You are on page 1of 46

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19930091662 2017-10-06T18:28:07+00:00Z

{
-- / I

NATIONAL ADVISORY COl\fMITTEE


FOR AERONAUTICS

REPORT No. 586

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED


BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER

By EASTMAN N. JACOBS and ALBERT SHERM AN

REPRINT OF REPORT No• .5S6. ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 1937

1939
REPROOUCED BY
NATIONAL
INFORM A Tl6ECHN/CAL
u. S. DcPARTME TN SERVICE
SPR'NGF'El~'• VOA . COMMERCE
F
- - -- - - - - - -
22161
}.

AERO NAUT IC SYMB OLS


1. FUNDA MENTA L AND DERIV ED UNITS

Metric English
Symbol
Unit Abbrevi a- Abbrevi a-
tion Unit
tion

Length _ _____
.
m eter __________________
I m foot (or mile) _______
Tirne ________ t second _______ _______ ___ ft. (or mi.)
J:'orce ________ s second (or hour) _______ sec. (or hr.)
F weight of 1 kilogram _____ kg weight of 1 p ound ___ __ lb.

PoweL ______
Speed __ __ . __
P
V
horsepo wer (m etric) _____
{kilome ters per hour __ .. _. -------
m eters per second _____ ._
k.p.h.
--- ho rsepowe r _____ -. _ -'-1
miles p er h OUL . • ___ ••
hp .
m.p.h.
m.p.s. feet p er second. _______ f.p .s.

2. GENER AL SYMBO LS
w, Weigh t=mg v, Kinem atic viscosi ty
g, Standa rd acceler ation of gravit y=9 .80665 p, Densit y (mass per unit volume)
m/s2 or 32.1740 ft ./sec. 2 Standa rd density of ID'y air, 0.12497 kg-m- 4_s2 at
l-F 15° C. and 760 mmi or 0.002378 Ib.-ft.- 4 sec.2
m, Mass = -
9 Specific weight of "stand ard" air, 1.2255 kg/m 3 or
I, Mome nt of inertia =mk 2 • (Indica te axis of 0.07651 lb. /cu. ft.
radius of gyratio n k by proper subscr ipt.)
/1-, Coefficient of viscosi ty
3. AEROD YNAMI C SYMBO LS

S, Area Angle of setting of wings (relative to thrust


Sw, Area of wing line)
G, Gap Angle of stabiliz er setting (relativ e to thrust
b, pan line)
C, Chord Q, Result ant momen t
b2 n, Result ant angula r velocit y
Aspect ratio
S' Vl
V, True air speed p -;;:'
Reyno lds Numbe r, where l is a linear dimens ion
(e.g., for a model airfoil 3 in. chord, 100
q, Dynam ic pressur e=~p V 2 m.p.h. norma l pressu re at 15° C ., the \ "r-
L, Lift, absolu te coefficient OL = :s respon ding numbe r is 234,000 i or for a modi 1
of 10 em chord, 40 m.p.s., the corresponding-
numbe r is 274,000)
D, Drag, absolu te coefficient OD= -:s Center -of-pre ssure coefficient (ratio of distanc e
of c.p. from leading edge to chord length )
Profile drag, absolu te coefficient ODO=~S Angle of attack
Angle of downwash
Induce d ID'ag, absolu te coefficient ODi= ~S Angle of attack, infmite aspect ratio
Angle of attack, induce d
Parasi te drag, absolut e coefficient OD'P=~S Angle of attack, a.bsolute (measured from zero-
lift positio n)
0, Cross-wind force, absolu te coefficient Oc= q~
Flight- path angle
R. Result ant force
NOTICE

THIS DOCUMEN'r HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM

THB BEST COPY FUR NISHED US BY THE SPONSOR I NG

AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT C E R -

TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE -

LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAI L ABLE

AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.

./
REPORT No. 586

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED


BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER

By EASTMAN N. JACOBS and ALBERT SHERMAN


Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory

,. #

II
- -----

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

HEADQUARTERS. NAVY SunDING. WASHINGTON. D. C.

LABORATORIES, LANGLEY FIELD. VA.

Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for the supervision and direction of the scientific study of the problems of
flight (U. S. Code, Title 50, Sec. 151). Its membership was increased to 15 by act approved March 2, 1929. The members are
appointed by the President, and serve as such without compensation.
JOSEPH S. AMES, Ph. D., Chairman, ROBERT H. HINCKLEY, A. B.,
Baltimore, Md. Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Authority.
VANNEVAR BUSH, Sc. D., Vice Chairman, JEROME C. HUNSAKER, Sc. D.,
Washington, D. Q. Cambridge, Mass.
CHARLES G. ABBOT, Sc. D., SYDNEY M. KRAUS, Captain, United States Navy,
Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
HENRY H. ARNOLD, Major General, United States Army, CHARLES A. LINDBERGH, LL. D.,
Chief of Air Corps, War Department. New York City.
GEORGE H. BRETr, Brigadier General, United States Army, FRANCIS W. REICHELDERFER, A B ..
Chief Materiel DiviSion, Air Corps, Wright Field, Dayton, Chief, United States weather Bureau.
Ohio. JOHN H. TOWERS, Rear Admiral, United States Navy,
Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
LYMAN J. BRIGGS, Ph. D., EDW ARD WARNER, Sc. D.,
Director, National Bureau of Standards. Greenwich, Conn.
CLINTON M. HESTER, A. B., LL. B., ORVILLE WRIGHT, Sc. D.,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Authority, Dayton, Ohio.

GEORGE W. LEWIS, Director of Aeronautical Research

JOHN F. VICTORY, Secretary

HENRY J . E. REID, Engineer-in-Charge, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va.

JOHN J. IDE, Technical Assistant in Europe, Paris, France

TECHNICAL COMMITTEES
AERODYNAMICS
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES
POWER PLANTS FOR AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
AIRCRAFT MATERIALS
INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS

Coordination of Research Needs of Military and Civil Aviation

Preparation of Research Programs

AUocation of Problems

Prevention of Duplication

Consideration of Inventions

LANGLEY MEMORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY OFFICE OF AERONAUTICAL INTELLIGENCE


LANGLEY FIELD. VA.
W ASmNGToN. D. c.
Unified conduct, for all agencies, of scientific research on the Collection, classification, compilation, and dissemina.tion of
fundamental problems of flight. scientific and technica.l information on aeronautics.

",
/If
REPORT No. 586

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE


REYNOLDS NUMBER
By EASTMAN N. JACOBS and ALBERT SHERMAN

SUMMARY Reynolds Number. This phenomenon is referred to as


An investigation oj a systematically chosen representa- "scale effect."
tive group oj related airjoils was made in the N. A. O. A. Early investigations of scale effect were made in
variable-density wind tunnel over a wide range oj the small atmospheric tunnels at comparatively low values
Reynolds Number extending weU into the flight range. of the Reynolds Number and, for airfoils, covered a
The tests were made to provide injormation jrom which the range of the Reynolds Number too limited and too
variations oj airjoil section characteristics with changes in remote from the full-scale range to permit reliable
the Reynolds Number could be injerred and methods oj extrapolations to flight conditions. Attempts were
allowing jor these variations in practice could be deter- made to bridge the gap between the two Reynolds
mined. This work is one phase oj an extensive and general umber ranges by making full-scale flight tests for
airjoil investigation being conducted in the variable-density comparison with model tests. These investigations of
tunnel and extends the pr'eviously published researches scale effect, however, proved disappointing owing
conceming airjoil characteristics as affected by variations partly to the difficulty of obtaining good flight tests
in airjoil profile determined at a single value oj the and to tbe difficulty of reproducing flight conditions
Reynolds Number. in the model tests and partly to the large unexplored
The object oj this report is to provide means j01' making Reynolds Number range between the model and flight
available as section characteristics at any jree-air value tests with consequent uncertainties regarding the
oj the Reynolds Number the variable-density tunnel airjoil continuity of the characteristics over this range.
data previously published. Accordingly, the various cor- Furthermore, the flight tests could not ordinarily
rections involved in deriving more accurate airjoil section include a sufficiently large range of the Reynolds
characteristics than those heretojore employed are first N umber to establish the character of the scale effects
considered at length and the cortections jor turbulence are for certain of the airfoil characteristics over the full-
explained. An appendix is included that covets the scale range of the Reynolds Number, which may extend
results oj an investigation oj certain consistent errors from values as low itS a few hundred thousand to thirty
present in test results jrom the variable-density tunnel. million or more.
The origin and nature oj scale effects are discussed and These limitations of the early investigations were
the airjoil scale-effect data are analyzed. Finally, meth- first overcome by the N. A. O. A. through the use of
ods ate given oj allowing jor scale effects on ai1joil section the variable-density tunnel, which was designed to
characteristics in practice within ordinary limits oj accu- facilitate aerodynamic investigations over the entire
racy jor' the application oj variable-density-tunnel airjoil range of Reynolds Numbers between the wind tunnel
data to flight problems. and flight values. Several miscellaneous and com-
monly used airfoils were investigated for scale effect
INTRODUCTION
in the variable-density tunnel dUTing the first years of
When data from a model test are applied to a flight its operation. The results indicated that important
problem, the condition that should be satisfied is that scale effects for some airfoils may be expected above
the flows for the two cases be similar. The Reynolds the usual wind-tunnel range and even within the flight
Number, which indicates the ratio of the mass forces to range of values of the Reynolds Number. Later,
the viscous forces in aerodynamic applications, is ordi- when the N. A. O. A. full-scale tUllllel was constructed,
narily used as the criterion of similarity. The practical airfoil tests therein served to confirm the importance
necessity for having the flow about the model aerody- of scale effects occurring in the full-scale range and also
namically similar to the flow about the full-scale object provided valuable data for the interpretation of the
in flight becomes apparent from the fact that aero- variable-density-tunnel results, particularly in con-
dynamic coefficients, as a rule, vary with changes in the nection with the effects of the turbulence present in the
1
• c ------------- --- ~ -

2 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

variable-density tunnel. The interpretation of the Camber shape.


variable-density-tunnel results has consequently been Sections with high-lift devices.
modified to allow for the turbulence on the basis of an The testing program was begun in May 1934 and
"effective Reynolds Number" higher than the test extended several times as it became apparent that
Reynolds Number. additional tests would be desirable. The final tests
In the meantime, the investigations of airfoils in in the variable-density tunnel were made in September
the variable-density tunnel had been turned to an 1935.
extensive study of airfoil characteristics as affected TESTS AND MODELS
by airfoil shape. This phase, which resulted in the
development of the well-known N. A. C. A. airfoils, Descriptions of the variable-density wind tunnel
involved the testing of a large number of related and of the methods of testing are given in reference 1.
airfoils, but these tests were largely confined to one The tests herein reported were made for the most
value of the Reynolds umber within the full-scale part for each airfoil at tank pressures of 1/4 , 1/2, 1, 2,
range. Such a procedure expedited the investigation 4, 8, 15, and 20 atmospheres, covering a range of test
and provided comparable data for the various airfoils Reynolds Numbers from 40,000 to 3,100,000. The
within the full-scale range of the Reynolds Number 1/4- and 1/2-atmosphere runs were omitted for many
but, of co urse, gave no information about scale effects. of the airfoils a,nd, in several cases, only the lift-curve
As previously stated, the full-scale-tunnel results had peaks were obtained at the lower Reynolds Null' bel's.
provided information regarding the application of the Runs at reduced speeds (1/5 and 1/2 the standard value
yariable-density-tunnel data to flight. Methods were of the dynamic pressure q) at 20 atmospheres were
accordingly developed for correcting the data and for sometimes substituted for the tests at 8 and 15 atmos-
presenting them in forms that would facilitate their pheres. Several check tests at 8 and 15 atmospheres
use as a,pplied to flight problems. Flight problems, and results from some earlier investigations have shown
however, require airfoil data at various values of the that the specific manner of varying the Reynolds
Reynolds umber between values as low as a few Number with respect to speed or density is unimportant
hundred thousand in some cases to thirty million or when the effects of compressibility are negligible. For
more in others. Obviously the results available from all the airfoils, the air in the tunnel was decompressed
the tests of related airfoils at one value of the Reynolds and the airfoil repolished before running the higher
Number (effective Reynolds Number=8,000,000) are Reynolds Number tests. Tares obtained a t corre-
inadequate for the purpose unless they can be corrected sponding Reynolds Numbers were used in working up
to other values of the Reynolds Number. The present the results.
investigation was therefore undertaken to study the The airfoil models are of metal, usually of duralumin
scale effects for the related airfoil sections primarily and of standard 5- by 30-inch plan form; the sections
with a view to the formulation of general methods for employed (see fig. 1), except for the slotted Clark Y,
determining scale-effect corrections for any normal are members of N. A. C. A. airfoil families (references
airfoil section so that the standQ,rd test results from 2 and 3). The slotted Clark Y model is of 36-inch span
the variable-densit,V tunnel could be applied to flight and 6-inch chord (with the slot closed) and was made
at any Reynolds rumber. For most practical uses it to the ordinates given in reference 4. For this airfoil,
is considered desirable and sufficient to present airfoil the coefficients are given as based on the chord and area
test results in the form of tabular values giving certain corresponding to the slot-closed condition. The slat
important aerodynamic characteristics for each airfoil was made of stainless steel and fastened to the main
section. The primary object of this investigation, wing in the position reported (reference 4) to result in
therefore, is to give information about the variation of the highest value of maximum lift coefficient. This
these important airfoil section characteristics with model was tested at a much earlier date than the others,
Reynolds Number. and the test data are somewhat less accurate. The
In regard to the scope of the experimental investiga- main wing of the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil with external-
tion, the Reynolds umber range was chosen as the airfoil flap is of 30-inch span and 4.167-inch chord.
largest pos ible in the variable-density tunnel and the The flap is of stainless steel and is also of N. A. C. A.
airfoil sections were chosen to cover as far as possible 23012 section having a chord of 20 percent that of the
the l'ange of shapes commonly employed. Accord- main airfoil. It was fastened to the main wing in the
ingly, groups of related airfoils (fig. 1) were tested to optimum hinge position reported in reference 5. Data
investigate the following variables related to the for this airfoil combination are given herein for two
airfoil-section shape : angular flap settings: _3 0 , which corresponds to the
Thickness. minimum-drag condition; and 30 0 , which corresponds
Camber. to the maximum-lift condition. The coefficients are
Thickness and camber. given as based on the sums of the main wing and flap
Thiclmess shape. chords and areas.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 3
Thickness Comber shape

~~/~~-------=======---
N.A.C.A .
0003 C _______------=-

OOICC ~
----------------
0015 C ____--~ 23012 C
0 0 1 8 C_ _ ~

4412C

Cumber

00/2 C ______--======---- 43012

2412 C_______====--====-_----~
4412 C----~-------"""" 67/2C==
--
Thickness and comber
G012C: =v:
High-lift devices

~__---====-==-------=-------=====-. 23012~ ~.
==v
4409

230lSS
===v
4412C

4415 C____--~----~ 2302/S


8318C_~_ 43012 ~
23012 C
===v ===---------=-c:::==------.L
I

----r- Ci(;: &


Thickness shape
-3° ~;;::
.....
~~
230/2C QJ~

230/2 C =====-===- ~
~
.r::.~
f:':::tl
30·3:

n012- 33 C c/arkv(/'L ~
~J
With Handley-Page slot
l<'IGUltE I.- Airfoil sections employed for tbe scaJe--eITect investigation_ The sections, except for f.he slotted Clark Y, are members of N. A. C. A. airfoil familics.
4 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

