<!-- edited with XML Spy v1.4  - http://www.xmlspy.com-->
<BUCKET ID="tp3516" PATH="http://dlib.cs.odu.edu/ltrs/populate/testout/tp3516">
	<METADATA>
		<ENTRY>09-Nov-98</ENTRY>
		<ORGANIZATION>NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA  23681-0001</ORGANIZATION>
		<LANGUAGE>English</LANGUAGE>
		<TITLE>Airfoil Modification Effects on Subsonic and Transonic Pressure Distributions and Performance for the EA-6B Airplane</TITLE>
		<AUTHOR>Dennis O. Allison,William G. Sewall</AUTHOR>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE> Technical Report</NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_TC>Unrestricted</NCSTRLPLUS_TC>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>Aeronautics/Aerodynamics</NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>
		<DATE> May 1995</DATE>
		<KEYWORD>Airfoil modifications,Pressure distributionsMaximum lift</KEYWORD>
		<ABSTRACT> Longitudinal characteristics and wing-section pressure distributions
are compared for the EA-6B airplane with and without airfoil
modifications. The airfoil modifications were designed to increase
low-speed maximum lift for maneuvering, while having a minimal effect
on transonic performance. Section contour changes were confined to the
leading-edge slat and trailing-edge flap regions of the wing.
Experimental data are analyzed from tests in the Langley 16-Foot
Transonic Tunnel on the baseline and two modified wing-fuselage
configurations with the slats and flaps in their retracted positions.
Wing modification effects on subsonic and transonic performance are
seen in wing-section pressure distributions of the various
configurations at similar lift coefficients. The modified-wing
configurations produced maximum lift coefficients which exceeded those
of the baseline configuration at low-speed Mach numbers (0.300 and
0.400). This benefit was related to the behavior of the wing upper
surface leading-edge suction peak and the behavior of the trailing-edge
pressure. At transonic Mach numbers (0.725 to 0.900), the wing
modifications produced a somewhat stronger nose-down pitching moment, a
slightly higher drag at low-lift levels, and a lower drag at higher
lift levels.</ABSTRACT>
		<PAGES>84</PAGES>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_URL>http://www.cs.odu.edu/~dlibuser/ltrs/populate/testout/tp3516</NCSTRLPLUS_URL>
	</METADATA>
	<Package ID="reports" PATH="reports">
		<METADATA>
			<ENTRY>09-Nov-98</ENTRY>
		<ORGANIZATION>NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA  23681-0001</ORGANIZATION>
		<LANGUAGE>English</LANGUAGE>
		<TITLE>Airfoil Modification Effects on Subsonic and Transonic Pressure Distributions and Performance for the EA-6B Airplane</TITLE>
		<AUTHOR>Dennis O. Allison,William G. Sewall</AUTHOR>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE> Technical Report</NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_TC>Unrestricted</NCSTRLPLUS_TC>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>Aeronautics/Aerodynamics</NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>
		<DATE> May 1995</DATE>
		<KEYWORD>Airfoil modifications,Pressure distributionsMaximum lift</KEYWORD>
		<ABSTRACT> Longitudinal characteristics and wing-section pressure distributions
are compared for the EA-6B airplane with and without airfoil
modifications. The airfoil modifications were designed to increase
low-speed maximum lift for maneuvering, while having a minimal effect
on transonic performance. Section contour changes were confined to the
leading-edge slat and trailing-edge flap regions of the wing.
Experimental data are analyzed from tests in the Langley 16-Foot
Transonic Tunnel on the baseline and two modified wing-fuselage
configurations with the slats and flaps in their retracted positions.
