1. Data and analytical results for a vs CL and C, vs CL are presented i n figures 3-7. ACD VS CL results are not presented, because for these wings ifthe a vs CL are well estimated so w i l l be the ACo vs CL. Before the results are discussed, the different analytical methods w i l l be described.
2. Returning now to figures 3-7, it i s clear that, i n general, the low a vortex-lift theory does offer imorovements in CI estimation UD to go over the okiginal theory.& A t higher a'; improvements are noted only for models 2 and 5. For the oitchino moment. not much effect i s noted a t low Ci; howeier, at the high CL, improvements in C, estimation are noted for models 1 and 5. Additional improvements may possibly be obtained at the higher a's i f the leading- and side-edge vortexlift flow aerodynamics from the outboard panel are not included. This could be Justified by the premise that the two vortex systems may not merge, but the outer panel vortices are displaced verticallv 50 as to reduce their influence. This was not anticipated for these wings because, unlike the strake-wing-body configurations which follow, the differenceinthe two sweep pgles was not thought to be too large, only 15 . It should be mentioned that the reason the potential theory curves are not discussed herein, i s because they only serve as References.