.

.-.

# *

,------

.,..

AI/R No. 3F12

..

.>m~. ----______ -ADVISORY

COMMIT=

FOR AERONAUTICS

. ->

~Y

lSSIED

June 1043 as Advance Restricted Report 3F12

SOME SYSTEMAIZC MODEL EXPERIMEN13 CHARACTERISTICS

ON THE FORFOISING

OF FLYING -BOAT HULLS

By Kenneth S. M. Davidson aui F. W. S. Locke, Jr. Stevens Institute of Technology

1,

. .

W#l-UNGTON
...

,-,

.,.

-1

NACA WARTIME REPORTS -e reprlnte of papers origlnUy Issued to provide rapid dlstrlbutlon of advance research resulte toanauthorised group requiring themforthe war efhrt.Theywereprevlouely held under a security status butarenow unckeKled. Some althese reports werenottechnically edited. Allhavebeenreproduced without change inorder toexpedite general dletributlau.

W-67

?/

lWl!IOl?AL ADVISORY ADVANCE

... ..
r.

00 MMXTTEm

~dti ArnROITAUTI CS . .

RESTRICTI!JD REP ORT

. . ..

SOMB SYSTEMATIC

MODEL

EKPERIMEET5

OM THE

---PORPOISII?G

CHARACTERISTICS By Kenneth

Or FLYIITG-BOA!C HULLS and F. W. S. Looke, Jr.

S. M. Davidson

SUMMARY

This report presents the results of eyetematlc! model experiments on the hydrodynamic oharaoterlsti.os of flying boats, aimed primarily at developing a comprehensive view of the faotors Influencing porpolsing and of their relative importance. The experiments radiatedW from a given referenoe ship; they embraoe changea, over reasonably wide ranges, in the value of eaeh of a number of variables, treated Independently. The experimental results are summarized in a series of 26 flgurea, each of whloh gives the oomplete data for all the modlfioations of one variable. . The results are further oondensed for easy referenoe In oharte 1 to 3, whioh follow the Summary. In these of the eummary figures are charts the prlnolpal portions reproduced at smaller soale and are arranged in groups aooordlng to the type of the variable they represent. Here the relative influence of the variables Is brought , out merely by the relative blaoknessn of the oharts. The ma~or conclusions which follow are based upon indioated on the the ranges of change of the variables summary flgureO: a given.hull under various 1. The~etability limite for loadinge and aerodynamic conditions are determined (1) the load on primarily by the three variables whioh govern the water in steady motion - gross load Ao, wing lift at 201 arbitrary trim angle and rate of change ofllft with . . . . . . . .. The aomplete eet of data from whioh the figures in thl~ report were prepared and on which the analyses In this report were made may be obtained on loan from the Offloe of Aeronautical Intelllgen~e of the National Advisory Aeronautics, Washington, D. c. Committee for

II

s 11

and (2) secondarily by kh~ tall damplnp rate trim Zfj Increasing the watsr-borne load raises both limite Ml w ? thout materially affecting.the width of the etable range: inoreasitig the tail damping rate lo~lers the lower limit nt of the effect being greateet, high speeds - the magnitude below normal. however, at damping rate-s considerably under piven lending and Alterations to the afterbo~y, mny nlter the urmer limit qnd the aerodynamic conditions, p,~ak value of the lower limit In the vicinity.of the humn; @h. theydo not alter the lower limit at hlphar ~needs. humm trim and the humn rpsistmnce In eteqdy motion follow th~ variation of the meak ef the lower limit. Assuming a r.~sonqble length, the most mowarful aft=rbod~ variable is of tha forebndy kel and a the anFle between a prol~n~ation line joinlnr the tim of the m~in step with the tim of th= Increasin~ this an~ls rais=s the kumn tr~m nnd stern nest. if carried far resistance and the Umasr limit of stab~l~t~: .enouph, it will sup~rees upn=r-limit mornolsinF at high . the step h=lght qlso sumuresses umnersmeeds . Increasing limlt porpolslng at high spe?ds. 2. Alterations to the fore~ody, under giv=+n londlng and aerodyn~mic conditl.ens, may alter bctk limits but. t+nd to affect princiual~y the low?r limit at high spe=fis. If . sufficient forebody lenfth to Drovide flotation nnd to prevent diving at low speeds Is atasumed, the most powerful forebody variable is the emount. of warning. of the bottom in ths region just .ahe~:d of the main stem. Increasing the warping lowers he lower li~lt at high spe~ds but r~ises the hump resist t rice. 3 Finally, as a tentative, v-ry broqd conclusion: Hone of the modifications considered in the experimerits w~s or successful in eliminating. completely eith~r upper-limit lower-limit morpoising and, In general, modifications whicli t-nded to improve the. pornoising character~stlcs tended to injure the resistance characterlstic~. B!od%flcations of thm loading or of the aarodynamlc conditions (that is, of the .v~riable of groums I and IT shown In charts 1 am~nd 2) were found not to affect the chmract-~istics mreciably except as they influ~nc=d thq net water-borne lend; modifications of the hull form (tmking Froum .111, chart 3, in its entir=ty) had lar~er qff~cts, but these modifications .w?rflmalnlr v~riatlons on n plv+n parent It follows th~t.Lny significant improvement In %oth form. normoislng and resistance charactertstlcs must demend umon Imnrovinp th~. basi,c m~jrent form of the hull. 4.

NACA

CHART

GROUP

r.-

WEIGHTAND

INERTIA

LOADING

..

/8

CMAWGILS OF G-.-s

WEIGH: Lm~., SEC Fi..6

M.-EMT

-F

IWERT, A,

SEe

Fir..

# Q
m-

---

CHART 2

CROUP

hmuu

Ic timlm?u
1 1 1 1

mm
I

WIW

LIFT RATE,

Ze ,

Scc

Fu 10

-m

-s
-4

n
mm

-u ---m a

VUTICAL

VELOCITY

~MPIN~.

z,

%.

F,..

II

l_AIL

fl.mmMT

RATE,

Ho

SEC

FIa. IZ

1
+..
u

-1

.m~

+9

TAIL

DAm PtMS,

Mq

Su

F16.13

.. --

I
A?nmma8Y

1
Rmmaam,

1,
8U

I
Fla. 18

6
I
1

CHARr
1 ,

3 (COUTIWED)
1 i

GROUP =F
f

FORE BODV

FORM

NACA

T.,.

,6,,

11111

IHTEODUCTIOIS
. ..__ -----Porpoising is a self -euetainin~ oscillator-y motion In the vertioal longitudinal plane, whioh occurs at planof the ing speeds. It can originate in an instability uniform longitudinal motfon in smooth water and does not ite pereietence upon any ~ystem of periodlo depend for disturbing forces much, for Instanoe, as la provided by In the words of one test pilot, It is al?iaye head eea~. unpleasant and it may be catastrophic.n ... . .-, <. ... -

Obeervatione of porpoising show that there are really two prinolpal oeoillatory motions (1) a vertioal oscillation of the center of gravity and,(2) an angular osolllatlon about the center of gravity. These two motions are The seen to have the same period but to differ In phase. necessary energy to sustain porpoieing must evidently be drawn from the horizontal propelling force, there being The aver~ge water reei~tanoe no other possible ~ource. must therefore be greater than for ate~dy motion under the came oonditione if the speed ie held constant, or the average speed must be less if the propelling force is held In the latter event, an oscillation conatantm in the horizontal speed may be added to the two motionm deecrlbed above, but this iEI ueuall~ mmall and may ordinarily be disregarded, Two main olaesifiaations of porpoieing guishabla with hulls of conventional type: are dlstln-

(1) Low angle or llower-llmit porpoleing, Which oaoure at relatively low trim angles, im clearly attributable to instability of the forebody planing alone and ie largely uninfluenced by the aftarbody (2) High angle or upper-limitti porpoieing, whioh oocurs at relatively high trim angles, is olaarly attributable to interaction batween the forebody and afterbody and is influenced in important reepacte by changes in the afterbody form There is usually a region of stable trim anglem batween the reglon~ In .whioh. these two olassea,of pOrpOislng occwr. The stable region IS Conveniently deeoribed by a statement of the trim angles at the upper and lower limits of stability. The ob#eotive in designing is tO eliminate porpoising or~ .fatling this, to widen ae muoh as poesible the ranga of stable trim anglp~ between the two limits, .

Porpoisin# ph=nomsna hivs bem studied by th~oretiCS1 analysis of the condition for stability, startin~ from the basic eauations of motion (rsferencgs 1 and 2). To date, th~a qmroach has failed to advance materially a d~tnll~d underekandlng of the Dhenomena, rind-it reauires eo much time-consuming labor as tc render its nractical application in individual cases neqrly Drohibitlva. Yost of what is now known about ~orrolsing has been learned throu~h modsl experiments conducted with due regqrd to the d$nnmic retyulremente. The inh~r-nt dnng~r to the actual ship limits the sco~e of systematic exu=riments on pornoislng at full scale, and modal exm?rim~nts have the Additional adv~ntaga that the test conditions c~ti be more accurately controlled and th.s t~et results therefore Sufficient evidmnc=. exiets to more readily interpreted. indicate satisfactory correlation between shin and model porpoising In basic r~spects. Because of the inherent. dangs~ to the shtn and the consequent need of ~dvance warning on morpoising characmcd?l experiment~ in the Fagt kave tendpd to teristics, place the emphasis on predicting the .characteristics of lndividu~l designs rathgr than on developing m brocd pieturn of the Influence and relativs imuort~nce of the vqrThe latter noint of view was Ious factors involved. adomted for th? investlg~tion which forms ths subject of In addition, through simmlific~tion of the this ren~rt. ~nd the use of an unusually smnll mod-l, testing Drocedure the experimental work h~s ban matsri=lly ~cc-lerated so that considgrnble ground c=n b~ cover*d In a short tlm=. The exmariments followed = nrogrfim designed nrimarily and con~iderqble attention has been to pqln persn=ctive, given to presenting th~ test r=sults in sirmlp form. Only the basic cormoislng chr~ctmristics ar~ consider~d: namely, the umm~r and lo~~r limits, as these would be determined in an actual shtp by respectively raising or lowerinp th~ trim Variations, angle from R meqn vnlue in the st=lle rang-. particuljrly ofth~ hi~h-angle tymc of mor~oisin~, are known to exist; these h~ve bq~n dlsreg.arded for th- pr~s~nt In the intereot of clarlfyin~ the basic t~eg. The werk was undertaken with the flnanci~l assistance The of the National Advisory Committafi for 4~ronautics. to pqr~llel similar work nrogram oriFlnally laid out was In tha course of two years the mrocontemnl~ted by them. gram has be~n exmandd con~iderqbly along independent lin=s.

