NASA Technical Memorandum 110201

$7_7
A Study to Determine Methods of
Improving the Subsonic Performance of
A Proposed Personnel Launch System
(PLS) Concept
B. Spencer, Jr., C. H. Fox, Jr., and J. K. Huffman
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
December 1995
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001
O
I
,0
0',
Z
U
C
w_
_CW
l--v_ r
0 _
I.L L_J _ Cr_
Z_n_
OIOZ
I :[ Z Z O_ _-
00
O"
,O
O
O
O
O
A STUDY TO DETERMINE METHODS OF IMPROVING THE SUBSONIC
PERFORMANCE OF A PROPOSED PERSONNEL LAUNCH SYSTEM (PLS)
CONCEPT
Bernard Spencer, Jr.; Charles H. Fox, Jr.; and Jarrett K. Huffman
ABSTRACT
An investigation has been conducted in the Langley 7- by 10-Foot High Speed
Wind Tunnel to determine the longitudinal and lateral directional aerodynamic
characteristics of a series of personnel launch system concepts. This series of
configurations evolved during an effort to improve the subsonic characteristics of a
proposed lifting entry vehicle (designated the HL-20). The primary purpose of the
overall investigation was to provide a vehicle concept which was inherently stable and
trimable from entry to landing while examining methods of improving subsonic
aerodynamic performance.
Modifications to the original HL-20 were: forebody shaping including the canopy
region to minimize drag; changes in body camber to improve positive pitching moment;
base area reduction to further reduce drag; and outboard fin dihedral, airfoil section, and
fairing to improve lift and lift-drag ratio. Split rudders on the vertical tail were
investigated for use as speed breaks in an effort to provide nose up pitching moment.
In addition, a canard was added to one configuration for improving both positive pitch
and lift. The tests were conducted at a Mach number of 0.30 and Reynolds number per
foot of about 1.8 x 106 over an angle of attack range from approximately -4 to 20 at
sideslip angles of 0% -4, and 4.
INTRODUCTION
The plans for Space Station Freedom require a small supporting vehicle for
ferrying personnel to and from the station. There is also a requirement to have a
vehicle permanently docked at the station to serve as an emergency crew rescue
vehicle. This vehicle would be a small personnel-only version; one concept being of the
lifting body type vehicle presently designated the HL-20 (see refs. 1-5).
The HL-20 lifting body shape has also been suggested as one candidate for
NASA's Assured Crew Retum Capability (ACRC) as well as a Personnel Launch
System (PLS). Both programs are designed around an entry vehicle with the capability
of transporting a crew of 6 to 9 members from the space station. The HL-20 is a small
personnel carrier vehicle approximately 28 feet long with aerodynamic characteristics
similar to those of the Space Shuttle and earlier lifting body concepts (see ref. 6). The
vehicle has a low-aspect-ratio body with a flat under surface and blunt base. Center
and outboard fins are mounted on the upper aft body, with the outboard fins set at a
dihedral angle of 50 . Control surfaces are mounted on the outboard fins and aft portion
of the body. Results of wind tunnel studies to date, indicate; (1) low subsonic lift-to-drag
ratios and (2) deficiencies in directional stability at low supersonic speeds with
undesirable associated negative trim angle of attack, negative trim lift and lift-to-drag
ratios in the Mach range 1.5 to 2.5 (see refs. 7-11).
Therefore, Langley Research Center has initiated an extensive study to
investigate methods of improving the overall aerodynamics of a lifting-body vehicle of
this type. The refined configurations are referred to herein as the HL-20A and HL-20B
series. Modifications to the original HL-20 were forebody shaping including the canopy
region to minimize drag; changes in body camber to improve positive pitching moment;
base area reduction to further reduce drag, and outboard fin dihedral, airfoil section, and
fairing to improve lift and lift-drag ratio. Design philosophy and detailed descriptions of
the various modifications are discussed in depth in the models section of this report.
The present investigation was conducted in the Langley 7- by 10-Foot High
Speed Wind Tunnel to determine the low speed longitudinal and lateral-directional
aerodynamic characteristics of the HL-20A and HL-20B concepts and are compared to
the original HL-20 vehicle. The tests were conducted at a Mach number of 0.30 and
Reynolds number per foot of about 1.8 x 106 over an angle of attack range from
approximately -4 to 20 at sideslip angles of 0, -4 , and 4.
SYMBOLS
The data are based on measurements made in the U.S. Customary units.
Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics are referred to the stability axis system and
lateral-directional characteristics (including beta derivatives) to body axis system (fig. 1).
Longitudinal coefficients are based on projected body planform area and actual length
of each body and lateral-directional characteristics on planform area and body span
(fins-off). Moment reference point is 54 percent actual body length for each
configuration.
b
CA
Cl
Cl,13
CD
CD,min
CL
ACL
Cm
Cm,_
model reference span, in.
axial force coefficient, Axial Force/qS
body axis rolling moment coefficient, Rolling Moment/qSb
beta derivative of body axis rolling moment coefficient computed between
13=4 , 9=0 orl3=-4
drag coefficient, Drag/qS
minimum drag coefficient
lift coefficient, Lift/qS
incremental lift between specified configurations
pitching moment coefficient, Pitching Moment/qS1, b
longitudinal stability parameter
Cm,o
pitching moment at alpha = 0
3
CN
Cn,i3
Cy,_
t b
L/D
(L/D)max
Moo
q
R
S
X,
O_
13
]"'h
normal force coefficient, q normal force/qS
beta derivative of body axis yawing moment coefficient computed between
13= -4 or 0 and 13= 4
Cn = Yawing Moment/qSb
13derivative of body axis side force coefficient computed between 13= -4
or 0 and 13= 4
Cy = Side Force/qS
actual body length, in.
lift-to-drag ratio
maximum lift-to-drag ratio
free stream Mach number
free stream dynamic pressure, psf
Reynolds number per foot
model reference area, ft2
longitudinal station along the body, in.
angle of attack, deg
angle of sideslip, deg
tip fin dihedral angle, deg (as measured from the horizontal plane)
Abbreviations
Spd Brk Speed-brake located on centeriine vertical tail
Land Gr Landing gear
.4
DESCRIPTION OF MODELS
Drawings of the HL-20 model are presented in figure 2 and drawings of the
HL-20A/B configurations are presented in figure 3. Photographs of the HL-20, with
landing gear deployed, and HL-20B-1 configurations mounted in the High Speed 7- by
10-Foot Tunnel are presented in figure 4(a) and 4(b), respectively. Additional
photographs showing the various configuration changes made during the investigation
are presented as follows:
Fig. 4(c) - Composite of the HL-20A]B series.
