You are on page 1of 266

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS

REPORT No. 824

SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA

.._vll#11_! H. ABBOTT, ALBERT E. YON DOENHOFF


"_ ; and LOUIS S. STIYERS, Jr.

t_,-_ G,

}-

¸
1945

_/i< [
._-= -::_ : For sale by the Superintendent of Doeunxents, U.S. Go,, i_ment Printing Ofnce. Washington 25.D.C.
:: : __:._._ ' .......... Price tlJ0

(:;L_ %

i<

|
i,"

REPORT No. 824 q

SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA

By IRA H. ABBOTT, ALBERT E. VON DOENHOFF

and LOUIS S. STIVERS, Jr.

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory

Langley Field, Va.

I
National Advisory Comnfittee for Aeronautics
tteadquarter_', 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., WashiT_gton, 25, D. ('.

Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for tile supervision and direction of the scientific study
of the problems of flight (U. S. Code, title 49, sec. 241). Its membership was increased to 15 by act approved
March 2, 1929. Tile members are appointed by the President, and serve as such without compensation.

JEROME C. HUNSA_,'ER, Sc. D., Cambridge, Mass., Chairman

L)'MAN _]. BRII:;GS, Ph. D., Vice Chairman, Director, National AUBREY W. FITCH, Vice Admiral, United States Navy, Deputy
Bureau of Standards. Chief of Naval Operations (Air), Navy Department.

CH._RLES G. ABBOT, So. D., Vice Chairnmn, Executive Committee, WILL1AM LITTLEWOOI), M. E., Jackson Heights, Long Island,
Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. N.Y.

]tENR'¢ H. ARNOLD, General, United States Army, Comnianding


FRANCIS W. REICHFLDERFER, So. D., Chief, United States
General, Army Air Forces, War Department. Weather Bureau.
_rlI,I,IAM A. M. BURI)EN, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
LAWRENCE B. RICHARDSON, Rear Admiral, Untied States Navy,

P Aerolmutics.

VANNEVAR BUSH, Sc. 1)., Director, Office of Scientific Research


Assistant Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Departmdnt.

and Devclot)ment, Washington, D. C. EDWARD WARNER, So. D., Civil Aeronautics Boar(t, Washington,
D.C.
WILLIAM F. I)URAND, Ph.D., Stanford Ulfiversity, California.
ORVILLE WRI(;HT, So. D., Dayton, Ohio.
OLIVER 1 ). E(:HOLS, Major General, United Status Army, Chief
of Mat6rM, Maintenance, and l)istribmion, Army Air Forces, THEODORE P. _Valt;wr, So. D., Ad,ninistrator of Civil Aero-
War Depart nlent. nautics, I)epartment of Commerce.

(_EOR(;E _V. I,EWIS, Sc. D., Director of Aeronautical Research

,loIIi F. VII'TORY, EL. _I., Secretary

HENRY J. E. I{EID, So. D., Engineer-in-('harge, Langley Memorial Aerona/ltical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va.

SMITII J. I)EFRAN('E, B. S., Engineer-in-(_harge, Ames Aeronautical Laboratory, Moffett FMd, Calif.

EDWARD R. SHARP, LL. B., Manager, Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, Cleveland Airport, Cleveland, Ohio

CARLTON KEMPEIt, B. S., Execmivc Engineer, Aircraft Engine Research Lai)oratory, ('leveland Airport, Cleveland, Ohio

TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

AERODYNAMIC,_ OPERATING PROBLEM,'-;

POWER PLANTS FOR AIR('tIAFT 3[ATERIALS ]{ESEARCII COORDINATION

AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION

Coordination of Research Needs of Military and Civil Aviation

Preparation of Research Programs

Allocation of Problems

Prevention of Duplication

LANGI,Ey .'_IEMoRIAL AERONAUTICAL LARORATORY AMES AERONA'FI'I('AI. LABORATORY

Langlt,y Field, Va. Moffe_t Field, Calif.

AIRCRAFT ENGINE RESFAR('H LABORATORY, Cleveland Airport, Cleveland, Ohio

('o_*d**ct, *_nder unified control, for all agencies, of _'cicnlific research on the f**ndamental problems of flight

OFFICE OF AERONAUTICA|, INTELLIGENCE, Washinglon, I). C.

('olleetion, classification, compilation, and d|'ssemimltion of scientific and technical information on ae,'onauties
II
CONTENTS

Page Page
SUMMARY .............................. 1 EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS--Continued
INTRODUCTION ................... 1 Drag Characteristics of Smooth Airfoils--Continued
SYMBOLS ................................... 1 Effects of type of section on drag characteristics ..... 18
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ..................... 2 Effective aspect ratio ..................... 21
DESCRIPTION OF AIRFOILS ........................ 3 Effect of surface irregularities on drag ................. 22
Method of Combining Mean Lines and Thickness Permissible roughness .......................... 22
Distributions ............................. 3 Permissible waviness ......................... 22
NACA Four-Digit Series Airfoils ............ 4 Drag with fixed transition ............... 24
Numbering system ................. 4 Drag with practical construction methods ...... 24
Thickness distributions ............... 5 Effects of propeller slipstream and airplane vibration_ 29
Mean lines_ : ................... 5 Lift Characteristics of Smooth Airfoils .............. 30
NACA Five-Digit Series Airfoils ......... 5 Two-dimensional data .................. 30
Numbering systeni ................. 5 Three-dimensional data ............... 37
Thickness distributions ............... 5 Lift Characteristics of Rough Airfoils ........... 37
Mean lines ..................... 5 Two-dimensional data ........... 37
NACA 1-Series Airfoils .............. 5 Three-dimensional data ................. 38
Numbering system ............... 5 Unconservative Airfoils ..... : ....... 39
Thickness distributions .............. 5 Pitching Moment ................... 40
Mean lines ................... 5 Position of Aerodynamic Center ................ 43
NACA 6-Series Airfoils .............. 5 High-Lift Devices ................. 43
Nunabering system ................. 5 Lateral-Control Devices ..................... 43
Thickness distributions ............ 6 Leading-Edge Air Intakes .................. 49
Mean lines ................ 6 Interference ............................ 50
NACA 7-Series Airfoils ..................... 7 APPLICATION TO WING DESIGN ............... 51
Numbering system ........... 7 Application of Section Data ............... 51
Thickness distributions ............. 7 Selection of Root Section .................. 51
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............... 8 Selection of Tip Section ................. 52
Pressure Distributions ................... 8 CONCLUSIONS ................................. 52
Methods of derivation of thickness distributions __ 8 APPENDIX--_IETHODS OF OBTAINING DATA IN THE LANGLEY
Rapid estimation of pressure distributions ..... 10 Two-DIMENSIONAL Low-TuRBULENCE TUNNELS ......... 54

Numerical examples ................... 12 Description of Tunnels .................. 54


Effect of camber on pressure distribution ...... 13 Symbols ..................... __ .... 54
Critical Mach Number .................. 13 Measurement of Lift ..................... 55
Moment Coefficients ................ 14 Measurement of Drag .................. 56
Methods of calculation ......... 14 Tunnel-Wall Corrections ............... 57

Numerical examples ............. 14 Correction for Blocking at High Lifts ........ 59


Angle of Zero Lift ................. 14 Comparison with Experiment ............ 59

Methods of calculation .............. 14 REFERENCES ......................... 60


TABLES ......................... 64
Numerical examples ............... 14
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA :
Description of Flow around Airfoils ....... 15
I--Basic Thickness Forms .............. 69
EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ............... 16
II--Data for Mean Lines ................ 89
Sources of Data .................... 16 III--Airfoil Ordinates .................... 99
Drag Characteristics of Smooth Airfoils .......... 16 IV--Predicted Critical Mach Numbers ............... 113
Drag characteristics in low-drag range ........... 16 V--Aerodynamic Characteristics of Various Airfoil
Drag characteristics outside low-drag range ........ 18 Sections ........................... 129

iil
REPORT No. 824

SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA

By IRA H. ABBOTT, ALBERT E. VON DOENHOFF, and Lovls S. STIVERS, JR.

SUMMARY
Recent information on the aerodynamic characteristics of
ReceT_t airfoil data for both flight and wind-tunnel tests have NACA airfoils is presented. The historical development of
been collected and correlated insofar as possible. The flight NACA airfoils is briefly reviewed. New data are presented
data consist largely of drag measurements made by the wake- that permit the rapid calculation of the approximate pressure
distributions for the older NACA four-digit and five-digit
survey method. Most of the data on airfoil section characteris-
tics were obtained in the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence airfoils by the same methods used for the NACA 6-series
airfoils. The general methods used to derive the basic tki_k-
pressure tunnel. Detail data necessary for the application o]
ness forms for NACA 6- and 7-series airfoils together with
NACA 6-series airfoils to wing design are presented in sup-
their corresponding pressure distributions are presented.
plementary figures, together with recent data for the NACA 00-,
Detail data necessary for the application of the airfoils to
1_-, 2_-, _-, and 230-series airfoils. The general methods
wing design are presented in supplementary figures placed at
used to derive the basic thickness forms for NACA 6- and
the end of the paper. The report includes an analysis of
7-series airfoils and their corresponding pressure distributions
the lift, drag, pitching-moment, and critical-speed charac-
are presented. Data and methods are given for rapidly obtain-
teristics of the airfoils, together with a discussion of the
ing the approximate pressure distributions .for NACA four-
effects of surface conditions. Available data on high-lift
digit, five-digit, 6-, and 7-series airfoils.
devices are presented. Problems associated with lateral-
The report includes an analysis of the lift, drag, pitching-
control devices, leading-edge air intakes, and interference
moment, and critical-speed characteristics of the airfoils, to-
are briefly discussed, together with aerodynamic problems
gether with a discussion of the effects of surface conditions.
Data on high-lift devices are presented. Problems associated of application.
with lateral-control devices, leading-edge air intakes, and inter- Numbered figuces are used to illustrate the text and to
ference are briefly discussed. The data indicate that the effects present miscellaneous data. Supplementary figures and
of sub:face condition on the lift and drag characteristics are at tables are not numbered but are conveniently arranged at
least as large as the effects of the airfoil shape and must be the end of the report according to the numerical designation
considered in airfoil selection and the prediction of wing charac- of the airfoil section within the follo_'ing headings:
I--Basic Thickness Forms
teristics. Airfoils permitting extensive laminar flow, such as
II--Data for Mean Lines
the NACA 6-series airfoils, have much lower drag coe_icients
III--Airfoil Ordinates
at high speed and cruising lift coeficients than earlier types of
IV--Predicted Critical Mach Numbers
airfoils if, and only if, the wing surfaces are suy_ciently smooth
V--Aerodynamic Characteristics of Various Airfoil
and fair. The NACA 6-series airfoils also have favorable
Sections
critical-speed characteristics and do not appear to present
unusual problems associated with the application of high-lift These supplementary figures and tables present the basic
data for the airfoils.
and lateral-control devices.
SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION
A aspect ratio
•A considerable amount of airfoil data has been accumulated An, B, Fourier series coefficients
from tests in the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence a mean-line designation, fraction of chord from lead-
tunnels. Data have also been obtained from tests both in ing edge over which design load is uniform; in
other wind tunnels and in flight and include the effects of derivation of thickness distributions, basic length
high-lift devices, surface irregularities, and interference. usually considered unity
Some data are also available on the effects of airfoil section b wing span
on aileron characteristics. Although a large amount of these b_ flap span, inboard
data has been published, the scattered nature of the data bIo flap span, outboard
and the limited objectives of the reports have prevented C, drag coefficient
adequate analysis and interpretation of the results. The CDL 0
drag coefficient at zero lift
purpose of this report is to summarize these data and to lift coefficient
correlate and interpret them insofar as possible. _5¥ 1 increment of maximum lift caused by flap deflection
1
REPORT N'O. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOR AERONAUTICS

¢ chord XL abscissa of lower surface


Ca aileron chord Xu abscissa of upper surface
Ca

Cdmi n
section drag coefficient
minimum section drag coefficient (x),, chordwise position of transition

Y distance perpendicular to chord


cf_ flap chord, inboard
Yc mean-line ordinate
¢fo flap chord, outboard
yL ordinate of lower surface
cf
flap-chord ratio yt ordinate of symmetrical thickness distribution
c
Yv ordinate of upper surface
CH section aileron hinge-moment coefficient (q_c_) z complex variable in circle plane
_eu increment of aileron hinge-moment coefficient at z p complex variable in near-circle plane
constant lift Ol angle of attack
ACH_ hinge-moment parameter A(_ o
section aileron effectiveness parameter, ratio of
V_ section lift coefficient A5
change in section angle of attack to increment of
design section lift coefficient
el l aileron deflection at a constant value of lift
moment coefficient about aerodynamic center
Cma. c, coefficient
Cmc/4
moment coefficient about quarter-chord point
Ol lo angle of zero lift
Cn section normal-force coefficient
Ol o section angle of attack
D drag
Aot o increment of section angle of attack
AH loss of total pressure
Oti section angle of attack corresponding to design
Ho free-stream total pressure
lift coefficient
h section aileron hinge moment
flap or aileron deflection; down deflection is positive
h, exit height
flap deflection, inboard
k constant
flap deflection, outboard
L lift
airfoil parameter (6--0)
M Mach number
_.TE value of e at trailing edge
M. critical Mach number
complex variable in airfoil plane
OU, OL typical points on upper and lower surfaces of airfoil 0 angular coordinate of z' ; also, angle of which tangent
P is slope of mean line
pressure coefficient(_L_oP°)
q
Per critical pressure coetficient { Tip chord "_
taper ratio \Root chord/
P. resultant pressure coefficient; difference between
local ul)per- and lower-surface pressure coefficients {Effective Reynohls number'_
T
turbulence factor \ Test Reyimldsnumber ]
P local static pressure; also, angular velocity in roll in
pb/2V angular coordinate of z
PO free-stream static pressure ¢ airfoil parameter determining radial coordinate of z
pb/2V helix angle of wing tip _o average value of _b (21r£2_ ¢ d_)
qo free-stream dynamic pressure
R Reynolds number
Re, critical Reynolds mmfl)er HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

S
pressure coefficient (_) The development of types of NACA airfoils now in con>
tl first airfoil thickn(.ss ratio mon use was started in 1929 with a systenmtic investigation
t: second airfoil thickness ratio of a family of airfoils in the Langley variable-density tmmel.
V free-stream velocity Airfoils of this family were designated by numbers having
inlet velocity fore" digits, such as the NACA 4412 airfoil. All airfoils of
local velocity this family had the same basic thickness distribution (refer-
At" increment of local vdocity ence 1), and the amount and type of camber was systemati-
AVa increment of local velocity caused 1)y additional cally varied to produce the family of related airfoils. This
type of load distribution investigation of the NACA airfoils of the four-digit series
produced airfoil se(,tions having higher maximum lift
(") qV
velocity ratio correspon(ling to thi('kness t, coefficients and lower minimum drag co(,flieients than those
of sections developed before that time. The investigation
velocity ratio corresponding to thi(,l_ness t2
also provided infornmtion on the changes in aerodynamic
x distance along chord characteristics resulting from wtriations of geometry of the
xc mean-line abscissa mean line and thickness ratio (reference 1).
SU_/IMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 3

The investigation was extended in references 2 and 3 to was obtained by empirical modification of the previously
include airfoils with the same thickness distribution but used thickness distributions (reference 4). These NACA
with positions of the maximum camber far forward on the 16-series sections represented the first family of the low-drag
airfoil. These airfoils were designated by numbers having high-critical-speed sections.
five digits, such as the NACA 23012 airfoil. Some airfoils Successive attempts to design airfoils by approximate
of this family showed favorable aerodynamic characteristics theoretical methods led to families of airfoils designated
except for a large sudden loss in lift at the stall. NACA 2- to 5-series sections (reference 11). Experience with
Although these investigations were extended to include a these sections showed that none of the approximate methods
limited number of airfoils with varied thickness distribu- tried was sufficiently accurate to show correctly the effect
tions (references 1 and 3 to 6), no extensive investigations of of changes in profile near the leading edge. Wind-tunnel
thickness distribution were made. Comparison of experi- and flight tests of these airfoils showed that extensive laminar
mental drag data at low lift coefficients with the skin- boundary layers could be maintained at comparatively large
friction coefficients for fiat plates indicated that nearly all values of the Reynolds number if the airfoil surfaces were
of the profile drag under such conditions was attributable smfficiently fair and smooth. These tests also provided
to skin friction. It was therefore apparent that any pro- qualitative information on the effects of the magnitude of
nounced reduction of the profile drag must be obtained by a the favorable pressure gradient, leading-edge radius, and other
reduction of the skin friction through increasing the relative shape variables. The data also showed that separation of
extent of the laminar boundary layer. the turbulent boundary layer over the rear of the section,
Decreasing pressures in the direction of flow and low air- especially with rough surfaces, limited the extent of laminar
stream turbulence were known to be favorable for laminar layer for which the airfoils should be designed. The air-
flow. An attempt was accordingly made to increase the foils of these early families generally showed relatively low
relative extent of laminar flow by the development of ah'- maximum lift coefficients and, in many cases, were designed
foils having favorable pressure gradients over a greater for a greater extent of laminar flow than is practical. It was
proportion of the chord than the airfoils developed in refer- learned that, although sections designed for an excessive
ences 1, 2, 3, and 6. The actual attainment of extensive extent of laminar flow gave extremely low drag coefficients
laminar boundary layers at large Reynolds numbers was a near the design lift coefficient when smooth, the drag of such
previously unsolved experimental problem requiring the sections became unduly large when rough, particularly at lift
development of new test equipment with very low air- coefficients higher than the design lift. These families of
stream turbulence. This work was greatly encouraged by airfoils are accordingly considered obsolete.
the experiments of Jones (reference 7), who demonstrated The NACA 6-series basic _hickness forms were derived by
the possibility of obtaining extensive laminar layers in flight new and improved methods described herein in the section
at relatively_ large R_l,,,_u_l_ ,_u,,,_,s.l"_ TT,_..._._.;_,._._._jwith "Methods of Derivatinn of Thick-noss Distributions," in ac-
regard to factors affecting separation of the turbulent cordance with design criterions established with the objective
boundary layer required experiments to determine the of obtaining desirable drag, critical Mach number, and
possibility of making the rather sharp pressure recoveries maximum-lift characteristics. The present report deals largely
required over the rear portion of the new type of airfoil. with the characteristics of these sections. The develop-
New wind tunnels were designed specifically for testing ment of the NACA 7-series family has also been started.
airfoils under conditions closely approaching flight condi- This family of airfoils is characterized by a greater extent of
tions of air-stream turbulence and Reynolds number. The laminar flow on the lower than on the upper surface. These
resulting wind tunnels, the Langley two-dimensional low- sections permit low pitching-moment coefficients with mod-
turbulence tunnel (LTT) and the Langley two-dimensional erately high design lift coefficients at the expense of some
low-turbulence pressure tunnel (TDT), and the methods reduction in maximum lift and critical Mach number.
used for obtaining and correcting data are briefly described Acknowledgement is gratefully expressed for the expert
in the appendix. In these tunnels the models completely guidance and many original contributions of Mr. Eastman
span the comparatively narrow test sections; two- N. Jacobs, who initiated and supervised this work.
dimensional flow is thus provided, which obviates difficulties
previously encountered in obtaining section data from DESCRIPTION OF AIRFOILS
tests of finite-span wings and in correcting adequately for
support interference (reference 8). METHOD OF COMBINING MEAN LINES AND THICKNESS DISTRIBUTIONS

Difficulty was encountered in attempting to design air-


foils having desired pressure distributions because of the lack The cambered airfoil sections of all NACA families con-
of adequate theory. The Theodorsen method (reference 9), sidered herein are obtained by combining a mean line and a
as ordinarily used for calculating the pressure distributions thickness distribution. The necessary geometric data and
about airfoils, was not sufficiently accurate near the leading some theoretical aerodynamic data for the mean lines and
edge for prediction of the local pressure gradients. In the thickness distributions may be obtained from the supple-
absence of a suitable theoretical method, the 9-percent- mentary figures by the methods described for each family of
thick symmetrical airfoil of the NACA 16-series (reference 10) airfoils.
4 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

• 10 t Ou(a'_

0 _'_. ' 1;I Chord hne

/
zu=x-y _ s_n 8 yu=yc.yt cos 8
', "uc(_L, VL) _ - xc=z+y r s/n 0 YL=YO-Yt COS 8

I ',, Rodius t,hrocgh end o£ chord 1.00


Ioli "(meon-h'me 5/ope Of" _5 percent c,boFd)

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR DERIVATION OF THE NACA 65,3-818, a=l.O AIRFOIL

yJ y¢ tan 8 sin 0 cos 0 yt sin 0 Yt cos 0 _u yu XL yL


(_) (b)

0 0 0 O 0 0
O 0 0
0. 31932 O. 94765 .00423 .01255 •00077 • 01455 • 00923 --.01055
• 005 .01324 • C0200
.18422 •98288 .00706 .03765 •04294 • 05029 • 05706 --.02501
• 05 .0383l • 012£;4 • 18744
.00979 •99756 .00565 -08073 • 24435 • 11653 • 25565 --.04493
• 25 .080_] .03580 •06996
0 1.00000 0 •08593 •50000 • 13O05 .50000 --.04181
.50 •08593 .04412 0
-. 06979 •99756 --.00311 -04445 • 75311 • 08025 • 74689 --.00865
• 75 .0445fi .03580 --. 06996
0 0 1. 00000 0 1.00000 0
1.00 0 0

• Thickness distribution obtained from ordinates of the NACA 65,3-018 airfoil.


b Ordinates of the mean line, 0.8 of the ordinate for cq=l.0.
• Slope of radius through end of chord.
FIOURE 1.--Method of combining mean lines and basic thickness forms•

The process for combining a mean line and a thickness of the leading-edge point. Because tim slope at the leading
distribution to obtain the desired cambered airfoil section is edge is theoretically infinite for the mean lines having a
illustrated in figure 1. The leading and trailing edges are theoretically finite load at the leading edge, the slope of the
defined as the forward and rearward extremities, respectively, radius througli tlle end of tlle chord for such mean lines is
of the mean line. The chord line is defined as the straigllt
usually taken as tlle slope of the niean line at x--0.005. This
line connecting the leading and trailing edges. Ordinates of c
tim canibered airfoil are obtained by laying off the thickness procedure is justified by the nulnner in wllicll the slope
distribution perpendicular to tile mean line• Tile abscissas, increases to tlle theoretically infinite vahle as x/c approaches
ordinates, and slopes of the mean line are designated as x_, 0. Tlle slope increases slowly until vel T snmll values of x/c
y_, and tan 6, respectively. If xv and yv represent, respec- are reached. Large vahles of tlle slope are tllus limited to
tively, the abscissa and ordinate of a typical point of the vahles of x/c very close to 0 and may be neglected in practical
upper surface of the airfoil and y_ is the ordinate of tlle airfoil design.
symmetrical tllickness distribution at chordx_:ise position x, Tables of ordinates are included in the supplenlentary data
the upper-surface coordinates are given by the following for all airfoils for wtlicll standard characteristics are presented
relations:
NACA FOUR-DIGIT-SERIES AIRFOILS
Xv=X--yt sin 0 (1)
Numbering system.--The nunlbering system for the
yv:Y_+yt cos 0 (2) NACA airfoils of tlle fonr-(ligit series (reference 1) is based
on tlle airfoil geometry. Tile first integer indicates the
Tlle corresponding expressions for tlle lower-surface coordi- inaxilmml value of the mean-line ordinate y_ in percent of tlle
nates are cllord. Tlle second integer indicates the (listance from the
x,.=x+y_ sin 0 (3) lea(ling edge to the location of tim maxinuml camber in
tentlls of the cllord. The last two integers indicate tlle
YE=--Y_--yt cos 0 (4) airfoil ttlickness in percent of the cllord. Thus, tlle NACA
2415 airfoil has 2-percent camber at 0.4 of ttle chord from tlle
The center for the leading-edge radius is found by drawing leading edge and is 15 percent thick.
a line through tlle end of tlle chord at tlie leading edge with Tim first two integers taken together define tile mean line,
the slope equal to the slope of the mean line at tllat point for example, the NACA 24 mean line. The synllnetrical air-
and laying off a distance from the leading edge along tllis line foil sections representing tlle thickness distribution for a
equal to the leading-edge radius. Tliis method of construc- family of airfoils are designated by zeros for tile first two
tion causes tile cambered airfoils to project sliglitly forward integers, as in the case of tlle NACA 0015 airfoil.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 5

Thickness distributions.--Data for the NACA 0006, 0008, Thickness distributions.--The thickness distributions for
0009, 0010, 0012, 0015, 0018, 0021, and 0024 thickness airfoils of the NACA five-digit series are the same as those
distributions are presented in the supplementary figures. for airfoils of the NACA four-digit series.
Ordinates for intermediate thicknesses may be obtained Mean lines.--Data for the NACA 210, 220, 230, 240, and
correctly by scaling the tabulated ordinates in proportion to 250 mean lines are presented in the supplementary figures
the thickness ratio (reference 1). The leading-edge radius in the same form as for the mean lines given herein for the
varies as the square of the thickness ratio. Values of four-digit series. All tabulated values for each mean line
(v/l') 2, which is equivalent to the low-speed pressure distri- vary linearly with the maximum ordinate or with the design
bution, and of r/I" are also presented. These data were lift coefficient. Thus, data for the NACA 430 mean line
obtained by Theodorsen's method (reference 9). Values of may be obtained by multiplying the data for the NACA 230
the velocity increments Ava/I" induced by changing angle of mean line by the ratio 4:2 and for the NACA 640 mean line
attack (see section "Rapid Estimation of Pressure Distribu- by multiplying the data for the NACA 240 mean line by
tions") are also presented for an additional lift coefficient of the ratio 6 :2.
approximately unity. Values of the velocity ratio v/V for NACA 1-SERIES AIRFOILS

intermediate thickness ratios may be obtained approxi- Numbering system.--The NACA 1-series airfoils are des-
mately by linear scaling of the velocity increments obtained
ignated by a five-digit number--as, for example, the
from the tabulated values of v/V for the nearest thickness
NACA 16-212 section. The first integer represents the
ratio; thns,
series designation. The second integer indicates the dis-
tance in tenths of the chord from the leading edge to the
tl 1 (5) position" of minimum pressure for the symmetrical section
at zero lift. The first number following the dash indicates
the amount of camber expressed in terms of the design lift
Values of the velocity-increment ratio hva/V may be obtained
coefficient in tenths, and the last two numbers together
for intermediate thicknesses by interpolation. indicate the thickness in percent of the chord. The com-
Mean lines.--Data for the NACA 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67 monly used sections of this family have minimum pressure
mean lines are presented in the supplementary figures. at 0.6 of the chord from the leading edge and are usually
The data presented include the mean-line ordinates y_, the referred to as the NACA 16-series sections.
slope dyJdx, the design lift coefficient c, and the corre- Thickness distributions.--Data for the NACA 16-006,
sponding design angle of attack a,, the moment coefficient 16-009, 16-012, 16-015, 16-018, and 16-021 thickness
C,n_,,,, the resultant pressure coefficient PR, and the velocity distributions (reference 10) are presented in the supplemen-
ratio Av/V. The theoretical aerodynamic characteristics tary figures. These data are similar in form to the data for
were obtained from thin-airfoil theory. All tabulated values those airfoils of the NACA four-digit series, and data for
for each mean line, accordingly, vary linearly with the maxi- intermediate thickness ratios may be obtained in the same
mum ordinate y_, and data for similar mean lines with manner.
different amounts of camber within the usual range may be
Mean lines.--The NACA 16-series airfoils as commonly
Obtained simply by scaling the tabulated values. Data used are cambered with a mean line of the uniform-load
for the NACA 22 mean line may thus be obtained by multi- type (a=l.0), which is described under the section for the
plying the data for the NACA 62 mean line by the ratio 2:6,
NACA 6-series airfoils that follows. If any other type of
and for the NACA 44 mean line by multiplying the data for mean line is used, this fact should be stated in the airfoil
the NACA 64 mean line by the ratio 4:6. designation.
NACA 6-S_.RIESAIRFOILS
NACA FIVE-DIGIT-SERIES AIRFOILS
Numbering system.--The NACA 6-series airfoils are usu-
Numbering system.--The numbering system for airfoils of ally designated by a six-digit number together with a state-
the NACA five-digit series is based on a combination of ment showing the type of mean line used. For example,
theoretical aerodynamic characteristics and geometric char- in the designation NACA 65,3-218, a=0.5, the "6" {s
acteristics (references 2 and 3). The first integer indicates the series designation. The "5" denotes the chordwise
the amount of camber in terms of the relative magnitude of position of minimum pressure in tenths of the chord beifind
the design lift coefficient; the design lift coefficient in tenths the leading edge for the basic symmetrical section at zero
is thus three-halves of the first integer. The second and third lift. The "3" following the comma gives the range of lift
integers together indicate the distance from the leading edge coefficient in tenths above and below the design lift coefficient
to the location of the maximum camber; this distance in in which favorable pressure gradients exist on both surfaces.
percent of the chord is one-half the number represented by The "2" following the dash gives the design lift coefficient
these integers. The last two integers indicate the airfoil in tenths. The last two digits indicate the airfoil thickness
thickness in percent of the chord. The NACA 23012 airfoil in percent of the chord. The designati0n "a=0.5" shows
thus has a design lift coefficient of 0.3, has its maximum the type of mean line used. When the mean-line designa-
camber at 15 percent of the chord, aml has a thickness ratio tion is not given, it is understood that the uniform-load
of 12 percent. mean line (a= 1.0) has been used.

