Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
R=19930091662 2017-10-06T18:28:07+00:00Z
{
-- / I
1939
REPROOUCED BY
NATIONAL
INFORM A Tl6ECHN/CAL
u. S. DcPARTME TN SERVICE
SPR'NGF'El~'• VOA . COMMERCE
F
- - -- - - - - - -
22161
}.
Metric English
Symbol
Unit Abbrevi a- Abbrevi a-
tion Unit
tion
Length _ _____
.
m eter __________________
I m foot (or mile) _______
Tirne ________ t second _______ _______ ___ ft. (or mi.)
J:'orce ________ s second (or hour) _______ sec. (or hr.)
F weight of 1 kilogram _____ kg weight of 1 p ound ___ __ lb.
PoweL ______
Speed __ __ . __
P
V
horsepo wer (m etric) _____
{kilome ters per hour __ .. _. -------
m eters per second _____ ._
k.p.h.
--- ho rsepowe r _____ -. _ -'-1
miles p er h OUL . • ___ ••
hp .
m.p.h.
m.p.s. feet p er second. _______ f.p .s.
2. GENER AL SYMBO LS
w, Weigh t=mg v, Kinem atic viscosi ty
g, Standa rd acceler ation of gravit y=9 .80665 p, Densit y (mass per unit volume)
m/s2 or 32.1740 ft ./sec. 2 Standa rd density of ID'y air, 0.12497 kg-m- 4_s2 at
l-F 15° C. and 760 mmi or 0.002378 Ib.-ft.- 4 sec.2
m, Mass = -
9 Specific weight of "stand ard" air, 1.2255 kg/m 3 or
I, Mome nt of inertia =mk 2 • (Indica te axis of 0.07651 lb. /cu. ft.
radius of gyratio n k by proper subscr ipt.)
/1-, Coefficient of viscosi ty
3. AEROD YNAMI C SYMBO LS
./
REPORT No. 586
,. #
II
- -----
Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for the supervision and direction of the scientific study of the problems of
flight (U. S. Code, Title 50, Sec. 151). Its membership was increased to 15 by act approved March 2, 1929. The members are
appointed by the President, and serve as such without compensation.
JOSEPH S. AMES, Ph. D., Chairman, ROBERT H. HINCKLEY, A. B.,
Baltimore, Md. Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Authority.
VANNEVAR BUSH, Sc. D., Vice Chairman, JEROME C. HUNSAKER, Sc. D.,
Washington, D. Q. Cambridge, Mass.
CHARLES G. ABBOT, Sc. D., SYDNEY M. KRAUS, Captain, United States Navy,
Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
HENRY H. ARNOLD, Major General, United States Army, CHARLES A. LINDBERGH, LL. D.,
Chief of Air Corps, War Department. New York City.
GEORGE H. BRETr, Brigadier General, United States Army, FRANCIS W. REICHELDERFER, A B ..
Chief Materiel DiviSion, Air Corps, Wright Field, Dayton, Chief, United States weather Bureau.
Ohio. JOHN H. TOWERS, Rear Admiral, United States Navy,
Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
LYMAN J. BRIGGS, Ph. D., EDW ARD WARNER, Sc. D.,
Director, National Bureau of Standards. Greenwich, Conn.
CLINTON M. HESTER, A. B., LL. B., ORVILLE WRIGHT, Sc. D.,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Authority, Dayton, Ohio.
HENRY J . E. REID, Engineer-in-Charge, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEES
AERODYNAMICS
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES
POWER PLANTS FOR AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
AIRCRAFT MATERIALS
INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS
AUocation of Problems
Prevention of Duplication
Consideration of Inventions
",
/If
REPORT No. 586
~~/~~-------=======---
N.A.C.A .
0003 C _______------=-
OOICC ~
----------------
0015 C ____--~ 23012 C
0 0 1 8 C_ _ ~
4412C
Cumber
2412 C_______====--====-_----~
4412 C----~-------"""" 67/2C==
--
Thickness and comber
G012C: =v:
High-lift devices
~__---====-==-------=-------=====-. 23012~ ~.
==v
4409
230lSS
===v
4412C
230/2 C =====-===- ~
~
.r::.~
f:':::tl
30·3:
n012- 33 C c/arkv(/'L ~
~J
With Handley-Page slot
l<'IGUltE I.- Airfoil sections employed for tbe scaJe--eITect investigation_ The sections, except for f.he slotted Clark Y, are members of N. A. C. A. airfoil familics.
4 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
appendix) of the support interference may cease to be aerodynamic center cma . c .• These values are then con-
negligible at low test Reynolds Numbers. These errors sidered applicable to flight at the effective Reynolds
may be judged by a study of the dissymmetry of the umber, R e .
test results for positive and negative angles of attack TH,ble I presents, for various Reynolds Numbers, the
for the symmetrical airfoils and l;>y the scattering of the principal aerodynamic characteristics, in the form of
points representing the experimental data. (See figs. these fully corrected section characteristics, of the air-
2 to 24.) Such a study indicates that the results from foils tested. Oross plots of certain of these section
tests at tank pressures at and above 4 atmospheres characteristics against Reynolds Number are also given
(effective Reynolds Numbers above 1,700,000) are of for use with the discussion. (See fig. 28 and figs. 32
the same order of accuracy as those from the highest to 43.)
Reynolds Number tests. The drag and pitching- DISCUSSION
moment results for effective Reynolds Numbers below Scale effects, or the variations of aerodynamic coef-
800,000, however, become relatively ~accurate owing ficients with Reynolds Number, have previously been
to limitations imposed by the sensitivity of the measur- considered of primary importance only in relation to
ing equipment. In fact, it appears that the accuracy the interpretation of low-scale test results from atmos-
becomes insufficient to define with certainty the shares pheric wind tunnels. It now appears from variable-
of curves representing variations of these quantities density and full-scale-tunnel data that important
with angle of attack or lift coefficient. Hence airfoil variations of the coefficients rou t be recognized within
characteristics dependent on the shape of such curves, the flight range of values of the Reynolds Number,
e. g., the optimum lift coefficient and the acrodynamic- pa.rticularly in view of the fact that the flight range is
center position, are considered' unreliable and in most continually being increased.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTE RISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARI ATIONS OF TH E R EYNOLDS NUMB ER 5
i±
'~H;1:~il nJljluM 1
m . 10 H--I---t--1-+--+-+--+-H-jfH----t-t-f-+--+,-' T~ 5
I17
I
7. 5~3:.150
-3.150
10 .51;? -.J.51;?
15 .009 4.009
m 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percenf orchord
t.J
.09
..... . 0 8
HH-+_~+_JH-+-++-+I_~I--+--+-+-+-~Reynold~+-
I
0
INumber:~_
3,140, OO~ _
: 6 - - - 2.3 10, 000
~~ ~~~~ :~~g~h""""T-r-r-,---,--,-,-,.--,.-,,-,-,-1 ~ x- ------ - I ,290:0 0 0 -
~g ~ }g~ :~:}~~ 1. 8
:u.0 7 + - - -- 665,000-
~ '7- -·--- 334,000-
~g~~ij :J.~~~H-I-+-+++++-+-+-H-I--1
702.748 - 2.74 8 1. 6
~. 06
u
I:
;
0 - - · - - /69, 000_
8 4,400_
80 1.967 -1.967f-H-I-+-I-++++-+-+-H-I
90 1.086 -1.OB6I-H-I-+-+++++-+-+-H_ 1.4
g-. 05 d '<;J- " ' - ' "
17- - ..- - 42,300.-
1
I~ ig~~: i~~,:S~H-I-+-+d--+++-+-+-H--+ ~ :i!
~/O~O~O~-L~O~-r+++-~V~'~H-+-+++++-
I I
~ . 04H-I+++-H-+~1~U :~~
/ 4, -1-+-I-H-++~
L. £. Rod.: 0.89 I. 2 t:f
~ !-~HH-+-~-I--l-+-~I
P ~ jg ..... !,'/
~ . 03 1--+~+-I- ~~+-~~-~:!~~~~~+-h.4.~--t-+-j-+-
I : I
~.-+--t<:>.J~P>-4:1-....c--f-++++--t--1
f-H--+-++++-+I-..f. ~
"
I. 0
l(;< t!_lil! ~ ::.t!
. 8~ .tt:t--t- ..,.-- ,~
. 02 ~-W~4-_~~~-~~ . ~
-~
- ) '(
)/~/~4~~~~+-~
)~ --H~:~-l=l -!---'"f-i (!J
JJ1 l.li,Ji
n-11t11 Iml
510. I I I I I
J JIJJ
Up'r. L'w';.
0 0 0
. 10 I I I I Test .!, .1 ,1J a .c.posilion
1.2 1.894 -1.894
2.5 2.615 -2.615
[I 1 1-r
Reynolds Number x y em. c. -r
5.0 3.555 -3.555 .09 o 3 . 180.000 1-1--0.6 3-1- 0 '-
7.5 4.200 -4.200
0 20 40 60 80 10o d 1-- 0 - - - - - 2 ,380. 000 1-\1'-. 8 3 -f- .001 -
~~ 13~~ -5.345
-4.683
Percenf orchord 2 .0 , .08 I-- x ------- - -- -1.340.000 1-j+1-- /.0 4- 0 -
205.738 -5.738 I:: f--+ _ __ _ _ _ 660. 000 I - I-- f.l - 3- - .001 -
25 5.941 -5.941 .lll
306.002 -6.002 1.8 ~ .07 1--"1-·-- ---330.000
405.803 -5.603 0,.::
~D -- - ---I7O'OOO I
505.294 -5.294
604.563 -4.563 1.6 ~.06
I
703.664 -3.664 ~ u :
802.623 - 2.623 .1
901.446 -1.448 l' " 1.4 g-.05
95 .807 - .807
100 (.126) (- .125)
a
~, . l
W t il
I
.
100 0
L.t.Rod: 1.58 i ll ~ v· 04
~
~ rY
~'\ ~ ~. 03
II ' Itl
leA , I), [}
, /~
~ Hi 1:", I 1'1'-. ' , I ..,
- .02 l,/.y _f.>< ~!y
J.
If . Of
~ r-:-lC - - -b i€r
J
11
o - -f"'!P" i'U
I.J , 1.1· ~
It
.2 d-·f ~~
o <...:
111-. 2
J
Airfoil: N.A .C.A . 0012
1* Size : S"x30 " Vel. (fl./se c ):68 -.2 3
.... ·- .3
Pres.(sl nd. aim) : /fo20 Airfoil: N.A.C.A 0012
Test: V. D. T. 1237-8 Dale: 3 - 3S ~ Test: V. D. T 1237-8
'"Where tested : L.M.A .L. -,4 -.4 g Dote: 3-35
Resulfs corrected to infin ite aspec t ratio
~
-8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 ... 2 o . 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 104 1.6 I.B
Angle of attock for infinite aspecf rofio, ct. (degrees) L i ft coefficient,C.
F IGURE 3.- N. A. C. A. 0012.
6 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
H-:'--
Slo Up'r. L"w'r.
I I I I I ~ I I I I
./0
0
12
0
-2.J67 I I I I J I Test ,I ! I
2.5 5j~~ - J.268 I I I I Reynolds Number
5.0 4044 -4.44J .09 r- o 3,260,000
7.55.250 -5.250 r- 6----2,270,000
105.853 -5.853 0 20 40 60 80 10o ~o
15 6.6~~ -6.68/
207.17 -7.172
Percent orchard 2.0 ...... 08 r- x----------- 1,270,000
<:: r- +------ 655,000
5g -7AC?
~~q~ -7.502
407.254 -7.254 1.8 ~.07 r- \7--- - ----.3.3 1,000- ~
.Q)
,, e·03 1/ ~
r¥t " Q; / ~ iP /
, ~
I&l~ l'r V' r-.... ~-trl ,~v-- P
~_1: t---... ...... - _- 1:-:.
.oc 'l --
L::.c
;'l-" -- !;-:- ;.of:! .,,; .P-
Yr
~ic.posifion _0/
ID_ - -- .
Ii
,x - y -t- C"'o.c."- r-
'I
l~
Ir
0--/.2 - 4 - 0
6--1.1 - 3 - D
- r-
- t-
Ye----- 1.2 - I - t- .002- t-
" 0
d· -./ tt
F{
-:1 ::-4
1£ ~ . -..
.2
~ +---2.4.- ~ - t- .001_ r- <..: ~ -ii!I--"
V--- I .5 0 - .001
o ~-2
\J .
A irfoi/:NA.C.A .0015
Jf Size; 5"x30" Vel. (ftjs ec): 69 - .2
Pres. (stnd. afm.): 1/4 to 20
~-:.3
E: AirfoIl.' N A.C.A. 0015
Tes t : V O. T. 11.35 Dote: 5 -.34
Where tes ted : L.MA.L. -.4 ~-.4 Dote: 5-34 Test:V.O.T.//J5
Resulfs corrected to infinite aspect ratio
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.c a _c .4 .6 .8 /.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of allocA for infinife aspecf ratio, ct, (degrees) L iff cae fficienl, CL
FIGU!tE 4.-N. A. C. A. 0015.
20 - _ _ ~
I
H:~IIIW
Slo up'r. L·w·r.
~ I I I
00' 0 I .12 .1.1 _, I Test , I ,
125 2.841 - 2.841
2.5 3.922 -J.922 .1 I I I Reynolds Number
5.0 5.JJ2 -5.3J2
7.5 6.300 -6.JOO
.11 - o 2,970.000
10 7.024 -7.024 0 20 40 60 80 100 r- 6----;::.364.000 I
I
.10 r-
_ I
::t-
I
705.496 -5.496 0 - - 1.7 4 - - -..., ,08 l - p - - - - - - - - 41.400
80 J.9J5 -3.935 l- I- 6--1.6 3 - 0 - c: r- I
I i '~ ~ {j I
/
I- t-t- r- , ~. ,, ~lli!
.\,! Cl 1/ / ~
J), ~I -- -- +- V_ F-1 v ~
f-I-
I-
-~
' ~
,~
-\ - .8:::=
0
V
.02 I-'V
,[].
-~r
= .-<1: :A-:..
~"'"
"
tv
f-+- ;';~ .6 \.) . 0/
I- -r- I,jil ~->- .:....1)---I-=--:- r
~
i-f- r- 'I' . 4...J
• 0
-In ~
i-i-r- tj~ -
I~
.e
'<:
·
<.J• - . 1 t-- 1--
r-r-
=
I-\:~
15,
j
_- 1JU ..,i~ ~
l-vi'"
.>11.&'
r
, Airfoil N.A.C.A 00/8
Size : 5"x30" Vel (ftjsec):69 -.2
0 8u -.2 r-r-
....
~-.3
- 1-
1-
r- r-f-
J
AI R FO I L SECTIO N CH ARACTE RI STICS AS AF F E CT E D B Y VA R IAT IONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBE R 7
I I _I II
H-111fl IHI
5to. Up'r, L'W'r.
0 - 0 olD
I I I TestT 1 I
/.25 2.15 -/.65 Reynolds Number
2.5 2.99 -2.27 . 0.9 I- c-I I I I
5.0 4.13 -3.0/
7.5 4.96 -3.46 0
0 3,120.,0.0.0.
I- ~ _ _ _ _ 2.3Ia,aaa
l:
80 10 ~ 1
/0 5.63
/5 6.61
-3.75
-4.10
0 20 40 60
Percenf ofchord ~.O ....- .0.8 e- x----------- 1,235.0.0.0. I
20 7.26 - 4.23 c: e- + - - --- - 656,0.0.0. ,
25 7.67 -4.22 .~
30 7.88 -4.12 1.8 ~.0 7 l -
'V- - - - -- - 333,0.0.0.
I II I
~
40 7.80 -3.80 I- 0 - - -- - - 166,0.0.0.
50
60
7.24 -3.34
6.36 -2. 76 .l 1. 6 "" "'l _ _oo __ ___ 82,80.0.
~(J . a6 I- c-v- - -- - - -- 4I ,5DD
rr ',
,
I
70 5.18 -2.14 ~ I If ,
80 3.75 -1.50 ;11_", ~
l-
I t
,
90 2.08 - .82 1. 4 g-.a5 I
95 1,/4 - ."18 ,0 ~ II I
!i
,, ,
I
100 (.13) (-.13)
0 ,~ ~ R , 14
100 '<+-' ~ . a4
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 l " ': _0
IZrJ
~
, I~
Slope of radius '{f. r;v \1, , -, , T I
II
fhrough end of
chari:!: 2/20 l ~ 1', ~ :r,0v.
,
~
, I.a.~ e. a3
Cl
'" " to' - 1<:_ -.".. U .- 1-1- "P7
I
h
.u __ Kf ,
19 -, :"I. --
~ -- ~ -:i!
. 8~ .0.2 IUo ,
"1-'-_
"1' -
~y I1t
- -1i I~ ~ V
- .,.- -
o ;:; ~_
II Q)
"""
If a.c.posilion .6 \)
0
.0.1
Ii: -- - !IliIo co
) I .x _ Y_I-
Cma .c . _ e- ~
0 - - 0. 5 _ ~_~ a.a4~_e-
,"
.4-.J <i a
1.4 ~-- ~.~_ ~ _I- - . a4~ _ ~
H-:~lIuf1l
510. UPT: ('wi-. I I I I I I
0 . 12 I I Test I I I 'TI
0
1.25 2.44 -1.43
2.5 3.39 -1.95
I I I I Reynolds Number Ii , I"
5.0 4.73 -2.49 . iI e--o 3,0.0.0.,0.0.0. i.l , i
7.5 5.76 - 2 . 74 - ~---- 2,3Ia,aGG
10 6.59 - 2.86 0 20. 40 60. 80 10a ' I
15 7.89 -2.88 f"ercenf of chord ./0. - x---- ------ - 1, 240,0.0.0. II, i,
20 8.80 -2.74 e- +- -- - -- 638,0.0.0.
25 9.41 -2.50
30 9. 76 -2.26 2. 2 . 0.9 ~ 'V-- - - - - - 33/.aOG 17 ,: !
40 9.80 -1.80 I- 0 - - -- - - 164,00.0.
50 9.19 -1.40 ~
0
, !
