Such incomplete tests afford no accurate information. The experiments of the Wibault-Penhoet company, on the other hand, are much more complete, and particularly on: Ls__Airgo: 2- mean thickness 14.23; under surface with double camber; theoretical mo = 44125; aspect ratio 5; dimensions, 1m by 0.20 % (3,28. by 0.656 ft.) Tests: with ground distances of 100, 200, and 300 mn (3.94, 7.87, and 11.81 in.) compared with case of ground at infinity (i.e., no plate), Recording of lift, drag, and pitching moment for angles 0°, 6°, 12°, 15°, and 18°, 2.__Low-wing monoplane 313, airfoil 209 (complete 1/10-scale model) - aspect ratio 7.8; dimensions, 180 by 1135 am (7,09 by 44.7 ins). Tests with ground distances at 10, 110, and 210 um (0.394, 4.85, and 8.27 in.) from base of wheols, compared with ground at infinity, Lift and drag for angles 3°, 6°, 9°, 12°, and 15°. 3. _Low-wing monoplane 280, airfoil 125 (complete 1/20-scale model) - dimensions, 202 by 1130 mm (7.95 dy. 44.5 in.); effective aspect ratio 6.84; real aspect ratio 7.85; ground distances of 5, 105, and 205 mm (0.2, 4.13, and 8.07 ins), compared with ground at infinity. Lift and drag for angles of ®, 3.6°, 12°, and 15°, Low-wing monoplane 287, airfoil 215 (complete 1/20 ; dimension’ 10 by 1300 mm (6.27 by 51.2 ins); total aspect ratio, 8.4, Ground distances of 12, 112, and 212 mm (0.472, 4.41, and 8,35 in.), comparison with ground at infinity; lift, drag, and pitching moment for angles of 0, 6, 12, ana 18°. Note: In the case of the 18° angle, the 12 mm (0.472 in.) distance could no longer be realized because of the tail skid. In this particular case the plate was dropped 49 mm (1.93. in.) instead of 12 mm (0.472 in.). .- Only one interference test to skimming over the water, and for » and 18°, cgrresponding sles of 6°, 0.6°, 12 |C.a, Technical Memorandum No. 771 1 Lastly, we shall mention the tests reported by Dat- wyler (reference 22) in his Doctor's thesis. These com prised: : Se 1) flat-plate method tests in. the small Gottingen wind tunnel on a rectangular wing of symmetrical profile, 200 by 800 um (7.87 by 31.5 in.), fitted with vertical elliptical end plates of 250 by 300 mm (9.8 by 11.81 in.). 2) reflection-mothod tests in the Zurich wind tunnol (two symmetrical wings of 100 by 470 mm (3,94 by 18.5 ine)). e Fi . } The results obtained for very short distances are, as i we shall presently see, extremely interesting. Test odynamic age. From among these tests we shall cite those described by Z. Tonnies, in a report which may be considered as one of the most complete studies on this subject (reference 21). Lacking a wind tunnel, the Technical Institute of Han- over, designed and perfected a small carriage actuated by a falling weight over a straight rail 72 feet long, at a speed of 6.50 m/s (21.33 ft./sec.). On this carriage was moupted a wind-tunnel balance supporting the tested model, a Gottingen wing section 365, suspended from a system of levers permitting its height changes above the ground. A stylus recorded the horizontal and vertical displacements of the airfoil on paper mounted on a cylinder. During a time interval of 0.77 second, which corr sponds to a run of 5 m (16.4 ft.), during which the motion was accelerated, the accelerations being recorded on a constant speed cylinder in function of the path followed by an electromagnetic tuning fork fitted with a stylus. This record of the loads in each point of the trajectory permits the calculation of the lift coefficiont. The authors point out that, since the acceleration was not constant during these 5 meters, the graphs disclose a certain lag due to friction and air resistance. The measurements have afforded a table which for dif~ ferent angles of attack and different wing distances give the recorded acceleration, then the corrected lift, aad lastly, the lift coefficient O,+12 N.A.0.A4, Technical Memorandum No. 771 The experimenters further confirmed their method by satisfactory comparison (to withip 2 or 3 percent) with the lift values recorded in the Gottingen wind tunnel and according to the above-described tests. Analysis of their approximations disclosed during the acceleration period an accuracy of 1/100 second for the time interval ‘~ an accu~ racy of 1/4 mm (0,00984 in.) for the distance covered by the carriage and £0,035 for the lift coefficient O,. The accuracy of the angles is given as within 1/4 degree, B. Full-Scale Experiments Here the full-scale investigations made in the U.S. in 1927 and related by Elliott G, Reid (reference 12) mer- it special mentioning. The experiments were made on a Vought VE-7 biplane, whose aerodynamic characteristics had been previously de~ termined by glide tests and by chock tests at approximately 500 feet altitude and several propeller specds. The propeller characteristics having been calibrated, the repens of the propeller recorded in level flight thus became a criterion of the absorbed torque. It sufficed then to effect level flights very close to the ground; that is, to say, at such heights that the lower wing was from 5 to 9 feet above the ground. The spoed and r.p.m. measurements made then from these tests allowed the calculation of the lift and drag characteristics of the airplane in flight subject