918392--51----2
6 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AEHONAUTICS

When the mean line used is obtained 1)y combining more NACA 65(3_s)-(1.5)(16.5), a=0.5
than one mean line, the design lift coefficient used in the
Some early experimental airfoils are designated by the in-
designation is the algebraic sum of the design lift coefficients sertion of the letter "x" immediately preceding the hyphen
of the mean lines used, and the mean lines are described in
as in the designation 66,2x-115.
the statement following the number as in the following ease: Thickness distributions.--Data for available NACA 6-series
thickness forms are presented in the supplementary
(a=0.5, cli=0.3 t
figures. These data are comparable with the sinfilar data
NACA 65,3-2181a=1.0 ' c,_=--0.11
for airfoils of the NACA four-digit series, except that ordi-
Airfoils having a thickness distribution obtained by linearly nates for intermediate thicknesses may not be correctly ob-
increasing or deereasing the ordinates of one of the originally tained by scaling the tabulated ordinates proportional to the
derived thickness distributions are designated as in the follow- thickness ratio. This method of changing the ordinates by
ing example: a factor will, however, produce shapes satisfactorily approx-
NACA 65(318)-217, a=0.5 imating members of the family if the change in thickness
ratio is small. Values of v/V and hvdV for intermediate
The significance of all of the numbers except those in the
thickness ratios may be approximated as described for the
parentheses is the same as before. The first number and the
NACA four-digit series.
last two numbers enclosed in the parentheses denote, respec-
Mean lines.--The mean lines commonly used with the
tively, the low-drag range and the thickness in percent of
NACA 6-series airfoils produce a uniform chordwise loading
the chord of the originally derived thickness distribution.
The more recent NACA 6-series airfoils are derived as from the leading edge to the point -=a and a linearly de-
c
members of thickness families having a simple relationship
creasing load from this point to the trailing edge. Data
between the conformal transformations for airfoils of different
for NACA mean lines with values of a equal to 0, 0.1, 0.2,
thickness ratios but having minimum pressure at the same 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 are presented in the
ehordwise position. These airfoils are distinguished from
supplementary figures. The ordinates were computed by
the earlier individually derived airfoils by writing the num-
the following formula, wlfich represents a simplification of
ber indicating the low-drag range as a subscript ; for example,
the original expression for mean-line ordinates given in
NACA 653-218, a=0.5 reference 11 :

For NACA 6-series airfoils having a tlfickness ratio less


Y¢--c--2r(a+l)Cq ll_la[l(a x)-"log_la_X
than 0.12 of the chord, the subscript number indicating the
low-drag range should be less than unity. Rather than use
a fractional number, a subscript of unity was originally em- 61(l--X) 2 log. (1-- x)+14 (1--c/--4x'_" 1(a_;)2 _
ployed for these airfoils. Since tt, is usage is not consistent
with the previous definition of a number indicating the low- :log_ ;+g-h c} (6)
drag range, the designations of airfoil sections having a thick-
ness ratio less than 0.12 of the chord are now given without where
such a number. As an example, an NACA 6-series airfoil
g=--l--a • 1 [ a2 (1 _log, a- 1) + 1]
having a thickness ratio of 0.10 of the chord would be
designated:
NACA 65-210 h=l_ al [ 21 (l_a)2 log. (1--a) -- _1 (1--a)2] +g
Ordinates for the basic thickness distributions designated by
The ideal angle of attack a: correst)onding to the design
a subscript are slightly different from those for the corre-
sponding individually derived thickness distributions. As lift coefficient is given by
before, if the ordinates of the basic thidkness distribution (?l t = -- ]b eli

have been changed by a factor, the low-drag range and thick- 27r (a+ 1)
ness ratio of the original thickness distribution are enclosed
The data are presented for a design lift coefficient c,
in parentheses as follows:
equal to unity. All tabulated values vary directly with
NACA 65(a_8)-217, a=0.5 the design lift coefficient. Corresponding data for similar
mean lines with other design lift coefficients may accordingly
If, however, the ordinates of a basic thickness distribution
be obtained simply by multiplying the tabulated values by
having a thickness ratio less than 0.12 of the chord have been
the desired design lift coeffieicnt.
changed by a factor, the number indicating the low-drag
hi order to camber NACA 6-series airfoils, mean lines are
range is eliminated and only the original thickness ratio is
enclosed in parentheses as follows: Usually used having vahles of a equal to or greater than the
distance from the leading edge to the location of nfinimum
NACA 65c10)-211 pressure for the selected thickness distrilmtion at. zero lift.
If the design lift coefficient in tenths or the airfoil thickness For special purposes, load distrihutions other than those
in percent of chord are not whole integers, the numbers corresponding to the simple mean lines may be obtaiz_ed 1)y
giving these quantities are usually enclosed in parentheses as combining two or more types of mean line having positive or
in the following designation: negative values of the design lift coefficient. The geometric
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DA'I_A
7

and aerodynamic characteristics of such combinations ,nay be serial letter "B." Mean lines used for the NACA 7-series
obtained by algebraic addition of the values for the compo- airfoils are obtained by combining two or more of the pre-
nent mean lines. viously described mean lines. A list of the thickness dis-
NACA 7-SERIES AIRFOILS
tributions and mean lines used to form these airfoils is pre-
Numbering system.--The NACA 7-series airfoils are desig- sented in table I. The basic thickness distribution is given
nated by a number of the following type (reference 12): a designation similar to those of the final cambered airfoils.
NACA 747A315 For example, the basic thickness distribution for the
NACA 747A315 and 747A415 airfoils is given the designation
The first number "7" indicates the series number. The NACA 747A015 even though minimum pressure occurs at 0.4c
second number "4" indicates the extent over the upper sur- on both upper and lower surfaces at zero lift. Combination
face, in tenths of the chord from the leading edge, of the of this thickness distribution with the mean lines listed in
region of favorable pressure gradient at the design lift coeffi- table I for the NACA 747A315 airfoil changes the pressure
cient. The third number "7" indicates the extent over the distribution to the desired type as shown in figure 2.
lower surface, in tenths of the chord from the leading edge, Thickness distributions.--Data for available NACA 7-
of the region of favorable pressure gradient at the design lift series thickness distributions are presented in the supple-
coefficient. The significance of the last group of three num- mentary figures. These thickness distributions are indi-
bers is the same as for the previous NACA 6-series airfoils. vidually derived and do not form thickness families. The
The letter "A" which follows the .first three numbers is a thickness ratio may, however, be changed a moderate
serial letter to distinguish different airfoils having parameters amount--say 1 or 2 percent--by multiplying the tabulated
that would correspond to the same numerical designation. ordinates by a suitable factor without seriously altering their
For example, a second airfoil having the same extent of characteristic features. Values of(v/V2)and of v/V for thinn(,r
favorable pressure gradient over the upper and lower sur- or thicker thickness distributions may be approximated by
faces, the same design lift coefficient, and the same maximum the method of equation (5). If the change in thickness ratio
thickness as the original airfoil but having a different mean- is small, tabulated values of Ava/V may be applied directly
line combination or thickness distribution would have the with reasonable accuracy.
Z© m

/.8

/'_ u/ ,per sur'foce)

/" NHCA 747A{215 basle _ _,

12 / "r,5/c,k'rvess d/t_tribu//on _ M

\\

.6

.4

0 ./ .2 .3 .d .5 .C .7 .8 ._ L0
x_e'

FIGURE 2.--Theoretical pressure distribution for the NACA 747A315 airfoil section at the design lift coefficient and the NACA 747A015 basic thickness distribution.

TABLE I.--ANALYSIS OF AIRFOIL DERIVATION

Mean-line combination _ I
Airfoil
Basic thickness
form
I
a=0
designation a =0.1 a =0.2 a =0.3 a =0.4 a =0.5 a=0.6 a =0.7 a=0.8 a =0.9 a=l.0

747A315 ........ I 747A015 ......................


747A015 .......................
747A415 ........ ] ....................................... I .763 .............

The numbers in the various columns headed "Mean-line combination" indicate the magnitude of the design lift coefficient used.
REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
8

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS this circle in complex coordinates is


PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS z = ae ¢o+_* (7)
where
A knowledge of the pressure distribution over an airfoil is
desirable for structural design and for estimation of the
z complex variable in circle plane
critical Mach number and moment coefficient if tests are not
available. The pressure distribution also exerts a strong angular coordinate of z
or predominant influence on the boundary-layer flow and, a basic length usually considered unity
hence, on the airfoil characteristics. It is therefore usually
_0 constant determining radius of circle
advisable to relate the airfoil characteristics to the pressure
distribution rather tllan directly to the airfoil geometry. This true cir('le is transformed into an arbitrary, ahnost
Methods of derivation of thickness distributions,--As
circular curve by the relation
mentioned in the section "Historical Development," the
basic symmetrical thickness distributions of the NACA 6- z>-= e (_-¢0)+i(0-_) (8)
and 7-series airfoils, together with their corresponding pres- Z

sure distributions, are derived by means of conformal trans-


formations. The transformations used to relate the known the equation of the ahnost circular curve is
flow about a circle to that about an airfoil section were
Z _= gee+ io (9)
developed by Theodorsen in reference 9. Figure 3 shows
where
schematically the significance of the various phases of the
process. z' complex variable in near-circle plane
The circle about which the flow is originally, calculated has
ae_ radial coordinate of z'
its center at the origin and a radius of ae ¢°. The equation of
0 angular coordinate of z'

In order for the transformation (8) to be conformal, it is


necessary that the quantity (0--_b) (given the symbol --_)
be the conjugate function of (_b--_0) ; that is, if _ is represented
by a Fom'ie," series of the form

Z%_ I_21?t ?
_=_, A, sin 7_--_ B_ cos n4,
1 l

then (4_--¢0) is given by the relaLion

1 1

This relationship indicates that, if tile flmction e(¢) is given,


(_b--¢0) can be calculated as a function of q_. Means of
performing this calculation arc presented in reference 13.
The transformation relating the ahnost circular curve to
a(-2 the airfoil shape is
a 2

_=z'-l-z, (10)
Z'-plone

where _" is the comph,x variable in the airfoil plane. The


coordinates of tile airfoil x and y ave the real and imaginary
parts of i', respectively. These coordinates are given by the
rclatio,s
x=2a cosh _b cos 0 Ill)

y=2a sinh 4, sin 0 (12)

The veh)city distril)ution in terms of the airfoil 1)arameters


and e is given exaetiy for perfect fluid tlow by the expression

v [sin (ao+4,)+sin (ao+_r_:)] e_°


(13)

V--_ (sinh2_ + sin'20) _(1--d¢ ) +(-d_ ) _


FIGURE 3.--Transformations used to derive airfoils find calculate pressure distributions.

k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 9

where

v local velocity over surface of airfoil

V free-stream velocity

ao section angle of attack

¢0 average value of ¢ (lf02_ _d_b)

er_ value of e at trailing edge

The basic symmetrical shapes were derived by assuming


suitable values of dedo as a function of 4_. These vahws were
chosen on the basis of previous experience and are subject to
the conditions that

0_4, =0

and de/dr_ at 4 is equal to ded4) at --q_. These conditions


are necessary for obtaining closed symmetrieal shapes.
de
Values of _(¢) were obtained simply by integrating d4_d4.
Values of ¢(4) were found by obtaining the conjugate of the
curve of e(¢) and adding a value _0 sufficient to make _e
value of _ equal to zero at ¢=7r. This condition assures a
sharp trailing-edge shape.
Inasmuch as small changes in the velocity distribution at any
de
point of the surface are approximately proportional to 1-t-d_
(see reference 14), the initially assumed values of de/deo were -./6
0 2 3z W 5 6 PTr
altered by a process of successive approximations until the ¢_, roc//bns
desired type of velocity distribution was obtained. After the
FIGURE 4.--Variation of airfoi! parameters ¢, e, _, d_ with tb for the NACA 643-018 air foil

final values of _ and e were obtained, the ordinates of the basic


section basic thickness form.
thickness distribution were computed by equations (11)
and (12). to derive basic airfoil parameters ¢ and e that could be
When these computations were made, it appeared that there multiplied by a constant factor to obtain airfoils of various
was an optimum value of the leading-edge radius dependent thickness ratios, without having the aforementioned limita-
upon the airfoil thickness and the position of minimum tions in the resulting sections. Each of the more recent
pressure. If the leading-edge radius was too small, a pre- families of NACA 6-series airfoils, in which numerical sub-
mature peak in the pressure distribution occurred in the scripts are used in the designation, having minimum pressure
immediate vicinity of the leading edge as the angle of attack at a given chordwise position was obtained by scaling up and
was increased. If the leading-edge radius was too large, a down the basic values of the airfoil parameters _band e.
premature peak occurred a few percent of the chord behind the
leading edge. With the correct leading-edge radius, the Theoretical pressure distributions(indicated bY(v) _)
pressure distribution became nearly flat over the forward for a family of NACA 65-series airfoils covering a range of
portion of the airfoil before the normal leading-edge peak thickness ratios are given in figure 5 (a). This figure shows
formed at the higher lift coefficients. Curves of the param- the typical increase in the magnitude of the favorable pressure
eters ¢, e, d_/dep, de/dep plotted against _ for the NACA gradient, increase in maximum velocity over the surface, and
643-018 airfoil section are given in figure 4. increase in the relative pressure recovery over the rear portion
Experience has shown that, when the thickness ratio of an of the airfoil with increase in thickness ratio. Figure 5 (b)
originally derived basic form was increased merely by multi- shows the pressure distribution for a series of basic thickness
plying all the ordinates by a constant factor, an unnecessarily forms having a thickness ratio of 0.15 and having mininmm
large decrease in the critical speed of the resulting section pressure at various chordwise positions. The value of the
occurred. Reducing the thickness ratio in a similar manner minimum pressure coefficient is seen to decrease and the
caused an unnecessarily large decrease in the low-drag range. magnitude of the pressure Fecovery over the rear portion of
For this reason, each of the earlier NACA 6-series sections was the airfoil to increase with the rearward movement of the
individually derived. It was later found that it was possible point of minimum pressure.
10 REPORT NO. 824--NATION _L ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Z8

........ _,'_CA CSe O/5----


N_CAC_ 0/8 ___ rv'AC_ 642-015
NAC_65,-OZJ
EO

/6

(?)'
/.2
IVAC_ G6_ 015
%
.8

A<ACA 67,,/ 0'5


.4 NAC_ E,5_-02;

(a)
0 .Z ...4 6 .8 LO 0 .2 4 .6 .8 LO
_1_ _1_
(a) Variation with thickness. (b) Variation with position of minimum pressure.
FIGURE 5.--Tbcorctical pressure distributions for some basic symmetrical NACA 6-series airfoils at zero lift.

The pressure distribution for one of the basic symmetrical and lower surfaces of the airfoil along the chord. The term
thickness distributions at various lift coefficients is shown in "load distribution" is used to signify the distribution along
figure 6. At zero lift the pressure distributions over the tli_ chord of tim normal force resulting from the difference in
upper and lower surfaces are the same. As the lift coefficient pressure on the upper and lower surfaces.
is increased, the slope of the pressure distribution over the The pressure distribution about any airfoil in potential
forward portion of the upper surface decreases until it becomes flow may be calculated accurately by a generalization of the
fiat at a lift coefficient of 0.22 (the end of the low-drag range). methods of tile previous section. Although this method is
As the lift coefficient is increased beyond this value, the usual not unduly laborious, the computations required are too
peak in the pressure distribution forms at the leading edge. long to permit quick and easy calculations for large numbers
Rapid estimation of pressure distributions.--In the dis- of airfoils. The need for a simple methotl of quickly obt'lining
cussion that follows, the term "pressure distribution" is used pressure distributions with engineering accuracy has led to
to signify the distribution of the sbltic pressures on the upper the development of a methotl (reference 15) combining
features of thin- and thick-airfoil theory. This simple
method makes use of previously calculated characteristics
of a limited number of mean lines and thickness distributions
that may be combinetl to form large mlmbers of airfoils.
Thin-airfoil theory (references 16 to 18) shows that the
load distribution of a thin airfoil may be considered to consist
of: (1) a basic distribution at the ideal angle of attack aml
5O (2) an additional distribution proportional to the angle of
attack as measured from the ideal angle of attack.
The first load distribution is a function only of the shape of
z]O
the tllin airfoil, or (if the thin _lirfoil is considered to be a
mean line) of the mean-line geometry. Integration of this
30 load distribution along the chord results in a normal-force
coefficient which, at snmll angles of attack, is substantially
equ.fl to a lift coefficient c_, which is designated the ideal
_C
or design lift coefficient. If, moreover, the camber of the
mean line is changed by multiplying tile mean-line ordinates
LO by a constant factor, the resulting load distribution, tim
ideal or design _lngle of attack _ and the design lift coelticient
c _ may be obtained sinll)ly by multiplying the original Wthles
by the same fi_ctor. The cllar_lcteristics of a large number of
mean lines are presented in both graphical and tabular form
in the supplementary figures. The lo_ld-distribution data
are presented both in the form of the resultant pressure
coefficient Pn and in the form of the corresponding velocity-
increment ratios A_/V. For positive design lift coefficients,
FIGURE 6.--Theoretical pressure distribution for the NACA 652-015 airfoil at several lift
coefficients. these velocity-increment ratios are positive on the upper

k
SUl_IMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 11

surface and negative on the lower surface; the opposite is The values of v/V and of Av/V in equation (14) should,
true for negative design lift coefficients. of course, correspond to the airfoil geometry. Methods
The second load distribution, which results from changing of obtaining the proper values of these ratios from the values
the angle of attack, is designated herein thc "additional load tabulated in the supplementary figures are presented in the
distribution" and tile corresponding lift coefficient is desig- previous section "Description of Airfoils."
nated the "additional lift coefficient." This additional load When the ratio AvdV has the value of zero, the resulting
distribution contributes no moment about the quarter-chord distribution of the pressure coefficient S will correspond
point and, according to thin-airfoil theory, is independent of approximately to the pressure distribution of the airfoil
the airfoil geometry except for angle of attack. The addi- section at the design lift coefficient cz_ of the mean line, and
tional load distribution obtained from thin-airfoil theory is the lift coefficient may be assigned this value as a first ap-
of limited practical application, however, because this simple proximation. If the pressure-distribution diagram is inte-
theory leads to infinite values of the velocity at the leading grated, however, the value of ct will be found to be greater
edge. This difficulty is obviated by the exact thick-airfoil than cu by an amount dependent on the thickness ratio of
theory (reference 9) which also shows that the additional load the basic thickness form.
distribution is neither completely independent of the airfoil The pressure distribution will usually be desired at some
shape nor exactly a linear function i_f the lift coefficient. specified lift coefficient not corresponding to ca. For this
For this reason, the additional load distribution has been purpose the ratio AvdV must be assigned some value ob-
calculated by the methods of reference 9 for each of the thick- tained by multiplying the tabulated value of this ratio by a
ness distributions presented in the supplementary figures. factor y(a]. For a first approximation this factor may be
These data are presented in the form of velocity-increment assigned the value
ratios Ava/V corresponding to an additional lift coefficient of f(_) =c,-c,, (15)
approximately unity. For positive additional lift coeffi-
cients, these velocity-increment ratios are positive on the where c_ is the lift coefficient for which the pressure distribu-
upper surfaces and negative on the lower surfaces; the tion is desired. If greater accuracy is desired, the value of
opposite is true for negative additional lift coefficients. dr(a) may be adjusted by trial and error to produce tim
In addition to the pressure distributions associated with actual desired lift coefficient as determined by integration
these two load distributions, another pressure distribution of the pressure-distribution diagram.
exists which is associated with the basic symmetrical thick- Although tiffs method of superposition of velocities has
ness form or thickness distribution of the airfoil. This pres- inadequate theoretical justification, experience has shown
sure distribution has been calculated by the methods that the results obtained are adequate for engineering use.
described in the previous section for the condition of zero In fact, the results of even the first approximations agre6
lift and is presented in the supplementary figures as well widL experimeh_al dat_ and are adequate for at least
preliminary consideration and selection of airfoils. A com-
which is equivalent at low Much numbers to the pressure
parison of a first-approximation theoretical pressure distri-
coefficient S, and as the local velocity ratio v/V. This
bution with an experimental distribution is shown in figure 7.
local velocity ratio is always positive and is the same for
corresponding points on the upper and lower surfaces of the
thickness form.
The velocity distribution about the airfoil is thus considered
to be composed of three separate and independent com-
NACA t7612/5]-216, a = 06
ponents as follows:
2.O
(1) The distribution corresponding to the velocity dis-
tribution over the basic thickness form at zero angle of
attack Upper sc*_face_

(2) The distribution corresponding to the design load


distribution of the mean line
" (3) The distribution corresponding to the additional load
1.2
/ ..-o-- -'oN \
distribution associated with angle of attack
The velocity-increment ratios At,/V and ht,,/V correspond-
ing to components (2) and (3) are added to the velocity
.8
ratio corresponding to component (1) to obtain the total
velocity at one point, from which the pressure coefficient S
-- Theory
is obtained; thus, o Exp er,).en /
.4

S_(v±A vV± _)2 (14)

When this formula is used, values of the ratios corresponding


0 .2 .4 .8 .8 LO
to one value of x are added together and the resulting value _/c
of the pressure coefficient S is assigned to the airfoil surface FIGURE 7.--Comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure distributions for tile NAC A
at the same value of x. 66(215)-216, a = 0 6 airfoil, c_ = 0.23.
12 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Some discrepancy naturally occurs between the results of The supplementary figures give a value of 1.182 for v/V
experiment and of any theoretical method based on potential atx=0.25 for the NACA 652-015 basic thickness form. The
flow because of the presence of the boundary layer. These desired value of v/V is obtained by applying formula (5)
effects are small, however, over the range of lift coefficients as follows:
14
for which the boundary layer is thin and the drag coefficient
V=(1.182-- 1) 15 +1
is low.
=1.170
Numerical examples.--The following numerical examples
are included to illustrate the method of obtaining the first-
From the supplementary figures the following values of
approximation pressure distributions:
5v_/V are obtained at x = 0.25 for the following basic thickness
Example 1: Find the pressure coefficient S at the station
foI'm s:
x=0.50 oll the upper and lower surfaces of the NACA
653-418 airfoil at a lift coefficient of 0.2.
From the description of the NACA 6-series airfoils, it is
determined that this airfoil is obtained by combining the Thickness form .... ?_ at _25

NACA 65a-018 basic thickness form with the a=l.0 type NACA 6,52 015 ............ 0.290

NACA 651 012 ................. 282 .


mean line cambered to a design lift coefficient of 0.4. The
following data are obtained from the supplenumtary figures
for this thickness form and mean line at x=0.50:
By interpolation the value of A_a/V of 0.287 may be
assigned to the 14-percent-thick form. The desired value of
Av_/V is then computed as follows by use of equation (15):

AVa=(0 287) (0.6--0.2)


V "
=0.115

Data presented in the supplementary figures for the a=0.5


The desired value of A_',/V is computed as follows by use of type mean lines give the value of 0.333 for Av/V at x=0.25.
equation (15): As stated in the description of the NACA 6-series airfoils,
AVa the, desired value of Av/V is obtained by multiltlying the
-V =(0.157) (0.2--0.4)
tabulated value by the design lift coefficient. Thus,
= --0.031
A/;

-v= (0.333) (0.2)


Tile desired value of Av/V is obtained by:nmltiplying the
=-0.067
tabulated vahlc by the design lift coefficient as stated in the
description of Ill(' NACA 6-series_airfoils. Thus,
Substituting the foregoing values in equation (14) gives the
A'b' values of S as follows:
V = (0.250) (0.4)
For the upper surface
=0.100
S= (1.170q- 0.067-_- 0.115) 2
Substituting these values in equation (14) gives the following -----1.828
vahws of S:
For the upl)cr surface For the lower surface

S= (1.235+ 0.100-- 0.031 )2 S= (1.170-- 0.067-- 0.115) 2

= 1.700 ----0.976

For the lower surface Example 3: Find the pressure coefficient S at tim station
x=0.30 on the upper and htwcr surfaces of the NACA 2412
S= (1.235-- 0.100_-0.031) 2 airfoil at a lift coefficient of 0.5.
-=1.360 The description of airfoils of the NACA four-digit series
shows that tit(, necessary data may be found fi'om the NACA
Examl)h, 2:Fin(1 the t)rcssu,'e ('oetti(;i(,nt N a! the station 0012 tlfickncss form and 64 lnt.q(.u line in the supph,mentary
x=-0.25 on the llt)])er altd lower Slll'faces of the NACA tigures. From these tigurcs lit(, folh)wing data are obtained:
(i5(2L,,) 214, a=-0.5 airfoil at a lift (,o(,tli(,imtt of 0.(i. At x=0.30
The airfoil designation shows that this airfoil was ol)laincd Y

V---l.162
by cmnl)ining a thickness form obtain(,d |)y multilllying Ilw
ordinates of Ill(, NACA 652 015 form 1)y the factor 14/15 At x=0.30
with the a=0.5 type mean line (,aml)ered to a design lift
coefficient of 0.2.

k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 13

For the NACA 64 mean line at x=0.30 at the design lift coefficient is to separate the pressures on
the upper and lower surfaces by an amount corresponding
A?) 9
V=0.-60 approximately to the design load distribution of the mean
line. When the local value of the design load distribution is
For the NACA 64 mean line
positive, the pressure coefficient S on the upper surface is
c4=0.76 increased (decreased absolute pressure) whereas that on the
lower surface is decreased. This effect is shown in figure 8 (a)
The values of Av/V and c_ corresponding to the airfoil for various amounts of camber.
geometry are obtained by multiplying the foregoing values
The maximum value of the pressure coefficient on the upper
by the factor 2/6 as explained in the description of these
surface at the design lift coefficient increases with the design
airfoils ; thus,
Av 2 lift coefficient and for a given design lift coefficient increases
with decreasing values of a. The result is to cause the critical
Mach number at the design lift coefficient to decrease with
=0.087
increasing camber or with the use of types of mean line con-
centrating the load near the leading edge. Figure 8 (b)
ch= (0.76)( 2) shows that the location of minimum pressure on both surfaces
----0.253 is not affected if a type of mean line is used having a value of
a at least as large as the value of x/c at the position of
The desired value of Ava/V is obtained from equation (15) minimum pressure on the basic thickness distribution. If a
as follows: mean line with a smaller value of a is used, the possible extent
of laminar flow along the upper surface will be reduced.
Av_ _ (0.239) (0.5-- 0.253)
V--
CRITICAL MACH NUMBER
=0.059
The critical speed is defined as the free-stream speed at
Substituting the proper values ill equation (14) gives the
which the velocity at any point along the sm'face of the air-
values of S as follows:
foil reaches the local velocity of sound. If the maximum value
For the upper surface of the low-speed pressure coefficient S is known either experi-
S= (1.162+0.087+0.059) 2 mentally or from theoretical methods, the critical Mach

=1.712 number may be predicted approximately by the Von K_irmfin


method (reference 19). A curve relating the critical Much
For the lower surface number and the low-speed pressure coefficient S has been
S= (I. i 6z -- O.08] -- o. obu) cmcmaued flulu the eq tlgt uLuhb of 1 (fl el l:_ltt;e _u and included in
the supplementary figures. These predicted critical Maeh
=1.032
numbers are useful for preliminary considerations in the
Effect of camber on pressure distribution.--At zero lift. the absence of test data and appear to correspond fairly well to
pressure distributions over the upper and lower surfaces of the Math numbers at which the local velocity of sound is
a basic symmetrical thickness distribution are, of course, reached in the high-critical-speed range of lift coefficient.
identical. The effect of camber on the pressure distribution This criterion does not, however, appear to predict accurately

£8

-- Upper surf oce I |


2.4

NACA 652-0/5 /i.aCl_ 65r015

zo ! .._.m cA 65_-0/5
/ ./VJOA 65z-_/5

.A/ACA 65s415 -
/VAC,4 65_-415, a=0.3
._(4 15E6/5
L6 A/ACA 65_-2/5

• I
f....L-_
ZE A'ACA 65c4/5 , a=05
.
,vAc_ 65_-4/5
/
.8
,/
<:% /V4C,4 65E4/5, c_:07

.4

A_C_ 65E4/5

0 ._ .6 .8 ZO ZO
_r/c
(a) Amount of camber.

FIGURE 8.--Effect of amount and type of camber on pressure distribution at design lift,
14 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COM:MITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

NACA 64 mean line in tlle sut)plementary figures. The


the Mach numbers at which large changes ill airfoil char-
moment coefficient for this mean line is --0.1_7. The
actcristies occur, especially when sharp pressure peaks exist
at the leading edge. A discussion of the characteristics of required value is then
4
airfoil sections at supercritical Math numbers is beyond the
Cmc/4= (-0"157)
scope of this report.
For convenience, curves of predicted critical Math num- = --0.105
ber plotted against the low-speed section lift coemcient have
ANGLE OF ZERO LIFT
been included in the supplementary figures for a number of
Methods of calculation.--Values of the ideal or design
airfoils. High-speed lift coefficients may be obtained by
multiplying tire low-speed lift coefficient by the factor angle of attack o_ corresponding to the design lift coefficient
1 c_ are included among the data for the various mean lines
- • The critical Math numbers have been predicted
_/1--M 2 presented in the supplementary figures. The approximate
front theoretical pressure distributions. For airfoils of the values of the angle of zero lift may be obtained front the
NACA four- and five-digit series an(l for the NACA 7-series data by using the theoretical value of the lift-curve slope
airfoils, the theoretical pressure distributions were obtained for thin airfoils, 27r per radian. The value of a: 0 in degrees
by Theodorsen's method. For the other airfoils the theo- is then
retical pressure distributions were obtained by the approxi- 57.3 (16)
alo=ai-- 21r ch
mate method described in the preceding section.
The data in the supplementary figures show that, for any
The tabulated values of a_ may be scaled linearly with
one type of airfoil, the maxilnum critical Maeh number
the design lift coefficient or with the mean-line ordinates.
decreases rapidly as the thickness is increased. The effect
Although these theoretical angles of zero lift may be useful
of camber is to lower the maximum critical Maeh number
in prelimiimry design, they should not be used without
and to shift the range of high critical Maeh numbers in the
experimental verification for such purposes as establishing
same manner as for the low drag range. For common types
the washout of a wing.
of camber the minimum reduction in critical speed for a
lgumerieM examples.--The inethod of computing az 0 is
given design lift coefficient is obtained with a uniform load
illustrated in the following exainph,s:
type of mean line. A comparison of the data presented in
Example 1: Find the theorctical angle of zero lift of the
the supplementary figures shows that NACA 6-series see-
NACA 65.2--515, a=0.5 airfoil.
tions have considerably higher maximum critical Math
Tiffs airfoil number indicates a design lift coefficient of
numbers than NACA 24-, 44-, and 230-series airfoils of
0.5. Data for the NACA a=0.5 mean line indicate that
corresponding tlfiekness ratios.
a_=3.04 ° when c,=l.0. Tilt' desired value of a_ is then
MOMENT COEFFICIENTS

c_= (3.04) (0.5)


Methods of calculation.--Theoretical moment coefficients
=1.52 °
may be approximated directly from the values presented in
the supplementary figures for the various mean lines. These Substituting in equation (16) gives
values were obtained front thin-airfoil theory aim may be
scaled up or down linearly with the design lift coefficient or .52-- (57.3) (0.5)
with the mean-line ordinates. These theoretical vahles are at0= 1 27r
sufficiently accurate for preliininary considerations, but ex- = --3.0 °
perimental values shouht be used for stability and control
calculations. Examlih, 2: Fin(I the theoreti('al angh, of zero lift for the
NACA 2415 airfoil.
Numerical examples.--The following nmnerical examples
illustrate the nwtlm(ts of calculating the moIne,_t coefficients: The descrilition of the NACA four-digit-series airfoils
Exainple 1: Find the theoretical moment eoefiicient about shows tlmt tile required values of a_ and cq may be obtained
the qimrter-chord point for the NACA 652 215, a=0.5 by multiplying the corresllonding values for the NACA 64
airfoil. mean line (see supplementary tigures) by a factor 2/6; then
The designation of the airfoil shows that the (h,sign lift
(.oellicient of tiffs airfoil is 0.2. Froin the dala on the
NACA a--0.5 type mean line inch,led in the SUl)l)MIwniary
=0.25 °
tigures, the value of c,,_; 4 is --0.139 for a design lift ('oeffi('ient
of 1.0. The desired vahw of the nmment ('ocfli('icnt is
ae(.ordingly c_= (().76)('_-)
c,,,c,,= (-0.1:_9) (o.2)
--0.253
= --0.028
and from equation (16)
ExaInl)le 2: Find the theoretical monwnt ('oeffi('icnt al)out
the quarter-chord point for the NACA 4415 airfoil. a,0=0.25 (57.3)(0.253)
2rr
From tim description of the NACA four-digit series
airfoils, the required data is found to be presented for the = --2.0 °