I- '1---------- 83,0.0.0.
60
70
80
8.1-4 -1.00
6.69 - .65
4. 89 - .39
2.0 .,;:.0.8 I- [ 7 - - - - - ---42,10.0.
c:
q,
tI
90 2.71 - .22 :iJ. a7
95 1.47 - .16 1. 8
100 (.13. (-.13) ...,
!<: I" ' i
100 0
L.E Rod.: 1.58 1;;1
I"
rJ!!! 1. 6 ~ . 06
u
. , I
Slope of radius
fhr ough end of
~ t;..r ,I'"
1. 4 g-. 0 5
\ : ·1 111 I
~J
"'" r--.
lr ./ ~ t>< K 'p.. - I ,) IY
- I.O§ E·a3
~
~
I
I'di ,1'17 °hA
. \) Cl
-0
or-, - -
s:r'
~
I
I I I I
.2
0
_ -. J
<,.;
Q)
8 - .2 .d.-~ !;¢
L~l,')I:
:-..:. ... ,Di
t184380 0-39--2
8 R E PORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO AUTICS
g-.05
\ ,
I
fl
100 - 0 /fl ,
I i' 1\ 1\
L. E.RQd.: 1.58 ,1":3' 1.2 r.J i3 II\\\ \ ,,
Slope of radius
through end of
chord: 6/20 .i
I!t' 1', ~t" "- ... 1.0 t q,.04
....-
<;:
\
~ I
1 a. c.po5i1ion .8 t:::
II!
o
Q.
.02
I
~."r
" b 1":-~ r- --;>'
!.
!A ~
Y c,.t:-:-- ~ ~,
o--10.x9 I ~'r: 0..133 -1- .6 u -
~ . 01
eo- -- -
1- - . 130 -1-
wt 6--1 . 1
x------ .8 -3 - -.131 - 1- .4-...1
If>i
IV
+ ' - - 1. 0 -2 - 1. 135 -:-- • 0
.2
j I I d, -. 1
If I I a <,.: Iht
!J Airfoil: NA.C.A. 641 2
II!
8 ~ .2 ,~
i Size: 5 "x 30 " Vel. (fl.jsec):69 -.2 >P r- I
IV
I Pres.(slhd,. aim.),' 1/4 to 20
Test: V.D.T.1165 Dale:8-34 ~-.3 Airfoil: N.A.C.A.6412
Dale : 8-34 Tes!: V. D. T. / /65
Where lesled: L.MA.L. -.4 ~ Results correcfed to infinife aspect ratio
:::"-.4
-8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of attack for infinite ospect ratio, a, (deqrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE S.-N . A. C. A. 64 12.
H~mll ~I
. 13 1
510. up'r. L'w'r. I .I ~ I I I
0 - 0 I ' , ,Test I I , I
100 - ~ . 07 17: , ,
0 f?< /.6 '>0
L.E. Rod.: 0.89 1! b ~ J, :1.
Slope of radiUS
~
~ ,06 \ J,
through end of E 1.4
()
,
chord: 4/20 '/'
~. 05 ll!l
If ,
~ i<t ~~~.
,,
".
~~'" ..h: '
i3
q, .04 ~ L'.
~ , IA
!
~i-
VJFv- f- p.. .. . I
'R r-- ~ ~, ,
dr./ 'V _:
.~ 'c
e ·0.3 I ~/) , 'I'{Y
n 17 - - -17
Q.
\
I
\'f;
- [<:1-
- l7' r- ir7-
'17- , V'
!, ' 17'
,, I" .......
\ \
.02 ,
If a .c.posilion 1'. !~~
~ I . .x r- Y I em a .c .
-- .0 1
4' ~ .~ ~- , t"'- . - ~ ~v
~~~~I-~I~~~I~~I~I-~I~I~-~~
H-1111tH
StD. up'r. L'wi":
0 0 I I· I J 1 Te 5 fl-I..J--i.
I-.I-jlf-.l-.+-+--+-
1.25 3.07 -1.79 f-H-t--+-+-HI-t--+-+Reyno Ids Numbe:-r+--H-t--+-
2.5 4.17 -2.48
5.0 5.74 -3.27 . 10. 0 3,000,000
7.5 6.91 -3.71 1--1--1-+-+-1-- 6----2,380.,0.00. --1-+-1-)(.,.; , 1---1-+-
10 7.84 -3.98 o 20 40 60 80 10o
15 3.27 -4.18 f'ercenlo f chord .09 x-- --------- 1,26O,OOO-+IM- -f..';'I-i,f -+-j
n :' I--i,--l--j
20 10.25 -4. IS <l' 1--1--1-+-+-1-- + -- - -- - 654,000 -t"!;!l,+-t-':'<
25 10.92 -3.98
30 //.25 - 3.75
40 11.25 -3.2S
50 IO,S3 -272
60 9.30 -2.1 4
2.0 l·
·.~.07
08I--H-+-+-I--. ~_~~~_-_ ~~j:ggg =~I~C~~~~,~I~:=~~
""I- . . --
--- - 83, DD °-tlAl1+4j...J...j'+'--l--j
70 7.63 -1.55 1.8 ~ [7- - - · - - ·-41,700 ': ' I),,'
80 s.ss -1.03 '<: , , -,
30 3.08 - .57
~.06
I,...,
35 1.67 - .36 1.6 -[ , 'T
100 (.16) (-.16) o 1fT
lao a ')i -l< -x,
LL Rad.: 2.48 ~. \'I , 1.4 g-. DS ~'T ,
Slope of radius
I~ ~;:i ~r- i ' I'
, ~ ~ 7
through end of
chord: 4/20 JII( ~'
1.2 tJ
.,.:
k 04 < • f7.... ((, , x 19
II,< ~ ~. "
.I'n r,iU
I, i""
, 1.0 S -.::~.0.3 H-+~~~~-+~~~-b~~I/~~~~~~/~~4-.J-j-l
f'-.- -'N, - iv_ 1..-. /l/ , I
ih\3
t-,.,
1"--_ '-F: P€i :u [J. - ~~ -- , !Skr/V
H~_~I
5ta. up'r. L·w'r.
.11 I I I I I I I I
- J
~~_/~~!!' a~~
a a I Test I I I I
1.25 5.50 -1.33 Reynolds Number
2.5 6.97 -1.86 Y 'I I I : I
s.o 9.23 -2.3S .10. 0 3,200,000
7.5 10.97 -2.42 6 - - - - 2,430.,0.00.
1012.40 -2.34 0 20 40 60 80 100.
1514.53 -1.34
20 15.94 -1.43
Percent ofchord .09 x----------- 1,310,000
25 16. 74 -1.14 r,J0 +--_._- 680,0.00.
30. 17.00. -/.00. z.o _-.08 v-··--·-345,000
4016.57 - .86 D - - - - - - 170,DOO
50.15.34 - .55 c:
60. 3.49 - .2S 1.8 : ~.07 «-.-.----- 85,000 ,
70. 1.04 - .0.4
80. 8.0.2 + .0.3
90. 4.41 - .0.1
95 2.33 - .0.8
J,li7; ~ tn
1.6
~
~.06
I"
. p----·----42,50D
,
,, )'
lao .19 (-.19) ~ -Xt~ PiJ ~ o 11 1\
100 - a k~ ~ ;.:, , ' ~I;....,
~. 05
' II' . ~n '
L.E. Rod.: 3.56 ) b F->f-l 1.4 ,I ~ r,., ) ';'
Slope of radius ~/ \ -B \1'-( } U'
through end of
chord: 8/IS Ii£ ,
.. --
1.2tJ~·04
....-.;::
- ~ - h7- 1.< r1 V!4
~
- 1\ I·' . ~
,
lHI ,
/I!? 1'1" 1.0£e·D3
.'Q...
~
I~ ! h
Ifii
In
~-~ -1-
- L ~~'
- t-...
I)
If) 'l
-
-l- .8~
o
0
.0.2 16: -. 1-4-
-"" ~
""
.6 .01
If a .c.posilion -:::
.,
l;jl x_ Y-t- ema .c. _ f-- .4-.) • 0
O--/.!!._ ~_~o.I3~_ f--
~
x------ l.ir 2~_r~·13~_
6--1.8
-.135 f-- .2
J• -.1
.i +j--2.1 - 3- r -.137 - f-
<,.:
I.,.j~
"
Q)
\'I' o 8 -.2
Airfai/:NA.C.A.83/8 .....
I.... · ; Size: 5"x30" Vel. (ft.jsec):68 - .2 ~ -.3
Pres.(sfnd. aim) : { / to 20 E: Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 8318
ICl Test: V. D. T. 124/,1. '14 Dale: 3 -35,4-35 Tesl: V.D.T.1Z4/, 1244
Where fesfed: L.M.A.L. -.4 ~ - .4
Results corrected to infinite aspect ralio
-/2 -8 -4 0. 4 8 IZ /6 20 24 28 -.4 -. 2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 /.2 1.4 /.6 1.8
Angle of attack for infinite aspect rotio, ct. (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE ll .-N. A. C. A. 8318.
10 R E PORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUT ICS
n-1Itf1mm
Sto. Up'r. L'wr. I I I I I I I I I
a - a . 11 I Tes t I I I
1 1
1.25 2.67 -/.23
2.5 3.61
5.0 4.9/
-1.7/
-2.26 . /0
I Reyno lds Number
7.5 5.80 -2.6/ 0 3,090,000
10 6.43 -2.92 a 20 40 60 80 10o 6 - - - - 2,300,000
15 7.19 -3.50 Percent orchard .09 x- - ---- ---- - 1,286,000
20 7.50 -397
2 .0 ~o +- -- -- - 665,000
25 7.60 -4.28
JO 7.55
40 7.14
50 6.41
-4.46
-4.48
-4.17 1. 8
"....~.. 0 8 "7- -- - -- - 335,000
0 - - - - - - 170,000
60 5.47 -3.67
:'0. 0 7
~- - - - - - - - - 8 4, 2 00 I
70 4.J6 -3.00 17- - ---- --42,400
80 3.08 -2./6 ~
Ig 1.6 -.;: ,
90 /.68 -1.23 ~
95 .92 - .70
100 1.13) 1 .13)
lao 0 Ie/,
115r-,><,
'Q~
\ . /, 4
~. 06
u
g- .OS
:
\
1<
L.E. Rod.: /.58 J.
Slope of radius
through end of
chord: 0.305 J,~
~'h j;;( "\7'-',-"'- ~
-t~.04 : /I
1/ I
,
I
~
IfJ
r'i!
I\o.fLC
~
,,'" -,~
_: J1 ....... - <~
'"
-.:::
~ . 03 ~ -- i7: 1..--::
/'
>:
I
!}J , 17 'b;
19' '(;R f- - ~, - ::::!i
0..:
.02
~ - --
_ b-- - LJ /- f'-'
14 a.c.posihon i- :~ v, ~p
I .x _ Y _I- ema .c . r- .0 1 -
In)_ F p-
IS!' 0 - - /.2._ ~ o.o0a. _r- 7. - .4-...)
:~
1- -.OO~ _r-
~-
6- - 1.3
x----- - 1.3 o
, IAli
"7~ ~ }. ?
- .00 7
+ -- - 1.4- 5 - 1--.012 r-
~- I-~.~/~ -r-
.2
" /
,./-. J/" ~
"'~ ~~ .. -
IP o ,).---- V P"
I I -...:QJ - .2
l..tl Airfoil: NA. C. A. 23012 - .2
~ Size : 5"x30" Vel. (ff/s e c):68 8
.... -.3
LI. Pres. (sihd. aim.) : 1/4 to 20
- .4 ~ Airfoil: NA.C.A. 23012
;W Test: V.O.T.I/67 Dafe:9 -34
~- ,4 Dote : 9-34 Tes t: V. O. T. / 167
Where teste d: L .M A.L. Res'llt s corrected to infin ite aspect r a tio
.6 ~
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /. 8
An g l e of attock f or infinite aspect ratio, €X. (de grees) Lif t coefficien t, CL
F IGURE 12.- . A . C. A. 23012.
H-:ltll m
Sto. Up'r: L'w"'.
. 11
I I I I I _I 1 I I
a - a I I I I I 1 I Te st I I I
1.25 1.90 - .77
2.5 2.89 - 1./5
5.0 4.J4 - 1.70 . /0
J r II
.;reyno lds Number
3 , 030, 000
0
7.5 5.38 -2./8
10 6.15 -2.62 0 20 40 60 80 10o 6- - - - 2,4 20, 00.0
/5 7.08 -3.40 Percent ofchord .09 x- ---------- 1, 280,000
20 7. 4 9 -3.98 +----- - 665, 000
25 7.60 - 4.30 <?
JO 7.55
40 7.11
50 6.52
-4.46
- 4 .4 6
- 4.30
2.0
"
-<: .08 f- 1-1-
c:
- 1-"7- -- - -- - 34 1,000
0 - - - - -- 172, 0 0 0
60 5.61
70 4.48
- 3.83
-3.14 1. 8 : ~ .07
80 J.16 -226 ~
~
90 1.70 -/.25
95 .93 - .70 1.6 ~ . 06
100 (.12) (-.12) u I
IDa 0 , I
II
I); ):. 1.4 g> .05
L. E. Rod.: 0.40 I I
Slope of rod/us
throu9h end of
'\'
1.2~
-t
~.04
I
chord: 0.305 1// ' ~ '-. ,,' + I
:.... +- 'X- ~ 'tQJ ~ , I
,,
:'0 0..:e·
1.0 03 , ' ,
Ijiif '''' ~. ~ I
J I€: ~ r.-;,- ~ ~ Ii1 /~ t,;;:
a .c posifion • 8 QJ . 02
L.!- ~ V
o
J J .r Y_I- ema .c. _ r- .6 \.) ,01
It:' :3 ~ ~
0--0.6 5 _ -O.D!o. _ r- -:::
"
d .8
6~-
6- - I- -.010 _
x------ 1. 0 - .01 I r- .4" a ~~
+--- .9 3 - 1- -.014 - r-
I'" '1----- - .9
o-~ ~ .4 - ~ - j- ~ . q/i - r-
1-0- 1- - .01/ - r- .2 d"-·I JV'II <jF
lr<l ~.bc
}
o 't -. 2
Airfoil : N A. C.A . 230 12 -33 o
d Size : 5"x3 0" Vel. (ff./sec):68 -.2 u
..... - .3
'" Pr es.(s/ i?d. aim.): It020
<U
c:: Ai r f o il : NA .C.A. 23012-33
Tes t: V. O. T.1240 Dole: 3 -35 Do te : 3 -35 Tes t : V. D. T. 1240
Where fes/ed: L. MA.L. -.4 ~ -.4
Results correcfed to infin ite asp ect r atio
~
-8 -4 4 a 8 12 /6 20 2 4 28 32 -.4 -.2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1. 0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1. 8
An g l e o f oltac /:( f o r infin ile aspect ro'fio, €X. (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
F IGURE 13.-N. A. C. A . 23012-33.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARIATIO NS OF TH E REY OLDS U MBE R 11
20
lnllltfM
5to. up'r. L'wr. I
- 0 . /1
0
1.25 2.30 -1.52 I
2 .5
5.0
3.16 -2.10
4.38 -2.76
7.5 5 .29 -3.17
./ 0 T~;t
105.98 -3.42
15 6.97 -3.74
0 20. 40 60 80 10 o (?eynolds Number
Percent ofehord .0.9 0 3,1 70.,0.0.0
20 7.58 -390
25 7.91 -3.97
30 8. 00 -4.00 d
.....,. 08
6 - - - - 2, 3 90.,0.0.0.
x--- -------- 1,340.,000.
40 Z63 -3.98
c:
50 6.73 -3.87 +--------6 7QO'O'O'
60 5.49 -3.66 :~ .07 '1-- ------- 3 3 5,0.0.0.
70
80
4.06 -3.27
2.61 -2.64
I. B
,
~ 0 - - - - - - 172,0.0.0.
90 1.26 - /. 63
95 .66 - .95 1. 6 ~ . a6
100 (.13. (-.13) u <6 I
100 0 - ?/lb 1. 4 g..OS i ;I: 1
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 15'1<--, t""l: I ' I
Slope of radius
Ihrough end of
, ~ -6 , ,, I
Q, . 04
chord: (J.153 J; -t;., ,~ :-.;:
<.;::
J I
H~""
, ' t",. ;/
"/~
I
' ~ e · a3 ,
1fj '\-1 ~ '1-, Q;
L : r-..:, - .0.2 fl. f ~/
=;,;
V .1;:::, l~ ~ ./ f-"'"'
a .c.position .1::.- "
" Ix .0.1
7~-
f7 I-.
Cma c
. .. - -
0 - - /.0. 0.005
i1JI 6 - - 1. / 6 - 1- .006 - - a v
'y ~:»'
x- - ----I.a 4 - .005 -1-
0 +--- - .8 - " rl -~- rt
IT
0. - - .0.02 -1- .2
d-·' -
~ - -~.~O /l-I-
\/- ·- --1.1 - I"l'!
$.~" ~~E<lll ./ 3
I I I .I .1 1 I
;;::
~
Q,
e· 03
I"'" p:.. 1-(
-[
"" -,
I~
....
b'
~~
.'
V
1:'1 . 8~ ~V
.11 'I ' a .cposifio n
. 0.2
"
.t. r-, - 7- - <;} - :-.., ~~
i'" ' / I X + y- _ emo • _
- .6 . 0/
~
.~ ~ ~! . 2-t--2.- - 0. 199.. _ -
f,( r7 6 - - 1.1 -+-~ __ -. 19 ~_ -
, X- - --- -I ./.J.-8 -./98 .4 0
' Jl
;II.:: jV + ----/ .6 1-12 - - - .210. - I-
.2 ~
"
ra _. I
If! .
"Y I
I
I
I
I I
I I o
,11) - .2 of- - .".- -
II.! Airfoil:N.A .C.A.6712 o\) T -~
IT'-
rf. : Size: 5"x3a" Vel (ff./s ec):68 - .2 .... - .3 *
J. Pres. (sfnd. aim.): 1/4 f020
~ Airfoil: N. A.C.A. 6712
I~ Tes! : V. D. T.I 166
Where fesfed: L.M.A .L . -.4 ~ -.4 Dofe: 8-3-'1,9-34 Tesf: T. 1166 v.o.