Fig. 4(d) - HL-20; HL-20A/B Planform, upper surface base, tip-fin and center fin
comparison.
Fig. 4(e) - HL-20A-1; A-2; A-4 showing under surface camber changes.
Fig. 4(f) - HL-20A-1; HL-20A-3 showing increase base boattailing and tip fin
fairing changes.
Fig. 4(g) - Formation of HL-20B-1 and B-2 from HL-20A-4 and A-3, respectively
by removal of upper surface downslope.
Fig. 4(h) - Comparison of AFN and slab configurations.
Fig. 4(i) - Comparison of 25 AFO and AFN tip fin configurations.
Fig. 4(j) - Comparison of AFN faired and unfaired.
Fig. 4(k) - Partial-span speedbrake deflected 45 per side.
Fig. 4(I) - Canard planform on HL-20B-2.
HL-20
The baseline configuration is the HL-20 and a detailed discussion of its geometry
is presented in reference 7 and 8. Basically, this configuration is a flat bottom low
aspect ratio body with a large, blunt nose section, a blunt canopy, and a downsloping
-6.5 upper surface (see fig. 2). The body, aft upper surface region is fixed as an
upward deflected elevon at approximately -20 for obtaining trimmed pitching moments
over the range of entry-to-landing Mach numbers. The outboard fins are set at 50
dihedral and a small vertical tail is located at the centerline of the body. Both fins and
vertical tail have a slab cross section with a full radius leading edge.
HL-20A-1
The HL-20A-1 configuration (figure 3, part 1) retained the basic features of the
HL-20 except that the forebody was modified to a lower drag, ogive shape and the
canopy was modified and highly swept. These modifications resulted in an increase in
both plan-form area and length. The double-sloped forebody and therefore the "cheeks"
located aft of the canopy were eliminated, as well as the large upper surface, negatively
deflected elevons (see figure 4(d)). These modifications were incorporated to reduce
profile drag, base drag and eliminate entry "hot spots," which have been noted in
unpublished aeroheating results. It is anticipated that these vehicles (HL-20A/B) would
reenter the Earth's atmosphere at higher angles of attack than the baseline HL-20,
around 56 to 60 near CL,r_ x compared to 40 .. This higher angle of attack entry
should move the stagnation heating line aft of the nose region to the underside of the
body. The resulting lower heating rates should allow the smaller equivalent nose radii
used on the HL--20A/B configurations. Normal rotation of the vehicle from near 56 to
60 , to lower trim angles of attack will occur inherently due to the natural center of
pressure movement with decreasing Mach number.
HL-20A-2
The lower surface of the HL-20A-2 configuration (figure 3 - part 2) was cambered
by adding a NACA 65A006 airfoil camber distribution to the centerline section to the
HL-20 flat-bottom, while retaining HL-20A-1 forebody and planform (figure 4(e)). This
was incorporated to improve positive Cm, o for subsonic trim and possibly eliminate the
trim at negative angles of attack noted at low supersonic speeds (ref. 8).
6
HL-20A-3
The base area of the HL-20A-3 (figure 3, part 3) configuration was somewhat
reduced by increasing the HL-20A-2 base boattailing towards the outboard fins. This
modification was incorporated primarily to provided a smoother fairing between the fins
and body leading edges. See figure 3, part 3(b) and also figure 4(f).
HL-20A.4
The lower surface camber was further increased on the HL-20A-4 configuration
(figure 3, part 4) by replacing the NACA 65A06 section of the HL-20A-3 configuration
with a NACA 65A012 (see figure 4(e) comparison). This was incorporated to provide
even more positive Cm, o for trim than the HL-20A-2. Cross-sectional shapes were
elliptic, thereby again giving a smoother fairing to the body leading edges as well as the
outboard fins.
HL-20B-1 and HL-20B-2
The HL-20B-1 and B-2 series (figure 3, parts 5, 6, and 7; respectively) are the
HL-20A-4 and HL-20A-3 bodies with the 6.5 upper surface downslope removed (i.e.,
upper surface made parallel to free stream). These modifications were formed by
adding a 6.5 pie shaped wedge aft of the canopy. This increased the camber effect
and was incorporated in an effort to push the subsonic (L/D)max to angles of attack
nearer those anticipated for landing (i.e., (z = 16), and to further increase positive Cm, o.
See figure 4(g). Representative cross-sections accompany each configuration as
digitized for a smaller model, appropriately noted (figure 3).
7
Outboard FinConfigurations
The original HL-20 outboard slab fins were modified by changing the airfoil
section from a slab section with a blunt base to a NACA 0012 at the tip and NACA 0008
at the root (figure 3, part 8(b) and figure 4(h) and 4(i)). This eliminated the large blunt
base areas on each of the fins, thereby reducing CD, min.
The fins were modified such that the cross section was an airfoil shape on one
side and a flat plate on the other. The airfoil-in (AFN) configuration has the flat surface
facing outboard and airfoil section inboard to increase positive CL. Airfoil sections are
NACA 0012 at the tip and NACA 0008 at the root.
The airfoil-out (AFO) configuration has the flat surface facing inward and airfoil
section outboard to increase positive Cm, o for trim; however, at a loss in CL. Both of
these also eliminated the base area of the slab fin. Airfoil sections are NACA 0012 at
the tip and NACA 0008 at the root.
The fins on the HL-20 are located above the flat bottom lower surface, therefore,
leaving a "ridge" between fin-body junction and body lower surface. During entry this
could cause flow separation and impingement, thereby creating hot spots on the fin.
The designation "faired" (i.e., AFN-faired, SLAB-faired) indicates the fins were moved
outboard and lowered down the side to form a smooth fairing into the vehicle lower
surface (see figure 4(j)). Some increase in fin exposed planform area resulted, which
also gave a slight increase in wing span.
Vertical Tail _lnd Speed Brake
The small blunt vertical fin of the HL-20 was replaced by a large, symmetrical
vertical tail to enhance subsonic directional stability (figure 4, part a and b). The root is
an NACA 0008 and the tip a NACA 0012 airfoil section. Split rudders (speedbrakes)
ll
were also tested with the large vertical tail (see figure 4(k)). Full span speedbrakes
were deflected 30 per side and partial span (upper 1/3 of rudder) were deflected 45 in
an effort to produce positive Cm, o without reducing C L.
