Transonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 45 deg Swept Wing Fuselage Model with a Finned and Unfinned Body Pylon Mounted Beneath the Fuselage or Wing, Including Measurements of Body Loads

An investigation of a model of a standard size body in combination with a representative 45 deg swept-wing-fuselage model has been conducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel over a Mach number range from 0.80 to 1.43. The body, with a fineness ratio of 8.5, was tested with and without fins, and was pylon-mounted beneath the fuselage or wing. Force measurements were obtained on the wing-fuselage model with and without the body, for an angle-of-attack range from -2 deg to approximately 12 deg and an angle-of-sideslip range from -8 deg to 8 deg. In addition, body loads were measured over the same angle-of-attack and angle-of-sideslip range. The Reynolds number for the investigation, based on the wing mean aerodynamic chord, varied from 1.85 x 10(exp 6) to 2.85 x 10(exp 6). The addition of the body beneath the fuselage or the wing increased the drag coefficient of the complete model over the Mach number range tested. On the basis of the drag increase per body, the under-fuselage position was the more favorable. Furthermore, the bodies tended to increase the lateral stability of the complete model. The variation of body loads with angle of attack for the unfinned bodies was generally small and linear over the Mach number range tested with the addition of fins causing large increases in the rates of change of normal-force coefficient and nose-down pitching-moment coefficient. The variation of body side-force coefficient with sideslip for the unfinned body beneath the fuselage was at least twice as large as the variation of this load for the unfinned body beneath the wing. The addition of fins to the body beneath either the fuselage or the wing approximately doubled the rate of change of body side-force coefficient with sideslip. Furthermore, the variation of body side-force coefficient with sideslip for the body beneath the wing was at least twice as large as the variation of this load with angle of attack.