Resulrs correct ed fo infintte aspect roria
~
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 2 0 24 2 B -.4 -: 2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 /.4 1.6 1.8 2.0.
Ancjle of a llaeA fo r infinife aspe cf ratio, lX, (Cleqrees) L i fI c o e l l /den!, CL
F I GURE 15.- . A. C. A. 67 12.
12 REPORT NO. 586-NATIO AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AER O AUTICS
.26
n=lItl II~
Sto. Up'r. L'w 'r. I I I I I I I I
0 '. ' , , '..' , , ~ 1 1 I.
°
I.i'S 1.894 -1.894
i'.S 2.615
5.0 3.555
° --
=5:m --
.24 • a .c.posd,on x = O. 6; Y =3 1 1 I
. " " x=O.6;y=3;C••.• =0
7.5 4.200 -4.200 -,--- .22
10 4.683 -4.683 ,--'- 0 20 40 60 80 10o
f'ercenf ofchord
~~
5.345 5.345
5.738 -5.738 A
2.2 .20
25 5.941 -5.941
.30 6.00<' -6.00<' R, ~
40 5.803 5.803 Iii , 2.0
50 5.<'94 -5.<'94 \ (r iB '. Wifh flop \
60 4.563 - 4.563
70 3.664 -3.664 -..: K
, -
\ ,
80 <'.623 -2.621 1:8 .§.16 ( .-fV
90 1.448 -1.448 .1 Test R.N. I--
95 .807 - .80 [HI), .10
With flap I--
100 (.12~ (-.Ii' 1.6 ~. 14 ,,
100 0 a 1:61 18". ' iQ:>~ Q) ~3,070,OOO~
L. E.Rod.: 1.58 I'I I;~ : o /,';-- 2,240,000 t-
1. 4 !.J.12
II f \ ~
'. x----- 1,300,000 t-
f.. Cl +--- 661,000
: ~
1.2 ~.I0 "
'<1--- 348,000 t-
r. t.J Q) 0-7 - Ilr O'lOOo I--
I. D.,.: ~.OB
I>-' Ll " _Ll Wifhoul flop
1=
.B.G
<:
.'1> e
0.. .06 ~-:"'---3, 180,000'
Ijo-Wilh flop 1/ \
~
) "
:
.6 ~ .04
!.J
Wilhout flop
.4~ .02 . Ll l"'i
IF'
,.J -- ~ f-- -- : Wtfhouf flop
--.I
-- :
II Ll
.2 ; 0 f.<l.!-,1- Ll --r- r- .- ~- r- -- f1--- __ lA_
.
.
o J- -.1 ~
lJ -..: --
~.
Air foil: NA. C. A. 0012 wilh split - .2 'I> -.r, With floo
flap: Size: 5",,30"
8 -.2
~
Pres.(sf'nd. afm'): !fo 20 Airfoil: NA.C.A. 001i' with split flop deflected 60·
-.4 -.3 1-1- Tesf : v. 0. T.
Vel. (ft.jse c.): 4B to 69 1255 Oale: 5-35
-16 -12 -B -4 0
Tested: L.M.A',L., VO. T. 1255
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
-. 6 " -.2
~ -.4
1-1-
Results corrected to infinite aspect ratio
o .2 .4 .6 .8 !.D 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 22 2 .4
Angle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE J6.-N. A. C. A. 0012 with split fl a p deflected 60°.
20 .24
Sto. Up'r. L'w'r.
t ~ 10
x va.c. II I I I I I I I I
- 0
-~ ~c! p~s}tibn l xl =j.2; t=7 + . 1
0 J.
I.i'S 2.67 -1.23 I- ~.g 0 IY t-
.22 I .1 J
I. \)
<'.5 .3.61 -1.71 l-
~a-IO ~ '" • x = I .2·, Y = 7·' c...·• ..=1- O. 008
5.0 4.91 -2.26 :c/4 I Q 1
7.5 5.80 -i'.61 I-- .20
10 6. 43 0 20 40 60 80 10o I
15 7.19
i'0 7.50 -3.97
I-- =H& {I % ofchord J j I
25 7.60 -4.<'8 . IB
~ i With flof,'. .
30 7.55 -4,46 2.2
40 7.14 -4.48 ~ ," d
50 6.41 -4.17 .•.:.16
,, ,, ",\
( ['-'
60 5.4 7 -3.67
70 4.36 -3.00 2.0 .§ Test R.N._
80 3.08 -2.1 6
90 1.68 -123
, , .\).14
~ \ Wifh flop:-
95
.~~ -(- .70 if \ , I.B ~
~ 3,100, 000*_
100 (.I .I3) ~ . 12
100 a 6 w
'" t:. 1.6
\) \ /,';- - 2.260. 00~_
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 1\ 'fk' \ x----- 1,370,000 _
Slope of radius 8'.10 \
+-- - 658,000
fhrough end of / {.
,,1: \
chord: 0.305 ~
1.4 -l5 '<;1--- 334,000 -
<h .OB \ 0 - - - 168,000
I L 1.2 t.J ~ ,
f1...
-'
\
I....... e·06
P -f 1.0 ~ tl.:
r>'l :G .04
/ .. Wtlh flop I . 8~ :!: "
tf
Wdhout flop-
.
QJ
o .02
I I- 'b-----3,090, DOO'-
.6 !.J
:
_Wilhout flop
~ o
P j
.4 --.1 u
.
II 1<1 t,j"-.I ~t"'"
~ /
.2
I
~
1
't -.2 ~ Wifh flOR
, lr. ..J"
o 8 -
Air oil: NA.C.A. 23012 with split L~ - -t -
I
j£l
flop: Size: S'x30'
Pres. (st'nd. atm.): Ito 20
Vel.(ft.fsec.) :31 to 69 Dote: 6 - 35
- .2
... - .3
~
~ -.4 I-r-
I- Airfoil.' N.A.C.A. 23012 with sp lit flop deflected 60°
Test : V. O. T. 1265 Date: 6 -35
---- I I
\1- ~~~=t~~~~~~~~P*~t~JI~~bl~ \
!lJ .... -10
5. 0 4.91 -2.26 1(0 II /4
7.5 5.80 -2.61 t- t- .20 r
0 20 40 60 80 10o . h-
ID 6.43 -2. 92
15 7. 19 - 3.50 t- t- " ·wt.'ercenf of chord I-H--I"cl--
q:f'J++++.J-+-H--I-,+-+-I-H Wi In
f l op t-~t-
. I 8 >---+..qv
r:-+--!-+--+-+-.J----!--+-~H Te 5 f R . N. +-l-l-+-H--l-1-+-
20. 7.50. - 3.97
25 7. 60. - 4.28
30 7. 55 - 4.46
40 7.14 -4.48
50. 6.4 1 - 4.17
I.~
IN, I ~
I
. d e.-1----I--4--4-+-+-+-+-I-+-+-H Wi I n f l op -I---I-H--+-+-I-++-I
..... . 16 f--H--+-+++++++ 0 - - - 3,0 70, OOO*~HH--+-+-I-++-1
60 5 .41 - 3.6 7 ~ -t I
,,
\
c: 6 - - 2,270,000 -I--H-+-++++--H
2 .0
70 4.36 - 3.00
80 3.08 -2.16
\ :~'/4 x----- 1,440,00 0 -I--H-+-++++--H
If t;':!:i
g-.I0
i5
i -\ Wi fhout flop ++-I-+-H--+-+-i
.6----- 3,090, OOO t ++-I-+-H-+-+-i
1.4
chord: 0.305 II Ij, 't
~ . 08 I-H--+-+-+++-I-++--I-H--+-+-I-++\+-I--+--I-H--+-+~
/ ~
~ I'l" P I.Z <J ~ \
..... 2·06 H--I-+++++-H-+-++++--H--+-I-~+++-H-+-+-i
I/ -Wil h flo
d
>1 1. 0 ~ Q..
.~ . 04 ~-+~+-~~~~~~~~-++4-+~4-+-i-++~~
d Ii .8~
' Wi th out flo{- v ~"
/ o . 0Z HH-+-I-+++++-+--I-~_-I~--+
_ -+~-~~~W~i~
th~0~u+t~f~/'
0~p++-+-i
/ .6 u
~ O~=m~~--~~~-~-~=r--~
- &.+~b-~-p~_~~
~flrt-r+-r+~
I
" .4 -..J
~-. / H--I-+-+++-I-4-+-+-~H_-_~~~~+-I-4-+-+-~~j-4-+~
L.a - -
d Ll
.2
cJ C- -c Wilh flop
o ....:_ -. 2t~tj~:E1=tj~~~Ei~~~~;t~~~~~~ ---
II " A irfoil: NA .C.A. Z3012 wilh spli t v _ -H -1
/ flop : Oote : 8 -35 8 -.3 krf-O 1" I I
Pres.(sf'nd olm.): 11020
- .2
S - . 41-1-1- Airfoil: NA. C. A. Z3012 witli spli t flop d efl e cted 75 '
S ize:5 "x30" Vel. (ff.jsec.j:31 fo 70
-.4 I!O t-I-I- Test: v. o. T. IZ88 Do te: 8-35
I Tested: L.M.A .L., v.D. rl288 ~ Resull s corre cled fo infinite aspec t 'r olio :
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 IZ- 16 20 Z4 28 -.Z 0 .Z .4 .6 .8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 1. 8 2.0 2.2 Z.4
Angle of a t lack for infinite asp ect ratio, a D (degrees) L i ff coefficie n t. CL
F IG O&E IB.- N. A. C. A. 23012 with split fl a p deflected 75° .
"i& ~:~~
15 8.52
=~:~; r- -
- 4.84 t- -
0 20 40 60 80
?er cen f of chor d
100
.20 .}'
20. 8.92 - 5.4 1 "'..- f..:'F- Wil;' flop
2 5 9.08 - 5.78 f( ..--'-
.30 9.0.5 -5.96
40. 8 .59 - 5.92 ,
I@ '
2 .4 . 18
Test R . N. t-
50. 7.74 -5.50.
60. 6.61 - 4.81 l.airT , , I
Z. 2
d
...... 16 Wil;' flop t-
70 5.25 -391 ~ I I I
c:
80. 3.73 - 2.83
IJ" , \ I \ 0 - - - 3,1 10, 000' -
90 2.0.4 -1.59 I
2 .o . ~ 14 6 - - 2, 2 70,00.0 t-
95 1,/2 - .90 IN..... 1\ I I ~. , x----- 1,450,000 t-
100 (.1 6) (- .16) I -..:
100 I
I. 8 ~ .1 2 , +--- 68 0,000 t-
L. E. Rod.: 2.48 k> I I I u 'V~-- 350,000 t-
,
Slope of rad,uS
thr ough end of
!U ~ :' I. 6 g- .10
I
I
° -,- 17 I ,OO,O_t-
I I I I I
chord : 0.305 I;'" 1,Zl ~ I 1
P ~ J'... e ·06 I
0.:
If Wilh flop
,
j I" . 04
h
It' In-
:'Wi th o ul flop . 0.2
--~
~-- .,.-,
II
f-<: t- 6- 1-< f-- ~ - ". W!'houl flop
I
o -- --- -- :W
II /
, 1""-
kJ·
d-· I -
IY & ....:QJ - .2 >-1-.
2 ~ilt /~fl- t- t-
Lr
:
o 8
.... - .3
- '::-I--l--=t -i -
U Air foil: NA. C. A. 23015 wi lh c:Q) >-== F lU'
Date:8-.35,Z-.351 split flop: Vel.(ff.jsec.j:3110 70 _ Airfoil: NA.C. A. 2 015 with split flop de f l e cfe d 75 '
Pre s. (s l'n d aim.): /to ZO
2' ~ - .4 t- t-t-
Size: 5" x 30"tJ Tested:L. M.A .I..'v' O. T 1289, 1232 : Corre c te d 10 infinile A.R.
- 16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 IZ 16 20 Z4 ~ -. 2 o . 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 12 1.4 1.6 1.8 Z.O c .2 Z.4
An gle of attock for infin i le aspec t r atio, aD (degrees) L iff c o e fficien t, CL
FI GU RE 19.-N. A. C . A. 23015 with split fl ap deflected 75°.
14 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
cU
n-:~II«~~I N
Sto· up.,., L'wr. I 1 I I I I I I I I
0 - 0 .24 ! III !.I 1 1 111 l I I
1.25 .J.55 -0.82 -f- *a.c.posdlon x-I.0;y=7 I.I.!. _I.
2.5 4.71 -1.00 -f- x-I.0;y=7 ; c.~.=-0.0IB
1
5.0 6.33 -1.06 .22 t. •
,
7.5 7.42 -1.09 -f-
10o
lO 8.20 -1.21 -,..... 0 20 40 60 80 r\ I c
15 9.02 -1.66
20 9.26 -2.22
25 9.25 -2.64
30 9.10 -2.91
40 8.46 -3.15
I'ercent ofchord
Ii' ,
~
2.'"
.20
.18
-- !--iY I
Test R.N.
Wifh flop
I Willi flop ':"""f--
SO 7.S3 -3.07
1ilI1', d 0----- 3,120,000*
, ",,
60 6 .35 -2.78 2.2 ..._.1 6
70 5.00 -2.32 ~ l l - - 2,290,000
ff'fd , ,
80 3.52 -1.73 c:
90 1.90 -1.00 .q, )(- ---- 1,450,000
95 J:'/ \ , " 2.0 ~.14 +--- 660,000
100 I.~~
- .58 \
100
(.1 (-.13)
",\ , <;;: v- - - 336,000
0
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 a (
~
, 1.8 ~\) .12 [J - - - 170,000
Til 1 1 I 1 1
Slope of radius I I Withouf flap
fhrougn end of / 1& 1.6 8'.10
chord: 0.610 14V \~ ~---3, lBO, 000 t
{;
r k' I'r ($
1.4 ...., ,k.OB
'cr----1,4BO, 000
0-----/7/,000
II" -<~ ~ c:
j , I', .q) ..-::
~p
,, 1.2.1J e·06 \
" ~
0;;: Cl \
I_With flop ~ "<]
1.0 ~ .04
1,.( If lJ A
Without flop la' '.
. 8~ .02
- lop
/ Ii ~-,
~, Wdhout
:
.6 0 ,..... --
/ L f-- ~ r-l t- 16' -
-
ci 141'
.4 r..l-.I ,'"
¢"-
1.6 '"~ . 06 11 11
W. u lQi,
lih ,
1.4 g-.05
'~N 1111
I! ~
{; 11 , , ,,
1.2 (j ~.04 , ,
i'; " 0.. I II
~ II ,
1..4.
lJ"l
Q
IU N-i h7
'0_
+ 1.0 t
:G
e·03
Q.; ,'In:
~ ~7
J ~ 1J.,J , \,0,
.8~ .02
'6 QJ ~- .-(>-;- ~ Y. iS~
), o ..l: I-<: - ~ I:::::: ~~
.6 lJ .01
Ii 'l::
"
"
IIjij"
.4--.)
.2
~
tJ -.1
o
,~
............
'I L-'~
J c 't - .2
';1. Airfoil: N.A.C. A. 23012 with external
j airfoil flap, Size : S'x 30 '
-.2
8
.... -.3
r- I- r- Pres. (sl'na. aim.): 110 20 00t8:7-35 ~
Airfoil: .A.C.A . 2 012 with external-airfail
Ve/.(ft.jsec.) : 69
-.4 ~-. 4
flap deflected -3:
Test: V.O. T. In3-1276
Tested: L.M.A.L., VO. T. 1273,1276 Results corrected fo infinite aspect ratio:
-/0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 .32 ~ -.6 -.4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, a, (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE 22.-N. A. C .. A. 23012 with external-airroil flap deflected-3°.
Main wing section _____ ________________ N. A. C. A. 23012 Main wing chord, CI ___ _______ ______ __ _________ __ __ 0.83.3c
Flap section ____ _______ __ ____________ N. A. C. A. 23012 Flap chord, C2=0.2<. ____.. ____________ ________ __ __ _ .167c
20
1 l'l:'
10
I~ ~.c.l I I I I _I I I I 1 T T T T Tf
r- p,lvo~
I- of main wing -_
;ft I r~. - ~~ 0
I. " -/O
tJ ....
l'
. 12
.11 f- - I- 0
I
1-11 1 T
.1. I I Test T l
l _t-7:z·c-kpoSifion'
feynalds Number I z y
I( 0 c/.4 Pivo:J 3,080,000 0.5 8
I- .03c• . 02Sc. f- -
Pivot below c 1 '0 20 40 60 80 I 00 ~----2,350,OOOI 1 I-r
I- .054 c, .045 c. - f'ercent orehora .10 f- - I- x----------- 1,290,OOO T -1 I T ·~l .1
Pivot oft L.E. i - - 1-+-
I-
of flap I", ~ - - - - - 6~5,OOO I I I I (~- /I
I- .24c, .040c.
f'f \1 2.2 .09 f- - f-<;7----.-- 333,000
i- Pivot below c,
v.; . i - - f- O - - ' - - - 167,000 I 1 I
.I0c, .0167c.
t- Flop displace- 2.0
d
-;:.08 l- I-
j-Coefficients based on the sums of the main t- I -
I- T30~ angle
1/.- '\ c: wing and flop chords and areas. I
\ ' .Q) "(for flap 01 -3°) In
" 1.8 ~.07 IT
~ ~
~+ pt.. IXjQ ,,
~ . 06 117,
.h
1.6
III I.lZ I-!J I'>i tI
VI iL
--I- 1.4 g-.OS
I~ !P. I}
rt' 1"-
{; 1\\ lY' ~
. ~ . 04 , I)
11
" rf}
I '~
"
.;::
e·03
Q.
