Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aerodynamic for
Characteristics Variable-Geometry
General
Richard and
W.
Barnwell,
Kevin
W.
Noonan,
"
Robert
J. McGhee
DECFMBER
1978
fUI A
Aerodynamic for
Characteristics Variable-Geometry
of a 16-Percent-Thick Designed
General
Applications
W.
Research W. Noonan
Research Virginia
and
Technology
Laboratories
Center,
Hampton,
Virginia
NIL A
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office 1978
SUMMARY
Tests determine urations aviation number 20.0 that range 1.8, Stall section the 0.15, 0.4 and for x
were the of a
in
the
Langley
low-turbulence of climb,
characteristics
variable-geometry GA(PC)-]). 0.35, a chord range coefficients x 106 and reached and the cruise These Reynolds from -8
number to
20 . in of the
results
increased values
Reynolds
number 2.1,
approximately
for
landing, although
respectively. abrupt. transition a Mach number of same 0.9 angle between theoretical The near of and of
trailing-edge
of
the 78 of
fixed 0.9,
leading
the about
attack, method.
obtained
experimental
a viscous,
attached-flow
INTRODUCTION
Research conducted Aerodynamic airfoils, the ences and frcm sented General 2 and with in the a a over
on
advanced last
technology Langley ] which (NASA with airfoils camber airfoil for system line has this are
been
the
reported
reference airfoil
of
these
fixed-geometry
are
2J-percent-thick
NASA
Aerodynamic Fowler
airfoil presented
with in
in drag of
rectangular
distributions airfoil.
configurations
GA(PC)-] NASA
These
were
GA(PC)-] number of
wing-body ].72 x
combination ]06 .
Reynolds
In three has
this
report,
low-speed of the a
aerodynamic
are
for
]6-percent-thick Aviation
airfoil one
General
(N_SAGA(PC)-]). The climb configuration of the NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil designed to have minimumdrag at the design climb lift coefficient of
The boundary layer was assumed which so that of is to be turbulent by over most the of the airfoil. cruise upward, attained the mized design for configuration, was at designed the climb both same lift the obtained design at As a deflecting lift the trailing-edge of 0.4 the cruise which result, coefficient climb the
was
0.9. The flap would attains be
angle
attack
be has
minia
climb
configurations. by deflecting
landing downward.
configuration
which
obtained
trailing-edge
flap
was 106
in 0.10
the to of
pressure range
attack
SYMBOLS
Values and
are
given were
in made
both in
SI U.S.
and
U.S.
Customary Units.
Units.
The
measurements
calculations
Customary
p-p_
Cp pressure coefficient,
q_
c chord of airfoil, cm (in.)
cc
oncorer co flcin
section profile-drag coefficient determined frem wake measurements, _w ake c d ' d(!) point drag coefficient,
Cd
cd '
cz
cm
section
lift
coefficient,
Cn(COS
e)
Cc(sin
e)
section
pitching-moment
coefficient
about
quarter-chord
point,
cn
section
normal-force
coefficient,
_Cp
d(_)
h _/d
M
vertical
distance
in
wake
profile,
cm
(in.)
section free-stream
lift-drag Mach
ratio, number
cZ/c
P
Pt q R
static
pressure,
Pa
(ib/ft
2)
total
pressure,
Pa
(Ib/ft
2)
dynamic
pressure,
Pa
(ib/ft
2)
Reynolds airfoil
number abscissa,
based cm
on (in.)
free-stream
conditions
and
airfoil
chord
airfoil
ordinate,
cm
(in.)
zc
mean-line
ordinate,
cm
(in.)
zt
mean
thickness,
cm
(in.)
angle
of
attack,
deg
General
Aviation
(Whitcomb)-number
one
General
Aviation
(Whitcomb)-number
two
AIRFOIL
DESIGN
used B.
in
these
was W. of 7
for hence,
use was
in
Descriptions Chen in reference were an airfoil to the be achieve upper that the The same about to
design
a manner
angle
design be
either
attack fuselage
conditions two
the
would The
the
and,
hence,
be
the both
boundary
lower
surfaces occurs
position, of wings
boundary-layer
usually design
the
leading
general-aviation
section to be
the
conditions
specified
0.4,
The In the
for
designing
the
airfoil
section
involved the
two
basic
steps.
Peterson minimum
upper-surface was
distribution a family
determined at
distributions
points these
chord. was
Cd, u
U_ the
is
the
velocity, is the
ue airfoil
is
the
edge are of
velocthe Betz
trailing
thickness, from
trailing
equation
static @
pressure
for
different
the
Truckenbrodt
the
step
of
the
design
Chen
determined
an and
satisfied
the
geometric shape
It
was
the
design
cruise
conditions
could
satisfied
had a width of 0.2c and was deflected upward ]0 for cruise. The lower surface of the flap and a considerable part of the lower Surface ahead of the flap were constrained to be flat to minimize manufacturing costs. The lower surface immediately ahead of the flap was contoured so that the slope would be continuous across the airfoil/flap juncture in the cruise configuration. The flap pivot point was located at the airfoil/flap juncture on the lower surface. The NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil
landing are the configuration design by in addition of flap configurations the thickness are shown obtained deflecting The
is
in climb
]. cruise landing
Note
that
there
is
airfoil. ]0 and 2.
the mean
setting camber
lines
MODEL,
APPARATUS,
AND
PROCEDURE
Model
aft
portion
of are
the
airfoil by
model using
is
flap. to span
Various this cm
air-
obtained of the
flush The of
model.
model the
configuration, and the landing The upper I (all orifice the and of model
cm
figuration.
table are
table, 3 is a
except photograph
those of
for the
the
edge, uration
locations).