. - -

a . sCOPg OF IMVES~I-QATION It is. the purtiode of-this rsnort - to pr~s-nt -t.hn--r+ eult~ of.certnin systematic model =xm-rlments on flylnp-. Pornoiqing ch-racteristlcs qnd steady-motton boat hulls; re818ta~cm$ ~re considqr~d, but th= mrinclpal emphasis is The exp-rimeints radioh thB porpoising characteristics. atsd frem a given flying ho%t, taken ns a basic point of The refer~nce shim us-d was the XP.B2M-1, n d%p%rtur~. repiesentatiye modern design h~vlng, for n gross wsight Ao/s of ~g.O pounds of .lvO,O~O pounds, nwlng loading Ao/wb3 of O.sg. per squnre foot, and m benm lo~din~ Each of a number of varimhles was alterd, ssparqtsly from the ethers as far as nosslble, over a range of vllues embracing ths normal value for the refqr~noe shin mnd intended to be wids enouFh to cover all vnlu~s likely to be ericounter?d in pr%ctice. The advantage of this proc@dure Is that it materially simplifies thp nreblem of coIt does not necessarily restrict ordinating test results. the anplicsbillty of the rgsults to %h= ref=rence ship providad that the renF+s of change of the v~riabl~s mre .. sufficiently wid+. The radiating chnrt into which the variables Groun Group Groum (fir. 1) shows th~ thre= fqll nntur~lly: In~rtln Tending Conditions groups :

- N~iFht end I II - Aero~ynmmlc III - Full Form

Rroun which end also tht= comror.ent v~rlnbles of 4ncb b~en covered, to date, by the ~xnarirr~nt~. Tt will seen that the l%st groun is subdlvid~d irto Group Group Group Porm 111A - Afterbody ITIF - Furebody Form IIIH - Hull Form (As m iihol~)

h~~e
be

The dimensions and particulars considqrd ns normalw giv~n In table I. The for ship and model (1/30 soale) are basic hull lines are shown in fi.nre 2. . . .. - Gandeased S.umrnqryfigures Qf test r~sults (ft&s.- 6.t~ 30) Include all the pertinent dqta; all conclusions or generalizations are bas?d on the ranges of ch%qge of the va~lables which they show: Hadth~ r~n~ss of chanpe~ . ~ of th~ conclusions mnd been extended !!ad absurdum, ~ SOtiq genernllrntions would undmbtedly have been altered.

10
TEST METHOD

Teste of a dynamio model, complete with wings and tall taurfaoea, are a recognized method of investigating theporpoieing oharaoteristios of individual flying-boat Difficulties and eeaplane designta (references 3 and 4). inherent in this method are . (1) That the magnitudes and the influence on porpoising of the separate aerodynamic and hydrodynamic components of the variablep involved are not . eaelly evaluated (2) That ecale or interference effet!ttamay eaeily prevent accurate reproduction.of the fullsize aerodynamic foroes and momente (3) That the time and cost ing and altering models ie high Involved in construct-

The method uned In.the preeent Investigation wae designed to overoome these difficulties as far ae poesible and to permit direot tatudiea of the hydrodynamic characteristics under rigidly controlled aerodynamic condiA dynamic model of the hull is ueed without winge tlone. The equivalent of the aerodynamlo or tail aurfaoeeg forces and moments are applted by (1) A calibrated derivative hydrofoil for lift foroes and

force

(2) A calibrated spring and a calibrated daehpot for aerodynamic moments and moment derivativeta All these are readily adjustable to produoe oorregpondlng to any de~ired air etructure. DESCRIPTION 03 APPARATU6 magnitude

A diagrammatic sketch and a photograph of the apparatus used in the porpoising experiments are shown in figures 3 and 4. The main frame in fitted With vertical traoks guided by rol.lerm EIO that it is free to move vertically but .


&

11 otherwise restrained with respect to the towing carriage of The model iB attaohed to the forward end of the tank. thie frame through pivots at the oenter of gravity whloh allow freedom in pitch; the after end of the frame oarrles the supporting oolumn for a hydrofoil. This framo--trasemits the lift of the hydrofoil to the model; its weight, moving with it, is a part of the with all the attachments groeta weight of the model. The walkingbeam, pivoted on the main frame, changes the angle of attaok of the hydrofoil in proportion to Through the dethe angle of trim of the hull. changes In sign of the hydrofoil .Itself, and by means of the ad#utitmente provided, the aerodynamic lift oan be made to correspond to prescribed values of 20 Ze Zw lift rate rate at arbitrary of change of ohange trim angle with (Lo) trim angle vartioal (dL/dT ) (dL/&w)

of lift

of lift with

velooity

A torsion spring, mounted in the axis of the model pivot, is provided with the neceaeary ad~ustmente for making the resultant aerodyqamio moment correspond to preearlbed values of
M.

moment rate

at arbitrary

trim

angle with

(Mo) trim ahgle (dM/dT)

Me

of ohange

of moment

The dashpot shown is provided with a number of calibrated pistons which, together with adjustment of the radius of aotlon, provide for making the aerodynamic tail damping moment correspond to prescribed values of

rate

of ohange

of moment

with

angular

velocity

(dM/dq)

The following two aerodynamic derivatives are negleoted in thle arrangement of the apparatus: .

q
Mw

rate rate

of change of change .

of

lift with with

angular

velocity velocity

(dL/dq) (dM/dw)

of moment

vertiaal

of Bpecial teate described later, A taeriee assumption made In designing the apparatue

oonflrmed the that these two

12

..

derivatives tty limits.

probably

had negligible

effeots

on the

stabil-

Graphioal records of porpoieing are obtained from a ecf4ber, attached to the model and located at an arbitrary 7=0, height directly above the oenter of gravity when whioh moves over a smoked .glaee fixed with respect to the The records are reproduced photographtowing carriage. ically. The drive gear of the Stevens Tank Is arranged to provide a series of fixed, reproducible speeds. A description of the tank will be found in referenoe 5. TEST PROCEDURE

All tests were made at oonetant speede and in eubIt ia considered that teste at a etantially atlll water. eteady speed are more likely to bring out porpoislng tendenoiee than accelerated teete, because they allow time for In alloaees in which proposiany instability to develop. ng ooourred, a eteady-etate ayole wne developed after a It wae found that the very few initial traneient oyclee. transient cyoles depend upon the amplitudes of the initial disturbanoee whioh start porpoieing, as oompared with the nteady-state amplitude, a larger number of transient oyoles oocurring when the initial dlsturbanoee are relatively small and a emaller number when the initial disturbances are relatively 18rge. The amplitude of the final steady-state oycle is largely unaffected, however, by the magnitude of the initial disturbances and is therefore a convenient measure of the inherent porpoislng tendency under given condiThe principal requirement in teeting ie that the tions. initial disturbances shall be euff!clently severe to insuredevelopment of the eteady state within the llmlte of TO this end the mo~el ie accelerated rapidly the test run. in a dletanoe equal to about three or four timep Ite own length. The teste under each combination of hull form, aerodynamic conditions, and loading followed the came basio In detail: program. (1) Teete were made at each of a number of fixed speeds, covering the range from a little below the

. .

l----

&

13 hump to get-away in approximately equal steps.

(2) At each speed, tests were made with variations of the applied moment (oorreepondlng to resultant aerodynamic moment), oovering a range efficient to produce trim angles em%raolng the upper and lower The moment stability limits, ae. ordinarily defined. setting (obrYespondlng to elevator setting) wa8 not altehed during the course of any one test. . . . . . .
(3) At each speed and applied koment, a teet was m+de with each of three values of the tail damping dM/dq corresponding coneeoutively to one-half, one, and two times the normal value given in table 1, unless stab?.lity occurred with less than the maximum of these v~iuee. In the latter event no further When the maximum value failed to tests ware made. cauee etability, an additional tefit Qaa made with a large e~oess of tail damping to define the steadymotlon attitude. (4) The tests with normal particulars were made first and were carried out very completely. In the later tente with modified particulars, certain caees were omitted which the ftrst teste had shown to be relatively unimportant. state(5) Graphical records were made of the steadyfully developed, porpoising cyole for all teetsin which propoi~lng occurred. (6) Thestablllty limit is arbitrarily defined as the trim at which the total eweep In trim angle during porpbising (that 1s, the double amplitude) Is eignificanOe in ThIS deflnitiop IS of greetest 2. connection with lower-limit porpoieing, where the amplitude tends to blow up progres~ivcly; In the ease of upper-llmit propolslng, wh~ch tands to etart suddenly and may often consist principally of vertical motion, an arbitrary definition of the stability. limit is largely unneaesearym The limits shown In the charts are for normal tall damping, and ars lifted from auxiliary charts of the sweep measured on the graphlcal records against the steady-motion trim angle, at constant speed.

ACCURACY

The nccurncy of the rendinps from the v=trlous marts of the Dnarntus and to-line gear has be9n chucked by fremnd it IS b-lieved thqt thq valu=s quent calibration, used In preparing the curves era corr-ct within the followng limits: Speed, foot ner second . . . . . . . . . ... ..* Resistance, povnd . ..o . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trim, degree. Trimming mom~nt, mound-inch . . . . . . Disml~cr=ment, mound . . . . . . . . . .
q q q

. . . .. . .~. . . . . . .
q

. . . . .

.
q

. . .

+0.01 +~o 01 +0.3 +0.1 ().~5

Anoth?r method for anprnislnp th- mccurqcy of thn t~st~ Is to compar= the ram~oduclbil!tv of fully daveloped fir8t nut into Wh=n the ampqrqtus w-a Pornoislnp cycles. US9, this mntt~r wns giv~n considerable mttention. It wnq found that records of mornoisinfl CYCIPS obtained nt interidenticml condivals of s=vrnl months, under presumn%ly tions, were ~s n~arly alika as they could h= m-asured. In n mora rec+nt c-8P, two modele built to the same linas and testsd 2 r=~rs mr~rt FRV* practic~.lly 5fi9nticql reThug it was not consults over the entire sp99d rhnga. sidered worth vhile to c~.rry on nny syst~matic nro.rram of check tests during the nr-se~t investigation. The models were very c~rafully constructed nnd it is beli~ved th=t the avarage deviation from tha lin~e was not more th,n +0.01 inch. SD3ci.11 cnr? wns t%k~n to ~roduce sharp edges at the stop ~nd chines ~ad to Avoid eny smnll locnl irregulmriti9s. ?h~ models wve mqde of white nine and covered with four Cents of spar v~rnlsh rubbed down to Q very smooth finish with wet s~n?maper between coats. The avera~e length of time required to construct a model ~ m4n_hourg for wms shout 48 man-hours witk qn n~~itional setup nr?psrmtory to testinp. TEST R?ISUITS

Ths graphicnl records of the tnst result~ w+rm mountqd directly on lqrg9 chnrts, one for t=ach s-t of One of these larpe charts, for th~ rpfprparticul~rs. rn~ucafi in sigma to p=rence shim, hss bnnn suf~ici~ntly mit:includinp it im this rmmort mnd is shnvn ES firurm fj.