L
SUMS,IARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 5

DESCRIPTION OF FLOW AROUND AIRFOILS


lower surfaces. If the region of laminar flow is extensive,
Perfect-fluid theory postulates that tile flow follow tile separation occurs immediately downstream from the location
airfoil contour smoothly at all angles of attack with no loss of minimum pressure (reference 20) and the flow returns to
of energy. Consequently, perfect-fluid theory itself gives the surface almost immediately at flight Reynolds numbers
no information concerning the profile drag or the maximum as a turbulent boundary layer. This turbulent boundary
lift of airfoil sections. The explanation of these pllenomena layer extends to the trailing edge. If the surfaces are not
is found from a consideration of the effects of viscosity, sufficiently smooth and fair, if the air stream is turbulent,
which are of primary importance in a thin region near tile or perhaps if the Reynolds number is sufficiently large, tran-
surface of the airfoil called the boundary layer. sition from laminar to turbulent flow may occur anywhere
Boundary layers in general are of two types, namely, upstream of the calculated laminar separation point.
laminar and turbulent. The flow in the laminar layer is For low and moderate lift coefficients where inappreciable
smooth and free from any eddying motion. The flow in the separation occurs, the airfoil profile drag is largely caused by
turbulent layer is characterized by the presence of a large skin friction and the value of the drag coefficient depends
number of relatively small eddies. Because the eddies in the mainly on the relative amounts of laminar and turbulent
turbulent layer produce a transfer of momentum from the flow. If the location of transition is known or assumed, the
relatively fast-moving outer parts of the boundary layer to drag coefficient may be calculated with reasonable accuracy
tile portions closer to the surface, the distribution of average from boundary-layer theory by use of the methods of
velocity is characterized by relatively higher velocities near references 23 and 24.
the surface and a greater total boundary-layer thickness in As the lift coefficient of the airfoil is increased by changing
a turbulent boundary layer than in a laminar boundary layer the angle of attack, the resulting application of the additional
developed under otherwise identical conditions. Skin fric- type of lift distribution moves the minimum-pressure point
tion is therefore higher for turbulent boundary-layer flow upstream on the upper surface, and the possible extent of
than for laminar flow. laminar flow is thus reduced. The resulting greater propor-
When the pressures along the airfoil surface are increasing tion of turbulent flow, together with the larger average veloc-
in the direction of flow, a general deceleration takes place. At ity of flow over the surfaces, causes the drag to increase with
the outer limits of the boundary layer this deceleration takes lift coefficient.
place in accordance with Bernoulli's law. Closer to tile sur- In the case of many of the older types of airfoils, this
face, no such simple law can be given because of the action forward movement of transition is gradual and the resulting
of the viscous forces within the boundary layer. In general, variation of drag with lift coefficient occurs smoothly. The
however, the relative loss of speed is somewhat greater for pressure distributions for NACA 6-series airfoils are such as
particles of fluid within the boundary layer than for those at to cause transition to move forward suddenly at the end of
the outer limits of the layer because the reduced kinetic the low-drag range of lift coetlicients. A sharp increase in
energy of the boundary-layer air limits its ability to flow drag coefficient to the value corresponding to a forward loca-
against the adverse pressure gradient. If the rise in pressure tion of transition on the upper surface results. Such sudden
is sufficiently great, portions of the fluid within the boundary shifts in transition give the typical drag curve for these air-
layer may actually have their direction of motion reversed foils with a "sag" or "bucket" in the low-drag range. The
and may start moving upstream. When this reverse occurs, same characteristic is shown to a smaller degree by some of
the flow in the boundary layer is said to be "separated." the earlier airfoils such as the NACA 23015 when tested in
Because of the increased interchange of momentum from a low-turbulence stream.
different parts of the layer, turbulent boundal T layers are At high lift coefficients, a large part of the drag is contrib-
nmch more resistant to separation than are laminar layers. uted by pressure or form drag resulting from separation of
Laminar boundary layers can only exist for a relatively short the flow from the surface. The flow over the upper surface is
distance in a region in which the pressure increases in the characterized by a negative pressure peak near the leading
direction of flow. Formulas for calculating many of the edge, which causes laminar separation. The onset of tur-
boundary-layer characteristics are given in references 20 to 22. bulence causes the flow to return to the surface as a turbulent
After laminar separation occurs, the flow may either boundary layer. High Reynolds numbers are favorable to
leave the surface permanently or reattach itself in the form the development of turbulence and aid in this process. If
of a turbulent boundary layer. Not much is known concern- the lift coefficient is sufficiently high or if the reestablish-
ing the factors controlling this phenomenon. Laminar sep- ment of flow following laminar separation is unduly delayed
aration on wings is usually not permanent at flight values of by low Reynolds numbers, the tm'bulent layer will separate
the Reynolds number except when it occurs near the leading from the surface near the trailing edge and will cause large
edge under conditions corresponding to maximum lift. The drag increases. The eventual loss in lift with increasing
size of the locally separated region that is formed when the angle of attack may result either from relatively sudden
laminar boundary layer separates and the flow returns to the permanent separation of the laminar boundary layer near
surface decreases with increasing Reynolds number at a the leading edge or from progressive forward movement of
given angle of attack. turbulent separation. Under the latter condition, the flow
The flow over aerodynamically smooth airfoils at low and over a relatively large portion of the surface may be separated
moderate lift coefficients is characterized by laminar boundary prior to maximum lift. A more extended discussion of the
layers from the leading edge back to approximately the loca- flow conditions associated with maximum lift is given in
tion of the first minimum-pressure point on both upper and reference 5.
16 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

SOURCES OF DATA

The primary source of the wind-tunnel data presented is


from tests in the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence
pressure tunnel (TDT). The methods used to obtain and
correct the data are summarized in the appendix. Design
data obtained from tests of 2-foot-chord models in this
tunnel are presented in the supplementary figures.
Some wind-tunnel data presented were obtained in other
NACA wind tunnels. In each case, the source of tlle data
is indicated and the testing techniques and corrections used
were conventional unless otherwise indicated.
Most of the flight data consist of drag measurements made
by the wake-survey method on either the airplane wing or a
"glove" fitted over the wing as the test spe(,imen. When-
evcr the measurements were obtained for a glove, this fact
is indicated in the presentation of the data. All data obtained
FIGURE 10.--Variation of minimuln section drag coefficient with Reynohls number for several
at high speeds have been reduced to coeffii'ient form by airfoils, togelher with laminar and turbtflent skin-friction coefficients for a flat plate.
compressible-flow methods In the case of all such
NACA flight data, precautions have been taken to ensure tested was a practical-construction model. It may be noted
that the results presented are not invalidated by cross that the drag coefficient for the NACA 65_-418 airfoil at low
flows of low-energy air into or out of the survey plane. Reynohls numbers is substantially higher than that of the
NACA 0012, whereas at high Reynolds mm_bers the opposite
DRAG CHARACTERISTICS OF SMOOTH AIRFOILS
is the ease. The higher drag of the NACA 65a-418 airfoil
Drag characteristics in low-drag range.--The value of the section at low Reynohts numbers is caused by a relatively
drag coefficient in the low-drag range for slnooth airfoils is extensive region of laminar separation downstream of the
mainly a function of the Reynolds number and the relative point of minimum pressure. This region decreases in size
extent of the laminar layt,r and is moth, rately affected by the with increasing Reynohts nunfl)er. These data illustrate the
airfoil thickness ratio and eamber. The effee.t on minimum inadequacy of low Reynohls number test data either to esti-
drag of the position of minimum l)l'essure which detel'mines nlatc the full-s('ale characteristics or to detel'mil_e the relative
the possible extent of laminar flow is shown in figure 9 for merits of airfoil sections at flight Reynt>hls mmfl)ers (refer-
some NACA 6-series airfoils. The data show a regular enecs 25 and 26).
decrease in drag coefficient with rearward inovenlent of The variation of minimum drag coefiieient with cambcr is
nfinimum pressure. shown in figure 11 for a number of smooth 18-percent-thick
NACA 6-series airfoils. These data show very little change

c .0/_ ----- o AIA(A 63:-215


A,'ACA 6d_-215 .... r ¸-- 1 -q --
k_ ' i i i _ _
.... ¢, ,'¢AC4 65_-L_15

.Oi,P _ NACA
v NA_
dY6_-2/5
C7,1-L_15 J I i
_ ul?6 ......
f I " : " .%.0/2 -- 0 65-series
. t_
A 66--,_eri_
v 653-8/8
_ OC:
t_

r_
t_
b
_ .008
•_ o i 2 .3 .z .5 .6 .7 .8
"-" Po5/t/Dn of m/nlrnurn pr-essuFe, x_/e ._.
FIGURE 9.--Variation of ndnimum drag coefficient with position of minimum l)ressIIre for
s/nne N A C A 6-series airfoils of the same camber aml thickness. R = 6 X 10%
v
_____ ___---.
>_--
The variation of minimmn drag (,oeflieient with Reynohls ._ .0_
number for sevt,ral airfoils is shown in figure 10. The th'ag
coelii('ieId, gelwrally decreases with iucreasing Reynohls num-
i)er up to Rt,ynolds numbers of the order of 20X 10t Above
this Reynohts mmfl)er tht_ drag coefficient of the NACA
65(4o.1)-420 airfoil remained substantially constant up to a 0
i
2 .4 .6 .8
RcynohIs munbt, r of n.early 40)< 105 The earlier ine|'ease in Des/on sechb_ Ii'ft coefT;c_e_ ¢_;
drag coefli('icnt shown by,the NACA 66(2x15)-116 airfoil FIGURE ll.--Variation of itliniinllnI section drag eoeffieielfl with camber for several NACA

may be i'aused by sm'face irregularities because the specimen 6-series airfoil sections of 18-percent thickness ratio. R = 9 X 10_.

L .....
SUM_IARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 17

in nfinimum drag coefficient with increase in camber. A The data presented in the supplementary figures for the
large amount of systematic data is included in figure 12 to NACA 6-series thickness forms show that the range of lift
show the variation of minimum drag coefficient with thick- coefficients for low drag varies markedly with airfoil thick-
ness ratio for a number of NACA airfoil sections ranging in hess. It has been possible to design airfoils of 12-percent
thickness from 6 percent to 24 percent of the chord. The thickness with a total theoretical low-drag range of lift coeffi-
minimum drag coefficient is seen to increase with increase in cients of 0.2. This theoretical range increases by approx-
thickness ratio for each airfoil series. This increase, how- imately 0.2 for each 3-percent increase of airfoil thickness.
ever, is greater for the NACA four- and five-digit-series air- Figure 13 shows that the theoretical extent of the low-drag
foils (fig. 12 (a)) than for the NACA 6-series airfoils (figs. range is approximately realized at a Reynolds number of
12 (b) to 12 (e)). 9X10% Figure 13 also shows a characteristic tendency for
the drag to increase to some extent toward the upper end of
.o/o ___ .__
the low-drag range for moderately cambered airfoils, par-
17ou_, _ .......
• 012 -- ._moot_, ticularly for the thicker airfoils. All data for the NACA
6-series airfoils show a decrease in the extent of thelow-drag
t l- 2_ range with increasing Reynolds number. Extrapolation of
L! y2 I--" Ser-I'em the rate of decrease observed at Reynolds numbers below
(__._-. o
m oo]
/4 9 X 10 _ would indicate a vanishingly small low-drag range at
004 + z4, (4-_),'# _ flight values of the Reynolds number. Tests of a carefully
44 [
---- v 230 (5-d,g#) - constructed model of the NACA 65(,2,-420 airfoil showed,
I however, that the rate of reduction of the low-drag range
0/2 ---- with increasing Reynolds number decreased markedly at
Reynolds numbers above 9_ 10 _ (fig. 14). These data indi-
- __--6-- "-_- -cate that the extent of the low-drag range of this airfoil is
ct i reduced to about one-half the theoretical value at a Reynolds
oO q
..-0 number of 35X10%
o .2
_ 00, a .4
v .6 .032

.g
_"
.0 0
(b)
o IVACA
I
84,-412
<<.OlZ .028
_] IVACA 84_-d15
C:) __. - -_ 0 NAC,4 6%-418
k_
qJ
.OOd
.... + -[ i
d
•02d
z_ AIACA
I I I I I
I I
64,-,¢21
\
o O---
cJ ./ •_-. 020
b .oo4 <:> .2 -- .0

A .4_
(5

__.
I
!
o .016

b
i
_ .0/2
..... 0 " - k'- "_ ._ .012

0
C/i
%. 008
oO --

,_" .4---

v .6 .004

(d)
0
012 ._ -/.6 -1.2 -.8 -.4 0 .d .8 L2 L6
Section lift coefficient, e,

FIGURE 13.--Drag characteristics of some NACA 64-series airfoil sections of various thick.
.o08 I c,, nesses, cambered to a design lift coefficient of 0.4. R = 9 X 10_; TDT tests 682, 733, 735,
I o 0 and 691.
o .2
.004 _ _ + _ _ .4
I >----e_ I The values of the lift coefficient for which low drag is
obtained are determined largely by the amount of camber.
0 d- 8 12 I_ 20 24 Z8 ,.72 The lift coefficient at the center of the low-drag range corre-
/17-fell pe_ce, _t <;i o_'o,,<I
/h,,c/_f_ess,
sponds approximately to the design lift coefficient of the
(a) NACA four- and five-digit series.
(b) NACA 63-series. mean line. The effect on the drag characteristics of various
(c) NACA 64-series. amounts of camber is shown in figure 15. Section data indi-
(d) NACA 65-series.
(e) NACA 66-series. cate that the location of the low-drag range may be shifted
FIGURE 12.--Variation of minimum section drag coefficient with airfoil thickness ratio for by even such crude camber changes as those caused by small
several NACA airfoil sections of different cambers in both smooth and rough conditions.
R = 6X 10_. deflections of a plain flap. (See supplementary fig.)
REPORT N',O. S2-t--NATIONAL ADVISO'RY COMMITTEE) FOR AERONAUTICS

-4

I
-.& 4
I

0 4 8 12 /6' 20 2d 28 3Z×/O _ /._q -LZ_ :4:8 O .4 .8 12 L6


Reyno ds flute, bet-, FI 5_chbn hf! co_ffJk_k_?t, q
(a) Variation of upper and lower limits of low-drag range with Reynolds number. (b) Section drag characteristics at various Reynolds numbers.
FIGURE 14.--Yariation of low-drag range with Reynolds number for the NACA 65142D-420 airfoil. T I)T tests 3(X1, 312, and 329.

i '

o '_;424 _5,,-018 Drag characteristics outside low-drag range.--At the end


.028 o AAC4 _5_-ZI8
of the low-drag range the drag increases rapidly with increase
z_ /V,IC,4 G5_-6'18
--- 7 A/ACA _5,3-_1_ I in lift coefficient. For symmetrical anti low-<'ambered air-
foils, for which the lift coefficient at the upl)er end of the
low-drag range is moth, rate, this high rate of increase does
not continue. (See fig. 15.) For highly eaml)ered sections,
for which the lift at the upper end of the low-drag range is
already high, the drag coefficient shows a continued rapid
increase.
Comparison of data for airfoils cambered with a uniform-
load mean line with data for airfoils cambered to carry the
load farther forward shows that the uniform-load mean line
is favorable for obtaining low drag coefficients at high lift
coefficients (fig. 16 and reference 27).

•OO# Data for many of the airfoils given in the supplementary


figures show large reductions in drag with increasing Reynohls
m_mher at high lift coefficients. This scale effect is too large
o
-I.o" -1.2 -.8 -.4 0 .4 8 L2 1.6 to be accounted for by the normal variation in sldn friction
Sectlon I/fl coeff/c/erTf_ c, and appears to be associated with the effect of Reynolds
.Fw, U_E 15.--Drag characlcrislics of some NACA 65-series airfoil sections of 18 percent thick-
number on the onset of turbulent flow following laminar
hess with various amounts of carol)or. A' = 6 X 106; T I)T tests 163, 314,802, 813, and f#10.

separation near the leading edge (refiwenee 28).


The location of the low-drag range shows some variation Effects of type of section on drag characteristics.--A com
from that predietcd by simple thin-airfoil theory. This de- parison of the drag ehara('teristies of the NACA 23012 and of
parture appears to I)e a function of the type of mean line three NACA 6-series airfoils is presented in figure 17. The
used (refert,nee 27) and the airfoil thickness. The effect of drag for the NACA 6-series sections is substantially lower
airfoil thM:ness is shown in figure 13, from wlfich the center than for the NACA 23012 section in the range of lift, coeffi-
of the low-drag range is seen to shift to higher lift coefficients cients corresponding to high-speed flight, anti this margin
with increasing airfoil thickness. This shift is partly ex- may usually be maintained through the range of lift coeffi-
plained by the increase in lift coefficient above the design cients useful for cruising by suitable choice of camber.
lift eoetticient for the mean line obtained when the velocity The NACA 6-series sections show the higher maxinmm values
increments caused by the mean line are combined with the of the lift-drag ratio• At high values of the lift ('oeflicient,
velocity distribution for the basic thickness form according however, the earlier NACA sections have generally lower
to the approximate methods previously describe(1. drag coefficients than the NACA 6-series airfoils.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 19

I - i

i
I
)

i i

\/ _ j !
I
I i
%

" i .... I.....

qo
v

I' I" I" i•


20 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMS]ITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

q5

"1"_'o 'lu_./o./,,/dooo 4ua_o.w

k
SUMMARY OF AIRYOIL DATA 21

Effective aspect ratio.--The combination of high drags at 0.0150 to the wing drag coefficients. The resulting drag
high lift coefficients, low drags at moderate lift coefficients, coefficients have been approximated by two curves corre-
and the nonregular variation of drag with lift coefficient sponding to equation (17) and matched to the drag curves
shown by the NACA 6-series airfoils may lead to para- at lift coefficients of 0.2 and 1.0. These two curves corre-
doxical results when the span-efficiency concept (reference 29) spond to effective aspect ratios of 9.29 for the airplane with
is used for the calculation of airplane performance. In the NACA 23018 sections and of 8.30 for the airplane with
usual application of this concept, the airplane drag charac- NACA 653-418 sections and illustrate the typical large
teristics are approximated by a curve of the type reduction in the effective aspect ratio obtained with such
sections.
C_-_ CDL=o-]-kCL _ (17) It should be noted, however, that although equation (17)
provides a reasonably satisfactory approximation to the
This curve is usually matched to the actual drag character- drag of the airplane with NACA 23018 sections, such is not
istics at a rather low and at a moderately high value of the the case for the airplane with the NACA 653-418 section.
lift coefficient (reference 30). The most important reason for using high aspect ratios on
The application of this concept to two hypothetical air- large airplanes is to reduce the drag at cruising lift coefficients
planes with NACA 230- and 65-series sections, respectively, and to obtain high maximum values of the lift-drag ratio.
is illustrated in figure 18 (a). The wing drags of the air- For the two wings considered, the maximum value of this
planes have been calculated by adding the induced drags ratio is appreciably higher for the airplane with NACA
corresponding to an aspect ratio of 10 with elliptical loading 653-418 sections (19.8 as compared with 18.5) despite the
to the profile-drag coefficients of the NACA 23018 and fact that this airplane shows the lower effective aspect ratio.
653-418 airfoils. These sections are considered representa- Figure 18 (b) shows a similar comparison with similar
tive of average wing sections for a large airplane of this results for two airplanes of aspect ratio 8 and NACA 2415
aspect ratio. Ordinate scales are given in figure 18 (a),for and 652-415 airfoils. It is accordingly concluded that the
the wing drag and for the total airplane drag coefficients effective, aspect ratio is not a satisfactory criterion for use in
obtained by adding a representative constant value of airfoil selection.

./0
I I I I t I I I I I ./0 | I I I I I I I I I I I
.0_ o
D /VACA 65_-418 w_bg; ospec/ rohb, I0.-- .08 --JF o /v_g{'lt 65z-415 wing; o.tpecf r-oho, 8 __
/Vt4Ct4 23018 w/n_,, aspect f'of/o, I0 [] IVACtl Z415 wln_, .aspect r-alia, 8
.O2
.... IVACA G53-418 w_ny_ _ I .09 A!ACA 65_-41E w_n_
effective aspect rot/b, 830 effective ospect rot]o, 6.97 I/
.07-- -- m AIACA 2,.7018 wt½g_ _ . .07 NACA 8415 w_77g_ _ • "_
I I I effective osl_ecf rob'o, 9.29 _ I I I effeeh've aspect robo, 7 416 z/
(JO

i" .06
it
.07 ¢ c2.O7 /'
, • qa . / ,"
._ .06 ._
i'i/ 06o
7"
r_ i/ ,4/r-plane t_
.o3
t_<<,: _ .04 % o :o.oo63+ o.o4z_ c_,. _P/ ,_,L:_,=,'_n
.o4

.0/

.02

o /
.0/
- / S .o, /
/ o / I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 L2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 L2
Lift coefficient, CL L/T/ coeffi'c/en_ _z

(a) NACA 65a-418 and 23018 wings of aspect ratio 10. (b) NACA 65m-415and 2t15 wings of aspect ratio 8.

FiGurE 18.--Comparison of finite aspect-ratio drag characteristics for two types of airfoils obtained by adding the induced drag corresponding to an elliptical span loading
to the section drag coefficients.
22 REPORT N_O. 824--N_ATIONTAL ADVISO'RY COMMIITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

EFFECT OF SURFACE IRREGULARITIES ON DRAG small sharp protuberances, in contrast to waves, tends to
Permissible roughness.--Previous work has shown large occur at the protuberance. Transition caused by surface
waviness appears to approach the wave gradually as the
drag increments resulting from surface roughness (reference
Reynolds number or wave size is increased. The height
31). Although a large part of these drag increments was
shown to result from forward movement of transition, sub- of a small cylindrical protuberance necessary to cause transi-
tion when located al_ 5_,percent of the chord with its axis
stantial drag increments resulted from surface roughness in
normal to the suTfface is shown in figure 19. These data were
the region of turbulent flow. It is accordingly important to
maintain smooth surfaces even when extensive laminar
flow cannot be expected, but the gains that may be expected • _.050

from maintaining smooth surfaces are greater for NACA 6- __


or 7-series airfoils when extensive laminar flOWS are possible.
No accurate method of specifying the surface condition
_.030 \
necessary for extensive laminar flow at high Reynolds num-
bers has been developed, although some general conclusions
have been reached. It may be presumed that for a given
Reynolds number and chordwise position, the size of the ] I.o,o
c
pernlissible roughness will vary directly with the chord of
the airfoil. It is known, at one extreme, that the surfaces I 2 3 d 5 © f 8 lOxlO"
W/mg }_egmo./o's nurnD_F, R
do not have to be polished or optically smooth. Such
polishing or waxing has shown no improvement in tests in FmURE 19.--Variation with wing Reynolds number of the minimum height of a cylindrical
protuberance necessary to cause premature transition. Protuberance has 0.035-inch di-
the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence tunnels when ameter with axis normal to wing surface and is located at 5 percent chord of a 90-inch-chord

applied to satisfactorily sanded surfaces. Polishing or waxing symmetrical 6-series airfoil section of 15-percent thickness and with minimum pressure at
70 percent chord.
a surface that is not aerodynamically smooth will, of course,
result in improvement and such finishes may be of consider-
able practical value because deterioration of the finish may obtained at rather low values of the Reynolds number and
be easily seen and possibly postponed. Large models having show a large decrease in allowable height with increase in
chord lengths of 5 to 8 feet tested in the Langley two- Reynohls nunfiier. This effect of Reynolds munl)er on
dimensional low-turbulence tunnels are usually finished by permissit)h' surface roughness is also evidt,nt in figure 20,
santling in tile chordwise direction with No. 320 carborundum in which a sharp incrt,ase in drag at a Reynohls numt)er of
paper when an aerodynamically smooth surface is desired. approxiInately 20X106 occurs for the model painted with
Experience has shown the resulting finish to be satisfactory canmullage lacquer.
at flight values of the Reynolds number. Any i'ougher The niagnitude of the favorable gradient appears to have a
surface texture should be considered as a possible source of small effect on the permissible surface I'oughnt'ss for laminar
transition, although slightly rougher surfaces have appeared flow. Figure 21 shows that the roughness 1)ecoInes more
to produce satisfactory results in some cases. important at the extremities of the low-drag range wliere
Wind-tunnel experience in testing NACA 6-st,ries sections the favorable pressure gradient is rciluced on one surface.
and data of reference 32 show that small protuberances The effect of increasing the Reynolds nuinber for a sui'facc
extending above the general surface level of an otherwise of inarginal snloothness, which has an effect similar to in-
satisfactory surface are more likely to cause transition than creasing the surface roughness for a given Reynohls number,
sinall del)ressions. Dust particles, for examph,, are more is to reduce rapidly the extent of the low-drag range and
effective than small scratches in producing transition if the then to increase tlie minimum drag cocfficient (fig. 21).
nmtt, l'ial at the edges of the seratcht,s is not forced above the The data of figure 21 were specially chosen to show this
general surface level. Dust particles adhering to the oil effect. In nmst cases, the effect of Reynohls numt)er pre-
h,ft on airfoil surfaces 1)y fingerprints may be expected to dominates over the effect of decreasing the magnitude of the
cause transition at high Reynohls numl)t,i's. favorable pressure gratlient to such an extent that the only
Transition spreads from an individual disturt)ance with an effect is the eliinination of the low-drag range (refereuce 34).
incluth,tl angle of al)out 15 ° (references 31 and 33). A few Permissible waviness.---More difficulty is generally cn-
s('altercd spc('ks, especially near the h, ading edge, will cause counteretl in reducing the waviness to perInissil)h, values for
the flow to l)e largely turbulent. This fact Inakes necessary the maintenan('e of laminar flow than in obtainillg the re-
an extrenlcly thorough inspection if low drags are to be quired surface sInoothness. In addition, the specification
i'ealiz_,d. SI)ecks suiticit, nily large to cause premature of the required freetlom fronl surface waviness is more
trallsition on full-size wings can I)e felt by hand. The in- ilifficult than that of tile rt, quired surface smoothness. Tile
sl)ectioll procedurt, used in the Langley two-dimensional prot)h,m is not linfite(l inerely to finding the nlinimuln waw'
low-tul'bulencc tunnels is to feel the t,ntire surface by hand size that will cause transition undt,r given eon(litions t)ecause
aft(,r which the surface is thoroughly wiped with a dry cloth. the Immbt, r of waves and the shapt, of the waw,s require
It has been noticed that transition resulting froin individual consideration.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 23

¢°/6' I ' I [ --_-

!
i .o/z[ ! i i

I I J I i :

Og _ i'
OE t t f I I I I
8 12 /5 20 2_ Z8 .72 36 40 44 4_ 52 55 60×10 _
Reynolds number, R

.016 .....
i
o/2
I
i I
_ .006 --
( -.9--

!
O
t 004 _ _-
I
i i - ! ....
i !
<

ibl I I I t I
0 4 8 /2 16 20 24 28 3E 36 ZO 4W 48 5Zx/O °
Reynolds number, 19
(a) Smooth condition; TDT test 328.

(b) Lacquer camouflage unimproved after painting; TDT test 461.

FIGURE 20.--Variation of drag coefficient with Reynolds number for a 60-inch-chord nmdel of the NACA 65(m)-420 airfoil for two surface conditions.

.0/_-
_, I IRI ] i I I I i 1 I l I laminar separation or even reversal of the pressure gradient.
-o 15.3 x I0 _ Smoolh cond/h'om Data for an airfoil section having a relatively long wave on
/49 ] I I I J I
.012 -o the upper surface are given in figure 22. Marked increases
248 Synthet;c enomel off camoo,_loge
} uv,,'?h-
"_- -v
34(? ol/ _,oecks cur uv Ch b/ode I in the drag corresponding to a rapid forward movement of
0
.008
t the transition point were not noticeable below a Reynolds
_46 J number of 44X l0 _. On the other hand, transition has been
(b
caused at comparatively low Reynolds numbers by a series
of small waves with a wave height of the order of a few ten-
thousandths of an inch and a wave length of the order of
2 inches on the same 60-inch-chord model.
,d 0 .d .8 1.2 LO 20 For the types of wave usually encountered on practical-
fiechbn //ffcoeff/c/e,g/,q
construction wings, the test of rocking a straightedge over
FIGURE 21.--Drag characteristics of NACA 65(4:1)-4.'20 airfoil for two surface conditions. the surface in a chordwise direction is a fairly satisfactory
TDT tests 300 and 486.
criterion. The straightedge should rock snmothly without
jarring or clicking. The straightedge test will not show the
If the wave is sufficiently large to affect the pressure existence of waves that leave the surface convex, such as the
distribution ,in such a manner that laminar separation is wave of figure 22 and the series of small waves previously
encountered, there is little doubt that such a wave will cause mentioned. Tests of a large number of practical-construction
premature transition at all useful Reynolds numbers. A re- models, however, have shown that those models which
lation between the dimensions of a wave and the pressure passed the straightedge test were sufficiently free of small
distribution may be found by the method of reference 35. waves to permit low drags to be obtained at flight values of
The size of the wave required to reverse the favorable pres- the Reynolds number.
sure gradient increases with the pressure gradient. Large It is not feasible to specify construction tolerances on air-
negative pressure gradients would therefore appear to be foil ordinates with sufficient accuracy to ensure adequate
favorable for wavy surfaces. Experimental results have freedom from waviness. If care is taken to obtain fair
shown this conclusion to be qualitatively correct. surfaces, normal tolerances may be used without causing
Little information is available on waves too small to cause serious alteration of the drag characteristics.
24 REPORT NO. 8241NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

..(enfer of wove
,.--4- .005"

i_ _

60" Oepor/ure f/orr/ fOIr


olT-fo/I surfooe

C "008

i_•oo8
I I
0

.004

.g.oo_

0 4 8 /2 /d ZO 2# 28 32 36 40 44. 48 E2 x I 06
Win_ Reynolds number, t_

FIGURE 22.--Exlx, rimental curve showing variation of drag coefficient with Reynolds number for tim NACA 65(4m-420 airfoil section with a small amount of surface waviness.

