NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUnCS

ORIGINALLY ISSUED
Auewst 1942 a.s
Memorandum Report

AERODYNAMIC TESTS OF AN M- 31 BOMB

IN THE 8-FOOT HIGH-SPEED TUNNEL

By Donald D. Baals and Norman F. Sm1 th

Langley Memoria.l Aeronautical Laboratory

Langley Field, Va.

OPERT'f OF JET PROPULSJO ~ BORATDRY U \'

C IL l,. Jf< l'i l INSTITUT OF TECHNUlOGY

WASHINGTON

NACA WARTIME REPORTS are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapid distribution of
advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were pre-
viously held under a security status but are now unclassified. Some of these reports were not tech-
nically edited. All have been reproduced without change in order to expedite general distribution.
L - 132
 MEMORANDll·1 REPORT

for
Army Ajr Forces, Materiel Cormno.nd

AERODYKAMIC TES'l'S OF i'.N H- 31 BOMB

IN 'rEE 8 - POOT HrCH-SPEED TU1'T~L

By Donald D. Baals and Porman F . Snith

INTHODUCTIon

In connection with a study of tle bomb flir,ht path ,

the nateriel Cor.lPland of the Army AL1 Porces reques ted
t.he EACA to conduct aerod.yna.mic test:::; of a 300-pound M- 31
demolition bomb .
Force tests at angles of attack from - 15 0 to 30 0
were made up to n. Mach nu.'11ber of 0.725 , which corresponds
to a spEad of BIO feet per sscond at s~a level . TheDe
tes ts V' ere nade in the Hi\CA 8-foot high-spoed wind tmmel
at Langley ~emorial Acrolautical Laboratory .

SYl1BOLS

V free - strean velocity , feet per .:lecond

p free - strea'!J. densi t:r , sluGs per cubic foot
q froe - stream d~namic pre~sure , pounds per square

foot G pv )
2

a velocity of sound in a ' r , feet pe r econd

M r.lach nL1Jllber , V/a
D drag , pounds

L lift, pounds
M pitching moment measured about the point of support ,
inch- pou':1d.s
 - 2 -

F mCLx5.lilu.m area of cros s se c tion of bomb , 0 . 707 square 1'0 0 t:;

L over - &ll length of bomb, 50 . 375 inches

a angle of attack of hor1b , <les:,:,ees

D
drag coaffici9nt,
qF
L
lift coeffi~iellt ,
qF
1~".,
pitching - noment cO Bffl cie~t ,
Cli?7.,

'nl,:) case of a 5CO - ?ounc. 1'1-3 1 demol ition bor:b with

al'.:u .lL1.1.JJi~ fin'" \'iuS sl.'ppl';"od by tho~'bteriel D1.vi,si')n for

the tests . The tomb was sU_,1)ort 8d or: t:'.e tunnel center

lino by a single vertical stre ~na i n8 strut of NACA sectIon

0009 - 6~, ( fIg . 1) . A s t£' EHimlL1.8 f airIng shie lded the

v e rtical strut to wIthin 11 i n c h e s of t~ e b~nb case . A

sido brace housed ,·,1 thLl a stJ:'0ac~lLr:.e fairlnl:; br'ac3:1 tho

ve~~i cal strut . Because a~ditional lateral support was

fo'Cud necessary duping the te::1ts, C'."O horizontdl guy wires

Wv~C attacbej at the po 'L;].t of S'L 1"port of th8 bont> . Tba

ve::'tical SUfport stl"ut , sid.) ')1'[.c0 , G.nd stays \' ere attached

to the oal£!.nc3 ring and w'-:)l"e i-").chlQCQ in the force

measurem8nts .

Th.:: anglo of attL,c k VJas v L"lriablo throug h fj,x0d inc I'e::me n t3

rotat ed. about its pO.'_nt of su ·::-, '::o:.- t, 'the c8ntor of gruvity

for the loaded condition .

 3

TESTS
Li ft , drag, and pitching moments were measured at

angle.:: of attack from -150 to 30 0 u.p to a r:~ach number

)
, , These test~ were run with the tail vanes set
-I

at an angle of 45 0 to the horizontal (fig. 2) in order

to minimize the effect of the wake of the support strut

on the tail. One run V'!as made at t:le 5o angle of attack

wi th the tail rota ted L~5 a • Additional tests were made at

50 , 15 0 , and 30 0 angles of attack ~ith the tail removed .

Tare forces on the strut ere measured with the

bomb 3uyed in position (fi g . 3). Forces on the two

side stays were determined 1J~/ measnring the forces at

zero angle of attack with and without stays .