#
I

.. . . ..

.-

-----

_
L

15 This iype of ohart IS ooneidered an important presentation of the results beoauee it provide~ a oomplete comprehensive view of- all the porpoising oharacte.rlstio.s UrI@@X a given net of partioulare and not merely of the takability limits. Desorlptlon Each of Large Chart - One for

,-.

Series

of !l!este(fig.

5)*

(1) The ordinates are trim angles that are meaeured from the base line, which make~ an angle of 2 speeds. with the forebody keel; the abeclesas, Speed soalee are given for model and chip speeds and for the speed coefficient The Stevens Tank Cv
q

speed numbers for the various fixed speeds at whioh teete were made are given at the foot of the vertical lines drawn at these epeeda. (2) The graphioal records of porpoleing are plaoed on the chart with the small cross, which lndioates the steady-motion attitude, at the height of the observed trim and longitudinally to the right of the vertioal speed line, on this line, or to the left of it, depending upon whether the tall dmmping was one-half, one, or two times the normal tail damDing, respectively. Values of the trill damping are Indicated at the tops of the vertioal speed linee. (3) A cirole with alternate a.uadrants blaoked Indicates that a test was made but that the motion wag stable. (4) The reoords are placed on their sides, eo that inoreaslng heave oorr6sponds to progression toward the left of the chart and increasing trim, progression toward the bottom. The short horizontal and vertioal lines, respectively above and to the right of a reoord, Indioate %ero trim angle and ~ero heave from the etatfc flotation corresponding to 140,000 pounds in the ship. (6) I!?otee -are givdn defining the ~anges of trim angles within which the forebody or afterbody wae observed to be wet or olear. ~This have
of theee

desoriptlon applies partiou~arly to the larger size oharts, In reduoing, for fig, 6, oertaln details been omitted.

I
s

Ire-m-m

, ,. .

.. .

-----.

.-.

.-

-. .-

&

16

(6)
track* billty

The thrqe curvqs .ranrssent th= fre=-to-trim for the hull In gt~mdy mot!on, the umnar stqlimit. limit, Rnd the low~r stpbillty

(7) ~hg atbility limit is arbitrarlqy dt=fln~d ss th= trim at which t~s total sv-qn in trim snFle durinp morpolsing Is 2 . Th=! limits shown are for norm-l trill dmmping =nd are lifted from auxiliary o= the pr%nhical charts of trim ewe?m, ns m~n%ur=d records, plotted against st-a~y-motion trim anple nt conetmnt appqd. In order to pmmlt remdw comnariaon of the tpst rrnllmlta have been taken off the lqrfe aultao the atablllty charts described abov9 and presented In the form of summnry figures, each of which shows the atabllity llrcita for all the modification of oE~ vmrlnble. These summmry flgurea conatltute the princirnl presentation in thte report : Description of Summary Fi@rea - One for All (figs. 6 tin 30) Modification

of Each Variable

Included

are: -

Stability limits (fer 2 oscillation) solid curves cross-hatch-d on unstable aide Free-to-trim trncks center-lin~ curves Take-off trim tracka dashed curves -

Free-to-trim r=sist~ncqs ---.--- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------*The trim track correamondine to reaultnnt n~rodyrn~mic momenta about the canter of pravity equal tri zaro, aa obtnin~d by interpolation. It Is for tha hull, mlfin-, and not for the comnli=t~ airnlanp.

17 Applied moment and resletanoe against bottom) . . .. . .. . ... Oroee plots at four fixed speeds DISCUSSION Or RESULTS trim (at the

-..

indicate-d

The effects of eaoh yariable or modlfloatlon covered by the teste are discussed below In come detail. It IS Intended that referenoe be made, in following the disousslon, to the summary figures described in the preceding section. It has been mentioned previously that the aim In layout the program of experiments was to change only one l?atuvariable at a time, thereby isolating its effects. rally the program was not entirely successful in this respect; in certain cases, two or more of the variables listed were found to eonetltute essentially the eame change from a hydrodynamic point of tilew. Where this 5s clearly the aa8e, It is noted in the discussion.
ing

Group

I - Weight

and

Inertia weight

Loadings (fig. 6)

(Chart

1)

(1) Modification 120,000 140,000 160,000 200,000

of gross pounds

(normal)

86 percent 100 114 143

Increasing the groes weight move~ the Porpolsing. range of stability in the direction of higher trim anglen and leaves the width of the stable range virtually unaffected. The speeds at which porpolsing etarts are delayed by increasing the gross weight, and the free-to-trim track Is shifted to higher trim The free-to-trim anglee In the viwinity of the hump. traok tendg to cut across the middle of the stable weights. ranges for all groes ., Not Inveetlgated (exoept for the normal Eeeletance. oaee).

. . . ..

. .. . - . . -

(2)

Modification o.g16 1.366 1.716 2.049 x 10e

of moment slug-faeta

of inertia . (normal)

(fig.

7)

60 percent 100 .. IZ6 150

Increasing the mom~nt of inertia rePornoislnr. duces very slightly the range of stability mt low sp~eda. The mrincipsl consequence of increasing themom~nt of int=rtia is to increase the -ormoising amplitudes und-r othfirwise identical conditions, The norpoisinp freauency is r~duce~ nlso, anmrnximately in Proportion to the increas- in the recimroc.1 of th9 square root of th= radius of gyrntion. bti~ resistanc~. (3)
q

This modifieat.ion

could

not aff9ct

the

Modification of lcngituflinnl position grnvity (fi@. q) forward of step (normal)

of center

nf

67 inches

70 50

J.Tpercent bw+mforwardofstep z 3.2

30. g
The center of gravity was shifted by altsring the location of the mod~l pivots and rehqllastinp. Since the hydrofoil lift is annlied throuph the model pivots, this procedure is equival~nt tn Pltersiing ths centar of grnvit~ and thm wing nosition multaneously and does not introduce an additional moment du9 to lift. Shifting th center of gravity sither Pornoising. forward or nft has only n vpry slight eff~ct on the rqnge of stability at moderate smeeds. The nrinciDR1 consq~uence of shifting the center of ~rnvitF is to shift bodily the curves of ~pplied mnm~nt, the result b9ing that a different moment is renuireil to mrcduce the s~me trim angle in stnnd? motion. As would be expected, th+ rea~ired chqnpe in annli~d u oment is eaual to the net wipht on thq watr times the shift of tk~ center of pravity and the vin~, ~m condit!on
q

Hot investigated for the free-to-trim (~xcemt for th~ nnrm=l cas~).

&oup

II - Aerodynamic of wing lift

Conditions !?0 nt .

(Chart T =

2)

(1) Modification
. , .. ,, , . . -.

5(fig.

9)

4:m~3 V8a 6.95 Vaa

9.27 V~a

poundta (norm=l)

67
100 133

p9rcent -

Chi:nging the.wing lift was accomplished by ohmneing the angle b9tween the normal hydrofoil ~nd the hull P chnnge in the inaid~nce base line .which eimulmtes This left dL/dw. unchav?d. dL/d? and of the wing. Increasing the wing lift mkk~s thb stP~orpolsing. ble rang9 ~ppreclahly wid-r, chiefly b?r lowerlng th? lower limit at moderwt9 sr.eeds. The largest lift tested prevented up~er-llmit pfirpoising at hi~h spe~du . Increaslnfi ths lift low-rs the fre=-to-trim track at modsrate speeds just nbove the hump, so that its relation to th~ lower limit of stability is virtunlly un%ffectmd. Res3stnnce. (2) Yodificmtlon 0.344 o.45t? Not Investigated. of win~lift ner rate TQ (fIF. 10)

Vsa pounds Vsa

V*=

degr~e (normal)

75 m=rcent 100 150

0.6s7

Changing tha wing lift rate was accomplished b= alThis produc~d a corretering the hydrofnll size. spnndi~ change In the value of The lift at dL/dw. wae unchanged from ths normal lift in all T = 5 (In later teste, describ~d below, dL/dw cmsea. was changed independently.) PorDolsing. Increasing the wing lift rate has practically no effect on the stabil~ty limits at moderat9 spends and decre%ses the range of stability very slightly at high spends. !Chq freq-to-trrim -trmck is unaffected .at moderate speeds just over the humm. Eesistance~ Rot lnveati~ntqd.

20

. Modification 0.J5g of vertic~l velocity per foot dqmping (normal) & (fig. 11)

(3)

ti~ pound-seconds

0.916 VB

100 pero~nt 200

By means of a specially constructed dnshnot which was attached to affect only th~ haawlng motion, the rate doubled. of chsnge of lift with vertlcnl velocity wqs l!his chanpe in the ap~sratus Is shown in the second Thta t.gts were l~~ited to thrt=e sketch in figurs 31. speeds nnd to normal tnil dnmning. Study of the mormoising cycl=s on tha Pornolsinp. granhical recnrd8 flle to r~vmnl an?? ~nnrecia~~e dL/dw iS dfiublad. differences when W9sistnnce. resistance. This mmdificatlon cnuld not nff=ct the

Note, The r=sult~nt aerodynamic moment the course of each smies of tssts and considered an independent varihble. (4) Modification of tail moment rate

M. is altered is not mroprly

in

Me

(fig.

12)

O.gg v~ pound-feet 1.37 Vs

per

deprae (normnl)

71 perc=nt 100

2.05 vs

150

lncr~asing the tail moment rate hmslno ?0 rpoislnu. noticeable effect OE either stability limit or on the Ths largest moment rat~ used n.prange of stability. preciably reduced thei size of the steady-stnte cycles In lower-limit porpoislng at high speeds, and there was also a tendency to supprsss umer-limit porpolsing -. at very high sp9ads
q

R9sistmnce. r9slst~nce. (5) Modification

This modification

could

nnt affect

the

of tail
V8

d~mplng

rate

Mq mer

(fig. radi~n

13) ~ p.r~ent ;: 100 200

o
2.02

104

nmnd-foot-s=conds

4.05
g.lo

Vs s

Va

(nbrmal)

16.2

Vs

21

..