to ground effect, and the comparison of these data with those doter- mined by the. same method beyond the interference zone. The interesting feature of this method is the princi~ ple resorted to to eliminate the necessity of maintaining strictly level flight, Three or four runs were made with different throttle settings, with gain or loss of altitude during 30 seconds, and reading of the revolation counter for the same time interval. The r.pem. for level flight was thon interpolated on a plot of altitude change versus PeDeme * Other interesting full-scale tests are cited in Ton- nies' report (reference 21), The latter, referring to the preceding U.S. investigations, regrets that the authors did not have the advantage.of extending their investiga~= N,A.C.a, Technical Memorandum No. 771 13 tions to-include the changes-in angle of incidence and the deformations of the polar in function of the "ground ef+ fect," and he explains the test flights made on a Klemm 26~2a at Hanover, This time the principle was to record concurrently: the height of the wing above the ground, the speed, and corresponding angle of attack. The records were made with a Zeiss notion-picture camera, timed for one exposure per second, The time of flight (head wind) was staked out by three posts 50 m (164,04 ft.) apart. The camera was mounted sideways facing the pole and 160 m (624.9 ft.) high. The pilot first flew past the poles with his wheels 10 to 20 cm (0,394 to 0,787 in.) from the ground, or at about 1 meter (3,28 ft.) height for the wing while the an- gle of incidence was recorded. Admittedly, this flight was very delicate and dangorous. This was followed by flights at 2, 4, 7, 10, 15, and 20 m (6.56, 13.12, 22.97, 32.8, 49.2, and 65.6 ft.) height. The experiments wore numerous and followed a set schedule; in fact, several systems of checking were used, Flights were nade with head wind, as well as in winter time, in ab solutely still air with a thin layer of snow on the ground, The films were projected on paper with millimeter squares, so as to record the three characteristic points of the in~ cidence: lower tip of propeller, low point of the wheels, and tip of tail skid. The report of the films gave the speed and the angle of incidence (within about 10 minutes)« The height was read on the photograph of the test scale. These experiments are remarkably interesting, and we only regret that no similar tests have been made in France. Incidentally, we would like to make a minor sugges tion, The taking of the motion pictures is in two stage first, the actual photographing and then its projection on the screen, This evidently is a source of error, or of more or less inaccuracy, Je would prefer a method in which, for speed measurement, the flown distances recorded with an accuracy of land surveying, are recorded in time rate. by instantaneous stops. For the rolling speed on the ground, for instance, equidistant parallel lines at right angle to the path would be formed by small starting balances or trips, on which the passage of the wheels closes ~ or bet~ ter yet ~ interrupts an electric circuit.14 W.A.C.A, Technical Memorandum No. 771 For the flight speed an airplane radio with continu- ous sending could be used, fixed frames being arranged for recording the passage of the airplane in the vertical planes perpendicular to the plane of the trajectory, as well as in the horizontal planes perpendicular to the same plane, which would permit of retracing the flight path in time rate and through it, the speeds. As to the recording of the rate of rotation of the wheels, we believe that a direct mechanical record would. be much more simple than the cinematographic record made from the outside, This is also the opinion voiced by J, G. Lee (reference 16). With respect to the angle of attack, wé think that re~ cording inclinometers would be no less accurate than the motion=picture camera. III, TEST DATA - THEIR HUTUAL AGREEMENT AND THEIR ACCORD WITH THEORY In reviewing the results of the different experiments above, on monoplanes as well as on biplanes, in the wind tunnel and in free-flight tests, we can always refer them satisfactorily to Wieselsberger's formula which we trans~ lated in variation of aspect ratio: Gowley and Lock's comparison in 1921 (reference 3) for B= 0,167 and 0.306 shows that there is no accord between the reflection and the flat-plate method, especial- ly for very small distances, and the authors find the dis crepancy so great that they openly doubt the metnod. Their suspicion includes, in fact, both the reflec- tion and the flat-plate method, With the flat plate they impute the disturbance set up by its leading edge which causes the air flow to deflect upward, and they specify that a displacement of avout a degree seemed to bring the curves into fair agreement. Now, ina paper by G, I. Tay- lor, "Skin Friction on a Flat Surface" (reference 8a) (see also Appendix of reference 3), he states that it requiresH.A.C.4. Technical Memorandum No, 771 15 only 1/8 degree for the angle of deflection due to the dew celeration of the air. through skin friction ona plate, which is not enough to satisfy us. By the reflection,method the authors raise the ele~ ment of doubt about the