ALBERT

Description: The models had aspect-ratio-2 diamond, delta, and arrow wings with the leading edges swept 45.00 deg, 59.04 deg, and 70.82 deg, respectively. The wing sections were computed by varying the section shape along with the body radii (blending process) to match the prescribed area distribution and wing plan form. The wing sections had an average value of maximum thickness ratio of about 4 percent of the local chords in a streamwise direction. The models were tested with transition fixed at Reynolds numbers of about 4,000,000 to 9,000,0000, based on the mean aerodynamic chord of the wings. The effect of varying Reynolds number was checked at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. The diamond model was superior to the other plan forms at transonic speeds ((L/D)max = 11.00 to 9.52) because of its higher lift-curve slope and near optimum wave drag due to the blending process. For the wing thickness tested with the diamond model, the marked body and wing contouring required for transonic conditions resulted in a large wave-drag penalty at the higher supersonic Mach numbers where the leading and trailing edges of the wing were supersonic. Because of the low sweep of the trailing edge of the delta model, this configuration was less adaptable to the blending process. Removing a body bump prescribed by the Mach number 1.00 design resulted in a good supersonic design. This delta model with 10 percent less volume was superior to the other plan forms at Mach numbers of 1.55 to 2.35 ((L/D)max = 8.65 to 7.24), but it and the arrow model were equally good at Mach numbers of 2.50 to 3.50 ((L/D)max - 6.85 to O.39). At transonic speeds the arrow model was inferior because of the reduced lift-curve slope associated with its increased sweep and also because of the wing base drag. The wing base-drag coefficients of the arrow model based on the wing planform area decreased from a peak value of 0.0029 at Mach number 1.55 to 0.0003 at Mach number 3.50. Linear supersonic theory was satisfactory for predicting the aerodynamic trends at Mach numbers from 1.55 to 3.50 of lift-curve slope, wave drag, drag due to lift, aerodynamic-center location, and maximum lift-drag ratios for each of the models.