R. & M. No. 2899 (15,196)

A.R.C. ~echnical i~epo~

M I N I S T R Y O F S U P P L Y

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

REPORTS AND MEMORANDA

A- Full-scale Hydrodynamic Behaviour

Faired Flying-boat

Investigation into of a Hull

j. A. HAMILTON

J ~f

NAT!Oj~,L AE~0~IAUTIgAL "- E~;TA BLI8HI¢~E NT,

L-I~RARY

LONDON : H E R M A J E S T Y ' S S T A T I O N E R Y O F F I C E

I956

TEN SHILLINGS NET

the Highly

A Full-scale Behaviour

Investigation into of a Highly Faired

J. A. HAMILTON

COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (AIR),

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

the Hydrodynamic Flying-boat Hull

Reports ~ncl Memorancl~ No.

JuTy, I952 2899*

Summary.--This report describes an investigation into the hydrodynamic qualities of a Sunderland flying-boat hull, weight 50,000 lb, fitted with a main-step fairing of fairing ratio 17 : 1. The fairing was equipped with ventilating ducts, drawing air at atmospheric pressure through ports on the hull side, and discharging it through exit vents on the afterbody planing bottom. No pumping apparatus was fitted, the airflow being induced by the sub-atmospheric pressures on the fairing.

The main conclusions of the investigation may be summarised in this manner: (a) A highly faired hull of this kind is hydrodynamically satisfactory, with a ventilating area equivalent to

0.042 (beam) 2 placed immediately behind the main-step line. (b) For satisfactory hydrodynamic behaviour, the step line, i.e., the junction between forebody and afterbody must

be kept sharp, but only an angular discontinuity in the vertical plane is necessary. (c) Without ventilation, the highly faired hull exhibits severe hydrodynamic instability during take-off and

alighting, and tile resistance is about 30 per cent higher than tile ventilated hull. (d) Pressure measuremenfs on the afterbody indicate that skipping instability is caused by the presence of a region

of sub-atmospheric pressure, covering almost the whole afterbody during skipping, and having maximum suctions of up to 4 lb/sq in. occurring at about 0" 4 beam lengths aft of the step line.

The general conclusion of the investigation is that successful hulls may be designed without conventional steps, provided that sufficient internal ventilation is provided.

1. I~troductior~.---The trend towards higher cruising speeds for modern aircraft which followed the advent of jet and propeller-turbine engines has emphasised the necessity for reducing the air drag of seaplane hulls. The principal sources of drag on a contemporary seaplane hull, over the corresponding streamline shape, are the main step, the chines and the hull camber. Of these, the greatest source is the main step, which may account for as much as 25 per cent of the hull drag, compared with 8 per cent for camber and chines t.

In an effort to eliminate this step drag, without affecting the hydrodynamic qualities of the hull, the Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment has, within recent years, conducted a series of full-scale tests on hulls having fairings of varying degree over their main step. Because the tests were necessarily limited to existing types of aircraft, no at tempt was made to investigate the hydrodynamic consequences of reducing drag from chines and hull camber, and the type of fairing investigated was limited to simple fairings in elevation, as opposed to the streamline fairing 2.

* M.A.E.E. Report F/Res/233, received 23rd September, 1952, (2(~ss)

This report presents the results from the final full-scale tests done on a Sunderland flying boat fitted with a fairing having a fairing ratio of 17 : 1, and incorporating varying degrees of afterbody ventilation.

A detailed commentary on the results is given in section 5, but a quick appreciation of the design implications of the investigation may be obtained from sections 10 and 11.

2. Historical.---The Sunderland tests represent the culmination of a series of full-scale experi- ments on various aircraft, extending over a period of ten years.

The first full-scale investigation of step fairings was made at the M.A.E.E. on the prototype Sunderland during 1940 and 19418,4. These tests showed that when the step was faired by a simple elevation fairing of concave section, a limit was set to the length of fairing by the deterioration in longitudinal hydrodynamic stability during take-off and landing. When the fairing ratio approached 9 : 1, an instability occurred at high planing speeds during which the aircraft was thrown clear of the water in_ every cycle--the so-called ' bounce porpoise ' or ' skip '. Examination of the possible causes of this unstable motion confirmed that the most likely cause was the presence of sub-atmospheric pressures on the planing bottom afterbody, brought about by the reduced wake clearance of the faired step.

Various investigations suggested that the instability might be overcome by providing apertures in the fairing connected to the outer atmosphere and this scheme was first tried full-scale on an American flying boat which, although not fitted with a faired step, did have dangerous skipping tendencies. The application of internal ventilation to this hull produced disappointing results, probably because the ventilating area was too small.

A systematic series of tests was next undertaken on the Saro 87, a small four-engined British flying boat, which was tested with fairings of increasing fairing ratio from 6 : 1 up to 20 : 1. The possibility of using ' forced ventilation ' was first investigated on this aircraft. Instead of being connected to the hull interior, the ventilating apertures on the fairing were supplied with a flow (80 lb/min) of air under pressure, from a centrifugal air compressor. By this means, it was hoped to reduce the planing-bottom ventilating area necessary for a given fairing. However, the investigation showed clearly that a well-designed natural ventilation system was preferable to forced ventilation and that fairing ratios up to 15 • 1 were satisfactory with ventilationS, L

Having demonstrated these facts on a small aircraft, the final stage was the design and construc- tion of an extreme step fairing on a large aircraft which would embody all the design experience collected and would enable the effect of such variables as ventilating area; step form and aperture positions to be investigated. A Sunderland Mk. 5 aircraft was chosen--being most readily available--and the forward half of the afterbody modified to accommodate a ventilated step fairing of 17 • 1 fairing ratio. The test programme on the aircraft covered the period July 1948 to July 1950.

3. Description of Fairing and Ventilation System.--The test aircraft was basically a standard Sunderland Mk. 5, tile main step and afterbody of which had been modified to incorporate a 17 • 1 step fairing. Figs. 1, 2 and 3 show the modified hull and its relation to the original hull. In order to keep tile junction of afterbody and forebody as smooth as possible, a machined light alloy strip was introduced on the original step line, and forebody and afterbody plating butted to it (Fig. 3).

For the greater part of the test programme, the forebody-afterbody junction was ground to an edge, giving a mean forebody-afterbody angle at the step of 12 deg. To check the sensitivity of the hydrodynamic performance to the form of the step junction line, a few tests were made with a circular arc of 12-in. radius replacing the sharp edge.

Refs. 5 and 6 showed that afterbody ventilation has two functions; it must help to separate the. flow at the step line when the forebody-afterbody angle is small, and it must provide relief to the aft~erbody suctions caused by insufficient clearance between the afterbody and the wak~

2

from the forebody. Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the application of these principles to the Sunderland fairing. Four ventilating ports (total area 4 sq ft) were placed immediately behind the step line to help breakaway, and four additional ports (total area 4 sq ft) were placed at 0.89 beam lengths aft of the step line, in the region assumed to experience maximum suction.

All the ventilating ports were natural ly ventilated, i.e., they relied on the afterbody suctions to provide tile necessary ventilating air. The method of construction is illustrated in Fig. 4. Each port was connected to a porthole in the side of the hull by way of a light-alloy duct. The duct inlets were flush with the skin plating, i.e., no use was made of ram pressure to provide additional flow. To enable the effect of varying ventilation area to be investigated, each port was provided with a flush-fitting sealing cover which could be screwed to the afterbody skin plating. The interior ducts on the port side of the hull had provision for measuring the total flow of ventilating air.

4. Range of Investigation.--A total number of ten different configurations of ventilating area and step-line form were tested. For ease of reference, these are summarised in Fig. 6. The primary effects of these changes were expected to appear as alterations to the hydrodynamic longitudinal stabil i ty in landing and take-off and to the hydrodynamic resistance. Quanti tat ive assessments of these parameters were made. Spray and hydrodynamic directional stabili ty were expected to be but slightly affected and qualitative assessments only were necessary. No a t tempt was made to measure any alterations in aerodynamic performance which could be at tr ibuted to the fairing.

The basic test programme was performed at a weight of 50,000 lb and a c.g. position 3.02 ft forward of the main-step keel. A few tests were performed at 60,000 lb weight, c.g. 2.8 ft forward of step, and at 50,000 lb weight, c.g. 2.5 ft forward of step: these were confined to the hull with step line sharp and all vents open.

4.1. Take-off and Constant-speed Run Stability.--Most of the hydrodynamic stabili ty tests under power were done during rake-offs with full take-off power. Where the stabili ty was in doubt, the doubtful regions were checked by runs at constant speed, or by reduced power take- offs. During each test run, the elevator position remained constant, a number of runs being made to cover the widest possible elevator range. Zero flap setting was used for all tests except those at 60,000 lb weight, when the flap setting was increased to 8 deg to avoid unduly long runs.

4.2. Landing Stability.--The technique employed for assessing landing stabil i ty was similar to tha t described in the reports on the Saro 37 tests 5' 6. The pilot was given only a general in- struction before beginning the approach, e.g., ' high-atti tude landing ' ' normal landing ', ' stall landing '. He was allowed a free hand on the approach and could use engine if necessary, to put the aircraft into the required position. Immediately on touch-down, the engine power was reduced to idling value and the elevator position fixed. During and after touchdown, the elevators remained in this position and the engines remained at idling power. Using this technique, the rate of descent at touch-down was usually small, about two or three feet per second.

All landings were made with a flap angle of 16 deg.