,\
l\7 b-- )-.j"17
,
L-l V
W' j.~ ['VF - -t- pcp 1:"1- - I - Jry
j
.02 1-
~i' . 01
j;
ri' .4 o
~'l
I r. . .2
0"
J-.I
'A
II-~
Llfi
IlL Airfoil: N.A.C. A. 23012 with
o 't - .2 b. :--I-- .J! . _ -hoi
~ externa/-airf'oil flap . 8
.... -.3 I
Pres.(st'nd. atm.): I to 20 - .2
Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 23012 with external-airfoil flop
Size: S'x 30' Oate:7-35,8-.35 ~ f- f-
deflected 30·; Date 7-35,8-35, Test : V.o.r. /278
Tested: L.M.A.L., VO.T. /278 -.4 ~ -.4 l- f- Results corrected to infinile aspecf r atio:
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 ~ -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Angle of attock for in,finife aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE 23.-N. A. C. A. 23012 wjth external-airroil flap deflected 30°,
Main wing section __ ___ _____ ______ N. A. C. A. 23012 Main wing chord, c. ____ ________ _____________ O.833c Datum cbord, C-CI+e,.
Flap section _________ ________ ____ N. A. C. A. 23012 Flap chord, c.=O.2<. _________________ ___ ___ __ .167c
tl84380 0-39--3
16 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
20-- .14
H-:~.I ~I
Sfa. up'r. L'w'r. I I 11.11 11.1 .1.1.1 I~JI!~
Reynolds Number I J !.I ,I
c- 1-0.1 I I I I Test
0 3.50 3.50
1.25 5.45 1.93 - .13 - 3750000' '<;j- ..• - ... - 297000'-
2.5 6.50 1.'17 _
5.0 7.90 .93 - - r : : , - - - -3;060.000' V - - .. - - .. IS7,OOO-
7.5 8.85 .63 -
.42 _ 0 20 40 60 80 10 o .12 - - r x----------- I, 830,000' T------- 99.000-
109.60
10.68 Percent of chord - - r + - - - - - I , 170,000' .1.------51,000-
~~ 11.36
.15
30 11.70 0
.03 ./1 - - H7-·-----775,000' ,
40 11.40 0 2.2 - - t t - D - - - ' - - 490,000'
5010.52 0 r: '(a. c.l. pasifion (for t
60 9.15 0 d· IO
70 7.35
80 5.22
90 2.80
95 1.49
100 .12
0
0
0
0
0
~
,. "...6K
~ ~;r.: ,["':Iil.
!I!"~
jj ~ ~ i'<;t rh' ,
k
~
2.0
1.8
f09
:13
\
! \
wing with slof
closed)
x = 1.1; Y= 4
I
,
:.I-
r
, ~
/
,
L. E. Rod.: 1.50 rlj ~ I'R t.",' ~ , ~Q)' 08 ~.
\
,
\'(;
1.6 I
o
II :r~T-
-'" '" I';
~ ~' :l'~ / ~ : ,,
l
u 07 /
,,~~ , 1;),'
\I~, 1\ r
,, v: 1--, r-_ _ ~S ..
1.4 o \~ \ IL " l':i
"- ~.06 ,\, II ,'lj
I .,/ IT
A, ,
1.2 tj
-- :f ~ ~\.Jl liz' / Ii
r; ...: \;::.05
1.0 ~ e ~ ' - oj--' /
" /'
~- I'
r
1&;0
~ .8~
:0 0:..04 iI.
'" if!. - ..-:I-c ~.
-- .
:r- ---
n-
1/
F
f
J o
.6 u
Q)
.03 ~~ ~ ..... ,-1;>-
I!";;~ --~
--I--'
,
-'
- ~%-
~ .02
.4-.J
~ .01
-
.2
I d" 0 -
Airfoil: Clork Y with Handley-Page slot
o
~ -./
Iq: ~=
Size: 6"x36" Vel. (ft.jsec):69 - "'1'9"I I I
Pres.(stnd. aim.): 1/4 to 20
-.2 8
..... -.2 - - Airfoil: Clark V with Hondley-Poge slot(N.A CA. T.R.400}
Test: v.o. T. 848 Dafe:6-32
Where fested: L.M.A.L. -.4 ~ - - Oafe: 6-32 Test: V.D.T. 848
Results corrected to infinite aspect ratio
L- fii-3
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 ~ '-.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 /.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 C.O 2.2
AAgle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, G.
FIGURE 24.-Clark Y witb Handley Page slot.
As an example of scale effects within the flight range, The most efficient airfoil for a landing Reynolds
figure 25 has been prepared to show how the choice of Number of 1,000,000, for example, is definitely not the
an airfoil section for maximum aerodynamic efficiency
may depend on the flight Reynolds Number at which 440
the airfoil is to be employed. The efficiency is judged
.•
)----..
by the speed-range index Clmax/CdQ' Values of Clmax were 8.060,060/
determined for the airfoil sections (N. A. C. A. 230
r---
r--- .....
~
'"
Qj
corresponding to the landing condition. The cor- -
-Q
~ ""I'--
responding values of CdQ were taken as the actual profile- ~ "
drag coefficients associated with a high-speed lift
coefficient suitable to an actual speed range of 3.5,
-
-
-ti
"0
t
2,000. 0 00_,
----
r-----.. '" ""
"'" '"
'\
I"
'"
>,
but corrected by the methods of this report to the high- r--- ~
speed Reynolds Number (indicated landing Reynolds
Number R times 3.5). Four curves were thus derived
indicating the variation of speed-range index with
section thickness for four values of the landing Reynolds
,
1060000
, ,
- "'"'"
"
"",'
I I I I I I
2.8 .13
I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I T -II , , , TTl
2.6 ./2 o Experimentol points
o Exper imen tal points I-
roumfed-tip airfoil tesf rounded-tip airfoil test
First approximation (CLl I- 2.4 ./1 corrected to effective
Second ~ " I
_____ Third I I"
I I
I- I I I
(cd - c....... 2.2
Reynolds Number
First appraximati~n (CD)
.10
-,.... - Second ' , ,,' '
____ _ Third I I . I I I I(c d ,)
2.0 .09
1.8
. ., .... . 08
c:
i:;,<: -0 1.6
. III
1/,1 ~.07
) t'-..
1.4
""~ . 06
,.. t'-..
1.2§
.... <J
g-.05
I.
I
.\.1 {j
r " I.O~
.8
III
0
ll
;:::::
'"
~ . 04
'i::
~ . O3
Q..
I
/,, "
I
~ ....
"
/;:.
.6 r::. . 02
:g ..,., ~ F
v
~
.4~ . 01
V)
U'
"
.2 a
/.
0
- .2
Airfoil: N A.C. A. 4412
Airfoil: N. A.C.A. 4412
-.4
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 /.6 1.8 2.0
Angle of attack for infinite aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) Section IIlI coefficient
FIGURE 26.-Airfoil section cbaracterist ics. Comparison of tbe various approximations.
plied only in a general way in the construction of a for spheres and cylinders with increasing Reynolds
generalized CdQ curve. From this curve, values of Numbers in the critical range. The latter scale effects
cdQ at any Cl may be derived in terms of the presented are associated with the greater resistance to separation
airfoil section parameters. Tills "generalized section of the turbulent layer. The increase of maximum lift
polar" (see fig. 45) was derived from tests of rounded- coefficient with Reynolds Number shown by most com-
tip N. A. C. A. 0012 and 4412 airfoils, taking into monly used airfoils is a similar phenomenon, The drag
account the variation of Cdo along the span. For con- scale effect for most airfoils, moreover, is at least com-
ventional airfoils of medium thickness, Cdo values from parable with the corresponding scale effect for the skin-
this generalized section polar should be more nearly friction plate.
true section characteristics than the GDo values obtained Tills transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the
directly from the test data. Tills conclusion is particu- boundary layer, as in Reynolds' classic experiments, is
larly important for lift coefficients above 1 where the primarily a function of the Reynolds Number but, as he
second approximation correction becomes definitely showed, the transition is hastened by the presence of
unreliable and near Cimaz where the Gvo values are unsteadiness or turbulence in the general air stream.
tl84380 ()-3~1j,
20 REPORT O. 586- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
Likewise, the transition in the boundary layer is in passing from the test to the effective Reynolds
hastened by the turbulence in the air stream of a wind umber, moreover, is approximately allowed for by
tunnel so that transition occurs at a given point on the dedu cting a small correction increment from the
model at a lower Reynolds Number in the tunnel than measured airfoil profile-drag coefficients.
it would in free air. Likewise the associated scale This correction increment was originally employed
effects that appear in the tunnel tend to correspond for tests at high values of the Reynolds Number when
with those that would appear in flight at a higher the boundary layer on an airfoil is largely turbulent.
Reynolds umber. This Reynolds Number may there- The correction was therefore .estimated as the amount
fore be referred to as the "effective Reynolds Number" by which the drag coeffi~ient representing the turbulent
and is, of course, higher than the actual Reynolds skin friction on a flat plate would decrease in passing
Number of the test. from lhe test Reynolds umber to the effective
It appears that the effective Reynolds Number for R eynolds Number. The values of the increment thus
practical purposes may be obtained by multiplying the deduced from Prandtl's analysis of the turbulent
.020
,
.! ){.IA I.t.~. 10012
rJ°
.•.:
c::
--- :f " - . :-- ._-- I'-..
H~·
,Q)
~
~ . 008
QJ
8.006
.010
-c =
.'
0 ..910
~ (logR) z5.
i""- '"
r-
I'--x
- - x
- " "
~.005
--- -' =r-.o.
Cl
~.004 - --Prandtl- Gebers Irons ilion curve
~ I'--
~ . 003
o
~ Cd = 2.656R-! ~,. . "'-
~.002
::) '--- ..........
.§
.C:
~
.001 h Q 6
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 /0,000,000 2 3 4 5 /OQOOQOOO
Effective Reynolds Number
FIG URE 27.-Variation or ed om;. with R . Comparison of N . A. C. A. 0012 airroil with skin-friction plates.
test Reynolds Number by a factor referred to as the fric tion layer, which is substantially in agreement with
" turbulence factor." This factor was determined von Karman's original derivation, are as follows:
(reference 9) for the variable-density tunnel by a com-
parison of airfoil tests with tests in the N. A. C. A. T est Reynolds Effect ive R ey-
/led
full-scale tunnel and hence indirectly with flight. The Number nolds Number
abnormally delayed. For example, Dryden (reference separation than the laminar boundary layer. This
14) found very large values of Rx corresponding to dependence of separation on the character of the bound-
transition on a flat plate. The conditions are remi- ary-layer flow was first observed in sphere-drag tests.
niscent of those of super aturation in solutions. Fol- At low Reynolds umbers separation of the boundary
lowing this analogy, it may be impossible to set an layer develops near the equator of the sphere. When
upper limit of R above which transition must occur. the boundary layer on the sphere is made turbulent, how-
Unusually low drags would, of course, be associated ever, as it is when the Reynolds Number is sufficiently
with the presence of this type of abnormally extensive increa ed, the separation shifts to a position considerably
laminar boundary layer; but, while this possibility aft.
should be recognized, it is pi'obable that in most prac- The occurrence of separation for airfoils, as affected
tical application" conditions such as slight surface by the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the
irregularities, vibration, or self-induced flow fluctuations boundary layer, is indicated by the scale effects on
will operate against it. The present results may there- Clmax (fig. 28) for symmetrical Eections of varying thick-
fore be used in flight calculations as conservative for ness. For these airfoils at any considerable lift coeffi-
wings that are not aerodynamically rough. cient the low-pressure point on the upper surface tends
VARIATION OF IMPORTANT SECTION CHARACTERISTICS WITH to occur just bebind the nose, on the leading-edge-radius
REYNOLDS UMBER
portion of the airfoil. When the boundary layer is
Maximum lift coefficient clmox.- The maximum lift laminar behind this point, separation may be expected
coefficient is one of the most important properties of the
airfoil section. It largely determines not only the max- 2.0
imum lift coefficient of wings and hence the stalling • ~.1~~~} bbl~ 0
,} 1.8 .. - ,. 0015 'V
speed of airplanes but also, for example, influences how . I- 0012 0
and where tapered wings stall and hence the character 'i 1.6 . r- 00096
.~
of the stall in relation to lateral stability and damping .~ 1.4
, -1
in roll. The maximum lift coefficient, moreover, in- ::: .A:l;
I-::';
~ 1.2 ,
dicates the useful lift range of the section and tends to u /"
:::: 1.0 /
define the nature of the variation of profile drag with ..::: 0- f/"
.,.
lift. Finally, the maximum lift coefficient is the im- 10' - -
§ .8 ~
f.<>--
portant aerodynamic characteristic that usually shows .§
the largest scale effects. ti .6
~
It is not surprising to find large variations of Clmox t
.4
with Reynolds Number because Cl mox is dependent en- ;gu .2
tirely on the boundary-layer behavior, which in turn is III
II) 0 8 6 8
Now consider the character of the flow as the Rey- increases rapidly with R. As shown in figure 28, CI:naz
nolds Number is increased. The effects are shown very for the N. A. C. A. 0012 begins to incre!lSe rapidly with
clearly by a comparison of figure 29 and figure 30. R at approximately R.= 1,000,000. Consider therefore
Figure 30 corresponds to a higher Reynolds Number and two flows, one at R . =l,OOO,OOO just at the attitude of
shows turbulence forming at a "transition point" along Cl maz ' and the other at the same attitude but at a higher
t
24 REPORT NO. 586- NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTJCS
effective Reynolds Number, say 1,750,000. For the The range of R is limited by the wind tunnel so that
former, separation is probably occurring near the low- in most instances the cale effect above the critical
pressure point, but the turbulence is forming closely range could not be determined . It. is probable, how-
enough behind the separation point so that the fiow ever, that the highest maximum lift coefficients are
over the upper surface is partly reestablished. An reached when the Reynolds N umbel' corresponds to
increase of angle of attack fails to increase the lift, th03 occurrence of fully developed turbulence practically
however, because the turbulence is forming so late that at the laminar separation point but that t,his condition
the local separation and its resulting adverse effect on occurs above the highest Reynolds ' umbers reached
the thickening or separation of the turbulent layer except possibly for the thickest airfoil, . A. C. A. 0018.
farther aft prevent a further gain of lift. Now as the High local Reynolds umbers at the laminar separa-
R eynolds umber is increased the transition region tion point could, however, be reached by employ.ing a
moves to a position nearer the separation point, the thick, highly cambered airfoil. The N. A. C. A. 83 i8
extent of the separated region is reduced and, as shown airfoil was included for this reason. The results (see
by reference to figure 3, CL at the same angle of attack fig. 32) indicate, as expected, a very low critical Rey-
is increased from 0.85 to 1.05 (for the approximately nolds Number. With increasing Reynolds Number,
corresponding test Reynolds Numbers of 330,000 and clmax rises to a maximum at R=900,000 and then falls
660,000). Furthermore, the angle of attack may now off slowly. In this instance, at the highest Reynolds
be increased until CL reaches 1.1 before the flow follow- umbers transition probably occurs ahead of any point
ing the upper surface fails. The failure now occurs at which laminar separation could occur. The ma}'-1-
2 .0
II 1111
I--NAC.A." aql8 "
,} 1. 8 lUI
1M -x r- b! I II I I....
(:'1.6
'I I t 1.6 t---
NA.CA. 6412-
.
/
~U? ~
r: J Jd..j-I-H" - '"_N.A.C. A.4409 't-:
~ 1.2
+-
0
/
/
.-LX
\.) /
1:/
N.A. C. A . 4412 u
a-- - t - - :
1/
~ /.0 :::: 1.0 L
~ ..:::: I-NA~ CA . 2412) f-/
0012-_.
~ .8 § .8
.~
.§ . 6 >< .6
~ o
12 .4 t: .4
t::
~_~ .2 :g
\J
.2
u QJ
I.fj
°
CIJ 100,000 2 3
8
4 56 1,000,000 2 3
6
4 5/0.000,000
V) a
100,000 2 3 4 56/.000,000 2 3 4 510.000,000
6 8
suddenly, causing a break in the lift curve, but again mum lift coefficient must therefore be determined by
may be delayed by a further increase of the Reynolds the behavior of the turbulent layer. The significant
Number. conclusion is that Cl max then decreases with increasing
In such cases the scale effect evidently varies with R. Another signifiqant observation is that under these
the shape of the nose of the airfoil. If the leading-edge conditions stalling id progressive as indicated by the
radius is reduced by making the airfoil thinner, the rounded lift-curve peaks in figure 11. This type of
local Reynolds Number for the separation point or the stalling corresponds to a progressive separation or
tran~ition region, either R6 based on boundary-layer thickening of the turbulent layer in the region of the
thickness or Rx based on the distance along the surface, trailin~ edge.
is reduced with respect to R because the local dimen- The process of stalling in general is more complex
sions near the nose are reduced with respect to the air- than either of the two distinct processes just discussed.
foil chord. Higher values of R are therefore required It has been compared by Jones (reference 17) to a
to reach the critical Rx or R6 values in the neighborhood contest between laminar separation near the nose and
of the nose. This result is indicated by the higher turbulent separation near the trailing edge, one or the
critical Reynolds Number Re for the N . A. C. A. 0009 other winning and thus producing the stall. ~~ctually
than for the N . A. C. A. 0012, as shown in figure 28. it appears from these scale-effect data that, for com-
Likewise, the 15 and '18 percent thick airfoils show monly used airfoils at a high Reynolds NUlllber, the
progressively lower values of Re than the N. A. C. A. forward separation usually wins but that it is largely
0012, but the critical range tends to disappear as the conditioned and brought about by the thickening' or
thickness is increased. separation of the turbulent boundary layer near the
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 25
trailing edge, which, in turn, may be largely influenced tions, is shown by the fact that the critical Reynolds
by the local separation near the leading edge. The Number is little affected by increasing the camber to
reasons for these statements will become clear from the that of the N. A. C. A. 6412 in spite of the fact that
consideration of the scale effects for the different types the actual gain in Czmax throughout the critical range
of airfoil. becomes less for the more highly cambered airfoils.
Consider first the maximum lift of the conventional This conclusion is an important one because it can be
type of cambered airfoil. Where stalling is determined extended to predict that the critical Reynolds Number
largely by separation near the leading edge, the maxi- will not be affected by flaps and other high-lift dev ces
mum lift would be expected to be a function of the placed near the trailing edge, which act much like a
curvature near the leading edge and also a function of camber increase.
the mean camber because the effect of the camber is to
3.0
add a more or less uniformly distributed load along 1 LIIIIII
J. jllill
the chord. At some angle of attack above that of zero 2.8
N.A.1C.A. 23021 ~ith - P
lift the flow over the nose part of the cambered airfoil 2.6 t- split flap 1 I k:::.
