Handley Page H.P.115 Slender-Delta Research

 [VSKYLABS Spotlight] issued 17th October 2015



Download for X-Plane 10.41+
(Legacy VSKYLABS aircraft)

SCROLL DOWN TO READ MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE H.P.115

The H.P.115 was an aerodynamic research aircraft which made it's first flight in 1961.
It had a slender, low aspect ratio delta wing, and the engine was mounted above the rear of the fuselage at the base of the tail-fin. It's construction was all metal, except of the rudder and elevons, which were fabric covered.

For it's flight testing, the H.P.115 had a wing with leading edge sweep of 74 degrees. The leading edge was detachable to permit flight testing with a wide variety of shapes. A large airbrake was fitted under each wing, ahead of the main legs of the non-retractable landing gears. A camera was positioned on the fin, to photograph the tufts on the wing during flight testing. An anti-spin and braking parachute was located under the rudder.





The H.P.115 studied stability, control and handling characteristics which was aimed for the Concorde airliner development program.

Interesting facts: 
  • It was intended to be a glider, being towed to high altitude of around 30,000 ft. 
  • The fin had a bullet fairing at the top to accommodate a camera to record airflow experiments.
  • Smoke generators mounted on the wing leading edges.
  • The airfoil was a bi-convex type with the maximum thickness at 40% of the chord. This section was chosen as being representative of the type likely to be adopted for a supersonic transport. 




General characteristic
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 45 ft
  • Wingspan: 20 ft (6.1 m)
  • Height: 12 ft 9 in (3.9 m)
  • Wing area: 430 ft² 
  • Airfoil: Bicon 6%
  • Empty weight: 3,680 lb (1,670 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 5,000 lb (2,291 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Bristol Siddeley Viper 9 turbojet, 1,900 lbf static.
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 248 mph (399 km/h)
  • Endurance: 40 minutes

H.P.115 Vortex Breakdown

The data below contained detailed information taken
from materials that are approved for unlimited public release.

The following information above was taken from the 'Vortex Breakdown - Some Observations in Flight on the HP 115 Aircraft' report, by L. J. Fennel / Aerodynamics Department, R.A.E., Farnborough, Hants.

Introduction
Water tunnel studies I on models of highly swept wings with sharp leading edges have shown that at some position along the vortices associated with the flow past such wings a radical change in the nature of the flow can occur. The vortex expands radially and the line of the core takes on a spiral shape. The phenomenon is usually described as 'vortex breakdown', and the initial appearance is downstream of the wing.

As incidence is increased the position of breakdown moves upstream and may occur forward of the trailing edge at sufficiently large angles of incidence. Because of the current interest in slender wings and in the turbulence in their wakes, it was decided to see if vortex breakdown could be identified in flight behind the HP 115 research aircraft.

This Report describes the experimental technique used and the results obtained during tests in 1964 and 1965 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford.



The HP 115 Aircraft
This aircraft was specifically designed and constructed to investigate the low speed handling problems of slender winged aircraft. It has a wing of triangular planform with rounded tips, a leading edge sweep of 76 degrees, and an aspect ratio of 0"92. The wing has a biconvex circular arc section with a constant thickness/chord ratio of 0"06, and the leading edges are effectively sharp, having a radius of 0.1 inch. Large full-span elevons are fitted, it being considered at the design stage that separate elevators and ailerons might introduce control problems if the vortex should cross the chordwise elevator-aileron boundary.

From the available wind tunnel data on models having a general resemblance to the HP115 wing planform (but not wing section shape) it was estimated that the incidence at which vortex breakdown would occur at the trailing edge would be about 35 degrees at an indicated airspeed in the region of 45-50 kn, although the performance of the aircraft was such that this speed would be associated with a high rate of descent. 