Figure
climb
of The
model. model surface the various were machined in provide the a was of machined the from an and the aluminum pressure The plastic billet. tubing tubes into were the The 400 Grooves was routed in were through plastic The surface
orifice drilled to
locations.
reform
original with
surface. number
sanded
chordwise smooth
direction aerodynamic
silicon-
carbide
paper
finish.
Wind
Tunnel
The ]0
Langley
low-turbulence tunnel with The which maximum at ft) a wide can unit Mach by tunnel-empty
pressure be operated
]])
is up 49
closed-throat, from 0.42 per test and meter section ] to 0.22, to ]06
pressures
foot) (3.00
tunnel
9].44
high. positioning cm (40.00 wall. and in.) The attachment in airfoil diameter, ends
model.
]0].6 tunnel
are attached to rectangular model-attachment plates as shown in figure 4, and the airfoil is mounted so that the center of rotation of the circular plates is at 0.25c on the model reference line. The air gaps at the tunnel walls between the rectangular plates and the circular plates are sealed with flexible sliding metal seals (fig. 4). WakeSurvey Rake A fixed, wake survey rake (fig. 5) at the model semispan is mounted perpendicular to the airfoil trailing edge on supports cantilevered from the tunnel sidewall at a distance of one chord behind the airfoil trailing edge. The
wake in survey diameter The rake and 6 has 9] total-pressure tubes have been in.) tubes which which are are 0.3]75 to tip of 90 0.]524 cm 0.]0]6 the cm (0.]25 cm tube. and (0.060 in.) (0.040 The in.) in diamstatic-pressure tubes cm four the eter. for total-pressure of each tubes. 0.6096 have from flattened from the in.) static
pressure eight
drilled in the
apart
located of the
diameters
measurement
plane
total-pressure
Instrumentation
of
the are
pressures an
on
the
airfoil
surface
and
of
automatic transducers.
precision with
Angle
attack
digital the
attached acquisition
circular
obtained
high-speed
system
and
recorded
r-b_
TESTS
AND
METHODS
of the
the
were
tested range
numbers,
airfoil at Mach
chord,
approximately to
20 .
landing numbers
and in to on
airfoil
transition) 0.05c.
roughness
These
cm
(0.05
in.) to the
wide model by
and
consisted clear
distributed size of
matematewere
with
determined
Reynolds
]06 , ]00, 60
number (number
]20, airfoil
landing
configuration grains
distributed
0.08c).
The static-pressure measurementsat the airfoil surface were reduced to standard pressure coefficients which were numerically integrated to obtain section normal-force coefficients, section chord-force coefficients, and section pitching-moment coefficients about the quarter chord. The section lift coefficients were obtained from the section chord-force and normal-force coefficients. The section profile-drag coefficients were computed from the wake-rake total and static pressures by the method of Jones described in reference 13. PRES_TATION DATA OF The results Results Pressure distribution of this investigation
Airfoil Config Climb Cruise Landinc Climb M 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
GA
(PC) -1
0.15 .15 .15 .15 .15 0.15 .20 .28 Varied .15 iVaried .15 .15 .15 .15 20 .28 Va r led .15 Varied .15 .15 .15 ing .10 .15 Va r led Varied .15 .15 .15 .15 .15
106
GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -1 GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -I
Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Land
Natural Natural Natural Natural Fixed Fixed Varied Varied Varied Natural Natural Natural Natural Fixed Fixed Varied Varied Varied Natural Natural Natural Fixed Varied Varied Fixed Fixed Fixed
10(a) I 0 (b) I0(c) 1] 12 13 14(a) 14(b) 14(c) 15 (a) 15(b) 15 (c) 16 17 18 19(a) ]9(5) 19(c)
Varied 4.0 2.1 4.0 6.0 Varied Varied Varied 6.0 Varied 6.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Var ied Varied 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
e,
C and d, cm against cZ
GA (PC)-]
GA (PC)-]
GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -1 GA (PC)-] GA (W) -I
20 (a) 2O (b)
21 22 23 23
24(a)
Results
Airfoil
M
0.]5 .]5 .]5 .]5 .]5 .]5 .]5
I
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
R lO 6
_ransition
Variable
Figure
GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -]
Airfoil
24(b)
e,
Airfoil
24(c)
GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -] GA (PC)-] Cz,max against GA (W) -] R GA (W) -2 GA (PC) -] GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -1 GA (PC)-]
Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied 4.0 4.0 6.0 x 10 6
Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Natural Natural Natural Natural Varied Varied Varied
R, R, R, R, R,
C_,max against
M, M, M,
cd cZ R cd
at
CA(PC)-]
GA (W) -] GA (W)-2
Climb
Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied
Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Airfoil 27 (b) Airfoil 27 (a)
at cz R
cruise against
Climb Cruise
Z/d c z R Z/d c Z R
at
climb
Climb
Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Airfoil 28(b) Airfoil 28(a)
against at cruise
CA (w)-]
GA (W) -2 GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -] GA (W) -] GA (W) -2 Climb Cruise
against
/d cZ
aga in st
GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W)-] GA (W)-2 GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W)-] GA (W)-2 GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W)-I GA(W)-2
Climb Cruise
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
10 6
Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 29 (b) Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 29 (c) _ Airfoil _ Airfoil 29(a)
Cl imb Cruise
Climb Cruise
__r_
Airfoil
GA(PC)-I GA(PC)-]
Config.
