P. 1
Naca-report-530 - Naca 23012 Testes

Naca-report-530 - Naca 23012 Testes

|Views: 172|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Laercio Ribeiro Filho on Nov 16, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/16/2015

pdf

text

original

REPORT No.

530
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL FROM TESTS IN THE

FULL-SCALE AND VARIABLE-DENSITY TUNNELS
By
EASTMAN

N.

JACOBS

and

WILLIAM

C. CLAY

SUMMARY

This report gives the reeuli« of tests in the N. A. O. A. fvll-_sca1eand 'lJariable-density tunnels oj a new wing sectwn, the N. A. O. A. £301£, which is one oj the more promising oj an extended series oj related airfoils recently developed. The tests were made at several values oj the Reynolds Number between 1,000,000 and 8,000,000. The new airfoil develops a reasonably high maximum. lift and a low profile drag, which results in an unusually high valtue oj the epeed-ramqe index. In addition, the pitching-momem coefficient is very small. The euperiority oj the new section over well-known and commonly used sections oj small camber and moderate thicJcness is indicated by making a direct comparison with variabledensity tests oj the N. A. O. A. ££1£, the well-known N . .A. O. A. jamily ai1joil that most nearly resembles it. The. superiority is jurther indicated by comparing the characteristics with those obtained from [ull-ecale-tummei tests oj the OZark Y airfoil. A comparison is made between the results jor the newly developed ai7joil jrom tests in the N. A. O. A. variabledensity and full-ecale wind tunnels. When the res-tdts from the two tests are interpreted on the basis oj an "ejJective Reynolds Number" "to allow jor the ejJects oj turbulence, reasonably satisfactory agreement is obtained.
INTRODUCTION

As a continuation of the investigation recently completed of a large family of related airfoils (reference 1), two new series of related airfoils have been built and tested in the variable-density tunnel. The original investigation indicated that the effects of camber in relation to maximum lift coefficients are more pronounced when the maximum camber of the mean line of an airfoil section occurs either forward or aft of the usual positions. The after positions, however, are

of lesser interest, owing to adverse effects on the pitching-moment coefficients, and the forward positions could not be satisfactorily investigated with the mean lines available in the original family. One series of the new airfoils having the forward camber position appears to be of particular interest. The mean-line shapes for this series are designated by numbers thus: 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50, where the second digit (0) represents the numerical designation for the entire series and the first refers to the position of the maximum camber. These positions behind the leading edge are 0.05c, 0.10c, 0.15c, 0.20c, and 0.25c, respectively. The mean line having the shape designation 30 and a camber of approximately 0.02c (designated 230) when combined with the usual family thickness distribution of 0.12c maximum thickness produces the N. A. C. A. 23012 section. This airfoil section appeared to be one of the most promising investigated in the variable-density tunnel. A preliminary announcement of this section, then referred to as the "N. A: C. A. A-312", was made at the Ninth Annual Aircraft Engineering Research Conference in May 1934. At the subsequent request of the Bureau of Aero~ nautics, Navy Department, a 6- by 36-foot model of the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil was tested in the N. A. C. A. full-scale tunnel to verify the aerodynamic characteristics found for this airfoil in the variabledensity tunnel. This test was made possible through the cooperation of the Chance Vought Corporation, who constructed the wing and supplied it to the Committee for the purpose. The present report has been prepared to present and compare the results of the tests of the N. A. C. A. 23012 section made in the N. A. C. A. variable-density and full-scale tunnels and to compare the results with those for well-known sections.
I