I-"-'
approximates that over the nose of the corresponding t- dlflected
I
75°" ,
•
2.4 ....-
symmetrical airfoil at zero lift. This correspondence 1 II ~
I-'
~ J. II ~
of flows at the leading edges between the symmetrical <3 2 . 2
N.A.c.A. 23012 /
/
and cambered airfoils continues as the angles of attack ,.;- with split· ;- ,
~2.0 t- flap de- I il-
i-"
of both are increased. If the stalling were determined
largely by the flow near the nose, the two airfoils would
:0 18 t- flected1 _60·
~. L1
p'
/' . A.C. A. 230/2
QJ II ~
stall at the same time, but the lift of the cambered 8 /.6
N.A.C.A. 0012 wdh ' J. ~
airfoil would be lUgher than that of the symmetrical
airfoil by the amount of the initial lift increment.
t- split flap I I
~/.4 deflected 60·
t-'
/- ..a-
-::I~II
4.A.'dA. 2302i
1
the lift curves become rounded. (See figs. 6,7, and 8.) FIGURE 34.-Section maximum lift coefficient, e'm .. ' Airfoils with and without flaps.
results of references 18 and 19 had indicated that the increasing Clmaz throughout the Reynolds Number
flow does not follow the upper surface Of an ordinary range but shows a peculiar change. in the character of
flap except for small angles of flap deflection. It should the stall in the full-scale range near R~=3,000,000.
therefore make little difference whether or not the upper (See also fig. 24 .) The airfoil with the external-airfoil
surface of the flap is deflected with the lower. Further- flap shows a break in the scale-effect curve. Two
more, the same reasoning might be applied to predict values of Clmaz were measured for the condition corre-
the effects of camber, when the mean line is of such a
sponding to R.=1,700,000 (fig. 23, test R=645,000),
shape that the maximum camber occurs near the trail-
one lift curve having a sharp break at the maximum
ing edge so that the separation associated with increas-
and the other being rounded. It is believed that the
ing camber is localized in this region. Thus it might
change is associated with the action of the slot at the
have been predicted that the scale effect as shown in
nose of the external-airfoil flap. It is particularly
figure 35 for the N. A. C. A. 6712 airfoil would be more
interesting because it represents one of the cases men-
like that of an airfoil with a split flap than like that of
tioned under the interpretation of the wind-tunnel
the usual type of cambered airfoil.
data for which the failure of the tunnel flow to repro-
Another important conclusion can be deduced from
duce exactly at the effective Reynolds N umber the
the results in figure 35 showing the scale effects for air-
corresponding flow in flight becomes of practical im-
foils having various mean-line shapes. When a mean-
portance. A comparison of these tests with tests in
line shape like that of the N. A. C. A. 23012 is em-
the 7- by 10-foot tunnel (reference 5) indicated that
such scale effects, may be due primarily to the action
2.0 r-)A.~.J ~f111 ~
r-.
cJ
i 1.8 t--- ..... r- 430120
6412 'Q
i
.2.0 I
..c:: 4412 0
-- i: 1.8 J
'
.~
1.6
-r--
i--I"'"
W-
- -
-j-"
-~
~ 1.6
NA.C.A.'23012
!>
- --/:
.- - .l1 ~
,
~/.4 ~
10 .-:::'
tJl; I-':; f/
0.; _ ;J:! 1.4 r--
~u 1.2 .re::::t-
'l:::
:.::: 1.0 .1P'
~ I- -
-~
/
/'
.....
III
8 /.2
~ L
to:'
- -
--- ---
,
V ..... 1.0
S .8 §
N.A.C.A.23012-33-
tt+ .m
.~ 0. NA.C.A. 2412 .8
ti
!;
t
.6
.4
o<l
+
x
..
•
..
2R 12
0012•
23012
23012 with
'1.
c: .4
6
-
:glJ external- airfoil flop set at -3°
III
.2
11 II IIII 111
2u .2
V) 0 JJ II I I Ii II JJJ 6 8
Jl 0 8 6
100.000 2 .3 4 S 61.000.000 2 .3 4 S 10,000.000
EffectIve fieynolds Number
100,000 2 3 4561,000,000 2 3 4510,000,000
Effective fieynolds Number
FIGURE 35.-Section maximum lift CO<\IIlcient, CIMor- Airfoils with various mean-
FIGURE 36.-Section maximum lift coeffiCient, CI..... Tltickness·shape variation.
line share3.
ployed-that is, one havihg marked curvature near the of the slot as affected by the boundary-layer thickness
nose and a forward camber position-the effect is to relative to the slot width, which is a function of both
alter the conditions of the leading-edge stall. The critical the test and the effective Reynold.;; Number, rather
Reynolds Number is thus shifted to the left and the than to the transition from laminar to turbulent flow.
general character of the scale effect becomes more like When interpreted on the basis of the test rather than
that of the usual airfoil of 15 instead of 12 percent the effective Reynolds Number as regards the occur-
thickness. rence of the break in the low Reynolds Number range,
The opposite effect on the nose stall is shown in figure better agreement with the results from the variable-
36 where the critical Reynolds Number is shifted to the density tunnel was obtained. On this basis the dis-
right by decreasing the leading-edge radius, that is, by continuity shown in figure 37 as occurring at R.=
changing from the N. A. C. A. 23012 section to the 1,700,000 would be expected to occur in flight at a con-
23012-33. Thus it appears, in general, that the charac- siderably lower Reynolds Number out'3ide the usual
ter of the Cl maz scale effect, particularly in relation to flight range.
the value of the critical Reynolds Number, depends With regard to c'maz scale effects for conventional
mainly on the shape of the airfoil near the leading edge. types of airfoils, it now appears in the light of the
The two remaining airfoils not covered by the previ- preceding discussion t; t a position has been reached
ous discussion (fig. 37) have slotted high-lift devices. from which the seal .!ects appear rational and suf-
Both the Clark Y airfoil with Handley Page slot and ficiently regular and ,,;ystematic so that general scale-
the airfoil with external-airfoil flap show unusual scale effect corrections fifty be given for such airfoils. This
effects. The airfoil with Handley Page slot shows an position represents a marked advance. In a later
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUM BE R 27
section of this report such generalized scale-effect cor- 2.8
1
rections for Cl ma " are presented for engineering uses. 2.6
Lift variation near czmaz.- The variation of the lift
With
=
s p lit -v ..-
-
fl ap I~
'V
and the lift curve becomes rounded at the maximum. 100,000 2 3 4 561. 000,000 2 3 4 5 10,000.000
Effective Reyn olds Number
It is interesting to note that breaks occur at compara- FIGURE 37.-Section maximum lift coefficient, e'mo.' Airfoils with hIgh-lilt devices.
tively low values of the Reynolds Num er for the
N. A. C. A. 8318. In this case the brea s appear in
the critical range of R, where critical leading-edge .12 _ N. A.C1' ,'23012 N.A. CA. 23012 with e~(rlrl-
" j 2412.1 a i rfoil t'lOI2. a t -3,"
stalling occurs, and disappear at higher and lower ey- I 4~ Iii I .
0.10 -
nolds Numbers. (See figs. 11 and 32.) ~ I I . 1"
I :
Lift-curve slope ao.- The scale effects for ao are QJ'.08 -N.A. C. A. 2rOI21-33~ --N. A.C.A. 2Rz 12
g-
represented in figure 38. It will be note t at, within o; I I III
NA.C A. 6 412
the full-scale range, the airfoils show little variation of QJ./2 . ---I "I II 6712
ao with either airfoil shape or with R. In this range 'I..~" . IO lft..- -~ EN. IIII :-y---- ...j,
'i.
most of the airfoils show a slight tendency toward I
~. 08 f--N~.C.rI'#CJ9: :
II
N.A.CA. 0009 e:.
increasing ao with R but, for engmeerrng purposes, the c::
I~ - "-r- 4 4 12:.' .. I 00 120
o - " - f - 4415 "-"0015 ~
variation of ao may usually be considered negligible '.;:.,.12 -- =- , , - 1-0018 0
o o ~
within the flight range. The lift-curve slope, like QJ t! ....... , y- "831 8 x
fJJ . IO
several of the other section characteristics, begins to ........ r-- - -
.08 ,..... -- I I I
display abnormal variations below a Reynolds Number 8 I II Ii lei
of approximately 800,000. For the -lowest values of R 100.000 2" 3 4 5 6 1, 000,000 2 3 4510,000,000
Effec tive Reyn Ol ds Num Der
the lift curves often became so distorted that lift-curve FIGURE 38.-Lilt-curve slope, ao.
slopes were not determined. (See figs. 2 to 24. )
Angle of zero lift a lo.- Scale-effect variations of Effec five trt!yno/ds NumDer
100,000 2 3 4 56 1,000,000 2 3 4510,UOo,OOO
alo are represented in figure 39. The conclusions with o 8-
respect to this characteristic are almost the same as
e:. NA.~~A.I 'f~oI:? 8JI NA .CA._2~~2' 6
-It -
for the lift-curve slope ao. Symmetrical airfoils, of ~\" - 2 I~-+i tt l~ .- ~. Cr23Jt2m II :
:
course, give alo=O at all values of R. The cambered g. .6,
'v I I.:
'
NA.C.A." 23012 wtfh
'5 10' , N. A;CA. 2412
exrernol -OIr f o i l
airfoils, in general, show a small decrease in the abso ute
value of the angle with increasing R above the va ue ~u_4 l~' 6 flap
I
a t -3"1
_ . _ 1
0:: 'n..
at which the variations are abnormal.
~.
~
'fi . ,:, N.A .C.A. 440.9
_ - • r--4412
Minimum profile-drag coefficient cdOmtn.-The mini- I~ '0..
-
" 4415
mum profile-drag coefficient is indicative of the wing I II I
drag in high-speed flight and is the other important
section characteristic, aside from CI rna" ) that sows
'r----.
Nt- Cf54i2! [\
.. 6712--
_~_II
"'I
I
'" ..
I 8318
It Ii V I Nn ,<-:A. 0009 I
marked scale-effect variations within the full-sea e
~ I '"I
" oo~~~
I DOl
range which must be ta en into account in engineermg -10 I !> • I OU/81
work. F lOUR" 39.-Angle of Ul'O Itt, <.
r
28 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISO RY COMM ITT EE FOR AERO NAUTICS
.030
~
,
"f'....
/020
\,j
...... ~ r--....
c:
.~
.~
;::: .010
- ~
~
I'
R~
f'\; I-~ t-- r-.
.
N. A.C.A . 0018
---
r-. ,
, ' 0015
QJ I- ,"
.... .,
3.008 .......
..............
r::;
1"1-<
-v
- , ,
,
, "
,"
0012
0 009
8'.006
~. OOS r--~
....--:
-
~.004
o I'-
~.003
...........
%
.§.002
I'-
.'i; ........
~
(a)
8 I, 8 6
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1,000, 000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000.000 .3 4 5 /OQOOQOOO
Ef fec tive Reyn o lds Nu m ber
(a) Symmetrical airfoils of varying thickness .
.030
0-........
"'--...... ~
-..:
.~
.~
"
I-- '" -h
r--
I"""
I'<\. ~ I'-
1"- :--,1"<
-~ "-
~ .010 1'--
. 'N. A.C.A. 6412
QJ
r- , , , " 4412
8. 008 ........... K - -k' ' -- " 2412
....... " 0012
(),
I"-.... ,,~
r- - -
~.006
-:
't?oos
QJ
1-
'=
~.004
t003 r--....
§ ............. r-....
.§ .002
.C: i'-....
~ ........
1'1-....
(b)
B t"--r--.... 8 6 8
.00 1
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effecfive Reynolds Number
(b) Camber series.
.030
x.......... 1
I~
t
'E
----
f'-
x
t-- t-I-~
.:;.020 r-- t-- t-x
r.; " "<:::
-..:
c:
k t---..
-x
t-- t-- 1"-I"- t-- I-X xf- f.>< -
.~ I - i- I'-. t< t"--
.~ t--- t-['c N.A.C. A. 8 3 18
~.OIO
QJ
8. 008 ............
I"-....
" -
I-
- l- i- <
- _."
,
__ u
-
-"
4415
4412
4409
f:~~~
i-f-..
V-
i7'
~.004
l- F
to03 r----
% ...............
.§ .002
r--....
~ r--....
I'-
(e)
8 ........ 8 6
·00 1
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000 .000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 .3 4 5 100.000.000
Effecti ve Reynolds Number
(c) T hickness and camber .
FIGUR I.-Minimum i>rofile-Jrag coefficient. Cdo ... i n'
--
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS N U MBER 29
.020
.! ~
- - '"
E
J r--
.•.I::: l- t-- ~ N, . A.C.A.23012
.~.01O
.U
:t. 008 -.........
- - I ,-23012-3..,
,.::
"
Q)
.......... - 1-
8.006
tJ-..oos
tl
-t .004
~ ........
~.003
0
b.
~ . OOZ
............
.......
.§
::J ...........'
.1:: ;-....
(d)
~ 8 .... 6 8
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000.000 2 3 4 5 6 10.000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000'
effective Reynolds Number
(d) T hi ck ness shap".
.OZO
~ -N.A .C. A.24IZ II
-- ~~
1
.! ;N.lC.A. Z301211
J . ··N.~:C.A. 0012
1-.'<
rJ
.,..: __ p:~./'~~!!i NA.C.A.2RzI2
:-
::S~l" :....r.." 23012 with external-airfoil flap of -3"
I::
. ~ . 010 .....::
.u
~.008
Q)
-......... >:::
8.006 ~ -f.- . -I-
g-.oos
-t.004
,
~ ......
;;: .003
0
I..
Q. -......... ......
~.OOZ
::l ........
.§ I'--
.1:: ;-....
~ (e)
.001 ......... 6 8
100,000 2 3 4 56 1,000.000 Z 3 4 5 6 10.000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective ReynOlds Number
(e) Cam ber shape.
~
I:>. x ..
.040 ........
1><-..
.030
.! 0........... '-
l"- t-- -><-
E
............... .0.. r... ~"Cla':'k with 'U'. 'w Icy:Po9e. s lo,
rJ° n .""
...,-
.VLV
u...,::
c: ~ I'-.. f".."
.~
.\.J
..:::
-..:
Q) .010
I--
- r- i- t--
"- f'..r-...
f:! 1'1'- . -..
A.
.
A.6712
0
~.OO8 -......... -- -t-
u
' -
"
6412
4412
tl
-t.006
.......... --
k ·OOS
..::o nn.
I..
~ . 003 i"
::J
.~ ............ ;-....
.~.002
~
........
b-
...........
(f)
,....
·~o;O.OOO
~
2 3 4 5 6 1,000 000 2 3 4 5 6 10,OOC 000 2 3 4 5
Effecfive Reynolds N.umbe,-
(f) Camber shape.
FIGU RE 40 (continued.) - Minimum profile-drag coeffiCient, CdO m'•.
--
30 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
The experimental drag results are presented by means necessarily be unreliab e. Nevertheless, much en-
of logarithmic plots with the well-known laminar and gineering work requires a knowledge of airfoil drag
turbulent skin-friction curves and the Prandtl-Gebers coefficients within this range so that the engineer must
transition curve s own for comparison. (See figs. resort to extrapolation. For this purpose the data may
40 (a) to 40 (f).) At the higher Reynolds Numbers a be studied in relation to the slopes of the curves for the
striking simi arity exists between the minimum profile- various airfoils (fig. 40) in the hig est range of R
drag coefficients for the airfoils and the transition curve reached in the experiments. Such a study indicates
representmg the drag coefficient variation with R for a that the airfoils, excluding the unusual airfoils N. A.
flat plate towed in water. The other stri ing feature of O. A. 8318, N. A. O. A. 6712, and the Olark Y with
the drag curves is their departure from regularity at Handley Page slot, show a decreasing Cdo min with R
Reynolds Numbers below a certain critica value. This that seems, in general, to parallel approximately the
critical value of the Reynolds Number usually lies in corresponding curve for the flat plate. Thus, in
the range oetween 400,000 and 800,000, but a stu y of general, the slope of the Cao min scale-effect curves in
the experimental resu ts will show that the critical the neighborhood of a eynolds Number of 8,000,000
value itself is irregular, that is, does not vary system- may be taken as apprOximately -0.11, which leads to
atICa y with t e airfoil shape. 'I he results appear as the followmg extrapo atlOn formula:
though tWO or more drag values were possib e within
this Reynolds umber range and accidental disturb-
ances eterrnined whether a high or a low va ue of the
drag was measurea at a given va ue of R within this
range. One is rerrun ed of Baker's experiments towing wnere the subscript std refers to the standard airfoil-
aI.l'shlp models in water in a towing oaSIn woere meas- test resu ts from the variable-density tunnel corres-
urements cou d not be repeated until transition was ponding to an effective Reynolds umber of approx-
defimtely brought about by the use of a cord passing imately 8,000,000 . In such extrapolation formulas,
ar( nd the model near the nose. values or the exponent have been used between 1/5,
rhe shape of the scale-effect curve for the N. A. O. A. taken irom Prandtl's original ana ysis of the completely
0012 airfoil at zero angle of attack (fig. 40 (a)) was tur ulent skin-friction layer, and 0.15, which agreed
stu ied in the light of bounaary-layer calculations. better with experiments with pipes and flat plates at
The results mdicated tnat the computed skIn-friction very high va ues of R ana agl'ees better with von Kar-
drag coefficients to give scale-effect vanatlOns in agree- man's recent analysis of the comp ete y turb ent layer
ment with the measured ones requITed the presence of in this range of R . It should be emphasized, however,
ratner extensive arrunar oounaary layers in this that tnese comparatively arge exponents are not
critical range of the Reyno' ds Number. In fact, for conservatlve and would be expected to lead to pre-
tne N . A. O. A. 0012 airfoil, the lammar oounaary layer ictlOns of large-suale arag values mucu toO low, partic-
W&.S found to nave become so eXtenSive when R was u ariy when the extrapola ion is made from measure-
reduced to the experImentally determinea critical va ue ments made in the transition region; for example, in
that a further reduction of R woul have reqUIred the figure 40 (a) measurements in the range between
laminar bounaal'Y layer to extend behinci the computed 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 snou d not be extrapo ated by
laminar separatlOn pomt, which wou d have inVOlved such methods to 20,000,000. Extrapolations from
at least loca separation. It seems evident, thef'efore, R=8,000,OOO using t e comparatively low exponent 0.11
that the mcreased d.rag coefficients belOW the critical are, however, consiael'ed reasonably conservative for
range are the result of thIs conaition, willch is pI'obably ael'O<lynamically smooth airfoils.
associate wit iammur separatIOn and a resultmg In regara to profile- rag coefficients a t lift coefficients
mcrettse of the pI'essure or form Ol'ag 0 toe secdon. other than the Optunum, figure 41 (a) shows the scale
FortunatelY, however, tms poenomenon seems to effects for ca o at cl=0 .8 for the symmetncal series of
appear belOW the usual flight range of R. ail1oHs. The drop in the scale-effect curves in the
When aeslgnS1'S are concer'nea With tne rrlilllmum tranSitlOn regIOn has dlsappearea and the two thinner
drag 01 an alrIoil SeCtIOn, it is usually for hlgn-speed or airfoils snow eviaences of the approaching stall. Ourves
cruising fugnt, WnlCh for moaern transport aU'planes may for mem'oers of the camber series of airfoils, N. A. O. A.
correspond to a Reynolds ' umoer of 20,000, UOO or more 0012, 2412, 4412, and 6412 at zero lift are shown in
tor some of the Wlllg sections. The al'ag coeffiCients for figure 41 (b). Here the symmetrical airfoil i3 operating
the Reyno ds . "umoer range above toe highest reached at its optimum lift alld the departure from toe optunum
In toe tunnel are therefore ot more Interest to an those for t e other airfoils increases with camber. A p 0-
wen W:thln toe experImental range. Unfortunately, gI'essive transition from the Cdomtn type 0 sea e effect
.. , ':lIOn of the meaSUl'ementS pe1'TOlts only an to tnat of figme 41 (a) is apparent. ReSUlts (reference
'e aeliermmatlOn of the snape of these sca e- 10) from other wind wnne s for the Olark Y airfoil,
. even in the hlgner experImental range of w . ch is in a Sollse simi ar to the N . A. O. A. 4412 but
"()latlOnS into the higher flight range will has slightly less camber, are a so indicated in figure
..
