FOR AERONAUTICS
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,"
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.
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.
P Aerolmutics.
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.
HENRY J. E. I{EID, So. D., Engineerin('harge, Langley Memorial Aerona/ltical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va.
SMITII J. I)EFRAN('E, B. S., Engineerin(_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
AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION
Allocation of Problems
Prevention of Duplication
('o_*d**ct, *_nder unified control, for all agencies, of _'cicnlific research on the f**ndamental problems of flight
('olleetion, classification, compilation, and d'ssemimltion of scientific and technical information on ae,'onauties
II
CONTENTS
Page Page
SUMMARY .............................. 1 EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERISTICSContinued
INTRODUCTION ................... 1 Drag Characteristics of Smooth AirfoilsContinued
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 FourDigit 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 FiveDigit Series Airfoils ......... 5 Twodimensional data .................. 30
Numbering systeni ................. 5 Threedimensional data ............... 37
Thickness distributions ............... 5 Lift Characteristics of Rough Airfoils ........... 37
Mean lines ..................... 5 Twodimensional data ........... 37
NACA 1Series Airfoils .............. 5 Threedimensional data ................. 38
Numbering system ............... 5 Unconservative Airfoils ..... : ....... 39
Thickness distributions .............. 5 Pitching Moment ................... 40
Mean lines ................... 5 Position of Aerodynamic Center ................ 43
NACA 6Series Airfoils .............. 5 HighLift Devices ................. 43
Nunabering system ................. 5 LateralControl Devices ..................... 43
Thickness distributions ............ 6 LeadingEdge Air Intakes .................. 49
Mean lines ................ 6 Interference ............................ 50
NACA 7Series 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 TwoDIMENSIONAL LowTuRBULENCE TUNNELS ......... 54
iil
REPORT No. 824
SUMMARY
Recent information on the aerodynamic characteristics of
ReceT_t airfoil data for both flight and windtunnel 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 fourdigit and fivedigit
survey method. Most of the data on airfoil section characteris
tics were obtained in the Langley twodimensional lowturbulence airfoils by the same methods used for the NACA 6series
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 7series airfoils together with
NACA 6series 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 230series 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
7series airfoils and their corresponding pressure distributions
the lift, drag, pitchingmoment, and criticalspeed 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 highlift
digit, fivedigit, 6, and 7series airfoils.
devices are presented. Problems associated with lateral
The report includes an analysis of the lift, drag, pitching
control devices, leadingedge air intakes, and interference
moment, and criticalspeed characteristics of the airfoils, to
are briefly discussed, together with aerodynamic problems
gether with a discussion of the effects of surface conditions.
Data on highlift devices are presented. Problems associated of application.
with lateralcontrol devices, leadingedge 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:
IBasic Thickness Forms
teristics. Airfoils permitting extensive laminar flow, such as
IIData for Mean Lines
the NACA 6series airfoils, have much lower drag coe_icients
IIIAirfoil Ordinates
at high speed and cruising lift coeficients than earlier types of
IVPredicted Critical Mach Numbers
airfoils if, and only if, the wing surfaces are suy_ciently smooth
VAerodynamic Characteristics of Various Airfoil
and fair. The NACA 6series airfoils also have favorable
Sections
criticalspeed characteristics and do not appear to present
unusual problems associated with the application of highlift These supplementary figures and tables present the basic
data for the airfoils.
and lateralcontrol 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 twodimensional lowturbulence a meanline 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
highlift 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. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOR AERONAUTICS
Cdmi n
section drag coefficient
minimum section drag coefficient (x),, chordwise position of transition
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 variabledensity tmmel.
V freestream 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 fourdigit 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 meanline 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 16series sections represented the first family of the lowdrag
airfoil. These airfoils were designated by numbers having highcriticalspeed 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 5series 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. Windtunnel
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, leadingedge 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 6series 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 Thicknoss 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 maximumlift 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 7series 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 airstream turbulence and Reynolds number. The laminar flow on the lower than on the upper surface. These
resulting wind tunnels, the Langley twodimensional low sections permit low pitchingmoment coefficients with mod
turbulence tunnel (LTT) and the Langley twodimensional erately high design lift coefficients at the expense of some
lowturbulence 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 finitespan wings and in correcting adequately for
support interference (reference 8). METHOD OF COMBINING MEAN LINES AND THICKNESS DISTRIBUTIONS
• 10 t Ou(a'_
/
zu=xy _ s_n 8 yu=yc.yt cos 8
', "uc(_L, VL) _  xc=z+y r s/n 0 YL=YOYt COS 8
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
The process for combining a mean line and a thickness of the leadingedge 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 x0.005. 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 uppersurface coordinates are given by the following for all airfoils for wtlicll standard characteristics are presented
relations:
NACA FOURDIGITSERIES AIRFOILS
Xv=Xyt 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 lowersurface coordi inaxilmml value of the meanline 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 2percent camber at 0.4 of ttle chord from tlle
The center for the leadingedge 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 leadingedge 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 fivedigit series are the same as those
distributions are presented in the supplementary figures. for airfoils of the NACA fourdigit 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 leadingedge radius in the same form as for the mean lines given herein for the
varies as the square of the thickness ratio. Values of fourdigit series. All tabulated values for each mean line
(v/l') 2, which is equivalent to the lowspeed 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 1SERIES AIRFOILS
intermediate thickness ratios may be obtained approxi Numbering system.The NACA 1series airfoils are des
mately by linear scaling of the velocity increments obtained
ignated by a fivedigit numberas, for example, the
from the tabulated values of v/V for the nearest thickness
NACA 16212 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 velocityincrement 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 meanline ordinates y_, the referred to as the NACA 16series sections.