4.3. Afterbody Pressure Measurements.--To substantiate the inferential evidence on the mechanism of skipping and afterbody ventilation drawn from the stabili ty results, direct measurements were made of the pressure distribution over tile faired afterbody. A number of strain-gauge type pressure pick-ups were mounted on the starboard afterbody planing bottom and connected by w a y of a suitable amplifying apparatus t o a 15-channel Miller .type recording galvanometer (Fig. 7). Tile pick-ups and recording apparatus are described in detail in Ref. 7. For these tests, pick-ups with a working range of ± 10 lb/sq in. were utilised. Pressure measurements were made for only a limited number of ventilation configurations, principally those with small or zero ventilating area.

3 (2655) A*

4.4. Tests with the Standard Sunderland Hull.--To provide a basis for evaluating the operational suitabili ty of the faired hulls, take-off and landing tests were made on a standard Mk. 5 Sunderland utilising the same experimental and analytical techniques for assessing the hydrodynamic behaviour. The standard aircraft was tested at weights of 50,000 lb and 60,000 lb, c.g. 3.0 ft forward of step keel.

4.5. Instruments.--In addition to the electronic equipment described in section 4.3, the following instruments were employed to obtain quanti tat ive information on the hydrodynamic qualities of the test aircraft.

A Barnes type two-axes accelerometer and gyroscope was used to measure at t i tude and longitudinal acceleration. This instrument was synchronised with an automatic observer, containing :

four air-speed indicators, recording airflow through the ventilating ducts

two low-reading air-speed indicators, recording aircraft speed--one connected to a pitot in venturi and static reservoir, and the other connected to a pitot in venturi and the aircraft static vent system

four boost gauges and four r.p.m, indicators, recording engine power

a Desynn indicator, recording elevator angle

a Desynn indicator, recording longitudinal acceleration from a Desynn type accelerometer

a Veeder counter operated by the timing system of the two-axes accelerometer and gyro- scope, and synchronising these with the automatic observer instrmnents.

The airflows in the ventilating ducts were recorded by a pi tot-stat ic system, consisting of a static-hole in the side of each duct and three pitot-heads, positioned across each duct, such that a mean of their readings gave the mean airflow velocity in the duct.

5. Longitudinal Hydrodynamic Stability Results.--5.1. Full Ventilation, Step Sharp.--The stabili ty diagram for take-off with full ventilation follows the normal pat tern for a hull with good hydrodynamic stabili ty (Fig. 8). Upper-limit porpoising could be achieved only at elevator angles of --10 deg to --15 deg (i.e., elevators fully up), and the maximum amplitude of porpoising never exceeded 2 deg. Porpoising amplitudes of up to 6 deg were achieved in the lower instabili ty region, but then only at extreme elevator positions, about + 15 deg, and porpoising could be checked immediately by an appropriate elevator movement. There was no evidence of the violent type of skipping instabil i ty which occurred during the Saro 37 tests, neither was there any sign of increased resistance near take-off, owing to undue afterbody wetting (cf. Ref. 5,section 6.11). With the elevators fully up, the aircraft left the water in a semi-stalled condition and occasionally made contact after a few seconds of flight. This is predominantly an aerodynamic phenomenon and there was no sign of hydrodynamic skipping, even on the second touch-down.

Landing stabili ty for this configuration was excellent (Fig. 9). The aircraft was alighted over a range of keel-datum attitudes from 5 deg (fast landing) to 10 deg (near stall) without skipping. Near the stall there was a tendency to porpoise after touch-down, with the elevators fully up, but the amplitude was small (maximum 3 deg), and the oscillation damped out after one or two cycles.

5.2. The Effect of Reduction in Ventilation Area, Step Sharp.--5.2.1. Forward outer ducts sealed.--For these tests, the outlet of each forward outer duct was sealed off by means of a flush- fitting plate (Fig. 2). The stabili ty and trim results for this arrangement are given in Figs. 10, 11 and 29 respectively. There was little or no change in hydrodynamic longitudinal stabili ty in either take-off or landing, but a rather disconcerting motion occurred in the hump region. This appeared in the form of a sudden yaw to port or starboard, at a water speed of 40 to 45 knots,

which caused pilots some concern until they became accustomed to it. The phenomenon is probably attributable to some asymmetry in the breakaway of flow behind the main-step line. Some confirmation that this is so is given by the pressure records of Fig. 46.

5.2.2. All aft ducts sealed.--In this state, the hull had all the aft ducts sealed off and all the forward ducts open to atmosphere. Landing and take-off stability and trim curves are given in Figs. 12, 13 and 30. Stability during take-off and landing deteriorated, compared with the fully ventilated hull. Mild skipping occurred at high speed (50 to 60 knots) and high at t i tude (keel at t i tude = 10 deg) during take-off, and after touch-downs at keel attitudes between 9 and 10 deg. These atti tude-speed regions are well beyond those used normally, and pilots were not unduly worried by the skipping when it did occur. Stable landings were occasionally accompanied by some movement in heave after touch-down, which could not be at tr ibuted entirely to sea conditions. This motion was never dangerous and, at its worst, only slightly uncomfortable to the occupants of the flying boat.

A check was made of the hydrodynamic stability of this hull configuration in waves of 2 to 5 ft height and 20 to 50 ft length accompanied by a wind of 19 to 20 knots. The water performance was not markedly different from that of a standard Sunderland Mk. 5 in similar sea conditions. A heaving motion occurred immediately after hump speed and was probably akin to that noted in calm-water landings--i t was not dangerous. Alighting was satisfactory.

5.2.3. All aft and forward inner ducts sealed.--Only a few tests were clone at this hull configura- tion ; it was regarded as an intermediate step to tests with no ventilation at all. On take-off, the range of the skipping instability region increased and the motion was more severe than that described in section 5.2.2. (Fig. 14). Skipping was encountered whenever the touch-down att i tude was greater than 6 deg, varying in severity depending on the rate of descent at the t0uch-down point (Fig. 15). The directional instabili ty noted in section 5.2.1 re-appeared in a more severe form, the hull performing a ' corkscrewing' motion over the hump on occasions.

5.2.4. All ducts sealed.=-In this state the aircraft was difficult to control during take-off and alighting, and would have been dangerous in the hands of a pilot unused to severe skipping (Figs. 16, 17). Stable take-offs could be made by keeping the elevators down for most of the take-off run and then pulling the aircraft off the water sharply at high planing speed (75 knots). Stable landings could be made by touching down at keel attitudes below 4 deg, with elevator central. Any at tempt to stray beyond these limitations caused skipping, severe in take-off and violent in landing. Directional stability during take-off deteriorated further, although it was still controllable by judicious use of asymmetric power.

5.3. The Effect of Rounding the Step Line.--For all the tests described in sections 5.1 and 5.2, the junction between forebody and afterbody was ground to an edge and painted. Subsequent painting of the planing bottom reduced the sharp junction to one having a radius of ~ to { in. To check the sensitivity of the hydrodynamic performance to the form of the step line, a series of tests was made with a circular arc of 12-in. radius replacing the sharp edge (Fig. 3).

5.3.1. Full ventilation.--From the evidence of the first few tests on this configuration, there appeared to be little change in hydrodynamic performance, compared with the sharp step version. However, as the range of investigation widened, certain deteriorations in stability were revealed. At high planing speed (75 to 85 knots), during take-off, a porpoising motion of increasing ampli- tude occurred when the elevators were more than two-thirds down (Fig. 40b). Although this was indistinguishable in form from normal lower limit porpoising, the unstable region lies well above the normal lower limit (Fig. 18), and the motion, therefore, cannot be attr ibuted entirely to the forebody.

The behaviour in landings was interesting, in that it showed a reversal of the usual stability pat tern (Fig. 19). At high touch-down attitudes, about 10 deg, slight porpoising occurred. At lower attitudes, about 7 deg, the touch-down was stable, but the at t i tude usually increased

5

immediately after touch-down, bringing the hull again into the upper instability region (Fig. 41b). This increase in at t i tude could be checked by a small forward movement of the control column, and its effects were often masked by involuntary pilot correction. When the touch-down att i tude was decreased to 4 or 5 deg, the at t i tude increase was greater and occurred more violently, resulting in a skipping motion.

5.3.2. Front duct ares hagved.--With the step line still rounded, the front duct area was halved by means of metal liners inserted in all four original ducts (Fig. 5). The liners were designed to reduce the duct area without causing undue restriction to the airflow to the planing bottom.

The result of this modification was a further deterioration in hydrodynamic performance. During take-off the instability occurring at high speeds was extended to all take-off attitudes (Fig. 20), and caused a form of ' bounce porpoising at attitudes over 10 deg. At touch-down, skipping and porpoising occurred over the available range of touch-down attitudes, with violent skipping below 5 deg.

This investigation was forcibly abbreviated by damage to an auxiliary float during a skip landing.

5.8.3. Aft outer ducts sealed.--For this part of the investigation, the front duct area was restored to its original value and flush-fitting plates fitted over the exits of the two aft outer ducts.

There was little difference in hydrodynamic longitudinal stability compared with that obtained by halving the front duct area. The porpoising region in take-off was confined to higher speeds (Fig. 22), and the severity of skipping in landing was not so great (Fig. 23). The worst skipping after touch-down still occurred at low attitudes. Touch-downs at higher attitudes were usually accompanied by porpoising which persisted down to hump speed. This was of 5 to 7-deg ampli- tude, but was not dangerous.

5.3.4. Aft inmr ducts sealed.--This configuration was tested to discover whether there was any significant difference in the contribution of the outer and inner ducts to hydrodynamic stability. Only a few take-offs and landings were made. These confirmed that the hydrodynamic perform- ance was not appreciably different from that with the aft outer ducts blocked.

5.3.5. All aft ducts sealed.--With all the aft duct exits dosed, the aircraft was dangerously unstable. The porpoising which occurred near take-off speed with one duct closed, deteriorated into skipping (Figs. 24, 40c), and skipping during landing was accompanied by violent porpoising (Figs. 25, 41c), quite beyond the control of the pilot. After a few take-offs and landings, the tests were terminated to avoid damage to the aircraft.

