1. The nacelle Was sized to house an existing NASA/ Ames pneumatic motor. A preliminary isolated nacelle shape was arrived at by repeatedly using the subsonic design procedure until pressure distributi.ons over its surface were satisfactory. The nacelle and Wing designs were integrated, and the combined configuration, designated Configuration A, was paneled and analyzed by the subsonic panel method.
2. Configuration C included fillets on both sides of the nacelle. as is evident i n Figure 9. Chordwise pressure distributions for this configuration are shown i n Figure 10. Configuration 8. without the fillets, has lower suction peaks and less severe gradients on the upper surface. This indicates that an inboard fillet that is simply an extension of the basic airfoil degrades rather than aids performance. The inboard f i l l e t was subsequently cambered by successively applying the 3-D subsonic design procedure to produce Configuration D. Since no Significant problems were identified outboard of the nacelle. no modifications were made there.
3. The inboard section was developed to reduce up-Per-surface suction peaks and steep gradients a t a Mach number of 0.7. The results with slipstream for the best design ape compared with results for the uncambered section in Figure 11. The modified wing shows pressure peaks near the leading edge, with values of about half the original. and the recompression gradients are much reduced. The rede-Signed inboard section of Configuration D are shown i n Figure 12.
4. Nacelle and Slipstream Effects on Wing. Configuration B was analysed with the modified transonic code. Figure 13 shows the effect of nacelle and nacelle/slipstream on wing performance at 0.8 Mach number. Inboard, there is a significant effect o i the nacelle. where a strong normal shock is evident. Outboard, the nacelle eliminates the shock,