slope dyJdx, the design lift coefficient c, and the corre Thickness distributions.Data for the NACA 16006,
sponding design angle of attack a,, the moment coefficient 16009, 16012, 16015, 16018, and 16021 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 thinairfoil theory. All tabulated values those airfoils of the NACA fourdigit 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 16series airfoils as commonly
Obtained simply by scaling the tabulated values. Data used are cambered with a mean line of the uniformload
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 6series 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 6S_.RIESAIRFOILS
NACA FIVEDIGITSERIES AIRFOILS
Numbering system.The NACA 6series airfoils are usu
Numbering system.The numbering system for airfoils of ally designated by a sixdigit number together with a state
the NACA fivedigit 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 65,3218, 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 threehalves 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 onehalf 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 meanline designa
camber at 15 percent of the chord, aml has a thickness ratio tion is not given, it is understood that the uniformload
of 12 percent. mean line (a= 1.0) has been used.
918392512
6 REPORT NO. 824NATIONAL 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 66,2x115.
the statement following the number as in the following ease: Thickness distributions.Data for available NACA 6series
thickness forms are presented in the supplementary
(a=0.5, cli=0.3 t
figures. These data are comparable with the sinfilar data
NACA 65,32181a=1.0 ' c,_=0.11
for airfoils of the NACA fourdigit 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 fourdigit series.
last two numbers enclosed in the parentheses denote, respec
Mean lines.The mean lines commonly used with the
tively, the lowdrag range and the thickness in percent of
NACA 6series airfoils produce a uniform chordwise loading
the chord of the originally derived thickness distribution.
The more recent NACA 6series 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 lowdrag range as a subscript ; for example,
the original expression for meanline ordinates given in
NACA 653218, a=0.5 reference 11 :
have been changed by a factor, the lowdrag 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 lowdrag
hi order to camber NACA 6series 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 7series
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 7SERIES AIRFOILS
tributions and mean lines used to form these airfoils is pre
Numbering system.The NACA 7series 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 6series 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 amountsay 1 or 2 percentby 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
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.
Meanline 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
The numbers in the various columns headed "Meanline combination" indicate the magnitude of the design lift coefficient used.
REPORT NO. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
8
Z%_ I_21?t ?
_=_, A, sin 7__ B_ cos n4,
1 l
1 1
_=z'lz, (10)
Z'plone
k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 9
where
V freestream velocity
0_4, =0
Z8
/6
(?)'
/.2
IVAC_ G6_ 015
%
.8
(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 6series 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 lowdrag 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 thickairfoil 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.
Thinairfoil 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 meanline geometry. Integration of this
30 load distribution along the chord results in a normalforce
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 meanline 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_lddistribution 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 652015 airfoil at several lift
coefficients. these velocityincrement 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 quarterchord distribution of the pressure coefficient S will correspond
point and, according to thinairfoil 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 thinairfoil 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 pressuredistribution 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 thickairfoil 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 velocityincrement 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 velocityincrement 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 pressuredistribution 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 firstapproximation 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_
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 652015 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
653418 airfoil at a lift coefficient of 0.2.
From the description of the NACA 6series airfoils, it is
determined that this airfoil is obtained by combining the Thickness form .... ?_ at _25
NACA 65a018 basic thickness form with the a=l.0 type NACA 6,52 015 ............ 0.290
= 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 fourdigit 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
Vl.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 freestream 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 lowspeed pressure coefficient S is known either experi
S= (1.162+0.087+0.059) 2 mentally or from theoretical methods, the critical Mach
£8
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. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COM:MITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
L
SUMS,IARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 5
EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
SOURCES OF DATA
.Oi,P _ NACA
v NA_
dY6_2/5
C7,1L_15 J I i
_ ul?6 ......
f I " : " .%.0/2  0 65series
. t_
A 66,_eri_
v 6538/8
_ OC:
t_
r_
t_
b
_ .008
•_ o i 2 .3 .z .5 .6 .7 .8
"" Po5/t/Dn of m/nlrnurn pressuFe, x_/e ._.
FIGURE 9.Variation of ndnimum drag coefficient with position of minimum l)ressIIre for
s/nne N A C A 6series 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 6series airfoil sections of 18percent 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 6series 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 12percent
thickness from 6 percent to 24 percent of the chord. The thickness with a total theoretical lowdrag 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 3percent increase of airfoil thickness.
ever, is greater for the NACA four and fivedigitseries air Figure 13 shows that the theoretical extent of the lowdrag
foils (fig. 12 (a)) than for the NACA 6series 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 lowdrag range for moderately cambered airfoils, par
17ou_, _ .......
• 012  ._moot_, ticularly for the thicker airfoils. All data for the NACA
6series airfoils show a decrease in the extent of thelowdrag
t l 2_ range with increasing Reynolds number. Extrapolation of
L! y2 I" SerI'em the rate of decrease observed at Reynolds numbers below
(__._. o
m oo]
/4 9 X 10 _ would indicate a vanishingly small lowdrag range at
004 + z4, (4_),'# _ flight values of the Reynolds number. Tests of a carefully
44 [
 v 230 (5d,g#)  constructed model of the NACA 65(,2,420 airfoil showed,
I however, that the rate of reduction of the lowdrag 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 lowdrag range of this airfoil is
ct i reduced to about onehalf 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 64series 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 lowdrag range corre
/17fell pe_ce, _t <;i o_'o,,<I
/h,,c/_f_ess,
sponds approximately to the design lift coefficient of the
(a) NACA four and fivedigit series.