Drag with fixed transition.---If the airfoil surface is suffi- result of accumulation of ice or mud or damage in military
ciently rough to cause transition near the leading edge, large combat.
drag increases are to be expected. Figure 23 shows that, The variation of minimum drag coefficient with thickness
although the degree of roughness has some effect, the incre- ratio for a mlmber of NACA airfoils with standard roughness
ment in minimum drag coefficient caused by the smallest is shown in figure 12. These data show that the magnitudes
roughness capable of producing transition is nearly as great of the minimum drag coefficients for the NACA 6-sm'ies
as that caused by much larger grain roughness when the airfoils are less than the vahles for the NACA four- and
roughness is confined to the leading edge. The degree of five-digit-series airfoils. The rate of increase of drag with
roughness has a much larger effect on the drag at high lift thickness is greater for the airfoils in the rough condition
coefficients. If the roughness is sufiiciently large to cause than in the smooth ('ondition.
transition at all Reynohls numbers considered, the drag of Drag with practical-construction methods. The section
the airfoil with roughness only at the h,ading edge decreases drag coefficients of several airplane wings have 1)een measured
with increasing Reynolds number (fig. l0 and reference 36). in flight by the wake-survey method (reference 38), and a
The effect of fixing transition by means of a roughness numher of practical-construction wing sections have been
strip of carborundum of 0.01 I-inch grain is shown in figure 24. tested in tin, Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence
The minimum drag increases progressively with forward pressure tunnel at flight vahws of the Reynohls number.
movement of the roughness strip. The effect on the drag Flight data obtained by the NACA (reference 38) are sum-
at high lift coefficients is not progressive; the drag increases marized in figure 26 and some data obtained by the Consoli-
rapidly when the roughness is at the leading edge. Figure 25 dated Vultee Aircraft Corporation are presented in figure 27.
shows that the drag coeiilcients for the NACA 65(223)_ 422 Data obtained in the Langh,y two-dimensional low-
and 63(420) 422 airfoils were nearly the same tllroughout turl)ulence pressure tunnel for typical practical-construction
most of the lift range when the extent of laminar flow was sections are presented in figures 28 to 32. Figure 33 presents
limited to 0.30c. a comparison of the drag eoetficients obtained in this wind
All recent airfoil data obtained in the Langley two-dimen- tmmel for a model of the NACA 0012 section, and in flight
sional low-turbulence pressure tunnel iiwlude results with for the same model mounted on an airplane. For this case,
roughened h,ading edge, and these data are included in the the wind-tunnel and flight data agree to within the experi-
supph, mentary figures. Tests with roughened leading edge nlental erl'or.

were formerly made only for a limited numi)er of airfoil All wings for wllich flight data are presented in figure 26
sections, especially those having large thickness ratios were carefully finished to produce smooth surfaces. Great
(reference 37). The siandard roughness seh,eted for 24-inch- care was taken to reduce surface waviness to a minimum
chord models consists of 0.011-inch (,arl)orundum grains for all the sections except tile NACA 2414.5, the N-22, the
applied to the airfoil surface at the h,ading edge over a surface Republic S 3,13, and the NACA 27-212. Curvature-gage
length of 0.08c measured from the leading edge on 1)oth sur- nwasurenwnts of surface waviness for some of these airfoils
faces. The grains are thinly spremt to cover 5 to l0 percent are l)resented in reference 38. Surface conditions correspond-
of this area. This standm'd roughness is consideral)ly more ing to the data of figure 27 are described in the figure.
severe t llml that caused by the usual manufacturing irregu- These data show that the sections permitting extensive
larities or deterioration in service but is considerably less lamifmr flow had substantially lower drag coefficients when
severe than that likely to be encountered in service as a smooth than the other sections.

k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 25

%
%

% % %
I"
26 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

% %
(5

k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 27

,32x/06

\
-'NACA 35-215
24

, ,_--¢_p_b/,c s-s,/}"-_

66,2-2(14.z)
_ NACA 2414.5"__--NACA
8 I ._" ", I rq
NACA 27-212- x "RepubDb S-3,13
Q,I '
"N-22
0 I

ff.O06 I
/V-22. .-_- -_.Repub/,'c ,_L 3_/ /
"_-_ ,dbhb g-3,/3--.

I /_/ "'NAOA 35-2/5

//,I/" "'A,AC,_
6_,2-2(_4.7)
//I I i
"NA CA 2 7-2/2
"_.oo,_ ',,, / I

D
0 .16 .32 .48 .64 .80 .96
Sechon I/f/ coefficien_ ez

FIC,L'RE 26.--Comparison of section drag coefficients obtained in flight on various airfoils.


Tests of NACA 27-212 and 35-215 sections made on gloves.

FIGURE 25.--Drag characteristics of two NACA 6-series airfoils with 0.011-inch-grain


roughness at 0.30c. R=26X10_.

The wind-tunnel tests of practical-construction wing sec-


tions as delivered by the manufacturer showed minimum
drag coefficients of the order of 0.0070 to 0.0080 in nearly all
cases regardless of the airfoil section used (figs. 28 to 32).
Such values may be regarded as typical for good current
construction practice. Finishing the sections to produce
smooth surfaces always produced substantial drag reductions
although considerable waviness usually remained. None of
the sections tested had fair surfaces at the front spar. Unless
special care is taken to produce fair surfaces at the front spar,
the resulting wave may be expected to cause transition either
at the spar location or a short distance behind it. One
practical-construction specimen tested with smooth surfaces
maintained relatively low drags up to Reynolds numbers
of approximately 30X10 ° (NACA 66(2x15)-116 airfoil of
fig. 10). This specimen had no spar forward of about 35
percent chord from the leading edge and no spanwise stiffeners L7 I 2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Lift coefhcler% C_
forward of the spars. This type of construction resulted in
F]ov_ 27.--Consolidated-Vultee flight measurements of the effect of wing surface condition
unusually fair surfaces and is being used on some modern on drag of an NACA 66(215)-1(14.5) wing section.
high-performance airplanes.
A comparison of the effect of airfoil section on the mini- the same time by the same manufacturers. Data for such
mum drag with practical-construction surfaces is very diffi- pairs of models are presented in figures 30 to 32. The results
cult because the quality of the surface has more effect on indicate that as long as current construction practices are
the drag than the type of section. Probably the best com- used the type of section has relatively little effect at flight
parison can be obtained from pairs of models constructed at values of the Reynolds number for military airplanes.
28 REPORT N O . 8 2 4-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

--3F 012
G
c
x
$ 008
c,

&8 004
6
<
$ 4' A ' 1; ' ' 'A ' ' '
ik 2L
Reynolds number, R
2; 3L 3Lcxld6

FIGURE28.-Drag scale effect on 100-inch-chord practical-construction model of the


N A C A 65(216)-3(16.5) (approx.) airfoil section. c1=0.2 (approx.).

,016
Reynolds number, R
Q FIGURE %.-Variation of drag coefficient with Reynolds number for the N A C A 23016 airfoil
-Y
.
section together with laminar and turbulent skin-friction coefficients for a flat plate.
C ,012
.a,
.u
<
\ 016
8 ,008 3
+
--.

?F 5 012
& zi,

C Q
;",004 8 009
CI
a,
v, 8
6
0 $ 004
-.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 i
Section lift coefficient, c, i,

FIGURE30.-Drag characteristics of the NACA 65(216)-417 (approu.) and KAC-4 23015


8
0 8 12 16 20 24 28 32x10'
(approx.) airfoil sections built by practicalconstruetim methods by the same manu- Reynolds number, R
facturer. R=10.23XW.
F I G L R31.-Scale
E effect on drag of the N A C A 66(215)-116 and N A C A 23016 airfoil sections
built by practical-construction methods by the same manufacturer and tested as received.

Reynolds number, f?
F I G C R32.-Drag
E scale effect for a model of the S A C A BS-series airfoil section. 15.2i percent
thick, and the Davis airfoil section, 18.Z percent thick, hriilt by practical-construction FIGL-RE
33.-Comparison of drag coefficients measured in flight and wind tunnel for the
methods by the same manufacturer. ci=O.4G (appros.). iYAC.4 0012 airfoil section at zero lift.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 29
.016"
IIIIIIIIIIII111.11
-- 0 N_CA 23015
(opprox.)_i?h de-icer O08e on upper I
5urfoce ond O/Oc on lower surfoce _ Q=O.WO
.2.0lg --
-- a NACA Z30/5 (opprox.) with die-leer removed ]_
0 NACA 65(216)-215, o=g28 w/lh 0075e de-icer" l
(229__
-- Z_ NACA 85{2/d)-2/5 G=(2.8 _/lh de-icer /-emoved _ °r
0

_ .00_

_ 004

© W 8 12 16 20 Zd 28 32 36 40 4W 48 52x106
Reynolds mumber, R

FIGURE 34.--Effect of de-leers on the drag of two practical-construction airfoil sections with relatively smooth surfaces.

Important savings in drag may be obtained at high represent good typical installations. The minimum drag
Reynolds numbers by keeping the surfaces smooth even if coefficients for both sections with de-icers installed were of
extensive laminar flow is not realized. Drag increments result- the order of 0.0070 at high Reynolds numbers.
ing from surface roughness in turbulent flow have been shown
Effects of propeller slipstream and airplane vibration.-
to be important (reference 31). The effects of surface roughness Very few data are available on the effect of propeller slip-
on the variation of drag with Reynolds number are shown stream on transition or airfoil drag; the data that are avail-
in figure 29, in which the favorable scale effect usually expected
able do not show consistent results. This inconsistency may
at high Reynolds numbers was not realized. This type of result from variations in lift coefficient, surface condition,
scale effect may be compared with that shown for the NACA
air-stream turbulence, propeller advance-diameter ratio, and
63(420)-422 airfoil with rough leading edge but otherwise number of blades. Tests in the Langley 8-foot high-speed
smooth surfaces (fig. 10). Drag increments obtained in tunnel indicated transition occurring from 5 to 10 percent of
flight resulting from roughness in the turbulent boundary the chord from the leading edge (reference 40). Drag measure-
layer with fixed transition are presented in reference 39.
ments made in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel (fig. 35)
The effect of the application of de-icers to the leading edge indicated only moderate drag increments resulting from a
of two smooth airfoils is shown in figure 34. The de-icer windmilling propeller. Although the data of figure 35 may
"boots" were installed in both cases by the manufacturer to not be very accurate because of the difficulty of making
wake surveys in the slipstream, these data seem to preclude
very large drag increments such as would result from move-
ment of the transition to a position close to the leading edge.
These data also seem to be confirmed by recent NACA flight
data (fig. 36), which show transition as far back as 20 percent

_xlO6
_---7 ,Left wing section
,/-L in s//ps_reom

oucs[de sl/pxfreom

A/rfo,/sechons
RoOf, /VACA 88(2x15;-0/8
Tzp, N_OA 87, /-(/.3)/5 0

Aspecf Folio, 5.98 I .GO o f?/ght wing seclior_ --


Propeller tip rod/us--_ f ou'l side slipstfeom
/ eft wln9 secfionL -
in sh;osfreom
[3 Pow6f" on
0

< 0 Power off


L '& o Propeller w/bdmH//h_

\
z_ Propeller removed
£ M
I o

.20 _.
Cg -<
_--o
%_
k
(5

Z 6 5 4 3 Z I 0 0 .I .Z .3 .4 .5 .6
OJstonce from mode/ renter hne_ f/ Secton lift coeff/c/em/; c,

FIGURE 35.--The effect of propeller operation on section drag coefficient of a fighter-type air- FIGURE 36.--Flight measurements of transition on an NACA 66-series wing within and
plane from tests of a model in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel. CL= 0.10; R=3.TX 106. outside the slipstream.
918392--51--3
3O REPORT :NO. 8 2 4--;N'ATION'AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Q
of the chord in the slipstream. Other unpublished NACA airfoil section. For the NACA 6-series airfoils this lift coeffi-
flight data on transition oil an S-3,14.6 airfoil in the slip- cient is approximately in the center of the low-drag range.
stream indicated that laminar flow occurred as far back For airfoils having thicknesses in the range from 6 to 10 per-
as 0.2c. cent, the NACA four-and five-digit series and the NACA
Even less data are available on the effects of vibration on 64-series airfoil sections have values of lift-curve slope very
transition. Tests in the Langley 8-foot high-speed tunnel close to the value for thin airfoils (27r per radian or 0.110 per
(reference 40) showed negligible effects, but the range of degree). Variation in Reynolds number between 3 X 106 and
frequencies tested may not have been sufficientlywide. Some 9X 106 and variations in airfoil camber up to 4 percent chord
unpublished flight data showed small but consistent rear- appear to have no systematic effect on values of lift-curve
ward movements of transition outside the slipstream when slope. Tile airfoil thickness and the type of thickness
the propellers were feathered. This effect was noticed even distribution appear to be the primary variables. For the
when the propeller on the opposite side of the airplane from NACA four- and five-digit-series airfoil sections, the lift-
the survey plane was feathered and was accordingly attrib- curve slope decreases with increase in airfoil thickness
uted to vibration. Recent tests in the Ames full-scale tun- For the NACA 6-series airfoil sections, however, the lift-
nel showed premature adverse scale effect on drag coefficients curve slope increases with increase in thickness and forward
measured by tlle wake-survey method when a model-support movement of the position of minimum pressure of the basic
strut vibrated. thickness form at zero lift.
Some NACA 6-series airfoils show jogs in the lift curve
LIFT CHARACTERISTICS
OF SMOOTH AIRFOILS
at the end of the low-drag range, especially at low Reynolds
Two-dimensional data.--As explained in the section "Angle numbers. This jog becomes more pronounced with increase
of Zero Lift," tile angle of zero lift of an airfoil is largely of camber or thickness and with rearward movement of tile
determined by the camber. Thin-airfoil theory provides a position of minimum pressure on tile basic thickness form.
means for computing the angle of zero lift from the mean-line This jog decreases rapidly in severity with increasing Rey-
data presented in the supplementary figures. Tile agree- nolds number, becomes merely a change in lift-curve slope,
ment between the calculated and the experimental angle of and is practically nonexistent at a Reynolds number of
zero lift depends on the type of mean line used. Comparison 9 X 106 for most airfoils that would be considered for practical
of the experimental values of the angle of zero lift obtained application. This jog may be a consideration in the selection
from the supplementary figures and the theoretical values of airfoils for small low-speed airplanes. An analysis of
taken from the mean-line data shows that the agreement is the flow conditions leading to tiffs jog is presented in refer-
good except for the uniform-load type (a----1.0) mean line. ence 28.
The angles of zero lift for this type mean line generally have The variation of maximum lift coefficient with airfoil
values more positive than those predicted. The experi- thickness ratio at a Reynolds number of 6X 106 is shown in
mental values of the angles of zero lift for a number of NACA figure 39 for a number of NACA airfoil sections. The airfoils
four- and five-digit and NACA 6-series airfoils are presented for which data are presented in this figure have a range of
in figure 37. The airfoil thickness appears to have little effect thickness ratio from 6 to 24 percent and cambers up to
on the value of the angle of zero lift regardless of the airfoil 4 percent chord. From the data for the NACA four- and
series. For tile NACA four-digit-series airfoils, the angles of five-digit-series airfoil sections (fig. 39 (a)), the maximum
zero lift are approximately 0.93 of the value given by thin- lift coefficients for the plain airfoils appear to be the greatest
airfoil theory; for tile NACA 230-series airfoils, this factor is for a thickness of 12 percent. In general, the rate of change
approximately 1.08; and for the NACA 6-series airfoils with of maximum lift coefficient with thickness ratio appears
uniform-load type mean line, this factor is approximately to be greatest for airfoils having a thickness less than 12
0.74. percent. The data for the NACA 6-series airfoils (figs.
The lift-curve slopes (fig. 38) for airfoils tested in the 39 (b) to 39 (e)) also show a rapid increase in maximum lift
Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence pressure tunnel are coefficient with increasing thickness ratio for thickness
higher than those previously obtained in the tests reported ratios of less than 12 percent. For NACA 6-series airfoil
in reference 8. It is not clear whether this difference in slope sections cambered to give a design lift coefficient of not more
is caused by the difference in air-stream turbulence or by than 0,2, the optimum thickness ratio for maximum lift
the differences in test methods, since the section data of coefficient appears to be between 12 and 15 percent, excep!
reference 8 were inferred from tests of models of aspect ratio 6. for the airfoils having the position of minimum pressure at
The present values of the lift-curve slope were measured for 60 percent chord. The optimunl thickness ratio for the
a Reynohls number of 6XI06 and at values of the lift coeffi- NACA 66-series sections cambered for a design lift coeffi-
cient aplJroximately equal to the design lift coefficient of the cient of not more than 0.2 appears to be 15 percent or greater
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 31

__ Set-leg __

-4--
-- _ -d,g/ --
%. 0
<9 --_ 44J_--
230 {5-d/git )

_o
Y

I °
h (al
4 8 IZ /6 20 Z4 Z4
A/r'fo// fh/ckr?ess, per-cenf of c,6o_d

(a) NACA four- and five-digit series. (b) NAOA 63-series.

I I
cU_

-4-- _(:3 ,/ _ '_-4 oO
%` --© .2-
0 .2 (3 A .4
0 __ _& .4_
V .6
.6"

z_ <> _.___. __ A ,9-

(3
>.--.___--- q_ o
n o N

I (d)
8 IZ /6 ZO 24 4 8 IZ /6 ZO 24
A/Pfo// f/q/'c/_mes% percenf of chord Airfoil lh/cRnessj percenf of chord

(e) NACA 64-series. (d) NACA65'serIes.

-6

CI i
-4 -- --
-00
__ _<> .2_

_ _ .4
-8
_o

4 8 /2 16 ZO 24
A_rfo/l thickness, percenf of chord

(e)NACA66-series.

FIaURZ 37.--Measured section angles of zero lift for a number of NACA airfoil sections of various thicknesses and camber. R=6XI(_.
32 REPORT NO. 8 2 4--1_TATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

t i I I I l l I I [ I
F, ogqed symbols /hal/cote rough condition
.-Smooth
./2

-- ---'._--t_
"x
..... -_ ,_
.-Smooth "Rouqh
Q.. ./0 ' _ _I_-FF-
_.--R -Z_

c,) Ioool I I Rough-> o 0


Ctl

.08
0 .2
I l (b)
A .4_
(j (a) { _',z_o _,5-d,19,/j V ;6
I
22 24 /l? 12 14 16 /8 20 22 24
•°66 8 ,0 12 /.4 16 ,8 20 6
-.4 A/_/'o/' ih/_kness, percent of chord A/rfo// fh,cknes% percent of chord

(a) N'AOA four- and five-digit series. (b) NACA C_-series.

./Z

_J ,,Smooth
,.Sin o o fh
./2 ",,

i =--a,_-' -'_{--i- --_ - -


- :,Rouglh
cL .,0 "ROUgh
Ch
o 0 c,_
o 0
.08
_ .08 o
0 ./!
.2
L_ .41 .d
ta (d) .6
i

/0 12 f4 16 ,8 20 22 24 .o_ 8 /6 /8 20 22 24
-.d A/rfo// th/ckness, percent of cho,_d
A/rfo// th/ckness, percent of chord

(c) NACA 64-series. (d) NACA 65-series.

¢J
./2
_:- :_L_
.Smoo /h

.I0)
.I I
& x _,'Rough
% .08
o 0
0 .2
.4
i
0% 8 '0 '_ '4 16 18 20 22 2d
A/rfo// /h/ckness, percent of chord

(e) NACA66-series.

FIGURE 38.--Variation of lift-curve slope with airfoil thickness ratio and camber for a number of NACA airfoil sections in both the smooth and rough conditions, R=6)<10 _.

The available data indicate that a thickness ratio of 12 NACA 6-series sections increase with increasing camber
percent or less is optimum for airfoils having a design lift (fig. 39 (b) to 39 (e)). The addition of camber to the sym-
coefficient of 0.4. metrical airfoils causes the greatest increments of maximum
The maxinmm lift coefficient is least sensitive to variations lift coefficient for airfoil thickness ratios varying from 6 to
in position of minimum pressure on the basic thickness form 12 percent. The effectiveness of camber as a means of
for airfoils having thickness ratios of 6, 18, or 21 percent. increasing the maximum lift coefficient generally decreases
The maximum lift coefficients corresponding to intermediate as the airfoil thickness increases beyond 12 or 15 percent.
thickness ratios increase with forward movement of the The available data indicate that the combination of a 12-

position of minimum pressure, particularly for tltose airfoils percent-thick section and a mean line cambered for a design
having design lift coefficients of 0.2 or h,ss. lift coefficient of 0.4 yiehls the highest maximum lift
The maximum lift coefficients of modcratcly cambered coefficient.

[
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 33

J.8
1 28
oO
o .2
" ' "i--
__ .4
,..-2.4 ...Z.4 A/r-fo,'/ wit/_
v .6
-DO splff flop
G {_ AJr-fo/I with .Lj 0 .Z
z.o o23X splff flop o_
z6 / _/" .,,,
(5 x7 .6 __/..j ..
kJ

_ /.6
.0 Plo/n
oi_£oil
"'_ P/o;t'_ _ /.2
m

E
-.o _'_ _,
<_,
_ .8 ._. .8
j l J
....... Rough
Smooth
4
[ I I I -] bolh/
0 4 8 I£ 16 ZO Z4 0 8 /2 /6 ZO Z4
Airfoil fh_c/rness, per-cemt of chord _/)-foi/ /h/cA-hess, percent of chord

(a) NACA four- and five-digit series. (b) NACA 63-series.

2.8 2.8 I
Cz;
LoO

_.-Z4
-o.,
_0 , , _-2.4
¢ .Z
A/troll with A_t'fo# w/lh
vn .#
.6"
sph/ flop spht flop
_,_ 0 / 0 .2
_o #20
eo
co co
to -_ .l _ :7" _+

.9
Plo_kn Plain
_ /.Z /.2 a_ f ofl
o,k-foil _" .o_i- .-_

_ .8 .6

....... Rough ...... Rough


Smooth
(_! 1 1 1 1 (dl
.4
,¢ 8 I£ 16 ZO 24 0 8 12 15 _0 Z4
A_-fo/I t/vcknes_% per-cent of chord _/_foi/ th/c/rmess, perce_t of c/_ord

(e) NAOA64series. (d) NAOA6,5-series.

2.8
t Isimulated split flop deflected 60 °--
_o0
0 .2
_'_.4
_0 Alr-_off with
-_ .Z

_20
/y .:.;" sp/i/ flop

o
t_

_ /.8

P/o/'n
_ /.Z off-foil
_ ..0..._

....... Rough
-- Srnoofh
(_ I I I I
.4
o 4 8 /g 16 ZO 24
Airfoil fhiclr_ess, percemf of c/_ord

(e) NAOA 66-series.

FIGURE 39.--Variation of maximum section lift eoe_eient with airfoil thickness ratio and camber for several NACA airfoil sections with and without simulated split flaps and standard
roughness, R=fXIO_.
34 REPORT :NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

The variation of maximum lift with type of mean line is approximately 0.15 to 0.20. The scale effect on the NACA
shown in figure 40 for one 6-series thickness distribution. 00- and 14-series airfoils having thickness ratios less than
No systematic data are available for mean lines with values 0.12c is very small.
of a less than 0.5. It should be noted, however, that airfoils The scale-effect data for the NACA 6-series airfoils (figs.
such as the NACA 230-series sections with the maximum 41 (c) to 41 (f)) do not show an entirely systcmatic variation.
camber far forward show large values of maximum lift. In general, the scale effect is favorable for these airfoil
Airfoil sections with maximum camber far forward and with sections. For the NACA 63- and 64-series airfoils with
lhickness ratios of 6 to 12 percent usually stall from the small camber, the increase in maximum lift coefficient with
leading edge with large sudden losses in lift. A more de- increase in Reynolds number is generally small for thickness
sirable gradual stall is obtained when the location of maxi- ratios of less than 12 percent but is somewhat larger for the
mum camber is farther back, as for the NACA 24-, 44-, and thicker sections. The character of the scale effect for the
6-series sections with normal types of camber. NACA 65- and 66-series airfoil sections is similar to that for
the NACA 63- and 64-series airfoils but the trends are not
2.O so well defined. In most cases the scale effect for NACA
6-series airfoil sections cambered for a design lift coefficient
of 0.4 or 0.6 does not vary much with airfoil thickness ratio.
The data of figure 42 show that the maximum lift coefficient
_/.8 for the NACA 63(420)-422 airfoil continues to increase with
Reynolds number, at least up to a Reynolds number of
f
26X 106.
The values of the maximum lift coefficient presented were
obtained for steady conditions. The maximum lift coeffi-
q)
0
cient may be higher when the angle of attack is increasing.
Such a condition might occur during gusts and landing
maneuvers. (See reference 41.)
Reyno/ds number
.8 o _OxlO_ The systematic investigation of NACA 6-series airfoils
(9
c_ 9.0
CO
O)
included tests of the airfoils with a simulated split flap de-
flected 60 ° . It was believed that these tests would serve as
an indication of the effectiveness of more powerful types of
trailing-edge high-lift devices although sufficient data to verify
this assumption have not been obtained. The maximum lift
coefficients for a large number of NACA airfoil sections
obtained from tests with the simulated split flap are presented
in figure 39.
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
The data for the NACA 00- and 14-series airfoils equipped
Type of combeG a
with split flap for thickness ratios from 6 to 12 percent show
FIGURE 40.--Variation of maximum lift coefficient with type of camber for some NACA
a considerable increase in maximum lift coefficient with in-
653-418 airfoil sections from tests in the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence pressure
tunnel. crease in thickness ratio. Corresponding data for the NACA
44-series airfoils with thickness ratios h'om 12 to 24 percent
A comparison of the maximum lift coefficients of NACA show very little variation in maximum lift coefficient with
64-series airfoil sections cambered for a design lift coefficient thickness. For NACA 6-series airfoils equipped with split
of 0.4 with those of the NACA 44- and 230-series sections flaps the maximum lift coefficients increase rapidly with
(fig. 39) shows that the maximum lift coefficients of the increasing thickness over a range of thickness ratio, the range
NACA 64-series airfoils are as high or higher than those of beginning at thickness ratios between 6 and 9 percent, depend-
the NACA 44-series sections in all cases. The NACA 230- ing upon the camber. The upper limit of this range for the
series airfoil sections have maximum lift coefficients somc- symmetrical NACA 64- and 65-series airfoils appears to be
what higher than those of the NACA 64-series sections. greater than 21 percent and for the NACA 63- and 66-series
The scale effect on the maximum lift coefficient of a large airfoils, approximately 18 percent. Between thickness ratios
number of NACA airfoil sections for Reynolds numbers of 6 and 9 percent the values of maximum lift coefficient for
from 3X10 _ to 9X108 is shown in figure 41. The scale the symmetrical NACA 6-series airfoils are essentially the
effect for the NACA 24-, 44-, and 230-series airfoils (figs. same regardless of thickness ratio and position of minimum
41 (a) and 41 (b)) having thickness ratios from 12 to 24 percent pressure on the basic thickness form. The maximum lift
is favorable and nearly independent of the airfoil thickness. coefficient decreases with rearward movement of minimum
Increasing the Reynolds number from 3X106 to 9X106 pressure for the airfoils having thickness ratios between 9 and
results in an increase in the maximum lift coefficient of 18 percent.
SUMMARY OF .AIRFOIL DATA 35

I I

IVACA 14-5er/es (Z-d/g f]


L2 i -_ /.2
/c "/
CW f T/_CA
.8 Z l-ser_es !-dig/i) .._
/_m /.5

(a) _7._ IVACAOO-ser/e.s(d-d/q/t)


-___._ ___ -o c.:O._, and 0.6
.8 /.P
5yrnbo/.£ with flogs oorresp.ond to ezi=0.6
z.o
"o

/f
o-
-{ ---'-_-% _'-:_ c,,:o.4 _,,_0.0 .

,,v:O,/
1.2 X ,_ -z_ .J
u "0 .6
Cb

1.6 _ /6

Cli : 0

! f
.8 (c) _ ...._,...t "'_> (d)
.8

I. C "_ _ "-'_- _ >" I. _?


_""_--_-_ 04 end 0.6 e,_ : O.4

16: 1.8

_ _.-__ __._
I -_" _ "-o c_ :0.2
_ _ L2

L6 .8

LZ "..o L2
i.

4 8 12 I_ ZO 24 Z8 ?2 0 4 8 I_ I_ 20 24 28 ?g
A,7-foil thickness, pea'cent of chord Airfoil thickness_ percent of cMord

(a) NAOA tou_-di_it series, (b) N.&O.& four- and. fiTe,-di6it _erie&
(e) NACA &'l-serieso (d) NACA 64-series.
(e) NACA 6_series, (f) NAOA 66-series,

Fleisll_ 41.--Vuriation of maximum section lift coefficient with airfoil thickness ratio at several Reynolds numbers for a number of NACA airfoil sections of different cambers.
36 REPORT NO. 824--NATIO:N'AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE :FOR AERONAUTICS

( %
i

"-2 I
! "b

i i _S_S_S
f15 --_
......... o_-- k_

t
/ i_

N
% =
c_ _ % % eo
"N

P._ _uq/o/jjaoo Eo_p LIo/(oa S T

.<
Z

_ e
ego
4 i-

(3

g _

c_

iii'
i

i
% %
Y

k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 37
Substantial increments in maximum lift coefficient with 2.O
increase in camber are shown for the NACA 6-series airfoils
of moderate thickness ratios (10 to 15 percent chord) with
split flaps. For the airfoils having thickness ratios of 6 /.6
percent and for the airfoils having thickness ratios of 18 or 21
percent, the maximum lift coefficient is affected very little by q)

z2
a change in camber. For thickness ratios greater than 15
percent, the maximum lift coefficients of the NACA 63- and
64-series airfoils cambered for a design lift coefficient of 0.4
equipped with split flaps are greater than the corresponding
o O.OOP r-oughness
maximum lift coefficients of the NACA 44-series airfoils. o .00_I r-ouqhness _
Three-dimensional data.--No recent systematic three-
1_ .O/ /Smoofhr-Oughness
dimensional wing data obtained at high Reynolds numbers
are available, so that it is difficult to make any comparison
with the section data. When tile maximum-lift data for
three-dimensional wings are compared with section data, 0 4 8 /2 /6 2(7 24x/8"
account should be taken of the span lc.ad distribution over Revno/ds number, }:1
the wing. The predicted maximum lift coefficient for the FIGURE 43.--Effects of Reynolds number on maximum section lift coefficient c_... of the
NACA 63(420)-422 airfoil with roughened and smooth leading edge.
wing will be somewhat lower than the maximum lift coeffi-
cients of the sections used because of the nonuniformity of
lift-coefficient data at a Reynolds number of 6X106 for a
the spanwise distribution of lift coefficient. The difference
large number of NACA airfoil sections with standard rough-
amounts to about 4 to 7 percent for a rectangular wing with
ness are presented in figures 39 and 41: The variation of
an aspect ratio of 6.
maximum lift coefficient with thickness for the NACA four-
Maximum-lift data obtained from tests of a number of
and five-digit-series airfoil sections shows the same trends
wings and airplane models in the Langley 19-foot pressure
for the airfoils with roughness as for the smooth airfoils
tunnel are presented in table II. Although section data at
except that the values are considerably reduced for all of
tlle Reynolds numbers necessary to permit a detailed com-
these airfoils other than the NACA 00-series airfoils of
parison are not available, the maximum lift coefficient for
6 percent thickness. For a given thickness ratio greater than
plain wings given in table II appears to be in general agree-
15 percent, the values of maximum lift coefficient for the
ment with values expected from section data. The data for
four- and five-digit-series airfoils are substantially the same.
the airplane models are presented to indicate the maximum
Much less variation in maximum lift coefficient with thick-
lift coefficients obtained with various airfoils and
ness ratio is shown by the NACA 6-series airfoil sections in
configurations.
the rough condition than with smooth leading edge. The
LIFT CHARACTERISTICS OF ROUGH AIRFOILS maximum lift coefficients of the 6-percent-thick airfoils are
essentially the same for both smooth and rough conditions.
Two-dimensional data.--Most recent airfoil tests, espe- The variation of maximum lift coefficient with camber, how-
cially of airfoils with the {hicker sections, have included tests ever, is about the same for the abfoils with standard rough-
with roughened leading edge (reference 37), and the available ness as for the smooth sections. The maximum lift coeffi-
data are included in the supplementary figures. cient of airfoils with standard roughness generally decreases
The effect on maximum lift coefficient of various degrees somewhat with rearward movement of the position of mini-
of roughness applied to the leading edge of the NACA mum pressure except for airfoils having thickness ratios
63(420)-422 airfoil is shown in figure 23. The maximum lift greater than 18 percent, in which case some slight gain in
coefficient decreases progressively with increasing roughness maximum lift coefficient results from a rearward movement
(reference 36). For a given surface condition at the leading of the position of minimum pressure.
edge, the maximum lift coefficient increases slowly with Except for the NACA 44-series airfoils of 12 to 15 percent
increasing Reynolds number (fig. 43). Figure 24 shows that thickness, the present data indicate that the rough NACA
roughness strips located more than 0.20c from the leading 64-series airfoil sections cambered for a design lift coefficient
edge have little effect on the maximum lift coefficient or of 0.4 have maximum lift coefficients consistently higher than
lift-curve slope. The results presented in figure 38 show the rough airfoils of the NACA 24-, 44-, and 230-series air-
that the effect of standard leading edge roughness is to de- foils of comparable thickness. Standard roughness causes
crease the lift-curve slope, particularly for the thicker air- decrements in maximum lift coefficient of the airfoils with
foils having the position of minimum pressure far back. split flaps that are substantially the same as those observed
These data are for a Reynolds number of 6 >( 106. Maximum- for the plain airfoils

918392--51----4
38 REPORT
NO.824--NATIONAL
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
FORAERONAUTICS

/.6
i
_1.2 -- --
/ "\
b i /' tt

_.8_
/o AS do/ivened by shop, d
(
_ As rich'repealby shop,
/ m As delivered by shop,
._..zl
-0 Fsnol TDT
TDT t_st 468
condition,
lest 520 / o Fl:_ol TOT test
condition
TDT test 498
464 / o TOT test
test 494
FiY_olcondition,
TOT 523

(b)
/ (c)_/
(a)
=4 24 .72
-8 0 8 15 24 -8 0 8 15 24 -8 0 8 15
5echbn ongle of o/tock, _ deq.

