TECHNICAL NOTES

-- .i I
- -- -.. --. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICE
-.

‘1.. . . . .L...

_- =
. : ,... .

.A .
I.

I_---

Nor ‘1’11
v---

---
AN APPROXIMATE SPIN DESIGN CRITERIOB FOR MOKITPWLlUlS - 1

By Oscar Seidman and Charles J..Dpnlan

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory

_- : .-

1 -=

'Washington -. .
! June 1939 -
_; ---- -
! -
.-<
 +
\. -
-\
NATIONAL ADViSORY COGITTEE FOR Albi%NAUTI&
_-
-. TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 711
.- t --
-m-M

AN APPROXIMATE SPIN DESIGN CRITERION FOR MONOPLANES

By Oscar Sefdman and Charles J. Donlan

SUMMARY

A quantitative criterion of merit has been needed to

assist airplane designers to incorporate satisfactory
spinning characteristics into new designs. An approximate
empirical criterion, based on the projected side area and
the mass distribution of the airplane, has been formulated
in a recent British report. In the present paper, the
British results have been analyzed and applied to America;
designs. A simpler design criterion, based solely on the
type and the dimensions of the tail, has been developed;
it fsuseful in a rapid estimation of whether a new design
is likely to comply with the minimum requfrements for safe-
ty in spfnning.
INTRODUOTION

A considerable amount of information uoncerning the

effects of dimensfonal and inertial design characterfstics
exists in the literature on spinning. In general, however,
the data are so presented that they are not dfrectly and
quantitatively applicable to new designs. There is need
for a satisfactory quantitative criterion to indicate
whether a new design is lfkely to comply with the minimum
requirements for safety in spinning.
Such a criterion is developed in a recent British
publication (reference 1). The present report is con-
cerned with the application of the British criterion to
American airplanes.' An analysis of the results is pre-
santed and a simplified criterion of spinning merit dev81-
oped that, as far as American designs are concerned, con-
forms better with full-scale and model spfnnfng data than
the original English criterion.
4,

.-

.
 ‘N.A.C.A. Technical'~Not'ei'No. 711

BASIS OY.ENGLISB CRITERION

i
The complete .development of the British criterion is
given in detail in reference 1. The basic considerations
underlyitng the development are reviewed briefly in the
following paragraphs.

The spinning characteristics of an airplane are con-

sidered to be affected by three major design factors.
These factors are:
(1) The longitudinal distribution of mass as measured
by the difference IZ M Ix and expressed non-

dimensionally'as Jz - Ix where IZ and Ix

Ps(b/2>= '
are the moments of inertia about the Z and X
body axes,. respectively; p is the density of
the air; S; the wing area; and b/2-, the semi-
span. The value of air density, p, used in
this report is that corresponding to 15,000 feet
standard altitude. h.

(2) The resistance offered by the fuselage sfde area

(exclusive of the rudder) while the aIrplane fe
spinning, which Ls measured by CAx2, where A
is an elementary area located at a distance x
from the center of gravity of the airplane. Be-
cause of its greater effectiveness, the area
beneath the horizontal tail plane is multiplied
by 2. (For conventional tail planes, this area
is measured between the most forward and the
most rearward portions of the tail plane.) The
resistance of the fuselage to rotation is exi
pressed in the form of a nondimensional "body
damping ratio," defined as CAx2 whero S
s(bfl'
and b/2 denote the wing area and the semispan,
respectively.
(3) The unshfolded rudder area, sxpressad nondiman-
sionally as an "unshielded ruddor volume cooffi-
*ient is equal to unshialded
-- rudder area X 1
.
----xi72 >
where 1 is the distance from the controid of
the unshielded rudder area to tho center of
gravity of the airplane,
 r
N.A.B.A. T'e&$i.~a~:;N.ot'e Na; ..Zl.l 3
-.
In the computation.:of th!e*.%o&+ *damping ratio (BDR)
*
.. and the unshislded. rud-der- folW8 coefficient ..(URVG), ft
was assumed that the relative wfnd strikes the horizontal
tail surfaces from below at an angle of 45' and that the
air flow. diverges ?15O afterpa&ing t'he t&ii plane. (T-his
assumption_ regardfng _th.e $ipergence of-4he-air flow above
the tafl plane' fs ve'r%fie&by"the' flight- tests Gdescrfb8&'
in referenc.8 2, ) Any areB -of the -ve'rt'ical 'tail within this
divergent Wake is disregarded in the computat'%ons.., Figure
1 illustrates the method used in. evaluating : . ?DR .=a _
VRVC. ' _
.
A ' damping-power fadtor" (.D'PF) is defined as;the
p&duct ' BDR ..x ,URVC., and this factor is plotted .agaQxs.tI .
Iz - .1x
the p-itching parameter - 'Tho relative magnitude
pS(b/2)'* 1: '
-: ;
I'npF) CpS(b/2)3l
of the 'slope, ----, is,used by the Brftish as
Iz - Ix
a figure of merit.