.ACCURACY cases are not presented below an effective Reynolds


The accuracy of the experimental data of this investi- Number of 800,000.
RESULTS
gation at the highest Reynolds Number is comparable
with that of the standard airfoil test data as discussed Figures 2 to 24 present the test results corrected after
in reference 2. The systematic errors of measurement the methods given in reference 1 for approximating
therein mentioned, however, have since been investi- infinite-aspect-ratio charact.eristics. Ourves are given
gated and the results are presented in the appendix to (for each airfoil for different test Reynolds Number) of
this report. The systematic errors of velocity measure- lift coefficient OL against effective angle of attack ao,
ment have hence been eliminated, the errors associated and of profile-drag coefficient ODO and of pitching-
with support deflection have been largely removed, and moment coefficient about the aerodynamic center
the errors associated with model roughness have been Om a.c. against lift coefficient OL' The x and y coordi-
minimized by giving careful attention to the model nates of the aerodynamic center from the airfoil quarter-
surfaces. chord point are also given where the data permit.
The remaining systematic errors are mainly those Although not precisely section characteristics, character-
associated with the interpretation of the wind-tunnel istics so corrected have been used heretofore as section
results rather than the direct errors of measurement. characteristics because of the lack of anything more
These errors are associated, first, with the calculation exact.
of airfoil section characteristics from the tests of finite- Further corrections, however, to allow for the effects
aspect-ratio airfoils and, second, with the correction of wind-tunnel turbulence, airfoil-tip shape, and some
of the test results to zero turbulence or free-air condi- of the linutations of the previous corrections based on
tions. Such errors will be IIl£)re fully treated in the airfoil theory were developed during the course of this
discussion where the methods of correction, including investigation and, when applied, give results repre-
the interpretation of the results as involving the effec- senting the most reliable section data now available
tive Reynolds Number, are considered. from the variable-density wind tunnel. These addi-
The magnitude of the direct experimental errors, tional corrections and their derivation are fully dis-
particularly of the accidental errors, increases as the cussed later in this report. The more exact section
Reynolds Number is reduced. Any variation of the characteristics have been distinguished by lower-case
support interference with the Reynolds Number was symbols, e. g., section lift coefficient Cll section profile-
not taken into account in spite of the fact that the test drag coefficient Cdo, section optimum lift coefficient
results tend to indicate that the uncorrected part (see Cl oPI ' and section pitching-moment coefficient about the

appendix) of the support interference may cease to be aerodynamic center cma . c .• These values are then con-
negligible at low test Reynolds Numbers. These errors sidered applicable to flight at the effective Reynolds
may be judged by a study of the dissymmetry of the umber, R e .
test results for positive and negative angles of attack TH,ble I presents, for various Reynolds Numbers, the
for the symmetrical airfoils and l;>y the scattering of the principal aerodynamic characteristics, in the form of
points representing the experimental data. (See figs. these fully corrected section characteristics, of the air-
2 to 24.) Such a study indicates that the results from foils tested. Oross plots of certain of these section
tests at tank pressures at and above 4 atmospheres characteristics against Reynolds Number are also given
(effective Reynolds Numbers above 1,700,000) are of for use with the discussion. (See fig. 28 and figs. 32
the same order of accuracy as those from the highest to 43.)
Reynolds Number tests. The drag and pitching- DISCUSSION
moment results for effective Reynolds Numbers below Scale effects, or the variations of aerodynamic coef-
800,000, however, become relatively ~accurate owing ficients with Reynolds Number, have previously been
to limitations imposed by the sensitivity of the measur- considered of primary importance only in relation to
ing equipment. In fact, it appears that the accuracy the interpretation of low-scale test results from atmos-
becomes insufficient to define with certainty the shares pheric wind tunnels. It now appears from variable-
of curves representing variations of these quantities density and full-scale-tunnel data that important
with angle of attack or lift coefficient. Hence airfoil variations of the coefficients rou t be recognized within
characteristics dependent on the shape of such curves, the flight range of values of the Reynolds Number,
e. g., the optimum lift coefficient and the acrodynamic- pa.rticularly in view of the fact that the flight range is
center position, are considered' unreliable and in most continually being increased.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTE RISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARI ATIONS OF TH E R EYNOLDS NUMB ER 5


'~H;1:~il nJljluM 1
m . 10 H--I---t--1-+--+-+--+-H-jfH----t-t-f-+--+,-' T~ 5
I17
I

7. 5~3:.150
-3.150
10 .51;? -.J.51;?
15 .009 4.009
m 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percenf orchord
t.J
.09
..... . 0 8
HH-+_~+_JH-+-++-+I_~I--+--+-+-+-~Reynold~+-
I
0
INumber:~_
3,140, OO~ _
: 6 - - - 2.3 10, 000
~~ ~~~~ :~~g~h""""T-r-r-,---,--,-,-,.--,.-,,-,-,-1 ~ x- ------ - I ,290:0 0 0 -
~g ~ }g~ :~:}~~ 1. 8
:u.0 7 + - - -- 665,000-
~ '7- -·--- 334,000-
~g~~ij :J.~~~H-I-+-+++++-+-+-H-I--1
702.748 - 2.74 8 1. 6
~. 06
u
I:
;
0 - - · - - /69, 000_
8 4,400_
80 1.967 -1.967f-H-I-+-I-++++-+-+-H-I
90 1.086 -1.OB6I-H-I-+-+++++-+-+-H_ 1.4
g-. 05 d '<;J- " ' - ' "
17- - ..- - 42,300.-
1
I~ ig~~: i~~,:S~H-I-+-+d--+++-+-+-H--+­ ~ :i!
~/O~O~O~-L~O~-r+++-~V~'~H-+-+++++-
I I
~ . 04H-I+++-H-+~1~U :~~
/ 4, -1-+-I-H-++~
L. £. Rod.: 0.89 I. 2 t:f
~ !-~HH-+-~-I--l-+-~I
P ~ jg ..... !,'/
~ . 03 1--+~+-I- ~~+-~~-~:!~~~~~+-h.4.~--t-+-j-+-
I : I
~.-+--t<:>.J~P>-4:1-....c--f-++++--t--1
f-H--+-++++-+I-..f. ~
"
I. 0
l(;< t!_lil! ~ ::.t!
. 8~ .tt:t--t- ..,.-- ,~
. 02 ~-W~4-_~~~-~~ . ~
-~
- ) '(
)/~/~4~~~~+-~
)~ --H~:~-l=l -!---'"f-i (!J

HH-+-I-++-i~~-++~· c.pos~lion+-H-+- .6 3 k~ - b.;::P;:: j::l'

HH-+-I-++,"A-+-+-HI oX - Y -f- em •. c : -I- ~ . 01 W=~"~~-~~=tw=tttttt:1


H-l--+--+--l--F-l7'-+--j.O--- I. q_ 5 _I- 0 - I - .4-..J u O H-~~~~~~~~~~
~ .~~_~_~~H--1
H-I-I-+--f'jl..I."J-I---+ 6 - - I.C!.- «_1- - .00 1 -I- > t I I~
x··-·-- I .8 8 0 ~ - IH-+-+-~-~~--t-+-j~-HI£~~~~+-j~~+-~
H-l--+--+-~+-+-+-++-- - I. 7 13 -I- - .00 I - I - .2 <...: W7
(!J
I I I o 8-·2f-H--f-+-++--t-4-+-+-H-I-+-++--t-4-+-+-~
t-+-+-bJH -l Aidoil: NA .C.A. 0009
H-l--f>-,-+--j.Size: 5 "x3 0" Vel. (ff./sec):68 - .2 ~ ~ 3 f-H--+-+-L~-~4-~+-~~-+-L~-L~~+-L-f
I--+-I----I-+---l Pres.(sin d . o fm.) : 1/4 1020 ~ Airfoil: NA .C.A. 0009
I--+-I---+-+--l-Tes f : V. D. T. 1/34, 1136 ~ - . 4 H-l--I--j.Dofe: 5 -34 Tes f : V.D.T. 1134, / 136
- .4 Results correc fe d fo infinite aspect rafio
Where fested : L.M.A .L .
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -. 2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 16 /.8
Angle of allack for infinile aspecf ratio, ct. (degrees) Lift coefficien t, Cr.
F IGURE 2.-N. A. C. A . 0000.

JJ1 l.li,Ji
n-11t11 Iml
510. I I I I I
J JIJJ
Up'r. L'w';.
0 0 0
. 10 I I I I Test .!, .1 ,1J a .c.posilion
1.2 1.894 -1.894
2.5 2.615 -2.615
[I 1 1-r
Reynolds Number x y em. c. -r
5.0 3.555 -3.555 .09 o 3 . 180.000 1-1--0.6 3-1- 0 '-
7.5 4.200 -4.200
0 20 40 60 80 10o d 1-- 0 - - - - - 2 ,380. 000 1-\1'-. 8 3 -f- .001 -
~~ 13~~ -5.345
-4.683
Percenf orchord 2 .0 , .08 I-- x ------- - -- -1.340.000 1-j+1-- /.0 4- 0 -
205.738 -5.738 I:: f--+ _ __ _ _ _ 660. 000 I - I-- f.l - 3- - .001 -
25 5.941 -5.941 .lll
306.002 -6.002 1.8 ~ .07 1--"1-·-- ---330.000
405.803 -5.603 0,.::
~D -- - ---I7O'OOO I
505.294 -5.294
604.563 -4.563 1.6 ~.06
I
703.664 -3.664 ~ u :
802.623 - 2.623 .1
901.446 -1.448 l' " 1.4 g-.05
95 .807 - .807
100 (.126) (- .125)
a
~, . l
W t il
I

.
100 0
L.t.Rod: 1.58 i ll ~ v· 04
~
~ rY
~'\ ~ ~. 03
II ' Itl
leA , I), [}
, /~
~ Hi 1:", I 1'1'-. ' , I ..,
- .02 l,/.y _f.>< ~!y
J.
If . Of
~ r-:-lC - - -b i€r

J
11
o - -f"'!P" i'U
I.J , 1.1· ~
It
.2 d-·f ~~

o <...:
111-. 2
J
Airfoil: N.A .C.A . 0012
1* Size : S"x30 " Vel. (fl./se c ):68 -.2 3
.... ·- .3
Pres.(sl nd. aim) : /fo20 Airfoil: N.A.C.A 0012
Test: V. D. T. 1237-8 Dale: 3 - 3S ~ Test: V. D. T 1237-8
'"Where tested : L.M.A .L. -,4 -.4 g Dote: 3-35
Resulfs corrected to infin ite aspec t ratio
~
-8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 ... 2 o . 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 104 1.6 I.B
Angle of attock for infinite aspecf rofio, ct. (degrees) L i ft coefficient,C.
F IGURE 3.- N. A. C. A. 0012.
6 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

H-:'--
Slo Up'r. L"w'r.
I I I I I ~ I I I I
./0
0
12
0
-2.J67 I I I I J I Test ,I ! I
2.5 5j~~ - J.268 I I I I Reynolds Number
5.0 4044 -4.44J .09 r- o 3,260,000
7.55.250 -5.250 r- 6----2,270,000
105.853 -5.853 0 20 40 60 80 10o ~o
15 6.6~~ -6.68/
207.17 -7.172
Percent orchard 2.0 ...... 08 r- x----------- 1,270,000
<:: r- +------ 655,000
5g -7AC?
~~q~ -7.502
407.254 -7.254 1.8 ~.07 r- \7--- - ----.3.3 1,000- ~
.Q)

506.618 -6.6/8 ~ r- 0 - - - - - - 166'000 _ ~


605704 -5.704
-4.580 1.6 ~.06 r- "'1- --- - - - - - 84,000.. _
~gj:~~~ -J.279 10: u [7-------- 42,900
r-
901.8/0 -1.810 $ , • ,
1.4 ~.05 •
I~g i.ff~ -1.008
ra
158)
I
~ ,
100:0 ~ IX. ~ ~
Q,.04 , I '6
L.E. Rod.: 2.48 ~ -" "~ i(i
~)In. r\ ". ~ ~ I

,, e·03 1/ ~
r¥t " Q; / ~ iP /
, ~
I&l~ l'r V' r-.... ~-trl ,~v-- P
~_1: t---... ...... - _- 1:-:.
.oc 'l --
L::.c
;'l-" -- !;-:- ;.of:! .,,; .P-
Yr
~ic.posifion _0/
ID_ - -- .
Ii
,x - y -t- C"'o.c."- r-
'I
l~
Ir
0--/.2 - 4 - 0
6--1.1 - 3 - D
- r-
- t-
Ye----- 1.2 - I - t- .002- t-
" 0
d· -./ tt
F{
-:1 ::-4
1£ ~ . -..
.2
~ +---2.4.- ~ - t- .001_ r- <..: ~ -ii!I--"
V--- I .5 0 - .001
o ~-2
\J .
A irfoi/:NA.C.A .0015
Jf Size; 5"x30" Vel. (ftjs ec): 69 - .2
Pres. (stnd. afm.): 1/4 to 20
~-:.3
E: AirfoIl.' N A.C.A. 0015
Tes t : V O. T. 11.35 Dote: 5 -.34
Where tes ted : L.MA.L. -.4 ~-.4 Dote: 5-34 Test:V.O.T.//J5
Resulfs corrected to infinite aspect ratio
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.c a _c .4 .6 .8 /.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of allocA for infinife aspecf ratio, ct, (degrees) L iff cae fficienl, CL
FIGU!tE 4.-N. A. C. A. 0015.

20 - _ _ ~
I

H:~IIIW
Slo up'r. L·w·r.
~ I I I
00' 0 I .12 .1.1 _, I Test , I ,
125 2.841 - 2.841
2.5 3.922 -J.922 .1 I I I Reynolds Number
5.0 5.JJ2 -5.3J2
7.5 6.300 -6.JOO
.11 - o 2,970.000
10 7.024 -7.024 0 20 40 60 80 100 r- 6----;::.364.000 I
I
.10 r-
_ I

~1~gd~ =z:g&g Percenf orchord x--- -------- I. 25/.000 -r-i-\-


258.912 -8.9/2
JO 9.003 -9.003 . ~ _I , IF ' _1.1
a .c,poSl lonl :",~ 2.2.
I- +------
. 09 r- \7-------- 328.000
654.00 0 -t-1-~ :i
40 8.705 -8. 705
50 7.941 -7.941 ,I I l ,x -t- y - - C", r- r- 0 - - - - - - 1 6 3.000 J
60 6.845 -6.845 t-- r- r- e.O a.ool.- d '<)---------- 8/. 000 J I

::t-
I
705.496 -5.496 0 - - 1.7 4 - - -..., ,08 l - p - - - - - - - - 41.400
80 J.9J5 -3.935 l- I- 6--1.6 3 - 0 - c: r- I

~~ ~:i~~ =~:~~~ I- - X------2.2 3 -t-- .001 - - /. 8 :G.07 .I I

100 1.189, (-.189) I- - +---2.2 0.-1- 0 r-- - ~


~ -'I
1000 a ~---··2.4 ~ -l- a , •
L.E. Rod. : 3.56 0---1 .8 0 a r- ,-- :-- 1:6 ~.06
I
~
\J
--l
l,Pj ~ 1.4 g.. OS ~
t- t- r-I- ~! I
I

I i '~ ~ {j I

il, r--: ~ r-I- /.2 (.j Q,.04


I-c;
I-r- 11'~!. p'
~L ro
t' ~
I. O§ -- ~
e · 03
v
,
,
li
If
I

/
I- t-t- r- , ~. ,, ~lli!
.\,! Cl 1/ / ~
J), ~I -- -- +- V_ F-1 v ~
f-I-
I-
-~
' ~
,~
-\ - .8:::=
0
V
.02 I-'V
,[].
-~r

= .-<1: :A-:..
~"'"
"
tv
f-+- ;';~ .6 \.) . 0/
I- -r- I,jil ~->- .:....1)---I-=--:- r
~
i-f- r- 'I' . 4...J
• 0
-In ~
i-i-r- tj~ -
I~
.e
'<:
·
<.J• - . 1 t-- 1--
r-r-
=
I-\:~
15,
j
_- 1JU ..,i~ ~
l-vi'"
.>11.&'

r
, Airfoil N.A.C.A 00/8
Size : 5"x30" Vel (ftjsec):69 -.2
0 8u -.2 r-r-
....
~-.3
- 1-
1-
r- r-f-

Pres. (sind atm.) '1/4 to 20 I:; Airfod: NA.C.A. 00/8


Test: VO.T./16/ Oale: 8-34
Where lesled·L.MA.L. -.4 ~-.4 Dale: 8-34 Tesf: V.O.T. //61
Resulfs corrected10 in(inite, asp(!cf r,ati?_
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 4 -: 2 o .c .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of otlocK for infimfe aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, C,.
FIGUnE 5.-N. A. C. A. 0018.