Climb Cruise
r Transition
Fixed Fixed
Variable
Figure
Type Type
of of
data data
30(a) 30(b)
(_,
c d, cm
and
GA (PC)-]
Climb
0.]5
4.0
106
Fixed
Type
of
data
3]
against
DISCUSSION
OF
RESULTS
Experimental
Results
The
effects
of
angle and
of
attack
on
the
climb,
cruise,
landing is 6.0 is
approximately
configurations
cruise
configuration.
of
the
load
is
carried at the
on nose is
the
of -5.5
the for
airfoil, any of as
the three
pressure
does less
value
for about
the the
small in a The
is
the
bulent pressure that angles the and the ing the flap
separation
region
configuration is carried
the flap
virtually airfoil
the of
load of (See
configuration, for
trailing about
surface
separated
attack
of
the
for airfoil
the
of for
design GA(PC)-]
the
NASA
GA(PC)-]
airfoil.
somewhat
upper-surface
distribat this
Both
airfoils of of 14).
free
portion is (ref.
upper-surface type,
distribuyields distribu-
GA(PC)-I
airfoil
the
concave The
which
usually
low-drag,
abrupt-stall
behavior
upper-surface
pressure
tion of the NASA GA(W)-] airfoil exhibits a reduced pressure gradient in the mid-chord region which is followed by a nearly linear pressure recovery. This type of pressure distribution results in soft stall behavior at higher angles
of attack (ref. ]). Lift.on and the prior when (M from from = the Shown in figures between smooth ]0, the (natural ]5, section and 20 lift at over are the effects of c z Mach the Reynolds and the In number angle cruise, general, range are ]5(a) varies changes by section the further lift of is small of
attack
boundary-layer
climb, numbers.
configurations, of occur, the 0.]] Over for which cZ The and on the _
respectively, is stall slope to ]06 range 0.]2 to 9.0 of linear from is for per
stall. do
deviations
prestall
lift-curve per the these maximum ]0(b) 9.0 lift shown above degree 2.0 x same two lift
and as
degree
the slope
Reynolds
approximately
Reynolds
angles number
Reynolds the at
and x
0.20) the
that
the
not
(M
lift-curve to ]06
slope
the
landing as the
varies varies
about 0.]] _er degree to 9.0 x ]0 v, and the coefficient attack at is increased
slope is unchanged by further for the landing configuration which over maximum this lift occurs
increases
Reynolds
range.
]6, Mach
and
the
effects M
of and =
on
the
of
c z
smooth
this
Mach
number, slightly,
and
maximum lift
maximum
The effects of for the climb strips with in trends applied the figures for on model ]4 the Cz,max,
Reynolds number on the relationship of c I (fig. 12) and cruise (fig. ]7) configurations at x/c = 0.05. This where cruise in figure These conclusion the effects effects can of are also essentially be drawn on smooth. and climb ]9, and
to
_ with the
from the
roughness are
Reynolds Effects
compared.
roughness
shown
configuration
dependent
effects
of
Mach
number with
on
the
lift fixed
curves at x/c
for =
the 0.05
climb, are
and figthose
transition
respectively. configurations.
These
effects
differ
very
little
]0
In figure 23, the effects of roughness on the landing configuration are shown. In addition to the data obtained with a roughness strip at x/c = 0.05, data are shown which were obtained with the standard NACA roughness (number 60
grit lower the distributed surfaces). standard lift occurs The NACA between The the effect leading of is about 4 . of 17 the NASA and GA(W)-I the numbers three 2.0 airfoil (which has of percent) ]06 , by respecat GA(PC)-I greater between same Note angle that x/c = 0.08 airfoil. than the of the occur The abrupt lift and a a the the edge and x/c strip The angle = 0.08 is on the but upper the and effect the maximum of roughness small, roughness appreciable. 0.4 and the latter of roughness at which reduced the
maximum lift
coefficient by at least
attack
section
thickness-to-chord NASA are 6.0 light tively. for The those attack angles for stall than the the GA(PC)-I compared ]0 6 . in These
(which for
has
thickness-to-chord
figure
Reynolds
numbers
encountered cruise,
general-aviation These NASA data GA(W)-I slope NASA for between attack at were
strips for is
applied NASA
x/c
GA(W)-I
slightly
configurations. and 0.5 the cruise when climb are NASA the and about flow cruise the
coefficients
the
climb and
configurations is
0.4
which
NASA
airfoil of the
same
behavior that of
GA(PC)-I (See
GA(W)-I
airfoil.
The measured figurations number the bers tively, values number the NASA NASA from of
of NASA
Reynolds GA(W)-]
on NASA
the
maximum
GA(W)-2 are
the the
NASA
GA(PC)-I
airfoil
maximum
range 1.8,
]06
values
and
the the
climb, and
of
number the
fixed-geometry of 1.7,
and
NASA
GA(W)-2
airfoils
maximum
coefficients
and
].7,
respectively.
of
climb
configuration
Reynolds
strips
airfoil, the landin_ configuration number of 4.0 10 , and the climb x 106 and 6.0 ]06 .
moment.section appreciably
The
data
for
the
climb
(figs.