5 *. COMPARISON OF BRITISH AND AMERICAN RDSULTS

-**-
Figure 2,which is take-n from reference 1, is a plot
of DPF against --Iz - Ix for th8 22 British monbplane
pS-(b/2)3 1 >
designs submitted for iesting fn the British.free-spinning 9
wind tunnel. The models are rated ai either "pa.Eised'I of V *
"failed, 'I depending on th8'ir ability to:'meet. the require-
ments of,a standard British mod81 recovqry test. In most
instances where an'initial 'design i's represented as up-
9atiafactor.y. a point will b8 found'representing the final
modified version of that design.' It is obvious from the
dispersion of poknts'that secondary factors not included
in the analysis influence the abilfty of a model to gas8
the spin test. Nefertheless, a line has besn drawn such
that no pass Doint lies below it (although fatlures may
lie above it) and deffnes the minimum' requirement for
safety in spinning. It is implied that any design the a
characterZst&c p.oi.n$ .o$,,.mh+,+h .l:I.e,s, benoath- thfs line (i.e. ,:
? ,- - '.(DP-$1 ]lCi?S(b/':)-~=!;;; .is io'ss than ; Ool > ---
for which. th8 rat..Lo'- F L.:f4$ 'f. .Xx * -, I .. ': s., .
1
-9
 4 N.A.C.A. Technical Note No. 7'11

whereas, if its ch.aracteristfc point lies above this line,

recoveries may be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

, Figure 3 is a plot of DPF against Iz - Ix

--- for 14
P.m/2?
American monoplanes tested in the N.A.C.A. free-spinning
wind tunnel. The N.A.C.A. having no unique criterion of
spinning merit, the designs considered here have been da-
noted as being IIgoodl' or Ifpoorfl spinners, partly on the
basis of- spin-tunnel results and partly on the basis of
pilots! reports. The fact that the English standard of re-
covery was not utilized in the American classification may
account for the relatively greater percentage of Amerfcan
airplanes appearing as satisfactory spinners. It will be
noted that two good points fall below the British line for
minimum safety in sptnning. If, however, a line (dotted
line on fig. 3) is drawn through the point for atrplane 1,
a separation of the Amerfcan airplanes fs effectod;'this
line has about one-half the slope of theBritish line.

ANALYSIS OF RIESULTS
*

-L

A detailed 'analysis of both the'BritLsh and the Amer- .

ican results was then made with the purpose of obtaining

a simpler and more effective criterion.
The individual factors that constitute the British
DPF are plotted 'in figures 4 and 5. The olose grouping
of pofnt.s in flqure 4 discourages the establishment of a
spin criterfon on 'the basis of the BDR alone. Figure 6,
on the other' hand, shows a greater dispersion of points and
the dotted horizontal line drawn through a value of URVC
Of 0.013 effects a ,separation of passed and failed points
that is comparable with the separation previously noted on
the DPF chart (fig; 2). 'This result suggests that the
URIC alone mfght prove as. satisfactory a criterion as the
more complex DPF, ' which necessitates the consideration -
Q-IX'
BDR and --
iof . pS(b~*
It would appear that an alternative conclusion to the c
British report might have stated that any model possess-
ing a value for URIC. of less than 0.013 would be unlike- -
ly to pass the.. model spinning r.equiremonts. This condi- .
tion would have eliminated the necessity of considering
the. body damping ratio and the inertia pitching parameter.
 N.A.C.A. Technical Note No. 711 6

This discussion concludes the analysis of the British

data. The rest of the report fs concerned with the analy-
.s.is of the results for the American monoplanes and the
formulation of a criterion based on the unshielded rudder
area and the fuselage area directly below the horizontal
tail surfaces.