Inoreaeing the damping due to the hor.iPorpoiOing. sorital tail surfaoes lowers the lover limit at all speedsf the amount inoreaeing with speed- from nearly %ero at the epeed at which lower-limit porpoie~n-g at a etarte to a very large amount at high epeeds; given high speed, the effect on the lower limit progre08ively deoreaaee ae the tall damping Ie Increaaed. effeot Increasing the tail damping has no appreciable on the poeition pf the upper limit but has a tendenoy to delay the speed at whloh this type of porpoleing The largest damping used (twlee normal) preetartsm vented upper-limit porpolsing in the region of getaway mpeede. It 1s worth noting that, at 19 feet per seoondi model speed (about 70 mph ship speed), upper-limit porpolelng frequently could not be suppressed dith 20 times the normal tail damping and occasionally 80 times was not sufficient~ In a few instanoes, lowerllmit porpoising wag not entirely suppressed with 20 timee the normal damp5ng. Resistance. retaistanoe. (6) Inolusion This modification oould not affect the

of phase

angle

between

qXMq,

and q (flgJ 14)

It had been auggeeted that, in the full-size atrplaher there might be a time lag between the pitching velooity and the pitch damping moment produoed by the Speolal teste were therefore run to investitail. gate this matter. The phaee angle was Introduced by putting a small calibrated spring between the dashpot Teets were run at approxpiston and Ite pleton rod. imately the three lagging phaee anglee ehown above, at eaoh of three epeede, and with various valuee of the tail damping rate. Porpoising. The teet reeulte ehowed that the greateet of the lagging phaee anglee ooneidered wae the only one which had any noticeable effeot whatever and that ite only effeot wae to ralee the lower limit very slightly at the loweet speed Investigated.

-8-.

-m

-m

mm II-II

III

I s III

IlmlII m II

ll I s

I II 1111 II

23

.-.

In order to make as dr8sti0 a change as possible, the For these tests, the model of afterbody was removed. the forebody alone was set up with an outxigger. which permittat Ballasting to keep the oenter of gravity in the came location with reepeat to the forebody and to keep the moment of inertia about the oenter of gravity This outrigger the same as for the complete hull. was plaoed high enough so that, In general, it was olear of the water. Porpoising. The tests of the forehody alone show very olearly that the lower llmlt is attributable to the forebody and that an upper llmlt doee not exlet when the afterhody is removed. At moderate epeede (~ust beyond the hump), the afterbody keepe the trim angle down and prevents lower-limit porpolslng; at all higher speede, the lower-limit porpoleing ie uninfluenced by the presence or abeenoe of the afterbody. Removing the afterbody deoreaeen the Resistance. resistance at high speeds In the region where an afterbody would ordinarily be wetted by spray ooming off the forebody. In the region of the hump, removing the afterbody allows the trim to inorease and Also, the large increases of resletance result. water load otherwise a~rried by the afterbody muet The forebody therefore be carried by the forebody. rides deeper in the water, causing an additional lncreage in retaietanoe.

.- -.

These experiments euggeeted the concept Remarke. that the forebody and the afterbody are eeeentlally separate parts of the hull, eervlng different purpoeee, and that to a considerable extent modificaof modltions of each may be etudled independently ficatione of the other. A comparison between plete hull and thoee in partloular, the charaoterlstios of the comof the forebody alone reveals,

(a) That the afterbody Ie ueeful only in the lower half of the speed range to take off speeds IS and that ite presenoe at-higher entirely detrimental

24

that, at rest and at displacementn it provldee flotation

speeds,

that, at moderate epeedg up to the hump, It cenitrols trim and resistance and preventm lower-limit porpolslng that , at planing speeds, It is the dlreot cause of upper-limit porpoising and somewhat increases resistance (b) That the forebody 1s entirely self-sufficient at planing speeds and needs no help from the afterbody These indioatione suggest clearly that the forebody Is the main hull and that the afterbody Is an appendage, the function of which is to control trim (by providing nosing-down moments) until true planing of the main hull is established. (2) Modification 2 ~o 40 50
60

of afterbody forebody

angle

(fig.

17)

between

and afterbody

keels

7 940 12

(normal)

The afterbody angle vas increased by rotating the afterbody at the model deck and shifting It vertloally so that the step height was unchanged; It wae reduced by rotating the afterbody at Its keel, leaving the step height unchanged. . Porpoisin~. Increasing the afterbody angle raieee it to the lower limit at moderate epeedsand causes start at a slightly lower speed but has no appreciable effect on the lower limit at high speeds; the upper limit is raised and, with the two greatest aftorbody anglee, the upper limit is suppressed at Reducing the afterbody angle lowers high speeds. the lower limit at moderate speeds and ehift8 its starting point to progres~ively higher speeds but again hae no effeot on the lower limit at very high

. ..

.._

..--

-- .-... .. . . . . .

.. .

. . ..

.. .. ... ... .

..

as
....-

. ----

upeede. The upper limit is lowered at all speeds. and Its .etarting point shifted to progressively With afterbody anglee lees than norhigher epeeds. real, the high-speed upper-l-trnl% porpolslng beoomes increasingly ~iolent ae the angle is reduced. The afterbody angle for optimum hump reResistance. for this. hull; with sistance appears to be about 3* angles greater or less than this the hump.resistances Thie is consistent with are oonslderably tnoreaeed. At the Findings of reference 6 in a general way. very high bpeeds, the optimum trim and resistance are not partloularly affeoted by afterbody angle. (3) Modlfiaatlon 2.25 2.76 3.25
of afterbody

length (fig. at main etep

18)

times

beam

(normal )

The afterbody length wae altered by applying a oonstant multiplier to the station apaoing and moving the stations in or out along the afterbady keel. Thuo the afterbody angle and the etep height were unohanged. Porpolsing. Decreasing the afterhody length raises the upper limit elightly an-d hae only a very small effeat on the lower limit at moderate epeede #ust past the hump; the speed range over which the freeto-trim traok passes below the lower limit ie lengthened slightly. The ehortest afterhody tested stopped high-speed upper-limit porpoielng in the present Inetanoe. The effectm are generally similar to thoee resulting from modifying the afterbody angle.
. Only the free-to-trim re~iatinoe wan inResistance. vestigated in thie case. Inoreaeing the .afte~~;dy length lowers the hump resistance eomewhat. ehortest afterllody ueed had a very high resletanae peak Just before the true hump, though thle presumably might have been elim.tnated by relocating the ---- .tail oone.

. - -_

- -

___ ..

a6
(4) Modification

of afterbody

chine

flare

(fig. 19)

Chine flare removed Normal Extended .

The normal afterbody chine flare ends abruptly, forming a partial step a little forward of the stern post. Two modifications were tried (1) extending the chine flare aft so that it washed out at the removing all the chine flare. stern poet (2) Extending the afterbody chine flare Porpoislng. lowere the lower limit very elightly at moderate epeeds and leaves the upper limit praotioally unafRemoving the afterbody ohlne flare raldes fected. the lower limit elightly at epeeds ~uet beyond the hump and raises the upper limit ellghtly, and prevented ?aigh-epeed upper-limit porpoieing in the present tests. Resistance.. Removing the afterbody chine flare caueee a high peak in the resistance before the true hump and slightly Inoreaees the true hump. The very high peak appeared to result from water clinging to the afterbody eides and running up the tail oone. Eemoving the afterbody chine flare had almost no effect at h~gh speeds. Reelstance tests were not run with the afterbody chine flare extended. (5) llo~~~~ca;;yn 9
of height

of main step

- firet

eeriee

1 peroent 3 6 7

of beam

(normal ) seriee by ehiftwith reePect to . .

Ing

The etep height wae altered in thie the entire afterbody vertically the forehody.

Increaelng the etep height in this way Porpoielng. raieee the lower limit at moderate epeedo juet past the hump but hae no appreciable effect at higher The upper limit Is raleed at all epeede and ~peede. upper-limit porpoiaing at very high speede ie sup.

,.

27 When the step height is ~eoreased, the vlopreeeed. lenoe of the high-speed upper-limit porpolslng is progressively Inoreaeed until, with the lowest height !. -tried, thi-s t~e- ofporpotdihg. id eiibdjtSonally violent in the region of get-away. Only free-to-trim resistance was inveeReslstanoe. Inoreaslng the step.height .elightly.intlgated. oreases the hump r.esietanee and reduoes the highare.consistent apeed reaiatamoe. . The8e ind~oations . with those found in reference 7. . (6) Mo~~~;oa~;fn
q

r----

of height of beam

of main

step

- seoond

series

1 percent 5 9 13

(normal)

The step height was ~ltered in this series hy rotating the afterbody about the intersection of the afterbody keel and the ~tern post in the normal hull.. Thue the posl.tion o.f the stern post was unaltered. The tests were oarried to a greater maximum step height than in the fir~t eerles. Porpoising. Increasing the step height In this way. has practloally no effect on the lower-limit at any The speed or .on the position of the upper limit. etep heights greater than normal again suppres~ed the high-speed upper-limit porpoising tind the 1 percent step height gave exceptionally violent high-speed upper-limit porpolsing. The position of the free-to-trim track suet pact the hump IS not affeoted when the step height Is altered In thie way. Eeelstanoe. Increasing the step height has praoti.oally no effeot on the true hump but deoreases the the true hump. peak before At very high speeds the resistance appears to be slightly decreased by inoreaslng the etep height to Greater thaa n~rmal.

(7) M.odifloations of afterbody dead no ohine flare (fig. 22)

rise

at stern point -

28

-10
00 100 200

dead ~ise
.

at afterbody
.

stern

post

(normal)
.

~oo The afterbody was warped by leaving the dead rise at the main step unchanged and altering the dead rise at the stern post; the buttooks were kept straight The Step height and the angle of the afterlines. No afterbody chine flare body keel were unaltered. was used. Decreasing the afterbody s~ern-post Porpoising. dead rise has ~ractioally no ~ffeat on the lower limit at any speed but lowers the upper-limit at all Possibly because of the absenoe of after. speeds, body chine flare, the high-speed upper-limit porpoisThe stern-post dead ing was suppressed in all oases. rise whioh-~auses the greatest suppression of the high-speed upper-limlt porpoi.sing was found to be about 200. lrom the standpoint of upper-limit porpoising, stern-post dead-rice angles between 10 and 20 appear to give the b;st all-round results. Decreasing the afterbody dead rise at Resistance. the stern post causes an appreciable deorease of the !Ch e discontinuity that appears before the hump. true hump resistance is also lowered but to a muoh lesser extent. At very high speeds, the resistance is not altered materially, but 10 dead rise appears to be about the best angle. (8) ventilation of main s tep for step heiglit of 1 percent rough preliminary trial (fig. 23) Ho ventilation Ventilation Step height
} -. .

1 percent

beam

Ventilation of the ma~n step was accomplished by shifting the afterbody (set for 1 percent step height) aftward along its keel by 5 percent of the beam and leaving open the gap thue causnd. The afterbody angle remained unchanged from the normal. The teet~ are looked upon as very preliminary in nature.

