NACA Special Report

Tests were made in the N.A.C.A. 20-foot wind tunnel on: (1) a wing, of 6.5-foot span, 5.5-foot chord, and 30 percent maximum thickness, fitted with large end plates and (2) a 16-foot span 2.67-foot chord wing of 15 percent maximum thickness to determine the increase in lift obtainable by removing the boundary layer and the power required for the blower. The results of the tests on the stub wing appeared more favorable than previous small-scale tests and indicated that: (1) the suction method was considerably superior to the pressure method, (2) single slots were more effective than multiple slots (where the same pressure was applied to all slots), the slot efficiency increased rapidly for increasing slot widths up to 2 percent of the wing chord and remained practically constant for all larger widths tested, (3) suction pressure and power requirements were quite low (a computation for a light airplane showed that a lift coefficient of 3.0 could be obtained with a suction as low as 2.3 times the dynamic pressure and a power expenditure less than 3 percent of the rated engine power), and (4) the volume of air required to be drawn off was quite high (approximately 0.5 cubic feet per second per unit wing area for an airplane landing at 40 miles per hour with a lift coefficient of 3,0), indicating that considerable duct area must be provided in order to prevent flow losses inside the wing and insure uniform distribution of suction along the span. The results from the tests of the large-span wing were less favorable than those on the stub wing. The reasons for this were, probably: (1) the uneven distribution of suction along the span, (2) the flow losses inside the wing, (3) the small radius of curvature of the leading edge of the wing section, and (4) the low Reynolds Number of these tests, which was about one half that of the stub wing. The results showed a large increase in the maximum lift coefficient with an increase in Reynolds Number in the range of the tests. The results of drag tests showed that the profile drag of the wing was reduced and the L/D ratio was increased throughout the range of lift coefficients corresponding to take-off and climb but that the minimum drag was increased. The slot arrangement that is best for low drag is not the same, however, as that for maximum lift