assumption of symmetrical flow about a symmetrical body, and it is a fact that an asymmet~ vical oscillatory flow with alternating vortices could equally well be used as a basis for computing the interfer~ ences However it may be, we preserve from these experiments the following conclusions given by the authors: The greatest effect of tho ground interference is that upon pitching moment; the smallest effect, upon maximum lifte The maximum L/D is increased from 10 to 13 in the case of the reflection method, and 10 to 15 for the flate plate mothoa. For the plate at 38 mm (1.496 in.), which is equiva~ lent to a wing gap of 76 mm (2,99 ins), ises, B= L, the experimental values obtained by the flat-plate method are about twice those obtained vy the reflection method (that is, for increase in lift and L/D (fig. 4), supposing that the angle of attack is the same). Lack of time prevents our checking the five tables of these experiments and comparison of the experimental o with that obtained according to Wieselsberger's mltiplane formmila, and we only insist on this single or double dis~ crepancy between the results of the two test methods ~ dif~ ferences which our own experiments on monoplanes have failed to reveal accurately, as shown elsewhere in the report. Raymond (reference 6) in his report on the tests in the U.S. gives qualitatively the same discrepancy between the two test methods. The lift and drag curves versus angles of attack for the U.S.A. 27 wing tested with the ground at 1/2 chord, are more marked by flat-plate than by reflection method, and the results of the two methods again manifest the oF- der of size of single or double (fig. 5).16 ALC.Ay Technical Memorandum No. In our own tests made in the Biffel wind tunnel, we 4s they systemat~ ically indicated a very much greater influence than Wies- elsberger's formia stipulated, and the results have never employed only the reflection method, been published, we shall recount them herewith: Profile ean exper- imental value Theoretical value (Prandt1) 0.48 «- Tho values for oO, puted for 100, 200, and 300 distances, or and 0.6 are tabulated as follows: Gs and 9, comm O42, 044,N.A,C.A. Technical Memorandum No. 771 iy 2s Monoplene 313.~ For distances of 150, 250, and 350 of the wing from the ground, of B= 0.264, 0.44, and 0.615, ‘the data are: 100 09.615 mental Theoreti- cal This time the excess is less pronounced, although it still amounts to 50 percent, of the theoretical value for the smallest distance,Q N.A.C.A. Technical Memorandum No. 771 18 3. Monoplane 280 Be 0.15, 0.33, and 0,505. The comparison reveal 100 Oova5 100 Sosaa 36 34 4165 42, 41.7 Mean exper= imental 71 40 36 Theoretical 55 36 20 Again the experimental figure is higher than the theo~ retical, but this time it does not exceed 30 percent for the smallest distance. On the other hand, for this small+ est distance the polar intersects the other polars for lift values of the order of 30 or 40, As this zone corresponds to -3° incidence, we believe that it might be a question tonatic singularity, of a turbulence, but that point remains to be proved. 12, 112, and 212 mn; 0.53, and 0.78 (with allowance for height of wing wheels). 100 So.sa, 100 Jouve 907 100 110 perimental 84 66 ay Average the~ oretical 39ae N.A4.G.4. Technical Memorandum Yo. 771 19 Here we find the displacement from single to double, emphasized in the tést with isolated wing (fig. 7). In the face of these results, we can conclude only that, because of a certain suspicion against the flat~-plate method, particularly when the plate is, as here, of a ceré tain thickness and, in order to support our suspicion, wo had resorted to a number of other tests as unlike as possi+ ble and which are not only in accord with the principle of Wioselsberger's formula but also in order of size of the coefficient. Sacer 4 We recall Toussaint's report (reference 9) which veri~ fies the theoretical formula very correctly, as shown in figure 1. We likewise recall Wieselsberger's report on the Got~ tingen experiments in 1921 (reference 5). The dimensions and distances were: ‘L = 1624 m (4,07 ft.), S = 041875 nm (1s5 sqeft.), B/L = 0.242, The corresponding 0 = 0.452, so that ACxz = ~ 0.0150 C,*. The experimental results verify this formula very correctly and the computed polar iz coincident with the measured polar up to lift values of the order of 62.5. Thon the theoretical Cz, drops suddenly, as observed in the recent theories outlined above (figs 8)+ In conclusion, it may be stated that the interference tests in the tunnel are not at variance with the theory, but that the premise of contimuous parallel flow remains to be verified in each particular experimeatel case. by the reflection method and particularly by the flateplate method. Passing now to the carriage tests described by Tonnies (reference 21), we find that the different tests on the dif~ ferent models for h/L ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 reveal perm fect agreement with Wieselsberger's theory. At high inci~ dence (16-18°) there is not only no increase in lift, sup- posing equal angle of attack, but rather a decrease which also concurs with the theory (figs. 9, 10, and 11). Figure 10 gives the lift versus incidence for