Figures 6 and 7 are plots of the factors constituting

the DPF for the American monoplanes. Figure 6 could be
used to segregate the good from the poor spinners but, as
will be shown later, the segregation is largely attribut-
able to the area beneath the horfzontal tail surfaces and
not.to the BDR as a whole. In figure 7, the dotted hor-
izontal line drawn through the value of URVC of 0.01
indicates that satisfactory separation of good and poor
spinners can be obtained for the American airplanes by I
considering the JRVC al-e, although the lfne of separa-
tion is lower than that.&ed. for the British models in
figure 5. Thus the value URVC = 0.01 might be used.to
separate new designs into two classifications; designs
having a value of URVC less than 0.01 may be considered
unlikely to pass the spinning requirements.
In reference I., the importance of the fixed area be-
low the horizontal tail surfaoes has been recognized by b. ..
doubling its contribution to the body damping dluifilrg
:Ei%=F ts fnfluence is obscured, however, because its
contribution may be small even when doubled as compared
with the body damping ratio. In order further to empha-
sfze its importance, the .contribution to the body damping
ratio of the fixed area below the horizontal tail surfaces
has been considered separately for the American airplanes:
it is expressed as a-tail damping ratio, TDR = --FLB
sta/aa
where F is the total fixed area'below the horizontal
tail and L is the distance from the centroid of this area
,to the center of gravity of the airplane.
Values 'of the TDR for American monoplanes are shown
in figure .8. It will be noted that a separation. of the
goodfrom the poor spinners can be effected by using the'
value TDR = 0.015. Ffgures 7 and 8 show .that the URVC
and th,e TDR taJoen.separately effect similar separations
1 o'f the American designs 5nto two groups. It is obvious
J that many possible combinations of these two factors 'oould
.w-- be used in devising an empfrical criterion to segregate the II
poor spinners. In order to emphasfge the importance of
 6 N.A.C.A. Technical Note No.. 711

having both unshielded rudder area and fixed area below

the horizontal surfaces, it das decided to use the prod-
uct URVC X TDR as a criterion of merit. It is appreci-
ated that the resul% may not be va23d for unconventional
designs.
Figure 9 illustrates the method used in evaluating a
tail damping-power factor (TDPF) defined 'as the product
of TDR and URVC. This TDPF is plotted in figure 10
for 14 American monoplanes and effects a satisfactory sep-
aration of good and poor spinners.
It may be concluded on the basis of figure 10 that
monoplanes poss8ssing a TDPF of less than, say, 0.00015
are not likely to exhfbit satfsfactory recovery charac-
teristics. On the other hand, it is felt that a TDPP in
excess of 0.00015 is, tn itself, insufficient to insure
satfsfactory spin characteristics,
Similar-re-sults were obtained for American biplanes,
but the critical value of the TDPF appeared to be some;
what lower and.1888 distinct than for the monoplanes.
Lack of sufficient data prevented the calculation of
the :TPDF, for the British designe.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In the present. state of knowledge:-no criterion is

:available that will infallIbly predictthe recovery char-
acteri,stics of a new airplane design. As shown in the
text, -hopPever;,it. is possible t-0 formulate empirical cri-
terions that are helpful in establishing the minimum d8-
sign requirements for safety in spinning. It is believed
that the tafl damping-power factor (TDPF) developed in
the text is a sfmple practical method for rapidly estimat-
ing whether a new design is likely, to comply with the min-
imum requirements for safety 'in spinning and it fs recom-
mended that no new monoplane design be constructed which
possesses a TDPF of less than 0.00015. It should not be
assumed, however, that a design which has a satisfactory
TDPF will necessarily exhibit good recovery charactorfs-
tics, as other factors not her8fn.consider8d may influence .i
the results. .
.
Langley Memorial A8ronautica.l Laboratory; '
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,
Langley Field, Va., May 1, 1939.
 N.A.C.A. Technical Note No. 711 7

REFERENCES

1. Finn, E.: Analysis of Routine Tests of Monoplanes

in the Royal Aircraft Establishment Free Spinning
Tunnel. R. & M. No. 1810, British A.R.C., 1937.