29 . Porpoising. Ventil~tlng tihe ~inetep in this way raises the upper limit slightly and entirely auppreeees high-speed upper-limit morpoising. The lower limit waO not invet3tSgated. The effect of this ventilation, even though impossible to construct f~om a praotioal viewpoint, is remarkable in that it suppressed entirely the very violent high-speed upper-limit porpoising (the most violent yet encountered.) whiob oocurred with an unventilated 1 peroent step. BesietaE3e. Hot investigated.
. .
9

Group

IIIE

- Eorebody Dorm (Chart

3)

Drawings of modifications are ehown in figure 33. The manner In which the various modifications were carried out should be especially noted. (1) Modification ing (fig. of forebody 24) . form - first series of warp-

Con~tant eaotion (mi~imum warping) I?ormal foreto~y Linear dead-~iae variati.n (maximum warping, dead rise &hanges 9.7 per beam forward of step)

The firet forebody In this group had the same length forebody, but all the eections of the as the nor=al normal foreLcdy were compressed into the forward !i!he after half had the un~form seotion found half. at.the main step in the normal hull. The Xhird model was constructed with a linear variation of deaa rise from the forepoint to the main The step section, the profile, the chine pl~ step. form, and the deaa rise near the forepoin.t were unaltered. Both modele were tested with the normal afterbody. These models ~ be oonsiaered as belonging to a group in whioh warping of the forebody bottom near the etep is the variable, the ohange of warping being-small between the first and the normal models and large between the normal and the third =odelm.

- .. ..-

--.

.. ----

. .

_ .

.. . - . ______

q 

Inoreased warping of the forebody bot Porpoising. tom l~wers the lower limit very materially at all except the very lowest speeds and very slightly lowere the upper. limit at sJ1 speede. At hump speeds, inoreaeing the warping of the forebody bottom hae no great influence on the free-to-trim track but #overs it materially at higher speeds. . R6eietance.. Increasing the forebod.y warping increases the hump resistance appreoi~bly, and also increasee the resistance at high epeeds when the afterThis ie consistent with the findings body is clear. of referenoe 8. . (2) ~o~~~~oa::;n
q

of forebody
.

warping

- eecon~mseries
.

Dead:rise
. .

changes

0 per beam
2.7 5.40
8.10

forward

of step
..

10.8 . The forebody warping in eaah aase wae linear from step to forepoint in exa,otly the same manner as In the linear-dead-rise-variation model referred to ab ov.e. This resulted in having ver~ low dead rise in the forward half of the forebod~ in most oases. wae built to explore the effect of foreThe serlee body warping more s~stematically than in thd first series. q Increasing the warping of theforebody P0rpo3.elng. bottom very appreciably lowers the lower limit at high speeds but only slightly at speeds Just.beyond the hump.. The upper limit 1S aleo lowered, but to a very much leseextento Increasing the warping of the forebody lowers the free-to-trim track at high speeds. These effe~ts are similar to thoee found in the first
. serietit.

It was found that the two models with a dead-rise ohaage of 0 per beam and 2.7 per beam had noticeable tendencies toward diving at very high speeds and low trim angles.. Thie iS undoubtedly due to the how seo%ions having insufficient dead rice and ie of lit- . tle interest here. . .\
q

: # .
q . J

. -----~~:::.:.,+~-%

-.

.. .

. ..+...

. ..... , *:*#< ., ,.. -.. . .. .. .

31

Inoreaelng Resistance. creaee~ the reeistanoe, epeeds. (3) Modification 2.82 a.44 4.07 of forebody times beam

the forebody warplng inat both the hump and planiag

length

(fig.

26)

at main

step (normal)

The models In this group all used the same forebody seotions; the alteration consisted of applying a oonThe stastant multlplter to the station spacing. tions were shifted in or out parallel ts a line tan!Che gent to the normal forebody keel at the step. multipliers for station spaaing were the same as for the modifications of afterbody length (group IIIA. ohart 3). In the planing range, the alterations in this group may be considered as oonstitutlng small ohanges in the warping of the forebody. Porpoising. Decreasing the forebody length slightly With the lowers both the lower @nd upper limits. shortest forebody, the hull swamped at speeds below the hump; no difficulty was found at high speeds, however, when steps were taken to support the model while it passed over the hump. Decreasing the forebody length increases Resistance. the hump resistance appreciably and the resistance at planing speeds sllghtly. If the alterations are considered as changes of forebody warping near the step, then the trends in resistance and porpoising are the same an for the two preceding series.

Group

IIIH - Hull

Form

(As a Whole)(Chart

3)

The Drawings of modifications are shown in figure 33. manner in which the various modifications were oarried out should be especially noted. (1) Modification of hull length (fig. 27)

. .. ----

. ---- . ..-

----

..

. .

. -----

-----

.- ..-.

..

. .. . . .. .

. ..

.... &-

32
. ~.~~ timgs b?am 7:32 The hull length was altered by joining the alteredlength forebofi.les (group IIIF) to the simllmrly alThe stap height and tered afterbodles (group 1114). the afterbody angle remaln~d unaltered. Porpol.sing. Increasing the hull length lnwers the lower limit ~er~ slightly -t low speeds and raises it slightly-at higher spe=ds; the umpsr llmit is lowered very slightly. The frae-to-trim track in the region is virtujust pact the hump, where It is important, ally unaltered.
. .

nt main .

step (nnrmal)

Increasing the hull length Resistance. At ciably reduces the hump resistance. speeds, the-resistance Is v~ry slightly These effects -.re consistent with those a. reference

very appreplaning reduced. u entioned in

(2) Modification

of hull

dmd at-e&

rise

(fig.

2g) .

0.5 tdmes normddeadz%ee 1.0

stat~on (10 (20

at

step)
)(normal)

1*5.

( 300 .

..

The hull dqad rise was altered bv multinlyin~ the de~d rise at e=ch etation by the same constant. The kepl prnfile was unaltered, but the chlnqs were Th~ chine fl~r.s w-re inch~nped ms necessnry. creased In-proportion to the dead rise. Incr~asing the hull d~ad ris~ raisga quite mntsrially and lowers the upmer The spe~ds at which both the ummer and the lower limits start are proprasqlvely increased . with increasing hull dead rise. imit K%%#i limit scmewhst. In the vicinity of 14 f-et mm sqcnnd, model smfied (about 55 mph for thq ship), the upmer and lower limitg almost come togeth=r wh~n the hull dsad ~ise is 10 . Thus it would be nearly impossible for such .a hull to take off without passin~ through a region dhen the dend rise is 30, there is of instability. only a small gap between the upper nnd lowqr limits at eneeds near get-nway.

. .. . . .

33
Increasing the hull dem.d rise increas~s R98i8tance. the .reslstance appreciably at nll planinf sm~=ds. !l!he.true hump .r?si-stance $s got preatly affected but Jith both 10 and ie learnt with 20 hull d~ad rise. 300 de~d rise, the nfterbody chine flare Pppsared insufficient to prevsnt con?id~ra?)le nid~ mnd tail-cnn9 reslstnnce wetting at low eps~ds and, thus, 4 lmrge Thesa findings are in peak before the true hump. generml agreement with thoss In referance 6. No mmasurem?nts wera mad~ of volume or heipht Spray. of the spray, but increasing the hull dend rise appear=d to lowsr the height of the spray rindto mak~ ~he hull much cleaner running. - -

..

(3)

Modification

of lon~ltudinnl

sten pmsition

(fi~.

541 inches fitoffor=pcAlt[h&?tt~)10.5 nercent beam forward) ssg 57g (shlfkd 12.4 merc~t %e~m-t) altred The lrnritudinal nflsition of th mnin qtm wa= by mxtendin~ or chom~ln, off the nri~inql fort=bofly and nlterinp theafterboily length in the omnosit= e=ns~. The stem heipht, the angle betwe~n ths qfterbody ke~l locntion of the and b9se lln9, =nd the longitudinal etern Dnst were kent unmlterd. The net result is that of combining several of the ?h.n th~ ste~ is m~difications alrec:dy considered. moved forwnrd, the forebody ie short~ned and its warping very slightly increased, the afterbofi.y is lengthened, and the afterbody snple -is in ~ff~ct slightly reduced; also, the center of pravity is farther sft rslmtlve to the step. This modification wqe includ9d mainly becnuss shifting the step is a r~latlvely simnle change to cnrry out in full size. Moving the mnin stem forw~rd lflwers tke Porpoisinu. lower limit v-by slightly at =11 spe=ds, as ul~ht ba expected from the slightly increms~d wq~$ng of the forebody hottnm. The upper limit is sl~btly lowsred at all speeds, agnin ns ml~ht be expected from the decreased equivalent afterbody angle.

w
.

34

Moving the main step forward has substantially the same effeot on the moment curves as shifting the The shift center of gravity aft by the came amount. of the moment curves ie equal to the weight on the water tlmem the diatanoe the step 1s moved. Reeiatanae. (4) Modification Not investigated. form of main etep (fig. 30)

of plan

45 ewallow Transverse 450 v .

tall (normal)

The plan form of the main step was altered without changing the keel lines of either the forebody or The amount of planing area shifted the afterbody. aft of the normal transverse step was balanced by removing an equal area forward of the normal transThis left unaltered the Imeanltransverse step. verse step and. step height. Porpoieing. In going from a swallow-tail etep to a V-etep, the position of the upper limit Is raised appreciably and the in~ensity of the upper-limit porpoislng, increased. At moderate speeds the V-step lowers the lower limit, acd the swallow tail raiseb The situation is reversed at high epeede but it. the effects are not HO marked. Resistance. The plan form of the main step does not . have any appreciable influence cn the true hump reslstano refere~ae g ). The V-step, however, decreases the height of the peak in the resistance curve before the true hump. At high speeds, the Vstep appear~ to have highest reslstanoe and the swallow tail the lowest resistance in the region In whloh the afterbody is wetted.

~N53t\

COMMENTS

ON THE TESTS

In a broad sense, lower-limit porpoislng and upperlimit ~orpolslng are distinguished, beyond the difference in the general region of trim angles in whioh each oocurs, by the differing character of the porpoising motions.