------~.,.-----------------------------~------------~~
~ ------------~
'- --
Q:)
-v-
c:i
.020 -~'b
-.'- ,
II
~ -]::::
(,)~ -- f- -<'- ,
.....
c:
.1lJ
.G .010
..:::
'Q; .008 "'-
--- -- -- f-
-
i-o-
- , -I'-'- '1:1<- N.A.C.A.0018
•• - "
...;;~- .- . "
-- "
0015
0012
0009
- I -r-
8
"".006
I'--.. f-- 1-= I- I-t-
~
'15
.005 =
v·
:--
004
..::: i"-,
0.003
.{:
.002
"'--r-..
I"-- I........
(a)
......... 8 8
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 10,000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective Reynolds Number
(a) Symmetrical airfoils of varying thickness; cl=O.8 .
t
...... 010
--- 1--
I- r- ~~t--
~
-~
--
...............
ro-
.........
--
~
x
r- r-<'
- V.O. T.
- 'tV_A.C.A. 6412
c:
· ~ .008
~ j
*-
xN -
- ---"
___ - II
4412
2412
.!:! "'- i".. ~
i"j....c - - __ II 0012
~Q)' 006 ...... 1-1-
8.005
g- .004
r-..
{j r.......
v· 003
:--
..::: .......
~.002
.... 1'-....
i'
(b)
.001 ....... 6
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective Reynolds Number
(b) Camber series; CI=O.
FIGURE 41.-Proftle-drsg coefficient.
The determination of Cdo values at various lift co- the accuracy of the experimental data is not sufficient
efficients in engineering work is best accomplished by to establish the scale-effect variations with certainty.
a consideration of increments from Cdo m t n· The Nevertheless, the results show a definite tendency
method of a "generalized polar" discussed in a later toward a decreasing Cl opt with increasing R. Thus
section of this report gives such increments in terms of values measured in small atmospheric tunnels may be
the departure of Cl from Cl opt as compared with the expected to be too high. Values from the standard
departure of Clmox from Cl opt. airfoil tests in the variable-density tunnel may usually
32 REPORT NO.5 6-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
be taken as approximn tely correct within the usual full- Such calculations as applied to tapered wings are fully
scale range but may be somewhat too high for the discussed in reference 8. It remains therefore to pre-
higher flight rango of R. dict the airfoil section characteristics at any value of
Pitching-moment coefficient Cm a .c. and aerodynamic- the flight Reynolds umber. The preceding discussion
center position a. c.-The values of the pitching- has shown that for engineering purposes many of the
1.0 important airfoil section characteristics may be con-
.8 x J II I I sidered independent of R within the flight rallge, so
that for application to flight at any value of R these
~' , N. A.~.A .14409
,
characteristics may be taken directly from the tabu-
f'- I'"
bJ:tM
t:!::: ,- NA.C.A.44IZ
i:"i-
- lated values from the standard airfoil tests in the
N.A.C.A~ 44i~'7 ~ ~- L-
r- 1- variable-density tunnel. There remain then the two
important section characteristics CI mQZ and Cdo , which in
,I general will require correction to the design Reynolds
I umber before they are employed .
'<7 NA. . A.0009
!'- " 0012 Section maximum lift.- For the prediction of the
p " f-'oO IS section maximum lift coefficient Cl max at values of R
[> " 0018
NA.C.A. other than the Re value for which they are commonly
67IZ~..
... tabulated, the correction-increment curves of figure 44
r-, have been prepared from the data in this report. In
64{Z-'"'t>-r- , this figure, curves givinbO" the corrections ~CI max are
t-8318-1~':::" grouped in families corresponding to the measured scale-
1 1 - 1-_
230/2-.{J.~Ri!~2
2412- - - ,(j •• t! ~ effect variations for various types of airfoils. In gen-
~3012. 0 r I . - '--- ~ r- '~l.l_ 1-.t-~-
eral, for normal airfoils the curves in figure 44 marked 0
.2
1230/2 'o¥ifh ex- .R.
~-
. ..
r- for types B, C, D, and E correspond to the symmetrical
o ferf,ol-Flop -3'-.,( Ii< - - -
100,000 2 3 4 561,000,000 2 3 4 510,000,000 airfoil sections of different thickness and the curves
Effective Reynolds Number
indicated by increasing numbers correspond to airfoil
FIGURE 42.-0ptimwn lift coefficient, c, ....
sections of increasing camber.
moment coefficient and the aerodynamic-center position In practice, the particular curve to be employed for a
estu blish the pitching-moment characteristics of the given airfoil will be indicated in the standard tables of
airfoil section in the normal operating range between aU'foil characteristics such as table II of this report
zero lift and the stall. In this range the pitching (see also reference 3) under: "Classification, SE."
moment about the aerodynamic-center point may be
" .02 23012 wifh eXfesf.?~ ~/op sef.-:?_
considered constant for conventional airfoils. The I NA. C.A. 2R212 j - ::.., =-lI. -==- Ii:
,} 0 t-~:
accuracy of the low-scale data did not permit the J .!J ~1123OI2- .-
1l-.16
toward the lower extremity of the flight range. Thus ....
t:: 1111
low-scale tunnel tests may be expected to give pitching .~ -.18
.u N.A.C.A. 6~/2 "
moments that are numerically too large. ~-20
II> •
·2
."..
a -.:;::;? ~ ;II""" "', 8 f-- I-::::~
-.2
6 E:::: ~~ ~
.....
'"
Q)
..... f--
7
6
f-
--:::::: -...-r;f-":
I-f-
I:::: ~~
p- .....
'"
.....<I>
~ ~ 1/:[1 5
~ ~8
8
ZVtV ,~
0
~ f- - f-
f.-- ~ t;::V
0
,~
-.4
-- ::::. .0 Type B
~
§
.....
~~
~
f-
2
-
.J- r- -- v
I-
--l- V
V
------
~
Type D
~
....§
-.6 h..:'" jJ;. ~
'"
h..:
'c:i
'c:i ~-
:::.:
8.
•~ .2 ~ r--.?
r- r-- t-
r,J
<I
o
I--::: Io;~
i--'"
~
~
..... j..::::::: ~
-- f-
!----
c::-
I-::: r- r-- t)-
r- r--
·8 ~~
P'
~ F::::::= ~ f-
l - f--
r-f-"
r- vf-'
.....Q)
-.2 f - - 7 ' 0 ~ ~ ........ f-I- ~ '0
6 t::: j:::: '\.. ~ ~-
5
-.4 f-- 4
~ I--' V
~ V V Vv
r:: vV'
Type C
.g ~ 2 Vr--
§ I=-
.....
--
f:1 ~ r-
t-;
V r-
Type E
~
§-
.....
3 '- I-v
f.- V 'h..:
Cf) ~ '"
' h..:
£.1--' l- V V c:i
c:i-
-.6 :::.:
I f - l- f.- V :::.:
f--
o. l- I-
/'
1 2 3 4 5 6
f
/0,000,0 00
-.84 5 6 /'000,00 0 2 3 4 5 6 /0,000,0 00 6 /'000,00 0
Reynol ds Number
to the standard-t est value
ma.,imum Ii(t coefficient at the desired Reynolds Number, apply
FIGURE 44.-Scale-1llTect corrections (or C'MOZ' In order to obtain the section t designation o( the airfoil.
the increment indicated by the curve that corresponds to tbe scale-elTec
Airfoil section drag.-I n design work, values of The Cdo values at other lift coefficients may now be
the section minim um drag coefficient Cdo mi" for aerody - obtaine d from the generalized variati on of ~CdO with
ICI-cl l i d ' fi gure 45, where the standa rd
-'--_----'-::<: 01>'-='- present-e ill
Clm.x-C l ovl
036 I airfoil charac teristic table is again employed to find
I CI OV (' The Cl max value employed should, of course, cor-
.032 1/
respon d to the Reyno lds Numbe r of the Cdo value being
028 calcula ted. This proced ure may involve the use of
I Cl m • x values corresp onding to very
high Reyno lds
i.024 / Numbe rs. These values, 'howev er, may be estima ted
.j scale-e ffect curves ,
by extrapo lating the maxim um-lift
, .020
~o .L. little accura cy being require d becaus e Cl will usually
o
f - f-
~ -- 4
~
.5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Numbe r. In practic e, a series of values of edo may
thus be derived to form a curve of Cdo agains t Cl along
.I .2 .3
lei - c/ Optl/c1",0Jt - c,OP ( which the Reyno lds Numbe r varies with lift coefficient
bulllt>. 45.-Qener alized varia Lion o( ACdO.
as in flight.
INTRODUCTION
each wing tip and of a sting and angle-of-attack strut
An investigation has been made to evaluate three so located as to be free from aerodynamic interference
corrections that were not applied to the data, obtained with the usual supports. The sting used was sym-
in the variable-density wind tunnel, and published in metrical with respect to the airfoil and was attached neal'
reference 2 and earlier reports. The need for these cor- the trailing edge instead of to the lower surface, as
rections had been recognized, and possible errors in the is usual.
data resulting from the lack of these corrections have The tares due to the wire supports were determined
been listed as consistent errors (reference 2) due to the from the data obtained from the tests with the models
following effects:
on the usual supports with and without the wire
1. Aerodynamic interference of the model supports supports. Some difficulty was experienced in obtaining
on the model.
sufficiently accurate tares because of the relatively
2. Effect of the compressed air on the effective weight large drag of the wires as compared with the drag of
of mn.nometer liquids used to measure the dynamic the model. Sufficient accuracy was obtainable only at
pressure.
the highest value of the test Reynolds Number ordinar-
3. Combined effects on the measured dynamic pres- ily obtained (about 3,000,000). The profile-drag coeffi-
sure of blocking due to the model and to errors in pitot- cients obtained for the two airfoils are plotted as solid
tube calibration arising from differences in dynamic lines in figures 46 and 47, together with data obtained
scale and turbulence between conditions of use in the from several tests made with the usual supports over
variable-density tunnel and conditions of calibration. a considerable period of time. The scattering of the
These effects result in errors in the calibration of the points obtained from the tests with the usual supports
static-pressure orifices used to determine the dynamic about the solid line is within the limits of the accidental
pressure.
INTERFERENCE OF MODEL SUPPORTS
errors listed in reference 2, showing that there is no
support interference within the accuracy of the results
The model supports used in the variable-density tun- at high values of the Reynolds Number.
nel and the method of determining the tare forces are It is evident that the data obtained can be analyzed
described in reference 1. The usual tare tests deter- in different ways. For example, the data obtained
mine the tare forces on the supports including the inter- with the models mounted on both the usual supports
ference of the model on the supports. In addition, and the wire supports can be corrected for the usual sup-
the usual method of determining the balance alinement port tares and compared with the data from tests with
with respect to the air-flow direction by testing an air- the models mounted only on the wire supports. The
foil erect and inverted includes any interference of the comparison was made correcting the data for the change
supports on the model that is equivalent to a change in in air-flow direction due to the usual supports and failed
air-flow direction. Earlier attempts to determine any to show any support interference within the test
additional interference of the supports on the model were accuracy.
inconclusive except to show that such interference was Analysis of the data to determine the effects of the
small.
support interference on the measured pitching-moment
Two airfoils of moderate thickness were chosen to be coefficients was more difficult. The supp')rt wires
used in the present investigation, one being a symmetri- stretched under the lift and drag loads, necessitating
cal airfoil (N. A. C. A. 0012) and the other an airfoil of a correction to the measured pitching-moment coeffi-
moderate camber (N. A. C. A. 4412). Tests were made cients, and the method of supporting the model at the
of each airfoil using three methods of supporting the wing tips allowed the model itself to deflect under the
model. Besides the method using the usual support lift loads much more than when mounted on the usual
struts, tests were made with the models mounted on the supports. The correction due to the deflection of the
usual supports with the addition of special wire sup- model is difficult to evaluate with certainty because it
ports and with the models mounted only on the wire involves integrations along the span after determination
supports. The wire supports consisted of three wires of the span load distribution. Accordingly, the effect
attached to the quarter-chord point of the model at of the support interference for the pitching moments
34
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NU MBER 35
was determined only at zero lift where it was found tively small buoyancy effect on the mercury was com-
that the measured pitclllng-moment coefficient was too puted and applied to the results as a correction. The
large (algebraically) by 0.002. This same correction effects of other factors on the mercury were considered
had been found previously from tests with symmetrical negligible. In addition to the correction determined
in this way, a further small correction was applied to
Angles V.D.T. Dafe Condition Tes f R.
millions the specific gravity to compensate for the small change
PosNeg Tes f
- -1080-6 10-26-33 Wire support 3.07 in balance calibration with air density due to the buoy-
o 743 12-30-31 Us ual • strut s 3 .24
0
4-/7-34 3.20 ancy of the air on the balance counterweights. The
+ x 1120
II v 12 3 3 2- 6-35 317 net correction at 20 atmospheres tank pressure was
.06
found to be 2.0 percent for the alcohol and 1.7 percent
for the water, the dynamic pressure as measured being
d...: .0 5 too high. It is planned to replace the manometers by
C
<U I(
a pressure balance in the near future. Measurements
].04
....
+
of dynamic pressure will then be independent of specific
<U
o gravity.
\J .03 [7""
g> CALIBRATION OF STATIC.PRESSURE ORIFICES
l.. [7
~.02
--
~ [;6 The static-pressure orifices used to measure the dy-
~
<;: iI>'" namic pressure are calibrated by making 11 velocity
o
1t·01 survey at the test section, using a calibrated pitot tube
(reference 1). The calibration may be in error partly
o 0 ±.2 ±.4 ±.6 ±.8 ±1. 0 ±1.2 ±1.4 because of differences in dynamic scale and turbulence
Lift coefficient, CL between conditions of pitot-tube calibration and of use
FI GU RE 46.- Lift and drag characteristics of the N. A. C. A.OOI2 airfoil as determined in the variable-density tunnel and also because of pos-
from tests with the model mounted on the usual support struts and on special wire
supports.
sible blocking effects of the model. It is evident that
a new method of calibration is necessary to eliminate
airfoils and had been applied so that no new corrections these uncertainties.
were necessary. These uncertainties may be largely eliminat ed by
Ei .'ECTIVE WEIGHT OF MANOMETER LIQUIDS calibrating pitot tubes on an airplane in flight and by
The dynamic pressure is measured by two manome- calibrating similar pitot tubes, similarly mounted on a
ters connected to two sets of calibrated static-pressure model of the airplane in the tunnel. A detailed 1/20-
orifices as described in reference 1. One manometer V.D.T. Dote Condition Test R.
is filled with grain alcohol and the other with distilled Te s t millions
-1090-2 12-19-33 Wire supporf 3.11
water, the one filled with alcohol being ordinarily 0 1085-2 11- 8-33 Usual • s truts 3.05
used to hold the dynamic pressure constant through- x 1159-8 7 -27-34 3.00
+ 732 12-15-31 3 21
out a test because it is more eftsily read than .06 x
the water manometer. Readings of the water
manometer taken during each test serve to check rJ05
..... +~
the alcohol manometer and to indicate any C<U
chftllge in the specific gravity of the alcohol, ~.04 I
/
which is obtained from time to time by cftlibrating '--<U
the alcohol manometer at atmospheric pressure \J.03 o r
)( /
against a head of distilled water. g> V......
l..