(a) NAOA 2412. (b) NACi 2415. (c) NACA 23012.

FIGURE 44.--Lift characteristics of the NACA 23012, 2412, and 2415 airfoil sections as affected by normal model inaccuracies. R=9X106 (approx.).

The maximum lift coefficient may be lowered by failure to


maintain the true airfoil contour near the leading edge, but
no systematic data on this effect have been obtained. Ex-

I amples
presented
of this effect that were accidentally
in figure 44, in which lift characteristics
encountered are
are given
for accurate and slightly inaccurate models. The model
inaccuracies were so small that they were not found previous
to the tests.
Three-dimensional data.--Tests of several airplanes in the
Langley full-scale tunnel (reference 42) show that many fac-
tors besides the airfoil sections affect the maximmn lift co-
efficient of airplanes. Such factors as roughncss, leakage,
leading-edge air intakes, armament installations, nacelles,
and fuselages make it difficult to correlate the airplane maxi-
mum lift with the airfoils used, even when the flaps are
retracted. The various flap configurations used make such
a correlation even more difficult when the flaps are deflected.
q_
When the flaps were retracted, both the highest and the
k) ._)" .--
lowest maximum lift coefficients obtained in recent tests of
airplanes and complete mock-ups of conventional configura-
tions in the Langley full-scale tunnel were those obtained
with NACA 6-series airfoils.
Results obtained from tests of a model of an airplane in
.Z i _ . Z<:<_.'c'/ pFC_UFe tunne/) the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel and of the airplane in

0
/ 0I
I
(L ,
ci
rocjlc_ty ?-u,mPTe I)
f, iIl-_ccale
the Langley

number.
condition
full-scale

The results
had a maximum
tunnel
Both tests were made at approximately
are presented

show that the airplane


lift coefficient
in figure
the same Reynolds
45.

in the service
more than 0.2
lower than that of the model, as well as a lower lift-curve
slope. Some improvement in the airplane lift characteristics
:_ / O J U /Y /5 ZO Zd
was obtained by scaling leaks. These results show that air-
plane lift characteristics are strongly affected by details not
FIOUliE 45.--The effects of surface conditions on the lift characteristics of a fighter-type
airplane. R=2.SX106. reproduced on large-scale smooth models.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 39

_2
J
;0

0 A,'olur_o/tr-onsi/l'On

o 7r-m?s/h'on f/xod ot. IOe

-4
2
i! ---

0 4 8
Anqle of
/2
o/toch_ _
/6
deg
20 24 _¢ 8
Angle
12
of o;/och,
16
I

v(, dec3
ZO 24 28

FIGURE 46.--The effect on the lift characteristics of fixing the transition on a model in the FIGURE 47.--The effect on the lift characteristics of fixing the transition on a model in the
Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel. R=2.7XlO 6. (Model with Davis airfoil sections.) Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel. R=2.TX106. (Model with NACA airfoil sections.)

Lift characteristics obtained in the Langley 19-foot pres- drag coefficient at high lift coefficients. The resulting drag
sure tunnel for two airplane models in the smooth condition coefficients may be excessive at cruising lift coefficients for
and with transition fixed at the front spar are presented in heavily loaded, high-altitude airplanes. Airfoil sections that
figures 46 and 47. In both cases, the lift-curve slope was de- have suitable characteristics when smooth but have excessive
creased throughout most of the lift range with fixed transi- drag coefficients when rough at lift coefficients corre-
tion. The maximum lift coefficient was decreased in one sponding to cruising or climbing conditions are classified as
case but was increased in the other case. uneonservative.
The decision as to whether a given airfoil section is conserv-
UNCONSERVATIVE AIRFOILS
ative will depend upon the power and the wing loading of
The attempt to obtain low drags, especially for long-range the airplane. The decision may be affected by expected
airplanes, leads to high wing loadings together with relatively service and operating conditions. For example, the ability
low span loadings. This tendency results in wings of high of a multiengine airplane to fly with one or more engines in-
aspect ratio that require large spar depths for structural operative in icing conditions or after suffering damage in
efficiency. The large spar depths require the use of thick combat may be a consideration.
root sections. As an aid in judging whether the sections are conservative,
This trend to thick root sections has been encouraged by the lift coefficient corresponding to a drag coefficient of 0.02
the relatively small increase in drag coefficient with thickness was determined from the supplementary figures for a large
ratio of smooth airfoils (fig. 12). Unfortunately, airplane number of NACA airfoil sections with roughened leading
wings are not usually constructed with smooth surfaces and, edges. The variation of this critical lift coefficient with air-
in any case, the surfaces cannot be relied upon to stay smooth foil thickness ratio and camber is shown in figure 48. These
under all service conditions. The effect of roughening the data show that, in general, the lift coefficient at which the
leading edges of thick airfoils is to cause large increases in the drag coefficient is 0.02 decreases with rearward movement of
40 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMEMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

position of minimum pressure. The thickness ratio for


which this lift coefficient is a maximum usually lies between
12 and 15 percent; variations in thickness ratio from this
optimum range generally cause rather sharp decreases in the
critical lift coefficient. The addition of camber to the
symmetrical airfoils usually causes an increase in the critical
lift coefficient except for the very thick sections, in which case
increasing the camber becomes relatively ineffectual and may
be actually harmful. All the data of figure 48 correspond to
a Reynolds number of 6X106. As shown in figure 49, the
drag coefficient at flight values of the Reynolds number may
be considerably lower than the drag coefficient at a Reynolds
number of 6X 106 if the roughness is confined to the leading
edge.
PITCHING MOMENT

The variation of the quarter-chord pitching-moment coef-


ficient at zero angle of attack with airfoil thickness ratio and
camber is presented in figure 50 for several NACA airfoil
sections. The quarter-chord pitching-moment coefficients of
the NACA four- and five-digit-series airfoils become less
negative with increasing airfoil thickness. Almost no varia-
tion in quarter-chord pitching-moment coefficient with air-
foil thickness ratio or position of minimum pressure is shown
by the NACA 6-series airfoil sections. As might be expected,
increasing the amount of camber causes an almost uniform
negative increase in the pitching-moment coefficient.
As discussed previously, the pitching moment of an airfoil
section is primarily a function of its camber, and thin-airfoil
theory provides a means for estimating the pitching moment
from the mean-line data presented in the supplementary
figures. A comparison of the experimental moment coeffi-
cient and theoretical values for the mean lines is presented
in figure 51. The experimental values of the moment coeffi-
cients for NACA 6-series airfoils cambered with the uniform-
load type mean line are usually about three-quarters of the
theoretical values (figs. 50 and 51). Airfoils employing mean
lines with values of a less than unity, however, have moment
coefficients somewhat more negative than those indicated by
theory. The use of a mean line having a value of a less than
LO
unity, therefore, brings about only a slight reduction in
pitching-moment coefficient for a given design lift coefficient
when compared with the value obtained with a uniform-
load type mean line. The experimental moment coefficients
for the NACA 24-, 44-, and 230-series airfoils are also less
negative than those indicated by theory but the agreement
is closer than for airfoils having the uniform-load type mean
line.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Airfoil #h/ckness, percen/ of chord The pitching-moment data for the airfoils equipped with
(a) NACA four- and five-digit series. simulated split flaps deflected 60 ° (fig. 50) indicate that the
(b) NACA 63-series. value of the quarter-chord pitching-moment coefficient be-
(e) NACA 64-series.
(d) NACA 65-series. comes more negative with increasing thickness for all the
(e) NACA. 66-series. ah'foils tested. For the thicker NACA 6-series sections the
FIGVnE 48.-Variation of the lift coefficient corresponding to a drag coefficient of 0.02 with
magnitude of the moment coefficient increases with rearward
thickness and camber for a number of NACA airfoil sections with roughened leading edges.
Rffi6X106. movement of the position of minimum pressure.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 41

%
I I ! !
42 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

CO
O
C_ -.2

q)

_ all
(b! I
0 e _ -_S- I_ _o 24 z_
A it" fo/I fh,,'ol_n_mj percent of chr_,4

(b) blACA63-seri_s.
(a) NACA four and five-digit serif.

I !
i

0
f ,io :_7 _ +_, o ,
= " o ' "",

'
C

:Lk, I
---+- ..... i
"¢-- o 0 -- ._ -./ 1
I

i
.cj El .f I O0 ___
© .?
CO ' I
G
_xt .,d_ __
t,_ 2
_ I zx .4

E
2 I -- ..__.____ _
---T-- --

"_ _..3
' _
i

]
L'8
."1_{3
o 4 8 IZ IG 20 " 2_ Z8
-'_0 4 8 12 16 2o Lw
AiPfoil ti_icHmems> pel-r_mf of chor-d Al'rfoi/ thichness_ per-ce_f of cho_-d

(d) NACA 65-series.


(c) NACA64-series.

' I

__ ]

oO
- b .z
A .':7

24 28
/1,'r'fo, "1 t'_/c'tw_es'% percenf of chord

(e) NACA 66-series.

F_(iullE 50.--Variation of sect ion quarter-chord pitching-moment coefficient (measured at an angle of attack of 0 a) with airfoil thickness ratio for several NACA airfoil sections of different cam her,
R=6X10_,
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 43

/ increasing thickness. For the NACA 6-series airfoils, the


opposite appears to be the case.
/
/ HIGH-LIFT DEVICES

_5
/ Lift characteristics for two NACA 6-series airfoils equipped
-./2
65_-6/8-" with plain flaps are presented in figure 53. These data
6_3-61 _ a-05,,,, / show that the maximum lift coefficient increases less rapidly
_ _./
/ with flap deflection
Lift characteristics
for the more highly
of three NACA 6-series
cambered section.
airfoils with split
654-42/, a=GS,, 7 o'"
_ -.08 --6,ga- 41_ 0=0.5,,' .-654-42/ flaps are presented in reference 44 and figure 54. The maxi-
,-65o-415
mum-lift increments for the 12-percent-thick sections were
-#3. 4-420 only about three-fourths of that increment for the 16-percent-
thick section. The maximum lift coefficient for the thicker
6_ 4-,_go. a:a_ i/.6_(2/:_)_z/8
section with flap deflected is about the same as that obtained
o/_:._-24z_
'_ -.04
for the NACA 23012 airfoil in the now obgolete Langley
(3
_d / t variable-density tunnel (reference 45) and in the Langley
/ "" "'6"6(21_)-21 _ a-O.6
7- by 10-foot tunnel (reference 46).
d--230/2 Tests of a number of slotted flaps on NACA 6-series
7 I airfoils (supplementary figures and reference 47) indicate that
0 -.02 -.O_Z -.06 -.OB -.10 -.Ig -.14 -.16 the design parameters necessary to obtain high maximum
Theore//co/ rnomenf coefficl'en/ for _I_ oirfoil
rneon /i77e obou f quor/er- chord'po/7_f lifts are essentially similar to those for the NACA 230-
series sections (references 48 and 49). Lift data obtained
FIGURE 51.--Comparison of theoretical and measured pitching-moment coefficients for some

NACA airfoils. R=6X10_. for typical hinged single slotted 0.25c flaps (fig. 55 (a)) on
the NACA 63,4-420 airfoil are presented in figure 55 (b).
POSITION OF AERODYNAMIC CENTER
A maximum lift coefficient of approximately 2.95 was ob-
The variation of chordwise position of the aerodynamic tained for one of the flaps. Lift characteristics for the
center corresponding to a Reynolds number of 6X 106 for a NACA 653-118 airfoil fitted with a double slotted flap
large number of NACA airfoils is presented in figure 52. (reference 47 and fig. 56 (a)) are presented in figure 56 (b).
From the data given in the supplementary figures there A maximum lift coefficient of 3.28 was obtained. It may
appears to be no systematic variation of chordwise position be concluded that no special difficulties exist in obtaining
of aerodynamic center with Reynolds number. The data high maximum lift coefficients with slotted flaps on moderately
for the NACA 00- and 14-series airfoils, presented for thick- thick NACA 6-series sections.
ness ratios less than 12 percent, show that the chordwise Tests of airplanes in the Langley full-scale tunnel (reference
position of the aerodynamic center is at the quarter-chord 42) have shown that expected increments of maximum lift
point and does not vary with airfoil thickness. For the coefficient are obtained for split flaps (fig. 57) but not for
NACA 24-, 44-, and 230-series airfoils with thickness ratios slotted flaps (fig. 58). This failure to obtain the expected
ranging from 12 to 24 percent, the chordwise position of the maximum-lift increments with slotted flaps may be attributed
aerodynamic center is ahead of the quarter-chord point and to inaccuracies of flap contour and location, roughness near
moves forward with increase in thickness ratio. the flap leading edge, leakage, interference from flap sup-
The chordwise position of the aerodynamic center is behind ports, and deflection of flap and lip under load.
the quarter-chord point for the NACA 6-series ah'foils and
LATERAL-CONTROL DEVICES
moves rearward with increase in airfoil thickness, which is
in accordance with the trends indicated by perfect-fluid An adequate discussion of lateral-control devices is outside
theory. There appears to be no systematic variation of the scope of this report. The following brief discussion is
chordwise position of the aerodynamic center with camber or therefore limited to considerations of effects of airfoil shape
position of minimum pressure on the basic thickness form for on aileron characteristics.
these airfoils. The effect of airfoil shape on aileron effectiveness may be
The data of reference 43 show important forward move- inferred from the data of figure 59 and reference 50. The
ments of the aerodynamic center with increasing trailing-edge section aileron effectiveness parameter Aa0/Aa is plotted
angle for a given airfoil thickness. For the NACA 24-, 44-, against the aileron-chord ratio cJc for a number of airfoils
and 230-series airfoils (fig. 52) the effect of increasing of different type in figure 59. Also shown in this figure
trailing-edge angle is apparently greater than the effect of are the theoretical values of the parameter for thin airfoils.
REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

.22

26

.24

28

4 8 /2 /8 20 24 28 32 240 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
A/r£oi/ ÷hickness, /oercenf of chord
Airfo// fh/ckness, percent of chord

(a) NACA four- and five-digit series. (b) NAOA _-se_les.


(c) NACA 64.series. (d) NACA 65.series.
(e)NAOA 66-se,
rles.

Fmul_ 52.--Variation of section ch0rdwise position of the aerodynamic center with airfoil thickness ratio for several NACA airfoil sections of different cambers. Rffi6Xl0 I.

L
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 45

/VACA 66(215)-216-.

..4,_4"

J
i ,_' 11
/ //S"

.:.:;';"
I)_ -4

P if


(opprox.)
o NACA 66(2/5J-2/6 G.Ox/Oe
NACA 23012 3.5
"from f'ef.. 45) (e:£)-
o NACA ©_I-212 6.0
0 NACA 651-21-P 6.0

-20 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 ,90 I00


Flop def/ecfionj 6:, deg Flop deflection, 6:: deg

FIC,URE 53.--Maximum lift coel_cients for the NACA 65,3-618 and NACA 66(215)-216 air- FIGURE 54.--Maximum lift coefficients for some NACA airfoils fitted with 0.20-airfoil-chord
foils fitted with 0.20-airfoil-chord plain flaps. R=6X10 _. split flaps.

The data show no large consistent trends of aileron-effective- coefficient based on the wing chord. This method of analysis
ness variation with airfoil section for a wide range of thick- takes into account the aileron effectiveness, the hinge
ness distributiotls and thickness ratios. In order to evaluate moments, and the possible mechanical advantage between
aileron characteristics from section data, a method of analysis the controls and the ailerons. The larger the value of Aa 0
is necessary that will lead to results comparable to the usual for a given value of the hinge-moment parameter, the more
curves of stick force against helix angle pb/2V for three- advantageous the combination should be for providing a
dimensional data. The analysis that follows is considered large value of pb/2V for a given control force. The assump-
suitable for comparing the relative merits of ailerons from tion that the aileron operates at a constant lift coefficient
two-dimensional data.
as the airplane rolls is not entirely correct, however, and
Two-dimensional data are presented in the form of the
involves an overestimation of the effect of changing angle
equivalent change in section angle of attack Aao required to
of attack on the hinge-moment coefficient. In addition,
maintain a constant section lift coefficient for various de-
the span of the ailerons and other possible three-dimensional
flections of the aileron from neutral. This equivalent change
in angle of attack is plotted against the hinge-moment param- effects are not considered. In spite of these inaccuracies,
eter 5cRa, which is the product of the aileron deflection the method provides a useful means of comparing the two-
from neutral and the resulting increment of hinge-moment dimensional characteristics of different ailerons.
46 REPORT NO. 824------NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTE'E FOR AERONAUTICS

I
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 47

000- --_

• 781
Flop r-efroc/ed I I 1 I I I I I I
//,_ of ogreemem/ be/_veen fneosLyr-ed

I ,..Flop pofh
S GrTd pred/'c'e_ f_'_:_S_/7_S- 1, '

- .8
/
/
.2/z r/op)X_,\/
808 plvof o

/-/0t9 piVOT TPom U .---" f_ _7._ o _,._

to 45 ° deflect/on-'" de-fle-cfion

Flop de_leefed 65 _ J
X
3.2

28

/
/ 0
/
FIGURE 57.--Comparison
to flap deflection
.2 .4

and values predicted


.6
ACL,. pr-edlcted

between measured values of the increments


from two-dimensional
.8 LO L2

in lift coefficients due


data. Split flap.

/
2.4

_d
I

/ LO

:< 1.6 .8
i

_ /.2 _1o
._.
Vo
.8
.2
/
/ [

.4
/ i
0 .2 4 .6 .8 LO LZ
A£'_,, p_ed/cfed

FIGURE 58.--Comparison between measured values of the increments in lift coefficients due
to flap deflection and values predicted from two-dimensional data. Slotted flap.
(b)

0 20 40 60 80 IO0
Flop deflection, 6_ deg

(a) Flap configuration.


(b) Maximum lift characteristics.

FIGURE 56.--Flap configuration and maximum lift coefficients for the NACA 65_-118 airfoil
with a double slotted flap. R=6X10 _.
48 REPORT NO. 8 2 4--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REGARDING TESTS OF TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELS

Air-flow characteristics
Symbol Basic airfoil Type of flap Reference

T M R

o NACA 0009 ......................................... Plain ................................ 1.93 O. 08 51 to 55

+ NACA 0015 ............................................ do ............................ 1.93 .10 1.4XIO 6 56

X NACA 23012 ............................................... do ............................... 1.60 .11 2.2X106 57, 48

C] NACA 66(2x15)-009 ................................... Plain, straight contour .............. 1.93 • 10 1.4X106

0 NACA 66-009 ....................................... Plain ............................... 1.93 .11 1.4XlO 6 58

A NACA 63,4-4(17.8) (approx.) ............................ Internally balanced ................. (1) .17 2.5X108 59

_7 (1) .18 5.3X106 59


NACA 66(2x15)-216, a=0.6 .................................. do .............................

b NACA 66(2x15)-I16, a=0.6 ................................ do ............................. 0) .14 6.0XlO 6 59

NACA 04,2-(1.4) (13.5) ................................ Plain ............................. 0) 13.0XlO 6

p" (1) .14 6.0XlO _ 59


NACA 65,2-318 (approx.) .............................. Internally balanced ...............

NACA 63(420)-521 (approx.) ............................. do .......................... 0) 8.0Xl08


.20 2.8X10 _
0) to to l 60
r,, NACA 66(215)-216, a=O.6 ................................. do ..............................
• 48 6.8X10 _
NACA 66(215)-014 .......................... Plain .......................... 1.93 .09 1.2XlO 8 61

0 NACA 66(215)-216, a=0.6 ............................. do ............................ (') 6.0XlO _l

c_ NACA 652-415 ............................................. do ............................. 0) .13 6.0XlO_ 62

[3- NACA 653 418 ......................................... do .............................. (1) .13 6.0X10 t 02

q NACA 651-421 ............................................ do .............................. (1) .13 6.0XlO 6 62

NACA 65o1_)-213 .................................... Internally balanced ................. (1) .14 8.0XIO 6

NACA 745A317 (approx.) ................................. do .............................. (1) .13 6.0XlO 8

0 NACA 64,3-013 (approx.) ................................... do ............................. 0) .13 6.0XlO 6

NACA 64,3-1(15.5) (approx.) ................................ do .............................. (1) • 13 6.0XIO 6

i Approaching 1.00.

.8

,_o "Theoretical .... vl _ _.6 Th_oreticol- ,'" i li

o - ,2-" "
" _ "'Exloerimen¢ol _ " 7

q) f#

ss

Z _ s

" //
! ,/

iii (a) i P"


_// 1 (b)
0 ./ ._- .3 .4 0 .I .Z .3 .d
A ;/eron chord rot/G ca/e A/le/'or) chord ro#/o, male

(a) $ range from 0° to 10% (b) ,_range from 0° to 20 °.

FI6UEE 59.--Variation of section aileron effeetiveness with aileron chord ratio for true-airfoil-contour ailerons without exposed overhang balance on a number of airfoil sections.
Gaps sealed; el=0.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 49

1
Type of aileron Refer- |
Basic airfoil enee /
Basic airfoil el
ct Type _/)aileron Air-flow characteristics Refer- " ---_-4
..... • AI R ence NACA66(215) 216,a=0.61 0.1OO I O.2Oc plain -[

NACA 0009 NACA 63,4-4(17.8) (up- .450 0.20c with 0.43c! inter-
O 0.20cplain 1.93 0.10 ] 1.4X10 e 63 hal balance
NACA 64,2-(1.4) 03.5) • 150 0.187cplain (_) I .18 I 4-0X106 / - - I prox.) I I ----[
NACA 66(215)-216, a=0.6_
/ "100/ 0.20c plain I (') I "33t 9.OXi0' I 64 I

True airfoil contour.


2 Approaching 1.00.

I I I

N_O_ 0009, ,..

.' "" -. ,-N/_CA 6d, 2-(Lzl) (125)

-/ U"

/'

O>
'_,,

-2

-4l

dNeror? de2flec//om, c/eg, ._ /


_v- _ I--- / / "- /2 .---_ "'"
-6
/6 ..---- ----"

-8
FIGURE 61.--Variation of the hinge-moment parameter Acg6 with the equivalent change in
-.0018 -.0016 =00141 -.0012 -.0010 =0008 :O00B :00041 =0002 0 section angle of attack required to maintain a constant section lift coefficient for deflection
A ¢=_, rad/ons of true-airfoil-contour and straight-sided ailerons on the NACA 63,4-4(17.8) (approx.)
and the NACA 66(215)-216, a=0.6 airfoil sections. Gaps sealed.
FmtTI_E 60.--Variation of the hinge-moment parameter Ae_l with the equivalent change in
section angle of attack required to maintain a constant section lift coefficient for deflection
of the aileron on the NACA 0009, NACA 64,2-(1.4)(13.5), and NACA 66(215)-216, a=0.6
airfoil sections. Gaps sealed. able• It appears, however, that the straight-sided aileron
would be less advantageous than the aileron of true contour
For the purpose of evaluating the effect of airfoil shape on for positive deflections greater than 12 °. In the case of
the aileron characteristics, it is desirable to make the com- the NACA 63,4-4(17.8) (approx.) airfoil, the straight-
parison with unbalanced ailerons to avoid confusion. Plots sided aileron appears to have no advantage over the aileron
of the parameters for plain unbalanced flaps of true airfoil of true airfoil contour. The advantage of using straight-
contour on three airfoil sections are shown in figure 60. sided ailerons appears to depend markedly oll the airfoil used
The characteristics of the NACA 66 (215)-216, a = 0.6 section but sufficient data are not available to determine the signif-
are essentially the same as those for the NACA 0009 airfoil icant airfoil parameters. Figure 62 shows that in one case
within the range of deflection for which data are available• the effect of leading-edge roughness on the aileron character-
istics is unfavorable.
The NACA 64,2-(1.4)(13.5) airfoil shows appreciably
smaller values of AcH_ for a given value of Aao than the other
LEADING-EDGEAIRINTAKES
sections presented. No explanation for this difference can
be offered, although some of the difference may result from The problem of designing satisfactory leading-edge air
the slightly smaller chord of the flap for this combination. intakes is to maintain the lift, drag, and critical-speed
The effects of using straight-sided ailerons instead of ailer- characteristics of the sections while providing low intake
ons of true airfoil contour are shown in figure 61 for two losses over a wide range of lift coefficients and intake velocity
NACA 6-series airfoils. One of the two combinations for ratios. The data of reference 65 show that desirable intake
which data are available was provided with an internal and drag characteristics can easily be maintained over a
balance whereas the other combination was without balance• rather small range of lift coefficients for NACA 6-series air-
This difference prevents any comparison between the two foils. The data of reference 65 show that the intake losses
combinations but does not affect comparison of the two increase rapidly at moderately high lift coefficients for the
contours for each case. For the NACA 66(215)-216, a=0.6 shapes tested. Unpublished data taken at the Langley
airfoil, the straight-sided aileron has more desirable charac- Laboratory indicate that shapes such as those of reference
teristics for the range of deflections for which data are avail- 65 have low maximum lift coefficients. Recent data show
50 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

8 that air-intake shapes can be provided for such airfoil sec-


..#" _. tions with desirable air-intake characteristics and without
-/6 .... _ <_-Smoofh
6 loss in maximum lift coefficient (fig. 63). Some pressure-
- --,-/2
Roughness of /eod/bg edge--" _ "-- ._ distribution data for the air intakes shown in figure 63 in-
dicate that the critical speed of the section has been lowered
4 "_
only slightly and that falling pressures in the direction of
flow were maintained for some distance from the leading
edge on both surfaces at lift coefficients near the design lift
coefficient for the section. Sufficient information is not
0 available to permit such desirable configurations to be de-

< / signed without experimental development.

INTERFERENCE

The main problem of interference at low Math numbers is


-4
/ considered to be that of avoiding boundary-layer separation
--- -- Aileron de{lection, d_g'-- 12"_ resulting from rapid flow expansions caused by the addition
of induced velocities about bodies and the boundary-layer
accumulations near intersections. No recent systmmatic
-8
investigations of interference such as the investigation of
-.0018:0016 -.0014 -.00/2:0010 =0008:0006 --.0004 --.0002 0 reference 66 have been made.
ACH_ _ rodORS Some tests have been made of airfoil sections with in-
FIGURE 62.--Variation of the hinge-moment parameter AeH6 with the equivalent change in tersecting flat plates (reference 67). These configurations
section angle of attack required to maintain a constant section lift coefficient for deflection
of the aileron on the NACA 64,2-(1.4)(13.5) airfoil section, smooth and with roughness at
may be considered to represent approximately the condition
the leading edge of the airfoil. (For description of aileron, see fig. 60.) of a wing intersection with a large flat-sided fuselage In

/'Zt-hd/_7.)

24-I'nc/_ chord
/.6 1.4

/ -'o'/ ",. ,,,• =. .


V, he 1135
h_,:o./8_.../[
/.2
J
_ S
-. = ,

:_'1> 1.0

, / k.