(b) NACA 63series. mean line. The effect on the drag characteristics of various
(c) NACA 64series. amounts of camber is shown in figure 15. Section data indi
(d) NACA 65series.
(e) NACA 66series. cate that the location of the lowdrag 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. S2tNATIONAL ADVISO'RY COMMITTEE) FOR AERONAUTICS
4
I
.& 4
I
i '
I  i
i
I
)
i i
\/ _ j !
I
I i
%
qo
v
q5
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 6series airfoils may lead to para at lift coefficients of 0.2 and 1.0. These two curves corre
doxical results when the spanefficiency 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 653418 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 653418 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 65series sections, respectively, and to obtain high maximum values of the liftdrag 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 653418 sections (19.8 as compared with 18.5) despite the
to the profiledrag coefficients of the NACA 23018 and fact that this airplane shows the lower effective aspect ratio.
653418 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 652415 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 65z415 wing; o.tpecf roho, 8 __
/Vt4Ct4 23018 w/n_,, aspect f'of/o, I0 [] IVACtl Z415 wln_, .aspect ralia, 8
.O2
.... IVACA G53418 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/rplane 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 65a418 and 23018 wings of aspect ratio 10. (b) NACA 65m415and 2t15 wings of aspect ratio 8.
FiGurE 18.Comparison of finite aspectratio 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. 824N_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
applied to satisfactorily sanded surfaces. Polishing or waxing symmetrical 6series airfoil section of 15percent 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 lowturbulence 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 lowdrag range wliere
Windtunnel experience in testing NACA 6st,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 lowdrag 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 lowdrag 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 fullsize 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 twodimensional prot)h,m is not linfite(l inerely to finding the nlinimuln waw'
lowtul'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
!
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.
FIGURE 20.Variation of drag coefficient with Reynolds number for a 60inchchord 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 60inchchord 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 practicalconstruction
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_ _
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(4m420 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 6sm'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 fivedigitseries 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 practicalconstruction 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 wakesurvey method (reference 38), and a
The effect of fixing transition by means of a roughness numher of practicalconstruction wing sections have been
strip of carborundum of 0.01 Iinch grain is shown in figure 24. tested in tin, Langley twodimensional lowturbulence
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 twodimensional low
and 63(420) 422 airfoils were nearly the same tllroughout turl)ulence pressure tunnel for typical practicalconstruction
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 twodimen tmmel for a model of the NACA 0012 section, and in flight
sional lowturbulence 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 windtunnel 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 24inch care was taken to reduce surface waviness to a minimum
chord models consists of 0.011inch (,arl)orundum grains for all the sections except tile NACA 2414.5, the N22, the
applied to the airfoil surface at the h,ading edge over a surface Republic S 3,13, and the NACA 27212. Curvaturegage
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. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
% %
(5
k
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 27
,32x/06
\
'NACA 35215
24
, ,_¢_p_b/,c ss,/}"_
66,22(14.z)
_ NACA 2414.5"__NACA
8 I ._" ", I rq
NACA 27212 x "RepubDb S3,13
Q,I '
"N22
0 I
ff.O06 I
/V22. ._ _.Repub/,'c ,_L 3_/ /
"__ ,dbhb g3,/3.
//,I/" "'A,AC,_
6_,22(_4.7)
//I I i
"NA CA 2 72/2
"_.oo,_ ',,, / I
D
0 .16 .32 .48 .64 .80 .96
Sechon I/f/ coefficien_ ez
3F 012
G
c
x
$ 008
c,
&8 004
6
<
$ 4' A ' 1; ' ' 'A ' ' '
ik 2L
Reynolds number, R
2; 3L 3Lcxld6
,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 skinfriction 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,
Reynolds number, f?
F I G C R32.Drag
E scale effect for a model of the S A C A BSseries airfoil section. 15.2i percent
thick, and the Davis airfoil section, 18.Z percent thick, hriilt by practicalconstruction FIGLRE
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 deicer O08e on upper I
5urfoce ond O/Oc on lower surfoce _ Q=O.WO
.2.0lg 
 a NACA Z30/5 (opprox.) with dieleer removed ]_
0 NACA 65(216)215, o=g28 w/lh 0075e deicer" l
(229__
 Z_ NACA 85{2/d)2/5 G=(2.8 _/lh deicer /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 deleers on the drag of two practicalconstruction 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 deicers 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
airstream turbulence, propeller advancediameter ratio, and
63(420)422 airfoil with rough leading edge but otherwise number of blades. Tests in the Langley 8foot highspeed
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 19foot pressure tunnel (fig. 35)
The effect of the application of deicers to the leading edge indicated only moderate drag increments resulting from a
of two smooth airfoils is shown in figure 34. The deicer 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
\
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 fightertype air FIGURE 36.Flight measurements of transition on an NACA 66series wing within and
plane from tests of a model in the Langley 19foot pressure tunnel. CL= 0.10; R=3.TX 106. outside the slipstream.
918392513
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 6series airfoils this lift coeffi
flight data on transition oil an S3,14.6 airfoil in the slip cient is approximately in the center of the lowdrag 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 fourand fivedigit series and the NACA
Even less data are available on the effects of vibration on 64series airfoil sections have values of liftcurve slope very
transition. Tests in the Langley 8foot highspeed 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 liftcurve
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 fivedigitseries 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 fullscale tun For the NACA 6series 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 wakesurvey method when a modelsupport movement of the position of minimum pressure of the basic
strut vibrated. thickness form at zero lift.