_:anard
A canard was also tested on the HL-20B-2 configuration(see figure 3, part 8(a)
and figure 4(I)). This is considered a fold-down device which could be stowed along the
body contour aft of the canopy during entry and then deployed subsonically to produce
positive increments in both Cm and C L. The canard had a flat bottom and highly
cambered NACA 0012 upper surface, and was trapezoidal in planform.
APPARATUS, TESTS, AND CORRECTIONS
The investigation was conducted in the Langley 7- by 10-Foot High Speed Wind
Tunnel (see ref. 11). Forces and moments were measured on a six component strain
gage balance mounted internally in the model. The test was run at a Mach number of
0.30, with the average test Reynolds number approximately 1.8 x 106 per foot. The
models were tested over an angle of attack range from approximately -4 to 20 at
sideslip angles of 0 , -4 , and 4 . The corrected angles of attack and sideslip include
the effects of sting bending under load. Beta derivatives were obtained between _ = 0;
-4 , and +4 incrementally, and therefore do not account for any nonlinearities which
may exist in this _ range.
Jet boundary and blockage corrections have been applied to the data based on
the equations found in references 12 and 13; respectively. The balance chamber
pressure and the base pressures were monitored for selected configurations. However,
no corrections were made to the data for the effects of base and chamber pressure.
Transition strips 0.0625 inches in width of No. 100 Carborundum grain were located 0.3
inch aft of the leading edges of the fins and vertical tail as well as 1.0 inch aft of the
,9
nose of the model. For the canards, number 80 Carborundumgrains were placed 0.55
inches aft of the leading edges. All transition strips were applied according to the
methods prescribed in reference 14.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Presentation of Results
The parametric nature of the test permits one to generate numerous comparison
plots showing the effects of various configurational variables in combination. The data
are presented such that systematic analysis of the various modifications can be made,
with results presented in the following figures:
Effect of body contouring on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
for the HL-20A series bodies alone.
Figures
5
Effect of body contouring on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
for the HL-20A series bodies with slab tip fin at Fh = 50 , and compared to
the baseline HL-20 configuration.
6
Effect of the addition of tip fins with different airfoil sections on the
aerodynamic characteristics for the HL-20A-4 configuration.
7
Effect of speed brakes on the aerodynamic characteristics for the
HL-20A-4 configuration.
8
Effect of removal of upper surface downslope on the longitudinal
aerodynamic characteristics for configurations with tip fins off.
HL-20A-4 and A-3 to HL-20B-1 and B-2; respectively.
lo
Effect of removal of upper surface downslope on the longitudinal
aerodynamic characteristics for configurations with the slab tip fin at
F h = 50 o.
Figures
10
Effect of body contouring on the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
for the HL-20B series bodies, with and without F h = 50 slab fins.
11
Effect of fin section and fairing on the aerodynamic characteristics
for the HL-20B-1 configuration.
12
Effect of fin dihedral and airfoil section contouring at Fh = 25 on the
aerodynamic characteristics for the HL-20B-1 configuration.
13
Effect of fin section and fairing on the aerodynamic characteristics for
the HL-20B-2 configuration.
14
Effect of fin dihedral and airfoil section contouring at Fh = 25 on the
aerodynamic characteristics for the HL-20B-2 configuration.
15
Effect of addition of canard on the aerodynamic characteristics for the
HL-20B-2 configuration, with and without various fin arrangements.
16
Comparison of the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics for some
selected near-optimum performance HL-20A/B configurations and the
original HL-20.
17
ll
Effect of adding landing gear on the longitudinal aerodynamic
characteristics for the HL-20 configuration with slab tip-fins at Fh = 50 .
Figures
18
DISCUSSION
Effects of body contouring.- As previously noted the primary purposes of
changes in body contour from the HL-20 shape (HL-20A1-A4) was to reduce profile
drag, reduce base area and thereby base drag and provide positive increment in
pitching moment in order to minimize large negative control surface deflections required
for trim. The effects of body contouring for bodies A1-A4 alone and bodies A1-A4 with
50 slab-fins are presented in figures 5 and 6; respectively, the latter includes the
original HL-20 configuration. Since no body alone data are available on the HL-20
configuration below Moo= 0.60, and blunt bodies are well into compressibility effects at
Moo= <0.30 no comparisons with the body alone data have been presented.
An examination of the aerodynamic characteristics of the HL-20 versus the
HL-20A-1 indicates a reduction in CD,min from 0.065 to 0.044 along with a positive
increment in CL of about 0.1. This combination resulted in an increase in (L/D)max
from about 3.5 to 4.2. This resulted, however, in a large negative shift in Cm, o of about
0.03. The use of body camber on the HL-20A-2 and HL-20A-4 configurations greatly
alleviated this adverse effect through a positive shift in Cm, o without adversely affecting
either (L/D)max or CD,mi n. However, CL was reduced back to the level of the original
HL-20. All of these favorable effects of body shaping and boattailing are emphasized in
figure 5 (body-alone), indicating the HL-20A-3 (additional boattailing) and HL-20A-4 to
have the lowest drag and slightly higher (L/D)max.
Effects of tip-fin section (HL-20A-4).- Changing the tip-fin configuration from 50
slab to 50 AFN results in increases in (L/D)max from 4.2 to 6.6 (figure 7). The resultant
Cm, o values, however, shift from positive (0.019) to negative -0.004 and herein lies the
12
'11
problem with vehicles of this type. How does one generate higher lift and lift-drag ratio
and still retain positive stable trim without large negative control surfaces? It becomes
an iterative process: efficient lifting surface and reductions in base area to increase
L/D, and body camber for Cm, o to provide trim.
