NACA ARR 3J23 Effect of Length-beam Ration on Resistance and Spray of Three Models of Flying-boat...

7/27/2019 NACA ARR 3J23 Effect of Length-beam Ration on Resistance and Spray of Three Models of Flying-boat Hulls

1/54

!. .. . ... hM?lo~AL 4QVISORY.,. -.

AEfim@=COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS.

wimmm mwowrORIGINALLY ISSUEDOctober 1943 asAdvance Restricted Report 3J23l!XFECTOF IJ!llGTH-BEAMATIO ON RESISTANCE ANDSPRAY OF THREE MODEIS OF FLYING-BOAT HmLS

By Joe W. Bell, Charlie C. Gerrison, and Howard

Langley Memorial Aeronautical LaboratoryLangley Field, Va.

Zeck


2/54

.. - --

NATIONAL ADVISOHY COMMITTEE.

ADVAI?CB! RESTRICTED.-,-. . --

FOR AERONAUTICS

REPORT. . . . .

EEFEOT OF LENGTH4EAM RATIO C31RESISTA190E AED1: SPRAY 017 TRREE hODELS OF FLYIN(J-BQAT HULLS1 By Joo W. Boll, Chnrlie C. Garrison, and Howard Zook

sUIMARY

An i;~vostigation of tho offoct of changes in tholength-beam ratio of flying-boat hulls on resistance andcpray was ccriducted in I?ACA tank no. 1. A fanny ofthree models of hulls of different length-beam ratios wasused and, in order to maintain comparable hull sizes, theplan-form areas of the hulls were made approxi,fiately equalby keeping equal products of len~th and beam.m..JJO tests were mnde by the gen~ral uothod for thefixed-trim condition ha WS1l as by ths specific methodfor the free-to-trim condition. Iholographs of the spraywere taken during the free-to-trim tests. Beei6tance andtrimniag-no:.lent data ~btalned from the tests were com-


3/54

2 .,.

ratio L/b to maintain suitable hydrodynamic characteris-tic. The available information on tho effect of changesin tho length-beau ratio is containod In roforences 1, 2,and 3. The analysis of this information is mainly con-corned w~th incr~ase in length for a given beam, whichcauses tho effect of incroaso in sizo of the hull toohscuro tho offnct of length-beam ratio.

Tha prssent Invostlgation was und~rtak~n to dotoruinothe offoct of chanClng th,? length-beam ratio and of keep-ing the siz.? of ihc hull constaat at thn eamo timo - th~tis, the effect of chaafllng tho proportions of tho hullfor a given flying boat without changi.lg the volumo. Thepropo~tions for such a sorlos could. not bo dctorainodoxactlcy withmt dotall designs for each hull but havo beenappro.iiuatorl by me.intnlnln:: a constant value of the prod-uct of lonth and beam for tho modols w:th different longth-hcar rmtios.

T]~roc modols of fl:=iag-bc%t hulls with a Variationin le.l@h-3~am ratio of 55porcn.lt worr us~t! In the invos-tigatioa. !!!l~e,nngc of lsn~.:tk-%o%m rutios tostnd covoredtho range u~ed on mod?rn flying boats. Yho mGdels Worotcstsd ov~r a wido riLj~gQof loadings in ordor to includetho offact of ch~ngcs In lo~d cooffici?nt.


4/54

mado equal to that of modol 144, and tha corre~pondlngtr~.asverao Boctloae of tho bottom surfacas warn mado gQo--. - -,-,metrlcai=ly elmilar.-Oth6%valti6-@tidd tlio-samoor thethroo mod.ole were : anglof dond riso , angle of f orebod?keel,\ angle of aftsrbod~ keel, height of hull, and depthof step.The following equatio~s give the rolationshlp of the

dimensions of the dorivsd medals to those of the parentmodel:Ldhd = Lpbp

1.. =A. nn (except for corroctiocs agizliod!/z- to maintain eq-ual angles ofk~ol, equal depth of stop, and


5/54

4

chango resulting from moving the section longitudinallyparallel to the straight portion of the keel. In orderto make the depth of etep equal to that of the parentmodel , tho entire aftorbo~y wa~ moved vertically by aconstant amount. Thn bow of the derived model was broughtto the samo height as the bow of tho par~nt model byarbitrarily raieing the eections forward of Btntlon 2.The dock was located at tho SRUO hsight ae the dock ofthe parent model. Tho ourvod portions of tho dock lineat tho bow and tho stern wore made identical with thocur~od portions of thn deck lino of the parent modol~ andtho length of the straight portion was oxtendad by thefull amount of the incraase in length of the modol.