10
to
14) is from is
-0.030 above
for 8
attack stall
attack pitching-
toward increases
coefficient
but
remains
Increasing
Reynolds II
number to a value of 9.0 x ]06 has the effect of decreasing the pitching-moment coefficient of the climb configuration slightly. The section pitching-moment coefficient is essentially independent of Reynolds numberswith values greater than 9.0 x ]06. The pitching-moment coefficient of the climb configuration is insensitive to Machnumber, except for the two largest values (M= 0.28 and 0.35) and angles of attack near stall. Under these conditions, the effect of the Mach number is to increase the value of the section pitchingmomentcoefficient toward zero. Roughnessstrips increase the value of the section pitching-moment coefficient slightly. The data
tion dependence and has a on value number configuration. section is for the cruise coefficient of attack 0.035 and The in and Mach configuration for the this range in (figs. ]5 to ]9) has 0 to show no the that the secpitching-moment angle configuration from this _ = appreciable stall range. as those the of value This angle The the of
between effects
0.055 number of
addition
strips cruise
decreases configuration.
effect
climb
configuration.
data
for
the
landing
20 a
to value
23)
show
that
the and
between of attack
-0.]30 is
angle
general, decreases
for
the
standard
coefficient configuration.
configuration
toward
for
the of
configurations
GA(PC)-]
-0.03,
respectively.
Drag.(natural figures number number x/c from = ]0, range on 0.05 2.0 x
The ]5,
of climb,
number and at to
on several
the
drag Mach
polars numbers.
for are
the
smooth in
landing 20.0
respectively,
Reynolds
are
the
decreases Reynolds
given
lift decrease
coefficient. in drag
]06 , the
increasing
]], climb,
]6,
and
2], and
the
effects 4.0 x
of
Mach
number
on are
drag for
polars Reynolds of 22
cruise,
landing
configurations
these
Reynolds very as
with
applied
increases number
the the
roughened ]2
configurations
increases.
smooth configurations show the sametrend. However, for lift coefficients near the design values, the variation of the drag coefficient with Mach number for the smooth climb and cruise configurations is larger than that for the roughened configurations. Apparently the drag reduction due to the presence of
regions number. lence of laminar is of flow probably tunnel on a the smooth model decreases due to with increasing in the Mach turbuThis level wind-tunnel increasing effect dynamic increases (ref. the with pressure 15).
The numbers
to and
the 23,
climb,
cruise, in
configurations
respectively, differences
greatest of
versions
the
climb centered
design occur
the
of
the
lift
coefficient of the
increases
coefficient in drag by
configuration by this
coefficients. is comparable
caused NACA
roughness.
three at at to
configurations x/c x/c 6.0 = = 0.05 0.08 ]06 . lower landing and are In than
of for
the the
compared
Reynolds of the
from
2.0
general, that of
coefficonthan
configuration the
slightly of the
the is
cruise larger
expected,
configuration
other
configurations.
with
Reynolds
number at of
of the the
the
section
of
figure
Reynolds The
the ]0 6 .
liftare For
with
coefficient
with
transition
compared the R =
figure
climb conditions as the lift-drag ratios NASA are GA(PC)-] about 78 airfoil and 76.
]6-percent-thick GA(W)-] NASA R = the the The drag NASA fig. NASA ratio airfoil
value
for
GA(W)-2 airfoil 6.0 x ]06), the NASA NASA climb ratio GA(W)-2 29.) GA(PC)-] at about At GA(PC)-] GA(W)-]
88. At the design ratios of the climb about 43 and 40, are
cruise conditions (c Z = and cruise configurations The 47, the NASA x 6.0 ratios
airfoil of 4.0 x
Reynolds number
and
the lift
GA(W)-2
lift-drag
coefficient.
]3
Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Results Experimental pressure distributions obtained with fixed transition are compared in figure 30 with theoretical pressure distributions calculated with the method of reference ]6 for viscous attached flow. This viscous-flow method is composedof a potential-flow treatment and an integral boundary-layer treatment. A surface vortex singularity method is used in the potential-flow treatment. In figures 30(a) and (b), the experimental results for the climb and cruise configurations are comparedwith the results of the viscous-flow method for M = 0.]5 and _ = 6 . At this angle of attack, the section lift coefficients for these configurations are near the design values of 0.9 and 0.4, respectively. The Reynolds number is about 4.0 x 106 for the climb configuration and 6.0 x ]06 for the cruise configuration. The agreement between experimental and theoretical pressure distributions is good. Comparisons between experiment and theory are not madefor the landing configuration because the flow on the upper surface of the flap is separated for all angles of attack of interest. The experimental aerodynamic characteristics for the climb configuration with transition fixed, at the conditions M = 0.]5 and R = 4.0 x ]0 _, are compared in figure 3] with the theoretical results of the viscous, attachedflow method of reference ]6. The theoretical predictions for the section lift coefficient agree well with experimental data for angles of attack where there is no flow separation (up to about ]0). In general, the levels for the section pitching-moment coefficient obtained from theory and experiment are in fair agreement for lift coefficients less than about ].0. However, the theoretical method predicts a slight decrease in the pitching-moment coefficient with increasing lift coefficient, whereas the experimental results show a slight increase. In the lift-coefficient range where there is attached flow (cz < ].]), the theory generally predicts the shape of the drag polar. However, the values for the section drag coefficient are overpredicted. CONCLUDING REMARKS Tests have been conducted in the Langley low-turbulence pressure tunnel to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of the climb, cruise, and landing configurations of a ]6-percent-thick variable-geometry airfoil designed for general-aviation applications (NASA GA(PC)-]). These tests were conducted over a Machnumber range from 0.]0 to 0.35, a chord Reynolds numbero range from 2.0 106 to 20.0 10_, and an angle-of-attack range from -8 o to 20 . The test data were co[nparedwith the test data for the fixed-geometry NASA GA(W)-] and NASAGA(W)-2airfoils and with the predictions of a theoretical method. The following results were determined from this investigation: ]. Maximum section lift coefficients increased substantially at a Machnumber of 0.]5 in the Reynolds number range from 2.0 ]06 to 9.0 x ]06 for all three configurations and reached values of approximately 2.], ].8, and ].5 for the landing, climb, and cruise configurations, respectively. These values compare to a value of approximately 2.] for the fixed-geometry NASA GA(W)-] and
]4
NASA GA(W)-2 airfoils. At a Machnumber of 0.]5 and a Reynolds number of 2.0 ]06 , the NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil landing configuration has a maximum lift coefficient of ].7 comparedto ].6 and ].7, respectively, for the NASA GA(W)-] and NASA GA(W)-2 airfoils. Stall characteristics were of the
trailing-edge GA (PC)-] type but were abrupt for all three configurations of the NASA airfoil.