It is apparent, as has been pointed out by ~.02 "-'
Relf, that when the tank is filled with compressed <;: ~ <"
~
/6
air the increased density of the air reduces the o ~I-
"
effective weight of the alcohol or water in the 1t·01
manometers. This effect may be considered as a
o -2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1. 0 1.2 1.4 1.6
buoyancy of the air on the liquid and may be L i ff coefficient, CL
computed, but there is no assurance that the
effects of other factors such as the amount FIGU RE 47.-Lil t and drag cbaracteristicsof the N . A. C. A.44 12 ai rfoil as determined Irom tests
with the model mounted on the usual support struts and on special wIre supports.
of air dissolved in the liquid are negligible.
An experimental determination of the effect of the scale model of the FC- 2W2 airplane ~leterence 20) d
compressed air was made by calibrating the alcoh0l the airplane itself were available. Truee non \ Tl ' 0 1 g
and water manometers at several tank pressures against pitot tubes were mounted on the m plane as shown ill
a third manometer filled with mercury. The compara- figure 48. These pitot tubes were inches I lameter
36 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL AD VISORY COMMITTEE F OR AERONA UTICS
with two staggered rows of static-pressure holes. Each AU pressures were measured by a multiple-tube, photo-
row consisted of 12 equally spaced holes 0.22 inch in recording manometer using a mixture of alcohol and
diameter. The pitot tubes were calibrated in fligh t water. Ratios of pressures were obtained dircctly
against a previously calibrated trailing air-speed head . from ratios of measured deflections and are independent
Three geometrically similar pitot tubes 0.10 inch in of the specific gravity of the manometer liquid. A
diameter were similarly mounted on the model and test was made with the pitot tubes interchanged as to
calibrated in the variable-d ensity tunnel. Great care position on the model to check the accuracy with which
Stalion I (Axis of they were made. The results checked satisfactorily.
tube parallel to Surveys were made upstream from the model with and
ax es o f tubes at
stations 2 and 3) without the model in place using a bank of 21 small
1%' .J O· 50 ' pitot tubes mounted on a strut extending across the
-_-:) 5 t'_ j tunnel, surveys being made on the vertical center line
I~~
IS." l;;}"
1
Stations
7" 0 ' 4" 9~ ' 2& 3
and 6 and 12 inches to one side of the center line.
The data obtained from these surveys are used to check
Wk7g sec tion: the calibration of the static-pressure orifices from time
G6 ftingen 387
to time as required. Force tests were also made on the
mod el with and without the pitot tubes in place and
with several tail settings.
The results obtained from the calibration of the pitot
tubes are presented in figure 49. The data are pre-
sented as ratios of the dynamic pressures measured by
- - - - - - -25' 0" - - -
the pitot tubes to the dynamic pressure as usually
obtained from the static-pressure orifices. A fairly
FIGURE 48,-Outline drawing sho wing location o( pitot tubes On tbe FC-2W 2 airplane.
consistent variation of the results is shown with
was taken to make the small pitot tubes geometrically changes in R eynolds Number and tail settings. The
similar to the large ones and to mount them in the results obtained from the calibration of the pitot tubes
correct positions on the model. in flight are shown by outlined areas indicating the
The pitot tubes Were calibrn.ted in the tunnel over location of all points obtained.
an angle-of-attack range from _8° to 14° and over a Comparisons between the tunnel and flight results
range of the test Reynolds Number from 1,000,000 to have been made on the basis of angles of attack, cor-
2,500,000. Tests were made with three tail settings. rected in the case of the tunnel results for the tunnel-
VD T. Test No. Dote Tes l Reynolds Number (based on wing chor d) Stab ilizer angle Elevator angle
I 1/ 11-2 3- 29-,]4 1, 100,000 3.3' 10'
:I
1/ 1/-4 ,]-29- 34 2 ,570,000 3.3' 10'
3 11 10-3 3-27- 34 2 ,560,000 3.3' O·
4 r--- / / 1/-3- 3- 29- 34 2 ,000,000 3.3 ' 10'-
S 11 10-2 3 - 2 7-34 1,990,000 3.3' o·
6 _1110-(_ 3 -27- 3 4 1,040,000 3.3' O·
7 1108-3 3-22 -;34 2,570,000 0' 0' -
B 1107 - 2 3- 20 - 34 2 ,000,000 0' O·
9 1107-/ .]- 20-,]4 1, 120,000 0' o·' -
<8
Outlined a r eas mdi ca t e location of points obta ined in flight.
Corrected calibration in the variable - densit tunnel.
I 7 I
~ -;=
I .I I 9 7 7 7
/./0 t- ~-t- ~t-
9
t- ~t-: ,~ r-~
III I 9 7 8 9
I~ 1'5 5
12 ,~ ~ " 3 f- t- r- 9 r--c 87 r--c Bf- 5 t-:, 1s3 9
r3 ~~ v~ 9 B ~
, "•
3 5 8 I 8 7 I 5 7
~IOO
~~ ~~ p, ~~ 7 tf ~ \"; ~,~ t-: ~.89
L';" '" ~ iJ- ~ 6 ~ ~. ~ ~ \.~ ~ ~5
3 / 1; ~ Ii£: ti I.e [.1 II 7 l(;: r<
I.\ii; I l1; ~ ~ ti.~ :.; I~ :; ~ Ig
I
'" • • • J LJ 3 1 6
b'
.90 ~ s r- 8 t-: 38 I- ,s8
~t-:
\.....
- --.,;
,6 ~ 7~ I-<
7
~
~~
5
~ ~;
5
~ 6
,
5 3 • ~ • ~ 6 ~ Z ~ 6
6
• t-:~
I 5
8
3
,,>'
~
• 8 i~
8 6
- t-: 8 I- z
7 3
J r- h- g ~6
7 t-: U· I- 8
I t<' ¥ <'
" 6
~ 80
~70
,~
~ .00
c:
-S .50
'tJ (S t ation I (St ati on 2/ (S tation 3)
'IJ 40
~
ti'IJ .30
E>
'c 20
o
.;:: 10
.{?
a
~2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 0 8 10 12
Angle of attock, lX, degrees
FIGURE 49.-Calibration o( pi tot tubes mounted on the FC- 2W2 airplane in flight Bnd on the F C-2W2 airplane model in the variable·density wind tunnel. Results
corrected (or tunnel·wall effect.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 37
wall effect. Force tests made in the tunnel and in effective Reynolds Number. Data obtained in flight
flight show that this method of comparison is very tests (reference 20) are shown on the figure.
nearly equivalent to making the comparisons at equal Although the model was much more detailed and
lift coefficients. A value of the ratio q/qo was selected accurate than is usual in wind-tunnel models, it was
from the tunnel data to correspond as wen as possible not considered before the tests to represent the air-
to flight conditions of trim and Reynolds Number for plane with sufficient accuracy and detail to give
each pitot-tube position at each angle of attack. The reliable drag results. Therefore too much emphasis
values obtained were, in general, higher than the flight should not be given to the good agreement of drag
values at small angles of attack. Accordingly, the coefficients obtained in flight and in the tunnel. At
values obtained were reduced by increasing the value lift coefficients less than 1.0 the agreement between
of qo by 1.5 percent, which is equivalent to a change flight and tunnel data is considered satisfactory. At
in the static-pressure-orifice calibration factor from higher lift coefficients some divergence of the tunnel
1.172 to 1.190. The values of the ratio so obtained and flight data is indicated. As previously stated,
are plotted on the figure as solid lines, and the values the results obtained from the pitot-tube calibmtion
agree reasonably wen with the flight data at small showed that an additional correction to the calibration
1.6 32 factor of the static-pressure orifice might be desirable
_ l 1 ;/,qhL tLtJOInI!.? Qc>;l /
'cL X
x
at high angles of attack. Such a correction has been
1.4 r- - - - - 11.0.
I I
- - - V.D. T. tests <@)
T. tests cor- 0:. ~ v;: 19? x
/",0 28
determined from figure 49 and applied to the data.
The results are plotted as dotted lines in figure 50 and
r ected Tor ~ 0 /
odd/l/onol .~ hli CO show an improved agreement of the lift coefficients
blocking ~ ~
~
.,i'
l1i1<
if
I
t!
the data obtained in the variable-density tlmnel be-
cause it is doubtful whether the correction in most cases
would give a better approximation to the actual condi-
tions than no correction. The pitot-tube calibration
tests were less accurate at high angles of attack than at
~
0.:J .6 !I L'*~ I CJ)e low ones and, as previously stated, the drag of the
model was larger than is the case for the models usually
-I I~ ,/ tested. Another fact indicating that this correction is
.4
1/ J<~ ~ /' 08
small is that, up to the point of maximum lift, the lift
curves obtained in the tunnel for some airfoils are very
>~ ~ I--V nearly straight. Any appreciable correction of this
~W
.2 04
type would result in such lift curves being concave
upward.
CONCLUSIONS
o
4 8 12 16 20 1. The results of the investigation show no inter-
An gle of attack, d ,de grees
ference of the model supports on the model for which
FIGURE 5O.-Comparison of data obtained in !light and ill the variable·density wind
tunnel for tbe F C-2W2 a irplane and model.
corrections had not previously been made.
2. The investigation of the effects of compressed air
angles of attack. A comparison of the hmnel and on the effective weight of the manometer liquid showed a
flight data indicates that a further correction, which 2.0 percent error in the measured dynamic pressure; the
may be due to blocking effects, may be desirable at. dynamic pressure as previously measured was too large.
rugh angles of attack. The airplane model, however, 3. The investigation of the calibration of the static
had large drags at high angles of attack as compared pressure orifices showed an error of 1.5 percent in this
with models normally used in the tunnel, making the calibration; the dynamic pressure as previously meas-
application of this additional correction questionable ured was too small.
for the usual airfoil tests. 4. The total eiIect of the investigation is a change in
The results of the force tests of the model are shown the measured dynamic pressure of 0.5 percent; the
by means of composite curves drawn as solid lines in dynamic pressure as previously measured was too large.
figure 50. The curves were obtained from the test Data previously published (reference 2 and earlier
results by selecting, at each angle of attack, test results reports) to which these corrections have not been
to correspond as well as possible with flight conditioils applied may be corrected by changing the coefficients
of trim and Reynolds rumher. The tunnel results to correspond to a reduction of measured dynamic
have been fully corrected including corrections to the pressure of 0.5 percent.
38 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COM lITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
REFERENCES
10. Platt, Robert C.: Turbulence Factors of N. A. C. A. Wind
1. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Abbott, Ira H.: The . A. C. A. Tunnel as Determined by Sphere Tests. T. R. No. 558,
Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. T. R. No. 416, N. A. N. A. C. A., 1936.
C. A. 1932. 11. Stack, John: Te ts in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel to
2. Jacobs, Eastman N., Ward, Kcnneth E., ane! Pinkerton, Investigate the Effects of Scale and Turbulence on Air-
Robert M .: The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil foil Charaeteristics. T. N. No. 364, N. A. C. A., 1931.
Sections from Tests in the Variable-Den ity Wind Tun- 12. Toussaint, A., ane! Jacobs, E.: Experimental Methods-
nel. T. R. No. 460, N. A. C. A., 1933. Wind Tunnels. Vol. III, div. I of Aerodynamic Theory,
3. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests in W. F. Durand, editor, Julius Springer (Berlin), 1935, p.
the Variable-Density Wine! Tunnel of Related Airfoil 332.
Having the Maximum Camber Unusually Far Forward. 13. von Karmali, Th., ane! Millikan, C. B.: On the Theory of
T. R. No. 537, N. A. C. A., 1935. Laminary Boundary Layer Involving Separation. T.
4. Wenzinger, Carl J., and hortal, Joseph A.: The Aero- R. No. 504, N. A. C. A., 1934.
dynamic Characteri ticB of a Slotted Clark Y Wing as 14. Dryden, H. L.: Air Flow in the Boundary Layer Near a
Affeeted by the Auxiliary Airfoil Position. T. R. No. Plate. T. R. No. 562, N. A. C. A., 1936.
400, N. A. C. A., 1931. 15. Dryden, I-l. L., and Kuethe, A. M.: Effect of Turbulence
5. Platt, Robert C., and Abbott, Ira H.: Aerodynamic Cllar- in Wind Tunnel Measurements. T. R. No. 342, N. A.
acteristics of N. A. C. A. 23012 and 23021 Airfoils wilh C. A., 1930.
20-Percent-Chord External-Airfoil Flaps of N . A. C. A. 16. Jacobs, Eastman N.: The Aerodynamic Characteristics of
23012 Section. T. R. No. 573, N. A. C. A., 1936. Eight Very Thick Airfoils from Tests in the Variable-
6. Millikan, Clark B.: On the Lift Distribution for a Wing of Density Wind Tunnel. T. R. No. 391, N. A. C. A., 1931.
Arbitrary Plan Form in a Circular Wind Tunnel. Pub- 17. Jones, B. Melvill: Stalling. R. A. S. Jour., vol. XXXVIII.
lication No. 22, C. 1. T., 1932. No. 285, Sept. 1934, pp. 7013-769.
7. Jacobs, Eastman ., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests of 18. Higgins, George .T., and Jacobs, Eastman N.: The Effect
N. A. C. A. Airfoils in the Variable-Density Wind Tun- of a Flap and Ailerons on the N. A. C. A. -M6 Airfoil
nel. Series 230. T. . No. 567, N. A. C. A., 1936. Section. T. R. No. 260, N. A. C. A., 1927.
8. Anderson, R. F.: Determination of the Characteristic of 19. Jacobs, Eastman ., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Pressure
Tapered Wings. T. R. No. 572, . A. C. A., 1936. Distribution over a Symmetrical Airfoil Section with
9. Jacobs, Eastman N., allCl Clay, William C.: Characteristics Trailillg Edge Flap. T. R. No. 360, N. A. C. A., 1930 .
of the N. A. C. A. 23012 Airfoil from Tests in the Full-
20. TI10lhp on, F. L., and Keister, P. H.: Lift ane! Drag Char-
Rcale and Variable-Den ity TUllnels. T. R. No. 530,
N. A. C. A., 1935. acteri tics of a Cabin Monoplane Determined in Flight.
T. N. No. 362, N. A. C. A., 1931.
AIRFOIL. ECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 39
TABLE I
IMPORTANT AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS
a. c.
R, aI,
a, c'mal: I C'opt Cd Ornin emo . c • x V
N. A. C. A. airfoil (millions) (deg.) (percent c) (percent c)
----- --
.. .. .-. . ---- ' 0.0001 .. ----- ------------ ------------
... 8. 'liO -------
0
.
0.09
-.
AI. 3V 0 .0001 0 l.0 5
8.290 .0064 0 1.0 4
fi.IOO 0 .00i 'I. 28 0 8
.94 0 .0002 0 1.8
:l.410
I. ,(iO
0
0
. 00i
.000i "".88 0 .0060 0 1.7 13
0 .0049 0 ---- .------ ---- --- -----
. ~h2 0 · ()<J6 " Ii 0 . 0005 0 ------------ -------- ----
. l4Ii
.223
0
0
· 105
.117 "0 .835 0 .0131 0 .. ------- ----- -------
0 . 0135 0 ------ ---.- --------- ---
.112 0 .104
.OW
" .78
AI. G6 0 .0009 0 .6 3
0012 . .. .3iO 0
.100 'I. 65 0 .0009 0 .6 3
S.450 0 .0073 0 .8 3
0. 280 0 · Ol)i '1. 62 0 4
AI. 49 0 . OOi7 0 1.0
3.040 0 .09i 1.1 3
. 096 '1. 18 0 .0075 0
I. ;40 0
. Sil 0 .091 D .91 0 .0065 ------------ ------- ----- --------_.--
.449 0 .0% 1)
9 0 . 0105 ------------ ------------ ------------
.0077 0 1.2 4
.010 0 .09i AI. 66 0 1.1 3
001.5 .096 AI. 60 0 .0082 0
;;.990 0 0 1.2 I
:J.:!.IO 0 .094 cl.4 0 .0086
. 0088 0 2.4 I
I. no 0 .093 ci. 28 0 0
cl.Og 0 .0084 0 1. 5
0 · ()<J2
'7 I
0 .091 !)