5.4. The Effect of Weight Increase and C.G. Movement.--To check the effect of variations in aircraft weight, and c.g. movement, tests were made on the original hull--step sharp, full vent i la t ion--a t a weight of 60,000 lb, and at a weight of 50,000 tb, with the c.g. near its aft limit (Table 1).

An increase in weight to 60,000 lb produced the expected raising of the lower stability iimit ; the upper limits remained unchanged. The aircraft was satisfactory in sheltered water, but the narrow stable band at 35 to 40 knots led to porpoising of 7 deg amplitude in a swell of 1-ft to 1½-ft height. The instability damped out automatically at higher planing speeds. Evidence on the Solent flying boat indicates that this narrow stable band would cause porpoising in swells of 150 to 200-ft length, but that this would not be dangerous, provided the acceleration in the critical region was good, i.e., about 0. lg.

Alighting at 60,000 lb was confined to those touch-down attitudes Used in normal practice, because, of structural limitations, Within this range, no instability was encountered,

6

Take-off stability at 50,000 lb, c.g. aft, was not different from tha t with the more forward c.g. position utilised for the rest of the investigation. Control on the approach was more difficult, because of the reduction in aerodynamic static stability, and there was a tendency to balloon when the pilot checked before touch-down. In spite of these difficulties, stable landings were achieved over the available att i tude range.

5.5. Standard Sunderland Hull .--At a weight of 50,000 lb, the standard hull had longitudinal stability properties very similar to those of the fully faired hull with ventilation from the forward ducts only (Figs. 12, 26). Qualitative impressions from pilots and observers suggest that, when skipping did occur, the heaving motion was more severe for the fully faired hull, but that otherwise the two were equally good.

Comparison at 60,000 lb weight is difficult because of the paucity of results from the fully ventilated, faired hull. At 40 knots water speed, the faired hull appeared to have a smaller stable region than the standard hull. Too much emphasis should not be placed on this comparison, because the results for the faired hull were obtained while taking-off outside the sheltered water test base and a slight swell was running during the tests.

6. Take-off Trim Results.--Care should be taken when examining the take-off trims not to read too much significance into them. Trim is affected by a number of interdependent factors, and the most obvious interpretation of a given effect may not be the correct one.

However, one or two trends are clearly defined. The trims for the fully ventilated hull are similar to those for the standard SunderZand hull at the hump speed, but during planing the two sets of curves diverge by as much as 2 deg over the whole elevator range. The faired hull gives the higher trims (Figs. 28, 37).

Reasons for the characteristic Mnks in the trim curves with the forward outer vents sealed have been discussed elsewhere in the report (section 10.3). These kinks in the curves also occur with all vents closed and, to a lesser degree, with the forward inner vents closed. Sealing the aft vents appears to have little effect on trim (Figs. 30 to 82).

When the step is rounded, large trim changes occur, particularly at positive elevator positions. The elevator effectiveness from elevator central to elevator 12 deg down is reduced by about 30 per cent, compared with the corresponding sharp-step hull, and the minimum planing angle with 12 deg of down elevator is 6 deg, compared with 3 deg, for the basic hull (Fig. 33). At negative elevator angles, greater than 5 deg, the trim curves for basic and rounded-step hulls agree.

7. Resistance Results.--In Figs. 42 and 43 are compared the longitudinal accelerations during take-offs with varying amounts of ventilation. With elevators central, the fully ventilated and half ventilated hulls have similar acceleration curves. Reducing the ventilation area to zero causes a marked increase in resistance, which is at a maximum at 40 knots. The sudden change in acceleration occurring at this speed should be compared with the trim changes of Fig. 32. Rounding the step also increases the resistance and, at 40 to 50 knots, there is 0.05g difference between the curves for rounded and sharp-stepped hulls.

At the increased trims corresponding to 10 deg of up elevator, the rounded hull has as small a resistance as the ventilated sharp-step hull, but the unventi lated hull retains its increased resistance (Fig. 43).

No reliable acceleration results were available for the standard Sunderland at -- 10 deg elevator angle, but comparison with the fully ventilated hull at 0 deg and --5 deg reveals that no apparent increase in resistance is caused by the greater fairing (Figs. 44, 45).

8. Afterbody Pressure Measurements.--Pressure measurements were obtained with two con- figurations :

(a) step sharp, all vents sealed

(b) step sharp, aft vents sealed.

7

The results have been presented in a fashion which illustrates three aspects of the flow over the afterbody, viz., the variation in pressure during a complete take-off and landing, the build-up of a single pressure wave across the afterbody, and the instantaneous distribution of pressure over the afterbody.

The first of these aspects is illustrated in Figs. 46 and 47. The pressure variations during take-off (Fig. 46) throw an interesting light on the cause of the sudden changes in attitude, resistance and directional stabil i ty which occurred at speeds of about 45 knots on the un- ventilated hull. Up to this speed, there appears to be a region of suction on the fore part of the afterbody keel (pick-up D), followed by a region of pressure due to wake impact (pick-ups F and J). At 45 knots (30 to 31 seconds), the wake adhesion disappears suddenly bringing about the at t i tude and resistance changes noted earlier. The directional instabil i ty at this speed probably results from asymmetric breakdown of the adhesion on either side of the afterbody. At 53 knots water speed, the pressures and suctions accompanying skipping instabili ty spread rapidly across the afterbody, pressure and suction waves occurring each time the aircraft touches the water and causing repeated skips until the aircraft reaches flying speed.

A more detailed picture of one such wave is given in Fig. 48. This shows that during stable planing, there are small suctions over part of the fairing. When the at t i tude falls below 9 deg at a speed of 52 knots, a sudden burst of suction, sometimes led by high pressures, occurs, starting at the keel and spreading in about 0.5 sec to the chine. When the att i tude has decreased to 7 deg, the whole afterbody is restored to atmospheric pressure.

The landing example (Fig. 47) illustrates the type of landing described as a ' delayed skid ' d. ing which the aircraft planes stably for several seconds after first impact, before be(n throwl violently off the water. During the stable planing period, appreciable suctions occurnear the afterbody keel (pick-ups D, F and J), and near the sealed after ducts (pick-up H). As the speed decreases and att i tude increases, these suctions become greater, until at 52 knots there occurs the characteristic dip in the at t i tude curve, followed by a suction wave over the afterbody and a skip. The process is illustrated more fully in Fig. 49.

With the forward vents open, the evidence of wake adhesion at speeds below 45 knots disappears. When the aircraft approaches the skip instabili ty limit of Fig. 12, a rapid suction wave spreads across the afferbody, causing instabili ty (Figs. 50, 52). The form is similar to tha t for the unventilated hull, but the intensity of pressure is less. At attitudes between the skip limit and the trim curve for elevator central, there is a relatively slow increase in suction, as the speed increases beyond 60 knots. The intensity never exceeds 0.4 lb/sq in., and no instabil i ty results. At attitudes below those corresponding to zero elevator angle, no measurable suction appears.

Similar processes to those just described take place during an alighting with the forward vents open. Fig. 51 shows the pressure results from a 'border l ine ' landing, i.e., one in which some heave occurred, but none sufficient to throw the aircraft clear of the water. At attitudes higher than those for this landing, the suctions are greater and skipping occurs, and at lower attitudes the suctions are too small to cause appreciable motion of any kind.

The sequence of events during an unstable run is most clearly illustrated in Fig. 52. Starting with the aircraft completely airborne, the first impact is made on the rear step at about 12-deg keel attitude. No suctions are recorded until the main-step impact at 9-deg attitude, when they spread rapidly across the afterbody. The keel at t i tude continues to decrease for 0.2 to 0.3 seconds, before the suctions have their full effect and an increase starts. At 9.5 deg the afterbody suddenly rides clear of the wake, the at t i tude continuing to increase, until at 12 deg the whole aircraft becomes airborne.

Probably the most significant information for design is the instantaneous distribution of pressure over the afterbody. Typical contour diagrams for the ventilated and unventilated hulls are given in Figs. 53 to 56. A feature common to all the distributions is the presence of a ridge of low pressure midway between keel and chine. For the unventilated hull, this ridge resolves itself into a region of low pressure at a position about half-a-beam width aft of the step. The low pressure region is less well defined when the front vents are open.

8

The greatest differences between ventilated and unventi lated hulls lie in the extent of the sub-atmospheric pressure region, and in the intensity of these pressures. The atmospheric pressure contour lies very close to the chine for the unventilated hull, and is markedly inboard for the ventilated hull: the maximum suctions average 4 to 5 lb/sq in. for the unventilated hull, and less than half of this value for the ventilated hull.

Thus, although the ventilation source is confined to the area immediately behind the step, its effect is brought about by a change in flow conditions for the whole afterbody.

9. Airflow Results.--The take-off airflows followed the pattern indicated in the Saro 37 tests. Wi th the step sharp, all the ducts appeared equally effective, apart from the forward outer which invariably gave lower airflows than the other three. In spite of this, there was a marked increase in airflow through the remaining ducts when the forward outer was sealed. No further increase occurred as the other ducts were sealed.

When the step line was rounded, the airflows with all ducts open increased, compared with the corresponding sharp-step hull, the forward outer duct still giving the lowest flows. Sealing the aft inner duct reduced the effectiveness of the forward ducts appreciably, and increased tha t of the aft outer slightly. With both aft ducts sealed, these forward duct airflows remained at their reduced value.

The landing results confirm the trends indicated during take-off. All the ducts gave similar flows, apart from the front outer, which appeared to be relatively ineffective. When the step was rounded, there was an increase in maximum flows of about 1,000 cu ft/min.

t0. Discussion.--lO.1. Hydro@namic Stability.--In this investigation, there are two effects to be considered ; the effect of reducing ventilation area on stability, and the effect of modifications to the step line.