Speedbrake for trim.- An alternate method of producing the large Cm, o needed
for stable trim is to deploy split rudders (speedbrakes) and use the resulting drag force
located well above the configuration center of gravity. The idea is to produce a pitching
moment without having a significant affect on the total lift. Speedbrakes have been
shown to be very effective pitch control devices, compared to the elevons, on the Space
Shuttle Orbiter at supersonic speeds and are used by the shuttle during the approach
and landing maneuver. Both full span and partial span speedbrakes were tested and,
as shown in figure 8(a), both produced significant positive increments in Cm, o such that
trim was obtained around 8 - 9 angle of attack. The configuration without the
speedbrake was significantly out of trim with large negative C m in this angle of attack
range. For this case, however, the speedbrakes did have an affect on C L causing a
loss of about 0.1. This and the normal increase in drag resulted in large reductions in
L/D such that (L/D)max was only about 3.3. While the speedbrakes did provide good
trim characteristics, the performance penalty would appear to be too large. The
inefficiency of full-span speedbrake results from induced flow separation on the body aft
end causing lift loss (as evidenced by the additional large +Cm, o obtained). Use of a
partial-span speedbrake deflected 45 per side (upper 1/3 of vertical tail) in combination
with the 50 slab-faired fins, resulted in Cm, o increases with resultant increased C D
from 0.041 to 0.068 and (L/D)max loss from 4.5 to 3.2; a more efficient control, but still
too large a penalty. Speedbrakes are therefore, not efficient devices for low (L/D)
vehicles at subsonic speeds.
Removing body upper-surface negative slope.- (HL-20B series) As previously
noted, removing the negative 6.5 body upper surface downslope was accomplished by
13
adding a 6.5" wedge aft of the canopy thereby making the vehicle upper surface parallel
to free stream using the HL-20A-4 and HL-20A-3 configurations to form the HL-20B-1
and HL-20B-2 configurations; respectively. (See figure 4(e)). The desired effect was to
increase positive Cm due to increased body camber and to shift (L/D)max to higher
angles of attack (i.e., nearer those for landing) while accepting some losses in lift.
Removing the 6.5 upper surface downslope (HL-20B-series) had the desired
effect of shifting (z for (L/D)max to angles of attack near 16 or near landing conditions
(see figure 9). The HL-20B-1 with the 50 slab fin on (figure 10) shows stable trim near
o_= 16 at (L/D)max with an (L/D)ma x of about 4.1 or the same value as the HL-20A
series near 8 to 10 angle of attack.
Eff_ of fin airfoil section and fairina.- (HL-20B-1) The effect of changing the fin
airfoil section on the HL-20B-1 configuration from slab to AFN results in increases in
(L/D)ma x from about 4.1 to 6 with an accompanying reduction in trim angle of attack
from 15 to 6 (figure 12). This again emphasizes the continual trade-off between
efficient lifting surfaces for improving performance while still maintaining the desired trim
characteristics.
Fairing the fin into the bottom of the body had no effect on any aerodynamic
characteristics for the HL-20B-1 AFN configuration but did have a significant effect on
the slab configuration (as shown in figure 12(a)) where (L/D)max and lift curve slope
were improved. Significant increases in longitudinal stability, Cm,e_ were noted.
However, fairing the fin on the HL-20B-2 produced improvements in aerodynamic
characteristics for both the AFN and slab configurations (figure 14). For example,
(L/D)max was increased for both configurations.
Fin-dihedral/airfoil contours.- (AFN/AFO) HL-20B-I. Decreasing outboard fin
dihedral for the AFN configuration from 50 to 25 resulted in an increase in _, trirfi from
6to 9. Reversing airfoil section from AFN to AFO produced the large positive pitch
14
II
desired, however, not without accompanying lift losses and losses in (L/D)max to about
4.8 (see figure 13). Similar results are noted for the HL-20B-2 configuration (figure 15).
Effect of a,dditiQn Qf canards.- The addition of canards to the HL-20B-2 body
resulted in large increases in positive pitching moment, with some increases in lift
coefficient (figure 16). Not all of the positive lift generated by the canards is realized,
however, due to the down-wash from the canard reducing somewhat the lift on the
body-fin combination (compare _CL between body-canard and z_CL between body-fin
canard). This phenomena (canard efficiency factor) is explained in depth in reference
15. Use of a canard is an efficient method of producing the desired pitch for trim on
lifting bodies of this type, while still taking advantage of the favorable C L produced by
the AFN fins.
Lateral-directional characteristics.- The primary purpose of the present study was
to investigate methods of improving aerodynamic subsonic performance, therefore only
a limited amount of lateral-directional stability as affected by the various configurational
changes were obtained. These were done primarily to see if large adverse effects
occurred as a result of configurational modifications.
As may be noted from the "b" parts of selected configurations, no large adverse
affects on the directional stability parameter Cnl 3 nor on the positive effective dihedral
parameter Ct_ occurred due to the various onfigurational modifications employed, with
the new large center vertical tail on.
Landing Gear Deployment.- Because of the low values of subsonic (l_/D)max
noted for the original HL-20 configuration, the question arose as to how much further
reduction in performance would result from landing gear deployment?
Figure 18 presents the effects of landing gear deployment on the aerodynamic
characteristic of the original HL-20 with 50 slab fins. The major effect is on C D and
(L/D)max where an increase in CD,mi n from about 0.065 to 0.09 is noted with resultant
loss in (L/D)max from about 3.4 to 2.9. A slight reduction in C L versus a and
15
accompanying downward shift in C m also results for the gear on configuration. Some
increases in Cn_ at the low to moderate angles of attack also occur with no effect on
Cq3.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
An investigation has been made to determine methods of improving the subsonic
performance of lifting body vehicles, by use of body contouring, and tip-fin airfoil section
and fin dihedral. In addition, the use of split rudders on the vertical tail (speedbrake)
and the addition of a canard to provide positive moment were also examined. Results
of this study are summarized as follows:
Body contouring and cambering and reducing blunt base areas (in non-
essential areas) combined with properly tailoring the outboard fins can
significantly enhance subsonic performance of lifting-body type entry vehicles.
Use of a canard can improve lift and provide large positive increments in pitching
moment with losses in maximum lift-to-drag ratio occurring. Further investigation
into optimizing canard-body-fin arrangements appears warranted, in order to
minimize losses in landing performance, since such large reductions in landing
speeds results from deployment of these devices. Using a split rudder (speed-
brake) as a pitch control can provide the desired positive pitch increments,
however, the penalties in performance are significant, thereby, making this type
of pitch control device undesirable at subsonic speeds. No large adverse affects
on lateral-directional stability parameter occurred due to the various
configurational modifications employed.
16
REFERENCES
.
2.
g
.
.
.
.
.
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
DeMeis, Richard: Fleeing Freedom. Aerospace America, pp. 38-41, May 1989.
Covault, Craig: NASA to Seek Design Concepts for Station Crew Escape Vehicle.
Aviation Week and Space Technology, pp. 30, August 17, 1987.