differ- ent }/L, while in figure 11 tho carriage test intersects the Gottingen tunnel polar twice. As to the U.S, tests, described by B. G. Reid (refer~ ence 12), they agree very well with the formula, as shown in figures 12, 13, and 14.20 N.AeC.A, Technical Memorandum No. 771 Figure 12 gives the curve of repems versus air speed for 500 feet altitude and the r.spem. versus air-speed curve of the low-altitude tests. Figure 13 shows the curves of required thrust horse- power versus air speed, and figure 14, the normal polar curve of the YZ-7 airplane, without interforence, as de~ termined by glide tests. This polar has been transposed by the formula for the three @ values corresponding to 5, 7, and 9 feet. Then the experimontal polar for flight in proximity of the ground was plotted on this graph for the zone between 5 and 9 feet, Thus the experimental polar remains perfectly within the transposed theoretical polars, which a posteri-~ ori justifies the formula of transposition, Coming to the flight tests described by Tonnies (refer+ ence 21) on a Klemm monoplane at heights ranging from 3 to 82 foet above the ground, we readily see on the polar of figure 15 the experimental lift values, iso., deduced from the measured speed values through the fundamental formula: o, 2 & For i= 4° and h/L = 0.155, the lift coefficient of the airplane increases by 10.3 percent (as against 35 percent in the wind tunnel for the wing alone). The author attributes this discrepancy to supplementary disturbances, augnented by the wheels, propeller, body, etc. In figure 16 we give the flight polar in full lines, and its transposition by calculation for h/L = 0.1 in dashed lines. The experimental polar for h/L = 0el is also shown. The accord is very close. In the majority of the above tests in the tunnel, as well as in free flight, conditions of matericl have pro~ vented the investigation from being pushed to very low b/L values, whereas Datwylor's wind-tunnel tests stressed this point in particular, By flat-plate method (fig. 17) for distances decreas ing to 5 mm (0.197 in,), the maximum ligt increases 20 por= cent. (Hote the discontinuity toward 8°.) What role does the end-plate disturbance assume in{ N.A.C.A. Technical Memorandum No. 771 aL this discontinuity or is it primarily due to the natural disturbance of the flat plate? Figure 18 gives some perti~ neat information oi this polit. ‘Independent of the three vortices clearly outlined aft of the top camber, the pho~ tograph reveals the compression set up by the plate under the front of the bottom camber, and whose effect, accord~ ing to Datwyler, is to narrow, like a materiel wedge, the distance between ground and wing, which explains the loss of 142% with respect to the theoretical lift expected by the author. Contrariwise, by the reflection method (fig. 19) with wing gap decreasing to 1 mm (0.0397 in.), the maximum lift is doubled; it even exceeds the theoretical figure obtained from the static-prescure calculation. These curves, it will be noted, show no break. Conclusions: I think we have not yet enough lucid experience to forumlate any laws. We only aver that, in the first zone (great distances and small angles) the dif~ ferent experiments of all sorts seem to be in agreement with Wieselsberger's law, which likens the ground inter= ference to a fictitious increase in aspect ratio. The ef fect in flight corresponds to the phenomenon called "float= ing" in the United States, the second gone - high angles of attack, small dis» tance from the ground ~ there may be a loss of lift; per haps it is the effect which is observed in certain test flights - an effect which is called "pancake" in the U.S. astly, for vory high angles of attack and successively smaller distances from the ground, it may result in a marked rise in lift. This phenomenon brought to light by Datwyler's experiments will have little or no significance in practice. We shoulé regret this because this will be the true "cushioning effect", the veritable air cushion which anvists the airplane at take-off and shows up its drop at landing,22 N.A.C.4, Technical Memorandum No, 771 IV, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PHENOMENON OF THE. DIFFERENT PHASES OF MOTIOW OF THE AIRPLANE NEAR THE GROUND Comparison of High Wings and Low Wings from the Point of Viow of Ground Effect Now we shall analyze the consequences of ground effect on the different phases of airplane motion in proximity to the ground, with special reference to take-off, skimming over the ground, and, landing, Take-Off Supposing equal lift coefficient O,, the effect of the ground is to so reduce the drag Cx, that is to say, the power required ~ which varies as 0;/0,°/".