435

CA...L.CA.1 .70 ~ (.57 1-170 4.000 (Err.97 25 7. ZlO~ alrfoll.....05 28e 2013 ~ /'2d...: 1. Test: V.23012 R. nJlflyl I 0 12 48 44 80 20 40 60 Percent or chord I ~ /I /0o 2.50 -..19 -3.J.0 1. -s .04 16 ~ 12~ Ii: i--' i.2 Date: 9-6-34 Where tested: LMA. Aerodynamic SO 6.12 S·2O :u ()... ex (degrees) FIGURE L-The 28 32 u N. O.286. * o o .loS) 1-1..67 -1.1- • 4~ u O~ .16 l. 10-" V r- ~ .4-... .p.4 1.. 36 1.1 80 ~ ::.04 ~ -8 o ~ V V -4 Airfoil: MA.T.N.A.1 J 24 20 ~ ..6 1.1f67-B -.:Lc:tc...8 -.20 UO e·03 :~ ()..::. 50 5...A...43 -2.06 1\ . 'I 1 I .08 2 04 !l) E::) I/!A:' I S·!.23 l-I.CA.61. 1....Correcfed 9. 8'0100 V V ~ .1I67-6 -..0 ~ V VCz.. &.48 l-I. !"-.70 100 (..4 Corrected for tonnel-wott effect.I. Varlable-dens!ty wind tunnel: reduced .60 -4. 20.r8.000) Dote' 9-6-34 Test: II..6 -=4 -:2 o .28 - i'"wi-.y-Z2 0 ~ L.E.j? 0 -1.07 ~ ~.46 40 7.23 ..92 .05 24C 20 ...N_ See _ Size: S-x30· Vel. / I I """.\:!.3.58-1.y-5..10~-+~+-~-+1-~~-+~~-+~+-~-+~40 . Ihrouqh end of I II I J' ....61 -1.Iposition. Go Reynolds Number.N. l ~ 1.6 Lifl coefficient.lJ -h II rJ J 1- i" ~ r-..80 -2. o .: 1.49 H-~IIYIII I V : . .N...08 . .A. 12d.4 .91 -2.58 II Slope of radius G.4 .I r .09H-t--I-H-t--I-H-t--+-+--l-t--+-+--l-+-I-+-IHJ6 t' 32{l "'- 1.3 1-J~-l--l--l-IAirloll: c: 1---+.. rI.5 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 4.. . 281€ ~.. chord ~ 80 3.8 .51 10 6..:.02 ai .57 I@ 3.09 cjU .~ ...1 /1 c: ~ ~ 0 Q..P. Asrfotl: .~ .97 25 7.Z8 I I I I II I 30 7. cJ ~~ QJ ~ ~.I. Up}. y.. (sf'nd.40 36 32 10 =tl l.4 I-JH-l--I--l-.0 1.71 ~~ 5.(ff.E.V :jl .0..17 center.1 .. k-..2 /. Test: V.0 . afm):8.p.13) -(-.. AerOdynafiC SO 5. VII '/ I i> 02 . -3 v I--' V I.. "ti 120 -e LI.08 -Z.44 2.2 Pres..0 . 23012 R.EZ .S 5.2 rJ-.A.I I -r a 0 Cor ecfe'ct to tiff.D8-2._ ~ 40 L If -.6 1.IXa 1.2 . L'wr.8 1..: See Size: S-x30· Vel.3 95 .Rod.55 -4.S 3.36 -.4"" .D.19 -3.400.4 /.I.. I '0 J-.6u..00 I.L. C ~ ~ U ./secJ: 7aO -.0 u e.16 position.A.090.. i'\.2 1..2 0 100 L.436 ISta up}.T.(f/.07 t " 28.. .24~ . I'" V .14 -4. .8 /./sec.3.): 68. 0 0 l25 2.06 &'. Go Varlabl&denslty wind tunnel: standard I I _~ 1 1 8t N.A.: '3.71 S.60 -4. V .-.0 1...08 a loP ~ Corrected • fa efl) R...-4--1-+-1 R.91 -226 -2.40 -s .P' ~20 ~ .7to infinite Test: I ratio -16 aspect ~ .O4. 230/2 .6 Lift coefficient. 1 It II e -4 II -8 0 N.23 2..-The N • .A.41 -4.1 .3.I.61 0 20 40 60 80 -~Z /S 7. RjN.1..13) 1-1.. O. ex (degrees) FroUllB 2.!. R. 1/ 8~ 16 ..00 80 3.. 1.67 l.: 1.I- V ) 1'- r- .: QJ-.6 .~ g' 16.2 o 1-1. 'j·<i~ -4 .." ~ t. test. 32 8 12 /6 20 24 28 0 4 Angle of otiack.1601.2 4 ..50 Percent 01' chord 20 7.4 Corrected for tunnel-wall effect.+.!: ~ - 8 - ~.25 7..48 I.45 40 7..47 -3.f:. sto.j? ~20 ~ c. chord 70 435 -3.!'.80 10 6.4 44 .68 -1. A.. 3012 2 -12 . ZlO~ airfoil.l' 24~' l. _ R.Roc!. 90 1._60 0 E 40 ~ l..12 !t. -4 .~ ~ ~ I) ao k' It.. 28 ~ 0 ~oJ01of f/ o c. 0 ~ ~-.. . 4] 0'" Q...160.N.2 .g l i'- '-I-+r7?""~i-"'"++-H-++-I-H-t-+-Hf--"..41 -4.D. .32 .2 0 a 4 8 12 16 20 24 Angle of" attock.O ".. R.92 15 7./7 1-1~ center.N.I o ..Ip.01 "5 1.J.03 I' Vi .01 ~(.T..50 -3.OOO (Efr.~-{) .C. l.58 'J Slope of roOlUS Ic.24~ ~....N. -4 ~ II""'J J ~ J 1> V ~ j If .2 Pres.1I67-6 _ Corrected fo inft"ite aspect ratIo a .3 00Ie:9-7-34Where fesfed:LM.8 1./2H-++-H-f--H'-f--I-H-++-H-f--H-l--H48 10o .50 20 7.::: ...OOO) ClJ Dote: -34 67-8 ~-.::.. 2.2 2.8:.. ~ a-A -:6 -:4 -=2 Airf~il' N.... y.: 1.04 .14 -4..23 -1. 0 ·12 . I I ~/6~60 "11 nil °0 12~ 80 80100 .f.. A.. A. 50 5.A.. (st'nd otm}.55 -4.6 .13) (-.08 c: :~.X. o o 28~ l I) 0 choro:39/128 f 30 7.47 -3..61 2.I.j -4 ~ 1 V .

thickness distribution of 0. O. are omitted from this report but both sets of results will appear subsequently in reports on the respective subjects.8° .000 to compare the various airfoils of the forward-camber series under the conditions of a standard 20-atmosphere test in the variable-density tunnel. and pitching moment were originally made at a Reynolds Number of approximately 3. 23012aIrfoll mounted In the ran-scale wind tonne!. The N. .CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. Somewhat behind the maximumcamber position.differences between results from the two tunnels. Complete results are given. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 437 DESCRIPTION OF THE AIRFOIL SECTION The mean-line shape for the series to which the N. m=0.00 c:r. The lift. As an aid in evaluating . ~ CD. ----------- :l::. the ordinates y of the N. A. The systematic errors mentioned in reference 1 have since been largely eliminated by allowing for the deflection of the model supports and correcting for the errors involved in the measurement of the air velocity.05" -.0010 FULL-SCALE·TUNNEL TESTS AND RESULTS A description of the full-scale wind tunnel and equipment is given in reference 3. A. The data presented in this report were taken from the latter tests which were made at several values of the Reynolds Number between 42... Some additional data taken from the available tests at other values of the Reynolds Number are also presented with the discussion to indicate the scale effect for some of the important characteristics.0002 . 23012 airfoil was retested as a part of a general investigation of scale effect. interference :1::0. 3).957. The general arrangement was similar to that used in testing a series of Clark Y airfoils (reference 4). A.000. A.000. A. A..3. standard airfoil models. O. the mean line is straight from this point to the trailing edge. that is. from x=m to x=l y=! k m3(1-x) 6 Descriptions of the variable-density tunnel.400 and 3.A. A.DENSITY·TUNNEL TESTS AND RESULTS Routine measurements of lift.2025 and k= 15. A. drag. for the 230 mean line. The surface was smooth and the section throughout was not in error by more than ± 0. O.A. and pitching moments were measured throughout a range of angles of attack from . The 230 mean line has its maximum camber at a position 0. A. A. In order to give a basis for the development of related airfoils of different thicknesses. that attached to the one-quarter-chord point (fig. A.003 . The N . C. 23012 airfoil was mounted in the tunnel on two supports where.0000 . The airfoil had a chord of 6 feet and a span of 36 feet. O._____________________________ CL . methods of testing.02 :l::-OOI . however. The frame was constructed of wood and covered with sheet aluminum. A. and the accuracy of the tests are given in references 1 and 2. FIGUBB3. a value corresponding approximately to the usual conditions of high-speed or cruising flight. . drag. 230 mean line ¥e given as follows: Nose.0006 CT>o(CL~I)---------------------- I~ :1:. VARIABLE. The test results obtained in connection with the forward-camber airfoil investigation. O. C. the estimated errors from reference 1 are reproduced us follows: Quantity measured Accidental errors :1::0.090. The airfoil profile and a table of ordinates at standard stations are presented in figure 1.150 behind the leading edge. from tests at two values of the Reynolds Number (figs. O. from x=O to x=m y=~ k[z3-3m.06 of an inch from the specified ordinates.-The N. 16· { -: ~ Errorsdne to mpporJ. (CL =0)----------------------- { { -. 23012 belongs was derived empirically to have a progressively decreasing curvature from the leading edge aft.x2+m2(3-m)x] Tail. O. 23012 airfoil results from the combination of the 230 mean line with the usual N.120 maximum thickness by the method described in reference 1. Later the N.0002 _: ~ .. A. The camber is not exactly 2 percent but was determined by the condition that the ideal angle of attack for the mean line should correspond to a lift coefficient of 0. the curvature of the mean line decreases to zero and remains zero from this point aft. as well as the complete results of the scale-effect investigation. 1 and 2).