Angles of incidence of this order are well outside the capabilities of conventional aircraft, and at the time when the trials were planned, had not been reached by the HP 115. Previous flight experience with the aircraft at speeds down to about 60 kn had shown that it was remarkably docile with no insuperable handling problems, and as a preliminary to the flow visualization tests, a number of flights was made at progressively lower speeds: these showed that the aircraft remained fully controllable in the incidence and speed range required (35 degrees and 45 kn, indicated).

It was found however, that there was a marked reduction in the turbulence threshold required to initiate the Dutch roll at these airspeeds and angles of incidence. It was possible to damp out this oscillation quite rapidly by forward movement of the control column, thus reducing incidence, but it meant that very calm conditions had to be chosen for the flow visualization trials.




Flow Visualization Technique:
In order to make the flow visible, colored smoke was injected into the air stream at the predicted position of the vortex core, close to the intersection of the wing leading edge with the fuselage side. The smoke generating system consisted of a chemical cartridge adapted from a marine distress signal, a tar trap, and a pipe to direct the smoke into the vortex core. The cartridge, which was ignited electrically using a switch in the cockpit, produced dense orange smoke for approximately 30 seconds. Longer duration cartridges (60 and 120 seconds) were tested but did not produce sufficiently dense smoke for photographic purposes.

A test firing of the cartridge before it was installed on the aircraft showed that the smoke was accompanied by a considerable quantity of soot and tarry material and it was thought advisable to remove as much as possible of these undesirable products of combustion to reduce contamination of the airframe and engine. 

The cartridge was therefore mounted so that the smoke from it first entered a can containing baffles which reversed the flow twice (Fig. 2). At the forward end of this can a one inch (internal) diameter pipe led the smoke over the leading edge and into the vortext core. Some preliminary flight tests were required before a satisfactory location for the pipe exit was obtained. The trap removed an estimated 75 per cent of the tar, and as a first attempt, was considered reasonably satisfactory. The untrapped tar was, however, sufficient to cause some inconvenience, and for future experiments an improved design would be desirable. Possible modifications could be a larger number of baffles and an increase in length of the trap to promote cooling and condensation of the tar.

The untrapped tar was deposited on the wing upper surface and also on the engine compressor blades. Removal of the deposit from the wing was facilitated by applying a thin coat of lanolin to the upper surface before each flight. The contamination of the engine was not entirely unexpected since it seemed inevitable that some denser particles of the smoke emission would escape from the vortex core and might find their way into the engine intake. The degree of contamination was however, greater than expected, and sufficiently serious to require a cleaning treatment after each flight.

Flight Test Technique:
On each flight one smoke canister was carried under each wing. For straight runs the cartridges were fired individually so that two airspeed conditions could be observed, while for the examination of the effects of side slip, both cans were fired together and side slip progressively increased and reduced.

The resulting flow patterns were observed from a chase aircraft and photographed with a handheld 16 mm cine camera. For most of the flights the chase aircraft was an Auster AOP Mk 9 but on a few occasions a Whirlwind helicopter was employed.

Most of the flights were made in the speed range 45-65 kn and in these conditions the rate of descent of the H.P. 115 was of the order of 1000 ft per minute (5 meters per second). Considerable skill on the part of the chase aircraft pilot was required to maintain a suitable observation position relative to the target aircraft.



Pilot Comments:
In straight flight at high incidence no undue difficulty was experienced in flying the aircraft in spite of the lack of forward view. On several occasions pilots reported that turbulence had initiated the Dutch roll but that the degree of rolling could be limited by instinctive lateral control movements or by reducing incidence. 

The comment made after the flight in which the highest incidence was achieved (37 degrees) was: "The aircraft seems to be stick fixed unstable at indicated air speeds below about 46 to 47 kn (approximately 36 degrees) and it is correspondingly difficult to ensure both a stable airspeed and minimum stick input at the same time.Very still air is needed for runs at these speeds, as the slightest disturbance sets off the unstable Dutch roll. Despite these comments the aircraft remains easy to control, and instinctive corrections to the Dutch roll oscillations will limit the degree of rolling with no sensation of being near an aircraft limit of controllability." Although on this flight the vortex breakdown was forward of the trailing edge, no effect was felt by the pilot.