Hook, W. R.; and Freeman, D. C.: Lifting Body Option for a Space Station Rescue
Vehicle. IAF Congress, Malaga, Spain, October 1989.
Naftel, J. Chris; Powell, Richard W.; and Talay, Theodore A.: Ascent, Abort, and
Entry Capability Assessment of a Space Station Rescue and Personnel/Logistics
Vehicle. AIAA Paper 89-0635, January 1989.
Ware, G. M.; Spencer, B., Jr.; and Micol, J. R.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Proposed Assured Crew Return Capability (ACRC) Configurations. AIAA 89-2172,
July 1989.
Spencer, Bernard, Jr.: An Investigation of Methods of Improving Subsonic
Performance of a Manned Lifting Entry Vehicle. NASA TM X-1157, 1965.
Ware, George M.: Transonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of A Proposed Assured
Crew Return Capability (ACRC) Lifting-Body Configuration. NASA TM 4117,
June 1989.
Ware, George M.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of A Proposed
Assured Crew Retum Capability (ACRC) Lifting-Body Configuration. NASA TM
4136, November 1989.
Micol, J. R.: Experimental and Predicted Aerodynamic Characteristics of A
Proposed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) Lifting Body Configuration at
Mach 6 and 10. AIAA 90-1403, June 1990.
Horvath, T. J.; Rhode, M. N.; and Buck, G. M.: Aerothermodynamic
Measurements on A Proposed Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) Lifting Body
Configuration at Mach 6 and 10 in Air. AIAA 90-1744, June 1990.
Fox, Charles H., Jr.; and Huffman, Jarrett K.: Calibration and Test Capabilities of
the Langley 7- by 10-Foot High Speed Tunnel. NASA TM X-74027, 1977.
Gillis, Clarence L.; Polhamus, Edward C.; and Gray, Joseph L., Jr.: Charts for
Determining Jet-Boundary Corrections for Complete Models in 7- by 10-Foot
Closed Rectangular Wind Tunnels. NACA WR L-123, 1945. (Formerly NACA
ARR L5G31)
Herriot, John G.: Blockage Corrections for Three-Dimensional-Flow Closed-Throat
Wind Tunnels, With Consideration of the Effect of Compressibility. NACA Report
995, 1950. (Supersedes NACA RM A7B28)
17
14.
Braslow, Albert L.; Hicks, Raymond M.; and Harris, Roy V., Jr.: Use of Grit-Type
Boundary-Layer-Transition Trips on Wind-Tunnel Models. NASA TN D-3579,
1966.
15.
Spencer, Bernard, Jr.; and Sleeman, William C., Jr.: Low-Speed Longitudinal
Characteristics of an Airplane Configuration Including Effects of Canard and Wing
Trailing-Edge Flap Controls in Combination. NASA Memo 4-22-59L, April 1959.
18
Side force
Y
, ,
X
Lift
Rolling moment l
Wind direction
_ Yawing moment
Z
Figure 1. Sketch of system of axes used in investigation showing positive direction of forces, moments, velocities.
and angles.
19
I
1
Body flap_ E_ _
-" 11.14 _'
,- , 5.94
, t
20.63 "_-I
FS 0 FS 20.63
: al, General arrangement.
T
,.70
__f._
FS t.0 FS 30 FS 5.1 FS 7.t
FS 9.2 FS 12.4 FS 15.5
FS 18.6 FS 20.6
(b) Body cross sections.
Figure 2. Sketches of model used in investigation. All dimensions are in inches,
20
.Q
_, __ E
i _ rr rr" _
/-
i
i
!
/
\
%
v
0
II
X
0
c.)
t_, _
0
t_
,.=
21
0
or..) r..)
0u,I
!
N ,
_ en
m N
22
II
I I
.m. t
o_
c_
cfJ
I
i
25
!
0
.Q
0
0
t_
E
0
t-
o
t.O
0 _ 0 _
0
0 0 0 0
_w" 0 to 0
g
_ o_o E
._ 0 0 0 0
-I- rr rr rr _
JO
i
!
26
0
II
x
o 0
_
0 "_
o
v
J !
I-
cO
T m
_O
cY_
I-

l
J
i
I
CO
c_
In
e_o
c_
c_
I--
28
II
oO
CO
<
CO
0
0
<
i
I
i
I
cO
LO
CO
<
I
29
LO
CO
00
LO
00
<
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
o
,
66
!
0
7-
X
_0 _I" 0 I_
,-- _ 04
_ o3 _- c5
_ _ 0 _
_- O._C -b-,
ccc_
__E
@ @ @ 0
_rr rr _
..0
0
II
X
,.4
o
o
e_
3O
c_
!
0
O
o _J
0
cr_
E
0
31
0
<
!-
O9
d
<
!-
O9
o
d
CO
d
o_
CO
d
o9
CO
d
O9
0
o9 I
o4
0
<
!-
O9
cO
0"_
<
I-
CO
c.O
<
i-
CO
0
I_-
._-
<
l-
co
IZ')
o4
o4
<
t-
0
cO
d
<
I-
CO
F
I
32
Ob
ai
<
I-
0
0'_
r4D
OJ
<
CO
t.O
_t"
<
1-
O9
o
c_
v
oo
It
o
e
&
L_
C_
C_j
C_
c_
c_
C_
I--
c_O
c_
c_
C_J
q_
O
"I.'2 0
_
LT_
c_
I
I
c_
33
o
34
\
0
I
0
L_
35
!
(..)
.i
E
(D
c-
(o
!
0
OJ
!
.J
"I-
_d
_ _ _ 0
X
i
oO 0
_ "" , _
38
h. O3
O9
CO
.
co 03
I "I'-
co _t
0
CO _ O9
h-
h- i 09
h.
CO m
C_ "_
h- cO 0
_)
.m
r_
d
II
Q
.c)
Q
.)
0
_J
O
r..) _
37
I
i
i
i '
J
I
3B
I
o8
_ ._ "_
o
oI,-_
39
0
0
.o _ =
40
0
X
c-
O
.m
O_
m
0
(_
7o
0
c_J
-r
0
c6
!
/
c-
O
.m
c-
O
!
0
c_J
!
"r
O
c_
0
o
It)
0
0
o_
<
0 _
_ 0
0 _
E
cs_
0
o,,._
c_
L_
!