7. ' he =0.186

" _ [
,

, / .,i !
V,. h¢ =_186
(V'
%=4

Co_flgsur'aflbn R
-o P/o/k? o/7-fo//--- 30×10' --
f43"-- 0"-'_"_
n ZJuc/-ed mode/

00ueted
(low flow)
mode/
.2.4_ l
C
0 8 IG 24 =4 O .4 .8 1.2 /.6
Secton ong/e of offock, _, deg Secf/bn h'ft coefhc(enf, ¢_

FIGURE 63.--Lift and flow characteristics of an NACA 7-series type airfoil section with leading edge air intake.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 51

this case, the interference may be considered to result from The usual wing theory assumes that the resultant air force
the effect on the wing of the fully developed turbulent bound- and moment on any wing section are functions of only the
ary layer on the fuselage or flat plate and the accumulation of section lift coefficient (or angle of attack) and the section
boundary layer in the intersection. These tests showed shape. According to this assumption, the air forces and
little interference except in cases for which the boundary moments on any section are not affected by adjacent sections
layer on the airfoil alone was approaching conditions of or other features of the wing except as such sections or
separation such as were noted with the less conservative features affect the lift distribution and thus the local lift of
airfoils at moderately high lift coefficients. the section under consideration. These assumptions ob-
Some scattered data on the characteristics of nacelles viously are not valid near wing tips, near discontinuities in
mounted on airfoils permitting extensive laminar flow are deflected flaps or ailerons, near disturbing bodies, or for
presented in references 68 to 70. The data appear to in- wings with pronounced sweep or sudden changes in plan
dicate that the interference problems for conservative NACA form, section, or twist. Under such circumstances, cross flows
6-series sections are similar to those encountered with other result in a breakdown of the concept of two-dimensional
types of airfoil. The detail shapes for optimum interfering flow over the airfoil sections. In addition to these
bodies and fillets may, however, be different for various cross flows, induced effects exist that are equivalent to a
sections if local excessive expansions in the ftow are to be change in camber. Such effects are particularly marked
avoided. near the wing tips for wings of normal plan form and for
Some lift and drag data for an airfoil with pusher-propeller- wings of low aspect ratio or unusual plan form. Lifting-
shaft housings are presented in reference 71. These results surface theory (see, for example, reference 81) provides a
indicate that protuberances near the trailing edge of wings means for calculating wing characteristics more accurately
should be carefully designed to avoid unnecessary drag than the simple lifting-line theory.
increments. Although span load distributions calculated for wings with
Another type of interference of particular importance for discontinuities such as are found with partial-span flaps
high-speed airplanes results in the reduction of the critical (references 82 and 83) may be sufficiently accurate for
Mach number of the combination because of the addition of structural design, such distributions are not suitable for
the induced velocities associated with each body (reference predicting maximum-lift and stalling characteristics. Until
72). This effect may be kept to a minimum by the use of sufficient data are obtained to permit the prediction of the
bodies with low induced velocities, by separation of inter- maximum-lift and stalling characteristics of wings with
fering bodies to the greatest possible extent, and by such discontinuities, these characteristics may best be estimated
selection and arrangement of combinations that the points from previous results with similar wings or, in the case of
of maximum induced velocity for each body do not coincide. unusual configurations, should be obtained by test.
The characteristics of intermediate wing sections must be
APPLICATION TO WING DESIGN known/or the application of wing tileory, but da_a for such
sections are seldom available. Tests of a number of such
Detail consideration of the various factors affecting wing intermediate sections obtained by several manufacturers fol
design lies outside the scope of this report. The following wings formed by straight-line fairing have indicated that the
discussion is therefore limited to some important aerodyna- characteristics of such sections may be obtained with reason-
mic features that must be considered in the application of able accuracy by interpolation of the root and tip character-
the data presented. istics according to the thickness variation.
APPLICATION OF SECTION DATA SELECTION OF ROOT SECTION

Wing characteristics are usually predicted from airfoil- The characteristics of a wing are affected to a large extent
section data by use of methods based on simple lifting-line by the root section. In the case of tapered wings formed by
theory (references 73 to 76). Application of such methods straight-line fairing, the resulting nonlinear variation of sec-
to wings of conventional plan form without spanwise discon- tion along the span causes the shapes of the sections to be
tinuities yields results of reasonable engineering accuracy predominantly affected by the root section over a large part
(reference 77), especially with regard to such important of the wing area. The desirability of having a thick wing
characteristics as the angle of zero lift, the lift-curve slope, that provides space for housing fuel and equipment and re-
the pitching moment, and the drag. Basically similar duces structural weight or permits large spans usually leads
methods not requiring the assumption of linear section lift to the selection of the thickest root section that is aerody-
characteristics (references 78 and 79) appear capable of namically feasible. The comparatively small variation of
yielding results of greater accuracy, especially at high lift minimum drag coefficient with thickness ratio for smooth
coefficients. Further refinement may be made by consider- airfoils in the normal range of thickness ratios and the main-
ation of the chordwise distribution of lift (reference 80). tenance of high lift coefficient for thick sections with flaps
Wings with large amounts of sweep require special consider- deflected usually result in limitation of thickness ratio by
ation (reference 81). characteristics other than maximum lift and minimum drag.
52 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

The critical Mach number of the section is the most serious The selection of the optimum type of camber for the tip
limitation of thickness ratio for high-speed airplanes. It is section presents problems for which no categorical answers
desirable to select a root section with a critical Mach number can be given on the basis of existing data. The use of a type
sufficiently high to avoid serious drag increases resulting from of camber that imposes heavy loads on the ailerons compli-
compressibility effects at the highest level-flight speed of the cates the design of the lateral-control system and increases
airplane, allowance being made for the increased velocity of its weight. The use of a type of camber that carries the lift
flow over the wing resulting from interference of bodies and farther forward on the section and thus relieves the ailerons
slipstream. Available data indicate that a small margin will, however, have little effect on the maximum lift coeffi-
exists between the critical Mach number and the Mach num- cient of the section unless the maximum-camber position is
ber at which the drag increases sharply. As airplane speeds well forward, as for the NACA 230-series sections. In this
increase, it becomes increasingly difficult and finally impos- case a sudden loss of lift at the stall may be expected. The
sible to avoid the drag increases resulting from compressibil- effects on the camber of modifications to the airfoil contour

ity effects by reduction of the airfoil thickness ratio. near the trailing edge, which may be made in designing the
In tile cases of airplanes of such low speeds that compressi- ailerons, should not be overlooked in estimating the charac-
bility considerations do not limit the thickness ratio to values teristics of the wing.
less than about 0.20, tlle maximum thickness ratio is limited If the root sections are at least moderately thick, it is
by excessive drag coefficients at moderate and high lift usually desirable to select a tip section with a somewhat
coefficients with the surfaces rough. In these cases, the reduced thickness ratio. This reduction in thickness ratio,
actual surface conditions expected for the airplane should be together with the absence of induced velocities from inter-
considered in selecting the section. Consideration should fering bodies, gives a margin in critical speed that permits the
also be given to unusual conditions such as ice, mud, and camber of the tip section to be increased. This reduction in
damage caused in military combat, especially in the case of thickness ratio will probably be limited by the loss in maxi-
multiengine airplanes for which ability to fly under such mum lift coefficient resulting from too thin a section.
conditions is desired with one or more engines inoperative. A small amount of aerodynamic washout may also be
In cases for which root sections having large thickness ratios uscfnl as an aid La the avoidance of tip stalling. The per-
are under consideration to permit the use of high aspect ratios, missible amount of washout may not be limited by the in-
a realistic appraisal of the drag coefficients of such sections crease in induced drag, which is small for 1 ° or 2 ° of washout
with the expected surface comtitions at moderately high lift (reference 73). The limiting washout may be that which
coefficients will indicate an optinmm aspect ratio beyond causes the tip section to operate outside the low-drag range
which corresponding increases in aspect ratio and root thick- at the high-speed lift coefficient. This limitation may be
ness ratio will result in reduced perforinance. so severe as to require some adjustment of the camber to
Inboard sections of wings on conventional airplanes are permit Lhe use of any washout.
subject to interference effects and may be in the propeller A change in airfoil section between the root and tip may
slipstream. The wing surfaces are likely to be roughened by be desirable to obtain favorable stalling characteristics or
access doors, landing-gear retraction wells, and armament to take advantage of the greater extent of laminar flow that
installations. Attainment of extensive laminar flows is, may be possible on the outboard sections. Thus, such com-
therefore, less likely on the itlt)oard wing panels than on the binations as an NACA 230-series root section with an NACA
outboard panels. Unless such effects are minimized, little 44-series tip section or an NACA 63-series root section with
drag reduction is to be expected from the use of sections an NACA 65-series tip section may be desirable.
permitting extensive laminar flow. Under these conditions, It should be noted that the tip sections may easily be so
the use of sections such as the NACA 63-series will provide heavily loaded by the use of an unfavorable plan form as to
advantages if the sections are thick, because such sections are cause tip stalling with any reasonable choice of section and
more conservative than those permitting more extensive washout. Both high taper ratios and large amounts of
laminar flow. sweepback are unfavorable in this respect and are particu-
SELECTION OF TIP SECTION larly bad when used together, because the resulting tip stall
In order to promote desirable stalling characteristics, the promotes longitudinal instability at the stall in addition to
tip section should have a high maximum lift coefficient and the usual lateral instability.
a large range of angle of attack between zero and maxi-
mum lift as compared with the root section. It is also CONCLUSIONS
desirable that the tip section stall without a large sudden loss
in lift. The attainment of a high maximum lift coefficient is The following conclusions may be drawn from the data
often more difficult at tile tip section than at the root section presented. Most of the data, particularly for the lift, drag,
for tapered wings because of the lower Reynolds number of and pitching-moment characteristics, were obtained at
the tip section. For wings with small camber, the most Reynolds numbers from 3 to 9 X 106.
effective way of increasing tile section maximum lift coeffi- 1. Airfoil sections permitting extensive laminar flow, such
cient is to increase the camber. The amount of camber used as the NACA 6- and 7-series sections, result in substantial
will be limited in most cases by either the criticM-speed reductions in drag at high-speed and cruising lift coefficients
requirements or by the requirement that the section have as compared with other sections if, and only if, the wing
low drag at the high-speed lift coefficient. surfaces are fair and smooth.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 53

2. Experience with full-size wings has shown that extensive 9. The effect of leading-edge roughness is to decrease the
laminar flows are obtainable if the surface finish is as smooth lift-curve slope, particularly for the thicker sections having
as that provided by sanding in the chordwise direction with the position of minimum pressure far back.
No. 320 carborundum paper and if the surface is free from 10. Characteristics of airfoil sections with the expected
small scattered defects and specks. Satisfactory results surface conditions must be known or estimated to provide a
are usually obtained if the surface is sufficiently fair to permit satisfactory basis for the prediction of the characteristics of
a straightedge to be rocked smoothly in the chordwise direc- practical-construction wings and the selection of airfoils
tion without jarring or clicking. for such wings.
3. For wings of moderate thickness ratios with surface 11. The NACA 6"-series airfoils provide higher critical
conditions corresponding to those obtained with current Mach numbers for high-speed and cruising lift coefficients
construction methods, minimum drag coefficients of the than earlier types of sections and have a reasonable range
order of 0.0080 may be expected. The values of the mini- of lift coefficients within which high critical Mach numbers
mum drag coefficient for such wings depend primarily on may be obtained.
the surface condition rather than on the airfoil section. 12. The NACA 6-series sections provide lower predicted
4. Substantial reductions in drag coefficient at high critical Mach numbers at moderately high lift coefficients
Reynolds numbers may be obtained by smoothing the than the earlier types of sections. The limited data avail-
wing surfaces, even if extensive laminar flow is not obtained. able suggest, however, that the NACA 6-series sections retain
5. The maximum lift coefficients for moderately cambered satisfactory lift characteristics up to higher Mach numbers
smooth NACA 6-series airfoils with the uniform-load type than the earlier sections.
of mean line are as high as those for NACA 24- and 44-series 13. The NACA 6-series airfoils do not appear to present
airfoils. The NACA 230-series airfoils have somewhat unusual problems with regard to the application of ailerons.
higher maximum lift coefficients for thickness ratios less 14. Problems associated with the avoidance of boundal T-
than 0.20. layer separation caused by interference are expected to be
6. The maximum lift coefficients of airfoils with flaps are similar for conservative NACA 6-series sections and other
about the same for moderately thick NACA 6-series sections good airfoils. Detail shapes for optimum interfering bodies
as for the NACA 23012 section but appear to be considerably and fillets may be different for various sections if local exces-
lower for thinner NACA 6-series sections. sive expansions in the flow are to be avoided.
7. The lift-curve slopes for smooth NACA 6-series airfoils 15. Satisfactory leading-edge air intakes may be provided
are slightly higher than for NACA 24-, 44-, and 230-series for NACA 6-series sections, but insufficient information exists
airfoils and usually exceed the theoretical value for thin to allow such intakes to be designed without experimental
airfoils. development.
8. Leading-edge roughness causes large reductions in
maximum lift coefficient for both plain airfoils and airfoils
equipped with split flaps deflected 60 ° . The decrement in
maximum lift coefficient resulting from standard roughness LANGLEY I_/_EMORIAL J_kERONAUTICAL LABORATORY,
is essentially the same for the plain airfoils as for the airfoils NATIONAL .ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR .AEROI_AUTICS,
equipped with the 60 ° split flaps. LANGLEY :FIELD, VA., March 5, 1945.
APPENDIX

METHODS OF OBTAINING DATA IN THE LANGLEY TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOW-TURBULENCE TUNNELS

By MILTON M. KLEIN

DESCRIPTION OF TUNNELS C lt section lift coefficient uncorrected for tunnel-


The Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence tunnels are wall effects
closed-throat wind tunnels having rectangular test sections el i design lift coefficient
3 feet wide and 7_/ feet high and are designed to test models el T
lift coefficient measured in tunnel
completely spanning the width of the tunnel in two- Cmc/4
moment coefficient about quarter-chord
dimensional flow. The low-turbulence level of these tunnels, point corrected for tunnel-wall effects
amounting to only a few hundredths of 1 percent, is achieved Creel4 t
moment coefficient about quarter-chord
by tile large contraction ratio in tile entrance cone (approx. point measured in tunnel
20:1) and by the introduction of a number of fine- F average of velocity readings of orifices on
wire small-mesh turbulence-reducing screens in the widest floor and ceiling used to measure blocking
part of tile entrance cone. The chord of models tested in at high lifts
these tunnels is usually about 2 feet, although thecharacteris- Fo average value of F in low-lift range
tics at low lift coefficients of models having chords as large Y potential function used to obtain n-factor
as 8 feet may be determined. Iio total pressure in front of ah.foil
The Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence tunnel oper- HI total pressure in wake of airfoil
ates at atmospheric pressure and has a maximum speed of coefficient of loss of total pressure in the
approximately 155 miles per hour. The Langley two-
wake (H°_0H')
dimensional low-turbulence pressure tunnel operates at pres-
sures up to 10 atmospheres absolute and has a maximum Hcm(lx maximum value of II_
speed of approximately 300 miles per hour at atmospheric hT tunnel height
pressure. Standard airfoil tests in this tunnel arc made of K = cd'
2-foot-chord wooden models up to Reynolds numbers of Cd T

approximately 9 X 106 at a pressure of 4 atmospheres absolute. L true lift resulting from a point vortex
The lift and drag characteristics of airfoils tested in these Lt lift associated with a point vortex as
tunnels are usually measured by methods other than the use measured by integrating manometers
of balances. The lift is evaluated from measurements of the m upstream limit of integration of floor and
pressure reactions on the floor and ceiling of the tunnel. The ceiling pressures
drag is obtained fl'om measurements of static and total n downstream limit of integration of floor
pressures in the wake. Moments are usually measured by a and ceiling pressures
balance. PR resultant pressure coefficient; difference
SYMBOLS between local upper- and lower-surface
A1, A2, . . . A, coefficients of potential function for a pressure coefficients
symmetrical body Pl static pressure in the wake
a fraction of chord from leading edge over q0 free-stream dynamic pressure
which dcsign load is uniform S static-pressure coefficient (_)
B dimensionless constant determining width
of wake S, static-pressure coefficient in the wake
c chord
ca drag coefficient corrected for tunnel-wall
effects distance along airfoil surface
Cd p drag coefficient uncorrected for tunnel-wall velocity, due to row of vortices, at any
effects point along tunnel walls
drag coefficient measured in tunnel V free-stream velocity
Cd T

Ct section lift coefficient corrected for tunnel- AV increment in free-stream velocity due to
wall effects blocking
54

t
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 55

! corrected indicated tunnel velocity The factor _ was obtained as follows: The image system
V" tunnel velocity measured by static-pressm'e which gives only a tangential component of velocity along the
orifices
tunnel walls is made up of an infinite vertical row of vortices
v local velocity at any point on airfoil surface of alternating sign as shown in figure 64. If the sign of the
potential function for flow past a symmetri- vortex at the origin is assumed to be positive, the complex
cal body potential function/for this image system is
distance along chord or center line of
tunnel
iF _rz iF log sinh 7r (18)
J----2_l°g sinh 2hr 27r - \ 2hr )
Y
variable of integration (-_) where
Y distance perpendicular to stream direction
F strength of a single vortex
yt ordinate of symmetrical thickness distri-
bution z complex variable (x+iy)
Yw distance perpendicular to stream direction hr tunnel height
from position of Hc_a_
dy_
dx slope of surface of symmetrical thickness
distribution .+ 4- .+

z complex variable (x+iy)


Ol Io angle of zero lift
O_ o section angle of attack corrected for tunnel-
wall effects
m _ "-_ x"- Upper" _volL.,, n
!
OL 0 section angle of attack measured in tunnel
i7 u _Pos///on of po/mf vorfex x
F strength of a single vortex hr

ratio of measured lift to actual lift for any l


type of lift distribution Z_ o_vef" _c_//--""

V_ v-factor for additional-type loading


*/b v-factor for basic mean-line loading
W _-factor applying to a point vortex
A component of blocking factor dependent on •+ .,_,.

shape of body
quantity used for correcting effect of body
upon velocity measured by static-pressure FIGURE 64.--Image system for calculation
low-turbulence
of _-factor
tunnels.
in the Langley two-dimensional

orifices
component of blocking factor dependent on The velocity u, due to the row of vortices, at any point
size of body along the tunnel walls where
potential function hr
stream function y=-_
is then obtained as
MEASUREMENT OF LIFT
1_ 7rX

The lift carried by tile airfoil induces an equal and opposite u=2_ r sech hr (19)
reaction upon the floor and ceiling of the tunnel. The lift
may therefore be obtained by integrating the pressure dis- where x is the horizontal distance from the point on the wall
to the origin. The resultant pressure coefficient PR is then
tribution along the floor and ceiling of the tunnel, the inte-
given by
gration being accomplished with an integrating manometer.
Because the pressure field theoretically extends to infinity in
both the upstream and the downstream directions, not all the PR=_
lift is included in the length over which tile integration is 2r _x
performed. It is therefore necessary to apply a correction =h_ sech hr (20)
factor _ that gives the ratio of the measured lift to the actual
lift for any lift distribution. The calculation was performed where V is the free-stream velocity.
by first finding the correction factor _ applying to a point The lift manometers integrate the pressure distribution
vortex and then determining the weighted average of this along the floor and ceiling from the downstream position n
factor over the chord of the model. to the upstream position m (fig. 64). For a point vortex
56 REPORT :NO. 824--:NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO=NAUTICS

located a distance x from the origin along the center line of The values of _b and _a for the Langley two-dimensional
the tunnel, the limits of integration become n--x and m--x. low-turbulence pressure tunnel are given in the following
The lift L' associated with a point vortex, as measured by table for a model having a chord length of 2 feet, where _b is
the integrating manometers, is given by the _-factor corresponding to the basic mean-line loading
(indicated by the value of a) and va is the _-factor for the
additional type of loading as given by thin-airfoil theory:
L' = qoPR dx (21)
l--X.

a yb

where q0 is the free-stream dynamic pressure.


1.0 0.9347
The true lift L resulting from the point vortex is given by .8 .9342
.6 .9336
.4 .9330
.2 .9325
L 2q0r 0 .9322

=V
_o=0.9296

The correction factor yz is then In order to check the variation of _ with variations in the
additional type of lift distribution, the value of _ was re-
calculated for the class C additional lift distribution given in
figure 6 of reference 74. The value of _, for this case was
0.9304, as compared with 0.9296 for a thin airfoil. Because
1 _ n-z _X
of the small variation of _ with the type of additional lift,
=_-I-zarJ,_ sech hr dx
the value for thin-airfoil additional lift was used for all cal-
culations. The lift coefficient of the model in the tunnel
which yields uncorrected for blocking c{ is given in terms of the lift co-
efficien_ measured in the tunnel Czr and the design lift coeffi-
2 Fe-'_/h_(e_'/hT--e'm/hr)7 (22) cient of the airfoil c_, by the following expression:
_=_ tan-I L 1_ e-_/hre_(m+'__)/h_ -J

In the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence tunne!s, c,__CZT__I/___I) (24)


Z _ "qa _V]a Cl_
the orifices in the floor and ceiling of the tunnel used to
measure the lift extend over a length of approximately 13 Because _ does not differ much from n_, it is not necessary
feet. A plot of _ against x for the Langley two-dimensional that the basic loading or the design lift coefficient be known
low-turbulence pressure tunnel is shown in figure 65. The with great accuracy.
_-factor for a given lift distribution is obtained from the Because of tunnel-wall and other effects, the lift distribu-
expression tion over the airfoil in the tunnel does not agree exactly with
the assumed lift distribution. Because of the small varia-
tions of n with lift distribution, errors caused by this effect are
considered negligible. It can also be shown that errors caused
by neglecting the effect of airfoil thickness on the distri-
bution of the lift reaction along the tunnel walls are small.


MEASUREMENT OF DRAG

The drag of an airfoil may be obtained from observations


.8
of the pressures in the wake (reference 84). An approxi-
mation to the drag is given by the loss in total pressure of the
.6 air in the wake of the airfoil. The loss of total pressure is
measured by a rake of total-pressure tubes in the wake.
.4
When the total pressures in front of the airfoil and in the
wake are represented by H0 and //1, respectively, the drag
coefficient obtained from loss of total pressure cd r is
.2

Ca7,--"f,_w_k_HJyw (25)
-2 -/ 0 I 2 3 4t 5 6
where
D/sfonce downs/reom from reference po/nf /r_ funn_,/_ x_ ff

FIGURE 65.--Lift efficiency factor v# for a point vortex situated at various positions along the H_ coefficient of loss of total pressure in the wake (Ho--HI"_
center line of the tunnel. \ qo /
SU_IMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 57
y_ distance perpendicular to stream direction from position
x,
of H_ma _ /./

If the static pressure in the wake is represented by Pl,


the true drag coefficient uncorrected for blocking ca' may be
shown to be (reference 84)
.8 _
' --_:_.. _..

fwo ' dY c (26)


.6 --- cjKc_,7 _

where $1 is the static-pressure coefficient in the wake Ho--p_ --H, = 14/QA'e dP,p/h
q0 I qol I
_ ,_fO//c pressuro
The assumption is made that the variation of total pressure
across the wake can be represented by a normal probability .,4
curve. The drag coefficient Cd' is then easily obtainable from
measurements of CaT by means of a factor K, the ratio of cd'
30 .I .8 .3 .4 .5 .C .7 .8 .9 1.0
to c_r, which depends only on S_ and the maximum value of
He. If the maximum value of Hc is represented by H_ax,
FIGURE 66.--Plot of Kas a function of He °. with S_ as a parameter.
the equation of the normal probability curve is

The potential function w for a symmetrical body is


_(Bvoy given by
A_
w=Vz+_+¢+ ... +_ (28)
where B is a dimensionless constant that determines the
width of the wake. If a convenient variable of integration
where V is the free-stream velocity and the coefficients A_,
y_=By_ is used, the ratio K is A_, . . . are complex. If the tunnel height is large com-
c
pared to the size of the body, powers of 1/z greater than 1
C t may be neglected and
K_ t'a

Cd T
w---- Vz-4-_ (29)

2 1_ _'_ _/_HH_ (1--_/1----_) dY (27) This operation is equivalent to replacing the body by a circle
--._Hcmax,)-_,
of which the doublet strength is 2rA1; the term A_/z repre-
sents the disturbance to the free-stream flow. The total
and is independent of the width of the wake. The quantity
induced velocity at the center of the body due to all the
K has been evaluated for various values of H¢_,x and S_ by images is expressed in reference 86 as
assuming S_ to be constant across the wake. The drag
coefficient Cd' may thus be obtained from tunnel measure- AV-- A1 _2
ments of QT, H¢_, and S_. A plot of K as a function of H_,_ --_rr2 _ (30)

with $1 as parameter is given in figure 66. A parallel treat- 1


ment of this problem is given in reference 85. where the term A, is the same as the term_ kt2V of
reference 86.
TUNNEL-WALL CORRECTIONS For convenience in tunnel calculations, the expression of
AV may be written
In two-dimensional flow, the tunnel walls may be conven- AV
iently considered as having two distinct effects upon the flow V =Aa (31)
over a model in a tunnel: (1) an increase in the free-stream where
velocity in the neighborhood of the model because of a 71"
2 // C "_2

constriction of the flow and (2) a distortion of the lift (32)


distribution from the induced curvature of the flow.
A 16A1
The increase in free-stream velocity caused by the tunnel : c-_-V (33)
walls (blocking effect) is obtained from consideration of an
infinite vertical row of images of a symmetrical body as The factor a depends only on the size of the body and is
given in reference 86; the images represent the effect of the easily calculated. The factor A depends on the shape of the
tunnel walls.
body and is more difficult to calculate. For bodies such as
REPORT NO. 8 2 4--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
58

Rankine ovals and ellipses, simple formulas may be obtained spending points of the upper and lower surfaces, and
for calculating A. In the general case, the value of A may
fcy dep may be replaced by an integration over the upper
be obtained from the velocity distribution over the body by
surface; therefore,
the expression

(34) z _ dz----2i f y d4_ (counterclockwise direction)

or
where v is the velocity at any point on the airfoil surface and
dyt/dx is the
the ordinate
slope of the
is yr.
airfoil surface at any point of which
A,=--_ ,f y de

Reversing the path of integration, replacing d_b by v ds, replac-

ing ds by "-t-d-Y}
dx dx, and solving for A= c_V-
V gives

I, ds . . .... t_J/h of lnlegr'ohor7


,_,orly ,,/,
_.j0 cV Kx)
where the integration is taken from the leading edge to the
trailing edge over the upper surface.
In addition to the error caused by blocking, an error exists
in the measured tunnel velocity because of the interference
effects of the model upon the velocity indicated by the static-
pressure orifices located a few feet upstream of the model
FIGURE 67.--Sketch for derivation of A-factor.
and halfway between floor and ceiling. In order to correct
for this error, an analysis was made of the velocity distribu-
In order to obtain this expression, consider the flow past a tion along the streamline halfway between the upper and the
symmetrical body asshown in figure 67. The potential lower tunnel walls for Rankine ovals of various sizes and thick-
function for this flow is given by equation (28). Differen- ness ratios. The analysis showed that the correction could
tiating and multiplying equation (28) by z gives be expressed, within the range of conventional-airfoil
thickness ratios, as a product of a thickness factor given
dw A 2A2 nA,
Z _z= VZ-z' "'" by the blocking factor h and a factor ( which depended upon
Z2 Zn
the size of the model and the distance from the static-pressure
orifices to the midchord point of the model. The corrected
The line integral about a dosed curve fc z_ ewdz will indicated tunnel velocity V' could then be written
depend only on the term --A,/z and, from the theory of
residues, is given by V'= V"(1 ÷A}) (36)

where V" is the velocity measured by the static-pressure


fc Z d_w
dz dz---- --27riA,
orifices. In the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence
but tunnels, the distance from the static-pressure orifices to the
d_o
midchord point of the model is approximately 5.5 feet; the
z -_ dz = z dw
corresponding value of _ for a 2-foot-chord model is approxi-
= (x÷ iy) (d_ + i de) mately 0.002.
In order to calculate the effect of the tunnel walls upon the
where _ is the potential function and ¢ is the stream func-
lift distril)ution, a comparison is made of the lift distribution
tion. On the surface of the body de-=0, so that of a given airfoil in a tunnel and in free air on the basis of
thin-airfoil theory. It is assumed that the flow conditions
.!; z -_dw dz=fc x d++i fc y d, (35) in the tunnel correspond most closely to those in free air when
the additional lift in the tunnel and in free air are the same
Since the body is symmetrical, the term x de will have (reference 87). On this basis the following corrections are
equal numerical values but opposite signs at corresponding derived (reference 87), in which the primed quantities refer
to the coefficients measured in the tunnel:
points of the upper and lower surfaces, and I;x dq_ will

vanish. The term y dq_ will have equal values at corre- c_= [1-- 2A(a÷ _) -- a]c_' (37)
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 59

4 ffCme 14t t from unity in the high-lift range for any aix foil tested in the
_0----(l+¢)a0'-_ dc_'/dao' ¢aZo (38) tunnel; this variation indicates a change in blocking at high
!
lifts. A plot of FIFo against angle of attack s0' for a 2-foot-
c_c/_= [1-- 2A(¢+ _)]c_¢/4'-_ a_ (39) chord model of the NACA 643-418 airfoil is given in figure 68.
The quantity FIFo is nearly constant for values of a0' up to
12°; but for values of a0' greater than 12 °, FIFo increases and
4(7Cmc/4 t

In the foregoing equations, the terms dc//dao ), aaZo, and acz'/4 the increase is particularly noticeable at and over the stall.

are usually negligible for 2-foot-chord models in the Langley


two-dimensional low-turbulence tunnels.
/.20_
When the effect of the tunnel walls on the pressure distri-
bution over the model is small, the wall effect on the drag is
/'/_
merely that corresponding to an increase in the tunnel speed.
The correction to the drag coefficient is therefore given by the
following relation:

cd= [1 --2A (_-_ _)] c_' (40)

Similar considerations have been applied to the development -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 /2 /8 28 Z4


of corrections for the pressure distribution in reference 87. Geornefr-/c ongTIc of c_ttoo/_, _, _/_9

Equation (40) neglects the blocking due to the wake, such FmURE 88.--Additional blocking factor at the tunnel walls plotted against angle of attack

blocking being small at low to moderate drags. The effect for the NAC._ 6,t3-418 airfoil.

of a pressure gradient in the tunnel upon loss of total pressure


A theoretical comparison was made of the blocking factor
in the wake is not easily analyzed but is estimated to be small.
Aa and the velocity measured by the floor and ceiling orifices
The effect of the pressure gradient upon the drag has there-
for a series of Rankine ovals of various sizes and thickness
fore been disregarded. When the drag is measured by a
ratios. The quarter-chord point of each oval was located at
balance, the effect of the pressure gradient upon the drag is
the pivot point, the usual position of an airfoil in the tunnel.
directly additive and a correction should be applied. For
The analysis showed the relation between the blocking factor
large models, especially at high lift coefficients, the effect of
Aa and the change in F to be unique for chord lengths up
the tunnel walls is to distort the pressure distribution appre-
to 50 inches in that different bodies having the same blocking
ciably. Such distortions of the pressure distribution may
factor Aa gave approximately the same value of F. For
cause large changes in the boundary flow and no adequate
chords up to 50 inches, the relationship is
corrections to any of the coefficients, particularly the drag,
can be found. AV

CORRECTION FOR BLOCKING AT HIGH LIFTS

So long as the flow follows the airfoil surface, the foregoing where AV/V is the true increment in tunnel velocity due to
relations account for the effects of the tunnel walls with suffi- blocking. The foregoing relation was adopted to obtain the
cient accuracy. When the flow leaves the surface, the block- F
correction to the blocking in the range of lifts where F0 ) 1.
ing increases because of the predominant effect of the v_ake
upon the free-stream velocity. Since the wake effect shows Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the correct
up primarily in the drag, the increase in blocking would numerical value of the coefficient occurring in equation (41).
logically be expressed in terms of the drag. The accurate If a row of sources, rather than the Rankine ovals used in
measurement of drag under these conditions by means of a the present analysis, is considered to represent the effect of
rake is impractical because of spanwise movements of low- the wake, the value of the coefficient in equation (41) would
energy air. A method of correcting for increased blocking be approximately twice the value used. Fortunately, the
at high angles of attack without drag measurements has correction amounts to only about 2 percent at maximum lift
for an extreme condition with a 2-foot-chord model. Further
therefore been devised for use in the Langley two-dimensional
low-turbulence tunnels. refinement of this correction has therefore not been attempted.
Readings of the floor and ceiling velocities are taken a few COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENT
inches ahead of the quarter-chord point and averaged to
remove the effect of lift. This average F, which is a measure A check of the validity of the tunnel-wall corrections has
of the effective tunnel velocity, is essentially constant in the been made in reference 87, which gives lift and moment
low-lift range. The quantity FIFo, where Fo is the average curves for models having various ratios of chord to tunnel
value of F in the low-lift range, however, shows a variation height, uncorrected and corrected for tunnel-wall effects.
6O REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

!
/.2

/
/
q.8

_.4

.v.
/
.0

-.4
/ J
/
/Io Airfoil A Pressure d/str/butiom, /o AL"fo/I B Pressure distribuhbn,

-.8 I-Airfoil A Imleqrahh_


TDT test momorne, ter, z A/rfoll B ImlegrohDq
640 TDT test monometer_
6_55 I
c_ J

_24 -15 -8 0 8 /6 24 32 -Z4 -15" -8 0 8 IO Z4 3,2


Sechbn onqle of ottock, a'o,deg

(a) Comparison for airfoil A. (b) Comparison for airfoil B.