Ths following tablo summ.rizas tho principalsions of t>.o modelEI:HA CAmodel144

Ov~r-all length, inches . . . . . 114.85Loaflth to st~rn-post, inches. ~ .Length of fornbody, inches. . . .Length of aft.Jrkody, inches . , .Maximum beam, inches. . . , , . .Length-bee.m ratio . .

83.335L.1OS5 .2315.925.23

l?ACAmodel145

128.4193.1755.0237.1514.24

dimen-NA (himodeli46

140.67102.0661.3640.7013.007.84


6/54

6

- during the tests. Both the specific free-to-trim methodand tho general fixed-=trtnr method-wore-usad. Tho as-eumodcanter of gravity, located 7.20 inches forward of thost~p and 17~94 Inohee abovo the kool, was taken as thopivot for tho freo-to-trim tests and as tho center oftr.imfitrigmomonts for tho general tests.In tho froo-to-trim teste, tho hydrofoil liftdevi.co wss used to sizuzlato tho lift of a hypotheticalwing. Tho lift was a~gliod at tho contor of gravity, an~tho samo wing was asauiiiadfor o~ch of the modola, Thoload schadulo for tko gonare.1 tests was chosen to includoall loadO and spcz&a of ictoroet for prclininary design,aad a sufflclant aumbor of triaa woro us~d to datoralnotho dcte. at boat trim end at zero trinulng msnont. ThrcotyplcF.1 loads in tha rango of the gon{.ral sched-~l~=woreassu,flodfor tho frcs-to-trl.u teats.


7/54

s

w

btz

v

ae

~pqciflc weight of vatem, ptmnds per oubic foot(GS.5 lb/cu ft for HA(IA tank no. 1)beam of hull, footaoceler~t ion of

!ra~ity, fcot per

(32.2 ft/sQ~asacond per aocond

The data obtained %n the Fenoral to~ts aro prnsentedcurves of rosistanco and trimming nomcnt plottedagain6t B?ezd at VariOUB trims and loads in figures 4 to9 for aodel 1.44, in fi~wes 10 to 16 for mod~l 145, andIn figuyos 17 to 23 for Bodsl 146.


8/54

Q

7

for resistance at boat trim. At low spoods, an inoroaeol-nthe value of len~th-beam rat1.oreduoed the resistanceat best trim. The hump occurred at suooesslvel~ higherspeeds, going from low values to high values of length-beam ratio. The maximum resistance at the hump was re-duced about 7 percent by changing the length-beam ratiofrom 5.23 to 6.54, but was not changed appreciably whenthe length-beam ratio wa8 increased from 6.54 to 7.84.At high speeds and intermediate 10ads (S eeds above 307pe and loads of 40 to 80 lb, model size , the resistance

was reduced as the length-beam ratl.o was Increased. Athigh speeds and light loads, no signlftcant effeot result-ed from changing the length-beam ratlo.-.

Curves of trim-and resistance at sero trlmmlng mo-ment for each of the models at an Initial load of 100pounds are combined for comparison In figure 32. Theeffects in the free-to-trim condltlon were substantiallythe same as those found at equal fixed trims and at besttrim, Increasing the length-beam ratio oausod a reduc-tion in resistance at low speeds and at the hump andcaused the hump to ocour at a higher speed.Curves of tha ~rarit~tion of load-resistance ratioA/R with load for models 144, 145, and 146 aro shown in


9/54

. .

8. .

tlons and at u1l 10CMIS inoludod in the Investigation.Comparison of the ov.rves reprcsonttng a speed of 40 feetpor second shows that in the high-speed condition AIRwould ho dooroasod by Inorensing tho beam.

Oarves of varlntion of load-ros18t~nce ratio A/Rwith lo%d ooofficiont G& ~ro shown in figure 34. In-asmuch as tho coofficisnts used incorporate the bonm astho ohnractorlstio dimension, comparisons rondo In termsof thoso coefficients show the saaa relativo valuoa aswould be shown in compa:lsons of data for modols of equalbeam and dlfforent lengths. In genornl, this comparisonIudicatos thnt, within the range of length-beam ratiosinPoatigated, increasing tho length of a hull would lm-pr ovo A/E at the Lump but would CQUSO lower values ofA,/R at spoods near got-away. At boat trim, tho dntaindloate that incroa~ing tho length-boom ratio from 5.23to 6.54 (by longthonlng the hull) would causo a rc!latlvolylargo incroaso in A/E nt the hump and tkit a further iE-croaso 50 a TFLIUO of 7.84 would Incronso A/Ii by a lcssGrremount. In the free-to-trim condition, e.n increnso froma length-benm ratio of 5.23 to 6.54 WO-LIE inoroaee A/11at the hump, but a further Incronoo to a VO.lUO of 7.84would .mako no significnut chango in A/R at the hump.It is b~lio~~h thct th~sc t~~nds would kold true for hulls