J
AI R FO I L SECTIO N CH ARACTE RI STICS AS AF F E CT E D B Y VA R IAT IONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBE R 7

I I _I II

H-111fl IHI
5to. Up'r, L'W'r.
0 - 0 olD
I I I TestT 1 I
/.25 2.15 -/.65 Reynolds Number
2.5 2.99 -2.27 . 0.9 I- c-I I I I
5.0 4.13 -3.0/
7.5 4.96 -3.46 0
0 3,120.,0.0.0.
I- ~ _ _ _ _ 2.3Ia,aaa
l:
80 10 ~ 1
/0 5.63
/5 6.61
-3.75
-4.10
0 20 40 60
Percenf ofchord ~.O ....- .0.8 e- x----------- 1,235.0.0.0. I
20 7.26 - 4.23 c: e- + - - --- - 656,0.0.0. ,
25 7.67 -4.22 .~
30 7.88 -4.12 1.8 ~.0 7 l -
'V- - - - -- - 333,0.0.0.
I II I
~
40 7.80 -3.80 I- 0 - - -- - - 166,0.0.0.
50
60
7.24 -3.34
6.36 -2. 76 .l 1. 6 "" "'l _ _oo __ ___ 82,80.0.
~(J . a6 I- c-v- - -- - - -- 4I ,5DD
rr ',
,
I

70 5.18 -2.14 ~ I If ,
80 3.75 -1.50 ;11_", ~
l-
I t
,
90 2.08 - .82 1. 4 g-.a5 I
95 1,/4 - ."18 ,0 ~ II I
!i
,, ,
I
100 (.13) (-.13)
0 ,~ ~ R , 14
100 '<+-' ~ . a4
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 l " ': _0
IZrJ
~
, I~
Slope of radius '{f. r;v \1, , -, , T I
II
fhrough end of
chari:!: 2/20 l ~ 1', ~ :r,0v.
,
~
, I.a.~ e. a3
Cl
'" " to' - 1<:_ -.".. U .- 1-1- "P7
I

h
.u __ Kf ,
19 -, :"I. --
~ -- ~ -:i!
. 8~ .0.2 IUo ,
"1-'-_
"1' -
~y I1t
- -1i I~ ~ V
- .,.- -
o ;:; ~_

II Q)
"""
If a.c.posilion .6 \)
0
.0.1
Ii: -- - !IliIo co
) I .x _ Y_I-
Cma .c . _ e- ~
0 - - 0. 5 _ ~_~ a.a4~_e-

,"
.4-.J <i a
1.4 ~-- ~.~_ ~ _I- - . a4~ _ ~

x------ I. I I - .045 e- d- - . 1 ~ I.+


+--- .9 -2 -1-- .045-e- .2
<..: I;:; ~ " LAP
!t, 'Vi -Io,,/ . ~ - 0. - I-
T·Q5 i -1- a
Q)
8 - .2 J - I}o"

J Airfoil: NA.C.A . 2 412 ....


tit" Size: S"x3a" Vel. (ff./s ec):6B - .2 ~ -.3
,If? Pre's. (stn d. a i m'): 1/4 t o 20. ~ Airfo il : N.A.C.A. 2412
VI Test: VD. T. // 64 Oaf e:8-34
- .4 ~-. 4 Da t e: 8-34 Test: V. D. T. 1164
il Where fested : L. M A. L. Results correc ted to infinite aspect ratio
-8 -4 a 4 8 12 16 EO. E4 28 32 -.4 -. 2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Angle of a ttoc k for in finite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, C
FIGURE 6.- N. A. C. A. 24 12.

H-:~lIuf1l
510. UPT: ('wi-. I I I I I I
0 . 12 I I Test I I I 'TI
0
1.25 2.44 -1.43
2.5 3.39 -1.95
I I I I Reynolds Number Ii , I"
5.0 4.73 -2.49 . iI e--o 3,0.0.0.,0.0.0. i.l , i
7.5 5.76 - 2 . 74 - ~---- 2,3Ia,aGG
10 6.59 - 2.86 0 20. 40 60. 80 10a ' I
15 7.89 -2.88 f"ercenf of chord ./0. - x---- ------ - 1, 240,0.0.0. II, i,
20 8.80 -2.74 e- +- -- - -- 638,0.0.0.
25 9.41 -2.50
30 9. 76 -2.26 2. 2 . 0.9 ~ 'V-- - - - - - 33/.aOG 17 ,: !
40 9.80 -1.80 I- 0 - - -- - - 164,00.0.
50 9.19 -1.40 ~
0
, !
I- '1---------- 83,0.0.0.
60
70
80
8.1-4 -1.00
6.69 - .65
4. 89 - .39
2.0 .,;:.0.8 I- [ 7 - - - - - ---42,10.0.
c:
q,
tI
90 2.71 - .22 :iJ. a7
95 1.47 - .16 1. 8
100 (.13. (-.13) ...,
!<: I" ' i
100 0
L.E Rod.: 1.58 1;;1
I"
rJ!!! 1. 6 ~ . 06
u
. , I

Slope of radius
fhr ough end of
~ t;..r ,I'"
1. 4 g-. 0 5
\ : ·1 111 I

chord: 4/20 , V- i-" , ~ '. 1/ " I j


~ ,
LP-K;.\'i;::
Ii" >J....r-,. I<..
,
,~
1.2 (f
- v·a4
....
-.:::
s
, ., ,
Ji II '
,
I

~J

"'" r--.
lr ./ ~ t>< K 'p.. - I ,) IY
- I.O§ E·a3
~
~
I
I'di ,1'17 °hA
. \) Cl
-0

or-, - -
s:r'
~
I

If.' V' \Z. ;)-- -'


. 8~ .02
""' ;~ . :Jtl~
- ~~
jV T cpoSi/ion II>
'{/ .x _ Y_I- Cma .c .
- _ .6 \)
0
. 0.1
';;;;
'" - -
1- 0 - - 0.8_ 2_0,..::.0.0.88_ - ~
W {).x------
- - I.a..9.- - I~ -e- -- .088
.0.91
_- .4 -.J a
VI.
F, +--- / .2- - S-e- - .o.95- - d"
!l
'V-- --- I. I - -8- 1-- - .0.97- -

I I I I
.2

0
_ -. J
<,.;
Q)
8 - .2 .d.-~ !;¢
L~l,')I:
:-..:. ... ,Di

/ Airfoil: NA.C.A.4412 ....


'( , Size: S"x3a" Vel. (ff./s ec.): 69 -.2 ~ - ,3
rJ / Pres . (sf nd. aim.): 1/4 fa 20. ~ Airfoil: N.A .C.A.4412
Test : VD.T./153 Dale: 7-34 Dale : 7-34 Test: V. D. T. )153
";I,
Wh ere tested: L. M. A.L.
-.4 ~ -.4 Results corrected to infinite aspec t ratjo
- 8 -4 a 4 8 IE 16 20 24 2 8 32 -. 4 -.2 a .2 . 4 .6 _8 1.0 1. 2 1. 4 1.6 1.8
Angle of a llack for in fin ite aspe cf ratio, ct. (degr ees) Lift coeffici ent, CL
FIGURE 7.-N . A. C. A . 4412.

t184380 0-39--2
8 R E PORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO AUTICS

5to. Up'r. L'w'r. " "t1 20 a .C. " ,X


~ 10 IHf t-J
..L . 11 ,.r-r-
.1. .1. .1.11 I ,,,
0 - 0
1.25 2 .73 -1.23 ~l! 0
l
_I, I I Test
.1 I I ,
2.5 J80 -1.64
5.0 5.36 -1.99 ~.::' -IOmt )" c/4
. 10 I I I I Reyno lds Number " ,
7.5 6.57 -2.05
0.: 0 -I o 3,110,00.0. +
10 7.58 -1.99 0 20 40 50 80 /0a .09 I 6 - - - - 2.2 60.000
,,,
1111 1 I
15 9.18 - 1.67 Percent of chord cJ° x----------- 1,270,0.0.0
2010.34 -1.25 \ + - - - - - - 645,00.0
I

25 II. '" - .78


30 11.65 - .J8
...., ,08
c
\
' 7 - - - - - - - 334.000. II ,
40 /1.80 .20 1.8
50 1/.16
.~ \ I" 0 - - - - - - 167,000 'll
.55 ~ ~.07
50 9.95 .78
1.6 -;::
\ ~ "/--------- 82,500 I' I
70 8.23 85 ~--lf "l! \ P'--------41,800
80 60J
90 3.33
.73
.39 ~-:+ --+ x , ~.06
95 1.79
100 U21 (-.12)
.15 ~ -'''i~
, "'b2' 1.4
()

g-.05
\ ,
I
fl
100 - 0 /fl ,
I i' 1\ 1\
L. E.RQd.: 1.58 ,1":3' 1.2 r.J i3 II\\\ \ ,,
Slope of radius
through end of
chord: 6/20 .i
I!t' 1', ~t" "- ... 1.0 t q,.04
....-
<;:
\
~ I

t"" ..... .:;;,


:~ e.03
l'Pi ~ Ii' ~l£
'f/ I

1 a. c.po5i1ion .8 t:::
II!
o
Q.
.02
I

~."r
" b 1":-~ r- --;>'
!.
!A ~
Y c,.t:-:-- ~ ~,
o--10.x9 I ~'r: 0..133 -1- .6 u -
~ . 01
eo- -- -
1- - . 130 -1-
wt 6--1 . 1
x------ .8 -3 - -.131 - 1- .4-...1
If>i
IV
+ ' - - 1. 0 -2 - 1. 135 -:-- • 0
.2
j I I d, -. 1
If I I a <,.: Iht
!J Airfoil: NA.C.A. 641 2
II!
8 ~ .2 ,~
i Size: 5 "x 30 " Vel. (fl.jsec):69 -.2 >P r- I
IV
I Pres.(slhd,. aim.),' 1/4 to 20
Test: V.D.T.1165 Dale:8-34 ~-.3 Airfoil: N.A.C.A.6412
Dale : 8-34 Tes!: V. D. T. / /65
Where lesled: L.MA.L. -.4 ~ Results correcfed to infinife aspect ratio
:::"-.4
-8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of attack for infinite ospect ratio, a, (deqrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE S.-N . A. C. A. 64 12.

H~mll ~I
. 13 1
510. up'r. L'w'r. I .I ~ I I I
0 - 0 I ' , ,Test I I , I

1.25 1.8/ -1.05 ,12 Reynolds Number


2.5 2.61 -1.37
5.0 J.74 -/.55 &: ti -10 Y- fCI.4 r- ~ 3,060,000
I'
I
7.5 4.64 - /.74 .11 r- A - - - - 2,260, 000
105.37 -1.73 0 20 40. 60 80 /0a I,'
15 6.52 -1.55 I'ercenf of chord r- x----------- 1,265,000 ,ULl
20 7.33 -1.30 ,10 r- +- -- - - - 64~000
25 7.90 - 1.02 .lUi
30 8.25 - .76 t- < ; 7 - - - - - - - 329,000
40 8.35 - .35 0------165,800 .l ',,
50 7.87 - .07 .0.9 t- "/--------- 82,800
60 7.00 .14 <? t- J. t- 1;+-
70 :'.76 25 2.0 ~ P'- - -- - - --41, 700 :li
80 4.21 .25 ..... . 08 r- ~:I I
90 ;!.33 .14 C
95 1.26 .OJ 1.8 f
100 (.09) (-.091
. iii J I

100 - ~ . 07 17: , ,
0 f?< /.6 '>0
L.E. Rod.: 0.89 1! b ~ J, :1.
Slope of radiUS
~
~ ,06 \ J,
through end of E 1.4
()
,
chord: 4/20 '/'
~. 05 ll!l
If ,
~ i<t ~~~.
,,
".
~~'" ..h: '
i3
q, .04 ~ L'.
~ , IA
!

~i-
VJFv- f- p.. .. . I
'R r-- ~ ~, ,
dr./ 'V _:
.~ 'c
e ·0.3 I ~/) , 'I'{Y
n 17 - - -17
Q.
\
I
\'f;
- [<:1-
- l7' r- ir7-
'17- , V'
!, ' 17'
,, I" .......
\ \
.02 ,
If a .c.posilion 1'. !~~
~ I . .x r- Y I em a .c .
-- .0 1
4' ~ .~ ~- , t"'- . - ~ ~v

It o--O.5r- 2 ..,:: 0.088 r-r-


6--.7 I -.088
x------ I. a f--I - -.090 r-r- u 0.
+ - - -1. 1 1- -1 - - .0.92 r-r- .2 rJQ
til <:1-----1.4 -4 -1 -·p9~ r-r- • -.1
If I L I j j
o <,.: L~ --,;,0 ~
"1/ II! -do F-
Airfoil: NA .C.A . 4409
Size: 5 "x30" Vel. (ff./sec.):59.o -.2
8 - .2 Ill'
I~ ,- Pres .(stna. atm.): 1/4 to 20
Test: V. D. T. //62 Dole: 8-34
~-.3 Airfoil: N.A .C. A. 4409
'flI -.4 !:; Dole: 8-34 Tes!: VD. T. //62-
Where lested: L.MA.L. Results corrected 10 infinife aspect ratio
~-.4
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 !.O 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Anale of alfock for infinile aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE 9.-N. A. C. A. 4409.
- - - - - - -- ---