FIGURE 69.--Comparison between lifts obtained from pressure-distribution measurements and lifts obtained from reactions on the floor and ceiling of the tunnel.

o gO uncorrected for" block/rag


/.6 o 45 I I I I I
z_ 90' correcled for- blocA'img
o 45
I
/.2

.8 / ,,-" \

/ ",I

,% \
\

/
0

%
"I

o Bolonce
t_..4 N InfegrOfln _ monometer_

-.8

-Z 4 -/6 -8 0 8 /6 24
__ech'on ongle of o/to,-h, oto, dec]
0 .I .2 3 4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
FIGURE 70.--Comparisou between lifts obtahmd from balance measurements and from
x/c
reactions on the floor and ceiling of the tunnel.
FIGURE 71.--Comparisonbetween correctedand uncorrectedpressuredistributions
fortwo
chord sizesof a symmetrical NACA 6*series
airfoil
of 15-percent
thickness,a0=0°.

L,
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 61

The general agreement of the corrected curves shows that 12. Von Doenhoff, Albert E., and Stivers, Louis S., Jr.: Aerodynamic
Characteristics of the NACA 747A315 and 747A415 Airfoils
the method of correcting the lifts and moments is valid.
from Tests in the NACA Two-Dimensional Low-Turbulence
A comparison is made in reference 87 between the theoreti-
Pressure Tunnel. NACA CB No. L4125, 1944.
cal correction factor (equation (40)) and the experimentally 13. Naiman, Irven: Numerical Evaluation by Harmonic Analysis
derived corrections of reference 88. The theoretical cor- of the e-Function of the Theodorsen Arbitrary-Airfoil Potential
rection factors were found to be in good agreement with those Theory. NACA ARR No. L5H18, 1945.
obtained experimentally. 14. Theodorsen, Theodore: Airfoil-Contour Modification Based on
e-Curve Method of Calculating Pressure Distribution. NACA
In order to check the validity of the n-factor, a comparison
ARR No. L4G05, 1944.
has been made of lift values obtained from pressure dis- 15. Allen, H. Julian: A Simplified Method for the Calculation of
tributions with those obtained from the integration of the Airfoil Pressure Distribution. NACA TN No. 708, 1939.
floor and ceiling pressures in the tunnel A comparison for 16. Munk, Max M.: Elements of the Wing Section Theory and of
two airfoils given in figure 69 shows that the two methods of the Wing Theory. NACA Rep. No. 191, 1924.
17. Glauert, H.: The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory.
measuring lift give results that are in good agreement. The
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1926, pp. 87-93.
n-factor has also been checked by comparison of the lift 18. Theodorsen, Theodore: On the Theory of Wing Sections with
obtained from balance measurements with the integrating- Particular Reference to the Lift Distribution. NACA Rep.
manometer values in figure 70. No. 383, 1931.

Finally, a check has been made of the method of correcting 19. Von K_rm_n, Th.: Compressibility Effects in Aerodynamics.
Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 8, no. 9, July 1941, pp. 337-356.
pressure distributions (reference 87) for NACA 6-series air-
20. Von Doenhoff, Albert E.: A Method of Rapidly Estimating the
foils of two chord lengths at zero angle of attack in figure 71, Position of the Laminar Separation Point. NACA TN No.
in which the pressure coefficients are plotted against chord- 671, 1938.
wise position x/c. The agreement between the corrected 21. Jacobs, E. N., and Von Doenhoff, A. E.: Formulas for Use in
pressure distributions for both models verifies the method of Boundary-Layer Calculations on Low-Drag Wings. NACA
ACR, Aug. 1941.
making the tunnel-wall corrections.
22. Von Doenhoff, Albert E., and Tetervin, Neah Determination of
General Relations for the Behavior of Turbulent Boundary
Layers. NACA Rep. No. 772, 1943.
REFERENCES
23. Squire, H. B., and Young, A. D.: The Calculation of the Profile
I. Jacobs, Eastman N., Ward, Kenneth E., and Pinkerton, Robert Drag of Aerofoils. R. & M. No. 1838, British A. R. C., 1938.
M.: The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil Sections from 24. Tetervin, Neal: A Method for the Rapid Estimation of Turbulent
Tests in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. NACA Rep. Boundary-Layer Thicknesses for Calculating Profile Drag.
No. 460, 1933. NACA ACR No. L4G14, 1944.
25. Quinn, John H., Jr., and Tucker, Warren A. : Scale and Turbulence
2. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests in the
Variable-Density Wind Tunnel of Related Airfoils Having the Effects on the Lift and Drag Characteristics of the
Maximum Camber Unusually Far Forward. NACA Rep. NACA 653-418, a= 1.0 Airfoil Section. NACA ACR No. L4Hll,
1944.
No. 537, 1935.
26. Tucker, Warren A., and Wallace, Arthur R.: Scale-Effect Tests
3. Jacobs, Eastman N., Pinkerton, Robert M., and Greenberg,
in a Turbulent Tunnel of the NACA 653-418, a-----1.0 Airfoil
Harry: Tests of Related Forward-Camber Airfoils in the
Section with 0.20-Airfoil-Chord Split Flap. NACA ACR No.
Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. NACA Rep. No. 610, 1937.
L4122, 1944.
4. Stack, John, and Von Doenhoff, Albert E.: Tests of 16 Related 27. Davidson, Milton, and Turner, Harold R., Jr.: Effects of Mean-
Airfoils at High Speeds. NACA Rep. No. 492, 1934. Line Loading on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Some Low-
5. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Sherman, Albert: Airfoil Section Drag Airfoils. NACA ACR No. 3127, 1943.
Characteristics as Affected by Variations of the Reynolds 28. Von Doenhoff, Albert E., and Tetervin, Neal: Investigation of
Number. NACA Rep. No. 586, 1937. the Variation of Lift Coefficient with Reynolds Number at a
6. Pinkerton, Robert M., and Greenberg, Harry: Aerodynamic Moderate Angle of Attack on a Low-Drag Airfoil. NACA
Characteristics of a Large Number of Airfoils Tested in the CB, Nov. 1942.
Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. NACA Rep. No. 628, 1938. 29. Oswald, W. Bailey: General Formulas and Charts for the Calcula-
tion of Airplane Performance. NACA Rep. No. 408, 1932.
7. Jones, B. Melvill: Flight Experiments on the Boundary Layer.
Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 5, no. 3, Jan. 1938, pp. 81-94. 30. Millikan, Clark B.: Aerodynamics of the Airplane. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1941, pp. 108-109.
8. Jaeobs, Eastman N., and Abbott, Ira H.: Airfoil Section Data
31. Hood, Manley J.: The Effects of Some Common Surface
Obtained in the N.A.C.A. Variable-Density Tunnel as Affected
Irregularities on Wing Drag. NACA TN No. 695, 1939.
by Support Interference and Other Corrections. NACA Rep.
32. Loftin, Laurence K., Jr.: Effects of Specific Types of Surface
No. 669, 1939.
Roughness on Boundary-Layer Transition. NACA ACR No.
9. Theodorsen, Theodore: Theory of Wing Sections of Arbitrary L5J29a, 1946.
Shape. NACA Rep. No. 411, 1931.
33. Charters, Alex C., Jr. : Transition between Laminar and Turbulent
10. Stack, John: Tests of Airfoils Designed to Delay the Compress- Flow by Transverse Contamination. NACA TN No. 891, 1943.
ibility Burble. NACA Rep. No. 763, 1943. 34. Braslow, Albert L.: Investigation of Effects of Various Camouflage
11. Jacobs, Eastman N.: Preliminary Report on Laminar-Flow Airfoils Paints and Painting Procedures on the Drag Characteristics of
and New Methods Adopted for Airfoil and Boundary-Layer an NACA 65(_21)-420, a-----1.0 Airfoil Section. NACA CB No.
Investigations. NACA ACR, June 1939. L4G17, 1944.

918392--51--5
62 REPORT NO. 824--:N'ATIO/_AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

35. Jones, Robert T., and Cohen, Doris: A Graphical Method of 55. Jones, Robert T., and Ames, Milton B., Jr.: Wind-Tunnel Inves-
Determining Pressure Distribution in Two-Dimensional Flow. tigation of Control-Surface Churacteristics. V--The Use of a
NACA Rep. No. 722, 1941. :Beveled Trailing Edge to Reduce the Hinge Moment of a
36. Abbott, Frank T., Jr., and Turner, Harold R., Jr.: The Effects Control Surface. NACA ARR, March 1942.
of Roughness at High Reynolds Numbers on the Lift and Drag 56. Sears, Richard I., and Liddell, Robert B.: Wind-Tunnel Investiga-
Characteristics of Three Thick Airfoils. NACA ACR No. tion of Control-Surface Characteristics. VI--A 30-Percent-
L4H21, 1944. Chord Plain Flap on the NACA 0015 Airfoil. NACA ARR,
37. Jacobs, Eastman N., Abbott, Ira H., and Davidson, Milton: June 1942.
Investigation of Extreme Leading-Edge Roughness on Thick 57. Wcnzinger, Carl J., and Delano, James B.: Pressure Distribution
Low-Drag Airfoils to Indicate Those Critical to Separation. over an N. A. C. A. 23012 Airfoil with a Slotted and a Plain Flap.
NACA CB, June 1942. NACA Rep. No. 633, 1938.
38. Zalovcik, John A.: Profile-Drag Coefficients of Conventional 58. Gillis, Clarence L., and Lockwood, Vernard E.: Wind-Tunnel
and Low-Drag Airfoils as Obtained in Flight. NACA ACR Investigation of Control-Surface Characteristics. XIII--Various
No. L4E31, 1944. Flap Overhangs U'sed with a 30-Percent-Chord Flap on an
39. Zaloveik, John A., and Wood, Clotaire: A Flight Investigation of NACA 66-009 Airfoil. NACA ACR No. 3G20, 1943.
the Effect of Surface Roughness on Wing Profile Drag with 59. Rogallo, F. M.: Collection of Balanced-Aileron Test Data. NACA
Transition Fixed. NACA ARR No. L4125, 1944. ACR No. 4All, 1944.
40. Hood, Manley J., and Gaydos, M. Edward: Effects of Propellers 60. Dcnaci, H. G., and Bird, J. D.: Wind-Tunnel Tests of Ailerons at
and of Vibration on the Extent of Laminar Flow on the Various Speeds. ]I--Ailerons of 0.20 Airfoil Chord and True
N. A. C. A. 27-212 Airfoil. NACA ACR, Oct. 1939. Contour with 0.60 Aileron-Chord Sealed Internal Balance on the
41. Silverstcin, Abe, Katzoff, S., and Hoot.man, James A.: Com- NACA 66,2-216 Airfoil. NACA ACR No. 3F18, 1943.
parative Flight and Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel Measurements of 61. Purser, Paul E., and Riebe, John M.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation
the Maximum Lift of an Airplane. NACA Rep. No. 618, 1938. of Control-Surface Characteristics. XV--Various Contour
42. Sweberg, Harold H., and Dingeldein, ]_ichard C.: Summary of Modifications of a 0.30-Airfoil-Chord Plain Flap on an
Measurements in Langley Full-Scale Tunnel of Maximum NACA 66(215)-014 Airfoil. NACA ACR No. 3L20, 1943.
Lift Coefficients and Stalling Characteristics of Airplanes. 62. Braslow, Albert L.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Aileron Effec-
NACA Rep. No. 829, 1945. tiveness of 0.20-Airfoil-Chord Plain Ailerons of True Airfoil
43. Purser, Paul E., and Johnson, Itarold S.: Effects of Trailing- Contour on NACA 652-415, 653-418, and 654-421 Airfoil Sections.
Edge Modifications on Pitching-Moment Characteristics of NACA CB No. L4H12, 1944.
Airfoils. NACA CB No. L4130, 1944. 63. Sears, Richard I., and Purser, Paul E.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation
44. Fulhner, Felicien F., Jr.: Wind-Tulmel Investigation of NACA of Control-Surface Characteristics. XIV--NACA 0009 Airfoil
66(215)-216, 66,1-212, and 65,-212 Airfoils with 0.20-Airfl)il- with a 20-Percent-Chord Double Plain Flap. NACA ARR
Chord Split Flaps. NACA CB No. 1,4G10, 1944. No. 3F29, 1943.
45. Abbott, Ira H., and Greenberg, IIarry: Tests in tim Variable- 64. Crane, Robert M., and Holtzclaw, Ralph W.: Wind-Tunnel Inves-
Density Wind Tunnel of the N. A. C. A. 23012 Airfoil with tigation of the Effects of Profile Modifications and Tabs on the
Plain and Si)lit Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 661, 1939. Characteristics of Ailerons on a Low Drag Airfoil. NACA Rep.
46. Wenzinger, Carl J., and Harris, Thomas A.: Wind-Tunnel Investi- No. 803, 1944.
gation of N. A. C. A. 23012, 23021, and 23030 Airfoils with 65. Von Doenhoff, Albert E., and Horton, Elmer A.: Preliminary
Various Sizes of Split Flap. NACA Rep. No. 668, 1939. Invcstigation in the NACA Low-Turbulence Tunnel of Low-
47. Bogdonoff, Seylnour M.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Low- Drag-Airfoil Sections Suitable for Admitting Air at the Leading
Drag Airfoil Section with a Double Slotted Flap. NACA ACR Edge. NACA ACR, July 1942
No. 3120, 1943. 66. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Ward, Kenneth E.: Interference of Wing
48. Wenzinger, Carl J., and Harris, Thomas A.: Wind-Tunnel Investi- and Fuselage from Tests of 209 Combinations in the N. A. C. A.
gation of an N. A. C. A. 23012 Airfoil with Various Arrangemez_ts Variable-Density Tunnel. NACA Rep. No. 540, 1935.
of Slotted Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 664, 1939. 67. Abbott, Ira H.: Interference Effects of Longitudinal Flat Plates on
49. Wenzinger, Carl J., and Harris, Thomas A.: Wind-Tunnel Investi- Low-Drag Airfoils. NACA CB, Nov. 1942.
gation of an N. A. C. A. 23021 Airfoil with Various Arrangements 68. Ellis, Macon C., Jr.: Some Lift and Drag Measurements of a
of Slotted Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 677, 1939. Representative Bomber Nacelle on a Low-Drag Wing--II.
50. Swanson, Rol)ert S., and Crandall, Stewart M.: Analysis of Avail- NACA CB, Sept. 1942.
able Data on the Effectiveness of Ailerons wit, hour Exposed 69. Ellis, Macon C., Jr.: Effects of a Typical Nacelle on the Charac-

Overhang Balance. NACA ACR No. L4E01, 1944. teristics of a Thick Low-Drag Airfoil Critically Affected by
Leading-Edge Roughness. NACA CB No. 3D27, 1943.
51. Street, William G., and Ames, Mil(;on B., Jr.: Pressure-Distribu-
70. Allen, tI. Julian, and Frick, Charles W., Jr.: Experimental Investi-
tion Investigation of an N. A. C. A. 0009 Airfoil with a 50-
gation of a New Type of Low-Drag Wing-Nacelle Combination.
Percent>Chord Plain Flap and Three Tabs. NACA TN No.
NACA ACR, July 1942.
734, 1939.
71. AI)bott, Frank T., Jr.: Lift and Drag Data for 30 Pusher-Propeller
52. Ames, Milton B., Jr., and Sears, Richard I.: Pressure-Distribution
Shaft Housings on an NACA 65,3-018 Airfoil Section. NACA
Investigation of an N. A. C. A. 0009 Airfoil with an 80-Percent-
ACR No. 3K13, 1943.
Chord Plain Flap and Three Tabs. NACA TN No. 761, 1940.
72. Robinson, Russell G., and Wright, Ray H.: Estimation of Critical
53. Ames, Milton B., Jr., and Sears, Richard I.: Pressure-Dislribution Speeds of Airfoils and Streamline Bodies. NACA ACR, March
Investigation of an N. A. C. A. 0009 Airfoil with a 30-Perc(,nt- 1940.
Chord Plain Flap and Three Tails. NACA TN No. 759, 1940. 73. Anderson, Raymond F.: Determination of the Characteristics of
54. Sears, lliehard I.: Wind-Tunnel lnvestigalion of Control-Surface Tapered Wings. NACA Rcp. No. 572, 1936.
Characteristics. I--Effect of Gap on lhe Aerodynamic Charac- 74. Jacol)s, Eastman N., and Rhode, R. V.: Airfoil Section Charac-
teristics of an NACA 0009 Airfoil with a 30-Percent-Chord teristics as Applied to the Prediction of Air Forces and Their
Plain Flal). NACA ARR, June 1941. Distribution on Wings. NACA Rep. No. 631, 1938.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 63

75. Soul_, H. A., and Anderson, R. F.: Design Charts Relating to the 83. Pearson, Henry A., and Anderson, Raymond F.: Calculation of
Stalling of Tapered Wings. NACA Rep. No. 703, 1940. the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Tapered Wings with Partial-
76. Harmon, Sidney M.: Additional Design Charts Relating to the Span Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 665, 1939.
Stalling of Tapered Wings. NACA ARR, Jan. 1943. 84. The Cambridge University Aeronautics Laboratory: The Measure-
77. Anderson, Raymond F.: The Experimental and Calculated Char- ment of Profile Drag by the Pitot-Traverse Method. R. & M.
acteristics of 22 Tapered Wings. NACA Rep. No. 627, 1938. No. 1688, British A. R. C., 1936.
78. Tani, Itiro: A Simple Method of Calculating the Induced Velocity 85. Silverstein, A., and Katzoff, S.: A Simplified Method for Determin-
of a Monoplane Wing. Rep. No. 111 (Vol. IX, 3), Aero. Res. ing Wing Profile Drag in Flight. Jour. Aero. Sci., vol. 7, no. 7,
Inst., Tokyo Imperial Univ., Aug. 1934. May 1940, pp. 295-301.
79. Sherman, Albert: A Simple Method of Obtaining Span Load 86. Glauert, H.: Wind Tunnel Interference on Wings, Bodies and
Distributions. NACA TN No. 732, 1939. Air, crews. R. & M. No. 1566, British A. R. C., 1933.
80. Jones, Robert T.: Correction of the Lifting-Line Theory for the 87. Allen, H. Julian, and Vincenti, Walter G.: Interference in a Two-
Effect of the Chord. NACA TN No. 817, 1941. Dimensional-Flow Wind Tunnel with the Consideration of the
81. Cohen, Doris: Theoretical Distribution of Load over a Swept- Effect of Compressibility. NACA Rep. No. 782, 1944.
Back Wing. NACA ARR, Oct. 1942. 88. Fage, A. : On the Two-Dimensional Flow past a Body of Symmetrical
82. Pearson, H. A.: Span Load Distribution for Tapered Wings with Cross-Section Mounted in a Channel of Finite Breadth.
Partial-Span Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 585, 1937. R. & M. No. 1223, British A. R. C., 1929.
_4 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
SUMMARY
OFAIRFOIL
DATA 65

_6

_o
>,
o o

_o

_t,..
_ e4

× × × x × x ×
_e4 ¢4 ¢4 =4

ca
O----> 05----> o
Z z Z

._=
______> =_-_ ===
z@ z_

=. - %

Z .e, N
• Z _ -<
r.) _
z_ ..z:
_ZZ_V
ooli ;411 ,,_o
.-_e_ :_o.-II II

- -iI
REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTE_ FOR AERONAUTICS
66

_J

.-g
O

2:

x x x x
x
_D

©
_--->
0

_-->
o_..,

c.)

2:

v ..

E_

E_ z _ ° I
._
© _--_
N

©
_6
(.)

r_ _.._
N
N

c..) ._o ._ •._ o

_ .._. _
N _u _._ _11 "'11 oo _.
o •_ o.. II il
_ _ '_ _ I

r_
2:

.i

rJ_

2:
.<

N
N
<
N
I.

.<
SUM1VIARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 67

o
o

_olol ...... _

X X X X X X

O=o
-, o_
Z Z
o_
Z

oO _0 z
o o
o
Z

_ 0
oo7_ _.._

g_ 2
r..)< N- o _ [_
-_ 9 ._ .<D .o ,.,
< ---"o
<_ ._ _,_. _< "."o .¢ o .o
-" -Z .o_o
=_;, .. , _._ _ _.._ oo II "" II oo
oo , e_.. ooo oo¢_ o¢--
• - o.. II II v ¢_ •- o ,. II II o o_ • '_ o _._ _ It II _
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 69

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

I--BASIC THICKNESS FORMS

Page Page
NACA 0006 ........................................... 70 NACA 641-012 .......................................... 79
NACA 0008 ....................................... 70 NACA 642-015 ........................................ 79
NACA 0009 ...................................... 70 NACA 643-018 ....................................... 80
NACA 0010 .......................................... 71 NACA 644-021 .......................................... 80
NACA 0012 ....................................... 71 NACA 65,2-016 ....................................... 80
NACA 0015 .................................... 71 NACA 65,2-023 ......................................... 81
NACA 0018 ......................................... 72 NACA 65,3-018 ......................................... 81
NACA 0021 ...................................... 72 NACA 65-006 ........................................... 81
NACA 0024 ........................................... 72 NACA 65-008 ........................................... 82
NACA 16-006 ...................................... 73 NACA 65-009 ........................................ 82
NACA 16-009 ....................................... 73 NACA 65-010 .......................................... 82
NACA 16-012 ........................................ 73 NACA 65r012 .......................................... 83
NACA 16-015 .......................................... 74 NACA 652-015 .......................................... 83
NACA 16-018 .......................................... 74 NACA 653-018 .......................................... 83
NACA 16-021 ........................................ 74 NACA 65,-021 ......................................... 84
NACA 63,4-020 .......................................... 75 NACA 66,1-012 .......................................... 84
NACA 63-006 ........................................... 75 NACA 66,2-015 .......................................... 84
NACA 63-009 ......................................... 75 NACA 66,2-018 .......................................... 85
NACA 63-010 .......................................... 76 NACA 66-006 ........................................... 85
NACA 631-012 ........................................ 76 NACA 66-008 ........................................... 85
NACA 632-015 ......................................... 76 NACA 66-009 ........................................... 86
NACA 633-018 ...................................... 77 NACA 66-010 ........................................... 86
NACA 634-021 ......................................... 77 NACA 661-012 .......................................... 86
NACA 64,2-015 ......................................... 77 NACA 662-015 ......................................... 87
NACA 64-006 ............................................ 78 NACA 663-018 .......................................... 87
NACA 64-008 ........................................... 78 NACA 664-021 .......................................... 87
NACA 64-009 ............................................ 78 NACA 67,1-015 .......................................... 88
NACA 64-010 ........................................... 79 NACA 747A015 .......................................... 88

918392- 51.---6
70 REPORT NO. 8 2 4----NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE :FOR AERONAUTICS

2.0

NACA 0006 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

z y v/V AvJV
(percent c) (percent c) O'/V)2
1.8

0 0 3. 992
0 0
• 938 2.015
.5 • 880
1.057 1. 364
]. 25 .947 1. 117
1.089 .984
2.5 1. 307 1.186
1. 103 • 696
5.0 1.777 1. 217
1. 107 • 562
7.5 2. 100 1. 225
1. 101 .478
10 2.341 1. 212
1.098 •378
15 2. 673 1.206
1.091 .316
2O 2. 869 1. 190
1.086 .272
,)z 25 2.971 1, 179
1.078 • 239
30 3. 001 1. 162
]. 066 .189
40 2. 902 1. 136
1. 053 • 152
5O 2. 647 1. 109
.8
1.042 • 123
60 2. 282 1. O86
1. 028 • 097
7O 1. 832 1. 057
1. 013 • 073
80 1.312 I. 026
• 990 • 047
-- NACA 000@ 9O .724 .980
95 .403 .949 • 974 .032
.063 0 0 0
100

.4
L. E. radius: 0.40 percent c

NACA 0008 BASIC TIIICKNESS FORM

/.d x y v V ArJ V
(perccnt c) (percent c) (v/V):

0 0 0 0 2.900
.5 • 792 .890 1. 795
1.25 1.2(_ 1. 103 1. 050 1,310
2.5 1. 743 1. 221 1. 105 .971
5.0 2. 369 1. 272 1. 128 694
7.5 2. 800 1..Z_4 1. 533 .561
10 3. 121 1.277 1. 130 .479
15 3. 564 1.272 1. 128 .379
20 3. 825 1. 259 1. 122 • 318
25 3.901 1.24l 1. 114 • 273
3O 4.001 1. 223 1. 106 .239
1. 089 • 188
.8 40
5O
3. 869
3. 529
1. 186
1. 149 1. 072 • 152
60 3.043 1.11! 1. 054 .121
2. 443 1.080 1. 039 .096
7O
-- N/CA 0008 .... 8O 1.749 1.034 1.017 • 071
90 • 965 • 968 .984 • 047
95 • 537 .939 .969 .031
.084 0
100
.4

L. E. radius: 0.70 percent c

NACA 0009 BASIC TtlICKNESS FOR1V[

/,6
x Y (r/I')2 vl V AvJ V
(percent c) (percent c)

0 0 0 0 0.595
.5 • 750 .866 1,700

12 fr---- 1.25
2.5
1. 420
1. 961
1. 083
1. 229
1,041
1,109
1.283
.963
2. 666 1. 299 1,140 .692
5.0
3,150 1,310 1,145 .560
7.5
10 3.512 1. 309 1.144 .479
15 4.009 1. 304 5,142 .380
4.303 1. 293 1.137 .318
2O
4.456 1. 275 1.129 .273
25
1.252 1.119 .239
30 4.501
1. 209 1.100 .188
40 4.352
1. 176 5.(}82 .15I
5O 3.971
1.126 1.061 .120
6O 3.423
N,4CA 0009 -- 1. 087 1.()43 .095
70 2.748
1. 037 1.018 .070
8O 1.967
• 984 .982 .046
9O 1.086
.933 .l_i6 .030
95 .605
0 0 0
100 .095

L. E. radius: 0.89 percent c

I
I

0 .2 •4 .6 .8 kO
x]e
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 71

2.0

NACA[0010 BASIC:THICKNESS FORM

x y
1.6 (percent c) (percent c) (v/V)_ v/V avdV

0 0 0 0 2. 372
.5 .712 •844 1. 618
1.25 1. 578 1.061 1.030 1.255
2.5 2.178 1. 237 1.112 .955
5.0 2. 962 1. 325 1.151 .690
1.2
7.5 3.500 1. 341 1.158 • 559
10 3. 902 1.341 1.158 .479
15 4. 455 1,341 1.158 .380
20 4. 782 1.329 1.153 .318
25 4.952 1.309 1.144 .273
30 5.002 1.284 1.133 • 239
40 4.837 1.237 1.112 • 188
.8 50 4. 412 1.190 1. 091 .150
6O 3. 803 1.138 1. 067 • 119
70 3.053 1.094 1.046 .094
80 2.187 1. 040 1. 020 .069
NACA 0010 90 1. 207 .960 .980 .045
95 • 672 • 925 .962 .030
I00 .105 0
.4

L. E. radius: 1.10 percent c


f

NACA 0012 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

1.6 Y
(percent c) (v/V) 2 vlV Av d V
(percent c)

0 0 0 O 1. 988
.5 .640 .800 1. 475
I. 25 1.894 1. OlO 1• 005 1.199
/.2 2.5 2.615 1. 241 1. 114 • 934
5.0 3.555 1.378 1,174 .685 t
7.5 4.200 1".402 1.184 .558 _,//'
1O 4.683 1. 411 1.188 .479
15 5.345 1.411 1.188 .381
20 5.738 1.399 1. 183 .319
25 5,941 1.378 1.174 .273
30 6. 002 1. 350 1.162 .249
.8 40 5. 803 1. 288 1.135 .187
50 5. 294 1.228 1.108 .149
6O 4. 563 1. 166 1. 080 .118
NACA 00/2 70 3. 664 1. 109 1. 053 .092
80 2.623 1. 044 1. 022 .068
9O 1.448 • 956 .978 • 044
95 .807 .996 • 952 .029
.4 100 .126 O O 0

ff L. E. radius: 1.58 percent c

I
jl j

NACA 0015 BASIC TRICKNESS FORM

I.G
z Y (vl I')_ vl V Avol V
(percent c) (percent c)
"-....
O 0 0 O 1.600
.5 .546 • 739 1.312
/.8 1, 25 2. 367 • 933 .966 1. 112
2.5 3.268 1.237 1. 112 .900
5.0 4. 443 1. 450 1. 204 .675
7.5 5. 250 1. 498 1. 224 .557
lO 5. 853 1. 520 1. 233 • 479
15 6. 682 1. 520 1• 233 .381
20 7.172 1. 510 1. 229 .320
25 7. 427 1.484 1. 218 • 274
.8 30 7. 502 1. 450 1.204 .239
4O 7. 254 1. 369 1. 170 .185
5O 6. 617 1. 279 1. 131 • 146
6O 5. 704 1. 206 1.098 • 115
NACA 00/5 7O 4.580 1.132 1.064 • 090
8O 3.279 1. 049 1. 024 • 065
9O 1. 810 •945 .972 • 041
.4 95 1.008 .872 • 934 • 027
100 .158 0 O 0
1
f
L. E. radius: 2.48 percentc

1---------
I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 /.0
.v/c
72 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

2.O

NACA 0018 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x y AvJ V
(vl I ") v I."
(percent c) (percent c)
/.6

0 1. 342
0 0 o
.682 1.178
.5 • 465
• 926 1. 028
1.25 2.841 • 857
1.103 .861
2. 5 3.922 1.217
1. 228 • 662
5. 0 5. 332 1. 507
/.2 1.264 • 555
7.5 6.300 1. 598
1.276 • 479
l0 7. 024 1. 628
1. 278 • 381
15 8.018 1.633
1. 275 .320
20 8.606 1.625
__4
1. 262 • 274
25 8.912 1. 592
1. 247 • 238
30 9. 003 1. 556
1.205 • 184
40 8. 705 1.453
1. 154 .144
50 7. 941 1.331
.8 .113
60 6.845 1. 246 1.116
1.074 .087
70 5.496 1. 153
I 80 3.935 1. 051 1.025 .063
• 966 • 039
---- NACA 0018 90 2. 172 .933
• 914 .025
95 1.210 .836
0 0
100 .189 0

.4
"----4-------..__..__..___._._ L. E. radius: 3.56 percent c

1
0

NACA 0021 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

/6 x Y (v/_r).. vl v Av./V
(percent c) (percent c)

O 0 0 0 1.167
.5 .397 • 630 1. 065
1.25 3.315 • 787 • 887 • 946
2.5 4. 576 1. 182 1. 087 •818
_2 5 6. 221 1.543 1.242 • 648
7.5 7. 35O 1. 682 1.297 • 550
10 8. 195 1. 734 1.317 • 478
15 9. 354 1. 756 1. 325 • 381
20 10. 040 1. 742 1. 320 • 320
25 10. 397 1. 706 1. 306 • 274
30 10. 504 1. 664 1. 290 • 238
40 10. 156 1. ,5,38 1. 240 .183
.8 1. 388 1. 178 .142
50 9. 265
60 7. 986 1. 284 1. 133 .Ill
70 6. 412 1. 177 1. 085 • 084
80 4. 591 1.055 1.027 • 061
9O 2. 534 .916 • 957 • 0,37
95 1. 412 .801 • 895 • 023
lOO • 221 0 0 0

.4

L. E. radius: 4.85 percent c

NACA 0024 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

L5

\ (percent
x
c) (percent
Y
c)
(vl V )' v/V At'./1"