0 -I-:ff -I.8 r.p.24~ ~-S v g. 23012.. and c..37 25 7. F.J il t .. R..4 . OD> LID.4 . N.13 .. ~ .438 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMlT1'EE FOR AERONAUTICS to 25°.:: QJ .2t.N.~\ 1\ \ I . typicnl plot of the data from table VI is given in figure 4.) g' 16~60 ..L.OS \ ... The corrections are .500.:f. Figure 5 shows the variation of the maxibling the effect of this single dummy support was mum lift coefficient for the two airfoils.089c I e. These tests were made at 5 different air speeds between 30 and 75 miles per hour corresponding to values of the Reynolds Number between 1.000 Dole: 10-24-34 Test: 42-2 Corrected fo infinlfe aspect rotlo -16 o .4 /. Size: 6''1<36' Vel(ft..·C'_. '·3. (sfnd oImJ: I Dale: 10-24-34 It?Iere tested: UJ. Values of the pitching-moment coefficient about the aerodynamic center. o .O.. A.. A.04 .:.2 1. p. port was not connected to the airfoil or to the balance These curves are presented in semilogarithmic form to and all changes in the measured forces with the strut assist in extrapolation to higher values of the Reynolds in place could be attributed to its interference.12 .6::'. y) is given as a fraction of the chord ahead and above the quarterchord point.. I l5 0 ~ 24 ~20 <E C 20 II L/. !4 chordl Iposition.305 i~ i~-.! . The interference of the airfoil supports upon the airfoil was determined by adding a duplicate supporting Sta._ ~ 12.3.!::1- O~ .36 . Additional tests to determine the scale effect on minimum drag were made at several speeds up to 120 miles per hour corresponding to a Reynolds Number of 6..1 "0 :g ~ ~ V \1\ V kl c. O.02 . This" dummy" suppresented in these figures for purposes of comparison. 0"'1l .91 7.12 1) -c . ..A.GA. E: 40 II I 1/ I. I are given for the airfoil of infinite aspect ratio.019c I-f-. t 1/. variation of the drag coefficient at zero lift and the The results of the full-scale-tunnel tests of the minimum-profile-drag coefficient.10 I 1 44 40 \ I 1 II 1-1.y.. Curves obtained from similar full-scale-tunnel tests on the Clark Y airfoil are .1 i I~ ~I I 1'3"" /.!..o 4..II-f-- center P...: 03 .000.600.61 s.41 -4.S? .A. 42-2 -. ~ J 1./1 2. strut at the center of the wing.. i I"! . -4 s:j. I Aeroayhomtc II :irJ I-f-.J IjI II ~ l'. at {degreesl Airfoil: NACA.. A.20 QJ .: 1.J..Cb c: 1 1 .. figure 7 gives the effect of Reywind-tunnel effects and tares.000.0 1.04 ~ 0 ~ i- rc: J:_. 23012 airfoil are given in tables IV to VITI.I6~ C:l V f-"" h k" .i?8 30 7SS -4.0 .-The N. Full-seale wind tunnel.. In for the airfoil of aspect ratio 6 and values of ao and ODfJ brief..I.~lfYi I It t:~ 20 10 x I. the scale-effect airfoil (reference 4). 28"t:J o 't> o c: Q) -226 -2~ -2 -:l5O -3. J -8 -4 <.-c_.Rad.. ~r>< t".000 and 4.362.. All the data are corrected for is shown in figure 6.:.T Test. 28 32 o o Airfoil: N.I. Curves summarizing variations of these principal characteristics that change with Reynolds Number are given in figures 5 to 9. Cr..z 2.8-. A.): 85.6 Lift coefficient.4'..2 .09 .28~ 1.. it may be mentioned that a consideration of all .: *3.35 80 3.e. c. .t~ ~ 8"0100 4~ 1.. c 0 20 40 60 80 Per cent of chord I.6 .a3 -216 90 168 -123 95 .- ~ tJ> .2 .5 -. O. 3012 2 R.0 1.8 1..2 80 I..47 70 4.S.. 0 l2S 267 2...48 50 6.4 48 44 40 ..600.:) -I' 1.adius Ihrough tmd of cnora: 0.17 60 5.x~0. respectively.. .. nolds Number on the slope of the profile-lift curve. the same as those used for the corresponding Clark Y nnd figures 8 and 9 show. 23Ol2 airfoil. Up'r.58 Slope of . .07 .C.08 ~.46 40 714 -4. +1 413 /0 .A. are considered independent of aspect ratio and are tabulated against 0L' The locution of the aerodynamic center (x.A.jsec.150 -4.. DouNumber.000.70 00 0 LC.199.. The maximum lift was not measured at speeds above 75 miles per hour as the wing was not designed for the loads under these conditions. A detailed discussion of the precision of airfoil tests The values of OM a. f-f-.6 1.2 tJ 8. -8 a 4 8 12 /6 20 24 Angle of attock.N.0-' d-. ~ ~ ~~ QJ 0 R 0. o . the scale effect considered to account for the total interference of the on the angle of attack at zero lift for the airfoil section two airfoil supports.06 .2 Pres.f.5 10 IS 719 CO 750 L'wr./ • v 'I. are tabulated in the full-scale tunnel is given in reference 4.4 Corrected for funnel-wall effect.08 r-. FIGURE 4. .01 0'0" ~.._ .5 3.