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 9

~~~~I-~I~~~I~~I~I-~I~I~-~~

H-1111tH
StD. up'r. L'wi":
0 0 I I· I J 1 Te 5 fl-I..J--i.
I-.I-jlf-.l-.+-+--+-
1.25 3.07 -1.79 f-H-t--+-+-HI-t--+-+Reyno Ids Numbe:-r+--H-t--+-
2.5 4.17 -2.48
5.0 5.74 -3.27 . 10. 0 3,000,000
7.5 6.91 -3.71 1--1--1-+-+-1-- 6----2,380.,0.00. --1-+-1-)(.,.; , 1---1-+-
10 7.84 -3.98 o 20 40 60 80 10o
15 3.27 -4.18 f'ercenlo f chord .09 x-- --------- 1,26O,OOO-+IM- -f..';'I-i,f -+-j
n :' I--i,--l--j
20 10.25 -4. IS <l' 1--1--1-+-+-1-- + -- - -- - 654,000 -t"!;!l,+-t-':'<
25 10.92 -3.98
30 //.25 - 3.75
40 11.25 -3.2S
50 IO,S3 -272
60 9.30 -2.1 4
2.0 l·
·.~.07
08I--H-+-+-I--. ~_~~~_-_ ~~j:ggg =~I~C~~~~,~I~:=~~
""I- . . --
--- - 83, DD °-tlAl1+4j...J...j'+'--l--j
70 7.63 -1.55 1.8 ~ [7- - - · - - ·-41,700 ': ' I),,'
80 s.ss -1.03 '<: , , -,
30 3.08 - .57
~.06
I,...,
35 1.67 - .36 1.6 -[ , 'T
100 (.16) (-.16) o 1fT
lao a ')i -l< -x,
LL Rad.: 2.48 ~. \'I , 1.4 g-. DS ~'T ,
Slope of radius
I~ ~;:i ~r- i ' I'
, ~ ~ 7
through end of
chord: 4/20 JII( ~'
1.2 tJ
.,.:
k 04 < • f7.... ((, , x 19
II,< ~ ~. "
.I'n r,iU
I, i""
, 1.0 S -.::~.0.3 H-+~~~~-+~~~-b~~I/~~~~~~/~~4-.J-j-l
f'-.- -'N, - iv_ 1..-. /l/ , I

ih\3
t-,.,
1"--_ '-F: P€i :u [J. - ~~ -- , !Skr/V

i .oj; . 8 ttv .02~~~=+p4 ·· ~~~~n+-~~~~_~v~~~,~~~~~+-H


tbe·~~-~~--~~~tljj=tttjj
()
'I' ~".pfd,on,c f-+- - .6~ .0./
II .x - ~ y.- ma.c.
IJ 0 - - /.0 ~_ -0.085_ - .4 -..J
vi 6- - 1.4 I -.086
ff x------ 1.4 -2 - -.085 -
+---1 . 7--4 -f- -.090 - .2
1
v;·~"t1-:-~- 1 ·~9~- f- o 't -. 2 H-+-+-+--1H+-+-.J-j--+--I--l--jZf.,.'=I·i==i...:q..iZ;i~"t=!-:::;:+-+-.J-j-l
n, Airfoil: NA.C.A. 4415
8
Size: 5"x30" Vel. (ffjsecJ:69 - .2 .... -.3 HH--+-++--1....-l-..L....j-L-!--l-t.......l.-+-L-l--...L-I-L-+--Y
rJ/ Pres.(sthd. aim.) : 1/4 to 20 ~ Airfol!: N.A.C.A. 4415
."
Test: V.D. T 1163 Dale:8-34 4 E: 4H-+-+++Dote: 8-34 Test:V.D.T.1163
~ Where tested.: L.M.AL -. () -. Res(Jlis corrected to infinite aspect rotic
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Z4 28 32 ~ -. 4 -.2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0,1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8
Angle of affaGif for infinde aspect rolio, ct. (degrees) L ifI coefficient. CL
FIGURE 10.-N. A. C. A. 4415.

H~_~I
5ta. up'r. L·w'r.
.11 I I I I I I I I
- J
~~_/~~!!' a~~
a a I Test I I I I
1.25 5.50 -1.33 Reynolds Number
2.5 6.97 -1.86 Y 'I I I : I
s.o 9.23 -2.3S .10. 0 3,200,000
7.5 10.97 -2.42 6 - - - - 2,430.,0.00.
1012.40 -2.34 0 20 40 60 80 100.
1514.53 -1.34
20 15.94 -1.43
Percent ofchord .09 x----------- 1,310,000
25 16. 74 -1.14 r,J0 +--_._- 680,0.00.
30. 17.00. -/.00. z.o _-.08 v-··--·-345,000
4016.57 - .86 D - - - - - - 170,DOO
50.15.34 - .55 c:
60. 3.49 - .2S 1.8 : ~.07 «-.-.----- 85,000 ,
70. 1.04 - .0.4
80. 8.0.2 + .0.3
90. 4.41 - .0.1
95 2.33 - .0.8
J,li7; ~ tn
1.6
~
~.06
I"
. p----·----42,50D
,
,, )'
lao .19 (-.19) ~ -Xt~ PiJ ~ o 11 1\
100 - a k~ ~ ;.:, , ' ~I;....,
~. 05
' II' . ~n '
L.E. Rod.: 3.56 ) b F->f-l 1.4 ,I ~ r,., ) ';'
Slope of radius ~/ \ -B \1'-( } U'
through end of
chord: 8/IS Ii£ ,
.. --
1.2tJ~·04
....-.;::
- ~ - h7- 1.< r1 V!4
~
- 1\ I·' . ~
,
lHI ,
/I!? 1'1" 1.0£e·D3
.'Q...
~
I~ ! h
Ifii
In
~-~ -1-
- L ~~'
- t-...

I)
If) 'l
-
-l- .8~
o
0
.0.2 16: -. 1-4-
-"" ~
""
.6 .01
If a .c.posilion -:::
.,
l;jl x_ Y-t- ema .c. _ f-- .4-.) • 0
O--/.!!._ ~_~o.I3~_ f--
~
x------ l.ir 2~_r~·13~_
6--1.8
-.135 f-- .2
J• -.1
.i +j--2.1 - 3- r -.137 - f-
<,.:
I.,.j~

"
Q)

\'I' o 8 -.2
Airfai/:NA.C.A.83/8 .....
I.... · ; Size: 5"x30" Vel. (ft.jsec):68 - .2 ~ -.3
Pres.(sfnd. aim) : { / to 20 E: Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 8318
ICl Test: V. D. T. 124/,1. '14 Dale: 3 -35,4-35 Tesl: V.D.T.1Z4/, 1244
Where fesfed: L.M.A.L. -.4 ~ - .4
Results corrected to infinite aspect ralio
-/2 -8 -4 0. 4 8 IZ /6 20 24 28 -.4 -. 2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 /.2 1.4 /.6 1.8
Angle of attack for infinite aspect rotio, ct. (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE ll .-N. A. C. A. 8318.
10 R E PORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUT ICS

n-1Itf1mm
Sto. Up'r. L'wr. I I I I I I I I I
a - a . 11 I Tes t I I I
1 1
1.25 2.67 -/.23
2.5 3.61
5.0 4.9/
-1.7/
-2.26 . /0
I Reyno lds Number
7.5 5.80 -2.6/ 0 3,090,000
10 6.43 -2.92 a 20 40 60 80 10o 6 - - - - 2,300,000
15 7.19 -3.50 Percent orchard .09 x- - ---- ---- - 1,286,000
20 7.50 -397
2 .0 ~o +- -- -- - 665,000
25 7.60 -4.28
JO 7.55
40 7.14
50 6.41
-4.46
-4.48
-4.17 1. 8
"....~.. 0 8 "7- -- - -- - 335,000
0 - - - - - - 170,000
60 5.47 -3.67
:'0. 0 7
~- - - - - - - - - 8 4, 2 00 I
70 4.J6 -3.00 17- - ---- --42,400
80 3.08 -2./6 ~
Ig 1.6 -.;: ,
90 /.68 -1.23 ~
95 .92 - .70
100 1.13) 1 .13)
lao 0 Ie/,
115r-,><,

'Q~
\ . /, 4
~. 06
u
g- .OS
:
\
1<
L.E. Rod.: /.58 J.
Slope of radius
through end of
chord: 0.305 J,~
~'h j;;( "\7'-',-"'- ~
-t~.04 : /I
1/ I
,
I

~
IfJ
r'i!
I\o.fLC
~
,,'" -,~
_: J1 ....... - <~
'"
-.:::
~ . 03 ~ -- i7: 1..--::
/'
>:
I
!}J , 17 'b;
19' '(;R f- - ~, - ::::!i
0..:
.02
~ - --
_ b-- - LJ /- f'-'
14 a.c.posihon i- :~ v, ~p
I .x _ Y _I- ema .c . r- .0 1 -
In)_ F p-
IS!' 0 - - /.2._ ~ o.o0a. _r- 7. - .4-...)
:~
1- -.OO~ _r-
~-
6- - 1.3
x----- - 1.3 o
, IAli
"7~ ~ }. ?
- .00 7
+ -- - 1.4- 5 - 1--.012 r-
~- I-~.~/~ -r-
.2
" /
,./-. J/" ~
"'~ ~~ .. -
IP o ,).---- V P"
I I -...:QJ - .2
l..tl Airfoil: NA. C. A. 23012 - .2
~ Size : 5"x30" Vel. (ff/s e c):68 8
.... -.3
LI. Pres. (sihd. aim.) : 1/4 to 20
- .4 ~ Airfoil: NA.C.A. 23012
;W Test: V.O.T.I/67 Dafe:9 -34
~- ,4 Dote : 9-34 Tes t: V. O. T. / 167
Where teste d: L .M A.L. Res'llt s corrected to infin ite aspect r a tio
.6 ~
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /. 8
An g l e of attock f or infinite aspect ratio, €X. (de grees) Lif t coefficien t, CL
F IGURE 12.- . A . C. A. 23012.

H-:ltll m
Sto. Up'r: L'w"'.
. 11
I I I I I _I 1 I I
a - a I I I I I 1 I Te st I I I
1.25 1.90 - .77
2.5 2.89 - 1./5
5.0 4.J4 - 1.70 . /0
J r II
.;reyno lds Number
3 , 030, 000
0
7.5 5.38 -2./8
10 6.15 -2.62 0 20 40 60 80 10o 6- - - - 2,4 20, 00.0
/5 7.08 -3.40 Percent ofchord .09 x- ---------- 1, 280,000
20 7. 4 9 -3.98 +----- - 665, 000
25 7.60 - 4.30 <?
JO 7.55
40 7.11
50 6.52
-4.46
- 4 .4 6
- 4.30
2.0
"
-<: .08 f- 1-1-
c:
- 1-"7- -- - -- - 34 1,000
0 - - - - -- 172, 0 0 0
60 5.61
70 4.48
- 3.83
-3.14 1. 8 : ~ .07
80 J.16 -226 ~
~
90 1.70 -/.25
95 .93 - .70 1.6 ~ . 06
100 (.12) (-.12) u I
IDa 0 , I
II
I); ):. 1.4 g> .05
L. E. Rod.: 0.40 I I
Slope of rod/us
throu9h end of
'\'
1.2~
-t
~.04
I
chord: 0.305 1// ' ~ '-. ,,' + I
:.... +- 'X- ~ 'tQJ ~ , I
,,
:'0 0..:e·
1.0 03 , ' ,
Ijiif '''' ~. ~ I
J I€: ~ r.-;,- ~ ~ Ii1 /~ t,;;:
a .c posifion • 8 QJ . 02
L.!- ~ V
o
J J .r Y_I- ema .c. _ r- .6 \.) ,01
It:' :3 ~ ~
0--0.6 5 _ -O.D!o. _ r- -:::
"
d .8
6~-
6- - I- -.010 _
x------ 1. 0 - .01 I r- .4" a ~~
+--- .9 3 - 1- -.014 - r-
I'" '1----- - .9
o-~ ~ .4 - ~ - j- ~ . q/i - r-
1-0- 1- - .01/ - r- .2 d"-·I JV'II <jF
lr<l ~.bc
}
o 't -. 2
Airfoil : N A. C.A . 230 12 -33 o
d Size : 5"x3 0" Vel. (ff./sec):68 -.2 u
..... - .3
'" Pr es.(s/ i?d. aim.): It020
<U
c:: Ai r f o il : NA .C.A. 23012-33
Tes t: V. O. T.1240 Dole: 3 -35 Do te : 3 -35 Tes t : V. D. T. 1240
Where fes/ed: L. MA.L. -.4 ~ -.4
Results correcfed to infin ite asp ect r atio
~
-8 -4 4 a 8 12 /6 20 2 4 28 32 -.4 -.2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1. 0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1. 8
An g l e o f oltac /:( f o r infin ile aspect ro'fio, €X. (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
F IGURE 13.-N. A. C. A . 23012-33.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARIATIO NS OF TH E REY OLDS U MBE R 11
20

lnllltfM
5to. up'r. L'wr. I
- 0 . /1
0
1.25 2.30 -1.52 I
2 .5
5.0
3.16 -2.10
4.38 -2.76
7.5 5 .29 -3.17
./ 0 T~;t
105.98 -3.42
15 6.97 -3.74
0 20. 40 60 80 10 o (?eynolds Number
Percent ofehord .0.9 0 3,1 70.,0.0.0
20 7.58 -390
25 7.91 -3.97
30 8. 00 -4.00 d
.....,. 08
6 - - - - 2, 3 90.,0.0.0.
x--- -------- 1,340.,000.
40 Z63 -3.98
c:
50 6.73 -3.87 +--------6 7QO'O'O'
60 5.49 -3.66 :~ .07 '1-- ------- 3 3 5,0.0.0.
70
80
4.06 -3.27
2.61 -2.64
I. B
,
~ 0 - - - - - - 172,0.0.0.
90 1.26 - /. 63
95 .66 - .95 1. 6 ~ . a6
100 (.13. (-.13) u <6 I
100 0 - ?/lb 1. 4 g..OS i ;I: 1
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 15'1<--, t""l: I ' I
Slope of radius
Ihrough end of
, ~ -6 , ,, I
Q, . 04
chord: (J.153 J; -t;., ,~ :-.;:
<.;::
J I

H~""
, ' t",. ;/
"/~
I

' ~ e · a3 ,
1fj '\-1 ~ '1-, Q;
L : r-..:, - .0.2 fl. f ~/
=;,;
V .1;:::, l~ ~ ./ f-"'"'
a .c.position .1::.- "
" Ix .0.1
7~-
f7 I-.
Cma c
. .. - -
0 - - /.0. 0.005
i1JI 6 - - 1. / 6 - 1- .006 - - a v
'y ~:»'
x- - ----I.a 4 - .005 -1-
0 +--- - .8 - " rl -~- rt
IT
0. - - .0.02 -1- .2
d-·' -
~ - -~.~O /l-I-
\/- ·- --1.1 - I"l'!

.5 Airfoi!: NA .C.A. 2R~/2


I I I I
o 't - .2
Size: 5"x30." . el (ff./secJ:68 -.2 8
.... -.3
Ii! Pres. (sfhd. afm.) : I f02D
Test: v. O. T.!23 9 ~ Ai r f o il: N A.C.A. 2R212
Where tesfed : L.MA.L.
Dofe: 3-35
-.4 ~ - ,4 Do t e: 3-35 Tes!: T. 1239 v. o.
Resulfs correcfed fo infinite aspecf ralio
~ L-L-
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20. 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 /.6 18
Ang le o f o tfa cl<. for irifinife aspect ra fio , lX, (degr ees) L i f f coe fficienl, CL
}'IGURE 14.-N. A. C. A. 2R,12.

$.~" ~~E<lll ./ 3
I I I .I .1 1 I

f~ 1Jg =~:~~ ~-/~ :c.: :: '


M I I I 1 I Test I I
I I I I Reynolds Number '
M - . 12 o 3,0.80., 0.0.0.
~g ~:~~ :::§'~ &' 0 20 40 60 8 / 0 C>.- - - - 2, 330., 000
15 7. 75 -3.01 Percent of ehord .11 x-- - - ------- 1,280.,0.0.0. :
20 8.75 -2.80 +-------- 664,0.0.0
25 9.51 -2.43
30 10.07 -1.99 2.4 . /0 '\7------ - 338,000
40 10.70 - .92 0 - - - - - - -170.,00.0.
50 10.80 .19 :
60 10.44 1.31 2.2 .0.9 I- - I - ~- .. -- - - - - - 84,500
70 9.67 2.34 117 v - - - - - - - - 42,5aD ',J,
80 8.02 2.73 t,J0
90 4.88 1.88 2.0 -,.: .0.8
\ '
'1
, i
95 2.71 1.02 '. t I
100 r.12) (-.12)
Wl c: I
100 - 0 ':C' .~ I Ir
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 !:Y' ~
/.B
,~.07 .\\ / I,' 1/
,.
Slope of radius rj'x , .; /'1, I
fnrough end of - -
1. 6{j ~.o.6
~ ~±-
xl~
chord: 6/35
, \) Qi I
IA .<"
Art rJ ;.:\ "
'l; , "-
1.4~ g>.o.5 ". --~- --I"- - Ii + I 1/2.
,. ~~iI:'
."-
,
" ~
,
1. 2~
'-
.0 il L,\
\ '.
_V'
",-- -<;0 , S :
/ I
/}J
/
~/ ' ~ ~: - Q,.04
I,'IJ. X >-(
/Jr:J
'(
~,
B t"'" ~f!.
-V
1.0 \)
III
0

;;::
~
Q,
e· 03
I"'" p:.. 1-(
-[
"" -,

I~
....
b'
~~
.'
V
1:'1 . 8~ ~V
.11 'I ' a .cposifio n
. 0.2
"
.t. r-, - 7- - <;} - :-.., ~~
i'" ' / I X + y- _ emo • _
- .6 . 0/
~

.~ ~ ~! . 2-t--2.- - 0. 199.. _ -
f,( r7 6 - - 1.1 -+-~ __ -. 19 ~_ -
, X- - --- -I ./.J.-8 -./98 .4 0
' Jl
;II.:: jV + ----/ .6 1-12 - - - .210. - I-
.2 ~
"
ra _. I
If! .
"Y I
I
I
I
I I
I I o
,11) - .2 of- - .".- -
II.! Airfoil:N.A .C.A.6712 o\) T -~
IT'-
rf. : Size: 5"x3a" Vel (ff./s ec):68 - .2 .... - .3 *
J. Pres. (sfnd. aim.): 1/4 f020
~ Airfoil: N. A.C.A. 6712
I~ Tes! : V. D. T.I 166
Where fesfed: L.M.A .L . -.4 ~ -.4 Dofe: 8-3-'1,9-34 Tesf: T. 1166 v.o.
Resulrs correct ed fo infintte aspect roria
~
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 2 0 24 2 B -.4 -: 2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 /.4 1.6 1.8 2.0.
Ancjle of a llaeA fo r infinife aspe cf ratio, lX, (Cleqrees) L i fI c o e l l /den!, CL
F I GURE 15.- . A. C. A. 67 12.
12 REPORT NO. 586-NATIO AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AER O AUTICS

.26

n=lItl II~
Sto. Up'r. L'w 'r. I I I I I I I I
0 '. ' , , '..' , , ~ 1 1 I.
°
I.i'S 1.894 -1.894
i'.S 2.615
5.0 3.555
° --
=5:m --
.24 • a .c.posd,on x = O. 6; Y =3 1 1 I
. " " x=O.6;y=3;C••.• =0
7.5 4.200 -4.200 -,--- .22
10 4.683 -4.683 ,--'- 0 20 40 60 80 10o
f'ercenf ofchord
~~
5.345 5.345
5.738 -5.738 A
2.2 .20
25 5.941 -5.941
.30 6.00<' -6.00<' R, ~
40 5.803 5.803 Iii , 2.0
50 5.<'94 -5.<'94 \ (r iB '. Wifh flop \
60 4.563 - 4.563
70 3.664 -3.664 -..: K
, -
\ ,
80 <'.623 -2.621 1:8 .§.16 ( .-fV
90 1.448 -1.448 .1 Test R.N. I--
95 .807 - .80 [HI), .10
With flap I--
100 (.12~ (-.Ii' 1.6 ~. 14 ,,
100 0 a 1:61 18". ' iQ:>~ Q) ~3,070,OOO~
L. E.Rod.: 1.58 I'I I;~ : o /,';-- 2,240,000 t-
1. 4 !.J.12
II f \ ~
'. x----- 1,300,000 t-
f.. Cl +--- 661,000
: ~
1.2 ~.I0 "
'<1--- 348,000 t-
r. t.J Q) 0-7 - Ilr O'lOOo I--
I. D.,.: ~.OB
I>-' Ll " _Ll Wifhoul flop
1=
.B.G
<:
.'1> e
0.. .06 ~-:"'---3, 180,000'
Ijo-Wilh flop 1/ \
~
) "
:
.6 ~ .04
!.J
Wilhout flop
.4~ .02 . Ll l"'i
IF'
,.J -- ~ f-- -- : Wtfhouf flop
--.I
-- :
II Ll
.2 ; 0 f.<l.!-,1- Ll --r- r- .- ~- r- -- f1--- __ lA_

.
.
o J- -.1 ~
lJ -..: --
~.
Air foil: NA. C. A. 0012 wilh split - .2 'I> -.r, With floo
flap: Size: 5",,30"
8 -.2
~
Pres.(sf'nd. afm'): !fo 20 Airfoil: NA.C.A. 001i' with split flop deflected 60·
-.4 -.3 1-1- Tesf : v. 0. T.
Vel. (ft.jse c.): 4B to 69 1255 Oale: 5-35

-16 -12 -B -4 0
Tested: L.M.A',L., VO. T. 1255
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
-. 6 " -.2
~ -.4
1-1-
Results corrected to infinite aspect ratio
o .2 .4 .6 .8 !.D 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 22 2 .4
Angle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE J6.-N. A. C. A. 0012 with split fl a p deflected 60°.

20 .24
Sto. Up'r. L'w'r.
t ~ 10
x va.c. II I I I I I I I I
- 0
-~ ~c! p~s}tibn l xl =j.2; t=7 + . 1
0 J.
I.i'S 2.67 -1.23 I- ~.g 0 IY t-
.22 I .1 J
I. \)
<'.5 .3.61 -1.71 l-
~a-IO ~ '" • x = I .2·, Y = 7·' c...·• ..=1- O. 008
5.0 4.91 -2.26 :c/4 I Q 1
7.5 5.80 -i'.61 I-- .20
10 6. 43 0 20 40 60 80 10o I
15 7.19
i'0 7.50 -3.97
I-- =H& {I % ofchord J j I
25 7.60 -4.<'8 . IB
~ i With flof,'. .
30 7.55 -4,46 2.2
40 7.14 -4.48 ~ ," d
50 6.41 -4.17 .•.:.16
,, ,, ",\
( ['-'
60 5.4 7 -3.67
70 4.36 -3.00 2.0 .§ Test R.N._
80 3.08 -2.1 6
90 1.68 -123
, , .\).14
~ \ Wifh flop:-
95
.~~ -(- .70 if \ , I.B ~
~ 3,100, 000*_
100 (.I .I3) ~ . 12
100 a 6 w
'" t:. 1.6
\) \ /,';- - 2.260. 00~_
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 1\ 'fk' \ x----- 1,370,000 _
Slope of radius 8'.10 \
+-- - 658,000
fhrough end of / {.
,,1: \

chord: 0.305 ~
1.4 -l5 '<;1--- 334,000 -
<h .OB \ 0 - - - 168,000
I L 1.2 t.J ~ ,
f1...
-'
\

I....... e·06
P -f 1.0 ~ tl.:
r>'l :G .04
/ .. Wtlh flop I . 8~ :!: "
tf
Wdhout flop-
.
QJ
o .02
I I- 'b-----3,090, DOO'-
.6 !.J
:
_Wilhout flop
~ o
P j
.4 --.1 u
.
II 1<1 t,j"-.I ~t"'"
~ /
.2
I
~
1
't -.2 ~ Wifh flOR
, lr. ..J"
o 8 -
Air oil: NA.C.A. 23012 with split L~ - -t -
I
j£l
flop: Size: S'x30'
Pres. (st'nd. atm.): Ito 20
Vel.(ft.fsec.) :31 to 69 Dote: 6 - 35
- .2
... - .3
~
~ -.4 I-r-
I- Airfoil.' N.A.C.A. 23012 with sp lit flop deflected 60°
Test : V. O. T. 1265 Date: 6 -35
---- I I

Tested: L.MA .L. , V O.T. 1265 - .4 ~ 1-1--


I-- Resulfs cor rected fo inf inite aspect pio
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 2B - .5 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 . 8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 I.B 2.0 2.2 2.4
An gle of ottock for infinite aspect ratio, ct, (degrees ) Lift c oe fficie nt, G.
FIG URE 17.-N. A. C. A. 23012 with split flap deflected 60°.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NU MBE R 13
20
Sto. Up'r. L'wi-.
t~ 10
:... a .c. I
.24 ~~~~~1-~11-~1.1-
HH-+-+-+ ·
. ~
II-~I'-II~'~I-r.-,,-..-~~
a . c. pos ,l,on x = I . Z; y =7 -1--1-++++-+--1-1-
0 - 0.
/.25 2.67 - U?3 t- t-
Q} 0
0 Y J. .22 ' N x = I . 2 ; y ~7; C••~= -0.008 +-+-+-;-
2 .5 3.61 - 1.71 t- t-
l)o{:
L l) , H

\1- ~~~=t~~~~~~~~P*~t~JI~~bl~ \
!lJ .... -10
5. 0 4.91 -2.26 1(0 II /4
7.5 5.80 -2.61 t- t- .20 r
0 20 40 60 80 10o . h-
ID 6.43 -2. 92
15 7. 19 - 3.50 t- t- " ·wt.'ercenf of chord I-H--I"cl--
q:f'J++++.J-+-H--I-,+-+-I-H Wi In
f l op t-~t-
. I 8 >---+..qv
r:-+--!-+--+-+-.J----!--+-~H Te 5 f R . N. +-l-l-+-H--l-1-+-
20. 7.50. - 3.97
25 7. 60. - 4.28
30 7. 55 - 4.46
40 7.14 -4.48
50. 6.4 1 - 4.17
I.~
IN, I ~
I
. d e.-1----I--4--4-+-+-+-+-I-+-+-H Wi I n f l op -I---I-H--+-+-I-++-I
..... . 16 f--H--+-+++++++ 0 - - - 3,0 70, OOO*~HH--+-+-I-++-1
60 5 .41 - 3.6 7 ~ -t I
,,
\
c: 6 - - 2,270,000 -I--H-+-++++--H
2 .0
70 4.36 - 3.00
80 3.08 -2.16
\ :~'/4 x----- 1,440,00 0 -I--H-+-++++--H

"" 1"..... Ii--1;jJl:.


90 1.68 - 1.23 IP'( \ ,-:: + - - - 660,000 -I-H--+-+++-+-H
95 .92 - .70 1. 8 -.;: "'l--- 336,000
100 (.1.3) (- .13) I!! I

~ .IZ 0 - - - 169, 000 -I--H-+-++++--H


100 - 0. IR' tQ I~ 1.6
()
L.E. Rod.: 1.58
Slope of r odivs
fhr ough end o f
/
~

If t;':!:i
g-.I0
i5
i -\ Wi fhout flop ++-I-+-H--+-+-i
.6----- 3,090, OOO t ++-I-+-H-+-+-i
1.4
chord: 0.305 II Ij, 't
~ . 08 I-H--+-+-+++-I-++--I-H--+-+-I-++\+-I--+--I-H--+-+~
/ ~
~ I'l" P I.Z <J ~ \
..... 2·06 H--I-+++++-H-+-++++--H--+-I-~+++-H-+-+-i

I/ -Wil h flo
d
>1 1. 0 ~ Q..

.~ . 04 ~-+~+-~~~~~~~~-++4-+~4-+-i-++~~
d Ii .8~
' Wi th out flo{- v ~"
/ o . 0Z HH-+-I-+++++-+--I-~_-I~--+
_ -+~-~~~W~i~
th~0~u+t~f~/'
0~p++-+-i
/ .6 u
~ O~=m~~--~~~-~-~=r--~
- &.+~b-~-p~_~~
~flrt-r+-r+~
I
" .4 -..J
~-. / H--I-+-+++-I-4-+-+-~H_-_~~~~+-I-4-+-+-~~j-4-+~
L.a - -
d Ll
.2
cJ C- -c Wilh flop
o ....:_ -. 2t~tj~:E1=tj~~~Ei~~~~;t~~~~~~ ---
II " A irfoil: NA .C.A. Z3012 wilh spli t v _ -H -1
/ flop : Oote : 8 -35 8 -.3 krf-O 1" I I
Pres.(sf'nd olm.): 11020
- .2
S - . 41-1-1- Airfoil: NA. C. A. Z3012 witli spli t flop d efl e cted 75 '
S ize:5 "x30" Vel. (ff.jsec.j:31 fo 70
-.4 I!O t-I-I- Test: v. o. T. IZ88 Do te: 8-35
I Tested: L.M.A .L., v.D. rl288 ~ Resull s corre cled fo infinite aspec t 'r olio :
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 IZ- 16 20 Z4 28 -.Z 0 .Z .4 .6 .8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 1. 8 2.0 2.2 Z.4
Angle of a t lack for infinite asp ect ratio, a D (degrees) L i ff coefficie n t. CL
F IG O&E IB.- N. A. C. A. 23012 with split fl a p deflected 75° .

,~~Ji ~"'.> ~I~H*~~


I I I I I I I I 1" I
j ~ . .
.24
~:~~. =t.~~ ~ ='.
5.0 5 .89 - 3.0.4
~t/~j I( 0 c/4, ,
. 22
• a .c.p osilion x =I . I: y =6
t x = 1. I . y=6 · C. = -0.008
1 I 1 I' ".

"i& ~:~~
15 8.52
=~:~; r- -
- 4.84 t- -
0 20 40 60 80
?er cen f of chor d
100
.20 .}'
20. 8.92 - 5.4 1 "'..- f..:'F- Wil;' flop
2 5 9.08 - 5.78 f( ..--'-
.30 9.0.5 -5.96
40. 8 .59 - 5.92 ,
I@ '
2 .4 . 18
Test R . N. t-
50. 7.74 -5.50.
60. 6.61 - 4.81 l.airT , , I

Z. 2
d
...... 16 Wil;' flop t-
70 5.25 -391 ~ I I I
c:
80. 3.73 - 2.83
IJ" , \ I \ 0 - - - 3,1 10, 000' -
90 2.0.4 -1.59 I
2 .o . ~ 14 6 - - 2, 2 70,00.0 t-
95 1,/2 - .90 IN..... 1\ I I ~. , x----- 1,450,000 t-
100 (.1 6) (- .16) I -..:
100 I
I. 8 ~ .1 2 , +--- 68 0,000 t-
L. E. Rod.: 2.48 k> I I I u 'V~-- 350,000 t-
,
Slope of rad,uS
thr ough end of
!U ~ :' I. 6 g- .10
I

I
° -,- 17 I ,OO,O_t-
I I I I I
chord : 0.305 I;'" 1,Zl ~ I 1

~ V ' 'l; i5 I Wi (hqu ( flop -


f/,r I~ I" I.4 ~ .08 , 4 · --- -3,/70, 00.0· -
,; 1'; "...:: , t;,.--- -1,4 70, ODD t-
I ~ I.
I

P ~ J'... e ·06 I
0.:
If Wilh flop
,
j I" . 04
h

It' In-
:'Wi th o ul flop . 0.2
--~
~-- .,.-,
II
f-<: t- 6- 1-< f-- ~ - ". W!'houl flop
I
o -- --- -- :W
II /
, 1""-

kJ·
d-· I -
IY & ....:QJ - .2 >-1-.
2 ~ilt /~fl- t- t-
Lr
:
o 8
.... - .3
- '::-I--l--=t -i -
U Air foil: NA. C. A. 23015 wi lh c:Q) >-== F lU'
Date:8-.35,Z-.351 split flop: Vel.(ff.jsec.j:3110 70 _ Airfoil: NA.C. A. 2 015 with split flop de f l e cfe d 75 '
Pre s. (s l'n d aim.): /to ZO
2' ~ - .4 t- t-t-
Size: 5" x 30"tJ Tested:L. M.A .I..'v' O. T 1289, 1232 : Corre c te d 10 infinile A.R.
- 16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 IZ 16 20 Z4 ~ -. 2 o . 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 12 1.4 1.6 1.8 Z.O c .2 Z.4
An gle of attock for infin i le aspec t r atio, aD (degrees) L iff c o e fficien t, CL
FI GU RE 19.-N. A. C . A. 23015 with split fl ap deflected 75°.
14 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Sto. Up'r. L·wr. .... 'll 20 a·f-!,. tl I I I I I I I I I I


o - 0 ~ 10
/.2 4.87 -2.08 """""" lJ 'S O~.[
y a ml r-t--J .24
1 J I I 1..1 .1 .1 l I I 1_ I I I I
2.56.14 -3.14,.....,..... I. 10 lilT'" I--
f-t-' n1
'5'
* a.c.posdlon x=2. 3; y=7 I, !. ,I. I J.
5.07.93-4.52 ~'(;-IIIII c~ VI .22 t. • x (2.3 ;y=7; ~=-0.005
i8 I~b} =g~"""""" 0 2.0 ..ifP. 60 80 100 I
1~5 1/.19 -7.51 1-1- -;n'l"';' "I. of chord 0
2 /1,80 -8.30 fl. ' 11)
2 12.05 -8. 76 }) .. !-- :r Wit flop ' IV
~~~1:~~ ::~:~~ ~ \\ ' .1 8 -A
SO 10.40 -8.14 II' .' ;\ \ d..:.1 6 Cf' Test R..N. t - -
~g 1.g~ :~~~ n ;. \ \ 2.e
4 With flop 1-_
80 5.05 -4.13 \', \
~ 11~ =13~ HH-+-IH.+-f+\+.\+--H,-;';+-H-+-+-1 2. 0 .§
.\).
I
4
0----- 3,080,000' __
/:,-- 2,260,000 __
-r .22j H-+-+>/H--+-+7-\Hc,M\\+"'~'-++-+-+--4
100 (.2;>; ~
'i::
x----- 1,440,000 __
IOC - a " f \ 1.8 ~ . 12 +- - - 650,000
L.E. Rod.: 4.85 1-+-t,£-j-/+-+-~HH~='l;liiH---+-+--+-1
Slope ofrodius \ "".
lJ
v--- 333,000 - -
MnwgnendofH~-+-+-+-++-+-+-~
chord: 0.305
I ~
'rl-+-+-11
1(' 1""-'
6 ~.I 0 ,, 0--- 1~5,OOO - , -
{; II. Without flap_ I-
1.4($ ~.O8
II ..... ~ J. -'- -!-3,110, 000'_ I-
~ 1>.---.2,250,000 _
IF·WI h flop 1.2.§
.S;! Q.:
e·O6 , <l-----I, 430,000 _ I-
I-
...... tr------653,000
dOlt: .04 <?-----338,000 - I -
1>5 q)
0
rL1' 0-----167,000 -c-
...-~
I
Without flop
.8
~
lJ .02
'=:Ll ~ -1<1- f--..<I--:
__ Ll
- "'Iithout flop
.6-..J
/ / I'2f
.4 I , "
J
Ir .2 2
10-
1-1-
II 0 3
With flap-.
I
Airfoil: N.A.G.A. 23021 with split flop deflected 75'
4 Results corrected to infinite aspect ralio Date: 8-35
o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 -1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Liff coefficient, CL
FIGURE 2O.-N. A. C. A. 23021 with split flap deflected 75°.