41
.Q
i
X
__A/
_5
0
0_
_5
"I-
_ _ 0 _
0 0 0
_ _ _ 0
I
0
II
X
0 ..,
0
42
O
uo
00
d
<
O_
04
O
<
09
d
d
O9
cO
CD
I'"
<
O_
O
O
T"
O9
cO
O_
o4
w"
09 T-
O
04 I'-
04 O_ __
d <
43
<
o,]
ea
<
_
0
0
r,.)
0
0
<
r',,
r,,.
Go
Qo
c_
<_
CO
l
r_.
L_
<_
F-
C_
CO
l
(D
CT_
00
I--
CO
0
I
r,,.
l--
c/)
c_
CO
44
CD
c_
45
CD
C_J
0
_8
o
46
X
&i
!
O3
0
_J
-r
_ _ 0 _
__ Q.. c-
CD CD _ o
r,J _ 0
rt- rr- rr" =_
I
0
II
X
_4
_
_ r..)
O _
47
O
<
03
O_
c_
<
C0
I o_
LO
c_
<
(/3
(3)
o I
O3
r
o i
O3
t_
c_
<
o0
03
03
?--
?.--
<
CO
)
O
T"
O_
?--
CO
O3
c0
O0
(3")
c_
<
G0
O%
_D
(D
C0
O
<
CO
<
09
o_
O
o_
c_
t'N
t--,I
II
e_
0
48
c6
c_
l--
oO
CO
I-
o i
c6
Or)
I--
_ 0 rj
o
_,) , _
cO
co .
c_
l-
cO
oO
0
c6
m.m
49
0
CO
O_
?--
O9
..... __..... oo
co
cO
o
?-- O_
?--
oO
5O
51
.536--_
--41_ -1
/ Sectional AA \
/ (Typical)
/
I"_ 3.713
0
l
3.: 30
I
Canard Planform
Section BB
(Yypical)
5.45
Vertical Tail
Planform
/
/
(a) Canard and vertical tail
Part 8 - Canard and stabilizer details.
Figure 3 Continucd.
52
9.41
.2
Section EE
7.64 1
Flat-plate tip-fin details 6"5"_ '*
Slab
2.87
4.6
-,,--62o
--/ Secti7nCC (Typical)
_ fip,;in de_ails-" 6.5-_/I.._
l
(h) AF{}, AFN and Slab-fins
Part 8 - Concluded.
Figure 3 Concluded.
53
(a) HL-20 with landing gear, in the 7x10 foot wind tunnel.
Figure 4 - Photographs of the HL-20 Model and HL-20A/B series of models
depicting the various modifications made during the investigation.
(b) HL-20B-1 with 50 AFN-faired, in the 7x10 foot wind tunnel.
Figure 4 - Continued.
54
11
(c) Composite of the HL-20A/B series of bodies tested.
Figure 4 - Continued.
HL-2OA-!_
(d)
HL-20 and HL-20A-I: Comparison showing forebody, planform, upper surface base,
tip fin and center vertical tail modifications.
Figure 4 - Continued.
55
HL-20A-1
HL-20A-2
HL-20A-4
(e) Comparison of HL-20A- 1; A-2 and A-4 showing under-surface camber changes.
Figure 4 - Continued.
(f) Base view of HL-20A-2; A-3 showing lateral-elliptic fating to body leading edge
and reduced base area.
Figure 4 - Continued.
56
11
(g)
HL-20A-3 to HL-20B-2 HL-20A-4 to HL-20B-1
Comparison of HL-20B-1; B-2 from HL-20A-4 and A-3, respectively, by
removal of 6.5* body upper surface down slope.
Figure 4 - Continued.
(h) Comparison of SLAB and AFN tip-fin configurations.
Figure 4 - Continued.
57
< ,
o
o
o
o
c
.._
"_ o
I
0 ,_-
< 8
o
0
o
r,.)
58
II
_ 0
c_
0 _
_
!
.liq
pm_
59
1123
L/D 2
Cm
Moa,'l I'1) Hn ,_c_on
O HI_20A-I Off Off
O HI.20A-2 orr On"
HI_20A-3 Off Off
111.20A-4 Off Off
.2,1
.22
.2O
.18
.16
.14
.12 CD
.10
.O8
.O6
.O4
.02
CL
.6 ....
.4
-
0 _--
-,2
-4 0 4 8 12 i 6 20 24

I
-.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8
.O4
.O2
0
-.02
-.04
-.06
1.0
a m
a, deg CL
Figure 5. Effect of Body Contouring and Camber on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic
Characteristics at M.. = 0.3 for the HL-20A Series bodies alone.
6O
L/D
6
4
.O4
Cm .02
0
.6
.4
CL
Model r b Rn ,_c_on
.24
.12 CD
.10
.04
.02
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
-.02
-.04
.0_
1.0
C m
a, deg CL
Figure 6. Effect of Body Contouring and Camber on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic
Characteristics at M** = 0.3 for the HL-20A Series bodies with the slab tip fin
at F h = 50 , compared to the original HL-20 configuration.
61
I0 .24
Model Fis nu _cl_on Gnu Fin
o m.2o^-4o_ o_ on
02_
K'J lII.20A-.4 OfT Oft On
.................... o m._0^-4 so" s_._ on
6 _/2 _. A m.2o^.4 so" _ o_ __ ---a
,20
/-
4
..... .18
0 / .ld
.................
-2 .12 CD
.. :_-__ .... i-L/-
.................... _/y .,o
Cm.O____'_:_-'___
-: . .06
<_'_ .04
o ,.., ""_ _"" -_" - 02
-.02 ---- "t
\_ "'>_ .......
-.04 _ 0
"'_-.^_ ^
.8 - .04
::_ ---_ ,-
.4 /. : % .,_ o
_:"_ __ ....._ -_. -0_
_2
--" -- - !-%_ --_ .....
_
0 ,_, ^
-.2 -.06
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 A .6 .g 1.0
CL
ct, deg CI"
(a) Lougitudinal Charactcristics
Figure 7. Effect of Addition of Fin and of Fin Section on the Aerodynamic
Characteristics at M,_ = 0.3 for the HL-20A-4 configuration.
62
Cy_
.O4
0
-.04
Model I" b Pin 5ec_on C_r Fm
O IL_20A-4 Off Off Off
rl IlL20A-.4 Off Off On
O HI_20A.4 SO* SlLb On
HL20A-4 SO" AI.'N On
r-_ _ _ --_ _--_
-.08
.OO8
Cn_
.O04
-.004
-.008
L
).--_ )--.