Some NACA 6series airfoils show jogs in the lift curve
LIFT CHARACTERISTICS
OF SMOOTH AIRFOILS
at the end of the lowdrag range, especially at low Reynolds
Twodimensional 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. Thinairfoil theory provides a position of minimum pressure on tile basic thickness form.
means for computing the angle of zero lift from the meanline This jog decreases rapidly in severity with increasing Rey
data presented in the supplementary figures. Tile agree nolds number, becomes merely a change in liftcurve 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 lowspeed airplanes. An analysis of
taken from the meanline data shows that the agreement is the flow conditions leading to tiffs jog is presented in refer
good except for the uniformload type (a1.0) 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 fivedigit and NACA 6series 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 fourdigitseries airfoils, the angles of fivedigitseries 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 230series airfoils, this factor is for a thickness of 12 percent. In general, the rate of change
approximately 1.08; and for the NACA 6series airfoils with of maximum lift coefficient with thickness ratio appears
uniformload 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 6series airfoils (figs.
The liftcurve slopes (fig. 38) for airfoils tested in the 39 (b) to 39 (e)) also show a rapid increase in maximum lift
Langley twodimensional lowturbulence 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 6series 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 airstream 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 liftcurve 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 66series 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
__ Setleg __
4
 _ d,g/ 
%. 0
<9 _ 44J_
230 {5d/git )
_o
Y
I °
h (al
4 8 IZ /6 20 Z4 Z4
A/r'fo// fh/ckr?ess, percenf of c,6o_d
I I
cU_
O©
4 _(:3 ,/ _ '_4 oO
%` © .2
0 .2 (3 A .4
0 __ _& .4_
V .6
.6"
(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
6
CI i
4  
00
__ _<> .2_
_ _ .4
8
_o
4 8 /2 16 ZO 24
A_rfo/l thickness, percenf of chord
(e)NACA66series.
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 41_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_
.08
0 .2
I l (b)
A .4_
(j (a) { _',z_o _,5d,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
./Z
_J ,,Smooth
,.Sin o o fh
./2 ",,
/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
¢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) NACA66series.
FIGURE 38.Variation of liftcurve 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 6series 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 percentthick 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/rfo,'/ wit/_
v .6
DO splff flop
G {_ AJrfo/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, percemt of chord _/)foi/ /h/cAhess, percent of chord
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,kfoil _" .o_i ._
_ .8 .6
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 offfoil
_ ..0..._
....... Rough
 Srnoofh
(_ I I I I
.4
o 4 8 /g 16 ZO 24
Airfoil fhiclr_ess, percemf of c/_ord
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. 824NATIONAL 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 6series thickness distribution. 00 and 14series 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 scaleeffect data for the NACA 6series airfoils (figs.
such as the NACA 230series 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 64series 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
6series sections with normal types of camber. NACA 65 and 66series airfoil sections is similar to that for
the NACA 63 and 64series airfoils but the trends are not
2.O so well defined. In most cases the scale effect for NACA
6series 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 6series 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
trailingedge highlift 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 14series 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
653418 airfoil sections from tests in the Langley twodimensional lowturbulence pressure
tunnel. crease in thickness ratio. Corresponding data for the NACA
44series 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
64series airfoil sections cambered for a design lift coefficient thickness. For NACA 6series airfoils equipped with split
of 0.4 with those of the NACA 44 and 230series 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 64series airfoils are as high or higher than those of beginning at thickness ratios between 6 and 9 percent, depend
the NACA 44series 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 65series airfoils appears to be
what higher than those of the NACA 64series sections. greater than 21 percent and for the NACA 63 and 66series
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 6series airfoils are essentially the
effect for the NACA 24, 44, and 230series 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
/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
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,7foil 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 &'lserieso (d) NACA 64series.
(e) NACA 6_series, (f) NAOA 66series,
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. 824NATIO:N'AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE :FOR AERONAUTICS
( %
i
"2 I
! "b
i i _S_S_S
f15 _
......... o_ k_
t
/ i_
N
% =
c_ _ % % eo
"N
.<
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 6series 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
64series airfoils cambered for a design lift coefficient of 0.4
equipped with split flaps are greater than the corresponding
o O.OOP roughness
maximum lift coefficients of the NACA 44series airfoils. o .00_I rouqhness _
Threedimensional data.No recent systematic three
1_ .O/ /SmoofhrOughness
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 maximumlift data for
threedimensional 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
liftcoefficient 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
Maximumlift data obtained from tests of a number of
and fivedigitseries airfoil sections shows the same trends
wings and airplane models in the Langley 19foot 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 00series 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 fivedigitseries 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 6series airfoil sections in
configurations.
the rough condition than with smooth leading edge. The
LIFT CHARACTERISTICS OF ROUGH AIRFOILS maximum lift coefficients of the 6percentthick airfoils are
essentially the same for both smooth and rough conditions.
Twodimensional 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 44series 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 64series 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
liftcurve slope. The results presented in figure 38 show the rough airfoils of the NACA 24, 44, and 230series air
that the effect of standard leading edge roughness is to de foils of comparable thickness. Standard roughness causes
crease the liftcurve 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
918392514
38 REPORT
NO.824NATIONAL
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.
FIGURE 44.Lift characteristics of the NACA 23012, 2412, and 2415 airfoil sections as affected by normal model inaccuracies. R=9X106 (approx.).
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.
Threedimensional data.Tests of several airplanes in the
Langley fullscale 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,
leadingedge 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 mockups of conventional configura
tions in the Langley fullscale tunnel were those obtained
with NACA 6series airfoils.