With the step line sharp, there occurred a deterioration in stabil i ty as ventilation was reduced very much as indicated by earlier tests. One or two aspects are worth detailed explanation. For example, although sealing of the forward outer vents had little effect on s tabi l i ty- -and this might have been expected from the airflow resul ts-- the ' corkscrew ' motion which was induced at 40 knots water speed made this reduction in ventilation area unacceptable. A similar motion occurred when the forward inner ducts were sealed. I t is undoubtedly linked with the breakdown of the small suction area which exists near the afterbody keel at speeds up to 40 knots (Fig. 46). Owing to slight asymmetry in the wake flow, this breakdown probably occurs earlier on one side of the afterbody than on the other, thus causing momentary directional instability.

Pilots who flew the aircraft considered that, with both aft ducts sealed, its hydrodynamic performance equalled that of tile standard Mk. 5 Sunderland. The skipping instabili ty during take-off occurred at atti tudes much higher than those used for normal operation and, even when encountered, the mildness of the motion rendered it relatively innocuous. The mild skipping which took place during high-atti tude alightings did so almost entirely in heave and required no undue piloting skill to correct. When both aft and the forward inner vents were sealed, the aircraft became unacceptable once more, not only because of the increased instabil i ty regions and increased skipping severity, but also because of the re-appearance of directional instabil i ty near the hump speed.

Whereas the instabili ty with the step sharp was predominently a movement in heave, with the step rounded the pitching motion was more noticeable. Cursory examination of the stabil i ty limits (Fig. 18) suggests tha t this is due to a raising of the normal lower limit, but the process is not so simple as this. The instabil i ty that occurs at keel at t i tude of 7 deg and water speeds between 60 and 80 knots is probably a modified form of two-step porpoising. Without pressure measurements or direct observation, one can only speculate on the flow conditions round tile afterbody, but one explanation of this low-angle two-step porpoising is that at 7-deg keel at t i tude the forebody wake is not completely separated from the afterbody by the rounded step, and there is thus insufficient clearance between forebody and afterbody to avoid instability. As the keel

9

att i tude increases, the wake begins to clear the afterbody because of impro.ved flow separation at the main step, and instabili ty ceases. With decreasing ventilation area, the at t i tude range for wake clearance decreases, and then disappears, giving a band of instabil i ty over the whole available at t i tude range (Fig. 24). Whatever the explanation, the effect is to make the hull with step rounding unacceptable, even with full ventilation.

To sum up : the hull with sharp step line and full ventilation is as good as the best contemporary conventional hulls ; when the ventilation area is halved, the hull is still acceptable, if the area is provided immediately behind the step line; the hull with rounded step and full ventilation is unacceptable.

/

10.2. Resistance.--Little need be said about the resistance measurements; the increases in resistance are self-explanatory. Note that there is equality in planing efficiency between the standard Sunderland design and the faired hull with adequate ventilation and a sharp step line.

b

10.3. Afterbody Pressure Distribution.~The afterbody pressure distributions confirm the contention, made from earlier qualitative results, that there are two speed regions in the take-off run where ventilation is necessary. These are,

(a) at low speed where flow separation at the step is about to start (b) at high speed where there is a danger of skipping instability.

Delay in the achievement of flow separation at the step results in increased hump resistance, and the transition period may be marked by directional instability, owing to the asymmetric breakdown of regions of sub-atmospheric pressure on the afterbody. The cure is the provision of ventilating areas immediately behind the step line.

At speeds near take-off, the achievement of a critical combination of speed, draft, and at t i tude produces a critical clearance between afterbody and forebody wake, and results in a sudden wave of sub-atmospheric pressure across the afterbody. The manner in which this wave proceeds from keel to chine suggests tha t the first result is an increase in draft, followed by a large nose-up moment as the forebody is immersed, and then by the skip. Thus, the forebody design may have an influence on the angular movement which usually accompanies skipping and which is its most dangerous feature.

Although the pressure distributions indicate that the region of lowest pressure is about half a beam aft of the step line, ventilating ducts away from this region are effective in reducing skipping, e.g., the aft ducts on the Sunderland.

If the ventilating area is sufficient to keep the maximum afterbody suction below 0.5 lb/sq in. then only mild skipping will occur. Violent skipping is associated with suctions of 2 to 4 lb/sq in. spread over two-thirds of the afterloody area.

10.4. General Discussion.--The Sunderland investigation has proved tha t a highly faired hull, having no step in the accepted sense, can be made hydrodynamically satisfactory, with the addition of relatively small amounts of ventilating area to t h e afterbody planing bottom.

From these tests, certain general design principles for highly faired hulls may be deduced. Of primary importance is the condition of the step line. This must be kept sharp, and sharp for the Sunderland means a maximum radius of ½-in. Some of the area required for ventilation must be placed immediately behind the step line. The area will depend on the general afterbody design, but as a first approximation, for afterbody angular breaks exceeding 9 deg-- the Sunderland heel-to-heel angle-- the Sunderland value of 0.084(beam) 2 may be used. Whether or not more ventilating area is necessary will depend on the degree of fairing employed. This leads directly to the question--how much fairing is necessary to eliminate step drag ?

The only quanti tat ive information on this subject comes from some National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics wind-tunnel tests, which indicate tha t there is no gain in air drag obtained by going from a 9 : 1 straight fairing to a complete main-step-to-rear-step fairing s. For a 9 : 1

10

fairing, 0. 042(beam) ~ ventilation immediately behind the step line should be adequate. For a complete fairing, the full Sunderland ventilation area should be sufficient (Fig. 57). The disposition of the additional area does not appear to be critical. Pressure records show that a ventilating area immediately behind the main step causes a general reduction in suctions over the whole afterbody. However, assuming that the area of maximum suction represents the optimum position, additional ventilation should be placed near the keel and between half-a beam and one- beam length aft of the step line.

A complete analysis of the influence of ventilation and afterbody design is beyond the scope of this report, but one or two trends are clear. The normal two-step upper-limit instability was very little affected by the addition of a 17 : 1 fairing to the Sunderland, even when the ventilation area was zero. This suggests that existing criteria for the value of the heel-to-heel angle will still apply to highly faired hulls. This must be qualified by the statement made earlier that, if a main-step-to-rear-step straight fairing is used, and the heel-to-heel angle falls below the SunderZand value, a ventilating area greater than 0. 042(beam)" may be needed behind the step line. The deadrise distribution for the fully faired afterbody will follow from the front-step and rear-step deadrise angles. The range of front-step deadrise angles utilised in main-step design is small, and the Sunderland value of 26 deg is still representative of present-day practice. Efforts to reduce the rear-step impact loads and pitching in waves has led to the adoption of rear-step deadrise angles slightly higher than tke Sunderland's. Thus, there should be little danger of ventilating area greater than the Sunderland's being necessary on modern hulls owing to a more adverse afterbody deadrise distribution.

Nothing has been said so far on the relative merits of ventilated fairings and streamline fairings., For moderate degrees of fairing, the straight fairing shows a marked decrease in air drag over its streamline counterpart (Fig. 58) I, but the latter does not have the added Weight and com- plication of internal ducting. This suggests that the ultimate low-drag hulls--of conventional shape otherwise--could be aclaieved by combining the two conceptions to give an extreme streamline fairing, needing only a little added ventilation to make it hydrodynamically satisfactory.

11. Conclusior~s.--11.1. Ex2berimental.--(a ) A Sunderland fitted with a main-step fairing of fairing ratio 17 : 1 shows little deterioration in hydrodynamic qualities, compared with a standard Sunderland (6 : 1 fairing), provided a ventilating area of 4 sq It, i.e., 0.042(beam) ~, is p]aced immediately behind the step line.

(b) With an additional 4 sq It of ventilation area at 7.5 ft, i.e., 0.8(beam) behind the main step, the highly faired hull has superior hydrodynamic stability compared with the standard hull, and is equal to the best modern hull designs.

(c) When the ventilation area is reduced to zero, the highly faired hull exhibits severe skipping instability and high hydrodynamic resistance.

(d) Any at tempt to reduce the forward venti lat ing area results in directional instability at about 40 knots water speed. This is disconcerting, but not dangerous, provided the pilot is aware of its presence beforehand. The directional instability is a result of the asymmetric breakdown of flow adhesion on the afterbody, brought about by inefficient afterbody ventilation.

(e) If the step line is rounded to a radius of 12 in., the hydrodynamic instability characteristics are unacceptable, even with full ventilation. Porpoising occurs with elevator positions below central during take-off, and skipping at keel attitudes below 5 deg on landing.

(f) Skipping instability is initiated by the occurrence of a region of sub-atmospheric pressures on the afterbody. These pressures reach a maximum at 0.3 to 0.5-beam lengths aft of the step line, and fall off gradually towards the rear step and the chine. The maximum suctions are about 4 lb/sq in. below atmospheric pressure for the hull with zero ventilation, and about 1.5 lb/sq in. for the hull with the forward ducts open.

11

11.2. Desigr~.--(a) With the use of afterbody ventilation, the step on a conventional hull can be reduced to a change in angle between afterbody and forebody, without unsatisfactory hydro- dynamic behaviour.

(b) For hulls of the Sunderland type, a ventilating area of 0.04(beam) 2 is sufficient for a step fairing extending to half-way along ~ the afterbody. For a complete fairing extending from front step to rear step, 0.08(beam)" of ventilating area may be necessary.

(c) At least half of the ventilating area must be placed immediately behind the step line. The remainder should lie between 0-5 and 1-beam lengths aft of the step line. The ventilating ducts should extend from the keel to a position 0.8 of the half-beam width on either side of the keel.