0 0 0 0 1. 050
.5 .335 .579 .964
1.25 .... _:isg- .719 .848 .870
2.5 5.229 1. 130 I. 063 .771
ZE
5.0 7.109 1 548 1. 244 • (_32
7.5 8.400 1. 748 1. 322 .542
10 9.365 1. 833 1.354 .476
15 I0.691 1.888 1.374 • 383
20 11.475 1. 871 1.368 • 321
25 11,883 1. 822 1,350 .274
30 12. 004 1. 777 1.333 • 238
.8 1. 631 1.277 • 181
40 11.607
10. 588 1. 450 1.204 • 140
50
60 9.127 1. 325 1.151 • 109
7.328 1.203 1.097 • 082
70
ICACA 0024 1. 065 1.032 .059
8O 5. 247
2.896 .891 .944 • 0:15
9O
1.613 • 773 .879 • 022
95
.252 0 0 0
.4 100

L.E. radius: 6.33percent c

I
0 ._ .6 .8 LO
x/c
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 73

2.0

NACA 16-006 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

/.8 Y
(percel) t c) (percent c)
(v/V) 2 v/v Avo/V

0 0 0 0 5. 471
i. 25 • 646 1. 059 1. 029 1. 376
2.5 .903 1. 085 1. 042 .980
/.2 5.0 1. 255 1. 097 1. 047 •689
7.5 1. 516 1.105 1. 051 • 557
10 1. 729 1.108 1. 053 • 476
f_
15 2. 067 1.112 1.055 •379
2O 2. 332 1.116 I. 057 .319
30 2. 709 1. I23 1. 060 .244
40 2, 927 1.132 1. 064 .196
5O 3.000 1.137 1. 066 .160
.8 6O 2.917 1.141 1. 068 .130
70 2. 635 1.132 1,064 .104
8O 2. 099 1.104 1. 051 .077
9O 1. 259 1. 035 1. 017 • 049
NACA 16-006 95 • 707 .962 •981 •032
100 • 060 0 0 0

.4
L. E. radius: 0.176 percent e

NACA 16-009 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

/.6
Y
(v/V) vlV Av./V
(percent c) (percent c)

0 O 0 0 3. 644
1.25 .969 1. 042 1. 021 1. 330
1.2 2.5 1. 354 1.109 1. 053 .964
5.0 1. 882 1.139 1. 067 •684
f 7.5 2. 274 1.152 1. 073 •554
10 2. 593 1.158 1.076 • 475
15 3.101 1.168 1.081 •378
2O 3.498 1.177 1.085 .319
30 4.063 1.190 1. 091 .245
40 4. 391 1. 202 1.096 .197
,8 50 - 4. 500 i. 211 1.100 • 160
60 4. 376 1. 214 1.106 • 131
70 3. 952 1. 206 1.099 .103
80 3.149 1.156 1.075 .076
NACA 16-009
9O 1. 888 1. 043 1.022 • 047
95 1. 061 .939 .969 .030
1O0 •090 0 0 0
.4
L. E. radius: 0.396 percent c

i
J

NACA 16-012 BASIC THICKNESS FORM


/,6

x y
(percent c) (percent c) (vlV)2 vlV Avd V

f11-_ 0 0 0 0 2.624
/,2 1.25 1. 292 1.002 1. 001 1. 268

( \ 2.5
5.0
7.5
1. 805
2. 509
3.032
1.109
1.173
1.197
1. 053
1. 083
1. 094
• 942
.677
.551
I0 3.457 1. 208 1. 099 .473
15 4.135 1. 223 1. 106 .378
20 4.664 1. 237 1. 112 •319
.8 30 5.417 1. 257 1. 121 .245
40 5. 855 1.271 1. 128 .197
50 6. 000 1.286 1. 134 .161
60 •5. 835 1.293 1. 137 .131
70 5. 269 1.275 1.129 .102
NACA 18-012
8O 4.199 1.203 1. 097 .075
90 2. 517 1.051 1. 025 .045
95 1.415 .908 • 953 .027
.6 1O0 .120 0 0 0

L. E. radius: 0.703 percent c


_-..,...,.,.__
J
>
..,--,._.__ i

0 .2 .4 .6 .,9 1,0
z/v
74 REPORT NO. 82 4--NATION_AL ADVISORY COMMIT-TEE FOR AERONAUTICS

'20

NACA 16-015 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

1.6
x y r V Avd V
(percent c) (percent c) (vlV)2

0 0 0 0 2. 041
.______. _ ..---._
1.25 1. 615 .956 • 978 1. 209
2. 5 2. 257 1.105 1. 051 • 916
5. 0 3. 137 1. 200 1. 095 • 668
/.2
7.5 3.790 1. 239 1. 113 • 547
_.__ 10 4.322 1. 256 1. 121 • 471
15 5. 168 1. 278 1. 130 • 377
20 . 5. 830 1. 297 1. 139 • 318
30 6. 772 1. 327 1. 152 • 245
40 7. 318 1. 349 1. 161 • 197
50 7. 500 1. 364 1. 168 • 161
.8 ..... I ...... : .... 60 7. 293 1. 374 1. 172 • 131
70 6. 587 1. 348 1. 161 • 102
80 5. 248 I. 254 1.120 • 074
90 3. 147 1. 053 1. 026 • 043
........ NACA 16-015 -- 95 1. 768 .875 • 935 .025
100 .150 0 0 0

m _ .
.d
L. E. radius: 1.lO0 percent c

NACA 16-018 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

/.6

x y v V Ava/V
(percent c) (percent c) (v/V)2

0 0 0 0 1. 744
i. 25 1. 938 • 903 .950 1. 140
2.5 2. 708 1. o_ 1. 045 • 883
/2 5.0 3. 764 1. 217 1.103 .657
7.5 4.548 1.271 1.128 .541
10 5. 186 I. 302 1. 141 .468
15 6. 202 1. 332 1.154 • 376
20 6. 996 I. 357 1.165 • 318
30 8. 126 I. 399 1. 183 • 245
40 8. 782 1. 426 1.194 • 1(}8
50 9.000 1. 447 1.2(}3 • 162
.8 m
6O 8. 752 1. 452 1. 205 .131
70 7.904 1. 421 1. 192 . 102
8O 6. 298 1. 306 I. 143 • 073
NACA 16-0/8 9O 3. 776 1. 051 1. O25 • 042
95 2.122 • 837 • 915 • 024
1O0 • 180 0 O 0

.4
..____---
f L. E. radius: 1.584 percent c

NACA 16-021 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

/.8

J x Y (v/!/)2 vl V Av ./V
J (percent c) (percent c)
H %X - --
----J

/ 0
1.25
0
2. 261
0
• 826
O
• 909
1. 574
1. 069

/
2.5 3. 159 1. 062 1. 031 • 828
5.0 4. 391 1. 221 1. 105 • 640
7.5 5. 306 1. 295 1.138 • 534
10 6. 050 1. 342 1.159 • 463
15 7. 236 1.39I 1.179 • 374
2O 8. 162 1. 419 1.191 • 317
30 9. 480 1. 474 1. 214 • 245
.8 40 10. 246 1. 506 1. 227 • 198
5O 10.500 1. 535 1. 239 • 162
10. 211 1. 536 1. 239 • 131
70 9. 221 I. 495 1.2Z_ • 102
NACA 16-021 I. 361 I, 166 • 072
80 7.348
9(1 4. 405 1. 039 1. 019 • 041
95 2. 476 • 80I • 895 • 023
100 • 210 0 0 0
.4 __ ....... _.r
J

f I

I_
L. E. radius: 2.156 percent c

J
J
J
I

0 .2 .6 .8 lO
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 75

NACA 63,4-020 BASIC TIIICKNESS FORM


2.O
x y
..... c, I: I
A4(upper I surfoce)I (percent c) (percent c) (v/V)2 v/V J',v,/V

0 0 0 0 1. 395
/.6 .5 1. 714 •444 • 666 1. 280
• 75 2. 081 •605 • 778 1. 201
1.25 2. 638 •820 • 906 1. 072
2.5 3.606 1. 080 I. 039 • 846
5.0 4. 947 I. 277 1.130 • 645
7.5 5.964 1. 383 1.176 • 543
1O 6.800 1.456 1.207 • 475

/< 15 8. 090 1. 551 1. 245 • 386


20 9. 006 l• 614 1. 270 • 330
25 9. 630 1.659 1. 288 • 289
30 9. 955 1.689 1. 300 • 257
35 9. 978 1.630 1. 277 • 219
40 9. 765 1.567 1. 252 • 192
45 9. 366 1.500 l. 225 • 169
5O 8. 819 1.433 1.197 • 148
55 8. 143 1.362 1.167 • 128

\ 60
65
7O
7. 351
6. 464
5. 496
1.288
1.213
1.137
1.135
1.101
1. O66
• 112
• 097
• 084
NACA _3, 4-020 75 4. 466 1.059 l. 029 • 071
8O 3. 401 • 978 • 989 • 059
85 2. 342 • 896 • 947 • 046
9O 1.348 • 811 • 901 • 036
95 • 501 • 728 • 853 • 023
16O 0 • 651 • 807 0

/F L. E. radius: 3.16 percent e

/
_J
NACA 63-006 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x Y (vl V) _ vl V AVal V
(percent c) (percent c)

/.6 0 6 O 4. 483
0
.5 • 503 • 973 • 986 2. ll0
• 75 • 609 1.050 1.025 1. 778
1.25 • 771 1.080 l. 039 1. 399
2.5 1. 057 1. llO 1. 054 • 981
5 1.462 1. 130 1.063 • 692
f--cz =.0.3 (upper surface) l. 069 • 562
is 7.5 I. 766 1. 142
10 2. OlO 1. 149 1• 072 • 484
-b " 15 2. 386 1. 159 1.077 • 384
20 2. 656 1. 165 1. 079 • 321
"_.0,3 qower sur£oce) % _ 25 2. 841 1. 170 1. 082 • 279
30 2. 954 1. 174 1.084 • 245
35 3. O6O 1. 170 1.082 • 218
40 2. 971 1. 164 1.079 • 196
45 2. 877 1. 151 1.073 • 176
.8 5O 2. 723 1. 137 1.066 • 158
55 2. 517 1. 118 I. 057 • 141
6O 2. 267 1.096 1. 047 • 125
65 1. 982 1. 074 I. 036 • 111
NACA 6.3-006 1. 046 1.023 • 098
70 1. 670
75 1. 342 1.020 1.010 • 085
80 1. 008 •994 • 997 • 073
• 060
.4 85 .683 • 965 • 982
• 047
9O • 383 •936 • 967
95 • 138 • 910 • 954 • 032
16O O • 886 • 941 0
f

L. E. radius: 0,297 percent c

NACA 63-009 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x Y (v/V) 2 v/v Av./ V


(percent c) (percent c)
/.6
0 0 0 0 3.058
.c, =.08(upper surfoce) • 941 1.889
s .5 • 749 •885
./ l. 002 1. 001 1.647
• 75 • 906
I. 25 1.151 1.051 1. 025 1. 339
2.5 1. 582 l. 130 1. 063 • 961
l. 180 1. 086 •689
/.2 5 2.196
I. 205 1. 098 •560
7.5 2. 655
3.024 1. 221 1.105 •484
10
1.114 •386
.... .08 (/o_er surface) 15 3.591 1.241
•324
2O 3.997 1.255 1.120
25 4. 275 1.264 1.124 •281
4. 442 1.269 1.126 •248
3O
4. 500 1.265 1.125 • 220
35
.,9 4O 4. 447 1. 255 1.120 • 196
4.296 1.235 1.111 • 175
45
4. 056 1. 208 1.099 • 156
5O
3. 739 1.175 1. 084 • 140
55
_ACA 63-009 6O 3. 358 1. 141 I. 068 • 124
2. 928 1. 104 1.051 .16O
65
2. 458 1. 065 1.032 •095
7O
1. 966 1. 025 1.012 •082
.4 75
1. 471 •984 •992 •069
8O
.990 •942 •971 •057
85
• 550 .903 •950 •044
fl 9O
• 196 • 868 •932 • 030
95
0 • 838 .915 0
_ ---..,...._ _ 16O

I L. E. radius: 0.631 percent c


O .z .4 .6 .8 10
x/v
76 REPORT NO. 8 2 4--_N'ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

2O NACA 63-010 BASIC TtIICKNESS FORM

/.6 :!ltt T!i] (percent

0
.5
• 75
1.25
2.5
5.0
7.5
x
c) (percent

0
.829
1. 004
1. 275
1. 756
2. 440
2. 950
y
,) (v/l')_

0
.841
.978
1. 037
1. 131
1.193
1.223
0
v/V

.917
• 989
1. 018
1. O63
1. 092
1. 106
Avo/V

2. 775
1. 825
1. 603
1.316
.952
• 687
.560
10 3. 362 1. 245 1. 116 .484
15 3.994 1. 270 1.1'27 .386
/.2
2O 4. 445 1. 285 1. 134 .325
25 4. 753 1. 296 1. 138 • 282
30 4. 938 1. 302 I. 141 .248
35 5.01_) 1. 299 I. 140 .220
4O 4.938 1. 286 1. 134 • 196
45 4. 766 1. 262 1.123 • 175
5O 4.496 1. 231 1. 110 • 156
.8 55 4. 140 1. 092 • 139
1.11,13
6O 3. 715 I. 154 1. 074 • 123
65 3. 234 1.113 1. 055 .108
7O 2. 712 1. 069 1. 034 • 094
75 2.166 1. 025 1.012 .081
80 1.618 .979 • 989 • 069
85 1. 088 .935 • 967 • 056
9O . (')04 .893 .945 • 043
.4
95 • 214 • 853 .924 • 030
16O 0 .822 • 907 0

L. E. radius: 0.770 percent e

NACA 63_-012 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x y
(percent c) (percent e) (v/V)2 v/V AV,,IV

.........................
/.6'
O 0 0 0 2. 336
i._ ]
• 5 .985 .7,50 • 866 1. 695
.75 1.194 .925 • 962 1. 513
1.25 1.519 1. 005 1. 003 1. 266
2. 5 2.102 1. 129 1. 063 .933
5 2. 925 1. 217 1.103 . (k_2
7. 5 3. 542 1. 261 1. 123 .559
lO 4. 039 1.2194 1. 138 .484
15 4. 799 1. 330 1. 153 .387
20 5. 342 I. 349 1.161 .326
25 5. 712 1. 3112 1.167 .283
31) 5. 931t 1. 371) 1.170 .249
35 6. 000 1. 3116 1. 109 .221
40 5. 92O I. 348 1.16t .196
45 5. 7O4 1.317 I. 148 .174
.8
5O 5.37O 1. 2711 1.130 . 1.55
55 4. (,135 1.22(`} 1.109 . 137
6O 4.42O I. 181 1.1187 .121
._ , J 65 3.84(I I. 131 l. 0{;3 .11t6
,'VACA 23_-U/2
7O 3. 210 I. 076 1. (137 .091
75 2. 55(; 1. I)2t 1. Ol 1 .07(`t
80 1. ,(}(}2 • !,169 • 984 .067
85 I. 274 .920 • 959 .055
90 .7(17 .871 .933 .042
-- I 95 .250 .826 • 909 .029
16O 0 • 791 • 889 0
f

L E ral us 1 087 percent e

NACA (`)32 015 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x Y (v/1,')_ v V Avo/V
(percent c) (percent c)
/8 I ....

0 0 0 0 1. 918
.5 I. 204 • 6O0 . 775 1. 513
• 75 1. 462 • 822 .907 1. 371`I
1.25 1. 878 • 938 .969 1. 182
2.5 2. 610 1. 105 1. 051 . (,}03
5 3. 648 I. 244 1. 115 .674
L2
7.5 4. 427 1. 315 1. 147 .557
10 5. 055 1.3ti0 1. 166 .484
15 6.011 1.415 1. 190 .388
2O 6. 693 1. 446 1. 202 .330
25 7. 155 ,1. 467 I. 211 .286
30 7. 421 1. 481 [. 217 .251
35 7. 5(',0 1. 475 1. 214 .222
40 7. 386 1. 446 1. 202 .196
45 7. 009 1. 401 1. 184 .174
5O 6. 665 1. 345 1. 160 .153
55 6. 108 1. 281 1. 132 .135
6O 5. 453 1. 22(} 1.105 . 118
65 4. 721 1. 155 1.075 .11)2
7O 3. 934 I. 085 1. 042 . 088
75 3. 119 1. 019 1. 009 . 07(i
_4 80 2. 310 • 953 • 976 . 063
85 1. 541 . 894 • 946 • I)51
_) .852 . 839 • 916 . 039
95 • 300 • 789 • 888 . 026
100 0 • 7._10 .866 0

L. E. radius: 1.594 i)crccnt c


0 .Z .4 .6 .8 LO
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA
77
Z.O I i NACA 633-018 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

=. 32 surface)
x y
(percent c) (percent c) (v/V)2 v] AvdV

/.6 0 0 0 0 1. 639
.5 1. 404 • 441 .664 1. 361
• 75 1. 713 • 700 •837 1.258
1.25 2. 217 • 848 .921 1. 105
2.5 3. 104 1.065 1. 032 •871
5 4. 362 1. 260 1. 122 .663
7.5 5. 308 1. 360 1. 166 • 553
I0 6. 068 1. 424 1. 193 .484
1.2 15 7. 225 1. 500 1. 225 • 390
2O 8. 048 1. 547 1. 244 .333
":3Z _/ower purl'ace) 25 8. 600 1. 570 1. 257 • 289
3O 8. 913 1. 598 1.26_ • 253
35 9. 000 1. 585 1. 259 • 223
40 8. 845 1. 550 1. 245 • 197
45 8. 482 1. 490 1. 221 • 173
.8 50 7. 942 1.411 1. 188 • 152
55 7. 256 I. 330 1.1,53 .133
6O 6. 455 I. 252 1. 119 • 115
65 5. 567 1.170 1. 082 • 099
N40A 63_-018 7O 4. 622 1. 087 1. 043 • 084
75 3. 650 1. 009 1. 004 • 072
8O 2. 691 .933 • 966 •059
85 1. 787 • 868 .932 • 048
.4 9O .985 .807 • 898 • 036
95 • 348 • 753 • 868 .024
/ 100 0 • 712 • 844 0

/ --
/ L. E, radius: 2.120 percent c
/
oi
NACA 634-021 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x y
/ _ \_ .'e z = .38/upper surface) (percent c) (percent c) (v/V)2 v/V Ar./V

/.6
0 0 0 0 1. 430
.._ ' ,5 1. 583 • 275 .524 1. 236
.75 1. 937 .564 • 751 1.156
/i-t "..,\; I. 25 2.527 •725 • 851 1. 034
2.5 3. 577 1,010 1. 005 • 842
5 5. 065 1. 260 1.122 • 653
/.2 7.5 6, 182 1. 394 1.181 • 550
10 7.080 1. 487 1.219 • 484
15 8. 441 1. 592 1. 262 •392
2O 9. 410 1. 655 1. 286 • 335
25 10. 053 1. 698 1. 303 • 291
30 10.412 1. 721 1. 312 •255
35 10.500 1. 709 I. 307 • 225
40 10.298 1. 654 1. 286 • 198
.8 45 9. 854 1. 578 I. 250 .173
,5O 9. 206 1. 479 1. 216 .150
55 8. 390 1. 380 1.175 • 130
6O 7.441 1. 281 1.132 • 112
65 6.396 1.180 1,086 • 096
7O 5.290 1. 084 1. 041 • 081
75 4.16O • 994 • 997 .068
8O 3.054 .911 • 954 •057
85 2.021 • 839 .916 .046
9O 1.113 • 774 .880 • 035
95 • 392 • 721 • 849 .023
100 0 •676 • 822 0
i
/
/
/
L. E. radius: 2,650 percent c

NACA 64,2-015 BASIC TIIICKNESS FORM


I

.e z =.ZO {upper surface)


z Y (v/V)_ v/V AvdV

I%.
/.6 (percent c) (percent c)

S /
0
.5
0
1. 216
0
.710
6
• 843
1. 936
1. 500
• 75 1. 453 .825 • 908 1. 359
// 1.25 1. 829 • 962 •981 1.161
2.5 2. 538 1.122 !. 059 .911
/.Z /
5.0 3.514 1. 234 1,111 .678
//(-.. 7.5 4.243 1. 288 1,135 • 553
: 20

/
7owe,- surface) 10 4. 838 1. 323 1,150 • 477
15 5. 781 1. 371 1. 171 • 383
20 6. 454 1. 401 1.184 • 325
25 6,067 1. 422 1,192 • 285
30 7. 307 1. 441 1.200 • 253
.8 35 7. 481 l. 458 1. 207 • 227
4O 7. 480 1. 471 1.213 • 202
45 7. 268 1. 432 I. 197 • 175
5O 6.8,50 1. 366 1. 169 .156
-- /VAOA 54 2-015 -- 55 6.311 1. 299 1.140 • 137
6O 5. 670 1. 234 1.111 • 122
65 4. 944 1.16_ 1. 081 • 102
7O 4.158 I. 102 1. 050 • 086
.4 75 3. 338 1. 039 1.019 • 080
..._..._l -- 8O 2. 506 .973 • 986 • 071
/ 85 1. 698 • 910 • 954 • 656
9O • 96l • 849 • 921 •039
If 95 • 351 .791 • 889 .027
/ 16O 0 .739 .860 0
__1 /

0 .Z .4 .6 .8 LO L. E. radius: 1.65 percent c


w/e
78 REPORT NO. 824--NATIONtAL ADVISORY CO'MMIT'TEE :FOR AERONAUTICS

NACA 64-006 BASIC THICKNESS FORM


2O
32 Y v V Av ol V
(v/V)
(percent c) (percent c)

0 4, 623
0 0 O
.997 2.175
•5 .494 .995
1.o29 1,780
.75 • 596 1.058
1.o42 1.418
1.25 .754 1,085
1,o53 •982
2.5 1.024 1. 108
1.o58 •692
5.0 1.405 1. 119
1.128 1.o62 .560
7.5 1.692
1. 134 1.065 .483
.... el=.02 (upper surfoce) 10 1.928
1. 146 1.071 .385
15 2,298
L2 1. 154 1.074 .321
20 2.572
1.160 1.077 .279
25 2. 772
1.164 1.079 ,246
30 2.907
1. 168 1.081 ,220
35 2.98l
1. 171 1.082 •198
40 2,995
1,160 1.077 •178
45 2.919
1.143 1.069 .158
5O 2. 775
1.124 1.060 .142
.8 55 2. 575
1.102 1.050 •126
6O 2.331
1. 079 1.039 .112
6,5 2.0_)
1. 054 1.027 •098
7O 1. 740
75 1.412 1. 028 1.014 .085
80 1.072 1.000 1.000 .072
85 .737 • 970 .985 .060
.939 .969 .047
9O .423
95 .157 • 908 .9_3 .031
100 0 • 876 • 936 0

L. E. radius: 0.256 percent c

NACA 64-008 BASIC TItICKNESS FORM

z Y (vlV) 2 vlV Av_IV


(l)erqcnt c) (percent c)

0 0 3. 544
0 0
• 658 .912 • 955 1. 994
.5
• 794 1,016 1. 008 1. 686
.75
1. 005 1.084 1. 041 1. 367
1.25
1. 365 1.127 1. 062 • 969
2.5
1. 875 1,152 1. 073 • 688
5.0
2, 259 1.167 1.08() • 560
7.5
2, 574 1.179 1. ()g6 ,480
1O
3.069 1.195 1. (}93 • 385
15
3.437 1.208 1. 099 .323
20
3. 704 1.217 1. 103 • 279
25
3.8_A 1.2125 1. 107 • 246
30
i
3.979 1.230 1. It)9 • 220
35
3. 9(}2 1.235 1.111 • 198
4O
:{,8M3 I. 22(} 1. 105 • 176
45
3. 6M4 1.191 1. 091 • 158
3,411 1.163 1. 078 • 141
55
3. (181 1.133 1. O64 • 125
9O
2. 704 1.102 1.0_) • ll0
65
2.291 1.069 1. 034 • 096
7O
1. 854 1.033 1. 016 • 083
75
1. 404 ,995 • 997 • 071
80
• 961 •957 • 978 • 059
85
• 550 •918 • 958 • 046
9O
• 206 .878 • 937 • 031
95
0 .839 • 916 0
19O

L. E. radius: 0.455 percent c

NACJ64-009 BASIC TIIICKNESS FORM

x Y (v/V)2 v V Avo/V
(percent c) (percent c)

0 O 3.130
0 0
• 739 .872 .934 1. 905
l ', I.-.
.......
g..o {uppersu_fooe) .5
• 75 .892 • 990 .995 1. 637
1.128 1. 075 1.037 1•340
1.25
1.533 1. 131 1.0(_{ .963
2.5
2, 109 1.166 1.080 • 686
5.0
2. 543 1.186 1.089 • 560
7.5
2.898 I. 200 1.095 • 479
10
3.455 1. 221 1.105 • 383

l"-=06 lower
15
_"_ surroco)l_ 20 3.868 1. 236 1.112 • 323
4. 170 1. 246 1. 116 .281
25
1. 255 1•120 • 248

[ 30 4. 373
4. 479 1.262 1.123 • 221
35

L ""
4.490 1. 267 1.126 .198
.8 40
1. 246 1. lit; • 176
45 4. 364
I 5O 4. 136 1. 217 1.1_ .158
1. 183 1. 088 • 140
55 3. 826
64-002 --- I 1. 149 1. 072 • 125
NA CA 6O 3. 452
1. 112 1.055 • 109
65 3. 026
1. 073 1.036 • 095
7O 2. 561
1. O33 1.016 • 082
75 2. 069
• 992 .996 • 070
8O 1. 564
• 950 .975 • 057
85 1. 069
• 907 • 952 • 044
90 • 611
.865 .930 • 030
95 • 227
• 822 .907 0
100 0

L. E. radius: 0.579 l)erccnt c


0 .2' 4 .d .8 /.o
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 79

20 NACA 64-010 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

Y
(percent c) (vlV)2 v/V AVo/V
(percent c)

0 0 0 0 2. 815
.5 • 820 • 834 • 913 1.817
.75 • 989 • 962 • 981 1. 586
_ =.08 (Upp@r su/-fooe) 1.25 1.250 I. 061 1. 030 1.313
2.5 1. 701 1.130 1.063 • 957
5 2. 343 1.181 1. 087 • 684
7.5 2. 826 1. 206 1. 098 • 559
10 3.221 1. 221 1. 105 • 480
15 3.842 1. 245 1. 116 • 386
20 4. 302 1. 262 1• 19-3 • 325
25 4. 639 1. 275 1. 129 • 280
30 4• 864 1. 286 1. 134 • 246
35 4. 980 1.295 1. 138 • 220
40 4.988 1. 300 1. 140 • 199
45 4. 843 1.279 1. 131 • 176
50 4. 586 I. 241 1. 114 • 158
55 4. 238 1. 201 1.096 • 139
60 3.820 1.161 1.077 • 124
65 3.345 1.120 1.058 • 109
7O 2. 827 1. 080 1.039 • 095
NACA 64-0/0 75 2.281 I. 036 1.018 • 081
80 1. 722 .990 • 995 • 069
85 1. 176 • 944 • 972 • 057
.4 90 • 671 .900 • 949 • 044
95 • 248 • 850 • 922 • 030
16O 0 • 805 •897 0

L. E. radius: 0.720 percent c

NACA 641-012 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x Y
(percent c) (percent c) (v/V)_ vlV Av,/V

/.6
0 0 0 0 2. 379
.5 • 978 • 750 •866 1.663
.et =./2 (upper xclrfcloe) • 75 1.179 • 885 • 941 1.508
1.25 1. 490 1. 020 1. Ol0 1.271
__------- 2.5 2. 035 1.129 1. 063 •943
5.0 2. 810 1. 204 I. 097 • 685
7.5 3.394 1. 240 I. 114 •559
/.2
10 3.871 1.264 1. 124 •482
15 4. 620 1.296 1. 139 •388
2O 5.173 1.320 1. 149 •328
":/2 (lower surface
25 5. 576 1.338 1 156 .281
l
30 5. 844 1.351 1. 162 •247
35 5. 978 1.362 1. 167 • 221
40 5.981 1.372 1. 171 • 199
.8 46 5. 798 1.335 1. 156 • 177
.5O 5. 480 I. 289 1. 136 • 158
55 5.056 1.243 1. 115 • 138
6O 4. 548 1. 195 1.093 • 122
• NAOA G4_-012 65 3. 974 1. 144 1.070 • 103
70 3.350 1.091 1.044 • 088
75 2. 695 1.037 1. 018 •074
80 2. 029 • 981 • 990 • 063
.4 85 1. 382 • 928 • 963 • 052
9O • 786 .874 • 935 • 045
95 • 288 •825 .908 • 028
19O 0 • 775 • 880 0

........,.,__ El i
L. E. radius: 1.040 percent c

NACA 645 015 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x Y
c) (vlV)2 dv av./V
1.6 (percent c) (percent

0 0 o O 1. 939
i _ .-re =._2 (upper surface)
,5 1• 208 •670 .819 1.476
• 75 1.456 • 762 •873 1. 354
1.25 1.842 •896 • 947 1. 188
/ 2.5 2. 528 1.113 I. 0_5 • 916
I,E ,t 5.0 3.504 1.231 _ 1.109 • 670
7.5 4. 240 i. 284 1.133 • 559
10 4. 842 1.323 1.150 • 482
/ 15 5. 785 1.375 1.172 • 389
20 6. 480 1.410 1.187 • 326
25 6. 985 1.434 1.198 • 285
30 7. 319 1.454 1.206 • 250
35 7. 482 1.470 1.213 • 225
.8
40 7. 473 1,485 1.218 • 202
45 7. 224 1. 420 1. 195 • 179
5O 0. 810 1.365 1. 168 • 158
55 6. 266 1. 300 1. 140 • 135
NAOA 64z-0/5 6O 5.620 1.233 1. 110 • 121
65 4. 895 1. 167 1.080 • 105
70 4.113 1. 101 1.049 • 090
.4 75 3.296 1.033 1. 010 • 078
8O 2. 472 • 967 .983 .065
85 1.677 • 902 • 950 • 054
9O • 950 •841 • 917 • 041
r 95 • 346 • 785 • 886 • 031
i 16O 0 • 730 • 855 0
i
i

o .4 .6 .8 LO L. E. radius: 1.590 percent c

_e
80 REPORT :NO. 8 2 4--:NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

NACA 6t3-018 BASIC THICKNESS FORM

x y v V _v,/V
(percent c) (percent c) (v/l')_

_cz=.3Z (uppe: surfoce) 0 0 0 o 1. 646


.5 1. 428 • 546 • 739 1.3(')0
• 75 1. 720 • 840 1.269
.... /7"_\ 1.25 2. 177
• 705
• 862 • 920 1.128
2.5 3.005 1. 079 1. 039 • 904
5.0 4. 186 1. 244 1.115 • 669
7.5 5. 076 1. 327 l. 152 • 558
10 5. 803 1. 380 1.175 • 486
15 6. 942 1.4,50 1. 204 •391
2O 7. 782 1. 497 1. 224 • 331
. ,- _\ 25 8. 391 1. ,N_5 1. 239 • 288
30 8. 789 I. 562 1. 250 • 255
35 8.979 1. 585 1. 259 • 228
40 8. 952 1.600 1. 265 .200
45 8. 630 1. 518 1. 232 • 177
5O 8. 114 1. 436 1.198 .154

] % 55
6(1
65
7.445
6.658
5. 782