cU

n-:~II«~~I N
Sto· up.,., L'wr. I 1 I I I I I I I I
0 - 0 .24 ! III !.I 1 1 111 l I I
1.25 .J.55 -0.82 -f- *a.c.posdlon x-I.0;y=7 I.I.!. _I.
2.5 4.71 -1.00 -f- x-I.0;y=7 ; c.~.=-0.0IB
1
5.0 6.33 -1.06 .22 t. •
,
7.5 7.42 -1.09 -f-
10o
lO 8.20 -1.21 -,..... 0 20 40 60 80 r\ I c
15 9.02 -1.66
20 9.26 -2.22
25 9.25 -2.64
30 9.10 -2.91
40 8.46 -3.15
I'ercent ofchord

Ii' ,
~
2.'"
.20

.18
-- !--iY I
Test R.N.
Wifh flop
I Willi flop ':"""f--

SO 7.S3 -3.07
1ilI1', d 0----- 3,120,000*
, ",,
60 6 .35 -2.78 2.2 ..._.1 6
70 5.00 -2.32 ~ l l - - 2,290,000
ff'fd , ,
80 3.52 -1.73 c:
90 1.90 -1.00 .q, )(- ---- 1,450,000
95 J:'/ \ , " 2.0 ~.14 +--- 660,000
100 I.~~
- .58 \

