曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
┗━━━━━┻━┻━━━━━┻━━┻━━┻━━━━━━━━━┻━━━┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┻━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
Sclu:nulk ot ihe wlnd-lunnd model. AU dumnslons are in ccntimeters.
.
0.05
0-10 0.15 0.20
Convccti\re Tme, c*
Fig.8.58 Wing rock suppression using pulsed,tangentialforebody blowing/o
730 PERFO.RMANCE, STABILITY, DYNAMICS, AND CONTROL
augmentation system in roll to suppress the occurrence of wing rock during flight.
Such an approach is discussed for the X-29 aircraft in Ref. 41.
The X-29 aircraft features a forward-swcpt wing with more than 32% negative
static margin. It uses a forward-placed, close-coupled canard and an aft-located
fuselage strake for pitch control. The aircraft exhibits a decrease in roll damping
above ct = 15 deg such that an unstable damping in rollis encountered beyond
20 deg of angle of attack as shown in Fig. 8.59. This loss of roll damping is not
attributable to the wing because the tests on an isolated flat plate wing ofidentical
planform showed that the isolated wing also exhibited a loss of roll damping.
Apparently the powerful forebody vortices were responsible for this loss of roll
damping at high angles of attack. The use of canard reduceci the severity of this
NOSE SIRAKE
Ctp + Ctp sin a o
-*2
- ,u
-.6
o X-29A; 6c = -25o; bf = 20o; 6s = 30o
o Flat-plate forward-swept wing
┏━┳━┳━━━┳━┳━━━┳━━━┳━━━┳━━┳━━━┳━┳━━┳━┳━┳━━━┳━┳━┳━━━━━┓
┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃
┣━╋━╋━━━╋━╋━━━╋━━━╋━━━╋━━╋━━━╋━╋━━╋━╋━╋━━━╋━╋━┫ ┃
┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃/ ┃~ ┃) ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃
┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ : ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃
┣━╋━╋━━━╋━╋━━━╋━━━╋━━━╋━━╋━━━╋━╋━━╋━╋━╋━━━╋━╋━┫ ┃
┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃\ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃ ┃
┣━╋━╋━━━╋━╋━━━╋━━━╋━━━╋━━╋━━━╋━╋━━╋━╋━╋━━━╋━╋━┫ ┃
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
PERFORMANCE, STABILITY, DYNAMICS, AND CONTROL4(89)