10/54

9

ymz.- Photographs of the spray formations of the,.. thrae rnodelsare shown in--figties 35 and 36. - Thes6 pMoto--.graphs were taken during the specific tests in the froe-to-trim condltlon. The models were eompnred at equal\ initial loads and equal speeds; howover, tlie load ooeffi-) oients for the modole d i f for od by as much as 85 percent.At low speeds, the short modols (with small length-bcmrnratios) pi*oducO~ higher ?IOW spray than tho long modele;near the hump speeds and planing spoede, the Hpray was. alittle higher for the modols with narrow beams. (Seoflge. Z5 and 36.)

When tile length r.nd tho ber,~ wero tho only ~ariablesIn hull dinensians, %s la f~guros 35 and 360 there ap-peared to be an indication that the spray was sore depend-ent ~pon tho mroa af tko pla~ing surfncoa than upon thobeam itself. Yor this reason, tho lend coefficient shouldnot bo tnko= as a doftnite criterion for tho loading of ahull unless the length-boat ratio also Is considered.

Tr.ko-off porformarco.- In order to compare the ovor-all raslatarce ~-~~-~als, ta~-.o-off calculations worormde for a serioe of local co.?fficlentz. HyF~thstic~,l fly-ing bo:.ts were asoumnd, with modols 144, 145, and 14G usedas the hulls. Tha hullfI .::tlio~o flyi~g boe.ts woro ns-

. . . . . .. . . .. _____


11/54

10Tho lift and drag euzveta of the wing, which were oor-

rocted for ground of foct for uso In the ce.louktlons,were taknn fr~u referonc~ 60 The deflection of tho flap~wae taken as 30.In order to make sovoral take-off plots, n serlos ofthroo load coefficients was used for each ucdol for a -~i-rengross wei~ht. (Soo figs. 37 tc 39. ) Tho load coef -flc~o~ts used ~~ver~d t~o entire range of t~ ~ests, Thofron-to-trifi condition war used up to and elightly beyondtho hump tc 45 peroe~t of get-away speed. Above thisspeed, procisiou tri~ (trim fer ~ini~um total roslst~nco)was used. The nothod usou for the cnlcul=tions of take-off ti~o and distanco is doscrihed in rofarcnco 5,Qho taond cf tha cur~es of total roelstanca (rasist-nnca plus drag, R + D) fallowad tha trend of tho rosi6t-anco carves fr~~ tho fixoii-triu tests. At high planingsp~eds, t~o s~~rc~yon the afterbodiaa caus~d the rosist-anca to iacreaso with lGagcr afterbodies. Yho offoct ofthe lefigth-bcnh ratio on restst:]nce wtas a~t criticnl atthe s~eods mar get-ii.waye


12/54

11

upon the length-heaaproduot thari upon the beam alone. )3. Better take-off per fornanoe4. Higher pornia~iblo load ooefflolents

Langley Monorial Aoronautionl Laboratory,National Advisory Coamittoo for Aeronautics,Langley Tiald, Ta.

1. Shoenaker, Jar.es 1:., and Parkinson, John B. : TankTests of z Rnriily~f Fly Zag-Boat Hulls. T. N. HO.491, M4CA, 1934.2. Sottorf, W.: Tho Design Of Floats. T.M. fiO. 860,

EACA, 193a.3. Dnvl.ds on, Kenneth S. ~f., and L~cko, F. W. S., Jr. :


13/54

NACA 12

,. . .. . . .:. ,.TABLE I. - OFFSETS OF MODEL 144, INCHES

Statiox

;345678910111213F13A

14151617

DistantfromF.P. D R0.602.855.109.6014.1018.6023.1027.6032.1036.6041.1045.6050.1054.6059.1063.6068.10

0.02.09.21.981.191.451.76

1.243.044.165.676.63?.227.617.81?.937.967.947.877.757.587.377.116.80

1.333.254.456.047.077.708.108.328.478.588.688.788.887.087.457.026.586.15

b0.883.142.923.984.655.075.335.475.565.665.765.896.045.044.694*4C4.194.08

c

0.19.29.42.58

d

7.527.146.535.65

e0.972.363.234.385.135.595.896.056.146.256.356.456.555.555.204.914.704.59

f0.992.433.534.545.305.786.096.256.346:37I.376.145.765.154.27

Ir0.922.263.084.184.905.345.625.775.865.976.076.176.275.874.924.634.424*31

0.731.782.443.323.884.224.454.574.644.66


14/54

13 NACA

TABLE II. - OFFSETS OF MODEL 145, INCHES

s tatlo

F.P:34567899A101112

13F13A1415

DistancefromF.P.