2. Scudder, N. F., and Miller, ti. Pa: The Nature of Air

Flow about the Tail of an Airplane in a Spin.
T.N. No. 421, N.A.C.A., 1932.

..
I.A.O.A. Teomoel liote Ho. ?ll Figr. 1,Q

A&se of motion
oentrold of
8ection to 0.g.
Of airplane Body Aroaundsr tUlplan0 Tin
%dy dapl&dng rati0 = Alxl~+A~x~a+---Ala~a~ + 2cAlm3~+---Alex18a) + A17q7a+---Asma
.8, wing area 8(b/a) a

Unehlelded rudder +olums ooeffloient * %aded LrmD

Oroes ring area

To 0.g. of Urplane, z

Figare l.- Yetbod of ooqmtetion of damping oosffiotents.

Tall dasplng- I Tall den@= Unnblelded rudder

power faotor ret10 x rolums ooeffialent
FL2 Wl + Rata
TDPT =
8(b/@ = B(b/a)
Figure 9.- Yetbod Of aoqnat1llg Pail darping-pomr flAotor.
 P.A.O.A. Teotmioal Iote IO. 711 Fig. a,&4

OrigInal deni
v Pssred temt

- -
i.0 1.5 a.6 a.5 3.0
IL-IX
P &da) 3
Plgom a.- variation of dainpl -pomsr faotor dth inertia pitohing psrametar for 22
Brltlmh momplaner Y bon refermoe 1).

a.5
13 - Ix
P Ebb)3
PIgum 3.- Varlatlon of damping-powor factor rith Inertia pitching pazrcaeter for 14
American monoplaner.

*..

* I
a.6
1%- Ix

Figure C.- Variation of body damping ratio with lnmtis pltohlng parameter for al
Brltlmh monoplanes (From reference 1).
 11.A.O.1 t. Taohnlcal rote IO. 711 rim . 5,6,7

.05 I
15 I
I Y
Origins1 deelpa 1o 8
% V Pamed test c 8
,o -04 - A ?Uled teat T3
I

0 .5
5 1.a
1.0
I@9
1.6
I I
a.0
I I
a.5
I
3.0
I t
12 - IX
ps(blaI5
Figure 5.- Varistlon of unehislded rudder volum coefficient with inertia pitohlng
parameter for aa Brltleh mcnoplanse (Worn reference 1).

47-l-r I I 1 l-
I I
1
0
$4
0 Good apinner
I A Poor spinner

0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 a.5 3.0

12 - Ix
p 8(b/i3)3
H Tlgure 8 .- Yarlatlon of body dmplng ratio tith inertia pftobing parameter for 14
2 AmmsriaahImnoalPndn. ----, .

-3

.
,1.5
%-Ix
p8(b/213
Pigus 7.- Varlatlon Of unehlelded rudder Wlnm cosfflalent with inertia pltohiag
parameter for 14 herioan monoplahsr.
H.A.O.A. TeoMoal Note HO. 7ll rig.. 8,lO

zs -1x .-
p Sib/8)3
Pigme 8.- Verlatloa of tail damplng ratio rith inertia pltohing prameter for
14 Amerlosn monoplanm.

____,__. -_ -- __._d ---- A----.------- -.

8
.oool 8 10
A *

I 2 I s1 $2 ,
0 '5 1.0 _1.5- a.0 8.5 S.0
I -I
p S(b/a) 3
Plgure lO.- V.srlatloa of tall lng-power fhotor with laertla pitohiing prruetEr
""p sums-
for 14 Amerloan mopop