2. cruise about
The
design
section
lift
coefficients were
of obtained
0.9
and at
0.4 the
for
the angle
climb of
and attack,
configurations, 6 , as intended.
respectively,
same
3. ing, order
At
a Mach and
number cruise
of
0.] 5,
the
of are
the of
landthe
climb, of 4.
-0.03,
respectively. ratio is with about 78 for the fixed climb near configurathe = is leading
lift-drag
tion edge
of at
transition lift
lift-drag fixed
leading 0.4,
(section
coefficient
Reynolds 5. method
obtained good
with
a viscous, with
attached-flow experimental
theoretical results.
generally
agreement
]5
REFERENCES I. McGhee,Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Low-SpeedAerodynamic Characteristics of a 17-Percent-Thick Airfoil Section Designed for General
Aviation Applications. NASA TN D-7428, ]973.
2.
W.
H., for a
Jr.; High
and
Seetharam,
H. General
C.:
Development Aviation
of
a Fowler NASA
Flap CR-2443,
Performance
Airfoil.
3.
Wentz, a High
W.
H.,
Jr.:
of
Spoilers CR-2538,
on
the 1975.
GA(W)-I
Airfoil
With
Performance
NASA
4.
McGhee,
Robert
J.;
and
Beasley, of
William an
D.:
of
Thickness of
on
the
Initial NASA
Airfoils
of
the Flap,
With
20%
Aileron, NASA
Slotted 1977.
Spoiler.
CR-145139,
6.
Harry of
L.,
Jr.;
and
Paulson,
W., Two
Wing-Body and
Sections W.:
TN
7.
Chen,
Allen
Advanced
Technology Aircraft
Airfoils
General
Aviation
Symposium: Western
Homebuilt Periodicals
Practice,
8.
Peterson, Subsonic
John
B.,
Jr.;
and NASA
Chen, Tech
Allen Brief
W.: B75-I0256,
Design
Procedure
for
Low-Drag
Airfoils.
1975.
9.
Herman Co.,
(J.
Kestin, c1955.
transl.):
Boundary
Layer
Theory.
McGraw-
Inc.,
10.
Allen for
I.;
and Lift
Chen,
Allen
W.:
OptiDec. ]972,
Maximum
Coefficient.
1620-1624.
II.
Von
Doenhoff,
Albert
E.;
and
Abbott, Pressure
Frank
T.,
Jr.: NACA
The TN
Two-
Dimensional
Low-Turbulence
Tunnel.
12.
Albert Critical
L.;
and Height at
Knox, of
Eugene Distributed
C.:
Simplified Roughness 0 to 5.
Method Particles
for for
DeterminaBoundary-
Mach
Numbers D. W.:
From
NACA
TN
4363,
13.
Pankhurst, Pitman
and Ltd.
Holder, (London),
Wind-Tunnel
Technique.
Sons,
]965.
14.
Smith, June
A.
M.
O.: pp.
High-Lift 50]-530.
Aerodynamics.
J.
Aircr.,
vol.
12,
no.
6,
1975,
16
]5. Dryden, Hugh L.; and Abbott, Ira H.: Tunnels. NACA Rep. 940, ]948.
]6. Smetana, Frederick 0.; Summey, elbert C.; Smith, Neill S.; and Carden, D Ronald K.: Light Aircraft Lift, Drag, and Moment Prediction - A
Review and Analysis. NASA CR-2523, ]975.
]7
TABLE
I.-
MEASURED
COORDINATES
FOR
NASA
GA(PC)-]
AIRFOIL
(a) Main
section
Upper
surface
Lower
surface
x/c
0.0002 .005] .0096 .0] 47 .0248 .0350 .0502 .0600 .0750 .0998 .]496 . ]997 .2497 2998 .3498 .3998 .4498 .4999 .5496 .5998 .6500 .6998 .7499 .7995
z/c
0.000] .0]59 .0238 .0306 .0407 .0488 .0584 .0637 .0705 .0794 .0910 .0969 .0990 .0994 .0980 .0949 .0910 .0858 .0793 .0718 .0640 .0556 .0463 .0364
x/c
z/c
0.0048 .0099 .0]47 .0253 .0352 .0503 .0597 .075] .0999 .1500 .2000 .2498 .3000 .3498 .400] .4501 .5002 .550] .6007 .6503 .7004 .7505 .8006
-0.0203 -.0276 -.0322 -.039] -.0433 -. 0475 -. 0493 -. 05] 4 -.0534 -.0556 -.057] -.0584 -.0598 -.06]] -.0623 -.0632 -.063] -.06]8 -.0597 -.O558 -.0488 -.0382 -.0258
]8
TABLE
I.-
Concluded
(b) Flap
Upper
surface
Lower
surface
x/c
z/c
Climb
x/c
configuration 0.8507 .9008 .9509 .9909 ] .0000 configuration 0.8485 .8970 .9456 .9845 .9933 configuration 0.8506 .9005 .9504 .9907 ].0000
z/c
)9
/ / /
/
Cruise
Climb
Landing
Figure
].-
Profiles
of
cruise, NASA
climb,
and
landing
configurations
of
GA (PC)-]
airfoil.