0.67Z.195.7010.7315.7720.8025.8330.8635.8936.6040.9245.9550.9956.0261.0566.08

3.25.25.24.23.21.18.16q13.11.09.07.06.11.22L.04L.32

D2

0.941.181.461.651.841.891.891.891.851.801.801.781.801.861.972.722.91

~

1.112.723.725.075.936.506.816.997.097.107.127.107.046.93(3.786.59

a

0.96.852.683.765.216.146.737.117.337.497.607.?27.837.946.946.465.98

b

.O.9C.3s1.682.3E3.353.9E4.374.634.7F4.8E4.995.115.245.404.493.993.64

c

).1;.2:

d

5.735.39

e

.0.96.491.892.663.714.414.845.135.295.405.525.635.745.864.864.454.09

f

048$2.172.9[4.0{4.745.175.4:5.5$5.675.7C

15.7C5.4s5.15

E?

0.9.4


15/54

.

NACA

Sta.tfol

F.P;3456788A910111213F13A14

Dlst.antefromF.P.0.733.496.2511.7617.2722.7828.2933.8036.6039.3244.8350.3455.8561.3666.87

TABLE III. - OFFSETS OF MODEL 146, INCHES

D1

~.47.46q44.42.38.33.29.25.21.16.12.10.11.26,.09

1.632.022.582.863.183.323.343.283.223.183.73.123.133.193.29

1.012.483.404.675.425.906.216.386.436.476.506.486.436.33

4.026.19

a

1.63;242.213.224.565.445.996.366.586.756.887.017.137.256.255.72

b

-1.63-.151.311.972.913.483.854.104.254.384..504.624.714.933.943.47

c

1.08

d

;*1,

e

-1.63-.071.492.223.203.854,274.564.734.854.985..105.235.354.353.89

f

1.811.98?.725.711.331.72$.975.105.185.20

I.205.01

g

-1.63-.lG1*4C2.lC3.043.674.074.344.5C4.624.754.87S.oc5.124.123.6C

r

3.601.451.99z.713.173.453.633.733.7910


16/54

Figurel.-Profileviewsof NACA models 144, 145, and146. . I

..


17/54

Model 144

Model 145

Model 146 qFigure2.- Plamfonn views of NAC,A models 144,145,and 146* &.

N


18/54

!ltatia1822 to so.

Figure 3.- Typical

Stat ions 10 to 1* 5tationa 14 to U

~ta~ion,to ~3F Stat l ixmlSA .toal stations22 t o 30Moda18145wd 146 g

SectIons of rnodala44, 145, and 146, Md defifit;ona of symbols used in tsbles 1, II, and III. a

(

p-


19/54

IACA (1 block= 10divisiou8 on 1/40s Rag. c~o) ric. .432 .

28,\ Aq1001b /xa4 \,

2- 30 009 .\ . + ~ 60j *. 40wUlllll IIIJII I 1~ u AA / I 9?)

12

8

4

0

160

L/,

m- l ~1 .v w

d / 7 -i! w - w A= == 104 ~

+ + ** - Y

/

\ A = 100 lb. _


20/54

tiAcA (l,block = 10j40U) rig. 53a

as

,, a4# A,=100lb

2 {4 f \;20 ,

j/ \

f /m + J %.x \ ~ ~ :16 } ( 80i ,/ \ .x-!x 1,. ;?~ x~ ~ .% x. x _x- - 60

// 1lx. . . ~ .x

/ ~ b 4C12 + ; G[/

/ ~ / ao

8

4A

o . /

160 A =1 110 1),t ,..-...... _ .-..-._- -


21/54

N$:A (1 block= 10/40) rig. 6

A= lao lb/+ k

k \

28

a4

1

j b---m I , I I , 1 , 1 I 1 I 1 I) . I

+ Y{ 100w e 80 60IY Y

J I I+, I I I I I I I I I I I I I


22/54

28

24

(1 block = 10/40) Fig. 7

~ - 120 lb/i

J -*\ ,+[ -+-

0/ 100 802 20 ko r 4 x

.+ cd : 60

jo 40A -x xm 16 -x-x.%X*- ~_4 +1 ./%:lx / . xl I I I 1201 I

12 u - -Ia / / 18 * JM 4 /l II Illli 1201

I I ulP# I IMA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 104 /+-+ IA +

