Aerodynamics of Hang Glider
Aerodynamics of Hang Glider
Aerodynamics of Hang Glider
-
- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -
April 1981
National Aeronaut~csand
Space Admtn~stration
NASA Technical MmOrmhrn 81269
Nat~onz'Aerwauttcs and
Space 4d~;rii>tra?10n
. . .-
*-.,
h
*
t;b
. I "
_ .---
_I___
. .
.....-- . - .
-
a "%- -- -_-
.- . ___*. ..
'0'
.t I -
!f
:-f
LIST OF SYl4BOLS
1:
.[
'f A cross-sectional a r e a
*
ii
5
;; b . .
.t
-
@
% AR aspect r a t i o . S I
i i
drag
drag c o e f f i c i e n t ,
qs
C~0 CD a t zero l i f t
CL l i f t coefficient , -
lift
qs
r o l l i n g moment
rolling-moment c o e f f i c i e n t ,
qSb
root chord
diameter
Young' s modulus
equivalent f l a t - p l a t e drag a r e a
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c length
iii
1
q dyn..ic pressure, 3 PV'
RC ~ a p a o l d ah e r , @!i
planform area
tension
tunnel airspeed
angle of s i d e s l i p
strain
sweep angle
taper r a t i o ,
&
r
a i r density
stress
Subscripts:
B body a x i s system ( f i g . 6 6 )
S s t a b i l i t y a x i s system ( f i g . 6 5 )
c/4 quarter-chord l i n e
f f u l l - s c a l e value
m model value
P r a t e of change with r o l l r a t e
a r a t e of change with a
B r a t e of change with $
I l a n M. Xroo**
*.This work was supported by the NASA University Grants Program, NSG 2359,
with technical a s s i s t a n c e from Ames Research Center personnel and t h e Army
Aeromechanics Laboratory. Technical monitor: W
advisor: Prof. Holt Ashley.
.
r Eonald Cif f one; f a c u l t y
Model Construction
Data AnalysCs
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
Lffect of modifications on
longitudinal characteristics
Lift 2D-C.L-P, 3B-E,H,G 36-40
Drag 1,2B-G,L-P, 3B,E,H 41-48
Moment 2B-G,L,N,PS 3B-E,H,G 49-55
Lateral characteristics of basic 1, 2A,H,N,Q, 38,I 56-64
models vs a
DISCUSS ION OF RESULTS
General R e s u l t s
In c o n t r a s t t o t h e above, t h e v a r i a t i o n of CL w i t h a f o r t h e t h i r d
model is more nonlinear ( f i g . 21). This i s probably a r e s u l t of higher s a i l
t e n s i o n and a correspoildingly g r e a t e r deformation with loading. This t r e n d i s
a l s o v i s i b l e i n t h e v a r i a t i o n w i t h dynamic pressure. The highly r e f l e x e d
a i r f o i l combined with an e a r l y r o o t s t a l l r e s u l t s i n a r e l a t i v e l y low CLma
of 0.83 a t 24'.
Cables: It i s d i f f i c u l t t o e s t i m a t e t h e a c t u a l d r a g of c a b l e s in t h e
v i c i n i t y of t h e g l i d e r . When t h e d a t a f o r i s o l a t e d c a b l e s from r e f e r e n c e 19
a r e used, a drag c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.0 per u n i t l e c g t h based on diameter appears
reasonable. For conventional u l t r a l i g h t designs t h i s may be expressed approx-
imately a s :
Standard: -0.0050
Model 2: -0.0056
Model 3: -0.0055
-
able over the large CL range i n which hang g l i d e r s operate, and d a t a wer+
f i t t o t h e form CD CDdn + K (CL - c ~ ( f i~g s . )45-48).
~
C
Configuration Dpia K
-
CLo Cornpent s
E f f e c t s of Configuration Changes
C
Results of present t e s t s i n d i c a t e generally l a r g e r values of
f o r t h e higher sweep model.
1' 1 ~1 and
Performance comparisons show t h a t t h e second
n,
mo8el exceeded t h e maximum L/D of t h e lower sweep design. This i s a t t r i b -
uted t o two f a c t o r s . The a i r f o i l shape of t h e basic low-sweep configuration
was highly reflexed and cambered. Resulting lower surface separation
increased the p r o f i l e drag of t h i s design r e l a t i v e t o t h a t of t h e f l a t t e r s a i l
of model 2. Low leading-edge sweep a l s o reduces t h e e f f e c t i v e t o r s i o n a l
r i g i d i t y of t h e wing and without some leading-edge r e s t r a i n t , very l a r g e s a i l
tension i s required t o a t t a i n a " f l a t " s a i l . A s no r e s t r a i n t fixed t o t h e
leading edge was employed here, a r e s u l t i n g nonopt imal twist d i s t r i b u t i o n pro-
duced high induced drag and premature root s t a l l with correspondingly low
Therefore, these d a t a should not be used d i r e c t l y t o a s s e s s t h e r e l a -
C h X .