Lower-1imit porpolslng IS largely a phenomenon of the forebody alone, while upper-limit porpoising depends upon both the forebody and the afterbody and their relation to eaoh other. In low6r-limit porpo~eing, the motion 1s smooth and regular and the afterbody is, in general, olear of the water. In upper.-limit porpolsing, the motion is very. irregular, though consistent in suooessive eyoles in a given ease, and the hull appears to be thrown baok and forth, the forehody and afterbody alternately carrying the bulk of the water load; the motton tends to have large amplitudes Sn heave and relatively small amplitudes In pltoh. By referring to the ohart In figure 5, vhioh shows the graphioal reoords of porpoising for the normal alr plane, It is apparent at onoe that the amplitude of lowerlimit porpoising is relatively insensitive to ohanges to trim angle and damping rate at speeds near the hump but that it beoomes increasingly sensitive to both as the speed inoreases and is extremely sensitive at high speeds. This menns, in effect, that from a praotioal point of view lower-limit porpolsing Ismuoh more dangerous at high speeds than at low. Upper-limit porpoising starts at higher speeds than lower-limit porpolsing. It develops very euddenly a~ the trim angle exoeeds that at whioh the afterbody takes an appreciable fraotion of the load, though a large change of moment is ordinarily required to bring this about. The droop of the upper-limit curves with Inorease of speed appears to be oaused by progressive ohanges in the shape of the roach left by the forebody. As opposed to lowerllmlt porpoising, the amplitude of upper-limit porpoising Is ordinarily quite insensitive to ohanges of damping rate and to the epeed; the motion is essentially violent The speed range over which it ooours oan at all times. often be slightly reduoed at its ends by inoreased tall damping; at speeds in the middle of the range, however, Inoreaslng the damping rate to 80 times normal quite frequently hae little effeot. A few speoial tests were made under the normal partloulars to explore the range in trim angle of upperlimit porpois.iqg. ,The indication that upper-l~mit porpoising was encountered when, with increasing ~rlm angle, the afterbo-dy would have taken an appreolahle, fraction Of the total load if the motion had remained steady suggeste~ that this type of porpoising might be eliminated and stability reestablished if the bulk of the load were trane-

. ..

m.

mm.

..

. .

. . . ..-.

..-

. .

..

-.

mmm

. .

...

-.

,,,

-,,-,,..,

This was found to be the caee. ferred to the afterbody. Very large stalling moments - far beyond any magnitudes poseible in practice - w=~e required, as had been anticipated, and the return .+i~stable motion usually ooeurred only when the forebody came clear - the entire load then What had not been anbeing supported by the afterbody. ticipated 1s the faat that the trim angle under theee conditioris can be less than that of the ordinary upper-limit uurveg CONCLUSIONS Group I - Weight and Inertia Loadings

Increasing the gross load raiaes the trim angles 1. at whioh both the upper and lower limit~ of stability occur and delays their starting to higher speeds. 2. Neither moment of inertia in pitch nor the centerof-gravity position has any appreciable influence on the limite of etabillty, though the latter has a pronounced effect on the moments and thus on the available trim range. Group II - Aerodynamic

Conditions

rate

The actual llft at arbitrary trim Z. and the 1. Zfj are the only aeroof change of lift with trim

dynamic variables which Influenoe the position of both It will be noted that these two variables, in limits. contradistinction to any other aerodynamic variables, affect the net load on the water in stead? motion. has a pitch damping rate 2. The aerodynamic q large effect on the lower limit of stability at high speeds, but its effect decseases ae the damping is increafled and is much less at damping rates near normal The damping rate has prtaothan at lower damping rates. tloally no effeot on the upper limit of stability. derivatives 3. None of the other aerodynamic appreciable effeots on either stability limit. has -

, , ,,.-.

,. -, ,, -.

. ...,..

. . ..

, .

,,

Group

111A - Afterbody .whieh raise

effeots:

Sorm the stern poet have

1. Modifioatione the following general

(a) To ralee the upper limit and,. If carried far enough, to Bupprees upper-limit porpolsing at high speeds (b) .To ralee of the hump the lower limit In the vioinity traok Sn the resietanoe speeds.

the free-to-trim (0) To raise vioinity of the hump and the hump They do not affeot the lower llmit

at high

upper-limit porpoielng was suppressed 20 High-speed In the present test~ by increasing the step height, by ventilating the step, or by removing the afterbody ohine This point needs further lnveStlgatlon. flare. Group IIIF - Borebody Yorm

1. Modlfioations which inorease the warping of the forebody bottom lower the lower limit of stability very appreciably and the upper limit very slightly.

Group
1.

IIIH - Hull

Berm

(As a Whole)

dead rise raises the lower the upper limit moderately . . The step position has very little influenoe on 2. the stability limits, its ohief effect being to shift the rnomeht ourves, as in the ease of a aenter-of-gravity ehift. limit Ohanges of hull length have the oombined effeote 3. of Intependent ohanges of forebody and afterbody length. 4. A ewallow-tail step has less intense high-speed upper-limit porpoising than a normal transverse step, but the usual step has on the whole better stability oharaosteps. teriotlos than either the V- or swallow-tail Experimental Stevens Towing Tank, Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N. J.

Increasing the hull appreolably and lowers

. .

38

..

1.

Perring, W. G. A., and Glauert, H.: Stability on the Water of a Seaplane in the Planing Condition. R. & M. Ho, 1493, British A.R.C., 1933. Klemin, Alexander, Pierson, John D., and Storer, Edmund M. : An Introduction to Seaplane Porpoislng. Jour. Aero. Soi., vol. 6, no. 8, June 1939, pp. 311318. Coombes, L. P., Perring, W. G. A., and Johnston, L.: The Use of Dynamically Similar Models for Determining the Porpoising Characteritatice of Seaplanes. R. & M. No. 1718, British A.R.C., 1935. Olson, Rolqnd E., snd Land, Norman S. : The Longltudlnal Stability of Flying Boats as Determined by Tests of Models in the HACA Tank. I - Methods Used for the Investigation of Longltudinal1942. Stabllity Characteristics. llACA A.3.R., NOV.

20

3.

6.

Murray, A. B. : Stevens Institute Opens Experimental Model Towing Tank. Marine Engineering and Shipping Age, vol. 40, no. 8, Aug. 1935, pp. 300-304. The Effects Bell, Joe W., and Willis, John M. , Jr.: of Angle of Dead Rise and Angle of Afterbody Keel on the Resistance of a Model of a Flying-Boat Hull. NACA A,R..R. , Feb. 1943. Bell, Joe W.: The Effect of Depth of Step on the Water Performatice of a Flying-goat Hull Model I?.A.C.A. Model 11-C. 535, NACA, 1935. T.II. HO. Tank Shoemaker, James M., and Parkinson, John 3.: T.Y. YO. Teste of a Family of Flying-Boat Hulls. 491, NACA, 1934. Dawson, John R.: A General Tank Test of I!?.A.C.A. Model 11-C YlyinH-Boat Hull, Including the Effect of Changing the Plan Form of the Step. T.H. NO. 538, NACA, 1935.

6.

7.

8.

9.

...

.....

.,

..--,

.,.,.

. . ...

39
TABLEI
> -.

DIMENSIONS lUIDPARTICULARS (lKU?MAL)FWIRIOLIA IZE YLYIHG B(2AT~2M-1 Dimensions ieamatmaineteg, i.n . . . . . . alngle between forebody keel and base line, deg bgle between after~o~k~ei ~ base llne, deg...... . . Height of main step at keel, In . Center of gravity forward of main step (26.5g percent M.A.C.), in Center of gravl~ above base line, &lD ~SCAIJd MOIXUL model

Full size

1/3 O-scale

. ...162
2.0 . . ...5.0 . . . . g.1 . . . . 70 in . . 146.7 . l@,000 O.gg . . . . 1.366 x 10= . 6.32g X 109 . . . . . .200 . 35a3 . . 249 . . 10.C7

5.40
2.0 5.0 0.27

Gross weight, A, lb . . . . . . . . Load coefficient, CA (EeaW8t~) . Moment of inertia in pitch, slug-fta lb+na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspect ratio (geometric) . . . . . .
Wing area, S, aqft . . . . . . Mean aerodynamic chord, M.A.C., in

5.19 f.w. 260 6.67 4.~2 &30 10.67 0.565

0.160 2.12 7.6g 5=5

Wingspan, ft

Horizontal.tail area, sq ft . . . . . . . 50g Elevator area, aqft . . . . . . . . . . . 143.7 Distance e.g. to 35 percent M.A.C. horizontal.tail (tall length), ft . . . 63.6 Thrust line above base line at mainetep, In . . . . . . . . . . . . .230.3 -at line inolined upward to 5.5 basellne, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . Ratios & n-size Model Iln veloolties, A . . . . . . . . . . . . linear dim&eions, A . . . . . . : . . areas, i%
vohnesg A 3-0 4 . . 0 . . .
q

j.ox 10
9.OX 108 27.ox 103

5.477

* . .

= .

.=

momenta, A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . En.ox 10: moments of inertia, As . . . . . . . . 2QJ.OX 10 aSee footnote on p.40.

-.

----

___

______

__

----

u
. .

40

%
!l!KSEEI DINEHS1ONS AND PAIITI(XJIARS (NOIUUZ) RORFUL&SIZE ELYING BOAT .XE62M-1AND ~-S~ Mm (Continued) Pull size l/30-scale model

14erodynamlccharacteristics
~&3tT=0

fl&ps,30 Lat TsbO

to base line, (relative . . . . . . . . . . . ..l.slvj . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l.ggb

695 v:(c) 7.72 X 10-3 V= 0.1045

0.4513v~ o.@3 Va

d~/d T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
dL/d7 (dZ/de), lb/deg dL/dw (dZ/dw), l&sec/ft . . . . . . . . ~$ () . . . .

0.1045 .0.509
x

10-3 v~

0.509 X10-3V 0.0150

5.05 x

q#%L=%w/d+J dh! /dT

====o

0=0150

(dM/dQ), lb ft/deg (ay.)

. . . 1.365vgI

104 Va

bdM/dq, lb
dlf dq
dlidw +

ft see/radian . . . . . . . . ~020 x Va . .. . . . . . . .. 7g.3 Xve

9.90 x 10-3 v 2.90 )(10-~ v

dM/dw, lb sec (m.) ft/radian

. . . . . . . . . . 102.5

3.41
1.61 23.74

/dq /Tail length, l/radian dM/dw Get-ew~epeed, Get-av~ ~ f@...

. . . . .

1.61

. . . . . . . 130

. . . . . . . . . . . . . deg. . . . . . . . . . .

1.E90
g.g

l.ggo
g.g

Get-away T.

~All trim angles measured relative to the baee line. Contribution of horizontal tail rirface only. csub~cript s is for full size.

NACA

Fig.

eradicating CHART OF VARIABLES

z r

GROUP m

SECOND STEP

Fig. I

Fig.

>.

..

PARENT FORM

IT

II

///

-----

----

1
StationNumbers are Inches Aft of Forepoint on Full Size.

Fig. 2

1
ROLLER SUPPORTd

TOWING CARRIAGE

GUIDEROLLERS w SMOKEOOLASSHOLDER

WALKINGBEAM GLASS -_ :

@ h i
I

m--=-x
FRAMEWORKMOUNTED ON TRACK +

TRACK ~

mnY

11?
I

,1

~::

7a%-&Ju\

I \ /\-
C.OFG

K
r
HYO~OFOIL SUPPORT

. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .

DASHPOTTRACK

L-xcRBERppOR>

J
,~

. .. . . . .
, -.. -,-

I
t
I *

APPARATUS FOR PORPOISING TESTS

T

HYDRoFOIL

Fig.a

(CHANGESANGLEWITH MOOEL)

Figure

40

Apparatus

for porpolsing

test~

WI&iii

LIMIT TASEN
05L3LL%IE z~ OP

[
~-il I ~1 2=-$3 I ltlii~;:~yy

LsHpE5i252k
a4E4

PITCH DAW!NKLB.

@ul alE4UNE, .$EAEaul am

a159aa7s. .I1353 mn

a194ml aoM. .03M

P7. SEG/lW.

am IMW, I
L -

9471 am

all~

9514 am

am.

,.

I
w*f.

I
\lx.

(l
Figure 5. -

Cvu SPEcD COEPFICIC

1

~
.

HOOEL 5KED, n. PER .s5e

Stahl lIty limit

graphical

S and free-to-trim
records of
the

track
porpo

for
ising

the

parent

modal,

ehowIng

the

cycles.

\..

I
8
4
1.2

Lsu_l
FREE-TO-TRIM TRACK

I
,$
A. > m-

RiLiYxv.1

.8 -i f;m-~
\ .. . . . .. .= 25

EXIIERHMTALTcwsw TANK TEwas hsmlns OF TwMoLom NOSOKEM, ML

XPB2M+ 4F 140,000: LBS

\./ /7

1 5

1 10

1 15

. ..~~. 20

CHANGES OF GROSS WEIGHT

(

MODEL SPEED, FVSEG n

RESISTANCE mmD

mmos)

FREE-;-Z

0.8 s
g -0.4
4 5 1 Y .

140,000
.1

120,000 (86% OF -1 140,000 (100% OF NORMALl 160,000 (11 4% OF NORMAL] -200,000 (143%OF NORMAL]

-l Q8
m -0.4 a
m-

II
140,000

140,000

-.0 o

-. --K% ~60t---

I a RESJSTAIWE vs.
I

Fig. 6

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

\.,

n
REE-mTR!yy /-

TRIM ANGLE *=ED

EXPERIMENTALTDWINGTANK SwwENs INSTITUTE w Tkcwmow HOBOKEN. NJ.

n P

I
./ :*

XP82M-I

s F -4

-- .-

~..

10

Z2!z#bJ
25
RESISTANCE

(sLGFT.2d
0.82(60% OF NORMAL) 1.37 (100% OF NORMAL) 1.72 (126% OF NORMAL) 2.05(150% OF NORMAL)

MOD

/sEC.
E

~D

4
I 4 8 12 4 8 12

1
25
I II

c m

Fig. 7

+Y$s454z!i
-n -.
0 . -J 4 8 12 TRIM ANGLE, DEG

I TRIM ANGLE & -1$?

EXPERIMENTAL Towuw TANK b4STlTUTEOF .~CHNa06Y STEVENS

~N, N.4

c1

S:ED

. .&L

XPB2M-I
~\&. 7 %=

140,000LBS.
CHANGES

s
F -4
-.-

REE-ToTR7*/y
/-5 I 10 1 15 -1 .MODEL SPEED, P ;YSEC I I

m
1

I.l.z

I
FREE-TO-TRIU
RESISTANCE

I
I

m
,:

~ $

1A
0.8

(NORMAL)

-i m
(W.

FWDo OF MM

STEP)

0.4

t+

-1 . i %!i%a
4 8 12 812

[;&kk&ti
4 8 12 4 8 12

Fig. 8

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

I TRIM ANGLE

EXPERIMENTALTOWING TUK S7EWNS INSTITUTE of lkcNNaaY l+wlDq ?&L

Q -12 Cl
J!=ED

957 y

8 a e4

. REE-mTRr./~
,/-6.95 -.

~ \ \\
- w 44 3 \ . .

XP82M-I 140,000 LBS

WING LIFT AT 1 =5
25

~--1.2 2 # - 0.8

I
5

I
10

1
15

9.*
20

Z(j

Fhg~-hA-u .

u a # -0.4

4.63(67%OF NORMAL) 6.95 (100% OF NORMAL) 9,27( 133% OF NORMAL)

5 I ~ A g # 5 # 00 ~ s E -1o1 4012 I 4 e 12 I 4 I e ATFIKEOSMEM 12 4 6 12 Q8

q [O:

a -0.4

-,0

6.9S

Fig. 9

TRIM ANQLE, DEC

-,. 3
L . . .

I TRIM AN6LE n 6&D

I .

k
. 12 8 4 ~ -. L2 J-

S-*

EXPERIMENTALTWING TANK INSTITUTE OF Tkcw+oLo6Y HOSOKEN, NJ.

z 9 n P

/ FREE-TO-TRIM TRAM \./ ,/5 Is MODEL SPEED, FT/8Ec 20 LIUIT_ - _,

I
(

t-u
I I
4812 4 8 12 4 8

I&l
r a

!
I

xv;, Ii&G]

0.344 ( 7s% OF NcRMNJ 0.456 OOO%OFNa?w

OE87 (150/0 OFNoRMAu

NOTE: LIFT AT 3X 5= 6.95Vf

[l+L%&- :5:, %lii

12 481

Fig. 10

TRIM ANGLE, DEG.

c1
*=ED E-wTRT./~ /. I 5

TRM AHGLE

EK?EMNENTAL TOWINGTANK WEWW INSTITUTE OF Tmwaow NaWKEN, N.JI

XPB2M-I %= 140,000 LBS.

-.. * .

VERTICAL
1 I I

VELOCITY DAMPING

10

15

20

n
Ss
1

z.
0.458 V, ( 100% OF NORMAL) 0,916 V~ (200% Of NORMAL)

t?ESWAMCE

NO EFFECT
g -0.4
1
Allslxf

1
I
I MdL

I
!&ED. F

I I I

i!
w

31
l--

c)

1/
4 8 12

l\
4 8 12

-1
4 8 W

!:&t2L&EbcEz!!a
48!2

Fig. I I

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

(
12 8

n
S&o

TRtNAIWJLE

1
..
0.s8
1.37 2.05

I
-.

~UNTAI.

Ti)wwo TASU

XP82M-I *%.
-

FnEE-T&Trnu lkAaf

140,000L6S.
;

\./ /--

TAIL MOMENT RATE

t,

/1
5

UWR .,,

LWT m

-~

10

15

20

mu

Me

MOO~L SPEED, WSEG

n.tc=) ( V* , LB.

1
Izl _l g ; b 5 -0.4 Za w +[o8 -.0 z
00 ~ 2 ~ -IOI 1 I 1 Il&=

Ci98(71 %OF NORMAL) 1.37(100% OF NORMAL)

2.05(150% OF NORMAL)

1 5 II

NO EFFECT 1
+

es
I II I

08

b]!

l\
4 8 12 4 8 12 TRIM ANGLE, DEG

4812

Fig.

12

EXPERIMENTALTOWINGTANK STMNS INSTITUTE w lkcnmcwm HOIEJOKEN. NJ

XPB2M-I ~4= 140,0008S

TAIL DAMPING Mq (x I04VS LEFT SEC.lRAD ] 0.00( o %oF NORMAL: NORMAL: NORMAL:

2.02 ( 25%0 4.05 ( 50%0

8. 1 ( 100%0 NORMAL:

I $ E fin Ja

I 5 ITT

I1

I I 7~~E~FT~=T

I I -F

I 2700100

~&Pd5r+-dTEE
4812 4 8
12 4 8 12 4 8 12

Fig. 13

TRIM ANGLE, DEG.

I TRIM ANGLE

EXPERIMENTALTOWINGTANK

STEvsas INSTITUTEW lkcwomw

H09DKEN, NJ

El

S~ED

\ a = F./
4

XPB2M-I 140,000 L6S

REEmTR<./~
/-I 10 I

-- -..

INTRODUCTIONC OF 35
I 20

~-n

%,,,LOWERLIMIT n
25 RESISTANCE

LAGGING PHASE ANGLE BETWEENqMq ANDq

MODEL $PEED, FT./SEC

-1.2
n-

Vs
SPEED

3 -0.8 ~ 03

$ -0.4

NO EFFECT

5 I g J gg z .L 8 :
TR;MIt&~WT

II

+5 -0.4 z; w +loz 3

-.0

U()
z

~ -lo

I
4812

1
4

I
8

I
12

1
4

I
8

I
12

TRIM?N6LE

I
4

I
8

12

,-

AT X

FIXED

EOS

Fig.

14

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

,,

-.

I TRIM ANGLE

~ -12 n S~ED

EXPERIMENTALTDWWS TANK Slstms lNsTITUTE oF lkcHmoimy HDSDXEN,NJ.

.. a s PE-*RT#,/~
4 ,/
I I 10 I

UPPER LIMIT

\ \

,4 N,*@ .*O*
.

XPB2M-1 ~ 140,000 LBS

INCLUSIONOFMU ~ Zq
I n

.
d

WITH Mq,COMPARED TO Mq ALONE

15
MODEL SPEED, F~/sEC

20

25 REWjTANCE ns~D

-1.2
F;~;&~N

g -0.8 g e # -0.4

NO EFFECT 1 11 5 I

g -1 Z* +-

w ! -d z -0.4
L

.!
w H

?O= _.. =
go z z E -lo b

TR~MMI#k#I#T

I 4812

1 4

1 8

I 12

I 4

I 8

1 12

I 4

I 8

1 12

&N@LE AT FIXEDS?EEDS

Fig.

15

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

I 1===1

+\ ,

FREE-TO-TRIM TRACK I I APTERO~ REMOVED

EXPERIMENTALTOWINGTANK SIEvEms lNSTITuTE m Technology HOSOKEN, NJ.

COU~

~LL

WLY

I
y,. -

XPB2M-I

z
s

P -4
-.-

REE-wTRT./-EE L \
---,/-I LOUER LIMIT 1 I I Z-

AFTERBODY REMOVED
25
RESISTANCE

5
APTERSODY REWED~

15 MODEL SPEED, WSEC

20

i n-

. -1.2

m : -0.8

F::;~A-n

%&

~ al ; -0.4

OOWLETE W

I
y g := ~~ I 1, &Eq F&c

I 2: > <Ill

I -

4 gg

w -Q8

co~p~

~LL .G<~ * A.S.REMDVEO As. REaovEo ~

TR#lmhlklkl
COMPLETE COMPLETE A.B.REMOVEt) vs.