which is more nearly symmetrical. 23012 airfoil has milch less camber than the Clark Y and the general profile. The curves in figure 5 show that tho maximum lift coefficients for the two airfoils differ by little more than the experimental error.000.03 chord (~)maz= ± 1.2 4 6 8 10 Reynolds Number Fmtme ~.. A.- i)--Clark Y 0 1 4 6 8 10 Reynolds Number of attack for zero-nct variation.0 1.".0 QJ It Comparison with the Clark Y. relark r ODo (OL=1. At zero . 0 iJ) .-The comparison between the new section and the Clark Y section is entirely based on the test results from the full-scale tunnel.C. A. however. C.230/2 2 ~A.03 dOL -d = ±0. C.- ___.CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N.0)= ±0.-Manmnm IICt coe1IIclents.003 X= ± 0. lift a large adverse gradient of pressure exists at the forward portion of the lower surface of the Clark Y that probably results in an early disturbance of the . A.\').0015 Ome . 20xl06 FIGURE7.A.A. .cnrve slope.A.~ _.-Angle § .- -eler Y . Number from tests In the flow at the leading edge (reference 4). =±0.~ l( considerable scale effect.23012-: ~ .000. The Clark Y has a 7 -__ __ 6 _ ___ 0)= ±0.0 6 o DISCUSSION '0. whereas the N. The scale effect on the maximum lift coefficient for the new airfoil is. Variation Number Cromtests In the full-scale wind tunnel 2Ox10~ with Raynollb FIOll'RE G. 23012 is somewhat greater than that for the Clark Y at Reynolds Numbers above 3. t.::. slightly greater than that for the Clark Y within the range of Reynolds Numbers tested. This condition of flow has a critical effect on the angle of zero lift and varies considerably with Reynolds Number..-.. A.4 . A.0015 per degree ao ODO(OL= that of the Clark Y (reference 4) shows that the new airfoil has a sharper break at maximum lift than does the Clark Y.e. C. C.12 0 N. A.A.0:2 2 4 6 8 10 Reynolds Number Variation with Reynolds full-scale wind tunnel. The N.6 . Variation with Reynolds tests In the full-seale wind tunnel Number from 8 QJ -... The curves of the angle of attack of zero lift for the two airfoils are shown in figure 6.: .-:. 23012 I r--- ~--. __ _ _ - k -. The results indicate that the coefficient for the N.A. A comparison of the shape of the lift curve of the 23012 (fig.C. sets up a flow about the leading i1046-36-20 .6 N.LfCt.0004 5 t--. 4) with g. A. A..005 chord 3 y=±0. 23012 AIRFOIL 439 the contributing errors involved in these tests gives the following estimated precision: a=±O.C. 23012 is unaffected by changes in Reynolds Number.l° OLJllas= ±0.

.098 .... C. might be expected to be considerably less. A. p. 23012 and . pitching-moment coefficients are referred to the aeroj tf. parison in the following table.A. hence.-Anothercomparison between the new section and a well-known section is afforded by table II..6 .C. Actually.026 I... -_-::: .5 148. Variation with Reynolds from tests In the Iull-scale wind tunnel. The curves of drag coefficient at zero lift (fig. . The comparative ratios indicate. A. .500. .0086 1. A... FIGURE 9..~ --..47 -5. ~ 4. N. by definition.". table I indicates that the optimum lift coefficients for the two sections are nearly equal... A. A. Compa..f a 161---+--+--+-+-+---I-1H-1H--I--1H--!--+-+-t-t--H-+-1 ~ ----.U __ ·_~~~-:_-. Both sets of results indicate that the lift-curve slope increases slightly with Reynolds Number. A..7 L variation with changes In Reynolds Nnmber.. the effects of scale on the angle of zero lift should be small.:-CPer degree). _-_ "0 Do_l.4 129.... aLo(dd~)-"---'------------'---'a.3 c. 2OS' 161 . The remaining important characteristics for one value of the Reynolds Number are presented for com- TABLE I FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL TESTS COMPARING N.004 Reynolds Number FIGURE B. A. In brief. a constant pitching-moment coefficient is obtained throughout the flight range. The coefficient for the N.. -_ . A.076 • •• .-Drag 4 6 8 10 20xl06 from ' a 1 2 Reynolds Number 4 6 8 10 20xlOG Number coefflclent at sero 1lIt.015 1. .r.. A.. 8) and minimum profile-drag coefficient (fig.007 1.. dynamic center rather than to the quarter-chord point. C. __• L50 -L2 . C.. 23012 as compared with the Clark Y. The average values of the pitching-moment coefficients thus found for the two airfoils together with the mean location of the aerodynamic center are given in the table.0069 1. A. 9) show that the drag of the N. A.-.00IlS 2L5 1. The method of obtaining the ratios of OLmo)ODO min in the table is somewhat fallacious as both the lift and drag values were taken at the same Reynolds Number. however. in which are compared the important characteristics of the N. These figures also indicate that the drag decreases more rapidly with an increase of Reynolds Number for the new airfoil than for the Clark Y.0 c... C..-_-_-:_-_-_-_-:_-:_-:_-: . C. C.A. A... however.0078 J}D .--. Ii I No consistent Following a recently adopted standard procedure. to have higher optimum lift coefficients than airfoils with usual mean-line shapes. Variation with Reynolds Nnmber tests In the full-scale wind tnnne1. 23012 ..Mlnlmnm prolll&-drag coefIIclant. 23012 airfoil is slightly higher than that for the Clark Y. __• •• 1._ •• _. :-_. at C -O. 23012 having the camber well forward tend. 23012 AND CLARK Y AIRFOILS At R./Co Oh.2212. . A.. 016 012 ". _ •• 1. This view is supported by the tests in the full-scale and variabledensity tunnels.•. p. C g~:::::::1::~::::::::::::::::::::::: . forward position (percent c) •• _ 125. C. __• •.__ .101 1..__ . This procedure is considered preferable because. 23012 airfoil with the exception of It sharper break in the lift curve is superior in all respects to the Clark Y airfoil.Il A~~ ~ c.. that the speed range of the new airfoil is much better than that of the Clark Y. C.••• •__ ••• ~O CL at (LID) . C. A...3 (percent c) • • __ 125.- - --- - y - lork Y "N.20 -1.----------------------------_ . __ .000 CharacterIstIc CLau_ . A.06 . .. As the result of the smaller camber of the N. it may be concluded from the results that the N.. A. 23012 airfoil is very small and is only about 9 percent of the value found for the Clark Y. OLol'" the lift coefficient corresponding to the minimumprofile-drag coefficient. Figure 7 shows that the slope of the lift curve for the N. A. It should be mentioned that the minimum-profile-drag results are relatively inaccurate as compared with the drag at zero lift 80 that caution will be used in extrapolating them to higher values of the Reynolds Number.440 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS edge that is not critical.111 -1. ------_ . . A. Airfoils such as the N.rison with the N.. 23012 airfoil is definitely lower than that of the Clark Y.. whereas in flight the two conditions occur at different air speeds.