When side slip was applied, there was a marked deterioration in the handling; only small values of indicated side slip (approximately 5 degrees) could be achieved at incidences of about 30 degrees before encountering elevon buffet.

On one flight the pilot commented as follows: "On a dummy run (i.e. not filmed or recorded) at lower speed 48 kn--some evidence of flow breakdown was felt at the rear of the aircraft when slipping with maximum aileron. The aircraft in this condition was not steady and had a small pitching, rolling and yawing motion. The general feel of the aircraft was not pleasant." The incidence in this case would have been about 34 degrees, the side slip angle approximately 5 degrees, and the breakdown position was probably forward of the trailing edge.



Conclusions:
  • Vortex breakdown has been shown to occur in flight, and the general characteristics of the flow associated with such breakdown are similar to those observed on models in wind and water tunnels.

  • The position of breakdown moves upstream with increasing incidence in straight flight and with increasing side slip at constant incidence.

  • The relation between burst position and incidence derived from flight tests is consistent with that obtained in model tests; part of the difference between flight and model test results may be attributed to elevon deflection in the flight case.

  • Occurrence of vortex breakdown within +0.1 root chord of the trailing edge in straight flight caused no increase in handling problems on the lip 115 aircraft. With vortex breakdown close to the trailing edge in side slip conditions, some deterioration in stability took place.

The information above was taken from the 'Vortex Breakdown - Some Observations in Flight on the HP 115 Aircraft' report, by L. J. Fennel / Aerodynamics Department, R.A.E., Farnborough, Hants.

JMH Special Report: YSFlight Flight simulator!

[VSKYLABS Spotlight] issued 12th October 2015

...It's about time!

This is a little flight simulation software I have known since, I think, the year 2000 (its development began in 1999, by Soji Yamakawa). With lots of add-ons and packages, it's one of the most spicy flight simulators I know and use today, and it's still improving and updating.

Here is a quick report to give a general idea of this nice piece of flight simulator. I've gathered in this post some important links to start with.


First think to know:
YSFlight is different from nowadays high-end flight simulators. It's a low-end software with low-resolution graphics. Add-on stuff is getting better and better, including really detailed and animated aircraft and other vehicles, as you can see in some of the videos I've attached down this post. The GUI takes you back to the 80s, but is functional. After passing these barriers, things start to get really fun!

YSFlight is mainly good for:
  • Air Combat (Air-to-Air / Air-to-Ground missions and multiplayer), with good A.I. opponents.
  • Formation flying and aerobatics.
  • Military / Civilian aviation.
  • Flight School.

Flight Dynamic Model:

Its flight model does not use a third-party Flight Dynamics Model (like FlightGear, for example), but a built-in one. A .DAT file determines the characteristics of the aircraft by several variables which affect the aircraft behavior. This FDM (the Flight Dynamics Model) file has grown over the years and includes more and more variables. This file can be set up with a simple text editor. All in all, the flight model is what I call “good enough.” Let’s say that you don’t want to fly YSFlight if you are looking for a realistic flight model. The flight model is for sure good enough for free flight, aerobatics, and dogfights, and all in all, makes the flying experience of the wide range of types of aircraft very enjoyable.

List of YSFlight general features:
  • A growing community.
  • A growing list of features.
  • Free to use.
  • Windows and Linux.
  • Aircraft and weapons are easy to fly and operate.
  • Multiplayer server.
  • Runs on low-end computers.
  • 71 aircraft included, "out of the box".
  • Add-ons (aircraft, maps, cars, tanks...).
  • Add-ons creation by users.
  • Weapons, guided missiles, AAA + A.I. 
  • Real action in it's included and multiplayer war games.