Results obtained from tests of a model of an airplane in
.Z i _ . Z<:<_.'c'/ pFC_UFe tunne/) the Langley 19foot pressure tunnel and of the airplane in
0
/ 0I
I
(L ,
ci
rocjlc_ty ?u,mPTe I)
f, iIl_ccale
the Langley
number.
condition
fullscale
The results
had a maximum
tunnel
Both tests were made at approximately
are presented
in the service
more than 0.2
lower than that of the model, as well as a lower liftcurve
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 fightertype
airplane. R=2.SX106. reproduced on largescale smooth models.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 39
_2
J
;0
0 A,'olur_o/tronsi/l'On
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 19foot pressure tunnel. R=2.7XlO 6. (Model with Davis airfoil sections.) Langley 19foot pressure tunnel. R=2.TX106. (Model with NACA airfoil sections.)
Lift characteristics obtained in the Langley 19foot 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, highaltitude airplanes. Airfoil sections that
figures 46 and 47. In both cases, the liftcurve 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 longrange 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. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMEMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
Airfoil #h/ckness, percen/ of chord The pitchingmoment data for the airfoils equipped with
(a) NACA four and fivedigit series. simulated split flaps deflected 60 ° (fig. 50) indicate that the
(b) NACA 63series. value of the quarterchord pitchingmoment coefficient be
(e) NACA 64series.
(d) NACA 65series. comes more negative with increasing thickness for all the
(e) NACA. 66series. ah'foils tested. For the thicker NACA 6series 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. 824NATIONAL 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) blACA63seri_s.
(a) NACA four and fivedigit 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> pelr_mf of chord Al'rfoi/ thichness_ perce_f of cho_d
' I
__ ]
oO
 b .z
A .':7
24 28
/1,'r'fo, "1 t'_/c'tw_es'% percenf of chord
F_(iullE 50.Variation of sect ion quarterchord pitchingmoment 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
_5
/ Lift characteristics for two NACA 6series airfoils equipped
./2
65_6/8" with plain flaps are presented in figure 53. These data
6_361 _ a05,,,, / show that the maximum lift coefficient increases less rapidly
_ _./
/ with flap deflection
Lift characteristics
for the more highly
of three NACA 6series
cambered section.
airfoils with split
65442/, a=GS,, 7 o'"
_ .08 6,ga 41_ 0=0.5,,' .65442/ flaps are presented in reference 44 and figure 54. The maxi
,65o415
mumlift increments for the 12percentthick sections were
#3. 4420 only about threefourths of that increment for the 16percent
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 variabledensity tunnel (reference 45) and in the Langley
/ "" "'6"6(21_)21 _ aO.6
7 by 10foot tunnel (reference 46).
d230/2 Tests of a number of slotted flaps on NACA 6series
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 pitchingmoment coefficients for some
NACA airfoils. R=6X10_. for typical hinged single slotted 0.25c flaps (fig. 55 (a)) on
the NACA 63,4420 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 653118 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 14series airfoils, presented for thick thick NACA 6series sections.
ness ratios less than 12 percent, show that the chordwise Tests of airplanes in the Langley fullscale tunnel (reference
position of the aerodynamic center is at the quarterchord 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 230series 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 maximumlift increments with slotted flaps may be attributed
aerodynamic center is ahead of the quarterchord 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 quarterchord point for the NACA 6series ah'foils and
LATERALCONTROL DEVICES
moves rearward with increase in airfoil thickness, which is
in accordance with the trends indicated by perfectfluid An adequate discussion of lateralcontrol 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 trailingedge section aileron effectiveness parameter Aa0/Aa is plotted
angle for a given airfoil thickness. For the NACA 24, 44, against the aileronchord ratio cJc for a number of airfoils
and 230series airfoils (fig. 52) the effect of increasing of different type in figure 59. Also shown in this figure
trailingedge angle is apparently greater than the effect of are the theoretical values of the parameter for thin airfoils.
REPORT NO. 824NATIONAL 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
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(2/5J2/6 G.Ox/Oe
NACA 23012 3.5
"from f'ef.. 45) (e:£)
o NACA ©_I212 6.0
0 NACA 65121P 6.0
FIC,URE 53.Maximum lift coel_cients for the NACA 65,3618 and NACA 66(215)216 air FIGURE 54.Maximum lift coefficients for some NACA airfoils fitted with 0.20airfoilchord
foils fitted with 0.20airfoilchord plain flaps. R=6X10 _. split flaps.
The data show no large consistent trends of aileroneffective 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 hingemoment 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
twodimensional data.
as the airplane rolls is not entirely correct, however, and
Twodimensional 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 hingemoment coefficient. In addition,
maintain a constant section lift coefficient for various de
the span of the ailerons and other possible threedimensional
flections of the aileron from neutral. This equivalent change
in angle of attack is plotted against the hingemoment 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 hingemoment dimensional characteristics of different ailerons.
46 REPORT NO. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTE'E FOR AERONAUTICS
I
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 47
000 _
• 781
Flop refroc/ed I I 1 I I I I I I
//,_ of ogreemem/ be/_veen fneosLyred
I ,..Flop pofh
S GrTd pred/'c'e_ f_'_:_S_/7_S 1, '
 .8
/
/
.2/z r/op)X_,\/
808 plvof o
to 45 ° deflect/on'" deflecfion
Flop de_leefed 65 _ J
X
3.2
28
/
/ 0
/
FIGURE 57.Comparison
to flap deflection
.2 .4
/
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 twodimensional data. Slotted flap.
(b)
0 20 40 60 80 IO0
Flop deflection, 6_ deg
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 4NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
Airflow characteristics
Symbol Basic airfoil Type of flap Reference
T M R
A NACA 63,44(17.8) (approx.) ............................ Internally balanced ................. (1) .17 2.5X108 59
i Approaching 1.00.