.98 0 .0079 -.---------- ----- ------- -----.------
. ·I:lX
-.-- ----- .014\l --- --- ------ ------------ ------------
.222
.In
0
0
.10)
.13-1 "D:OO9
---- ----- .01DS -.------ . --------- ------------
AI. ;;3 . 008l:\ 0 1.7 4-
i. 10 0 .00G 0 1.6 3
OOlh . 09(; AI. 53 0 .0092 0
fl. 210 0 0 2.2 3
0 · 09(l CI. 42 0 . 0098
:I. :100 .0lOO 0 2.2 0
I. no 0 .0UO
.090
oI.2G
Cl.15
0
0 .0102 0 2.4 0
. hun 0 0127 0 1.8 0
0 .OSO AI. 03 0
· 1:10 0 .0179 ------------ ----- ----- -- ------------
.211
.10l)
0
0
.0<J2
· 114
" .90
n . 80 0 .0297 ------ ... ------ ---- -------- ----
.0071 -.013 .5 3
-2.0 .098 AI. 72 .14
.. 8.210
-2.1 .09i AI.08 . 14 .0080 -.043 1.1 3
fl. 100 -.045 1.1 I
:1. 120 -2.0 · Ol)X Cl. sa .15 .0079
-.015 .9 -2
01.33 .:30 .0089
I. no -2. I .O\lf>
. 0085 -.004 1.8 0
-2.1 .oun DI. 16 .22
------------
· HiU
· I:!~ -2.0 .098 "1.08 .42 .006i .------...... ---------.-- --------- ---
.21X -2. 2 .102 "I. 08 .26 .0159 ----- --------- --- -----_._----
.110 -1.3 -------- "1. 03 . 0227 ------ ... --- ---------
... 3. 0071 .. .- . .- . ---.- ------------
23012 .3iO -----
-1.2
-----
.100 AI. 72 .0 .00iO -.00 1.2 7
8. HlO .0079 -.007 1.3 7
-1.2 .()<J8 At. (ii .08
1i.0iO .00 0 -.007 1.3 5
3.400 -1.2 .098 AI. 53 .05 5
"I. 41 .16 .0090 - . 0)2 1.4
I. iliO -J.2 · ()<Ji - . 010 2.0 7
4 -1.2 .096 "1. 28 .28 .0084
.449 -1.3 .096 "1.19 .12 . 0098 ._----------
---- -------- ---- ------- ------------
.221 -J.6 · )09 D1. 15 .3i . 0179 ---- ------- ------ -----
.. . ------- ----------- ---------_.-
01.00 .20 .0182
.112 -1.4 --------- - .010 .6 5
-1.2 .097 1lJ.49 .20 .0071
~.OOO -.0 10 5
- 1.2 .09 AI. 42 .10 . 0075
6. :390 .ooi6 - . 011 1.0 6
3.380 -1.2 .096 ulo 26 .23 3
"1. 12 .28 . 0071 -.014 .9
1. iOO -1.2 .096 -.011 .9 0
-1.2 . 094 01. Oi .10 .00 4 -1
. 000 .0096 -.014 .4
.454 -1.4 .096 01.01 .40
.0073 .005 1.0 7
-.6 · 0l)8 AI. 6) .10
... ._--- 8.3iO
-.7 .09i "I. 55 .02 . 0078 .000 J.1 0
(i. 310 .0077 . 005 1.0 4
3.010 -.7 .0<J7 °1.41 .11 0
.23 .0077 .002 .8
1. i70 -.8 . 095 "1.28 -.001 1.1 0
- 8 .096 "I. 14 .28 .0073
.1>01
.4 :>-1 -.9 .100 OJ. 08 · :35 . 011 ------------ ------------ ------------
.0073 -.088 .0 2
.080 -3.V .090 AI. 77 .26 .7 1
-3.9 .096 1)1. 70 .26 .0080 -.088
5.970 . 0077 -.090 1.0 -1
3. 340 -4.0 .095 cJ. 50 .34 -1
oJ. 2<J .41 .00 4 -.092 1.1
I. 700 -4.0 .098 -.09 1.4 -4
-4.1 · ()<JO D1.2fi .40 .0080
• SHU
-4.1 .097 "I. 23 · ;;5 . 0097 -.---------- ------ ------ ------------
.438
-3. i .105 "I. 21 .57 .()()9(\ ---------- ..----------- ------------
.21
· 110 -2.5 . 115 oJ.()<J .77 .01 9 ------ --------- ------------
.0082 -.088 .8 2
7. H2O -4.0 . 098 D1. 74 .32 .9 1
4·112 -4.1 .Ol)r, 01. 70 .22 .0085 -.088
6.100 . 0087 -.()<JI 1.0 -I
:1. 2iO -4.1 .OUS "I. 61 . 30 1.2 -5
01. 4fi · :17 .OO<J5 -.095
I.f;XO -4.2 .0Ui -.097 1.1 -8
--4 . 3 .00n 1)1. :lG .3G .0091
· ~i4
.4:\:3 -4.3 .OUI "1.:0 .51 .0109 ------------ ------------ ------------
.. . ... ------ ----- ------------
-4.~ 1>1. :l2 .57 .0194
.21U
· III -2.9
· lOll
· 113 "I. 20 ... . 027G . ------ ...
.OO<JO -.OS;; 1.0 I
7.920 - ·1.0 .0Ui cl. i2 .22 1.4 I
·141 .5 . . .09;; JJI.(jG .20 .0093 -.086
G.280 -1.0 .OO<J4 -.085 1.4 -2
I 3.340 -4.1 · ()<JO "I. 5f) .23 1.7 -4
"1.4b · 31 . 009!J -.0'.10
1. 730 -1.2 .095 .0103 -.092 1.4 -8
-4.3 .094 1)1.41 .34
2
-4.4 .089 "I. 35 .39 .0123 ------ ----- ------------ ------------
.431
.219 -4.4 .089 "I. 31 .46 . 019 ---- ----- ------------ ------------
. .. -----
.. 01.34 .68 .0269
.110 -3. I ------ .0091 - . 133 .9 1
8. 210 -5.9 . 098 "1.82 .37 1.1 1
· ()<J(j 01. i5 .2.> . 0090 -.130
6.020 -.1.9 . 0099 -.13 1 .8 -3
3.3,,0 -0.1 · ()<J7 "1.61 .38 1.0 -2
"I. 04 .52 .0104 -.135
-0.2 .097
I. 700
-0.3 · ()<J7 VI. 48 .60 .0096 --_._------ .-- --------- ------------
.ll!!2
01.47 .55 .0129 ------------ ------------ ------------
. 441
.219
-6.2
-5.9
.097
.106 01.4u .70 .0205 ------------ ------------ ---- -------
01. 45 ---------- . 0160 . .. . - .. --- -------- - ------------
.110 -5.4 ----------
- - -
, F rom refereoce 2.
IType lift· curvo peak: , From reference 7.
40 REPORT NO. 586- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AER ONAUTICS
TABLE I-Continued
IMPORTANT AIRFOIL SECTION CHA R ACTERISTI CS-Continued
fl.. C.
N. A . C. A . airfoil R. alo
(millions) (deg.) G.
x v
1 - - - - -- - - - - - - 1 · - - - - 1 - - - - - - _ _ __ 1_ __ _ _ __ 1_ _ __ 1_ (percent
___ (percent
e) 1___ __ e) 1
6712___ __ _________________________ _
8.100 -7. 3 0.090 °2.05 0.35
6. 120 -7. 4 0. 0115 -0.199 1.2 -2
.095 01.99 .32 .0119 -.197
3.380 -7.4 .098 1)1.83 1.1 -4
J.750 . 33 .0120 - . 198 J.l -8
-7.ij . 103 °1.65 .45
.892 -7.8 .0124 - . 210 1.6 - 12.
. J03 /)1. 52 . 82 .0138
.449 - 5.7 /) J. 45
.222 .88 .0228 -----------. ------- - ---- ------------
-4.6 /)1.50 1.01 .0283
.1l2 -3. 9 01. 41 - . 02
8318 ___ . __________________________ _ . 04U
.450 -7.2 . 095 01. 59 .24
6.420 -7.3 . 0127 -.132 1.5 2
. 092 .lO . 0128 -.132
3.460 -7.4 .093 01. 67 1. 8 2
J.790 .31 . 0128 -.135 1.8 2
- 7. 6 .093 "I. 76 .36 .0140
.9 11 -8.7 -.137 2. 1 3
.088 "1. SO .43 .0173 ------------ ---------- -- -- -- -----.--
. 449 -9.0 .085 /)1. 78 .58
.224 -9.2 .0215
.080 °1.40 . 58 . 0269 --- --------- ------------ ------------
.112 -8.0 .077 ° 1. 02
00 12 ______________ . _______________ _ .0332
8.110 • -13. I '. 091 A2.35
(With 'pli! lJap at 60°.) .5.910 '.167 8-.220 .6
A2.35
3.770 A2.30 -------._--- ------------ ----- -------
3.430 A2.21
J. 740 AI. 84
.919 °1.67 ---------- ---------.-- ------------ - ----------- ------------
------------ ------------ ------------
.449 °1.63
23012 __ ___ ______________________ . __ ---------- ------------ ------------ ----- -- ----- ------------
8. ISO , -11.3 '.088 A2.48
(With split lIap at 60°.) '.166 8 -.236 1.2
5.970 A2.51
3.620 A2.39 ---------- ------------ ------- ----- ---- -- ------ ------ --- ---
(Average) ---------- ---- ------ -. ---- -------- -------- -- -- ------------
J. 740 A2. 24
.882 A2,07 ---------- ------ ---- -- ------------ ------------ - ---- ----- --
.444 "1.92 -------- ---------- -------- -- -- ------------ -------- -- -- --- - -- -- --
23012_________________ . ___________ _ -- ------------ ------------ ------------ --- --- ----- -
8.100 • -15. 6 '.085 A2.54
(With split flap at 75°.) '.201 8 -.228 1.2
5. 990 A2.52
3.800 A2.4 1 -------- - - ------- - ---- ------------ ------------ ------ - -----
I. 740 A2.21 ---------- ------- - ---- ------------ --- - -------- ------------
.887 A2.0 1 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
23015 _______ _____________ . ________ _
. 446 AI.90 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
---------- - - ---------- ------------ -- ---------- --- -- ----- - -
8.370 -1.1 .098 AI. 73 .10
3.880 .0081 -.008 1.1 6
23015___ ___ __ . ___________________ _ CI.60
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- --- --
8.210 • -16. 2 ' . 086 A2.70
(With spli t flap at 750.) - 5.990 ' .198 8 -2.45 1.1 6
A2.69
3.830 A2.59 ---------- ------------ ------------ ----- ----- - - ------------
J.8OO A2.45 ------- -- - ------------ ------------ --------- --- ------------
.924 A2.32 ----- - ---- --- --------- ------------ ------------ ------------
2302L _____ __ _____________________ _
.450 A2. II -------- -- ------------ ------------ -- ---------- ------- --- --
--------- - -------- ---- ------------ ------------ - - ----------
8.210 -J.2 . 092 IIJ. 50 .07
5,940 .0101 -.005 2.3
AJ. 54
3. 770 AI. 47 ---------- ------------ ------- ----- ------- -- --- ---------- ... -
I. 720 oJ. 32 ---------- --- - -------- ------------ ------- - ---- ------------
.892 D1. 26 ---------- --- - -------- ------------ ---------- -- ----- --- --- ..
2302 1__ __ __ _______________________ _
. 441 AI. 20 ------- -- - ------------ ----------- - ------------ ------------
---------- --- --------- ------------ ----------- - ------------
. 130 • -16.5 '.094 A2.74 , - . 300
(With spli t lIap at 75°.) 5.960 '. 191 2. 3
A2.81
3.800 A2.79 ---------- ----- -- ----- ------------ --------- --- -- ------ ----
1.720 A2.58 ------ - --- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----- --- ----
.879 A2.46 ---------- ------------ ----------- - ---------- - - -- ---- ------
. 435 A2.28 --- ------- --- - -------- ------------ -- -- -------- ------------
43012 ________________ ___ __________ _ ------- - - - ------- -- --- ------------ --- - -------- ------------
8.390 -2.3 .100 AI. 84 .26
3.890 .0079 -.019 1.0 '7
AJ. 71
.449 AI. 44 --------- - -------- ---- ------------ ------- --- -- - -- ------ ---
43012_____________________________ _ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
8. 240 '-17. 3 '.082 A2.65
(With split tJap at 750.) ' .200 8 -.225 1.0
0.040 A2.60
3.830 A2. 47 ---------- ------------ ------- - ---- ----- --- -- - - ------- -- --.
1. 740 A2.39 ---------- - -- --------- ------------ ----------- - ------------
.887 "2. 29 -------- -- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
.449 A2.18 ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- - ------------
23012 ____________________________ _ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
8. 210 - . 9 .101 AJ.68 .07
(With 23012 flap 3° up.) - 6. 150 -.8 .100 .0069 . 009 .5 8
AJ. 62 . 15 .0074
3.300 -.8 .100 A1. 54 .009 1.0 9
1.680 .19 .0078 .010 1. 1 11
-.8 .097 AI. 39 . 13 .0068
.858 - .8 .096 01. 24 .011 1.2 11
.430 .08 .0093 ------------ --- --- - -- --- ------------
- 1. 2 .096 01.12 .08 . 0119 ------ - ----- ----- - - --- -- ------------
23012 _______ __ ___________ __ _______ _
8.140 • -13.8 '.102 A2.46 .45
(With 23012l1ap set 300.) 6.200 .0161 • -.260 .5 8
A2. 40
3. 410 A2.32 ----- -- -- - -- -- ---- ---- ------------ ------------ ------------
I. 700 • - 12.5 '. 103 'C2. 13 -- ----. 70 ---- --- ---- -- - -- ---- -------- ------------ --- -- -------
1.700 .0184 • -.260 1.2 11
, " 1. 95
.879 • - 11.9 ' .102 "I. 75 -----.-60-- -----.-o2ig-- ~~::~::::~:: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
.441 "1.66
Clark Y 10 ___ _________ • ___________ _ -- -- ------ ---------- - - - ----------- --------- - - - --- -- ---- ---
9.900 -4.2 '.099 °2.12
(With Haodley Page slot.) 8. 080 .76 .0242 -----_.----- ------- - ---- ------ -- ----
-4. 3 '.099 02.06 .76 .0248 ------------ --- - -------- - -----------
4.990 -4.2 J. 098 "2.02
3.090 .69 .0260 ------------ ------------ ------------
-4.2 '. 097 ° 1. 96 .62
2.040 -4.1 '.096 .0260 ------- - ---- - - - - ------ - - - - ----------
°1.98 .65 .0264 ------------ - - ---------- ------------
1.290 -4.1 ' .092 °1.92
. 784 .63 .0272 ------------ --- - -------- ------------
-4. 1 "1.82 .64
. 520 -4.1 .0301 ---------- -- ------------ ------------
"I. 75 .63 .0291 ------------ ------------ -- -- ------ --
.261 -4. 1 "1.60
.135 -4. 3
.64 .0322 ------------ ------------ - - --- --- --- -
° 1. 41 .63 .0431 ------------ ----------- - ------------
Q.c. (percent
R.'
(Millions)
e from c/4)
N. A. C. A. airfoil "'I, a.o, per C
Chord I SE ' CLm ll % c'",oz (deg.) del!ree c'QP' CdO Min '" • . c: ,
Ahead Above
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - -
0 0.0064 0 1.0 5
A 8. 2\l 1. 39 0 0.098 3
0009 A B 0 . 0069 0 .6
0012________ - -- --- -----
_____________ --- --
________ ----__----
_____ -- -----
__ _____ _____--
A CO A 8. 37 1.68 0 . 099
. 0077 0 1. 2 4
0015 _________________ ________ ____ _____ _______ A 8. 61 1.68 0 .097 0 4
A DO .096 0 .0088 0 1.7
0018 __________ __________ ___ _____ __ _____ __ ___ _ A EO A 7. 84 1.53 0 -.043 .5 3
8.24 1. 72 -2.0 .098 . 14 . 0071
2412__________ ______ _______ __ ___ __ _------ - --- A C2 A . 08 .0070 - . 008 1.2 7
D2 A 8.16 1. 72 -1.2 .100 5
23012 __________ _-- -- --- --- --- -- -- ---- --- -- --- A -1.2 .097 . 20 .0071 -.010 .6
A BO B 8.00 1.49 .005 1.0 7
23012--33 _____ __ _--- --- ------ - --__________
-- --- --- - --- -- 8.37 1. 61 -.6 .098 . 10 . 0073
2R,12 __________________ ______ __ ___ A C3 A .26 .0073 -.088 .6 2
B4 A 8.08 1. 77 -3.9 . 096 2
4409 _______ - -- ------ -- ------ - --- --- ---- ---- -- A -4.0 .098 .32 .0082 -.088 .8
A C4 D 7. 92 1. 74 - . 085 1.0 1
4412 __ ___________ - --- ----- --- -- --- - -- ---- --- - 7. 92 1. 72 -4.0 . 097 .22 . 0090
A D4 C .37 . 0091 - .133 .9 1
4415 _________ ----- -- --- ---- --- - -- -- ---- ------ C6 D 8. 21 1.82 -5.9 .098 1.2 -2
6412 A .35 . 0115 -.199
6712_________
___ ________- ---
__ -- - ---- - ----___
___________ -- ---- ----
______ -- ----
______ __ D 8.10 2.05 -7. 3 .096 2
8318 ___ ____________________ __ _____ ___________
0012 with split flap at 60 0 _ _ __ _ ____________ _ __
A
A
A
C2
E8
CO
D2
D
A
A
8.45
8.11
8.18
1. 59
2.35
2.48
-7.2
1-13. 1
' -14.3
.095
'.091
' . 088
. 24 .0127
7 .167
7 .1G6
7 .201
.-
,-
-.132
.220
-.236
1.5
.6
1.2
1.2
3
7
7
23012 with split flap at 600 ___ _ ______ _ ___ _ ____ A . 228
23012 with split flap at 75 0 __ __ _ ____ __ _ ___ _ _ __ A D2 A 8.10 2.64 ' -15.6 • .085 -.008 1.1 6
8. 37 1.73 -1.1 . 098 . 10 .0081
A D2 A 7. 198 ' - . 245 1.1 6
23015 _____ ___ ---- --- ---- --0 --- ---- - --- --- - -- -- D2 A 8. 21 2.70 ' -16.2 • .088 7
23015 with split flap_________
at 75 - -_________ A .092 . 07 .0101 -.005 2.3
23021 ______________ __ ______
- - - ----- -- -- - - - --
A E2 B
A
8.21
8.13
1.50
2.74
-1.2
, -16.5 7 .191 ,- . 300 2.3 7
7
23021 with split flap at 75 0 _ _ __ _ ___ ___________ A E2 • . 094
. 100 .26 . 0079 - . 019 1.0
A 8. 39 1.84 -2.3 7
43012 __ ____ __ __ --- - ----- -- -- -- --- ---- -- ---- -- A D4
A 8.24 2.65 '-17. 3 • .082 7. 200 5 - • :1'25 1.0
8
43012 with split flap at 75 0 ___ ________________
23012 with 23012 flap 30 up ___ ____ ____ ________
0
23012 with 23012 flap set 30 - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - -
A
A
A
D4
D2 A
A
D
8. 21
8. !4
8.08
1.68
2.46
2. 06
-.9
' -13.8
- 4.3
•
.101
.102
• . 099
.07
. 45
.76
.0069
. 0161
.0248
.- .009
.260
---------- . -
.5
.5
------
8
- - --- - --
Clark Y with Handley Page slot 10---------- B
I Type of chord. A refers to Q chord defined as a line joining the extremities of the lift curve.
• Slopo of lift curve determined from linear lift curve approximating experimental
mean linc. lift curve.
• '1'ype of scale effect on maximum lilt. 1 Value o( the drag that applies approximately over the ontire useflll range of lilt
, Type of lift-curve peak as shown in the sketches below: coefficients.
8 eM is taken ahout ,the aerodynamic center of the plain wing and is fair ly con-
stant ~tbigh Jilt t'OOfficientS. 0
'em is tnkon about the aerodynamic center of the wing with flap neutral (_3 )
and i;i:iirly constant at high lift coefficients.
IONotN . A . C.A .
• 'rur bulence [actor is 2.64 .
, Angle of zcro lift determined from linear lift curve approximating experimontal