CI_
-.012
.OO4
0
_-I _c_r_. ' --<---< ---c---c
-.00_ _ -"I_
-.oo8 ,--_ _ _.__ -- --
-.012 ,--
-.016 -- .........
-4 0 4 8 12
16 20 24
a, deg
(b) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 7. Concluded.
63
I0
L/D
2
a m
CL
0
-2
.06
.04
.24
Mo_l Fb Pin .%c_ Qa Spd Brk
m
O I||_20A-4 50" A]'_ 0"
O II|_20A-4 50" Slab-Psimd 13"
....... O HL20A-4 50" A]_ 30"
A IIL-20A-4 $0" Slab.Flired Upper 45" _,,,c.---c
p
<_
.02
o __" _ _ -_ -o_o_
-.02 . -
-.04
.8 _ "" ^
.6 ............ _,_ _'X_
,2
o-
__i
i
-4
.22
/
f?
7
_A
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 ,8
.12 C D
.lO
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
.O4
.02
-.02
-.04
-,06
1.0
C m
or,deg CL
(a) Longitudinal Characteristics
Figure 8. Effect ot" Speed Brakes on the Aerodynamic Characteristics at M** = 0.3
for the HL-20A--4 configuration.
64
Cy_
.04
-.04
-.08
M_Icl Fb ]_n ._c_un $pd Brk
O |H.20A-4 50" AVN r
D HI_20A-4 50" S1ab-FaiTed 0"
}|I_20A J, $0 Slab.Paired UF_t 45"
CnI3
.O08
.O04
-.004
.004
_ _,,_ __________
Cll3
0
-.004
-.008 .....
"--c--<
-.012
-.016
-.4 0 4 8 12 16 20
_, deg
Co) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 8. Concluded.
24
65
10
_ Model rtj ]3n Sece_
o IlI_20A.3 Off Off
l t3 III_20A-4 Off Off
.... O ll]_20B-I Off Off
A !I]_20B-2 Of[ CHT
i......
o d
.8
C L .4
.26
.24
.22
.20
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
.6 " _
_V "04
A1_ .02
I--
0 "Y'A _::_"
-02
-.2 -.04
-4 0 4 g 12 16 20 23 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Figure 9.
deg CI"
Effect of Removal of Upper Surface Downslope on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics
at M** = 0.3 for configurations with the tip fin off.
CD
C m
66
.O4
Cm.02
0
-.02
-.04
.8
.26
.24
.22
.20
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.08
.06
.O4
.02
CD
CL
.6
.4
.2
-.2
-,4
-4
0
0
:: .....
__ ---- C1rT1
_: N%
-,02
_,-
-.04
4 g 12 16 20 24 -,2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
ct, deg CL
Figure 10. Effect of Removal of Upper Surface Downslope on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics
at M** = 0.3 for configurations with the slab tip fin at F h = 50.
67
L/D
10
o
.06
.04
Cm .02
0
.6
CL
/
--D -E)
O HL-20B-I OR off
o ln_20B-2 off off
O llI_20B-] 50" Sl_
^ lg_20B-2 50" ,glsb
i--
c_ c
.26
.24
.22
.20
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.08
.O6
.(H
.02
4 .........
.2 ,4_
.04
.02
0
-.02
-.4 -.04
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
ct, deg Ci"
Figure 11. Effect of Body Contouring and Camber on the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics
at M** = 0.3 for the HL-20B Series bodies, with and witout F h = 50 slab fins.
CD
68
!ll
L/D
CL
-2
-4
M_I I"h Pin ._c_ _m
0 IIL-20B-I 50" Slzb
0 |IL-2OB-I $0" $1ab-l'_fimd
_--..._---_:::_ A r_ao..i 50" ^_-F-,,.d
__!
2_
-- _ _,
o _.......
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4
.6 .8
.26
.24
.22
.20
.18
o,, dog CL
(a) Longitudinal Characteristics
Figure 12. Effect of Fin Section and Fairing on the Aerodynanfic Characteristics at M** = 0.3
for the HL-20B-1 configuration.
.16
.14
CD
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
.04
.02
-.02
-.(14
1.0
C m
69
Cy,
Cn_
M-_[ rb l_n SccOo_
o |R_20B.! $0 _ Slab
O HL-2OB- I J0 _ AFN
.04
0
-.04
-.08
.008 ---- --
......
0
-.004
-.008
-.012
.004
0
Cl_
-.008--
-,012
-.016
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
o,, deg
(b) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 12. Concluded,
70
8 .24
.... I Modd I"b Pin ,_c_oa
6 ,__ ___ o m,20B.lso" ^r_ .22
___ O HL-20B-I 25" AFN
"_ -- -- .20
2 -- .18
, f,: ............
0 , .16
-2 -- -- .14
.04 ._ ._ _>/ --.o8
f_
Cm .o2 c._ _-_"_ _, ..
"12 "' <_ h /- _ --.06
"c
0 "_ "_
_N-_--
-.02 x _ -- .02
-.04 _ 0
"t:l "_
.6 .0,t
.4 _ _ -_%.........
CL .2 - 0 C.,
_-_ - _ _ _.o_
o __
-.2 --_ _ --.
-.4 -.06
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 DA -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
_, deg CL
(a) Longitudinal Characteristics
Figure 13. Effect of Fin Dihedral and Airfoil Section on the Aerodynamic
Characteristics at M** = 0.3 for the HL-20B-1 configuration.
71
.04
Cy_ .,04
Mode! Fb Rn Set,on
0 |[{_20B - i _0" A|'N
0 llL-2OB-I 25" AFO
-.08
o J__=_,_ --o--,o--c __
.{i)08 _
_ .... -c--c
_ o --
-.004
-.008
-.012
.0O4
m
0
cb -.oo4_ _ -c'--C
"<> "0 "_ -.0 ...C_<) __C._
-.008 --c -_ ...c._c ""Q"c_''--c -'_c_ "_-_
-.012
-.016
-4 0 4 8 12 t6 20
24
or, dog
Co) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 13. Concluded.
72
8
Model I"b l_In.gect/:m
6 _ _ "_"A 0 1I]_20B-2 50" Slab
0 IH_2OB-2 $0 _ AFN .....
4 .a _ _ _ __ _ A In.2o0-2so" ^rw.r-=,_
....._:_
2 c_ rr ,o!