.8
o  ,2" "
" _ "'Exloerimen¢ol _ " 7
q) f#
ss
Z _ s
" //
! ,/
FI6UEE 59.Variation of section aileron effeetiveness with aileron chord ratio for trueairfoilcontour 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 Airflow characteristics Refer " _4
..... • AI R ence NACA66(215) 216,a=0.61 0.1OO I O.2Oc plain [
NACA 0009 NACA 63,44(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 40X106 /   I prox.) I I [
NACA 66(215)216, a=0.6_
/ "100/ 0.20c plain I (') I "33t 9.OXi0' I 64 I
I I I
/ U"
/'
O>
'_,,
2
4l
8
FIGURE 61.Variation of the hingemoment 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 trueairfoilcontour and straightsided ailerons on the NACA 63,44(17.8) (approx.)
and the NACA 66(215)216, a=0.6 airfoil sections. Gaps sealed.
FmtTI_E 60.Variation of the hingemoment 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 straightsided 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 63,44(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 leadingedge 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
LEADINGEDGEAIRINTAKES
sections presented. No explanation for this difference can
be offered, although some of the difference may result from The problem of designing satisfactory leadingedge air
the slightly smaller chord of the flap for this combination. intakes is to maintain the lift, drag, and criticalspeed
The effects of using straightsided 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 6series 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 6series 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 straightsided 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. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
INTERFERENCE
/'Zthd/_7.)
24I'nc/_ chord
/.6 1.4
:_'1> 1.0
, / k.
7. ' he =0.186
" _ [
,
, / .,i !
V,. h¢ =_186
(V'
%=4
Co_flgsur'aflbn R
o P/o/k? o/7fo// 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 7series 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
6series sections are similar to those encountered with other result in a breakdown of the concept of twodimensional
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 pusherpropeller 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 liftingline theory.
increments. Although span load distributions calculated for wings with
Another type of interference of particular importance for discontinuities such as are found with partialspan flaps
highspeed 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 maximumlift 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 maximumlift 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 straightline 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 liftingline by the root section. In the case of tapered wings formed by
theory (references 73 to 76). Application of such methods straightline 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 liftcurve 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. 824NATIONAL 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 highspeed 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 levelflight speed of the cates the design of the lateralcontrol 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 maximumcamber position is
ber at which the drag increases sharply. As airplane speeds well forward, as for the NACA 230series 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 lowdrag range
which corresponding increases in aspect ratio and root thick at the highspeed 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, landinggear 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 230series root section with an NACA
outboard panels. Unless such effects are minimized, little 44series tip section or an NACA 63series root section with
drag reduction is to be expected from the use of sections an NACA 65series 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 63series 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 pitchingmoment 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 7series sections, result in substantial
will be limited in most cases by either the criticMspeed reductions in drag at highspeed 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 highspeed lift coefficient. surfaces are fair and smooth.
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 53
2. Experience with fullsize wings has shown that extensive 9. The effect of leadingedge roughness is to decrease the
laminar flows are obtainable if the surface finish is as smooth liftcurve 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 practicalconstruction 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 highspeed 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 6series 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 6series sections retain
5. The maximum lift coefficients for moderately cambered satisfactory lift characteristics up to higher Mach numbers
smooth NACA 6series airfoils with the uniformload type than the earlier sections.
of mean line are as high as those for NACA 24 and 44series 13. The NACA 6series airfoils do not appear to present
airfoils. The NACA 230series 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 6series sections and other
about the same for moderately thick NACA 6series 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 6series sections. sive expansions in the flow are to be avoided.
7. The liftcurve slopes for smooth NACA 6series airfoils 15. Satisfactory leadingedge air intakes may be provided
are slightly higher than for NACA 24, 44, and 230series for NACA 6series 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. Leadingedge 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
By MILTON M. KLEIN
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 lowersurface
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 freestream dynamic pressure
which dcsign load is uniform S staticpressure coefficient (_)
B dimensionless constant determining width
of wake S, staticpressure coefficient in the wake
c chord
ca drag coefficient corrected for tunnelwall
effects distance along airfoil surface
Cd p drag coefficient uncorrected for tunnelwall velocity, due to row of vortices, at any
effects point along tunnel walls
drag coefficient measured in tunnel V freestream velocity
Cd T
Ct section lift coefficient corrected for tunnel AV increment in freestream 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 staticpressm'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)
J2_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 .+
shape of body
quantity used for correcting effect of body
upon velocity measured by staticpressure FIGURE 64.Image system for calculation
lowturbulence
of _factor
tunnels.
in the Langley twodimensional
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 freestream 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 twodimensional
the tunnel, the limits of integration become nx and mx. lowturbulence 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 meanline loading
(indicated by the value of a) and va is the _factor for the
additional type of loading as given by thinairfoil theory:
L' = qoPR dx (21)
lX.
a yb
=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 _ nz _X
of the small variation of _ with the type of additional lift,
=_IzarJ,_ sech hr dx
the value for thinairfoil 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_'/hTe'm/hr)7 (22) cient of the airfoil c_, by the following expression:
_=_ tanI L 1_ e_/hre_(m+'__)/h_ J
z©
MEASUREMENT OF DRAG
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 (HoHI"_
center line of the tunnel. \ qo /
SU_IMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 57
y_ distance perpendicular to stream direction from position
x,
of H_ma _ /./
where $1 is the staticpressure coefficient in the wake Hop_ 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
Cd T
w Vz4_ (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 freestream 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)
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
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
ing ds by "tdY}
dx dx, and solving for A= c_V
V gives
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 highlift 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 2foot
c_c/_= [1 2A(¢+ _)]c_¢/4'_ a_ (39) chord model of the NACA 643418 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.