- that the airplane may be considerably finer within than without the zone of ground effect. In certain cases the power required may be reduced as much as 50 percent, and that at a ground distance of the order of the wing span of the airplane. Under these con- ditions the ground effect always promotes take-off save in a case, however, of heavily loaded airplanes such as used for long-distance flying, which can only take off with fa~ vorable ground effect but which, then, are unable to get avey from this littoral zone for the reason that, immedi- ately after take-off, the power required to maintain level flight vesumos its normal figure and becomes greater than that necessary when the airplane is just clear of the ground, whence lift in horizontal flight is impossible. Some typical cases are cited and analyzed by Blliott G, Reid and Thomas Carroll (reference 14). The writers cite in particular the case of such a very heavily loaded airplane, which at that time was under test at their lab- oratory at Langley Field and which was successfully taken off but could not be forced above an altitude of about 50 feet, where level flight was maintained for approximately 10 niles, at the end of which the pilot succeeded in land~ ing without attempting to make a turn. The writers further cite the transoceanic airplane "American Legion", piloted by Commander Davis and Lieuten~ ant Wooster, at Langley Field, which, taking off underWeA.C.A, Technical Memorandum No. 771 23 full-load conditions, left the ground after a run which was even somewhat shorter than had been anticipated, but could not -climb beyond 40 to 60 feet. Unfortunately, this time a clump of trees prevented the pilot from continuing in that direction and forced him either to rise or turn. It ended in a loss of altitude followed by a glide - that is, to say, disaster. The authors also cite, but without giving details, Peltier d'Oisy and Gonin's start for India, their flight for approximately 24 miles at an altitude of not greater than 80 to 60 feet - after which they were forced to land again, both men fortunately escaping from the airplane, which was entirely demolished as a result. The authors also give some information concerning Col~ onel Lindbergh's preparations, which were directed almost entirely toward determination of the take-off, giving less consideration to the phenomenon of ground effect. It is to be’noted, moreover, that tho limited céilings above confirm Reid's experiments, particularly with a con- ventional VE-7 biplane of 34.4 feet span and whose minimm power required for level flight is about 7 feet above the ground, i.e,, equal to about 1/2 the span of the airplane. Thus at an altitude of 500 feet, the power required was 33,5 horsepower, whereas when the airplane descends until its lower wing is approximately 7 feet above the ground, only 23.5 horsepower is required to maintain level flight. This readily explains the lightness felt by the pilot at the point of leaving the ground; the airplane rises more easily than expected, but seems to become heavier while climbing. Many graphical or analytical methods for take-off, landing, and take-off run have been proposed. Tonnies, in the article already mentioned (reference 21), reverts to Blenk's formulas (Z.F.M., 1927, p. 25) which, proceeding from the elementary equation of motion on the ground: Raviogeg é % ~ Re (with allowance for propeller thrust and coefficient of friction followed by integration), result in a quite con— plicated formula for take-off and rolling distance. This formula may, however, be simplified by virtue of some con- ventions on the desired approximationsa4 UedeC.A, Technical Momorandum No. 772 Tonnies then compared the rolling distance obtained with this formula with that obtained on different. types of parasol, low-wing monoplanes and biplanes. Figure 20 ro« veals the satisfactory agreement of the comparison. On an average, the measured rolling distanco ly is about 150 feet greater than the theoretical lo. Figure 21 shows the ratio of rolling at take-off to power loading versus thrust (in kilograms) for different typos of air= planes. A glance at these two figures revoais that, sup- posing equal wing loading, the low wing has the shorter rune Flight Immediately after Take-Off Here the imagination of inventors is offered a vast field, The ground interference reduces the power required for level flight in large proportions, so here is a means of rapid and at the same time economic locomotion: Des an airplane which is always within the ground-interference zones At first glance this apparatus is dangerous because the ground is uneven and the altitude called "skimming" permits no freedom of maneuver. But on large-sized air~ craft, over water, the question may be attempted. It is not at all unreasonable to conceive of an aerial steamer ~ part airplano and part hydroplane ~ able to sustain itself partly in the air ana partly on the water, but requiring for aorodynamic lift 50 percent less power than required, say, for the lift at high altitude. We merely make this suggestion without any furthor statouent. Landing Here the problem begins to be interosting. What is the effect of ground interference on landing? Is it denen ficial or detrimental? Here we are obliged to say that the interference which favors take-off, impedes landing in restricted territory. Besides, the landing speed is one of the most impre~ cise factors in aviation, as proved from the following ex~ ample. An American, Blliott G, Reid (reference 15), has had the courage to expose the fantastic landing speeds given out by the airplane manufacturers in the United - States. With his statistics, delicate to the point of ig~W.4.0.a. Technical Memorandum No. 771 25 noring simple cases of