Wing modification effects on subsonic and transonic performance are
seen in wing-section pressure distributions of the various
configurations at similar lift coefficients. The modified-wing
configurations produced maximum lift coefficients which exceeded those
of the baseline configuration at low-speed Mach numbers (0.300 and
0.400). This benefit was related to the behavior of the wing upper
surface leading-edge suction peak and the behavior of the trailing-edge
pressure. At transonic Mach numbers (0.725 to 0.900), the wing
modifications produced a somewhat stronger nose-down pitching moment, a
slightly higher drag at low-lift levels, and a lower drag at higher
lift levels.</ABSTRACT>
		<PAGES>84</PAGES>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_URL>http://www.cs.odu.edu/~dlibuser/ltrs/populate/testout/tp3516</NCSTRLPLUS_URL>	
		</METADATA>
		<FILE ID="PDF" PATH="tp3516.pdf">
			<METADATA>
				<ENTRY>09-Nov-98</ENTRY>
		<ORGANIZATION>NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA  23681-0001</ORGANIZATION>
		<LANGUAGE>English</LANGUAGE>
		<TITLE>Airfoil Modification Effects on Subsonic and Transonic Pressure Distributions and Performance for the EA-6B Airplane</TITLE>
		<AUTHOR>Dennis O. Allison,William G. Sewall</AUTHOR>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE> Technical Report</NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_TC>Unrestricted</NCSTRLPLUS_TC>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>Aeronautics/Aerodynamics</NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>
		<DATE> May 1995</DATE>
		<KEYWORD>Airfoil modifications,Pressure distributionsMaximum lift</KEYWORD>
		<ABSTRACT> Longitudinal characteristics and wing-section pressure distributions
are compared for the EA-6B airplane with and without airfoil
modifications. The airfoil modifications were designed to increase
low-speed maximum lift for maneuvering, while having a minimal effect
on transonic performance. Section contour changes were confined to the
leading-edge slat and trailing-edge flap regions of the wing.
Experimental data are analyzed from tests in the Langley 16-Foot
Transonic Tunnel on the baseline and two modified wing-fuselage
configurations with the slats and flaps in their retracted positions.
Wing modification effects on subsonic and transonic performance are
seen in wing-section pressure distributions of the various
configurations at similar lift coefficients. The modified-wing
configurations produced maximum lift coefficients which exceeded those
of the baseline configuration at low-speed Mach numbers (0.300 and
0.400). This benefit was related to the behavior of the wing upper
surface leading-edge suction peak and the behavior of the trailing-edge
pressure. At transonic Mach numbers (0.725 to 0.900), the wing
modifications produced a somewhat stronger nose-down pitching moment, a
slightly higher drag at low-lift levels, and a lower drag at higher
lift levels.</ABSTRACT>
		<PAGES>84</PAGES>
			</METADATA>PDF format of file</FILE>
		<FILE PATH="ps.Z" ID="tp3516.ps.Z">
			<METADATA>
				<ENTRY>09-Nov-98</ENTRY>
		<ORGANIZATION>NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA  23681-0001</ORGANIZATION>
		<LANGUAGE>English</LANGUAGE>
		<TITLE>Airfoil Modification Effects on Subsonic and Transonic Pressure Distributions and Performance for the EA-6B Airplane</TITLE>
		<AUTHOR>Dennis O. Allison,William G. Sewall</AUTHOR>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE> Technical Report</NCSTRLPLUS_ARCHIVALTYPE>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_TC>Unrestricted</NCSTRLPLUS_TC>
		<NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>Aeronautics/Aerodynamics</NCSTRLPLUS_SUBJECT>
		<DATE> May 1995</DATE>
		<KEYWORD>Airfoil modifications,Pressure distributionsMaximum lift</KEYWORD>
		<ABSTRACT> Longitudinal characteristics and wing-section pressure distributions
are compared for the EA-6B airplane with and without airfoil
modifications. The airfoil modifications were designed to increase
low-speed maximum lift for maneuvering, while having a minimal effect
on transonic performance. Section contour changes were confined to the
leading-edge slat and trailing-edge flap regions of the wing.
Experimental data are analyzed from tests in the Langley 16-Foot
Transonic Tunnel on the baseline and two modified wing-fuselage
configurations with the slats and flaps in their retracted positions.
Wing modification effects on subsonic and transonic performance are
seen in wing-section pressure distributions of the various
configurations at similar lift coefficients. The modified-wing
configurations produced maximum lift coefficients which exceeded those
of the baseline configuration at low-speed Mach numbers (0.300 and
0.400). This benefit was related to the behavior of the wing upper
surface leading-edge suction peak and the behavior of the trailing-edge
pressure. At transonic Mach numbers (0.725 to 0.900), the wing
modifications produced a somewhat stronger nose-down pitching moment, a
slightly higher drag at low-lift levels, and a lower drag at higher
lift levels.</ABSTRACT>
		<PAGES>84</PAGES>
			</METADATA>ps.Z format </FILE>
	</Package>
</BUCKET>