-4
.04 ............... _ f-
i
.02 '_'_
........_ -_
- ._-- ._=----_ _
-.o_ ._=__........ __._
-.04 ,_ _...._ ......
-.06
CL .2
.6
. _ & :a.
-
"A
-.4
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8
a, deg CL
(a) Longitudinal Characteristics
Figure 14. Effect of Fin Section m_d Fairing on the Aerodynamic Characteristics at M**
for the HL-2OB-2 configuration.
= 0.3
.24
.22
.20
.18
.16
.14
.12 CD
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
0
.04
.02
0 Cm
-.02
-.04
-.06
1.0
73
.O4
Model I"b l_n $ectiot_ ] '
I
o Ill_20B-2 Off off
O JII,,-20B-2 50" Al_l-I:"_n:d
Cy_
-.04
-.08
C._
.0O8
.O04
-.004
-_ ..-_ _ _'c., _O _ -.c L--C
--<--c-c --o_ ::0 _ _ ____c____
-.008
-.012
CIo
.0O4
-.004
-.008
-.012
-.016
-4
---C=::( __<3..._ ....
L-- C
"C] ---_.._..0
"-'-'3.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
ct, deg
(b) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 14. Concluded.
74
L/D
0
CL
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6
_,deg CL
Figure 15. Effect or Fin Dihedral and Airfoil Section on the Aerodynamic
; Charac|eristics at M_ = 0.3 for the HL-20B-2 configuration.
.14
.12 CD
.10
.02
0
75
8
Mod_! I"b Bn _c_on C_d
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Figure 16.
e., deg CL
(a) Longitudinal Characteristics
Effect of Addition of Canard on the Aerodynamic Characteristics at M** = 0.3
for the HL-20B-2 configuration.
.22
.20
.18
.16
.14
.12
.10
.O8
.06
.04
.02
0
.O6
.O4
CD
.02
Cm
0
-.02
-.04
=.06
1.0
76
.04
Model )"b Ra Section Ca,o_d
o }_,-20B-2 Off OfT off
D HL2OB.2 Off Off Oa
O 15,-209-2 $0" AFN'-P_-'I Off
tt IR,,-20B-2 50" AFN-Fm]red On
Cy_
-.04
-.08
Cn_
.OO8
._ -__<_, __ ___;__,_--
0
-.004
-.008
-.012
Clp
.OO4
-.004
-.008
-.012
-.016
-4
v-.. c
\
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
or, dog
(a) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 16. Concluded.
77
.24
.22
.2O
.18
.16
.14
.12 CD
.10
.08
.O6
.O4
.02
0
.6
.4
CL .2
-.2
4
-4
"o
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6
.8
.O4
.02
o Cm
-.02
-.04
-.06
1.0
CL
deg
Figure 17. Comparison of the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics at M. = 0.3
for some selecled near-optimum performance HL-20A/B configurations and the original HL-20
with Fh = 50.
78
11
LID
I0
-2
.O6
.04
Cm .02
0
CL
Model F b Ill. Se_o.
...... o 15-20 50" _ $1_
o HL.20 50" S]_
...-c
Lead Or
.26
t
orr .24
Oa __ __p__ ....
.22
J
.16
/ .14
.12
d
f
0--4 ,-'C_
_ ______
.... J
.10
.O8
.O6
.04
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-2
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8
deg CL
(a) Longitudinal Characteristics
Figure 18. Effect of Landing Gear on the Aerodynamic Characteristics at M. = 0.3
for the HL-20 configuration with the slab tip fin at l-'h= 50 .
.02
0
.04
.O2
CD
C m
79
.04
Model rb Pin _edon ],sad OT
0 lI]_20 $0" Slab OfT
(I HL-20 50" _dlb O_
Cy_
0
-.04
-.08
.OO8
C_
.OO4
-.004
-.008
-.012
.004
-.004
-,008
-.012
-.0i6
-4
r
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
a, deg
(b) Lateral-Directional Characteristics
Figure 18. Concluded.
8O
11
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fom,,,,op,=,,_
OMB No. 0704-0188
Pul:,creO<xttngburden for this co.Ill, ion of Infoe'nation =,,elt_nated to s_rage 1 hour I_" .repot.m. _ the tW.e Ior _ _rmutctlo_. mr_ S]=t_lng ,,u,t= _UrON.
gathetv_ in_ maintaining _ data needed, and comp_ting _I mviewf_ lhe olle_ of Informatlon. Sencl oornments rs_r_ng tl_ Ix,,_W, emlmme or any ocher aspect of roll
collectioc of inlonnatioc. _,kJding sug0nlions kx _ lhi human, to Ws_Ington l.kmdQuanSrs ServloN. Dim_orste lot Information Ol_rations and Re0o_s. 1215 _ DaY4
H_,_y, Sure I_'04, _,n_c_. VA 2220_4._. ar_ to _ O_ce c_ Mar,,gen_ and S_,g,,t Pm,r,,o_ _ion _ (0_4-0_U}, W,_on. IX: 20S_.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leeveblank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORTTYPE AND DATES COVERED
December 1995 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTIT'LE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
A Studyto Determine Methodsof Improvingthe SubsonicPerformance of 242-20-08-02
A ProposedPersonnel LaunchSystem(PLS) Concept
6. AUTHOR(S)
B. Spencer, Jr., C. H. Fox, Jr., and J. K. Huffman
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(B) AND ADDRESS(ES)
NASA Langley ResearchCenter
Hampton. VA 23681-0001
9. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
NationalAeronauticsand Space Administration
Washington. DC 20546-0001
111. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
NASA TM-110201
12=.DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABIUTYSTATEMENT
Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Category 02
12b. DISTRIBUTION COI)E
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
An investigation has been conducted in the Langley 7- by 10-Foot High Speed Wind Tunnel
to determine the longitudinal and lateral directional aerodynamic characteristics of a series of
personnel launch system concepts. This series of configurations evolved during an effort to
improve the subsonic characteristics of a proposed lifting entry vehicle (designated the
HL-20). The primary purpose of the overall investigation was to provide a vehicle concept
which was inherently stable and trimable from entry to landing while examining methods of
improving subsonic aerodynamic performance.
14. SUBJECTTERMS
Subsonic Performance Enhancement
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
lS. NUMBER OF PAGES
81
16. PRICE CODE
A05
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. UMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF ABSTRACT
I
Standard Form 208 (R_w. :!411})
Pm_dt_ by N_ISI S_d. zae-lS