(d) The step-line junction between forebody and afterbody must be kept sharp.

(e) For forebody/afterbody angular breaks of less than 10 deg, a ventilating area of more than 0.08(beam) ~ may be necessary.

No. Author

1 A.G. Smith and J. E. Allen . . . .

2 I). I. T. P. Llewelyn-Davies . . . .

3 G . J . Evans, A. G. Smith, R. A. Shaw and W. Morris.

4 G . J . Evans and R. A. Shaw . . . .

5 J . A . Hamilton . . . . . . . .

6 J .A . Hamilton . . . . . . . .

7 J . W . McIvor . . . . . .

8 J .M. Riebe and R. L. Naeseth

REFERENCES

Tit le, etc.

Water and air performance of seaplane hulls as affected by fairing and fineness ratio. R. & M. 2896. August, 1950.

Tank tests on a hull with the main step faired in plan-form and elevation. R. & M. 2708. May, 1945.

Water performance of Sunderland I~.4774 with step fairing. R. & M. 2868. April, 1941.

Water performance of Sunderland K.4774 with a 1 : 6 step fairing. R. & 3/[. 2868. April, 1941.

An investigation into the effect of forced and natural afterbody ventilation on the hydrodynamic characteristics of a small flying boat (Saro a7) with a 1 : 15 fairing over the main step. R. & M. 2463. ]December, 1946.

An investigation into the effect of forced and natura l afterbody ventilation on the hydrodynamic characteristics of a small flying boat (Saro 37) wKh a 1 : 20 fairing over the main step. R. & 3/[. 2714. November, 1947.

Full-scale measurements of impact loads on a large flying boat. Part I. Description of apparatus and instrument installation. C.P. 182. March, 1950.

]Effect of aerodynamic refinement on the aerodynamic characteristics of a flying-boat hull. Report No. N.A.C.A. Tech. Note 1307. ~Tune, 1947.

12

T A B L E 1

Sunderland Mk. 5

Data

Hull B e a m (max.) . . . . . .

L e n g t h . . . . . . . .

L e n g t h : b e a m ra t io . . . .

F o r e b o d y l e n g t h . . . .

A f t e r b o d y l e n g t h . . . .

U n f a i r e d s tep d e p t h . . . .

F o r e b o d y kee l - -hu l l d a t u m angle . .

Heel-heel angle . . . . . .

Fo rebody k e e l - - a f t e r b o d y keel angle . .

Mean f o r e b o d y - - a f t e r b o d y angular b reak at s tep

F o r e b o d y deadr i se a t s tep . . . . . .

Main-step fair ing ra t io . . . . . .

Wings Area (gross) . . . . . . . . . .

Span . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incidence to hull d a t u m . . . . . .

Section . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fla])s T y p e . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area . . . . . . . . . . . .

Angle 1/3 ou t . . . . . . . . . .

2 /3 ou t . . . . . . . . . .

Tailplane A r e a ( including elevators) . . . . . .

E l e v a t o r a r e a ( including tabs) . . . .

E l e v a t o r m o v e m e n t . . . . . . . .

. • o

• o

m 0

Q O

. o

J

• •

E~gines

• °

• •

o •

• •

• •

• . 9 . 7 9 I t

. . 6 2 - 1 2 I t

6 . 3 5

3 2 . 9 4 f t

2 9 . 1 8 f t

0 - 7 4 I t

3 deg

9 . 3 deg

7 . 5 deg

12 deg

26 deg

1 7 : 1

• • • • • . 1 , 6 8 7 s q f t

. . 1 1 2 . 8 I t

• . 6 . 1 5 deg

• . G S t t i n g e n 436 m o d i f i e d

• •

4 m

• o

•. Gouge

• . 286 sq f t

. . 8 deg

. . 16 deg

• . 205 sq i t

. . 8 4 . 5 s q f t

. . 16-5 deg up and down

4 P r a t t a n d W h i t n e y T w i n W a s p R . 1 8 3 0 - 9 0 B g iv ing 1,200 b.h.p, a t 2,700 r .p .m, and + 9 lb / sq in. boos t for sea- level take-off•

Loading At 50,000 lb weight

C.G. ' n o r m a l ' is 3 .02 f t f o rwa rd of m a i n s tep a t keel, para l le l to hul l d a t u m line.

C.G. ' af t ' is 2 . 5 3 I t f o rward of m a i n s tep a t keel, para l le l to hul l d a t u m line.

C~0 = 0 " 8 3 3 .

At 60,000 lb weight C.G. is a t 2-81 f t f o rward of m a i n s tep a t keel, para l le l to hu l l d a t u m line.

C~ o = 1 " 0 0 .

1 3

(2sss) B

FIG. 1.

S C A L E OF F E E T

I l l I l f I ~ I |

-'3 0 5 I 0 15 2 0

Sunderland with venti lated step fairing. Fairing ratio 17 : 1.

i i r '~; ........ .'"'i

. . . . : "; ' - " - . v - . :

I l lA I I I l~ ' l~ ( ; I I A F l r K I ~ I * • I I , I ~ A I I U[* S T R P

P

i

Fw,. 2. Extreme fairing with all aft and forward inner vents sealed.

15

/

POINT OF 53"EP. -

FR

STANDARD S U N D E R L A N D FAIRII4t~

1 I ._1 . ,

ZI ~?~ ~5 2E~ 2 g "29

DATUM.

2 9 L 2 -19 j'

REAR $.'r IEP

FRAME No

21.

22 23

24-

25 26

27

28 2 9

DIST# AFTOF KEEL HEIGHT CBINE HEIGHT b-'TE'P POINT. ABOVE DATUM. ABOVE DATUM

0 ' 19 " I .37 BELOW :30 " 2 0 "

CHINE HALF DREAOTH.

5 3 - 8 9 " 2 0 " 6 9 " 2 "IO"AI~W}VE -~2" 7 0 " 5 2 " 2 3 "

41 - 19" E.~IJB" 36" -00" 5 0 " 2 7 "

61 • 6 9 " 6 . 6 7 " .. 3 7 . 0 5 " 4 8 - E2"

8 2 - 19" 11 -~,5" - 3 8 " 7 5 " 4 5 . T E " IO2 - 6 9 " 14 • 3 5 " - 4 o . 15"

I~_~J • 19" t 6 . 8 ~ " - 41 - 3 o "

143 . 6 9 " 19.2~;" - 4 - 2 . 2 5 "

| b 4 ' I ~ " 2i • 52" 4 :3-10"

4 3 ' 95 •

4"0 ' 5 7 •

37" 79"

3 4 " 8 5 "

e ° ~,T KEEL .12. ~f ° (~o .ilk"," C }4 iN ,E. I1 .0 =~,

FOREBODY SHEETING. A F T E R B O O Y ,~'HEETING. \

" ~ " . / X--~--_~

SECTION t THRO ~ STEP B L O C K .

~ . . - - ~ - - - . ~-~.___.~ .= . ~

~ - ' ~ - - - - - ~ - - ~

FIG. 3. Details of 17 : 1 step fairing.

il I I ' i

I I

H A L F SECTION

A F T DUCTS

i

(i' i i ::e t . . . . . . . I " _ ~ ' - I

i I tl ,ll ( , ! I . I i

t i t H 4 , l , t

~' r HALF S E C ' n O V t

FORWARD . D U C T S

FIG. 4. Ventilating duct installation.

16

'---1

CONFIGURATION SYMBOL

STEP LINE SHARP

ALL VENTS OPEN

FORWARD OUTER VENTS SEALED

AFT VENTS SEALED

ALL AFT AND FORWARD INNER VENTS SEALED

ALL VENTS SEALED

STEP LINE ROUNDED

ALL VENTS OPEN

FORWARD VENT AREA HALVED

AFT OUTER VENTS SEALED

AFT INNER VENTS SEALED

ALL AFT VENTS SEALED

FIG. 6. Summary of ventilation configurations tested.

('P

U)

E" o q

3

pl -o r-R--

/ -~ - /~-~ - - ~ "

i O

i /

o o; . . . . . . ] . . . . . . 7

Q A

E) C

oo eO~ L__.J

Q G

® E o K

e H r . . . . ; L _ _ _ ~ J

e ~ e'.' F . . . . I e- L___.J

E) M

P I C K - UP P O S I T I O N A B C

D ISTANCE FROM STEP. I N S . 5 25 25

D I S T A N C E F R O M KEEl,,, INS . 3 4 4 4 26

Fm. 7.

D E P G H

25 4 5 4 5 65 65

IO 31 9 4 I 23

Pressure pick-up positions.

J K L 1~4 N 0

65 tO8 I08 138 281 L3

8 32 9 8 8 9

GO 12

]0

0

uJ

I-

"~6

l} "I" STABLE

+ +

o \ ~ I - ' < - . o °

+

o '*+ . [ . . .

(~ PORPOISING AMPLITUDE ~ 20 ",I-

(D PORPOISING AMPLITUDE "¢ 2 ° ÷

[ ] SKIP INCIPIENT ..%K IP

I 0 20 30 40 50 WATER SPEED-KNOTS

FIG. 8. Take-o~ stability. Step sharp.

,IC o Ld (3

mg t~

t p. v-

< 6

<

4

III///111 2

60 70 0 I0

All vents open. FIG. 9. N o t e . i l n all Figures ,2 is the elevator angle.

PORPOISING ('AMI'LITUDE 2°-"3°.) MAY OCCUR AFTER TOUCHDOWN

20 30 40 50 WATER SPEED-KNOTS

Landing stability. Step sharp.

c~

I2

IO

d uJ

m ~ o

F-

I.- I - ,,( b

~ 4

J L~ L~

2

O

12

L~ ~ B

) - b

D ~4 Q

uJ 2

L " ' ' ' " ~ V@, REGION

I + I I ~ ! . . . .