RESULTS A1D DISCUSSION

Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the drag , lift, and pitching-

moment coefficient o; of the comp lete bomb at ansles of attack

.0 a
from -l S to 30 through the speed range of the tests . It

will be noted that the maximum speed of the tunnel VIas

considerably reduc(~d at the hi["h anc l es of attack due to

the large increase in dra[ at this attitude . All of the

data presented have been corrected for tares . The

magnitude of the tare forces for a = 0a is also shown in

fieures 4, 5, and 6 to ei v e an indication of the probable

accuracy of tho bomb force data . The tare forces did not

change appreciably with angle of attack .

 - L~ -

Figure 7 i s a cross plot of f i gure 6 show i ng the var i at io n

of pitching - ~oment c oefficient qi th angle of attack for var i ous
rviach nnmber0 . F i gures 8 , 9 , and 10 show the drE:.g , l i ft , a n d
pit8hing-morrent coeffic i enus of the bomb without ta i l and
the increments from the addition of the tal] . F i gure 1 1
is a ~)hotoc;raph of the bomb ta i l after struc tural failure .

Drag . - The drae; coeffici"3nt of the complete bomb f o!'

a range 0 positive and ne8at i ve ansles of attack i s shown

in figure L~ . The tare drat" for the mode::!.. suppo!'t is shown

to be approx i mate l y one - half of the minimUr:1 bomb drag .
Where corre spondin ) pos i t 1 ve and nego. 1.,1 ve angle s vrere run ,
the drag coeff i cients were approximately 0qual exc ept for
the 1 5 a an f31 es . At tr.e hiC1:l Bach nunbers the drag for the
negat:i.ve ane l e , 'lhere the tail is well vlithj.n the wake of
the support strut , is l ess than tl'l.e drng :'01" t:1.8 correspon d i ng
pos i ti ve an['; l e . I n free air '.vhpre no support s tru t in terfer -
ence is present , the drag for the negative angle would like l y
be the same as that for the positive an[lo .
J~ t l ow an gle s of n t tucl-r the critical 0peed of the bOPlb
was reached at a bach number of appl'oximatoly 0 .725 (fig . 5) ,
a v alue whlch is h i gher 'chan i s u s ually obtn i n 3d on stream-
l

line bodies of e qui va l ent fineness ratio . In view of t he

ve r y h i gh drag c oeffic i ent of the bomb at the sub - critica l

Mach l11..l.Inbors , it appeo.rs that the floV'! ove r the bomb has
 5 -

separated . rEhis separation has r educed the local velocities

and therefore increased the critical speed .
Lift . - The lift coefficient remained essentially
c onstant at low Mach numbers (fig . 5) but increased
sli::;htly at the higher s!Jeedo . This increase in the
value 0":" the lift coefficient (;orl'esponds to the shift
in the 1 i'cching - mom::mt-coefficieni:. curve in magnitude and
direction (fig . 6).
Pitching moment . - An analysis of the pitching-moment
coefficient for a gi.ven angle of attack (fig . 6) shows a
decrease at the hibh Mach numbers through the angle range
from - 15 0 to 20 0 • This decrease is not considered a
c ompressibility effect but instead is believed to be an
interference effect of the strut wake on the bomb ta:i.l .
For the runs wi th the tail rel~lOved, the pi tching-l'1onent
coefficient remained essentially constant through the
Mach number range of the tests .
The moment decrease is most pronounced at the nega -
tive angles of attack whero the bomb tail is in the wake
of the supr,>ort strut and f.::tiring . The magnitude of the
pi tchinc - moment - c06ff'icient j.ncrements due to the addi -
tion of the tail (fig . 10) indicates that a change in load
0
on the tail cqui valen t to a l~ change in angle of flov!
would be suf.:'icient to account for th0 maximum momGnt
 - 6 -

coefficient decrease at the high Mach numbers . The int e r-

ference offe c cs of the su>!,ort '" trut and fairing , and

the end flow out of the strut fairlng gap could account for

a momen t c_~an.3e of t~1i s magni tude . The tare forcos as

measured d id not include the in terference effects on the

flow over the body .

0
For t~e aneles of attack from 20 to 30° , the pitching -

moment coefficients remained essentially constm t with lRch

numb e r except for t~e 30 0 ansle where the tail definitely

deflected under the aerodynamic load en countered .

o
Tail fai l ure . - Durinc the 30 ~ln structural failure

of the tail occurred at a T1ach number of 0.575 (q = 395 l b / sq ft) .

From extrapolation of the tail lift and drag increment curves

(figs . 8 an~ 9), the r esultant normal load on the tail was

comput E::d to be about L~20 )ounds at the point of failure .

A reaximum tail load of 510 pounds was attained at a

Mach number of 0.675 (q = 50h Ib/sq ft) at an allE le of attack

The subsequent failure of the taiJ at a l.ower load

indicates that the tail was weakened durinG the 25 0 test .