100
(.1 (-.13)
",\ , <;;: v- - - 336,000
0
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 a (
~
, 1.8 ~\) .12 [J - - - 170,000
Til 1 1 I 1 1
Slope of radius I I Withouf flap
fhrougn end of / 1& 1.6 8'.10
chord: 0.610 14V \~ ~---3, lBO, 000 t
{;
r k' I'r ($
1.4 ...., ,k.OB
'cr----1,4BO, 000
0-----/7/,000
II" -<~ ~ c:
j , I', .q) ..-::
~p
,, 1.2.1J e·06 \
" ~
0;;: Cl \
I_With flop ~ "<]
1.0 ~ .04
1,.( If lJ A
Without flop la' '.
. 8~ .02
- lop
/ Ii ~-,
~, Wdhout
:
.6 0 ,..... --
/ L f-- ~ r-l t- 16' -
-
ci 141'
.4 r..l-.I ,'"
¢"-

.2 ....:QJ-.2 r- Wifh floe,


I: -
I o
8
.... -.3 - --1-1'-
/
Air oil: N.A.C.A. 43012 with spli
~
flop: Pres.(st'nd ot~: Ifo 20 - .2 Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 43012 with split flap deflected 75'
~-.4 c-r-
Size: S ' x 30": Tested: L.M.A.L., 7.1296, ~ 27, 1297 V.O. Corrected to infinite aspect ratio: Date: 9-35 2-35
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 ~ --.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 /.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 2.2 2.4 e.o
Angle of aTfack for infinite aspect rarlO, a. (degrees) Lif' coefficient, G.
F'IGURE 21.-N. A. C. A. 43012 with split flap deflected 75°,
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 15
20 .r
.... "\) 10 a . c ~ L;. I I I I I I /1 11 I I I I I I 1. 1. I
t ~
Qj 0
U~ 0
.12
I I I I J I Test I I I a .c.postllon
,- C.
I.±-l -
Pivot oft T. E. 11I Reynolds Number
f vi ~ l -
l- f-
I. U
~'(5-10 f>/Vof":' X I--Y I-
..... c. f-
ofmoln wing .11 I - o 3,/10,000
.03c. .025 c. I j'cf4 0.51- 8 1-{!:009
I- Pivot below c, f-
I- 1.0 9 .008 l -
10 6----2,330,00o
t- .054c, .045 c. I -
Pivot oft L.E.
0 20 40 60 80
f'ercent orenora ° .1 0 I - x---- ------- 1,250,000 1./1-1/ 1-1-.010 f-
t-
of flop
f- + - - - - - - 636,000
l i 2 I-~I I- 1-.011-1-
t- .24c• . 040c. 2.2 .09 I- "V------- 325,000
I- Pivot below c, f- 0 - - - - - - 163,000
t-
.I0c, .0IS7e.
Flop disploce- 2.0
d
...... . 08
f-i-Co efficien ts based on the sums of the mai,., 1-1-
'!!'!flt ongle c: f- f- f- wing and flop chords and areas.
t-
.~ I
1.8 ~.07

1.6 '"~ . 06 11 11
W. u lQi,
lih ,
1.4 g-.05
'~N 1111
I! ~
{; 11 , , ,,
1.2 (j ~.04 , ,
i'; " 0.. I II
~ II ,
1..4.
lJ"l
Q
IU N-i h7
'0_
+ 1.0 t
:G
e·03
Q.; ,'In:
~ ~7

J ~ 1J.,J , \,0,
.8~ .02
'6 QJ ~- .-(>-;- ~ Y. iS~
), o ..l: I-<: - ~ I:::::: ~~
.6 lJ .01
Ii 'l::
"

"
IIjij"
.4--.)

.2
~
tJ -.1
o
,~
............

'I L-'~
J c 't - .2
';1. Airfoil: N.A.C. A. 23012 with external
j airfoil flap, Size : S'x 30 '
-.2
8
.... -.3
r- I- r- Pres. (sl'na. aim.): 110 20 00t8:7-35 ~
Airfoil: .A.C.A . 2 012 with external-airfail
Ve/.(ft.jsec.) : 69
-.4 ~-. 4
flap deflected -3:
Test: V.O. T. In3-1276
Tested: L.M.A.L., VO. T. 1273,1276 Results corrected fo infinite aspect ratio:
-/0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 .32 ~ -.6 -.4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, a, (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE 22.-N. A. C .. A. 23012 with external-airroil flap deflected-3°.
Main wing section _____ ________________ N. A. C. A. 23012 Main wing chord, CI ___ _______ ______ __ _________ __ __ 0.83.3c
Flap section ____ _______ __ ____________ N. A. C. A. 23012 Flap chord, C2=0.2<. ____.. ____________ ________ __ __ _ .167c

20
1 l'l:'
10
I~ ~.c.l I I I I _I I I I 1 T T T T Tf
r- p,lvo~
I- of main wing -_
;ft I r~. - ~~ 0
I. " -/O
tJ ....
l'
. 12

.11 f- - I- 0
I
1-11 1 T
.1. I I Test T l
l _t-7:z·c-kpoSifion'
feynalds Number I z y
I( 0 c/.4 Pivo:J 3,080,000 0.5 8
I- .03c• . 02Sc. f- -
Pivot below c 1 '0 20 40 60 80 I 00 ~----2,350,OOOI 1 I-r
I- .054 c, .045 c. - f'ercent orehora .10 f- - I- x----------- 1,290,OOO T -1 I T ·~l .1
Pivot oft L.E. i - - 1-+-
I-
of flap I", ~ - - - - - 6~5,OOO I I I I (~- /I
I- .24c, .040c.
f'f \1 2.2 .09 f- - f-<;7----.-- 333,000
i- Pivot below c,
v.; . i - - f- O - - ' - - - 167,000 I 1 I
.I0c, .0167c.
t- Flop displace- 2.0
d
-;:.08 l- I-
j-Coefficients based on the sums of the main t- I -
I- T30~ angle
1/.- '\ c: wing and flop chords and areas. I
\ ' .Q) "(for flap 01 -3°) In
" 1.8 ~.07 IT
~ ~
~+ pt.. IXjQ ,,
~ . 06 117,
.h
1.6
III I.lZ I-!J I'>i tI
VI iL
--I- 1.4 g-.OS
I~ !P. I}
rt' 1"-
{; 1\\ lY' ~
. ~ . 04 , I)

11
" rf}
I '~
"
.;::
e·03
Q.
,\
l\7 b-- )-.j"17
,
L-l V
W' j.~ ['VF - -t- pcp 1:"1- - I - Jry
j
.02 1-

~i' . 01
j;
ri' .4 o
~'l
I r. . .2
0"
J-.I
'A
II-~
Llfi
IlL Airfoil: N.A.C. A. 23012 with
o 't - .2 b. :--I-- .J! . _ -hoi
~ externa/-airf'oil flap . 8
.... -.3 I
Pres.(st'nd. atm.): I to 20 - .2
Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 23012 with external-airfoil flop
Size: S'x 30' Oate:7-35,8-.35 ~ f- f-
deflected 30·; Date 7-35,8-35, Test : V.o.r. /278
Tested: L.M.A.L., VO.T. /278 -.4 ~ -.4 l- f- Results corrected to infinile aspecf r atio:
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 ~ -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Angle of attock for in,finife aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE 23.-N. A. C. A. 23012 wjth external-airroil flap deflected 30°,
Main wing section __ ___ _____ ______ N. A. C. A. 23012 Main wing chord, c. ____ ________ _____________ O.833c Datum cbord, C-CI+e,.
Flap section _________ ________ ____ N. A. C. A. 23012 Flap chord, c.=O.2<. _________________ ___ ___ __ .167c

tl84380 0-39--3
16 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

20-- .14

H-:~.I ~I
Sfa. up'r. L'w'r. I I 11.11 11.1 .1.1.1 I~JI!~
Reynolds Number I J !.I ,I
c- 1-0.1 I I I I Test
0 3.50 3.50
1.25 5.45 1.93 - .13 - 3750000' '<;j- ..• - ... - 297000'-
2.5 6.50 1.'17 _
5.0 7.90 .93 - - r : : , - - - -3;060.000' V - - .. - - .. IS7,OOO-
7.5 8.85 .63 -
.42 _ 0 20 40 60 80 10 o .12 - - r x----------- I, 830,000' T------- 99.000-
109.60
10.68 Percent of chord - - r + - - - - - I , 170,000' .1.------51,000-
~~ 11.36
.15
30 11.70 0
.03 ./1 - - H7-·-----775,000' ,
40 11.40 0 2.2 - - t t - D - - - ' - - 490,000'
5010.52 0 r: '(a. c.l. pasifion (for t
60 9.15 0 d· IO
70 7.35
80 5.22
90 2.80
95 1.49
100 .12
0
0
0
0
0
~
,. "...6K
~ ~;r.: ,["':Iil.
!I!"~
jj ~ ~ i'<;t rh' ,
k
~
2.0

1.8
f09
:13
\

! \
wing with slof
closed)
x = 1.1; Y= 4
I
,
:.I-
r
, ~
/
,
L. E. Rod.: 1.50 rlj ~ I'R t.",' ~ , ~Q)' 08 ~.
\
,
\'(;
1.6 I
o
II :r~T-
-'" '" I';
~ ~' :l'~ / ~ : ,,
l
u 07 /
,,~~ , 1;),'
\I~, 1\ r
,, v: 1--, r-_ _ ~S ..
1.4 o \~ \ IL " l':i
"- ~.06 ,\, II ,'lj
I .,/ IT
A, ,
1.2 tj
-- :f ~ ~\.Jl liz' / Ii
r; ...: \;::.05
1.0 ~ e ~ ' - oj--' /
" /'
~- I'
r
1&;0
~ .8~
:0 0:..04 iI.
'" if!. - ..-:I-c ~.
-- .
:r- ---
n-
1/

F
f
J o
.6 u
Q)
.03 ~~ ~ ..... ,-1;>-
I!";;~ --~
--I--'
,
-'
- ~%-

~ .02
.4-.J
~ .01

-
.2
I d" 0 -
Airfoil: Clork Y with Handley-Page slot
o
~ -./
Iq: ~=
Size: 6"x36" Vel. (ft.jsec):69 - "'1'9"I I I
Pres.(stnd. aim.): 1/4 to 20
-.2 8
..... -.2 - - Airfoil: Clark V with Hondley-Poge slot(N.A CA. T.R.400}
Test: v.o. T. 848 Dafe:6-32
Where fested: L.M.A.L. -.4 ~ - - Oafe: 6-32 Test: V.D.T. 848
Results corrected to infinite aspect ratio
L- fii-3
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 ~ '-.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 /.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 C.O 2.2
AAgle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, G.
FIGURE 24.-Clark Y witb Handley Page slot.

As an example of scale effects within the flight range, The most efficient airfoil for a landing Reynolds
figure 25 has been prepared to show how the choice of Number of 1,000,000, for example, is definitely not the
an airfoil section for maximum aerodynamic efficiency
may depend on the flight Reynolds Number at which 440
the airfoil is to be employed. The efficiency is judged
.•
)----..
by the speed-range index Clmax/CdQ' Values of Clmax were 8.060,060/
determined for the airfoil sections (N. A. C. A. 230
r---

r--- .....
~

,,- ~ '" '\


'\.
series) with a deflected 20 percent chord split flap '\
~ 4,060.060
and at a Reynolds Number as indicated on each curve - l. v

'"
Qj
corresponding to the landing condition. The cor- -
-Q
~ ""I'--
responding values of CdQ were taken as the actual profile- ~ "
drag coefficients associated with a high-speed lift
coefficient suitable to an actual speed range of 3.5,
-
-
-ti
"0
t
2,000. 0 00_,

----
r-----.. '" ""
"'" '"
'\

I"

'"
>,
but corrected by the methods of this report to the high- r--- ~
speed Reynolds Number (indicated landing Reynolds
Number R times 3.5). Four curves were thus derived
indicating the variation of speed-range index with
section thickness for four values of the landing Reynolds
,
1060000
, ,

- "'"'"
"
"",'

Number: 1,2,4, and 8 million, the extremes correspond-


ing to a small airplane and to a conventional transport 4 8 12 /6 20 24
airplane. The highest value shown, 414, of the speed- Airfoil Ihickness, t . percent c
range index may appear surprisingly high, but it should FIGURE 2S.-Airloil speed-range indexes for various Reynolds Numbers. N. A. C. A.
be rem<:lmbered that the corrections to section character- 230 series sections; CIM . . taken tor airfoil with O.2Oc split flap deflected 75°; CdO taken
for airfoil witb flap retracted (or a bigb·speed value of c, and at 3.5 times tbe R (or
istics and for Reynolds Number, as well as the use of the CI".az_
flaps, are all favorable to high values. The important
point brought out by figure 25 is that the section thick- most efficient for a larger airplane landing at a Reynolds
ness corresponding to the maximum aerodynamic Number of 8,000,000. An analysis such as that of
efficiency is dependent on the Reynolds Number. the foregoing example or further analyses such as those
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 17
discussed in reference 8 concerning the determination for tunnel-wall interference. These induction factors
of the characteristics of wings evidently require a are based on the usual wing theory as applied to rec-
knowledge of the variation of airfoil section character- tangular airfoils. The methods of calculation are
istics with profile shape over the practical range of presented in reference 1. (Second-order influences have
flight Reynolds Numbers. also been investigated; that is, refinement of the tunnel-
wall correction to take into account such factors as the
DETERMINATION OF SECTION CHARACTERISTICS APPLICABLE TO
FLIGHT load grading and the influence of the tunnel interference
on the load grading. (See reference 6.) For the con-
The present analysis is intended primarily to supply ditions of the standard tunnel test such refinements were
a means of arriving at airfoil section characteristics that found to be unnecessary.) The results thus yield the
are applicable to flight at Reynolds Numbers within first approximation characteristics, e. g., the profile-drag
the practical flight range. This object is best ac- coefficient ODO that has been considered a section
complished by applying corrections to the standard characteristic in previous reports (reference 2) .
airfoil test results from the variable-density tunnel. These first-approximation section characteristics are
The standard airfoil characteristics at large Reynolds unsatisfactory, first, because the airfoil theory does not
Numbers are customarily defined in terms of a few represent with sufficient accuracy the flow about the
parameters or important airfoil section characteristics tip portions of rectangular airfoils and, second, because
that may be tabulated for each airfoil section. These the measured coefficients represent average values for
important characteristics are: all the sections along the span whereas each section
c, max , the section maximum lift coefficient. actually operates at a section lift coefficient that may
ao, the section lift-curve slope. differ markedly from the wing lift coefficient. The
alo' the angle of zero lift. second approximation attempts to correct for the
('do m in ' the minimum profile-drag coefficient. shortcomings of the wing theory as applied to rec-
c I ,the optimum lift coefficient, or section lift co- tangular airfoils.
op t It is well known that pressure-distribution measure-
efficient corresponding to CdOm/n' ments on wings having rectangular tips show humps in
Cm
a .c.
,the pitching-moment coefficient about the sec- the load-distribution curve near the wing tips. These
tion aerodynamic center. distortions of the load-distribution curve aI;e not rep-
a. c., the aerodynamic center, or point with respect to resented by the usual wing theory. The failure of the
the airfoil section about which the pitching- theory is undoubtedly associated with the assumption of
moment coeffiClent tends to remain constant plane or two-dimensional flow over the airfoil sections
over the range of lift coefficients between zero whereas the actual flow near the tips is definitely three-
lift and maximum lift. dimensional, there being a marked inflow from the tips
Essentially, the general analysis therefore reduces to an on the upper surface and outflow toward the tips on the
analysis of the variation of each of these important lower surface. This influence not only affects the
section characteristics with Reynolds Number. Before induction factors and hence the over-all characteristics
this analysis is begun, however, it will be _necessary to of the rectangular wing but also produces local dis-
consider how values of these section characteristics turbances near the tips that may be expected to affect
applicable to flight are deduced from the wind-tunnel the average values of the section profile-drag coefficients.
tests of finite-aspect-ratio airfoils in the comparatively Theoretical load distributions for wings with well-
turbulent air stream of the tunnel. The variation of the rounded (elliptical) tips agree much more closely with
important section characteristics with Reynolds Number experiment than do the distributions for rectangular-
will then be considered. Finally, consideration will be tip wings. Local disturbances near the tips should also
given to methods of arriving at complete airfoil charac- be much less pronounced. Test results for rounded-tip
teristics after the important section characteristics have wings were therefore employed to evaluate the rectangu-
been predicted for flight at the desired value of the lar-tip effects and hence to arrive at the second approx-
Reynolds Number. imations. Four wings, having N. A. C. A. 0009, 0012,
Correction to infinite aspect ratio.-The derivation 0018, and 4412 sections, were employed for the purpose.
of the section characteristics from the test results un- The normal-wing airfoil sections were employed
corrected for turbulence will be discussed first; the throughout the rounded-tip portion of the wing but the
turbulence effects will be considered later. The reduc- plan area was reduced elliptically toward each tip
tion to Sl' '{on characteristics is actually made in three beginning at a distance of one chord length from the
SuC '.!f>"",. If ~ .pproximations. First, the measured charac- tip. Section characteristics were derived from tests
teristics for the rectangular airfoil of aspect ratio 6 are of these wings in the usual way but using theoretical
corrected for the usual downflow and induced drag, induction factors appropriate to the modified plan
using appropriate factors that allow at the same time form. These section characteristics when compared
18 REPORT NO. 58B-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

with the first approximation ones from tests of wings .