+ STABLE ' I ] ~ " +

PORPOIS ING AMPLITUDE ~ a@ J ~ + +

_ ~ 7~:o,s,No ~ , T ~ ~ l E~ INCIPIENT SKIP

IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 SO 6 0 7 0 BO WATER SPEED- K N O T S

FIG. 10. Take-off stability. Step sharp. Forward outer vents sealed.

+

.4.

10 2 0 3 0 4 0 SO (:,0 WATER S P E E D - K N O T S

+ 4-

~e

FIG. 11. Landing stability. Step sharp. Forward outer vents sealed.

+

4.-e [ ]

7 0 8 0

uJ Q

k-

2

+ STABLE

O PORPOISING A M P L I T U D E ~ 2 °

~) PORPOIS ING A M P L I T U O E < 2 ° F:l S K I P

INCIPIEN7 SKIP

i [ ] m

"~" ,'1; ,pR~l FLYING

4-4. + . ~ - - , ; + ' - - - - + - - 2 - - - - ÷ - - ' ~ " -"~- /

%. "--4-.

kS+ .

. C.

IO 20 30 40 50 60 WATER SPEED-KNO TS

FIG. 12. Take-off stability. Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

70 80

~2

F- 6 I -

Q

M

2

O

[ ]

@--

IO 20 313 4 0 5Q 6 0 7 0 BO WATER S P E E D - K N O T S

FIG. 13. Landing stability. Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

b3

12

tO

h-

IQ

d gB

t ¢ , [ ] '

-;+ . /~ : - " ' , , . t +~ m_",~ [] x,',. / " ~. + ~ ~ I X6',

STABLE

(L) PORPOIS[NG AMPLITUDE >." 2 °

(~ PORPOISING AMPLITUDE ~ O--° +

- - r;1 SKiP

I N C I P I E N T SKIP

I tO 2 0 3 0 4 0 gO 6 0

WATER SPEED - K N O T S

FIG, 14. Take-off stability. Step sharp. All aft and forward inner vents sealed.

v-

~ 4 ¢3

W

2

7 0 •O

MODERATE TO

SEVERE S K I P P I N G

S T A B L E

L _ ~

+

O IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 WATER S P E E D - - K N O T S

FIG. 15. Landing stability. Step sharp. All aft and forward inner vents sealed.

IO

o

3

V- 6

~ 4 o

\

+

=b S T A B L E ( ~ P O R P O I S I N G A M P L I T U D E >i 2 °

_ _ (~ pORPOtSING A M P L I T U D E ,C ~o

[ ] SKIP

[ ] INCIPIENT SKIP

I 0 2 0 3 0 ~-0 WATER ~PEED

FIG. 16. Take-off stability. All vents sealed.

5 0 6 0 KNOTS

Step sharp.

LIMIT OF TESTS

V I O L E N T

S K I P P I N G

L I M I T OF TESTS

[ ]

tO 2 0

FIG. 17.

3 0 4 0 5O 6 0 WATER SPEED KNOTS

Landing stability. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

FLYING

REGION

/

, 4 - +

7 0 e,u

7 0 .~O

T~ o~

bO

IO

6

'F-

4

d a

4

+ STABLE

(~PORPOISING AMPLITUDE ~ ~ "

__ (~PORPOISING AMPLITUDE ~ ;~e

121 SKIn

' B INCIP IENT 5K{P

IO 2 0 3O 4 0 5 0 6 0 WATER SPEED- K N O T S

FIG. 18. Take-off stability. Step rounded. All vents open.

70 BO

MILD P O R P O I S I N G

A F T E R T O U C H D O W N

SKIPPING

OCCASIONALLY SEVERE

r ¢ @

6) +

+ e @ @

LO 2Q

FIG. 19.

3 0 4 0 SO 60 WATER SPEED -- K N O T S

Landing stability. Step rotmded. All vents open.

70 '80

o

~8

"s 6 D

w 4 - - ~ " E

IC

c~

~s D p-

6

,~4

~g ~ + O

/ + t . ~ ~. r ~ = o o x

+ S T A B L E

O )ORPOISING A M P L I T U D E > / 2 °

• PORPOiS ING A M P L I T U D E < 2 ° [] SKiP [ ] I N C I P I E N T SKIP

I0 20 30 40 50 60 WATER SPEED K N O T S

FIG. 20. Take-off stability. Step rounded. Forward vent area halved.

70- 5 0

IO 2 0

F I G . 2 1 .

P O R P O I S [ N G

A F T E R T O U C H - D O W N I

MODERATE TO,

SEVERE SKIPPING

30 40 50 60 WATER SPEED KNOTS

Landing stability. Step rounded. Forward vent area halved.

0

[]

OO4-

70 8 0

[',3

I0

IO

r,

uJ

2

-I- STABLE

Q PORPOISiNG AMPLITUDE ~ 2 °

PORPOISING AMPLITUOE < 2 °

_ ~ SKiP

INCIPIENT SKIP

0 I0 2 0

FIG. 22.

®

30 4 0 50 6 0 7 0 60 WATER SPEED -- KNOTS

Take-off stability. Step rounded. Aft outer vents sealed.

SEVERE PORPOIS1NG

AFTER TOUCHDOWN

r

L STABLE C

BUT NOSE RISES

SEVERE. SKIPPING

°1 ®

+

®

( ~ - - +

.4- ®

® ® ® +

® +

I 0 2O

FIG. 23.

3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 WATER SPEED-- KNOTS

Landing stability. Step rounded. Aft outer vents sealed.

7 0 8 0

12

IO

Q ~

D i-

~6

O 4

12

"t" + B ~ c

- ~ . m

\ •

+ STABLE

~) PORPOI~;ING AMPLITUDE ~ 2 °

PORPOISING AMPLITUDE -C 2 °

Strip

[ ] INC IP IENT ]KIP

~O 2 0 30 WATER

FIG. 24.

4 0 5 0 6o 7 0 SPEED - - KNOTS

Take-off stability• Step romlded. All aft vents sealed.

~O

=o o

v- v- ,(

6

D

o

==

SKIPPING AND

PORPOISING OVER

RANGE TEe'rED

I

IO 2 0

FIG. 25.

30 4 0 5 0 60 WATE. S~EED - KNOTS

Landing stability. Step rounded. All aft vents sealed.

FLYING REGION

/

g O

B

7 0 6 0

cD

I

O IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 SO 6 0 7 0 BO WATER SPEED -- KNOTS

FIG. 26. Take-off stability. Standard Sunderland Mk. 5.

IO

o

[ ]

+

4-+ 4 - +

IO

FIG. 27.

2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 WATER SPEED - - R N O T $

Landing stability. Standard Sunderland Mk. 5.

[O

L9 8

c~ 4

2

12

IO

, 8

4

_ _ _ _ ~ , t = -,o°

. "~ = 0 0

"1~ : + I t ° I

r L :+~60 i

I0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 60 7 0 8 0

WATER SPEED - - KNOTS,

FIG. 28. Take-off Trim. Step sharp. All vents open.

• rL . ÷ 8 °

O IO 2 0

FIG. 29. Take-off trim.

3 0 4 0 SO 6 0 7 0 8 0

WATER SPEED ~ KNOTS.

Step sharp. Forward outer vents sealed.

L'-O

I0

o

w o

6-

o

m

w ~ 4

w

3

o

m w w

/ '~= _15 °

g

\ ,.r-i = 0 o

~ = e 4 °

= + 8 °

IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 WATER S P E E D - K N O T S

FIG. 30. Take-off trim. Step sharp.

60 70

All aft vents sealed.

8 0

_ 1 5 °

_ I 0 °

/ ~ = - 5 °

~ . ~ ~

. ~'~=0 o

IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 WATER S P E E D - K N O T S

6 0 70 8 o

FIG. 31. Take-off trim. Step sharp. All aft and forward inner vents sealed.

. I o

(3

~8 l -

~6

J

t / f ~

f

~ . , . . ~ , , ~ . r ~ = _ 5 °

~ - ~ = o °

IO

FIG. 32.

2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 WATER S P E E D - KNOTS

Take-off trim. Step sharp.

6 0 70

All vents sealed.

8 0

I C

P

56

_i

~4

/

I o 2 0 3 0 WATER

FIG. 33. Take-off trim.

J

4 0 5 0 S P E E D - K N O T S

Step rounded.

R = + 5 ° %

'1~ = -I 12 ~

6 0 7 0 ~ 0

All vents open.

bO

~ 1 0

~4

0

FIG. 34.

~ ~ f -22-'5° -~= -[o°! / /

r ~ = 0 °

I 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 SO 6 0 7 0 8 0 WATER S P E E D - K N O T S

Take-off trim. Step rounded. Forward vent area halved.

l -

,0

4 J

-7 ? = - ~

,~= o"

~' /=+ I a

,o to 2 0 s o ,40 5 0 6 0 TO 8 0 W ~ T E R s p E ~ - K , ~ r s

FIG. 35. Take-off trim. Step rounded. Aft outer vents sealed.

Q

"I'12 ° ~_.

:o l - g .J t a 4 ~J

12

IC

Q

~ 8

~ = o o

W A T E ~ S = ~ D - K N O T S

FIG. 36. Take-off trim. Step rounded. All aft vents sealed.

~ 6

IO

FIG. 37.

20

-....

W E I G H T 5 0 , 0 0 0 LB .

I I L 30 4 0 50 60 70

WATER SPEED-KNOTS

Take-off trim.

- - iO °

~ = - s °

r~ . 0 °

= -t-3 ° "

Standard Sunderland Mk. 5.