Here are some major community and add-ons LINKS:
  • The YSFlight simulator main developer's sitewww.ysflight.comThis is basic, but include the recent updates and versions for YSFlight.
  • The YSFlight Headquarters, the YFHQ site: www.ysflight.org which is a huge portal with aircraft and scenery downloads, as well as Media section and, most important, the YFHQ forums. They have a good facebook page also with some amazing stuff.
  • YSFlight Realism Pack is another major add-on page which can be found here: http://www.flightsimhq.org/ysflight/#Features. This place has add-on packages with improved flight model characteristics, and aim for a 'super download of YSFlight' with great add-on packs, missions, aircraft and scenery.
  • YSFINDER - YSFS Aircraft Add-On Databasewww.ysfinder.net. This is a big portal for YSFlight aircraft add-ons.
  • Taskforce 58's YSFlight Hangarwww.ysflight.ca. Portal for huge packages of WWII and modern aircraft, maps, weapons, motor vehicles.
  • Default key/joystick control (updated 11/02/2005): http://ysflight.in.coocan.jp/ysflight/ysflight/manual/control.html

    I really recommend having this flight simulation software installed on your machine, even for a “rainy day.” It’s a whole different flavor of flight simulation and action, with lots of features, and with its mods and add-on packages, it could be a “low-fat” treat for flight simulation, combat flight simulation, or aviation enthusiasts.

    Here are some GREAT videos, which show what I meant when I wrote “spicy” at the beginning of this post. These are not my videos; I don’t own any rights to any materials within these videos. If, by any chance, the rights holders of the videos would like me to remove them from this post, please email me and I’ll do that.

    Note that some of the videos are showing really old versions of the simulator (the latest version is from 2015). The updated version includes particles, fog, transparent smoke, puffy clouds, etc.

    Hope you'll find it useful. I did :)

    JMH.







    The IAI Kfir Corner Velocity: A Flight-Envelope Analysis

    [Aircraft Performance] issued 25th April 2015

    The VSKYLABS IAI 'Kfir' TC-2 is a "Turn Performance" flight model, designed to explore and match the turn-rate performance of the actual ‘Kfir’ aircraft in X-Plane 9/10.

    It is an X-Plane ‘Kfir’ maneuverability demonstrator.


    General References:
    The current flight model of the VSKYLABS IAI 'Kfir' TC-2 gives a general perspective of its real turn performance, based on its Turn Performance Diagrams at 5,000, 15,000, and 25,000 feet. The ‘Corner Velocity’ was the main goal of achievement (actual performance diagrams of the ‘Kfir’ are attached below, for your use).


    Corner Velocity:
    In simple words, 'Corner Velocity', which is also called 'corner speed', is the minimum speed at which maximum G can be obtained (at full engine power). Fly faster than it, and you can instantaneously pull to a maximum, and even over-G, turn (and lose energy in the process). Fly slower, and pulling all the way will get your turn rate to drop rapidly, so the bad guy will gain angles as you'll lose energy.

    Flying at the speed of 'Corner Velocity' is a good tactic in a dogfight. You are maneuvering at the best sustained turn rate of your aircraft, without losing energy, flying the air-combat geometry, and at the same time, you have the potential to 'go for the kill', or make defensive maneuvers by pulling harder into the maximum-G or highest turn-rate zone (which is usually not a sustained situation because of drag and thrust-to-weight ratio issues).

    For example, the corner velocity of the F-4E at 15,000 feet and maximum thrust is just above Mach 0.8, and it can hold up to 7 G’s sustained turn (depending on its configuration) without losing energy. Its turn rate in this condition would be ~14 degrees per second. The corner velocity of the 'Kfir', at the same altitude, is around Mach 0.7, but its turn rate would be ~16 degrees per second. So, at 15,000 feet, the 'Kfir’s' turn rate would be slightly higher, and its corner speed would be slightly lower than the F-4E. I will discuss dogfight tactics in another post :)

    X-Plane flight performance note:
    The VSKYLABS IAI ‘Kfir’ TC-2 flight model was tuned to match its turn performance, but to do that in X-Plane 9/10, engine thrust had to be changed to higher values, and there are some changes (in the "backstage") to the wing area and thickness, which are not visible and do not affect its general delta-wing handling characteristics. These changes slightly affected the accuracy of some non-drag-consuming zones in its flight envelope, but, all in all, and based on my experience, it’s a good ‘Kfir’ maneuverability demonstrator. (Supersonic flight characteristics are not fully tested in this version, yet…).