A.ble-density-tunnel and full-scaletunnel results.. when turbulence is introduced into the air stream of a wind tunnel.07 CL. Test R. ao ----------- dCL _. C. C. 000 . The results from the full-scale tunnel were taken from curves representing variations of the different characteristics with Reynolds Number. as indicated in this :figure and discussed later..-_ C£ at (LID) ~ _ c. Comparison of va.6 ..cd~i::::::::::::::::::::::: a o~r(per degree) __. Hence.._.0077 23..... /CD· .0.0074 .0076 .... (Lf D) -. . The observed coefficients and scale effects likewise correspond more nearly to a higher value of the Reynolds Number in free air than to the actual test Reynolds Number in the turbulent stream. c....9 210 .. A. A. __ . N . A. 23012 AIRFOILS Charncterlstlo Full-scale tunnel Variabledensity tunnel Effective R... A.. leo.16 -.286.0031 24. .19 -..104 ar. 000.--. 2212 except that the pitching-moment characteristics of the new airfoil are markedly superior. to allow for the reduction in the skin-friction drag to be expected in passing from the test Reynolds Number to the higher effective Reynolds Number. C.llt . such as the rapid decrease of drag coefficient with Reynolds Number for the sphere..1 ..01~ . .0036 22. ....~=::ff~~~~~~~~~~~~ C. . __ . It is then advisable to refer -to this higher value of the Reynolds Number at which corresponding flows would be observed in free air as the "effective Reynolds Number" of the test and to make comparisons and apply the tunnel data to flight at that value of the Reynolds Number... 23012 AIRFOIL 441 the N.~OOO 3.000.I .._. and later by a more detailed comparison of the characteristics that show marked variations with Reynolds Number within the full-scale range.00S4 . __. As regards the relation of the effective Reynolds Number to the test Reynolds Number.000 at which the comparison is made. forward posltlon (percent c) _ c. A. __ ::=~. 23012 airfoil should therefore be used in preference to the N. '" CL . In the table.0077 . 000. . f>OO.. .1.5 ...009 .30 . 23012 AND 2212 AIRFOILS Characteristic EtrectJV6 R...17 009 . 23012 COMPARISON TABLE III OF RESULTS FROM TWO TUNNELS N..007 3.. or initial turbulence. factor. In a wind tunnel having turbulence. those of the N_ A. corresponds approximately to that for a modern two-engine transport airplane flying near its minimum speed.. N .029 . A. These are the usual test results from the standard plot in :figure 2 except that the drag coefficients have been reduced... and the increase of drag coefficient for skin-friction plates.. A.. at )4 CL . are associated with a transition of the boundary-layer flow from laminar to turbulent.CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N.--. This method.000 are employed.008 ..0072 . p. these marked scale effects appear at a progressively lower value of the Reynolds Number as the air-stream turbulence is increased.5 8. (percent c) _ u 25. the results from the variabledensity tunnel were taken directly from :figure 2. Ae:=.013 .. It will be noted that the characteristics of the N..40 27. A. C.102 .. C..00 gt~tLiii>"~-:__=:::::::::::::::: ..A.16 -. C. of the general air stream is increased. -.000 L43 -L2 .8 25. 000 L61 -L2 .400.. CL N. 000 L60 -L8 .. it appears that a. A. <XXI 3.~~CL(per CD0. __ . p. appears to be the best at present available for the interpretation of wind-tunnel results as applied to flight.. C.. the flow that is observed at a given Reynolds Number therefore corresponds approximately to the flow that would be observed in a turbulence-free stream at a higher value of the Reynolds Number.. or slightly superior to.36 All the important characteristics of the two sections are compared in a form that requires practically no discussion. A. 2212 for airplanes requiring this general type of airfoil section. degree) .. A. Test R. . 2212 8.9 CD . the rapid increase of the maximum lift coefficient for some airfoils.000.. 1~ _ 217 .~ oo •__• . N . A. ---------- _ 01100010 CL.0 3L6 23.. The N. 2212 sections. A.. _. <XXI _ L40 _ -L2 . which will be referred to as the "turbulence . Marked scale effects.-The comparison of the results from the two tunnels is made :first at one value of the "effective Reynolds Number" by means of table Ill. A.5 . _ --- N. which lists all the important characteristics at one value of the Reynolds Number...103 . aLe (degrees) a.. Numerous experiments including Reynolds' original classic experiments have indicated that the transition occurs at progressively lower values of the Reynolds Number as the "unsteadiness". C.. A.007 . For this purpose only standard 20-atmosphere test results from the variabledensity tunnel corresponding to an "effective Reynolds Number" (discussed later) of approximately 8..ria. _ 3. 000 3. N •• _. A.012 .220. The method of comparison employed utilizes the concept of an effective Reynolds Number in order to allow for the effects of the turbulence present in the wind tunnels. 1. The Reynolds Number of 8. CL.0.:. which was first proposed in reference 5 and is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. C..40 A.. 23012 are approximately the same as... TABLE II COMPARISON OF N.~lc:-:~::~:::: .