obvious bluff, the author gives in a plot the:alleged landing speeds versus wing loading. The points which should aline themselves in a region cor responding to a reasonable lift coefficient resemble, on the contrary, the author says, the familiar charts of "the heavens in Juno" (figs. 22 and 28), Bxamination of the two graphs gives conclusive proof of the bluff "ab absurdo", On the subdject of ground interference, the author again displays his good sense by declaring that there is nothing partioularly mysterious about the effect of prox Amity to the ground upon wing characteristics, and that it is simply a reduction of the induced angle of attack accompanied by a decrease of the slope of the lift curve; yet it should not de forgotten that the lift approaches an asymptotic value, which is that which corresponds to high- aspect-ratio airfoils, and that the induced angle - which alone decreases -is, itself, a small part of the ‘geomet- ric angle of attack. Lack of time prevents further developmént of the dif- ferent investigations - in the U.S., for the major part ~ on the experimental determination of landing speeds of airplanes. We briefly summarize the article by J. Lee (refere ence 16), who, after voicing his skepticism about the val- ue of wind-tunnel tests, gives two flight-test methods which were most commonly used and which are, according to him, within 5 percent correct. The first consists of calibrating the air-speed moter by flying over a course at various speeds and then reading the air speed at the moment of landing. Generally, the av- erage of several landings is taken. The second method con~ sists of mounting an electric recording instrument to the Wheels. If the landings are correctly made on three points, Lee estimates that the accord between these tests and the wind-tunnel polar is satisfactory. The first method is employed by Thomas Carroll (refer- ence 13) who, in 3.4.0.4, Technical Report No. 249, gives statistics of landing speeds recorded by direct indicator reading with, it appears, an accuracy of $ peréent. In Kenneth F, Ridley's report, on the other hand, (reference 17), we read ~ after a slight criticism of Carroll's method = the description of proper procedure.26 Technical Memorandum No. 771 This consisted of painting the wheels of the airplane in contrasting colors and then photographing the airplane while making S-point landings (wheels and tail skid at the same height); wind speeds were simultaneously read from an anemometer. The method of prediction, indicated by the author and ‘illustrated by numerous examples, consists of computing the induced polar by Wiesolsberger's formula applied to the normal polar. This is the lift read on this new polar which, included in the 1ift equation, gives him the pre~ dicted landing speed which the author says checks to with~ in 4 kn/h (2,49 mi./hr.) of that obtained on 11 different airplanes. This is in close approach, despite the sources of inaccuracies analyzed by him. To return to our subject, wo must conclude that the effect of the interference, by reducing the drag for equiv~ alent lift, is to prolong the flight quite close to the ground. The 6,/C,°/? curves shown, reveal that the min~ imum power of the wing may be reduced by 1/4, even 1/3, advantageously, by the ground effect which, when landing on a perfect track, tangentially to the ground, forces the airplane to absorb for a long period the kinetic energy of its motion in order to reach its minimum speed at impact. Does that mean that, in view of the size of the ter- rain, the ground interference is inauspicuous at landing? Or does it imply that a low-wing airplane is, under these conditions, inferior to a parasol monoplane? Quite fortu- nately, no, because the normal landing is not a lending of a theoretical track. To illustrate: Visualize the comparison of a low- wing commercial monoplane with a monoplane whose wing hangs over the cabin ~ that is, to say, 5.8 feet higher from the ground. he ground effect is not a prerogative of the low wing; which is only 5.8 feet more subjected to it than is the other. So when the interference changes from 10 to 15, the supplementary "floating" of the low wing relative to the parasol wing may already be limited to 5 X 1.80 m (5.906 ft.) = 29.5 feet. However, this is not definite because when referring to the analytical study of landing by 1%. Breguet, (La Science Aérienne, vol, II, no. 3, December 27, 1932), weN.A.C.a. Techanical ilemorandum No. 771 a7 find that the low wing may, on the contrary, assume the advantage in the last two of the four stages of landing analyzed by the author, In the level-off stage, particu~ larly, the low wing, being finer because more interfered with, has a maneuverability wich allows it to run through the range of level-off angles more easily. It only needs an adequate pulleup to reach or even exceed the angle of maximum lift. In flyers' language, the low wing "sets down" better. Then comes the rolling stage. What uatters the max- imum decrease in lift? The low wing has no tendency to nose over because its c.g. is low; consequently, it can sustain a more energetic application of the brake. Be~ sides, experience has proved that - supposing equal unit load = the low-wing