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,t3418 airfoil.
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 freestream 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 2footchord model. Further
therefore been devised for use in the Langley twodimensional
lowturbulence 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 quarterchord point and averaged to
remove the effect of lift. This average F, which is a measure A check of the validity of the tunnelwall corrections has
of the effective tunnel velocity, is essentially constant in the been made in reference 87, which gives lift and moment
lowlift range. The quantity FIFo, where Fo is the average curves for models having various ratios of chord to tunnel
value of F in the lowlift range, however, shows a variation height, uncorrected and corrected for tunnelwall effects.
6O REPORT NO. 824NATIONAL 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,
FIGURE 69.Comparison between lifts obtained from pressuredistribution measurements and lifts obtained from reactions on the floor and ceiling of the tunnel.
.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 15percent
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 TwoDimensional LowTurbulence
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 eFunction of the Theodorsen ArbitraryAirfoil Potential
rection factors were found to be in good agreement with those Theory. NACA ARR No. L5H18, 1945.
obtained experimentally. 14. Theodorsen, Theodore: AirfoilContour Modification Based on
eCurve Method of Calculating Pressure Distribution. NACA
In order to check the validity of the nfactor, 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. 8793.
nfactor 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. 337356.
pressure distributions (reference 87) for NACA 6series 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 BoundaryLayer Calculations on LowDrag Wings. NACA
ACR, Aug. 1941.
making the tunnelwall 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 VariableDensity Wind Tunnel. NACA Rep. BoundaryLayer 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
VariableDensity Wind Tunnel of Related Airfoils Having the Effects on the Lift and Drag Characteristics of the
Maximum Camber Unusually Far Forward. NACA Rep. NACA 653418, a= 1.0 Airfoil Section. NACA ACR No. L4Hll,
1944.
No. 537, 1935.
26. Tucker, Warren A., and Wallace, Arthur R.: ScaleEffect Tests
3. Jacobs, Eastman N., Pinkerton, Robert M., and Greenberg,
in a Turbulent Tunnel of the NACA 653418, a1.0 Airfoil
Harry: Tests of Related ForwardCamber Airfoils in the
Section with 0.20AirfoilChord Split Flap. NACA ACR No.
VariableDensity 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 LowDrag Airfoil. NACA
Characteristics of a Large Number of Airfoils Tested in the CB, Nov. 1942.
VariableDensity 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. 8194. 30. Millikan, Clark B.: Aerodynamics of the Airplane. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1941, pp. 108109.
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. VariableDensity 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 BoundaryLayer 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 LaminarFlow Airfoils Paints and Painting Procedures on the Drag Characteristics of
and New Methods Adopted for Airfoil and BoundaryLayer an NACA 65(_21)420, a1.0 Airfoil Section. NACA CB No.
Investigations. NACA ACR, June 1939. L4G17, 1944.
918392515
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.: WindTunnel Inves
Determining Pressure Distribution in TwoDimensional Flow. tigation of ControlSurface Churacteristics. VThe 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.: WindTunnel Investiga
Characteristics of Three Thick Airfoils. NACA ACR No. tion of ControlSurface Characteristics. VIA 30Percent
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 LeadingEdge Roughness on Thick 57. Wcnzinger, Carl J., and Delano, James B.: Pressure Distribution
LowDrag 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.: ProfileDrag Coefficients of Conventional 58. Gillis, Clarence L., and Lockwood, Vernard E.: WindTunnel
and LowDrag Airfoils as Obtained in Flight. NACA ACR Investigation of ControlSurface Characteristics. XIIIVarious
No. L4E31, 1944. Flap Overhangs U'sed with a 30PercentChord Flap on an
39. Zaloveik, John A., and Wood, Clotaire: A Flight Investigation of NACA 66009 Airfoil. NACA ACR No. 3G20, 1943.
the Effect of Surface Roughness on Wing Profile Drag with 59. Rogallo, F. M.: Collection of BalancedAileron 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.: WindTunnel Tests of Ailerons at
and of Vibration on the Extent of Laminar Flow on the Various Speeds. ]IAilerons of 0.20 Airfoil Chord and True
N. A. C. A. 27212 Airfoil. NACA ACR, Oct. 1939. Contour with 0.60 AileronChord Sealed Internal Balance on the
41. Silverstcin, Abe, Katzoff, S., and Hoot.man, James A.: Com NACA 66,2216 Airfoil. NACA ACR No. 3F18, 1943.
parative Flight and FullScale WindTunnel Measurements of 61. Purser, Paul E., and Riebe, John M.: WindTunnel Investigation
the Maximum Lift of an Airplane. NACA Rep. No. 618, 1938. of ControlSurface Characteristics. XVVarious Contour
42. Sweberg, Harold H., and Dingeldein, ]_ichard C.: Summary of Modifications of a 0.30AirfoilChord Plain Flap on an
Measurements in Langley FullScale Tunnel of Maximum NACA 66(215)014 Airfoil. NACA ACR No. 3L20, 1943.
Lift Coefficients and Stalling Characteristics of Airplanes. 62. Braslow, Albert L.: WindTunnel Investigation of Aileron Effec
NACA Rep. No. 829, 1945. tiveness of 0.20AirfoilChord Plain Ailerons of True Airfoil
43. Purser, Paul E., and Johnson, Itarold S.: Effects of Trailing Contour on NACA 652415, 653418, and 654421 Airfoil Sections.
Edge Modifications on PitchingMoment Characteristics of NACA CB No. L4H12, 1944.