however. The part of the drag associated with skin friction is known to decrease with the Reynolds Number..1 or 2. These turbulence factors are used throughout this report to derive values of the effective Reynolds Number. however. It will be noted that the results from the full-scale tunnel indicate somewhat lower profile-drag coefficients but that the differences are smaller at zero lift where the results are more reliable owing to the absence of several more or less uncertain corrections involved in deducing the profile-drag coefficient when the airfoil is developing lift. The values may be revised as the result of further tests now on the program at the Committee's laboratory. The value of the turbulence factor for a given wind tunnel may be determined by a comparison of sphere drag tests or airfoil maximum-lift tests in the wind tunnel and in flight. the actual values derived from sphere tests are. 23012 8 (). Comparison of resnlts from variabledensity and Iull-scsle wlnd tunnels.000. Incidentally. The comparison between the profile-drag results from the tunnels may be made on the abovedescribed basis by comparing the dotted curve in :figure 2 with the profile-drag curve from the fullscale tunnel in :figure 4. 00 o. but adequate data on maximum lift coefficients are not available for making the comparison between both the full-scale tunnel and the variabledensity tunnel and flight by this method. The assumption that the factor is unity for the fullscale tunnel is approximately correct because differences in the turbulence between the full-scale tunnel and flight produce only small changes in the J.01 2 ~ ~ "0.4X1. A value of the factor of 2. but a value determined as suggested in reference 5 is used in this report for correcting the variable-density-tunnel results.. The actual value of this increment that should be subtracted is somewhat uncertain. It should be emphasized that the values employed in this report for both the turbulence factor and the drag increment should be considered as only tentative approximations. A better comparison is afforded by the curves in figures 10 and 11 representing variations of certain chnracteristics with the effective Reynolds Number.ol S ~ ~ .five Reynolds Number l~. The evaluation of the increment is bused on the assumption that at the higher values of the Reynolds Number encountered in flight. dependent on the size of the spheres employed. The agree- two ..2 4 6 8 10 Effec. 0 1 . however. The results of the test at a given Reynolds Number might be directly applied at the higher effective Reynolds Number. maximum lift coefficient. This value was employed in reference 5. it may be noted that sphere tests in the variable-density tunnel and in flight indicate values for the turbulence factor in approximate agreement with the values given. Recent comparative sphere tests in the full-scale tunnel and in flight have.0 in deriving the factor for the variable-density tunnel. when the standard airfoil test results from the variable-density tunnel at a test Reynolds Number of approximately 3.00 . Thus. Therefore. may be applied to the test Reynolds N timber to obtain the effective Reynolds Number. one change for which approximate allowance may be made is to be expected in passing to the higher Reynolds Number.64. T. the airfoil method is considered preferable.4 was tentatively established between the variable-density tunnel and the full-scale tunnel by a comparison of tests of Clark Y airfoils in both tunnels. the fact that the skin-friction coefficient for airfoils tends to be higher than for fiat plates (upon which the present value of drag increment is based) agrees with the present results in indicating that the drag increment may be too low. assuming the factor for the full-scale tunnel to be unity (no turbulence). indicated that the factor for the full-scale tunnel may be taken as approximately 1.1 instead of 1.A.: 8 xl--.000. probably within the experimental accuracy for most airfoils. The increment may then be determined from Prandtl's analysis of the completely turbulent skin-friction layer (reference 6) as the amount by which the skin-friction-drag coefficient decreases in the Reynolds Number range from the test Reynolds Number to the effective Reynolds Number.442 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS factor".CA. The values of the maximum lift coefficient are compared in figure 12 by means of curves representing variations with the Reynolds Number. although the conditions as applying to the transition from laminar to turbulent flow may be considered as reproducing those at the higher effective Reynolds Number. the value of the drag coefficient should be reduced in passing to the effective Reynolds Number.000. ~.Drag coefficient at zero lit. The corresponding value for the variabledensity tunnel then becomes 2.lH =r:s.000 are applied to flight at the effective Reynolds Number of approximately 8. most of the profile diag is due to skin friction from the turbulent boundary layer. ~f<'~.0011. In particular. 20 X 106 FIGURE 10. Because the factors determined by the two methods might not agree. although the values of the effective Reynolds Number differ slightly.t1" N.. the measured profile-drag coefficients should be corrected by deducting the increment 0. when the profile-drag coefficient is of importance.