Bending of tho tail at this angle is indicated by tho s li Cht

incraase in moment coufficient nartr th8 maximuJl1 load .

The n at ure of the tail failnrc can be observed fr'om

figure 10 . Two fins failed at the :,oint of attachment to

. ~
 --~- ~-"~- - -- - --~---

- 7-

t he tail ring , one in shea~ throu~h the support ing web ,

and the other i~ shear at the riveted joint . The re -

l:lct.ininG two 'Nebs buck18G. b'lt did not fE'.il cor.:plctcly .

Langle? Fe:!i0rial Aeronautical La"jord i: ;ory,

Na tlono.l Ad vi or~r Caro'"ll t too l'or _-I.era,ltl.1lt ics ,
Lc...ngle y Fieid, Va ., l~.u,~1.:.st 25, 191.~2 .

L
•••••••
• •

"•• ••
• ••• •
.
• •••
•• •• ••
•• ,FLOATING BALANCE RING
•••••••
• •

I
I
I
I
TVNNEL WALL I
I
5TREAML/N£ FAIRING I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I

STReAMLINE 5 TRUT
NACA OOO!)-64

COVER PLATE

I/vDE X/Na PLATE

MAIN S{/PPORT PIN
AT e.G. OF80MB

T U'NNEL1..

N~110NAl ADVISORY
COMMlllEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure I.-Installotion de/ails of M-3/ bomb.

 •• •
•• • ••
•••

••••
•• •••• ••
••• •••
••
••
••
•
••••••
• •

.0
E
o
.0

c....
o
 •••• •
•••
• ••

·.,. .
••••
••••
•
•••• ••
••••••

.0
E
o
.0

OJ
1-4
al
E-<

•
 •
••••
•••••

, ...
•• •
•••• • ru t£'
••••
•• ••
It. ••

•••••••
• •
:?.. "'••

ir:

4J

it

H dl"
r:
~1
m !j ·rtf ~! " Itti.
~ I'

1":J 1tl
'"
... .ltj

fu i lJ r~
t,
~
'~

,'t!"kif
tI:.,tr r: R
'tJ
fj'~
!~
I
Fr .d .'f
H: E ~ ~; , l• . tH $ !J= 'of
I~ ~, Ifi1 ii~ :fIf;!!
~ Iti: f I
~-: i¥+: ~ 'EP~ T. ~... '\.. tr~ ,'1:

;It Iff ~ di ,-,.,'j,

~t r.\ :!ik' ....
r·· ,.;l lli:ffildHm ::J Hi IN ':;,.. l I III

1!i .! ~ i;)of
J N; H.;: &
"", tf8
~~ ~ : ,!-l • ij! r' fl"J:! i;jj
..." :Cj'
'n ... . ~~ ~ I' " 'H·; '.'1:' f":' :;~ ill =' ~ j litl
.~
t~·- ~i". lll'j ;';.1; ':
.""' 1"'- ~
r;.,., ~:p.:::"j!
1-+-
.... .1'1; F IjJ
H ~
" !1:l#- ,r,: , . 'j
"'Pi
ftf ft
.
"il f" . ai Ii" ,:: .!, tr :• ..J .
or. '"
rJ:" P' 'I' ~
l-vrJi'iE """'
\c.
> .>1 :~}T:
.. :
~ . 1" ; .';'= :rtiif: .
" I.
, r, '~"; I "" "- ~"t foF "~1 C:-.
l' ~ ;;:,;-, ;~J1 ~"roy r~~.7 l:;::: ' ~;-';'
"
-' ,; ."', "t-T"'''r-' I~~I ''! I"di ''11 i :rtt
I~ ~ . ;i ~' j: jt tF r t ,; Ill'; ',r,

- ~
h
.,
"

.,to-
h
.. I'"

'v. ~:
it-- 'I :t:--
'~~ .
.,;

''",
I.tf;
'i,
,"t
.:¥,~:Jj Io'q:l#~
1~ .:;'~

I.e; '7( vr. <_ 14. il7. 'J;'" ';";;" .,. -Iii <:I'" k tJ~
':i,; ,. ...ii ~JJ' ;t""" j 1~
If. !itij
i" ", ?1 "og!t- f.,I..:)rt """ ~ IC,h."".!ct.,1r W m: m ~ th, If, ! ; ~
••• •• •
.... •
•• -
.... •
••
•••• •

' ..
•• ••••
••
••
•••••••
• •
 _. •
•• ••

l..... . ·..
,
'

• •••
•
•• • •
....".•.
 ·...• .. •••
. .• ••
• •••
··•••••..
• .,
• •••••••
... ... .