Airfoils. NACA CB No. L4130, 1944. 63. Sears, Richard I., and Purser, Paul E.: WindTunnel Investigation
44. Fulhner, Felicien F., Jr.: WindTulmel Investigation of NACA of ControlSurface Characteristics. XIVNACA 0009 Airfoil
66(215)216, 66,1212, and 65,212 Airfoils with 0.20Airfl)il with a 20PercentChord 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.: WindTunnel 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.: WindTunnel 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 LowTurbulence Tunnel of Low
47. Bogdonoff, Seylnour M.: WindTunnel Investigation of a Low DragAirfoil 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.: WindTunnel 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 VariableDensity 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.: WindTunnel Investi LowDrag 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 LowDrag WingII.
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 LowDrag Airfoil Critically Affected by
LeadingEdge Roughness. NACA CB No. 3D27, 1943.
51. Street, William G., and Ames, Mil(;on B., Jr.: PressureDistribu
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 LowDrag WingNacelle 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 PusherPropeller
52. Ames, Milton B., Jr., and Sears, Richard I.: PressureDistribution
Shaft Housings on an NACA 65,3018 Airfoil Section. NACA
Investigation of an N. A. C. A. 0009 Airfoil with an 80Percent
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.: PressureDislribution Speeds of Airfoils and Streamline Bodies. NACA ACR, March
Investigation of an N. A. C. A. 0009 Airfoil with a 30Perc(,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.: WindTunnel lnvestigalion of ControlSurface Tapered Wings. NACA Rcp. No. 572, 1936.
Characteristics. IEffect 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 30PercentChord 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 PitotTraverse 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. 295301.
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 LiftingLine Theory for the 87. Allen, H. Julian, and Vincenti, Walter G.: Interference in a Two
Effect of the Chord. NACA TN No. 817, 1941. DimensionalFlow 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 TwoDimensional Flow past a Body of Symmetrical
82. Pearson, H. A.: Span Load Distribution for Tapered Wings with CrossSection Mounted in a Channel of Finite Breadth.
PartialSpan Flaps. NACA Rep. No. 585, 1937. R. & M. No. 1223, British A. R. C., 1929.
_4 REPORT NO. 824NATIONAL 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. 824NATIONAL 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
_ .._. _
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
Page Page
NACA 0006 ........................................... 70 NACA 641012 .......................................... 79
NACA 0008 ....................................... 70 NACA 642015 ........................................ 79
NACA 0009 ...................................... 70 NACA 643018 ....................................... 80
NACA 0010 .......................................... 71 NACA 644021 .......................................... 80
NACA 0012 ....................................... 71 NACA 65,2016 ....................................... 80
NACA 0015 .................................... 71 NACA 65,2023 ......................................... 81
NACA 0018 ......................................... 72 NACA 65,3018 ......................................... 81
NACA 0021 ...................................... 72 NACA 65006 ........................................... 81
NACA 0024 ........................................... 72 NACA 65008 ........................................... 82
NACA 16006 ...................................... 73 NACA 65009 ........................................ 82
NACA 16009 ....................................... 73 NACA 65010 .......................................... 82
NACA 16012 ........................................ 73 NACA 65r012 .......................................... 83
NACA 16015 .......................................... 74 NACA 652015 .......................................... 83
NACA 16018 .......................................... 74 NACA 653018 .......................................... 83
NACA 16021 ........................................ 74 NACA 65,021 ......................................... 84
NACA 63,4020 .......................................... 75 NACA 66,1012 .......................................... 84
NACA 63006 ........................................... 75 NACA 66,2015 .......................................... 84
NACA 63009 ......................................... 75 NACA 66,2018 .......................................... 85
NACA 63010 .......................................... 76 NACA 66006 ........................................... 85
NACA 631012 ........................................ 76 NACA 66008 ........................................... 85
NACA 632015 ......................................... 76 NACA 66009 ........................................... 86
NACA 633018 ...................................... 77 NACA 66010 ........................................... 86
NACA 634021 ......................................... 77 NACA 661012 .......................................... 86
NACA 64,2015 ......................................... 77 NACA 662015 ......................................... 87
NACA 64006 ............................................ 78 NACA 663018 .......................................... 87
NACA 64008 ........................................... 78 NACA 664021 .......................................... 87
NACA 64009 ............................................ 78 NACA 67,1015 .......................................... 88
NACA 64010 ........................................... 79 NACA 747A015 .......................................... 88
918392 51.6
70 REPORT NO. 8 2 4NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE :FOR AERONAUTICS
2.0
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
/.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
/,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
I
I
0 .2 •4 .6 .8 kO
x]e
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 71
2.0
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
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
I
jl j
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. 824NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
2.O
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
/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
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
I
0 ._ .6 .8 LO
x/c
SUMMARY OF AIRFOIL DATA 73
2.0
/.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 16006 95 • 707 .962 •981 •032
100 • 060 0 0 0
.4
L. E. radius: 0.176 percent e
/.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 16009
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
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 18012
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
0 .2 .4 .6 .,9 1,0
z/v
74 REPORT NO. 82 4NATION_AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
'20
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 16015  95 1. 768 .875 • 935 .025
100 .150 0 0 0
m _ .
.d
L. E. radius: 1.lO0 percent c
/.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 160/8 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
/.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 16021 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
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
\ 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, 4020 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
/
_J
NACA 63006 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
fcz =.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 6.3006 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
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
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
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
=. 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 634021 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
/it "..,\; 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
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 2015  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 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
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
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
64002  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
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• 193 • 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 640/0 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
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
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 64z0/5 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
_e
80 REPORT :NO. 8 2 4:NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
x y v V _v,/V
(percent c) (percent c) (v/l')_
] % 55
6(1
65
7.445
6.658
5. 782