COMPLETE IuL

G x
6

~ -0.4 +z; w +lo_ COMPLETE z

2 g oI 4812 1 I 4 I 8 -.0

E
B

z ~ -lo

12

I 4

TRIM ANSLE AT FIXEDSPEEDS

12

4812

Fig.

16

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

-?

Fig- !7

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

.
I TRIM ANGLE ~ -12 u a u m S:ED : // #~/
&
I

EXPERIMENTALTOWINOTANK Swnms lNsllTuTE m TkCHNOLMY H090KEN, NJ

UPPER LIMIT ,
;3~ m

2.25
2.75

% -8 a E-+ -.

X?B2M-I 4= 140,000 LBS.

~REE-~oTN. ~.~~~,~j$, p,/:~ ,

5

,#!

AFTERBODYLENGTH

b1
1 I I -.,,,,~ LOWERLIMIT
q

.//

10

(TIMES BEAM

15

AT MAIN STEP)

20

25

F-

iL3EtaiiKEaizmx
4812 4 8 12 ~ 4 8 12 4

I
8 12

Fig. 18

TRIM ANGLE, DEG.

I TRIM ANGLE ti%EtI

EXPERIMENTALTOWINGTANK ;TEvms mt7uTE W lkt3tNoLoel HIXOKEN, NJ.

E REMOVED

%&g..!:;
FREE-TO-TRIMTRACK RE EXTENOE ,2J .> NORMAL -- -.

XPB2M-I 140,000 LBS

!4
.

-u
I

I
+ ~

AFTERBODY Caiuw FLAFu

LOWER LINK

/1
5

10
ONINE FLARE REM

-p-+ G

# MODEL SPEED, F !SE(j.

. 1.2
FREE-TO-TRIM
RESISTANCE # g g 0.8 7 mMAL

,0
I +

RESISTANCE

SK?D

0.4

25
I

11

m
d

gg
lJ-

z
E

z; w +lo_ =
go

m -0.4

2
s z ~ -lo

-.0

D
TRIMMINGMOMENT

AT FIXED SPEEDS

!2

12
TRIM ANGLE,

4 DEG

12

12

Fig. 19

.12

El
S:ED / /f/ 5

TRIMANGLE 7 ,c~ 5 i ~ 3 I I * 7

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK TEVENS INSTITUTE OF IECHNOLOW HOFIOKEN, N.J

-8 FREE .TO-TRI~TRACK .4 ,/&H2A .-. - ;/

7 5-

XPB2M-I 6F 140,000 i LBS.

-. .

. /

HEIGHTOF MAIN STEP

I 10 1 15 MODEL SPEED, F~&c. . I 20

~.-~/~ - .-= --

% BEAM

L2
F~:;&:-u 0.8

u
s?&

RESISTANCE

1% BEAM 3% BEAM 5% BEAM 7%BEAM

i
AFTERBODY RAISED l~tsERIEs

-0.4

~ ~ -0.4 1= z w K)!!! z -o s

g J gg

!!!
o

5 I II

I
D
TRwN6 MOMENT

go s r -lo I 3 I 4812

AT FIXED SFEEOS 4 8 12 4 8 12 4 8 12

-n -.
(n .

Fig. ZO

TRIM ANGLE,

DEG

N
o

. ...

I Tw AH6LE
,0 SD

-IMENTAL

STEWNShslmm
1l-m S-)-G I ,-* Lm-o

TDWIrn TAUK DF lkcMwoLav HaoKEm NJ.

k..
1% 5%

,% N, ~s% ~4-._

4
{

XPB2M-I A= 140,000 LBS.

1 AW-

I ,-

HEIGHTOF MAINSTEP
STERNPOST ANGLE= 8 I 10 OF BEAM

5% OF BEAM(NORMAL)
9% OF BEAM 13% OF BEAM

2!@SERIES

I
4 8 12

Fig. Zl

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

f.;

EKPERINENTALTowwe TANK INSTITUTEof ~cwaosl HoeoKEN, N.J.

XPB2M-I 4= 140,000 LBS.

AFTERBODY WARPED
[
MODiL 1.2
FRu-;A-~ w 0.8 N&

NO CHINE FLARE
DEADRISE AT STERRJPOST

SPEED, FT/sEc n

~~. ,,100 ,00

RESISTANCE
!&:D

-1o o 10
1

T/
I
1
I

1,

rl I

-1
I

20 30

TRIMMING MONENI

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

d- n
. 12

TRIM ANGLE S~ED UPPER LIMIT

1
SASE -

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEvENsINsTITuTEof lECMNOLOGY

mW*N
XPB2M-I ~= 140,000 LBS . STEP VENTILATION
25

8
a

soAh4 +.

z fi - 4

E-m-TRy./~ /-- -

-- .-

o ~+

%] -STEPM
LOWER LIMIT

I 10

I
1

STEP HEIG~T l%

kc
q

RESISTANCE **ED

ONLY UPPER LIMIT INVESTIGATE

1
1
$l_ 1151 =QYL

I
~+ti E L, = % 25 I I I

bds&rbzxs
t \ \

m -.

4e12

48t2

12

Fig. 23

TRIM ANGLE, OEG

Fig=24

TRIM ANGLE,

DEG

--a

z lo.ovb
2.7

yb s.4 Vb o.I Yb

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF lECIINOLOG HOSOKEN, NJ.

8 < 4

0.0 Vb 2.7 yb g;! , m.aqb

../ -===-4

.$-4
,, .~::---/,

FREE-TO-TRIU TRACK

tik
15 SPEED, F ./sEc ! a, ~~ tom

XPB2M-I A= 140,000 LBS.

FOREBODY WARPING DEADRISEINCREASES FWD.OF STEP

10

Mo()[

I
-+
I

UEE!!-J
I

15

20

(/J
J

g
l--

4
25 I I

0.0 Yb 27 Yb 5.4 Yb 8.1 ?b 10.8 Yb

2@ SERIES

z c
7

z
~

Id+

E
7 TRIMMINGMOMENI 8 RESWANCE

s
u)

: ;1-

TRIMv~Ii&E AT FIXED SPEEDS

-n -.
n . N m

Fig. 25

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

,., .,. .
u

,
I
I

STEvEw MITWE
, -12

EKIIERIMENTALTOWINGTANK OF ~~tioov H060KEN, ?&J.

m
L

=Cw

3.44

8 s E -4 FREE-WJ-TRIN TRAUf .

4.07

XPB2M-I 140,000 LBS

FOREBOIYY LENGTH .
--

I
5A 10 15

I
20 I 25 .

(TIMESBEAM.ATMAWSTEP)

k-

r&!kil31iEk%;:Z, ti
T

-.
D

4812

12

12

Fig. 26

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

n
S&o ?--v .f5

TRIM AN6LE

1 I 1
.z 6.19
7.X ~% 5.07U

u-

LIN17

5A? j a a F -4 FREE-TO-TRIM TRACK 9/

.+

&

7.3E-

\ &07

I 10

1 Is

I 20

J2-:d>o,=
n

-1
I

n
%:0

25

m616TANcE,

1
(= m 6,19 7,32
X X

E=RIMENTAL TOWINQ TANK 7tmi6 hR3TITUnOF lWNoLo6v -EN, MA

XPB2M-I LBS.

4= 140,000

HULL LENGTH ATMAW m)

5.07 x BEAM BEAM BEAM

I . [6.19XBEAM=NORMAL]

-n -.

Fia.27

TRIM ANGLE, DEG

TRIM ANGLE, IIEG

n. >

-o F@2g

TRIM ANGLE, WG

1-. ,., .I

8
FRSE-I&TRIM TRACN 44S.
SWALLOW

TAIL

WD I mm
.

CHANGESOF STEP PLAN FORM

45 V-STEP

.1

.MOO~ %EED, F@EC I I REslslawos 11

Al

7-1

45SWALLOWTAIL

l-

SWALLOW

z go 45:Pl~LLow s
E -10 I

145, v.~Ep
NORMAL 1

~ENl

45. swALLow
TAIL

45, swAL~
TAIL I

4812

12 lhIM

4 ANGLE, DEG

12

-n -.
4 8 12 3 JJ
3

Fig.30

1]

NACA
SCHEMATIC SKETCHES SHOWING ARRANGEMENT OF APpARATLJS

Fig.31

FoRVmlous

TYPES OF DAMPING
CARRIAGE

FOR TAIL DAMPING DERIVATIVE Mq ONLY SEE.PAGE 20

CARRIAGE

Mq

FOR TAIL DAMPING Mq AND VERTICAL VELOCITY DAMPING ZW

SEE PAGE 20

CARRIAGE
I

,Mq ,Mw

Zq

FOR TAIL DAMPING Mq, AND THE AERODYNAMIC MOMENTS AND FORCES ATTRIBUTABLE FIG. 31 SEE PAGE TO MW AND Zq 22

NACA

GROUP IIIA

AFTERBODY

MODIFICATION

F i9.132

ANOLE WTWCEN FHC AND APTERBODY =ELB ACCONPLISHEO HOLOINO STEP HEIOHT CONSTANT

.-------1 ER

1$!6

do

I 44

do

646

7+4

E$4

1098

g 2040

APTERDOOY LENBTH ACOOMPLIBHEO BY EXPANOINO OR GONTRACIINO STATION SPACINO

AFTCRDOOY CHINE FLARE I CNINE FLARE REMNEO N I r I I r I

sERIES I HEIOHTOF MAIN STEP ACOONPLISHEO DY RAISIN@ OR LOWERINO AFTERBOOY

SERIES JI HEIf3HT OF MAIN STEP ACCOMPLISHED BY RAISINO OR LOWERlN6 AFTERBOOY AT STEP

.. -------

----

DEAORISE AT AFTERBOOT STERNPOST NO CHINE FLARE I

s -----------I VENTILATION OF MAIN STEP STEP HEIONT 1% SEAM

I

m m @ L ------------

ER

126

270

414

&

NACA

GROUP III
I I 1 I

F & H,

HULL CHANGES

Fig. 33

CHANSES OF FOREBODYFORM

1
CONSTANTSEOTION ,,
4

,, --RR -------------

128

MB

Bss

7b

It& ?

CHANGES OF FOREBOOYWARPINC I I I I

CHANOES OF FOREBOOY LEN6TH

::- ZG r,---- . ---

CHANQESOF HULL LENOTH ~----.--,

..

-- 1

GHANQESOF HULL DEADRISE

--------------1

-----------------------------------------------

CHANGES OF LONGITUDINAL STEP POSITIONS

041, 550(NORMAL), 57S IN. AFT OF P.R

.
CHANOES OF STEP PLAN FORM g I I b .L

EP

128

t70

, 414

1
Sk SB6 774

9s4

1090 {+4A3

lto4
Ho