t i o n between sweep and p o t e n t i a l performance. It i s shown, however, that i t
i e not d i f f i c u l t t o obtain t h e required C, through t h e use of r e f l e x r a t h e r
than t w i s t . o
KeeZ pocketa- The second model was t e s t e d with and without a "keel
pocket ,'I s h a m i n f i g u r e 7. The k e e l pocket provides a means of a t t a c h i n g
t h e s a i l a t t h e keel i n such a way t h a t i t is f r e e t o s l i d e l a t e r a l l y as load-
ing changes. This technique i s used t o decrease t h e r o l l damping. CQn. and t o
i n c r e a s e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e "weight-shift" c o n t r o l method. ~ l t & o u i~th
is intended t o change d q i n g d e r i v a t i v e s , i t s e f f e c t on s t a t i c d e r i v a t i v e s
was evaluated here ( s e e f i g . 52). Major changes i n t h e g l i d e r geometry w i t h
the a d d i t i o n of a keel pocket a f f e c t s t a t i c r e s u l t s a s follows: By reducing
the incidence of the root s e c t i c a with r e s p e c t t o the k e e l ( t o which a n g l e
of a t t a c k is r e f e r r e d ) the z e r o - l i f t incidence is increased. Because of
the reduced r o o t incidence, the t w i s t (washout) i s reduced a s t i p washout
c o n s t r a i n t r i b s were not a l t e r e d . The r o o t chord is r a i s e d o u t of t h e plane
of the frame which introduces approximately 2 * of anhedral. The k e e l pocket
a l s o adds some l a t e r a l a r e a a f t of t h e reference c e n t e r and thus a f f e c t s
directional stability.
LB = 4J
YB -
D~ ' 45
YW cos 0 - 41 s i n B
MB = k+ COB 0 + % sin 0
tB = -MW s i n 0 cos a + % cos 0 cos n - NW sin
NB = -% sin 0 sin a + % cos 0 sin a + NW cos a
Ls ' LW
Ds = l'w
YS = YW COB 0 - I+, s i n f3
% = % cos 6 + gw sin B
as = -% s i n 0 + cos B
Ns ' NW
REFERENCES
Weinberg, .I.: Wind Tunnel Wall Corrections i n the h e r 7-by-10 Foot Wind
Tunnels. km f o r P i l e s , NACA h e s Aeroruutlcal Laboratory, 1950.
Pope, A.; and Harper, J.: Lou-Speed W i n d Tunnel Testing. Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966.
Eppler, K.: Same New A i r f o i l s . In: Tech. and Science of Low Speed and
Hotorless Flight. NASA CP-2085, 1979.
Conf ig-
uration planform
B.sic I geometry
Tip I Bat t e n s
I Luff
lines
Kee 1
Ipocltet Dihedral
1 Standard.
( f i g . 2)
1 None None No No
i
2A 1
30° sweep 21° min t i p
(fig. 3) 1
washout i Spruce To f i r s t
b a t t e n set
Yes No
2B 24' min t i p To f i r s t
washout b a t t e n set
2C
2D
i 21" min t i p
None
2E i
.
washout
No f i x e d
twist t i p s
I
2F To f i r s t
b a t t e n set
2G 9
Shortened
luff lines
2L Spruce i No
2M Plastic battens
set 1
2N Spruce
I To 2nd
b a t t e n set I
t
NOTES :
ft)
, .. ., . .. . nn*
s a i l shape a t p o ~ i t i v e
angler of attack
luff lines
: with l u f f lGI.
F i g n r t - 14 .- Cnntinucd.
(0 = 3S.b
Figure 1 4 . - C o n t inucd .
..
... 8
$.*
4
4..
-1.
4
* e.
r r *.
*'
8 -.
P4 E o m m m s
~ a ) f i h r n
d
1 1 N * U m m
c
* 0
i. .
r(
U
-.2,
-8.
% M' 0 0 . .
C O O
. (d
LC
1
v* 2 . O N 0
"-cOddN
M
r(
q b 8 II I1 II I1 It
tu
c
0
a - u u - W C r cl
am
0
51 . a +x n
?
%a
..
v
.4
3
2 cl
0
t. C
.
C
0
t I :
aJ
-1 Id
U 1
i
m
.a [O
0 - U?
1
.
.c
Ln
-
0
Q)
L.r
a
4 d .
$
4' 4
I
U
a ii*.
C
'0
0 tu
'b r-l
I ' 0
U
U
aJ
(c;
u
W
I
4 b F:
I
0\
4
aJ
Id
%
rl
Cr.
.
* R 1 -
k .:tr
t
t*.
i
-- b-,L
,8 4
' e
I -...t..:
M--
3
C
psf -
N/mL
4
,
.6 4 b
i'
t'
h
#4.
I
i
.2 a.
:I'b
/"
0;;
,-),
4
/ h
a;:' ;
. I
a
-10
.Y&
1c*
-. :,I;i #, ,
I *
$ M 40
a/;:
' 1. ,
::'I :
-,2 .. +!,; ,
a
t:i ,i
t '&' ;
: I . ,
tie.'
' I '
a;!
* ,.
f
Conf ig. 2H
74 .. J
'
;;*;.'
,',, .
B' ;:/
;I ;
' #'/;
;I
r:t:
-,6., ./?
,
I '
'
' I
4' ,;
.!.:
Config. 1
REF, 3
+ REF, 2
0 REF. 8
4 REFe 12
X THIS REWRT
1C 20 3 40 58
a
Figure 56.- Cornpariron of lateral data with previous work.
9L
Config. 2N
+ WITHOUT DIHUlRAL
C X Config.DIHEDRAL
WITH 24
"6 f- +
4- - - -
+- - -t
- - a .
x
99
Symbol Conf ig. q(psf)
+ 2K 10.
0 2N 5.
vith ( A
pocket i