predominantly influenced by the high Cd 0 values of the
with rectangular tips served to determine the second central sections which, according to the theory, are
approximations. These values indicated by double operating at Cl values as much as 9 percent higher than
primes were given from this analysis in terms of the the mean value indicated by the wing lift coefficient CL .
first approximation values indicated by single primes Moreover, the actual lift coefficient corresponding to
as follows: the section stall (in this case the center section) might
C Lma x " = 1. 03 CLmax' thus, in accordance with the theory, be taken as 9 per-
ao" = 0.96ao' cent higher than the measured wing lift coefficient
cOlTesponding to the stall.
ao" = ao' +0.39CL ' (degrees)
Several considerations, however, indicate that this
CDO" = CDO ' +0.0016C/2-~(t-6)0.0002(t >6) 9 percent increase indicated by the simple theory is too
large. The simple theory assumes a uniform section
where t is the maximum section thickness in percent lift-curve slope in arriving at the span loading and
chord. In some recent reports on airfoil characteris- hence the distribution of the section lift coefficients
tics (references 3, 5, and 7) these values have been along the span. Actually on approaching the maximum
presented as section characteristics except that a small lift the more heavily loaded sections do not gain lift as
correction has in some cases been applied to the aero- fast as the more lightly loaded ones owing to the bend-
dynamic-center positions. This correction is no longer ing over of the section lift curves near the stall. This
considered justifiable. effect has also been investigated approximately. The
These corrections are, of course, entirely empirical. results showed that for commonly used airfoil sections
They must be considered as only approximately correct the center lift drops from 9 percent to 5 or 6 percent
and as being independent of the Reynolds Number. higher than the mean at the stall of rectangular airfoils
The corrections themselves, however, are small so that with rounded tips. For some unusual sections that
they need not be accurately known. All things con- have'very gradually rounding lift-curve peaks and with
sidered, it is believed that through their uae the reliabil- little loss of lift beyond the stall, this correction may
ity of the section data is definitely improved, at least practi.cally disappear either because the lift virtually
within the lower part of the range of lift coefficients. equalizes along the span before the stall or because the
For lift coefficients much greater than 1, however, the maximum lift is not reached until most of the sections
profile-drag coefficients from the rounded tip and rec- are actually stalled. Omitting from consideration these
tangular airfoil tests show di~crepancies that increase sections to which no correction will be applied, the
progressively with lift coefficient and, of course, become question as to whether or not such ~ correction should
very large near the maximum lift coefficient owing to be applied to usual sections was decided by considering
the different maximum-lift values. This difference how it would affect predictions based on the Cl max
brings up the necessity for the third approximation. values.
The second approximation values may, however, be Maximum-lift measurements had been made for a
considered sufficiently accurate to determine the section number of tapered airfoils of various taper ratios and
profile-drag coefficient Cd O over the lower lift range and aspect ratios. The same airfoil section data presented
also the following important section parameters that in this report were applied (taking into account the re-
are determined la.rgely from the characteristics in the duced Reynolds Number of the sections near the tips
low lift range: of highly tapered wings) by the method indicated in
alO reference 8 to predict the maximum lift coefficients of
ao the tapered wings. These predictions appeared some-
C lopi what better when the section data were obtained on
CdO mIn the assumption tha t the center-section lift coefficient
Cma . c . at the stall of the rectangular airfoil with rounded tips
a. c. is 4 percent higher than the wing lift coefficient. Hence
the third approximation as regards the section maximum
In this runge of the lift coefficient the deviations from lift coefficients was obtained by increasing the maximum
the mean of the Cl values along the span have been lift coefficients by 4 percent, although the value of the
adequately taken into account. The mean values of Cl correction could not be definitely established because
and CdO represent true values as long as the deviations it appeared to be of the same order as possible errors
along the span are within a limited range over which in maximum lift measurements and preilicti,ons for
t.he quantities may be considered to vary lineally. Near tapered airfoils. The correction has been applied,
the maximum lift, however, the deviations become however, except in the unusual cases previously men-
larger and the rates of deviation increase so that the tioned where it obviously was not applicable, by in-
profile drag of the rounded-tip airfoil, for example, is creasing the maximum lift coefficients for the sections
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 19
by 4 percent. With the rounded-tip correction tills influenced by the variation of Cao along the span. A
increase makes the total maximum lift coefficient for reference to figure 26 will show the relation of these
the section 7 percent higher than the measured maximum successive approxTInations to the original measurements
lift coefficient for the rectangular airfoil of aspect ratio 6. and to the final results.
The correction of the important airfoil section para- Turbulence.- The correction for turbulence is made
meters has thus been completed, but the curve of pro- as in reference 9 by use of the concept of an effective
file-drag coefficient against lift coefficient should now R eynolds Number. Marked scale effects that have been
be modified at high lift coefficients owing to the change experimentally observed are usually associated with a
in Cl maz and the variation of Cao along the span. Com- transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the boundary
pletely corrected Cao curves are not presented for the layer. As examples, consider the more or less sudden
various airfoils in this report. The change resul ting increase in the drag coefficient for skin-friction plates
from the variation of Cdo along the span has been ap- and airsillp models and the drop of the drag coefficient

I I I I I I
2.8 .13
I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I T -II , , , TTl
2.6 ./2 o Experimentol points
o Exper imen tal points I-
roumfed-tip airfoil tesf rounded-tip airfoil test
First approximation (CLl I- 2.4 ./1 corrected to effective
Second ~ " I
_____ Third I I"
I I
I- I I I
(cd - c....... 2.2
Reynolds Number
First appraximati~n (CD)
.10
-,.... - Second ' , ,,' '
____ _ Third I I . I I I I(c d ,)
2.0 .09
1.8
. ., .... . 08
c:
i:;,<: -0 1.6
. III
1/,1 ~.07
) t'-..
1.4
""~ . 06
,.. t'-..
1.2§
.... <J

g-.05
I.

I
.\.1 {j

r " I.O~

.8
III
0
ll
;:::::
'"
~ . 04
'i::
~ . O3
Q..
I
/,, "
I

~ ....
"
/;:.
.6 r::. . 02
:g ..,., ~ F
v
~
.4~ . 01
V)
U'
"
.2 a
/.
0

- .2
Airfoil: N A.C. A. 4412
Airfoil: N. A.C.A. 4412
-.4
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 /.6 1.8 2.0
Angle of attack for infinite aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) Section IIlI coefficient
FIGURE 26.-Airfoil section cbaracterist ics. Comparison of tbe various approximations.

plied only in a general way in the construction of a for spheres and cylinders with increasing Reynolds
generalized CdQ curve. From this curve, values of Numbers in the critical range. The latter scale effects
cdQ at any Cl may be derived in terms of the presented are associated with the greater resistance to separation
airfoil section parameters. Tills "generalized section of the turbulent layer. The increase of maximum lift
polar" (see fig. 45) was derived from tests of rounded- coefficient with Reynolds Number shown by most com-
tip N. A. C. A. 0012 and 4412 airfoils, taking into monly used airfoils is a similar phenomenon, The drag
account the variation of Cdo along the span. For con- scale effect for most airfoils, moreover, is at least com-
ventional airfoils of medium thickness, Cdo values from parable with the corresponding scale effect for the skin-
this generalized section polar should be more nearly friction plate.
true section characteristics than the GDo values obtained Tills transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the
directly from the test data. Tills conclusion is particu- boundary layer, as in Reynolds' classic experiments, is
larly important for lift coefficients above 1 where the primarily a function of the Reynolds Number but, as he
second approximation correction becomes definitely showed, the transition is hastened by the presence of
unreliable and near Cimaz where the Gvo values are unsteadiness or turbulence in the general air stream.
tl84380 ()-3~1j,
20 REPORT O. 586- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Likewise, the transition in the boundary layer is in passing from the test to the effective Reynolds
hastened by the turbulence in the air stream of a wind umber, moreover, is approximately allowed for by
tunnel so that transition occurs at a given point on the dedu cting a small correction increment from the
model at a lower Reynolds Number in the tunnel than measured airfoil profile-drag coefficients.
it would in free air. Likewise the associated scale This correction increment was originally employed
effects that appear in the tunnel tend to correspond for tests at high values of the Reynolds Number when
with those that would appear in flight at a higher the boundary layer on an airfoil is largely turbulent.
Reynolds umber. This Reynolds Number may there- The correction was therefore .estimated as the amount
fore be referred to as the "effective Reynolds Number" by which the drag coeffi~ient representing the turbulent
and is, of course, higher than the actual Reynolds skin friction on a flat plate would decrease in passing
Number of the test. from lhe test Reynolds umber to the effective
It appears that the effective Reynolds Number for R eynolds Number. The values of the increment thus
practical purposes may be obtained by multiplying the deduced from Prandtl's analysis of the turbulent

.020
,
.! ){.IA I.t.~. 10012
rJ°
.•.:
c::
--- :f " - . :-- ._-- I'-..
H~·
,Q)
~
~ . 008
QJ
8.006
.010
-c =
.'
0 ..910
~ (logR) z5.

i""- '"
r-

I'--x
- - x
- " "
~.005
--- -' =r-.o.
Cl
~.004 - --Prandtl- Gebers Irons ilion curve
~ I'--
~ . 003
o
~ Cd = 2.656R-! ~,. . "'-
~.002
::) '--- ..........

.C:
~
.001 h Q 6
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 /0,000,000 2 3 4 5 /OQOOQOOO
Effective Reynolds Number
FIG URE 27.-Variation or ed om;. with R . Comparison of N . A. C. A. 0012 airroil with skin-friction plates.

test Reynolds Number by a factor referred to as the fric tion layer, which is substantially in agreement with
" turbulence factor." This factor was determined von Karman's original derivation, are as follows:
(reference 9) for the variable-density tunnel by a com-
parison of airfoil tests with tests in the N. A. C. A. T est Reynolds Effect ive R ey-
/led
full-scale tunnel and hence indirectly with flight. The Number nolds Number

value 2.64, which was thus obtained after a considera-


300, 000 792, 000 0.0020
tion of sphere tests in the full-scale tunnel and in flight, 500,000 1, 320, 000 .0017
1,000,000 2,640,000 .0014
agrees with a subsequent determination (reference 10) 2,000,000 5,280, 000 .0012
3,000,000 7, 920, 000 . 0011
by sphere tests in the variable-density tunnel that were
compared directly with corresponding tests in flight.
An effective Reynolds Number is thus determined at The objection might be raised that the increments
which the tunnel results should, in general, be applied to are based entirely on a turbulent skin-friction layer
t:..Cd
flight. Flight conditions as regards the effects of the whereas the boundary layers on airfoils are actually
transition may then be considered as being approxi- laminar over a considerable part of the forward portion,
mately reproduced, but it should be remembered that particularly for the lower values of the Reynolds
the flow at the lower Reynolds umber cannot exactly umber. The t:..Cd correction was nevertheless em-
reproduce the corresponding flow in flight. Both the ployed over the complete range of Reynolds umbers
laminar and turbulent boundary layers are relatively for several reasons: primarily for simplicity and con-
thicker than those truly corresponding to flight and sistency, because in the practical flight range the
both boundary layers have higher skin-friction coeffi- turbulent layer predominates; and secondarily because
cients at the lower Reynolds Number. Nevertheless on most airfoils the boundary layer mu t be turbulent
the most important source of scale effects is taken over a considerable part of the surface at any Reynolds
into account, at least approximately, when the tunnel Number sufficiently high to avoid separation . Refer-
results are applied to flight at the effective Reynolds ence to the corrected minimum-drag results for the
Number, The change in skin-friction drag coefficients N_ A. C. A. 0012 section shown in figure 27 may
«,

. AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 21


clarify these statements. Included in the figure are but the relatively poor experimental accuracy of the
curves representing the variations with Reynolds test data for these low Reynolds Numbers and the
Number of flat-plate drag coefficients for laminar and lack of practical applications tend to discourage an
turbulent boundary layers and the Prandtl-Gebers extensive analysis of the low-scale data.
transition curve, which represents a computed variation The accuracy of the final results as applied to flight
substantially in agreement with Gebel's' measurements is best judged from a comparison of the results with
of the actual variation in drag coefficient for a flat plate those from the N. A. C. A. full-scale tunnel. Such
towed in water at various Reynolds Numbers. The comparisons have been made in references 9 and 10 .
computed curve is the result of a calculation of the The agreement for both the maArimum lift and minimum
average drag coeffieient for the plate when the fNward drag for the Clark Y is easily within the accuracy of the
part of the boundary layer is laminar and the after experiments. For the other airfoil for which a compari-
part turbulent and the transition is assumed to take son is possible, the N. A. C. A. 23012, the results show
place at a fi.xed value of the surface-distance Reynolds similar satisfactory agreement for maA'imum lift, within
Number R z . It is apparent that the airfoil curve tends 4 percent, and for the drag coefficient at zero lift,
to parallel the actual flat-plate curve throughout the within 5 percent. The polar curve of the profile-drag
flight range of values of the Reynolds Number. coefficients from the full -scale tunnel, however, tended
In references 11 and 12 corresponding curves were to show a marked drop for a small range of lift coeffi-
presented for a very thin airfoil section . These results cients near that for minimum profile drag. Although
were uncorrected for the turbulence in the tunnel and the same phenomenon was apparent from the variable-
hence, although they appear to parallel a transition density-.tuJmel tests, it was less marked. The fact that
curve like the present corrected results, the transition the minimum drag shown by the full-scale-tunnel test
curve does not correspond to zero turbulence, or flight, was 17 percent lower than shown by the variable-
but is displaced to the left. The correction increment density-tunnel test thus appears less significant than it
could have been based on the difference between these otherwise would. Furthermore, it might be expected
two transition curves for flat plates, the one calculated that this localized dip in the profile-drag curve would
for the tunnel and the other calculated for flight con- tend to disappear at the higher Reynolds Numbers
ditions. Such a correction increment would have common to flight at low lift cofficients. In spite of the
ceen slightly different from the one actually ~mployed, fact that the above-mentioned difference between the
particularly in the range of the Reynolds Number results is but slightly outside the limit of possible
below the flight range, owing to larger drag reductions experimental errors, the difference does tend to show
in the laminar part of the boundary layer in passing how much the turbulence corrections applied to the
to the higher Reynolds Number. Both the test variable-density-tunnel data may be in error, particu-
results for the N. A. C . A. 0012 (fig. 27) and theoretical larly for a condition like the one considered for which
calculations for the same airfoil by the method of rather extensive laminar boundary layers may be
reference 13 indicate, however, that separation must present. Comparatively high velocities over the lift-
occur as the Reynolds Number is reduced even in the ing airfoil as contrasted with the flat plate may also
case of this excellently streamlined form at zero 1ift. tend to increa'5e the value of the correction increment
The separation is indicated by the abnormal increase so that all these considerations are in agreement in
of the drag coefficient shown by the experimental indicating that the correction incremen~ applied may be
results below a Reynolds Number of 800,000. This considerably too conservative in some instances, par-
separation may at first be a local phenomenon, the ticularly for the lower range of flight Reynolds Num-
flow subsequently changing to turbulent and closing bers.! The greatest uncertainty, however, in regard to
in again downstream from the separation point. In the application of the drag data to flight is due to the
any case it is apparent that the flow will either be to possibility tbat under certain favorable conditions in
a considerable extent turbulent or will separate so flight, corresponding to very smooth surfaces and to
that a correction increment based mainly on a laminar practically zero turbulence, the transition may be
layer would have little significance.
The applied correction increment based on the 1 Since the writing of this report, the results of comparative experiments made in
the less turbulent British C. A. T. on the N. A. C. A. 00!2 airfoil have come to the
turbulent layer is thus justifiable as being COIIJerva- attention of the authors. For the mod~1 with the most carefully finished surface,
tive over the flight range of the Reynolds umber the results do show lower drags over the lower range of flight Reynolds Numbers
than the data in this report.
and the influences not considered in its derivation Still mOre recently the results of tests from England and Germany at moderately
will henceforth be considered as sources of error in large Reynolds Numbers hav~ added further support to the conclusion that the
correction increments applied herein are too small. Furthermore, as indicated
the experimental results. Admittedly it would be of by the foregoing discussion, the increments should probably increase with tbe airfoil
interest to give further consideration to the results in thickness or drag. For example, better agreement is obtained if, instead of the
increment 0.0011 subtracted from the usual large-scale proflle-drag results, a cor-
the range of Reynolds Number below the usual flight rection as a factor applied to the measured profile drag is employed. This factor
range where the influences of extensive laminar bound- is 0.85, as similarly determined from the tlat plate with completely turbulent bound·
ary layer. Final conclusions, however, must await further information on the tran-
ary layers and separation are of primary importance, sition as it actually occurs in tlight.
22 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