2O
!_Ii i
ii]
Li
. li 06
_' llttl .....J1i _
t_
zt/c
.04
ttt tM
_ ....... i_ i!
,_,
_iiii
tt!!_ ........
[H
02
-H _
-_
Thickness
distribution
,--+,++_--.+_ Itttltttf:_HHMH
..... ittt ..........
Ht H LX
LI
::
0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8
7
x/c
;?t _' !I
N
1.0
!!!
_t
_!
_
_H
}H
t;i
:M-4
Zc/C
_ M; + ..
HI N
1.0
x/c
Figure 2.Thickness distribution and mean lines for NASA GA(PC)-I airfoil.
21
22
Tunnel
side walls
....
Airflow
-I
I
/-_
Circular plate---_
./.
.
\
:_
z...-___.,.o,,
_
_o.,,on,,
attachment
-7
Tunnel center line
__ Zero
incidence
reference
c/4
End
view
,section
A--A
Figure
4.-
Typical
airfoil mounted in wind tunnel. All dimensions of airfoil chord, c = 61 cm (24 in.).
in
terms
23
IO
1t I
_t___
.042c---
L ---F
,02 (typ.) Static-pressure probes -____ ic
--__L
-.OIIc (typ.) Airflow _ Tunnel 1,17c
L --V
i .0052 (typ.) c
Total-
pressure
probes }
(tubes
flattened
(typ.I
Figure
5.-
Wake
survey
rake. c =
All 6]
in
terms
of
airfoil
chord.
24
-5.6
o o O A
- .q
-q .n
-2.8
-2 .q
Cp
.1
.2
.3
.q
.5
.6
.7
.8
,9
1.0
x/c
(a) _ = -4 0 , 0.0 , 4.1 5.9 , and 8.4
Figure for R _
6.clfmb 4.0
Effect
of
angle
of
attack Transition
on
chordwise fixed at
pressure x/c =
configuration. x ]06.
25
-5 .I
th r_
c_ _
0 _
Upper Lower
surEace ntrEace
-q .(
-3 .!
-3.2
-2.8
Cp
-! .6
< \
-.q
and
]6.]
26
-5.6
-5.2
o [] O A
-q.8
0.0 -.280 4.0 .170 6.2 .810 8.0 .620 11.9 1.050
-4._
-4.0
-3.2
-2.8
-2 .q
F
,.
\
',,
Cp
-2.0
\
\
-1.8 "/
-1 ._ >
\'
-'_
J'--ib. _'J
i
....
" __
1.; 0 .I .2 .3 .H .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
x/c
(a) e = 0.0 , 4.0 , 6.2 , 8.0 , and 11.9 .
Figure for R _
7.-
Effect
of
angle
of
attack
on
chordwise fixed at
pressure x/c =
cruise 6.0 x
configuration. 106.
Transition
27
-4 .,-1
c3
Ix 13 o I/_ _
o _
Upper Lower
surface surface
-tt -c
-34
................
-2.8
Cp -2.0
-I ._ --
F E
x/c
(b) _ = 11.9 , 14.0 , 16.3 , and 17.0 .
Figure
7.-
Concluded.
28
-5.6 0 -5.2 0 0 A -q.O 0.0 4.0 5-9 7.9 .260 .680 t.070 1.260 1.440 .0124 .0148 .0231 .0259 .0258 --1099 --1065 -.0994 -.0958 -.08tl
-q .q
o !_
o []
IXUpper
mrf_e
@ A
_-Lower_r_ce
-3.6
-3.2
Gp
x/c
(a) e = -4.0 , 0.0 o, 4.0 , 5.9 , and 7.9 .
Figure for R _
8.-
Effect
of
angle
of
attack
on
chordwise fixed at
pressure x/c =
Transition
29
-5 .B a
-5.2
IU
-q .8
-q .
)
h.
[hm
-_.{
-3 .B
I, \\
-2 .B
-2.4
Cp
-2 .D
\ \
k
-1 .B
x/c
(b) e = 7.9 , 12.0 o, Figure 8.13.9 o, and 15.9 .
Concluded.
30
o 0 _._I..l -r.t
I
A
vQ
0 0 []
[] 0 o [] [] D @
[] []
o,:n
0 _0 [] []
;d
,...I II 0
0 0 []
,.-t X _ .,.4 J
0 0 OE] []
[] E
o
_
e_
[]
I/1 -_.,I -,..I 0
DQ DO []
I/1
I..l
[] 0 0 0
[]
[] []
o (Zff] []
m_
_I 1.4
_ ,0t
I
I
[Ipt
IFI
GO I
Q,.
'F3 0
0 I
-r.t
31
co
32
:: "
"
--[ r
:: ....
::
: I .... I
T ::::;
, :::: :: {: :
o
',1
r"
-.-I 4-1
,=;
II
0 r,,,j I
,=;
v
14
.,-I
Oa
:LL: LiL: _
.......