    Here are performance charts for the 'Kfir C-7', which is quite similar (the C-7 was a more powerful version):






    The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin: A Plausible Dogfighter?

     [Test-Pilot Report] issued 14th April 2015


    *Test-Flight report and insights, conducted in X-Plane 9/10:

    The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin was designed to be a single-seat "parasite" escort fighter that could be carried by a large bomber. Development of two prototypes was ordered in March 1947. Design constraints, which required the aircraft to fit into the bomb bay of a B-36 bomber (being a mother ship), resulted in an exotic result.

    Its tiny, short fuselage was fitted with folding swept wings, of 21 ft 1.5 in (6.44 m) span. It was powered by a 3,000 lb (1,400 kgf) Westinghouse J34-WE-7 turbojet. There were no landing gears except for emergency skids. The fighter was intended to return to the parent aircraft and dock with a trapeze, by means of a retracting hook.

    *Image attribution:
    By Author listed as "U.S. Air Force photo" - National Museum of the US Air Force (Direct Link) - Image listed as "080227-F-1234S-050.jpg", Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16214546

    Was the “Parasite” concept plausible?:

    Although I was expecting stability and handling issues in the making of this small, short, and heavy aircraft, I found out that configuring its flight model controls, Center of Gravity, and artificial stability characteristics was a real challenge. This aircraft is relatively heavy for its size, up to a 0.66 thrust-to-weight ratio, features tiny horizontal stabilizers with a "V" configuration, and elevators (which are less effective). Is this flying machine supposed to serve as an escort fighter which could dogfight interceptors and make its kill by using its guns?…

    From a fighter pilot perspective, being just small (in order to be a "parasite" on a mother-plane) is not always the best tactic to win, or even survive, a dogfight. There were test flights to check the concept of being a "parasite" on a bomber, in and out, but I’m not sure that if this project would have survived its safety issues regarding the docking phase of its flight, it could have survived an actual dogfight with a P-51 Mustang, a Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, or another 50’s-matched jet fighter…

    It’s a 50’s era single-jet, tiny and bulky aircraft, carried by a large Convair B-36 Peacemaker, which is a strategic bomber, deep above enemy territory. Such a strategic mission, in those days, was subjected to massive numbers of hostile interceptors, which defended their land (therefore being able to take off in large numbers). Protection of such a bomber should be effective, or else the high numbers will win. If the project of the XF-85 would have carried on, would the XF-85 have met its expectations as a bomber protector? I’m not sure, and we have not discussed yet its very low fuel capacity and its early jet-engine fuel-consumption characteristics.

    Flying the XF-85 in X-Plane can give us a little perspective on how difficult it might be handling the XF-85, and how we have to fly it correctly and perform aerobatic/dogfight maneuvers, despite its unwanted “habits”.

    Flying tips for X-Plane flight simulator:

    First of all, it’s a "handling and performance" project of mine, so there isn’t a fancy 3D cockpit. The HUD is your best friend for now :)

    The VSKYLABS XF-85 model is slightly different from the real prototype by having optional fictional landing gears, an afterburner, and some modified artificial-stability features. The purpose of these is to raise the fun factor of operating this aircraft in the simulator.

    Flying the tiny/bulky XF-85 feels almost like flying a heavy and dirty-configuration fighter jet. You have relatively low authority regarding its handling, pitch trim work is continuous, and when maneuvering, you have to constantly manage your potential (airspeed and altitude). It’s not an agile fighter as you might expect it to be (this particular version of the XF-85 is set up for a good balance between "control" and "feel", but it’s not the final or "perfect" setup, as I’ll keep running my updates).