A. Jacobs. REFERENCES 1. Comparison of results from and full-scale wind tunnels.A. C. Eastman N. aLo. A. The N. A. 1935.CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. R. T.: The N. Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. N. March 1. considering the difficulties of measurement. No. J c. 23012 11. Aero. Berkeley. 5.r-r. Washington.6 . 23012 AIRFOIL 443 ment between the results from the two tunnels.: Recent Progress Concerning the Aerodynamics of Wing Sections.. Prandtl. Eastman N. Abe: Scale Effeot on Clark Y Airfoil Characteristics from N.. R.-1>farlmum Comparison of results from variable- agreement may be expected. 502.-1Unlmum 2 4 6 8m £ffectlVe Reynolds Number variable-denslty at least for efficient 20 X 1011 LANGLEY MEMORIAL FIELD. A. T. Robert M. 18-29. 23012 section show no variations with Reynolds Number sufficiently marked to require their being taken into account in engineering work: angle of zero lift. E.7 FIOURE 12. airfoils of moderate thickness. A.... 1932. A. C. A.6 N.. C. For the remaining characteristics. C.A. in all cases. Vers. 23012 airfoil section shows characteristics that are generally superior to those of well-known and commonly used sections of small or medium camber and moderate thickness. N. 460. A. A. 0 FlOURE 1l. 1932. A. profile-drag coe. pp. 23012 _c-- l.c.dr.).. R. A. Ergb. N. p.A. T. IV Lieferung. C. A.. A. efficient about the aerodynamic center. A. A.. Paper presented before A. N.8 I 2 4 Effective Reynolds Number JUt coe1IIclent.~ l( 5 .! D. Smith J. June 19..: zur Turbulenten Btromung in Rohren und Lllngs Platten. variable- . C..--- V x . A. C.6 . 6. C. A. 2. When airfoil test results at large values of the Reynolds Number from the N. density and full-seale wind tunnels. Jacobs. The results from both tunnels agree in indicating that within the flight range of values of the Reynolds Number investigated the following characteristics for the N. ~3 .. 416. 1934. T.o: 6 2 ~. Jacobs... The small discrepancy that remains may indicate either that the value of the turbulence factor should be modified or possibly that an increment corresponding to that used with the drag should be employed. A. T. Ward. No. and the corresponding aerodynamic-center position.0. S. LABORATORY. 2. R.B 1.C. 1933.4 . No.: The N. Ira H. CONCLUSIONS NATIONAL ADVISORY COmUTTEE LANGLEY FOR AERONAUTICS.. A. 1933. A. reasonably satisfactory I. California. tabular values may be directly compared. C. zu Gotttngen.4 6 8x10' B ~ r-x x K. AERONAUTICAL VA. Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel Tests. A. Oma. C. No. L. For these characteristics. optimum lift coefficient. v. DeFrance. OL o 1" . N. C. and Pinkerton.Olclent. A..A. C.. Kenneth E. 1. C. 459. A. Silverstein. The lift-curve slope ao shows a slight increase with increasing Reynolds Number in both wind tunnels. the tabular values presented in table III may therefore be directly compared. 4. T.s. the values obtained from the two tunnels show reasonably good agreement.1--' x I'!! r. Eastman N.C. r:s. Full-Scale Wind Tunnel. 3.~nd Abbott. 1934 (available from the Office of Aeronautical Intelligence.2I. A. pitching-moment co- density and full-scale tunnels are interpreted on the basis of an "effective Reynolds N umber" to allow for the effects of turbulence.: The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. M.__ ~ . It will be noted that. is reasonably satisfactory. N.