5 1&- 0-

160

A . lao lb120


23/54

NACA (1 block= 10/40) Figs . 8,9,10/la>.7.+> -+/A= 120 lb +f A= 1$30lb

a8 \+-+ +.+_ +_ .+_ +_ II ++ 9 J 100a4 I+ 100} w - ~- - 4

+~ aoQ- 80j / 42 x : 16 ?a2

P- + F 6012 A m 10 lb++-

8 / - +- + 0 / ~

/ 5/

4- ~

0

160


24/54

(z


25/54

--i201035


26/54

MACA (1 block : 10/40) Fig. 1.3


27/54

26

EB

NACA (1 block = 10/40)32

Ill A - 12(I lb/4 ~+. ~,4,/ I I I

12

8

4

c

FFFFEFF

Fig. 141

I II


28/54

HACA (l block= 10/40) Figel.15,16,1732,+~+ - -+HA -12(I lb + A -la1 lb

28~ +: -+++ -

@ \ 10024 -,-+. 100> &=w- -/a ,+ /

- 20 f \Q- X,80vc 80.>X.= ~=x-:~ 16 (: lxlx

. 60 A - lC :b12 I

+L_+ - +/+- ~

8 ..* . 5,- ~ - +

4

0

160


29/54

MACA (1 block = 10/40) Tig. 18


30/54

NACA321 (1 block = 10/40n) Fig. 13I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I

H++ttL+tb+H

Ia: 120 lb

/ i .

. .,a I I I I I I loll/ 1 h,;1 I I I I Iflti Y \ . lofl

I I I I I I l l -l xx v- I Iai l I I I I / 7x I

+11- - */ x- 6C

/, 60 n

d-l I )7 Ii [ I I I I /1 .:16 I I I I 1/ P d LX I

. 4 A


31/54

.

NACA (1 block = 10/40)32-

28.

,.6 = 120 lb24 J.@++/

I \n 4. I I I I I I I N Yq 100

80/

Fig. 20


32/54

lJACA32

28

24

s 20.:16:m2

12

8 //

x4 /./

o /

160

120

(1 block = 10/40)

/-A. lao lb,+/+,/ +>. ,,

~1 /+, d L 100

~+// ~/ ,k. - =x ~ - - x+./ x u .

/+

+-

Fig. 21

6040

/ 30 / / x . x-/ r /

0 q/

I20I

~10~

+ + ~ - 0


33/54

NACA (1 block = 10/40n) TIUS. aa.a332- Q= iao lb

ae ~++ %+ ++_A - 120 lb/

24 / P % -n- l!oo/+ + 0 100 $+20 /2 1+ po.. .

FHTFTwl

1

X=-xxx _r- )i16 /j1 x IY x -Un- / /la - /x Ih- _60x.

8 - x . >/

+ 40

4

0 --

.60


34/54

xAOA Fig.48 I/ I

A = 120 lb

7 \ \\ .

6 \ , \

&a5*/ .

\i54;2

3 / \ A = 120 lb 1/

I

2 /, 1I \

20 1/ \ I

(16 ~. / /J 12 /

j / / :

/ -m 8 / /


35/54

IiACA + Fig. asi I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 IWA =1201b] 1

Il l I I

4s 1 Ill I Ima4m /It-t-t-t t ,t 1 , 1 , , , /1 , *=,hi

E I t I t

-.\

111111 I 20 \ \.\ 10 \ \ . \ \.

I \5 \ \ \

/ \\ \

120 lb \ \v A I

u .\ , 1L-10

.


36/54

HACA

a

16

4

u

FFwf

/// \) 100/

/ ~ no/ -

I 1 I K I I I AI


37/54

BAOA (1 block = 10/40m) Fig. 27a4

20

4

012

10

8

I I -OJ I K\ ~

\ \A. %, - lao lb- 1-+ -x.x v- -- .+ -4 100

/\

j \\\\/ \.!# , \

\/+1 + \x\ 80, \ $x\\ \uI I I I I I-6 I I \.5

, 00

802 .F1a~

60 .s

20

0

.