~,O

t~3 G~

=20

8 0

4 0

0

120 I~

8 0 o 8

,n uJ

0 4 0 ~ 4

p-

uJ O ' < C to

(~ 120 l ;

uJ o

A O .4

0 C

] 2 0 I~

/ f J

, ~ \ , ,

A ALL VENTS OPEN

v/-/ ATTfTUDE

B AFT

f ~

V E N T S SEALED

I SLtG~

. ~ . ~ ~ SPEED

I J

J

C A L L AFT AND FOR'D INNER VENTS SEALED

. 8 0

-40 4

o c

FIG. 38.

/ / ~ _ _ ATT|~ ODE

I SEVE 1 4 S K I P , - -

~ " ~ SPEED

8 12 {6 2 0 2 4 TIME FROM THROTTLE OPENING SECONDS

D A L L V E N T S SEALED

2e~ 32

The effect of ventilating area on take-off stability, Step sharp. Elevator angle - - 5 °.

o

uJ 8

o

41

c~ 0

P

<

8

4

<

Q O

J uJ

l ~ - . J f

~ 7

A TOUCH-DOWN S P E E D 6 7 K N O T S ALL VENTS OPEN

f J

B TOUCH-DOWN SPEED 6 8 KNOTS ALL AFT VENTS SEALED

JI---SKIP~I --EK,PJ " ~

V

~ L L AFT AND FORWARD C TOUCH-DOWN SPEED66 KNOTS INNER VENTS SEALED

2 4 6 8 IO 12 T I M E FROM FIRST TOUCH-DOWN SECONDS

D T O U C H ' D O W N SPEED 63 KNOTS ALL VENTS SEALED

FIG. 39. The effect of ventilating area on landing stability. Step sharp.

16

, .J

J 2 0 I~

Bo e

4 0 4

0 0

] 2 0 ~ 1 2

m 0 ~ ' 8 0 3 8 0 p. z

! - <

4 0 ~ - ~ uJ

p- 0 " ( 0

O ~,J 1.- 4 J

, ~ 120tAi l2

. 8 0 8

4 0 4

D 0

FIG. 40.

C

/

A STEP SHARP " A L L VENTS OPEN

ATTITUDE

I

f J

f

f ~ ATTITUDE P , A

SPEED

B STEP ROUNDED ALL VENTS O P E N

f

. - f - - - X / ~ /X /~ A TT' v VL Z

~B t 2 16 2 0 24"

T IME FROM THROTTLE OPENING SECONDS

C STEP ROUNDED ALL AFT VENTS SEALED

ZB

The effect of step rounding on take-off stability. Elevator angle + 8 °.

3 2

L~

w

(3

16 L~

(3

_ 12

p.

i.- <

&

4

J /

A TOUCH-DOWN SPEED74KNOTS STEP SHARP ALL VENTS OPEN

I 6

w

t

8

/ J

B .TOUCH-DOWN SPEED77 KNOTS STEP ROUNDED ALL VENTS OPEN

I,~ BOUNCE PORPOISE ]

0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 T I M E F R O M F I R S T T O U C H - D O W N S E C O N D S

C T O U C H - D O W N ,SPEED 7 7 K N O T S STEP ROUNDED ALL AFT VENTS SEALED

FIG. 41. The effect of step rounding on landing stability.

Fb3 ~00

%

w J

u <

Z

1-

3

~o o

w U

O.ZO

0 ,15

0 , 1 0

0.0. ~

ALL VEN~.S, OPEN ~. ~ . . . . ,'/ ALL VENTS SEALED .... ~ t ~ - - ALL AFT VENTS SEALED . . . . ~ " STEP ROUNDED ALL VENTS O P E N ~ . - - , . - -

FIG. 42.

10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 & O

W A T E R S P E E D - - K N O T S

( ELEVATOR C E N T R A L )

The effect of planing-bot tom modifications on longitudinal acceleration during take-off.

0"2C

0 - ] 5

0.I0

0-05

FIG. 43.

ALL VENTS OPEN

ALL VENTS SEALED . . . . . ~ / i ' ~ . , ~ _~UN STABLE ALL AFT VENTS SEAL ED . . . . . STEP ROUNDED ALL VENTS O P E N - - . - - . - - ,

IO 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 8 0 7 0 8 0

W A T E R S P E E D - K N O T S

( ELEVATOR ANGLE - I O ° )

The effect of planing-bot tom modifications on longitudinal acceleration during take-o•

0"2C

Z _o o.t-~

~ O.lO

Z g

0 . 0 5 ~9

§

FIG. 44.

O'20

0"15

~) OdD

_z

O-OS

§

FIG. 45.

I I I STANDARD SUNDERLAND.

17 : I FAIRING ALLVENTS OPEi~

I

io 20 30 40 so 6o 70 ~ 80

WATER SPEED KNOTS,

(ELEVATOR CENTRAL)

The effect of a 17 : 1 ventilated fairing on longitudinal acceleration during take-off.

% i I

- - STANDARD SUNDERLAND.

17;I FAIRING ALL VENTS OPEN.

I - - - - X . ~ J

I O ~.o I -. 3 0 4 O 5 0 6 0 "70

WATER SPEED ~NO~S.

(ELEV~TO. ANGLE-S°)

The effect of a 17 : 1 venti lated fairing Oil longitudinal acceleration during take-off.

tO r.O

i [TT

U

PICK'UP 'B"

IS 25 m(~-5 TIME - SECONDS.

S o_

0 0 15

z~_ s O

!2 ol ~o-5 w

- 5

~ 3 ~ v ~ ~

PICK..-UP 'O" i !

35 25 -x / TIME -SECONDS.

25

PICK --UP 'E"

TIME - SECONDS.

45 47

• , ! i i ,

T'ME-SeCONDS. ~ 5 = ~ ~

PL,%NENG, HEAVE* SKIP. EMPACT.'SKIP. IMPACT. SKIP. IMPACT. AIRBOP.NE.

PICK-UP POSITIONS.

FIG. 46a. Afterbody pressure variation during take-off. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

- 5

U "Z

8o ~ - -

0 15 17 Ig 2J 23 25 27 29 3] 33 35

TIME FROM THROTTLE OPENING - - SECONDS.

is I 15

a~- 5

P I C K - U P ' G '

25

TIME - - SECONDS.

P ICK-UP 'H*

25

iSl I ° i s 25

2S

TIME - - SECONDS.

37 3 9

~,A A A 35 - - -'V"~--LF

3s-- U ",J

PICK--UP

35

TIME -- SECONDS,

PICK-UP "N"

T I M E - SECONDS.

F

i

35 - _ S

PLANING." [ HEAVE. SKIP. " IIMPAC-TJiKII; II~PACT. I

A k/i-

4q 51

03 C~

SK,P. : Ii Mr'*c'~'r.- ~R~::~

PICK-UP POSITIONS.

FIG. 46b. Afterbody pressure variation during take-off. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

r~ 2

te .a t~

<

"s

g

~.,- [ o. ~ i

8 8 0 m ~

2.5 °!I w -

o~ 2

ul

~2"' I o o

J -2,5

- s L

2,5

Q

- 2 ° 5

- S

A~T'+UO'/V HEAVE --

4 6 I0 TIME l- SECONC l

' PICK- UP IA*

~ 5 O~ 15

}/ + O' i ii PICK-UP 'B t

5 15

"rIME -- SECONDS

: I PICK-UP IDI

15

TIME SECOND I

Jrl /~ PiCK-UP let

~ L - - - ! , ~ ~ '

: i ~ V PICK-UP iF/

L_... ! ~ , . - - - " ~ - - ' s IS

TIME -- SECONOS

~ ° + ° ° +

12 14 16

~S

w~

. _8o ~.___

~ 4 . _ _ _ J a: tu w

"~oO t i - 2 , 5 ~

- 5

2.s r m

= ol +1 -2- 5

g - s L

i~" l

u~

-~

-SKIP 1 H EAVE = ~ i ~

14 16

PICK-UP *G w

P I C K-U P~'H ~

r j ,

p I c K-UP WN ~

t 5

,4- 6 '8 I0 L2 p '7-" +'Mi /~-sEc°"°l'~ ,:

TIME. -- SECOIND$

u. Z U ~ ~ 0

15

TIME r -- SECONDS (

i L I PICK-UP

'---._3 v 5 IO 15 TIMI -- SECONDS

I

- - v I i v s j lo

TIME -- SECOjNDS

PICK--UP POSITIONS

FIG. 47. Afterbody pressure variation during landing. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

I .~ la i

0

o

- 3

- 4

1" - 5 U T

ILl m 4 2 3

0 0. ~3 (3 -1 Z 5 O -'2 0..

J -4 '

I.u

0

- 2

I W A T E R ~PE, E D ~}~1- K N O T ~ . ~

t 2

T I M E - ~ C O N D S

- . 4

1 - - 7 " - ' - " " .

,Ll'}l I i

V

2

T I M E - g E C O N 0 5

P ~ E S S k I R E PICK-UP POSITIOH..~

P I C K - U P

N - -

0 - - + - - ÷ - - F" - - a - - O - -

PICK-UP

A --+--e--

E --0--0--

H - -

P I C K - U P

CT - - o - - o - -

l~IC. 48. A typical pressure wave during take-off. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

] : 0 Z

h~

< D

o(

Z 23 0

i

n,

T O U C H - D O W N ~ P E E D 6 5 K N O T S

T I M E F R O M F I R S T T O U C H - D O W N - S E C O N D S

ii 2

t

-1

-2

-5

o i i"

PICK-UP N

l P I C K - U P !!t"] a F'%,~ ,s - + - + -

---_

TI ME - S E C O N D 5

P R E S S U R E PICK-UP POSITIONS

FIG. 49. A typical pressure wave during landing. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

C~ C~

(..n io

o ~

W A T E R ' S P E E D 5 ~ H NO1"~5.