0 -2. t:.8 0 2'=0..008 -.086 -.:l 9. 1 25.012 -.008 -.0 7.0 . 0".0 6.413.8 .0063 .COS -.0121 .0125 .0 .1943 {.0910 -L2 0 .0485 15. a RN": Zero Uft-L726.9 LO Ll L2 L3 L{ L46 L2 1.S 15.0 -2.9 3.0{ 3L2 .0084 .0000 .~ %=0.9 18.0682 .1 0 .4 26.0107 .0 9.5 0.{0 8.1 12.0 3. "0 C .2 25.0128 .2 25.9 16.008 -.8 7..3 -2.OOO CD CluRACTEJUSnCS Mu.009 -.0 lLO{ 12. 1 16.0 25.007 -.0072 .143.005 -.0110 .3 9.000 -. 2 25. .9 7.007 -. 1 .0 32. A.S 8.2 25.-FULL-SCALE AmFOIL WIND-TUNNEL DATA Max.1 0 .6 .0078 • 00i<II .1 25.006 -. 0. N.2 21. 7 lLO 13.1 11. Urt-3.1 .0000 .0 8.0088 .0 25.{OO 26.0228 20.5 13.008 -.9 LO Ll L2 L33 L2 Ll LO Parent 19.010 . A.49.5 .0079 .0800 12. 6 1~7 13.007 -.0092 24.4 17. a Max.OW .2 -.0 .009 TABLE VI.1 .1 7. 0 0.2 .193 .:l {'5 5.OOO CD.2 .1 19.OOM 25.0 15. 23012 OHARACl'ER1ST1C8 RN: CL a Zero llit-3.lllt-1.1 0 .8 . a CD --C . 2 19.017 .2 1.005 -.0 0.1 10.~ '-29:'0' .112 lL3 .008 -.7 .81 .0673 ..--.1105 • 12M 10.5 25.1 0 .3 .3 .8 .2 .5 .0 22.7 19.3 25.011 -.3 18.0 15.1 88.3 .009 '--820· -3.0 18.'i.5 10.0 30.444 REPORT NAT!ONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS TABLE IV FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA N.0 .0 13. I~ 0 -0.0120 ------4.S 2L7 10.076 -3.2 25.1 8.3 10.0 22.009 -.000.H60 6.6 .9 6. 2 13.009 -.0 -.0121 .5 . 1 18.275 .7 lLO 12.165 .0 .034 -.0928 . CD.0080 • COO! .9 16.000 -.007 -. 6 20. --.0101 .7 22.9 . PtTcmt 18.S 4.9 10.5 24.021 -.0194 .0088 19.0 20.0079 .1168 • 1112 a.O .000 -. 7 .S .049 -0.7 3.049 25. A.013 -. --.7 .0105 .1 ILl 13. Max.6 22.0073 .1 ~6 5.5 . --.=0.011 -. Cr.0 25.0 19.2 .1 25.0091 .1 9.S 2.0072 .037 -.008 -.0 5.1 17.0119 .0097 .8 1L8 13.0084 -------12.010 -. C. 23012 AmFOIL TABLE VII.0084 .I0 LID C.0 30.S ILl 12.009 -.1 5.S .7 25.0 25.4.0170 ~5 20.8 .056 -.0126 ..1 12.. -0.007 -.100 3.3 25.009 -.OW .063 -.{ 9.1 3.0S05 .0 {'3 5.010{ -.0098 .7 30.0191 11=0.0 .1 -008 -.0 .008 -.:l 8. A.0120 . 0 13.0125 .197 .6 5.0125 25.3 -2.3 13.4 .0 .0075 .0 -2.S -------____•__• 1~0 0 12. C.006 -.1 8.5 .1 30.9 7.0{ .0 25.p.S %=0.6 25.0 20.011 -.2 I{'S 16.2 -.0079 .2 7.OM -.5 3L9 27.0090 .0 .9 19.2 .3 .000.1 1.011 -.0142 .S 1{'3 15.006 -.007 -.0 2LO ..0080 21.1 10.S ~5 .134 .7 .0131 22.0565 .0103 29.007 -. 1 . 23012 AIRroIL CIlARACTE1lISTIC9 RN: Cr.0 3.6 . 23012 COAlUcrE1U8TICS RN: Cr.0 28.0110 .2 27.0146 .p. A.9 lLO 12.0 4.1 0 .I0 LID c. 6 18.022 .207 -3.OOll -3.OOO c.1 25.OUl -.1X84 .7 7.3 -Ll .3 0. 67 22.3 15.0 4.7 5.009 -.063O -0.079 TABLE VIII FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA N.--.S 2.008 -.0081 21.1267 .5 .0 27.0378 .3 . -----12.9 L9 2. --.0 25.9 LO Ll L2 L3 L41 1.0300 • Q.005 -.010 -.229 Zero lUt-4.I0 ---I- LID C.S 10.121 17. Illt-2.S I.0121 .008 -.0039 .212 .0070 .0 6.0 0.S 15..5 .0 16.2 -.2 -2..223 3.0 0.2 16.0 22.--.000 -.0 .0 2.021 -.2 ~I LID .2 6.423.3 22.0230 .S 27.3 -2.0 ~1 5.023 .9 5.M2._ .0099 .6 -L2 L6 3.000.012 -.007 -.5 ..0940 n.--0 CD.1 .4 lL 1 10.1 {.5 14.1030 .=0. C a RN: Zero urt-2.00al 0 .008 -.9 8.W . Max.0160 .417.0098 .0300 .03S0 .8 .6 .1 .1 8.039 1~2 25.072 .013 -.2 26.007 -.1260 ..9 7. 75 .0723 12.0 --.1 LO 2.0860 lLS 25.010 -.2 -L2 -.009 -.3 .6 16.9 ~9 6.194 23.010 -. 5 18.2 25.3 13. 5 16.9 LO Ll L2 L26 L2 Ll LO .013 -.006 -..3 16.2 29. 0 13.9 25.100 .6 .1 27.0 .oesa 12.320 2.0175 .7 15.0945 .0082 .0116 .0250 • !MOO .0073 .7 lLO 12.0298 . 1 r-0'0095c .0251 .0 18.0{ n.0 15.0080 . A.OOO p.coo 17.1 24.014 -.0 .032 -.5.3 LS 3.S . .3 5.9 LO L1 L2 L3 L4L46 L2 Ll 10 -0.S 25..1 .1 25. A.0N6 .0 ~O 5. 6 2.006 -.097 25.6 25.145 .S 3.0 LO 2.0075 .0320 25.5 .008 -.4 .071 1{'1 13.072 -.0145 V=O.0088 -------lLO{ 88.015 .1020 25.5 19.{ 5.S .00 25.1 25.3 L2 1.0125 .1 1.Olal .246 0 ~----- I 0..1 Ptrcent 18.0 L7 .1 .1 15.0 23.0074 .2 l2.3 L7 3.OOO. -----. C. A.014 -.0 18.9 17.6 -L2 .3 28.0170 23.p.0090 . 23012 AmFOIL OILUlACTElllSTIC8 TABLE V FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA N.0240 25.6 13..008 -. I...000 .S 19.:l -.S 9.2 26. 0114.1 .0 25.0173 2L9 27.0082 . { 17..011 -.9 23.0 -4.0 .009 -.9 -2.46O.067G 1~ 7 .OM .7 25.6 .5 6.1 22. C_ •. a.009 -.0 26.{ .S 25.012 .0130 .alO 8. 7 .107 -.0 3L3 . A.oc:r -.0075 . 7 12.6 .0597 13.007 -.014 11=0.7 .Ii93.7 .180 .5 .S .008 -.1 6.0 26.5 .9 .0114 .023e -0.0081 .1 %=0.143 .012 -.014.-FULL-SCALE AmroIL WIND-TUNNEL DATA N.0100 .3 .0123 .65S.3 -2..2 -L2 -.0113 .007 -.000 CD.0107 .0085 ····0··· 10.8 ~6 25.1 25.008 -.I0 CD LID c.3 25. 0000 .2 -L2 -.8 7.8 25.l. --PerMlt --- "0 0 C -"co -4.0887 -0.000: Cr.0300 18.013 .680.9 20. C. 7 16.009 -.6 12.2 11.6 21.0070 .058 -0.4.6 18. C.9 8.008 -. CD --O.3 25.1 .1 16.2 .012 .5 25.38t O.2 .012 -.10{ .9 .000 .251 ~O 35.1 13.7 . { 25.1 LO 2.0660 13.0086 .456.007 -.0080 .:l .1 12.012 -.20.0 -2.0470 • ()57lj -------. { .0137 .144 .0165 .1140 .203 PtTcmt 20.0467 .0261 .0084 .5 8.065 .0208 . 7 1LS 10.1 15.011 -.006 -.2 ~O 26.0107 .0 6.0074 2L3 24.0113 .007 -.0 6. a Zero ll!V-3.0166 .210 ~O 32.I99.5 25.0147 .011 -.llit-4.6 -L2 .W! .3 -L2 -.0 15.0186 .5 .014 -.0 25.p.OO6.152 25. 7 18.0000 0 .1102 .006 -.5 25.4.6 0.00&0 12.007 -.008 -.007 -.:l 25. 2 19.~ -3.0 17..5 .0380 . { 25.6 -L2 .0039 .5 .0167 .039 -.009 -.8 -4.7 10. 005 -.0223 .ll!V-3.5 3.118 -2. 9 7.427. A.0002 .0081 .0139 .0228 20.0 14.1 8.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->