40/54

liMA

u

12

.4

28

.2

0

I I I I 1, !- 7Model 1~, L/b = 7.84I I I 1 I

I -- -- 1 Y 1 / \ I I - Ab, lb, \\ \ 120/- \ J,}; ,,, ,,

11111100 IMOdOl 145,LA = 6.5400

I I I w 1= I .,, ,

--- !1 , , 1100 ,Modol~, L/b = 5.23--

Speed coefflotent, CvFigure 30. - Varlatlon of load coefficient with speed coefficient forfree-to-trim tests Of models 144, 145, and 146.

(1 block= 10i40W)

n


41/54

HACA

100

80

5 60d-q .Is 40

202018 01614

42

Tic. 32r -.-.

\ 144 5.23145 6.64

\ 146 7*84AO = 100 lb

\

\

f\rL/b = 5.23- I] \

/06.54 / \\d 8

/>, \

/ ~/ /~ < \) \f// / \\\\I / . ,_I / -. &

e- -,1,//91

/,r//

u


42/54

liACA rig. 33

6

1

0

Em /I I I \ .I

I I IAr. 4 ! I{Y I/ Model L/b W1.Jh ?!8/ 144 5.23 83.33 15.92

/ v145 6.54 93.17 14.24

146 7.84 102.06 13.00

/7

.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 100 ~

Load on water, lb ~-(a) Effect Of varying length-beem ratio with constant length-beam product. uAuc

$s#


43/54

rig. 34

7

//

// Model L/b

//I

I

o .2 ..4 6 ..9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8hotia coefficient, CA .0

~(a ) Va ria t ion a t speeds a bove hump speed, b.= gt t r im. du1 s

--- -.-j.- i---~ --- - ----- ----:dDs


44/54

NACA Fig. 35a.b.c

(a)Model 144. Speed 6.I+ feet er second;7rim, 2.56;CAO, 0.6 .

.


45/54

NACA . Fig. 35d.e.f

.

(d)Model 144.trim, 5.76, C&,Pe~d .m3q:g7ymmci;

.


46/54

(g) Model 144. peed Vg:wep econd;rim, 9.46;

7 ,,,, /


47/54

NACA Fig. 35j.k.l

..(j)Model lW. Speed 1 .9 feetper second;zrim,9.O~; Ao, 0.67.


48/54

NACA Fig. 35m.n.o

q

.(m) Model 144. Speed 30.6 fee per second;2rim, 3.&; CAO, 0. T.

NACA Fig. 36a.b.c


49/54

(a)Model 144. Speed 6.5 feet ertrim, 2.36;CAO,0.8!. second;

!! . ....


50/54

NACA Fig.36d.e.f

(d)Model 144. Speed,10.3 feetper second;trim,5.60;CAO, 0.S1.


51/54

NACA Fig. 36g.h.i..

I(E)Model 144. speedtrim,8.J 15.0feetper second;CAO,0.81.


52/54

..(m)Model 144. Speedtrim,b.l~;

Fig. 36m.n.o

@.Qfeet per second;CAO,0.81.

I I I I I =Model L/b cAO fnko-off qoPDistance,ft Time, eec


53/54

40,000 . . . 144 5.2S 0.805 5150 59 L_ 145 6.54 1.13 4840 54146 7.84 1.49 4750 52-.

36,000 - / \ \! Thrust \ \ \32,000 \. .

\-

r i, \ -28,0005 /

\ \\ .. / \

; 24,000 L f\

/ \* / \.iL/b=62*2 ~ < (,

%> \~ 20,000 k -. . , >c1 /2 /

\ . - -R+ D*m: 16,000 / \.. ..-. / /

r.! / / /d $ {: 12,000 /

/ // I

8,000 f ,1/ v~

4,000 y 0- /.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Speed, fps wz.(1 block = 10/40N ) FQure 37. - Ta ke-off clm ra ct er lst lcs of t hr ee 140,000-pound fly ing boa ts w it h hulllines of models 144, 145, and 146, aesumlnghulls 10.5 times size of models.

.u


54/54

Q,+

Speed, fps ..g(1 block = 10/40fi) Figure 38.- Take-off chnracteris tics of three 140,000-pound flying boata sith hulllines of models 144, 145, and 146, assmi~g hulls 11 times size of models. %!

NACA ARR 3J23 Effect of Length-beam Ration on Resistance and Spray of Three Models of Flying-boat...

Documents

Transcript of NACA ARR 3J23 Effect of Length-beam Ration on Resistance and Spray of Three Models of Flying-boat...