2

t

0

- I

- '2

5

2

O

1

T I M E - 5 E C O N C ' S

I 20 P . E , I

o...-~jo t

2

T~ME - 5EC O ~ E ) 5

I I I

I I 1 I

P I C K - U P

N

0

P I C K - U P

G

F --~ - -@--

L - - o - - o - - 0" - - + - - + - -

P ICK-UP

A C - - O ~ O - -

E - -m - - ~ - -

H - - ' ~ - - ¢ - -

P R E S S U R E P I C K - L I P PO~ITION~

FIG, 50. A typical pressure wave during take-of£ Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

3 P~

UJ ~C 'i! .ii 5

.il

T 0 U C H - D O W N ~ P E E D ~ 8 K N O T 5

/ ,TO U C H - D O W N

t

T I M E - S E C O N D S

PICK- U P

D - -

F - - o - - o - -

G -- t ~ ÷ - - 3 -- ~ - - ~ - -

P I C K - U P

I I J P'?°~

4

kl - - o - - 0 ~ -

2

TIME - SECONDS

PR£551JI;~E P I C K - U P P O S I T I O N S

FIG. 51. A typical pressure wave during landing . Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

A~t" IvY.IN , ~ r M6,1~d AFT k~.l~ A[~T NI/~,IN A~'I" MAtN A~e~ "

STe~ ~31"~ P STEP S'rl~ P ~ E P STI~I~ ~,?E~ STEP -~TEP $'~£P 14~, OFF 0~'~ O~ ON O~F 01~I¢ ON ON 0 ~ O~r ON

i r J WATI[I~ SPE[I~ 5e KNOTS I ~

m

I I i ' * . . . . ' /

l :. J i J l I 2 2 : l l _/ J fl -4]ll,f:J ILZI . . . . . .:,.12 I J, J:l-I ~ - 4 i rl:l;112[.i t I I I ! !.L,I H - ~ . L " 1 I Ill I I~'1¢- ~ iti2iiG#i I I LJet+

2;~-I •p~f ~ ~ i ii~:i i2TZ] Tr - "T-M~~ ,~- Zf 1 I 1 ~ ~ ~ ' i : i 1 : ~ ' ~ : . ~ ~ A L , ~- ];r I t, I I1 1,0T,24211,: I , tCCETTTIq - I ' 1-],~,t'L'M;I ,~FFt"

~ C C T F i ? ; I : I ,jLL I I ! I,l J/LJ i ~ C . -

FIG. 52. A typical record of skipping at constant speed. Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

WATER SPEED 54. KNOTS

K E E L A T T I T U D E 8 DEG. " .

~',

ALL PRESSURES IN R O U N D S / S Q . JN, NEG. BELOW ATMOSPHERIC

FIG. 53. Afterbody-pressure distribution during a take-off sldp. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

WATER SPEED 6 0 KNOTS

,, KEEL ATTITUDE 8 bEG,

ALL PRESSURES IN POUNDS/SGb IN NEG, BELbW ATMOSPHERIC

FIG. 54. Afterbody pressure distribution during a landing skip. Step sharp. All vents sealed.

34

WATER SPEE0 56 KNOT~.

V' , KEEL ATTITUDE 9 DEG

ALL PRESSURES IN POUNDS/SO. IN. NEG. BELOW ATMOSPHERIC

FIG. 55. Afterbody pressure distribution during a take-off skip. Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

WATER SPEED 67 KNOTS KEEL ATTITUDE 9 DEC.=.

ALL PRESSURES POUNDSJ SO. IN. NEG, BELOW ATMOSPHERIC

FIG. 56. Afterbody pressure distribution during a borderline landing. Step sharp. All aft vents sealed.

AFTERBODY .FOREBODYANGLES AT STEP

22030 , STANDARD

I 17 t t 12°

FULL 9=

/

°

FIG. 57. Comparison of fairings on Sunderland afterbody.

35

0"0054

0.0050 < ~d

<

tO ~ O*OO4'6 a:

0"0042 13 W

El I-- Z 0 .0038

u. LL

O (.9 0"0034 <

(D

0 kU

O,OO3C

0-00;'6

C . A , T . BASIC HULL FAIRED CHINES C . A , T . BASIC HULL NORMAL CHINES

%..

~ STEP " ~ . FAIRI NG

I'

NORMAL STEP

%

"~',. ~ . CONCAV E 6:1

~'~ ' ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ - PLAN FORM "~ "~ "~ . ~ ~ ~ ONLY

_ _ - - - _ p L A N A ~

STRAIGH 9:1

l FOR C.A.T. HOLLS ,S , -~0 <PLA~ FORM)

*HERE eo o ~ E ~ , ~ L~NOTH

2 3 4 6 8 ~O 15 20 30 40 REYNOLDS NUMBER

BASIC FUSELAGE WITH TURNED UP TAI L

BASIC FUSELAGE: CIRCULAR CROSS SECTION: UPTURNED TAIL: CABIN

NORMAL STEP= UNFAIRED PLAN AND ELEVATION

CONCAVE FAIRING (C f . SUNDERLAND)

pLAN FORM FAIRING

f

PLAN AND ELEVATION FAIRING

STRAIGHT FAIR|NO

FIG. 58.

CSTREAMLINE)

Effect of various step Iairings on hull air drag. N . P i . C.A.T. Tests. A.R.C. 7784.

(2655} Wt. 18/9296 I<.8 2/56 Hw.

36 PKINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

R. & M. No. 2899

Publications of Aeronautical Research

the Council

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORTS OF THE AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (BOUND VOLUMES)

I938 Vol. I. Aerodynamics General, Performance, Air, crews Sos. (5IS. 2d.) Vol. Ii. Stability and Control, Flutter, Structures, Seaplanes, Wind Tunnels, Materials. 3os.

(3Is. 2d.)

I939 Vol. I. Aerodynamics General, Performance, Airscrews, Engines. 5ox. (5IS. 2g.) Vol. II. Stability and Control, Flutter and Vibration, Instruments, Structures, Seaplanes, etc.

63 s. (64s. 2d.)

r94.o Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews, Engines, Flutter, Icing, Stability and Control, Structures, and a miscellaneous section. 5ox. (51x. 2d.)

194I Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerol%ils, Airscrews. Engines, Flutter, Stability and Control, Structures. 63s. (64s. 2d.)

r942 Vol. 1. Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils; Airscrews, Engines. 75 s. (76s. 3d.) Vol. ]I. Noise, Parachutes, Stability and Control, Structures, Vibration, Wind Tunnels.

47 f. 6d. (48s. 8d.)

~943 Vol. 1. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews. 8os. (8IS. 4d.) Vol. II Engines, Flutter, Materials, Parachutes, Performance, Stability and Control, Structures.

9 °s- (9Is- 6d.)

194.4 Vol. I. Aero and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Aircraft, Airscrews, Controls. 84s. (85s. 8d.) Vol. II. Flutter and Vibration, Materials,. Miscellaneous, Navigation, Parachutes, Performance,

Plates and Panels, Stability. Structures, Test Equipment, Wind Tunnels. 84s. (85s. 8d.)

Annua~ Reports of the Aeronautical Research Counci l - - 1933-34 IS. 6d. (IS. 8d.) I937 2s. (2s. 2d.) " 1934-35 IS. 6d. (Is. 8d.) I938 Is. 6d. (is. 8d.)

April ~, I935 to Dec. 3 I, I936 4_r. (4 s. 4d.) 1939-48 3s. (3x. 2d.)

l[ndex to a~ Reports and l~emoranda published in the Annual ~eehn~eal Reports; and separately -~--

April. I9~o R. & M. No. 2600 2s. 6d. (2s. 7½d.)

Author Index ~o all Reports and Memoranda of the Aeronautical ~teseareh C e u n c i l ~

19o9-January, 1954. R. & M. No. 2570 ISS. (ISS. 4d.)

Indexes to the Teelmieal:Reports of the Aeronautical Research Council--

December I, I 9 3 6 - June 3 o, 1939 July i, i939 - - J u n e 30, I945 July I, I945 - - J u n e 30, 1946 July I, I946 - - December 3 I, I946 January I, 1947 --June 3 o, 1947 R. & M. No. :225o

Pubfis~ed Reports and Memoranda of the Council--

Between Nos. 2251-2349 R. & M. No. 23~o Between Nos. 2351-24-49 R. & M. No. 2450 Between Nos. 2451-254-9 E. & M. No. 2550 Between Nos. 2551-2649 R. & M. No. 2650

R. & M. No. 185o R. & M. No. 195o R. & M. No. 2050 R. & M. No, 215o

zs. 3d. (zs. ¢½d./ is. (is. 1½~.) ~s. (ix. i~t.) Is. 3 d. (15. 4-}d.) Is. 3d. (IX. 4½d-)

Aeronautical ~esearch

xs. 9d. (IJ'. IO½a'.) 2x. (2x. I½~.) 2s. 6d. (2s. 7½d.) 2s. 6d. (2s. 7}d.)

Prices in ~rackets iudude postage

H E R M A J E S T Y ' S S T A T I O N E R Y O F F I C E York House, Kingsway, London W.C.2 ~ 423 Oxford Street, London W. t (Post Orders : P.O. Box 569, London S.E. x), t 3 aCastte Street, Edinburgh 2 ~ 39 King Street: Manchester z~ z Edmund Street, Birmingham 3:I°9 St. Mary

Street, Cardiff~ Tower Lane, Bristol, t ; 80 Chichester Street, Belfast. or through any bookseller

S.O, Code ~o. 23-2899

R. & M. No. 289