airplane has as short a landing run es the parasol type. Howover, the pilot should not find himself surprised by the effect of decreased induced an~ gle due to ground effect. This is what Ténnies expresses in counseling for bet~ ter gliding at landing: flying at an angle as small as possible, as long as possible, and not setting dow the airplane until the very last moment. coucLusrion In conclusion, we regret that we have not been able to present a more conclusive veport on this problem. Our own experimeats are still under way and not absolutely certain; our ention was to complete them by a network of facts and figures gathered into one comprehensive re- port. We nave finished the part dealing with the different theories of interference as well as with the agreement existing between the theory and the major part of the ex porimonts. In the tests, which are at variance with the theory, we are obliged to detect sources of error or more or less inaccuracy. Always somewhat skeptical about the time which one may accord to wind-tunnel tests, we prefer fullescale in28 Technical Memorandum No. 771 vestigation, especially when, as in the preceding case, they are readily obtainable. The flight tests of Reid, Ridley, and Ténnies are of greatest interest. I hope that we may soon make them in France, and with variations in the methods, if possible. Thus we shall measure the phenomenon by its effects which, precisely, are of direct interest to the user, ies, the pilot, The theoretical formulas derived from these tests will be applicable to future predictions with a mu greater legitimacy when tests, calculations, and applica~ tions have been put in the same dimension, which proceeds from actuality and from doubtful premises. With the mastery and engincering skill of our pilots, with the accuracy of our test equipment, the science of flight has a right to be counted among the forenostly de~ veloped branches of experimental physica, Translation by J. Vanier, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.le 3. 3a 4e Be 6 8. oe 10. a. N.A.C.A. Technical Memorandum No. 771 29 REFERENCES Betz, A.; Auftried und Widerstand einer Tragflache in der Nahe einer horizontal Ebene, Z.F.M., Now 12s 1912. Merrill, A. As: Ground Effect on Wings. The Ace, De~ cember 1920. Cowley, W. L., and Lock, 0. N. H.: Cushioning Effect on Aeroplanes Close to the Ground. R, & MW. No. 754, British A.R.C., 1921, Taylor, G. I,: Skin Friction on a Flat Surface. R. & My No. 604, British A,C,A,, 1919, Zahm, A. F., and Bear, BR. M.: Ground Plane Influence on Airplane Wings. Jour, of the Franklin Institute, May 1921, p. 687, Wieselsberger, T.M. No. 77, Wing Resistance Wear the Ground. sALCeAs, 1922, Raymond, Arthur B Moe 67, NeAsGeA Ground Influence on Aerofoils. T.e 1921. Prandtl, L Applications of Modern Hydrodynamics to Aeronautics. T.R. Wo. 116, H.A.0.4,, 1924, Prandtl, L 162, 8 Induced Drag of Multiplanes. T.N, Now +C.A., 1924, Toussaint, A.: Contribution 4 1'Ztude expérimentale des Lois de similitude en aérodynamique. Thesis presented to the Faculty of Sciences of the Univer~ sity of Paris, 1924, Bonder, J. Sur le mouvement de deux cylindres dans un fluide parfait, avec application & 1'aile au vois~ image du sol, Bulletin de la Soc. Polytechn. de Varso-vie, IY, I, 1925. Betz, A.: The Lift and Drag of a Wing in Proximity to the Ground. Memo. Report 167, Engineering Division, Army Air Service, 1925,to f 12. 13. 14, 15. 168, 1%. 18. 19. 20. - Bhs W.A.C.A. Technical Memorandum Yo. 771 30 Reid, Elliott G.: A Full-Scale Investigation of Ground Bffect. @.R. No. 265, NeA.C.A., 1927 Carroll, Thomas: A Comparison of the Take-Off and Land~ ing Characteristics of a Number of Service Airplanes. . Moe 249,°N.d.C.A., 1927. Reid, Blliott G., and Carroll, Thomas: Concerning the Take-Off with Heavy load. T.N. Nos 258, N.AsCe, 192%. Reid, Elliott G.: An Analysis of Airplane Landing Speeds. Aviation, July 20, 1929, ppe 192-194, Lee, J. Gs: Landing Speed of Airplanes. AsSsMeE. Jour., April-June 1929. Ridley, Kenneth F,: An Investigation of Airplane Land~ ing Speeds.+ Te, No. 349, NeAeCeA., 1930. Rosenhead, L.: The Lift on a Flat Plane betwoen Paral lel Walls. Proce Roys Soc, London, vol. 132, no. 4819, duly 2, 1931, pp. 127-152, Muller: Abbildung theoretische Grundlagen flr das Prob- lem des Tragfligels in Erbodenndhe. Z.F.lle t II, fasc.e 3, June 1951. Tani: On the Effect of the Ground upon the Lift of a Monoplane Wing (in Japanese). Jour. Aeronautical Research Institute, Tokyo Imperial Univ., No. 96, 1932, pp. 684-689. Tonnies, E.: Effect of the Ground on an Airplane Fly~ ing Close to It, T.M. Noe 674, WeA.CrA., 19326 Datwyler, G.: These de Doctorat. Tomotika, Susum, Hagamiya, Takeo, and Takenouti, Yosi~ tada: The Lift on a Flat Plate Placed Near a Plane Wall, with Special Reference to the Effect of the Ground upon the Lift of a Honoplane Aerofoil. Report No. 97, Aoronautical Research Institute, Tokyo Imperial Univ., vol. 8, no. 1, August 1933. Pistolesi, B Il problema dell' ala in vicinanza del suolo, Pub. by the Royal School of Engineering, Pisa, nos. 218-219, fay 1933; L'Aerotecnica, vole 18, no. 4, April 1933, pp. 351-360-501-502.Biplane alone 100 © Airfoil ReA.F, 15 100 6,100 Cy ]100 6/100 Cy APPENDIX