.:,,:_:
013 OJ Od --(3
I"
--I
33
Od
q
od t
34
,'{:1
<:;
II
o
I
35
0
-P.t
t_
1+.4
0 13
0 0 _3
.P-I t_
_3 x m
=g
o_ O_
14-I
0 0
144
ip
14
or,,I
36
0 i I
37
0
-,-I
4J
0 0
(D 0
to too
.r-I .In L) 0
O ,-.t _ _ o N
O 'lJ N
.._ _
-_ .,--i
_
O
m
c-, _
o v,-i
_4
t_
(M
8_
38
,X
L_ . i::; L _:: ii ;_ ,ii:::i::_r;.: E
o
_._._-.,_li_,
,g
II
Od I'
u_ 0 0
,"-t 0
M _
r_
g
Ill
0 m
,-! Q
g.l 0
i- _
_i i_i i _, ....._..____ _
[ M _M I
_- __i L -_,-i _ i _ ,
I o c_l 0d m --
O_
39
co
6-'
40
_:+:ii
:_ ::::;
" :::
::
:: ::
o
d
0 0 r_ I
4
OJ
:!_l::i:
:;_::::
:_ _
_;:
! . *.4:
:iii-:_l _
x,i
(,,j
--
--
I"
41
F
0
-,'4 I"
Q
r_ Q)
-,"4
0 (J U_
q
0
0 oJ
-r,t
4-1 r_
N e.
,-'t 0 e" 0 0
0 I 4..1 114
a) t
d
_.1 (M --0
I'
I"
o i-i
.,'4
42
43
co
0 I
44
45
6
u .r-i
-J-I
or-I
1,4 ,._ X
e-, 0 m
1:i
_4
iIJ
,rq
0 I
46
0
o_
-,-I U_
0 0
0 u_
o_
,_ d
m II o
C,_
J"-
o II e., 0 o _ _ o
O'_J _
I_
N
.,-4
-,.4
g-I
0 o
I.i
or.4
47
f'
kL _ b_!:
Til
I J
4
0 t_
-i
i-:
*_-'_
L L__
f
0
. I, [
S
I I " i....
Oo 0 x Q
S
S
.M
0 II 0 -,-i o
0'_ o -M
co
4_ 0
}!_
?F?T i ....
; .......
_ l=_,_= .-_
I
i
o,] _1
i : !_' _ 1 .... _ H
-_ --
_i_!
I 1
-[
48
49
x o 0 rj
5O
0 I
51
A
.I.I
i
i: ::I ii;ft_ TN]!_t-!!t]iiit!_iitii_!f:ilEt_]ii i ff!_i_!t_iHi!:-+t!_!t!iii t
0
L)
:??? :
:?
;. :!_.i':!i??_'.-_t??!i?t?ii?
I
0,1
.-_-:
i.
::
i',i _}::i
4J
:.::t:::
:::
i_,_
;::
I-I
<g
II
-IJ
t,-I m o r_ to -H 4J L)
27 _: _ .....
f: _::::
ii :
= 0
.Q
0 4-1
"
_
"
i
i
!
i I
!
;
c_
I
g.4
r_
!
',D
od
oD
co
c_Jt
ea
od
8_
7
I1/ .,.t
r_ 52
.4
E) I| o = 0 U I (3 .Q
I-I
.PI
r_
53
0
r,4
0 o
0 D
_'
r'4 I_
fl) l.J o
0
.F-,I
0 4.1 tM I.M ! cN
-r.t
LO
0 I
GO I
oJI
-T
54
:_!_l!iiil
0
E
0
0
.,-_
O_
i_ _i I
0 o
e_
o
t--
0
0
4 _
o.
0 II
o
co
0 _ ,..t _
m O_ _ 0_
0
_..'1
_ _ 0
m 1.4 _
_4
,1
t_
-_..I
55
0 II
0
-,-'1
4.J
O"
-,-I
0 o', rO
,.-I u_l 0 o
.r-I
4-J
GJ 4-J
o
0 0 Od 0
,._ 0
0 0
I CN
0 od
CO
0 I
t_
or,,I
56
,&
,-I 0
I..I
I
A
"0 cO
i--,
I
A
k & d
II
O
I..l 0
X 0 i
<N II
M g-I 0
.+,"4
or,l
v
e" Q 0
-,-I
4
tN tl)
57
d
iv i:l
-r-I 4.1 e'
0 u I
4
OJ I,,,4
.Pl
58
::::i:
":_.
_.'
i _
-i
I:::t:
_
::._
_' _t t_-:--1_ -I
_ :!:
" _
:!
t- : t_
I
_i; : ! ,i:i_ I
._ r:::l::
t I _-: o
L. 1. t tT
i:
i:_
:J
: .'_m_,p--_-.e_
i :: :
:::
:':
:::',::::E::
::
:d_::9:,_f I
o.
4
1 _D 13 ,,H U
X Z::: ;i7 :1 :}:::7:;J_t.t ,::_ !:_" ::_:
0 U
:::
_f
r3
-_"t
r_
*tH O,J
! -z::U.....
:'"J": L:H-_ _:' :!::l::::
_.
o _i
_0 --
o_ --
cO
_.
'_I
m I'
_-T 7
59
0 X 0
M4 0
i
o_
o
u_
_A
_d''-' [_1" II :; I'' _*'I : _| _ n n tl_ _ _ .... o
"_,_
_ _
t-_
:J, ..
__..__t :: 7
_. '-17-4---
<
(:3
< 0
< 0
< 0
< (.3
:,_.u_
aO_
o_
o u_ t-
II I o_._
A
.........
II
,, --'>.
--i_,-I
o_
4,.1
' N 0 :: ; oO / ' I I _ I _0 I r i ' ! !: _ L i _]_! [ _ :TT_I li i :7: _ .,_-! ! !t_ oO
,.i4
I 0
N
o 0
6O
0 x 0
d
Or" _i
o
e_
0 I
i7+_ i
!7 _l:_:_ ....