-,.. ...
.
•••••••
• •

r'~->

I;:tj:;

lp-
,11'
...
i4
~.:.+
.1,
1''<
1h
':If f
.it;
~
It:'

'4 -- • -
~.. ,." tt

.'l. ::t!! 'g ~

~r;Tf "
." rp: ;fT.!
~ E" .

'!
iJ:fj
fl! :j:t:
t;
~

r t+l r- "\ '1t

R ;; '-.. til!",
.. rr
r\ I 'l! "+~,
~

-;iTl.±l.'
. \ ~ r< ., -. ~. .'" ....
,... .; IfflIltt
"
...
.#I "-1-: ,..,:, t:: r; H
r-mr:m : :
;;. ~!h;,tf: ~ I;:.r :' thi: I=' ~:i;
. ;I .
:: f4r: 'tr .f~'~ · H

, "- '+ if'tll E' l~ .. ~~ ~ 'C

~ [.=.. =.,P ' '::~ F ;:'',

., \" f'" '''f.f. ·FT:;.

1\1'-. 'c="', ~
~
~. ~
.. I~~ ...
.+!! iF'"
"iLdf
~~ ~~ ..: ti

..
. ;: kI· H~
"-
.it: ,..",, '* , :ffi: .•"l F.:
.a.
:R ~ l' c
;r<~ cp: it "", .::'
Itf:::i .•, .]I ,"'- -:¥l ~, 1:1 , ~ "j!J

" = -F ':;:::'!: :" . "" .. l -"

:-t I:$I ?"<. ;:;;, ;ffi"t'.tt ;
:if.' liiHf!:. :;;~~ .;
n ~. ~ . ~ ~ .,.. :::::;:i ,..... 1~
.j
-""fOo ..:: "f' I A~ .. . ~ ~ .~ .~

Figure 8. - Varia/fen 01' tail and bom/:l case dl7'.J1 with /'tx:h number.
 •,•• ••
•••• ..
r+il ' ffH f'Ti1" IUm~,mHI
It!J:l:tti:l1tl:l w: hi, it ! I"
~~1
r,;t;
IJ:
•••• •
"-':'
• • '.q;tV tiW:
::::
I •• ••
. 0•• 1!.It
>4.
I iI!Im
•
•••••• ~
• • 1m

"
gj
hlf
,n ,ttl
}- ,
,{ Ig:: :

t i:F. 1 ~1 !:dli
ilii'l ?~ t;J ii'
fF:. 11 I~lf Ilf ~ '; Ill; '1-1 1 4~ ~i~ Fi2" fhC
I tl · . ·.; 1,8 fBi: It! ::.1 1;1," ,t lu' fH~ .~ ~~ I-j' . i~ hJ fl:loB
'~ r-;l. F"'IOJ '1 F ·-J,'iF 'i t;;;
IF 11· it ' !Hi i,.i ~ r l~ ' i;: 1.1 ',1 'HI A "rFI,-' ' ~ :" l 'C :1.; T!1
I' V· ·~ ctt 11Ti' 1';.1 '~

!I- 19 ' ." :c,' !t~ ,,", ,', :: / -: ;;~ , [#ji;1'

'· Ili I " 11"" 1; n1f1 1~ 1 " tnt: ~
· I..JE l ; . 1: ··.:Ib:t ";q I"; .:tt

I m=
!! ~Ji hi ~J
U!1:
':
-/
~~.
'l1
' 9 '

:.
~~ :l:'rf~

I'::;
. Ilf'i

I ~ '1. h
l:IJ
ttl'

it. :
1m
,1:

IT!! ii;~
IB
,

1 :'~; .. 10-;; 1",'

." I ' "''-'!?fi: . ';; ttr~"; 1mI nr.
~ Ii: , tl::l fIfu "1# ~, , .Ffii ~,~ l:if. I",
~ llTf+til ' ItI .. r.~ f': J:J ~;j r;, Iii' IF' !411f1i IH W '
Il,-' "1 r. I\, II,

, ~ ,

II Ill'
,t

~I ,Ii 1'1"£11' It:; i': 1rl ~~~ :~hll iii

"ttl 1:1 ',, ''f:' ' ,
1.11 1"" 51 E..l "' 1'-< ':! ~
"'I \1-, ~j I±: }:.r, ::i. '" ~:i. 1+1 1,1• ..::i
'r p.. rJt l1E I~ L' ~ 'li:'J ! r:
>r~ ~i! Iri ~ itt : ~t·b

- -
f!![j1 iffiiIf.

•
 •
•• • • 0
• •
w
••••••
• •
.•••••'.•
••••

••••
•••• ••
•••••••
• •

/VACA
LMAL
•
2804-9

Figure 11.- M-31 bomb tail showing structural failure.