Cowley and Lock* Gap = chora Table If Reflection, gap 5} inches Technical Memorandum No, 771 Cushioning Effect on Airplanes Close to the Ground No stagger (Area: 2.3 by 18 inches) fable IIT Reflection, gap 3 inches 100 Gy 34.2 j-20.6 H746 oat 6.4 14.8 22.2 30.8 38.4 52.0 64.6 78.6 90.0 92.8 *Sce reference 3, 36.8 | 767 22.8 | 4.84 8.0 | 3,44 - .02| 3.08 n7.4 | 2.88 19.2 | 2.76 3.04 3.38 42.8 | 3.7 56.4 | 4.64 70.0 | 6,12 61.4 | 7.9 92.8 |10.56 93.6 jaa 46.0 -28.6 -11.6 2.8 6.2 17.4 28.4 37.4 46.2 60.8 71.8 85.6 96.0 94.6 Ox | 100 CmN.4.C.A, Technical Memorandum No, 771 32 Plate at 2-3/4 in, distance Plate at 1-1/2 in. distance 1 | 100 Gg | 100 cy | 100 Om | 100 Gg | 100 Gy | 100 Om 10.0 “36.4 6 4 8,22 | -19.2 “2 6.82 “3.6 ~1 5.44 5.6 ° 4.68 15.6 1 3.12 24,8 2 2.2 33.6 3 1.04 4146 4 42.42 3,56 - 426 49.6 6 55.6 4,56 2.88 63.6 8 68.8 5.94 5.66 77.0 10 82.6 7.96 -9.9 87.0 12 91.0 11.0 713,88 9546 14 91.4 17.4 “19.72 94.2 Wing gap and plate distance are measured starting from lower wings and for 0° incidence.% of Le?! ¢ values obtained a from thesreticr] “10 calculation 5 —— ---6 values obtained m8 for c= 10.66 b/L 3 1.05-3.7 B/L “6 o—6 values obtainea o 1 | for ¢= TS 3 yE 2 * - oO values commuted : ee according to experi- 2 ments on ground effect 0.2 4 6 os WO LE 8 Ts cccputed according to expor- E Figure 1.- Change of coefficient of interference iments of the effect . in biplanes, (Span= wings of biplane), Of wing gap and s decalaze. 2 5 g § 10 =o ee 3 REY 4 i SS 3 Bo al 22 3 a zi a 3 Bek { Figure 2.- Pistolesits biplene theory applied to the reflection nethod. (reference 24) 8 2a HE Figure 8,- Effect of ground proxinity H on the lift of a plate L. (Tomotikie, reference 23)Figs. 4,5 W.A.C.A, Technical Momorandun No. 771 (Reflection versus flat plate method) x ° + Biplane alone Plate 38: below lower wings Reflection 7%6nm between lower wings Air speed, 12,19 m/sec. Wings of biplane, 76x 457 m® 160 15 10 ore a Q 4 6 i, degrees 12 Figure 4.- Cushioning effect on airplanes in proxinity of the ground, 70 Reflec: 60 0 4 8 12 16 1, degrees Tisure 5,- Airfoil U.S.A. 27, sround at 1/2 chord, wind speed 48.27 In/hr.N.A.C.A. Technical Memorandum No. 771 Fig. 6 “| u 80) 100, |-— 40r-— ° L. 0 100 Cx, ox Figure 6.~ The experimental o values as measured by flat plate method are substantially twice the theoretical values of Prandtl - Wieselsberger.N.A.C.A, Technical Menorandum No. 771 14 120} 100 1006, ° Fig. 7 25 15 100, 10 4 8 12 16 20 i, degrees Figure 7.- Airplane 287,.ming.215W.A.0.A, Technical Metorandun Wo. 771 Figure 9.- Chango of lift vorsus ground proximity for “Polar measured with interfer- ence surface, +10 7 Polar calculated = a 08 L "> Measured nornal 204 polar 02 ° -.02 oo ° +005 +01 Ky Figure 8.- Wieselsberger (reference 5) different angles of incidenco. Figs. 8,9N.A.C.A, Technical Memorandum No. 771 Figs, 10,11 40 120 8 Porcentage 8 006, = 40) o 4 8 12 16 20 i, degrees Figure 10.- Change of Lift for different incidences and different ground distances, porcentage Lift increase to lift of wing alonc. Ci | 12 1s 20 Figure 11.- Comparison of results for an identical rfoil on carriage and in G8ttingenN.A.C.A, Technical Memorandun No, 771 — —Previous test % Check flights ~—O— Low altitude tests & 8 8 ——— Tes} altithde sob ft. Bee 5 8 8.8 2 gpa ° T—z/__ Tept altitude 5 Revolutions per mimute bp & 50 55 60s 6S Air speed, mp.h. — — Test (alt. 500 ft.) —is uw g.gH " nog — Calculated (alt.5 ft.) 7 wow ffective hp. 50 55 460) 65 Air speed, mp.h. Pigs. 12,13 Figure 12,- The repem curve versus air speed for 500 feet altitude and for low altitude. Figure 13.- Effec- tive horsepower curves versus air speed.W.A.C.A. Technical Menoranéun No. 771 Figs. 14,15,16 1.4 60 1 1.2 5 ee ye ale BE 1.0 / 1000, “8 Ni eo Cy, f a y . ° 4 2 0 1 2 4 i, degrees Figure 15.~ Flight test. 277] Lift change veréus angle of incidence for different n. ° +16 —— — Test (alt.509 ft.) Calculated (alt.5 ft.) "HBG A " nam " nga Figure 14,- Nornal polar curve of VE -7 airplane as dcternined ty glide tests. MoT 7 Wi a alnzjo.} | Thoofy | | bat Fol, | 9 Fy 20 100 oy Figure 16.- Polar of nodel wing according to carriage tests.o a 5 + Check IV , Sim slot . ° ¥,io" # 8 4 vr, 20" * - z ® vir, 40" * VIII, no ground { © Flov adhoring x "+ soparated 1.6 T T * DSS 2 1.4 eT &, degrees Figure 17.- Wing with ond plates. N.A.C.A, Technical licmordndum No. 771 My i) 4 22 0 2 4 6 3 10 wz 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 @, degrees Figure 19.- Lift ty reflection method,W.A.Ced, Technical Memorandum No. 771 Figs. 18,22,23 ¢ z > a ; Figure 22,- Wliot 0. Reid Z (reference 15) 3 $ 3 zy 3 4 13 a io Lending speed, mepsh. 3 6m, bot e . 3 ale 7 xp . Figure 23.- Hitot G. Reid (reference 15) & a 3 34 8 § 3 a SDSS S ET STE TTT Wing loading, 1b./sq.ft.N.A.C.A, Technical Mcmorandum Ho, 771 Pigs. 20,21 500 r— ™ ° 7 _ v fo 400 =I Vv AT 7% a7 _4 300: oO i ws x 1971 th p* ae é . aaa + we . ty o | Low wing a7 x | Parasql a + | Biplare - 7 Z a Le ° 100 200 300 400 500 le Figure 20.- Comparison of measured (l,) and computed (Ic) rolling distance at take-off for different airplanes, x Pardsol : |+ Bipilano ° 400 800 1200 Figure 21.- Ratio of rolling at take-off to power loading versus thrust in kg.“ie 3.1176 01441 1574