"''
:_r :'_1 -
',1
_ ] _ :
i .iJ i 11
[ i
'
_ _
--+
---
7-_ : 7
,
:,+!ii+=:_7,:!+5,52-2
!:-:
i iif_7-il::
+ .......... . +L471;-,-4 7 li lit+
L_+
:t:
iki:
_ +- +-4
tt_
c',,i
X 121
61
I1) "O
cr d
II
r,.) 0 U I
_4
CN
A
o,,t
62
pX
.i-I
_l*
.:,.4
d
0 r.I
o
g4 .r.I
! _ 0 A
o o
},-I
0
tM
o
0
x o
63
_D rB Q
r--I rJ
0
ol-I
_J ! (_1
aJ
4J C_ :3
_1
0 _J r_
o_-I 14
_J ..Q
v
64
7
A
<
x
_ 0 _4
u,.4 C 0
_ll
_t!
* ,
.... , ._t'
[i]
_'1 4.1 Om
II
tii.!
0
-,-I ['
!if_
I'
flH _!#_f!_W,.iiilf[iiiHtl!r_
'_ l' ; l{i ;i : i_[i li_ _] }:ci
e-
.o .,-# C 0
,4
!_L_
"
'
t7':
'
_:t,f I [i
i :7
<"
r-t
_4 ,,.4 _.I
_-,_
I; !
LI I
ill i i t _! D
_4
....
[H tiil !mi[t_i [1I
1_' ii
--._ _ _ _ _
Iit! tl iL
A_ 1l
I] 'i7I[I._iqlil]_
o [] o
ii
,H, _
-, ! 0"-"
t
It C=
I! _
N o
0
_ !
N
i-i
-r4
65
_:;
_ .._
0 r,_ I
66
'T
L_
v
-i.-I
0 0 ..IQ -,-I =:
II o
_
n_
o_-i ,a o L) ..Q
.,-_
,-I
4J o,-I 0
_i ,,I I I
UZ
0 0 !
,Z
r_
67
d
0 0
or
_
,.4
o
I
_
0 0 m
d
_ tlJ _
68
_ o.
Od
(-o
f f _
LD
J
f
co
I
IT_ it
Od
m
oo
I
Ii
1
1
L L I t ! i
q-
c_
0 0
0 (3O
0 LD
0 '<I"
0 od
69
,._,
0 r@
or-I
0
Od
70
d
0
_' 'a
d _
_
o
i d
.r-t
JL
0 o,..I
0 0
0 O0
0 qO
0 _
0 Od
71
-L1.4
--U,.O
-3.6
-3.2
-2 .I
-2
.I
Cp -2 .i
-1 .I
-1.2
x.. ,....
-.4
"()"x
I
8 _, 1.2 0 .1 .2 .3 .u, .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 ....
./c
(a) Climb configuration, e = 5.9o; R _ 4.0 x 106 .
Figure
30.-
Comparison
of
experimental fixed at
and x/c
theoretical = 0.05; M =
pressure 0.]5.
distributions.
Transition
72
-5.6
-q .4
-.0
-3.2
-2.8
-2.4 Cp -2.0
-I .6
-1.2
-.8
-.4 I
I_
.I )_ 1.8 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 ,8 .9 1.0
._
(b) Cruise configuration. = 6.20; R _ 6.0 x ]06 .
Figure
30.-
Concluded.
73
o
,In
O_
I:
0 rj
_i;:_
,.!ii r
or4 _
o,-I i_
_::
_:
_,::_::::
:= _:_":_i_ll--_
:-:
:T
_;l:'if
!:
"
_4
(D
8=
4.1
.............
H,I:...... -, ,
o,-.I (_ 4..1
_d
I-1 O
II
N
e-, f/I! _ 'Hi!,PP <'i,L' iii i:HIt!i ]!I}!Ii: :}ff _}_!}-,_}iH_ '!tl .7,_L OJ ,.-4
Ii....... I
_:'. !::I
4-1
i11
_.,_
o_'-I
_ ,,"4
lJi_iLii ::i_',l_:i;:_
_._lli_i ._;,i:i::
O _
:i
.:
:Jr ;!::
:=:L ii'k
,_
_t_!
]
I,i::
:,
r.j
I
i :':HIH_" o_ o oJ co -o_ -I I I
@ I.l
r_
74
Accession
No,
3. Recipient's
Catalog
No.
4. Title and Subtitle LOW-SPEED AERODYNAMIC ] 6-PERCENT-THICK DESIGNED 7 Author(s) W. Barnwell, J. McGhee FOR
Report
December Performing
8 Kevin W. Noonan,
Performing L-] 21 07
Organization
Report No
Richard and 9
Robert
No. 0
NASA
Research and
or Grant No
Laboratory Research VA A_ncy 23665 13 Name and Address and Space Administration 14 Army Project No. 02AH45 DC 20546 and Aeronautics Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Paper and Technology Laboratories
U.S. St. 15
Army Louis,
Research
and
Robert
J.
McGhee:
Langley AVRADCOM
Research Research
Center and
Noonan:
Structures
Laboratory,
Laboratories
conducted
in
the
Langley of climb,
tunnel
to
determine of a
the
characteristics
variable-geQmetry These Reynolds from -8 in tests number to 20 . the were range Test
applications 0.10 to
conducted
from 2.0 x ]06 to results show that number range and 1.5 from for
increased values of
to
approximately
1.8,
landing, of
climb, the
and
configurations, type, were abrupt. near of 0.4 for about 0.]5, the
although climb
configuration of
coefficient lift at
cruise
were
6 , results
agreement viscous,
obtained
between theoretical
predictions
attached-flow
17. Key Words (Sugg_ted by Author(s)) Low-speed airfoil section Reynolds number effects comparison
Statement Unlimited
Category
02
Ig.
S_urity
Cla_if.
Unclassified
Unclassified
Technicallnformation
Service,
Springfield,
Virginia