    The thrust-to-weight ratio of the flight model is the same as in the prototype. If you want to practice flying with this ratio, use 98%-99% of engine power. If you use 100% engine power, the afterburner will kick in, and you’ll get another 3,000 lbs of thrust. Now you can "Rock ’n’ Roll" with the aircraft, compensating its under-maneuverability with extra power.

    If you want to fly dogfight-style maneuvers like a real 50’s-era jet fighter pilot in such an aircraft, get your speed up to at least 300 knots, and keep your turns at 4-5 G’s. If you want to have a tight turn, use full power (99% or 100%), and turn while the nose of the aircraft is pointing below the horizon, using gravitation as an additional power source. Getting yourself below 300 knots in a dogfight will get you into a catch - in order to accelerate back to the maneuverability area in its flight envelope (best continuous turn rate), you’ll have to stop turning, and you can’t afford that time and degrees during a dogfight (unless you are going for a shot, and even then, be prepared for surprises - so save energy!). Vertical maneuvers are not affordable or possible unless you’ve planned them ahead. It might be more practical to execute vertical maneuvers at low altitudes, and not below 350 knots at the starting point.

    This is definitely not my last update for the XF-85, so keep tracking my updates.

    Hope you’ll like it!

    JMH





    VSKYLABS Northrop M2-F2 Lifting Body Vehicle X-Plane 9/10

    [VSKYLABS Spotlight] issued 17th April 2015


    The VSKYLABS Northrop M2-F2 Lifting Body
    Vehicle Simulation for X-Plane 9/10

    The Northrop M2-F2/F3 was the first of the heavyweight, entry-configuration lifting bodies. It was a heavyweight lifting body based on studies at NASA's Ames and Langley Research Centers and built by the Northrop Corporation in 1966. The first flight of the M2-F2, which looked much like the M2-F1 (lightweight Lifting Body Glider), was on July 12, 1966.

    A few changes from the M2-F1 design were implemented in the M2-F2, such as pilot location (the cockpit moved forward to allow the fuel tanks to be located around the center of gravity of the vehicle, in order to minimize trim changes as fuel was used on powered flight. Another reason for moving the pilot location forward was ejection capability while the vehicle was still connected to the B-52, and to improve forward visibility).

    The M2-F2 was dropped from the B-52's wing pylon mount at an altitude of 45,000 feet (13,700 m) on the maiden glide flight, piloted by Milton Thompson. He reached a gliding speed of about 450 miles per hour (720 km/h).

    Flying tips for the M2-F2 Lifting Body Vehicle finals on X-Plane 9/10:

    To perform the unpowered flight at correct flying weight, you'll have to empty the fuel tanks (by entering in X-Plane the aircraft weight and balance window and getting rid of the fuel).

    In unpowered flight, the aircraft is actually falling from the sky. For comfortable handling and optimum glide ratio, maintain airspeed at about 350 knots (or Mach 0.75 at high altitudes). It's quite a steep nose-down attitude you'll have to get used to.

    You can manage aircraft potential by under/overturning the flight track to the final, or use the air-brakes.

    Initial flare begins at ~1000 feet. Don't be tempted to pull up above this height, or to reduce speed below 300-350 knots before that point, because you'll lose the needed airspeed for touchdown. Flare should be executed gradually. Use the Velocity Vector cue in the HUD to fly the aircraft until touchdown.

    Landing gear extension is after the completion of the flare, when the aircraft is stable at or below 100 feet.

    The aircraft is fitted with four rocket engines and fuel, in specs according to the real M2-F2. If you wish to practice the unpowered glide, you can either position the aircraft around the release point (45,000 feet, Mach 0.7), or drop it from the B-52 (after selecting it for a B-52 drop-out, open the 'local map' and move the B-52 to the desired location and altitude. When you exit the 'local map' window, the B-52 with the M2-F2 will be located at that spot).

    Most important: Have fun!
    Now, let's go and dig some holes in the Mojave Desert :)

    JMH. 

    Typical Lifting Body Ground Track

    Typical Lifting Body Approach, Flare and landing