abnormally delayed. For example, Dryden (reference separation than the laminar boundary layer. This
14) found very large values of Rx corresponding to dependence of separation on the character of the bound-
transition on a flat plate. The conditions are remi- ary-layer flow was first observed in sphere-drag tests.
niscent of those of super aturation in solutions. Fol- At low Reynolds umbers separation of the boundary
lowing this analogy, it may be impossible to set an layer develops near the equator of the sphere. When
upper limit of R above which transition must occur. the boundary layer on the sphere is made turbulent, how-
Unusually low drags would, of course, be associated ever, as it is when the Reynolds Number is sufficiently
with the presence of this type of abnormally extensive increa ed, the separation shifts to a position considerably
laminar boundary layer; but, while this possibility aft.
should be recognized, it is pi'obable that in most prac- The occurrence of separation for airfoils, as affected
tical application" conditions such as slight surface by the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the
irregularities, vibration, or self-induced flow fluctuations boundary layer, is indicated by the scale effects on
will operate against it. The present results may there- Clmax (fig. 28) for symmetrical Eections of varying thick-
fore be used in flight calculations as conservative for ness. For these airfoils at any considerable lift coeffi-
wings that are not aerodynamically rough. cient the low-pressure point on the upper surface tends
VARIATION OF IMPORTANT SECTION CHARACTERISTICS WITH to occur just bebind the nose, on the leading-edge-radius
REYNOLDS UMBER
portion of the airfoil. When the boundary layer is
Maximum lift coefficient clmox.- The maximum lift laminar behind this point, separation may be expected
coefficient is one of the most important properties of the
airfoil section. It largely determines not only the max- 2.0
imum lift coefficient of wings and hence the stalling • ~.1~~~} bbl~ 0
,} 1.8 .. - ,. 0015 'V
speed of airplanes but also, for example, influences how . I- 0012 0
and where tapered wings stall and hence the character 'i 1.6 . r- 00096
.~
of the stall in relation to lateral stability and damping .~ 1.4
, -1
in roll. The maximum lift coefficient, moreover, in- ::: .A:l;
I-::';

~ 1.2 ,
dicates the useful lift range of the section and tends to u /"
:::: 1.0 /
define the nature of the variation of profile drag with ..::: 0- f/"
.,.
lift. Finally, the maximum lift coefficient is the im- 10' - -
§ .8 ~
f.<>--
portant aerodynamic characteristic that usually shows .§
the largest scale effects. ti .6
~
It is not surprising to find large variations of Clmox t
.4
with Reynolds Number because Cl mox is dependent en- ;gu .2
tirely on the boundary-layer behavior, which in turn is III
II) 0 8 6 8

directly a function of viscosity as indicated by the 100.000 2 3 4 561,000,000 2 3 4 5 10.000.000


Effecfive Reynolds Number
value of the Reynolds Number. In other words, po-
FlOlJRE 28.-Section maximum lilt coeffiCient. elm,, ' Symmetrical airloils 01 varying
tential-flow theory alone is totally incapable of any pre- thickness.
dictions concerning the value of Cl mox '
The following discussion traces the mechanism of the to occur very quickly behind or almost at the low-
stall with a view to reaching an understanding of how pressure point owing to the presence of large adverse
the stall, and consequently the maximum lift, is affected pressure gradients. In fact, the von Karman-Millikan
by variations of the Reynolds Number. Basically, the method of calculating the incipient separation point
discussion is concerned mainly with air-flow separation. for laminar boundary layers (reference 13) has been
The pressure distribution over the upper surface of the applied by Millikan to estimate the position of the
conventional airfoil section at .l ift coefficients in the separation point and also its relation to the tran-
neighborhood of the maximum is characterized by a sition point as it is assumed to influence the scale effect
low-pressure point at a small distance behind the leading on the maximum lift coefficient. The number and char-
edge and by increasing pressures from this point in the acter of the assumptions involved iL such an analysis,
direction of flow to the trailing edge. Under these however, are such that the results may be expected to
conditions the reduced-energy air in the boundary layer yield only qualitative predictions. Elaborate calcula-
may fail to progress against the pressure gradient. tions in such cases are of doubtful necessity as indicated
When this air fails to progress along the surface, it by the fact that qualitative predictions, perhaps more
accumulates. The accumulating air thereby produces reliable, had previously been reached without them.
separation of the main flow. The separation, of course, (See references 12, 15, and 16.) Exact methods of
reduces the lift. calculation are unquestionably desirable but are defi-
Whether or not separation will develop is dependent nitely not a matter for the present but for a time when
on the resistance to separation of the boundary layer. much more experimental data concerning both separa-
The turbulent layer displays much more resistance to tion and transition shall have been secured.
AIRFOIL SECTIUN CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 23
For the present discussion it is sufficient to consider the separated boundary layer behind the laminar sepa-
that, jf the bOUIidal'Y layer remains laminar, separation ration point. Incidentally, it should be remembered
will occur very close behind the low-pressure point on that the transition point is not really a point but is a
the upper surface. Incidentally, the actual separation more or less extended and fluctuating region in which
point is expected, in general, to be forward of the calcu- the laminar layer ii:> progressively changing to the fully
lated incipient separation point; that is, nearer the
low-pressure point. It should not, however, be assumed
that the occurrence of separation defines the maxi-
mum lift coefficient. For example, at very low Rey-
nolds Numbers, separation on the N. A. C. A. 0012
airfoil occurs even at zero lift, which on this assumption
would define zero as the ma}.rimum lift. Motion
pictures have been made showing the air flow and
separation for airfoils at low values of the Reynolds
Number. Three photographs from the smoke tunnel
are included in figures 29, 30, and 31 to indicate the
position and character of the laminar separation for a
cambered airfoil. The first two pictures show well- FIGURE 3D.-Separation occlllTing on an airfoil at a low angle of attack (fig. 29) but
at an increased Reynolds Number.
developed separation even at zero aJlgle of attack; the
third shows how laminar separation occurs just behind developed turbulent layer. This transition region now
the nose at higher angles of attack. moves forward toward the separation point as the
Reynolds N umber is further increased. The formation
of turbulence results in a thickening of the boundary
layer between the dead air and the overrunning flow
until the turbulent mixing extends practically to the
airfoil surface. The separated flow may then be con-
sidered reestablished. This process would leave a bubble
of "dead air" between the Eeparation point and the
transition region, the exi tence of which was predicted
several years ago. SubEBquently Jones and Farren
(reference 17) have actually observed this phenomenon.
As the Reynolds Number is further increased, the
transition region progresses toward the leading edge,
FIGURE 29.-Separation occurring on an airfoil at a low angle of attack. approaching the region of the laminar separation point.
Consider now, for example, the flow about the N. A.
It is thus apparent that separation of the laminar
C. A. 0012 at a value of R in the neighborhood of R e,
boundary layer will always be present at a point near
the critical ReynOlds Number, where the maximum lift
the nose at any moderately high lift coefficient if the
Reynolds Number is not sufficiently high to make the
flow turbulent at that point. This condition certainly
exists for the results in figure 28 over the lower range
of the Reynolds Number; that is, separation near the
no£e must have occurred at angles of attack well below
that of Cl maz owing to the very small Reynolds Number
associated with the short distance from the nose to the
laminar separation point. In this range of R the Clmaz
values are of the order of 0.8 and change little with
either R or the section thickness. (See fig. 28.) This
value of c 1maz corresponds approximately to that for a
flat plate. FIGURE 3J.-Separation occurring on an airfoil at 8 high angle of attack.

Now consider the character of the flow as the Rey- increases rapidly with R. As shown in figure 28, CI:naz
nolds Number is increased. The effects are shown very for the N. A. C. A. 0012 begins to incre!lSe rapidly with
clearly by a comparison of figure 29 and figure 30. R at approximately R.= 1,000,000. Consider therefore
Figure 30 corresponds to a higher Reynolds Number and two flows, one at R . =l,OOO,OOO just at the attitude of
shows turbulence forming at a "transition point" along Cl maz ' and the other at the same attitude but at a higher

t
24 REPORT NO. 586- NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTJCS

effective Reynolds Number, say 1,750,000. For the The range of R is limited by the wind tunnel so that
former, separation is probably occurring near the low- in most instances the cale effect above the critical
pressure point, but the turbulence is forming closely range could not be determined . It. is probable, how-
enough behind the separation point so that the fiow ever, that the highest maximum lift coefficients are
over the upper surface is partly reestablished. An reached when the Reynolds N umbel' corresponds to
increase of angle of attack fails to increase the lift, th03 occurrence of fully developed turbulence practically
however, because the turbulence is forming so late that at the laminar separation point but that t,his condition
the local separation and its resulting adverse effect on occurs above the highest Reynolds ' umbers reached
the thickening or separation of the turbulent layer except possibly for the thickest airfoil, . A. C. A. 0018.
farther aft prevent a further gain of lift. Now as the High local Reynolds umbers at the laminar separa-
R eynolds umber is increased the transition region tion point could, however, be reached by employ.ing a
moves to a position nearer the separation point, the thick, highly cambered airfoil. The N. A. C. A. 83 i8
extent of the separated region is reduced and, as shown airfoil was included for this reason. The results (see
by reference to figure 3, CL at the same angle of attack fig. 32) indicate, as expected, a very low critical Rey-
is increased from 0.85 to 1.05 (for the approximately nolds Number. With increasing Reynolds Number,
corresponding test Reynolds Numbers of 330,000 and clmax rises to a maximum at R=900,000 and then falls
660,000). Furthermore, the angle of attack may now off slowly. In this instance, at the highest Reynolds
be increased until CL reaches 1.1 before the flow follow- umbers transition probably occurs ahead of any point
ing the upper surface fails. The failure now occurs at which laminar separation could occur. The ma}'-1-
2 .0
II 1111
I--NAC.A." aql8 "
,} 1. 8 lUI
1M -x r- b! I II I I....
(:'1.6
'I I t 1.6 t---
NA.CA. 6412-
.
/

.~ II 'Y1.CiAj ~f!5' iL- 1=1'" V/ .~ 0--


" 4412.
.- j-¢-t- :
' ~
f-!Y
f/
/
. ~ 1.4 ~/.4
~ I-
-
:
;::: 10-- ..-

~U? ~
r: J Jd..j-I-H" - '"_N.A.C. A.4409 't-:
~ 1.2
+-
0
/
/
.-LX

\.) /

1:/
N.A. C. A . 4412 u
a-- - t - - :
1/
~ /.0 :::: 1.0 L
~ ..:::: I-NA~ CA . 2412) f-/
0012-_.
~ .8 § .8
.~
.§ . 6 >< .6
~ o
12 .4 t: .4
t::
~_~ .2 :g
\J
.2
u QJ

I.fj
°
CIJ 100,000 2 3
8
4 56 1,000,000 2 3
6
4 5/0.000,000
V) a
100,000 2 3 4 56/.000,000 2 3 4 510.000,000
6 8

Effective Reynolds Number Effective fi'eynolds Number


FIG URE 32.-Section maximum lin coeffi cient, CI~... Camber and thickness series. FIG URE 33 .- Section maximum lift c;ootficient, C'''' U ' Camber series.

suddenly, causing a break in the lift curve, but again mum lift coefficient must therefore be determined by
may be delayed by a further increase of the Reynolds the behavior of the turbulent layer. The significant
Number. conclusion is that Cl max then decreases with increasing
In such cases the scale effect evidently varies with R. Another signifiqant observation is that under these
the shape of the nose of the airfoil. If the leading-edge conditions stalling id progressive as indicated by the
radius is reduced by making the airfoil thinner, the rounded lift-curve peaks in figure 11. This type of
local Reynolds Number for the separation point or the stalling corresponds to a progressive separation or
tran~ition region, either R6 based on boundary-layer thickening of the turbulent layer in the region of the
thickness or Rx based on the distance along the surface, trailin~ edge.
is reduced with respect to R because the local dimen- The process of stalling in general is more complex
sions near the nose are reduced with respect to the air- than either of the two distinct processes just discussed.
foil chord. Higher values of R are therefore required It has been compared by Jones (reference 17) to a
to reach the critical Rx or R6 values in the neighborhood contest between laminar separation near the nose and
of the nose. This result is indicated by the higher turbulent separation near the trailing edge, one or the
critical Reynolds Number Re for the N . A. C. A. 0009 other winning and thus producing the stall. ~~ctually
than for the N . A. C. A. 0012, as shown in figure 28. it appears from these scale-effect data that, for com-
Likewise, the 15 and '18 percent thick airfoils show monly used airfoils at a high Reynolds NUlllber, the
progressively lower values of Re than the N. A. C. A. forward separation usually wins but that it is largely
0012, but the critical range tends to disappear as the conditioned and brought about by the thickening' or
thickness is increased. separation of the turbulent boundary layer near the
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 25
trailing edge, which, in turn, may be largely influenced tions, is shown by the fact that the critical Reynolds
by the local separation near the leading edge. The Number is little affected by increasing the camber to
reasons for these statements will become clear from the that of the N. A. C. A. 6412 in spite of the fact that
consideration of the scale effects for the different types the actual gain in Czmax throughout the critical range
of airfoil. becomes less for the more highly cambered airfoils.
Consider first the maximum lift of the conventional This conclusion is an important one because it can be
type of cambered airfoil. Where stalling is determined extended to predict that the critical Reynolds Number
largely by separation near the leading edge, the maxi- will not be affected by flaps and other high-lift dev ces
mum lift would be expected to be a function of the placed near the trailing edge, which act much like a
curvature near the leading edge and also a function of camber increase.
the mean camber because the effect of the camber is to
3.0
add a more or less uniformly distributed load along 1 LIIIIII
J. jllill
the chord. At some angle of attack above that of zero 2.8
N.A.1C.A. 23021 ~ith - P
lift the flow over the nose part of the cambered airfoil 2.6 t- split flap 1 I k:::.
I-"-'
approximates that over the nose of the corresponding t- dlflected
I
75°" ,

2.4 ....-
symmetrical airfoil at zero lift. This correspondence 1 II ~
I-'
~ J. II ~
of flows at the leading edges between the symmetrical <3 2 . 2
N.A.c.A. 23012 /
/

and cambered airfoils continues as the angles of attack ,.;- with split· ;- ,
~2.0 t- flap de- I il-
i-"
of both are increased. If the stalling were determined
largely by the flow near the nose, the two airfoils would
:0 18 t- flected1 _60·
~. L1
p'
/' . A.C. A. 230/2
QJ II ~
stall at the same time, but the lift of the cambered 8 /.6
N.A.C.A. 0012 wdh ' J. ~
airfoil would be lUgher than that of the symmetrical
airfoil by the amount of the initial lift increment.
t- split flap I I
~/.4 deflected 60·
t-'
/- ..a-
-::I~II
4.A.'dA. 2302i
1

Reference to figure 33 shows that this expected change § 1.2


l/" N.A.C. A~ 0012
tA-
of CzmaX with camber is approximately that shown by .~ 1.0 -- L
the results from tests in the lower range of the Reynolds ~ .8
Number. At high Reynolds Numbers, however, the c:
change of CIrna'" with camber is much smaller than would t· 6
·2

be expected if the stall were controlled only by condi- ~ .4


tions near the leading edge. On the other hand, some .2
of the cambered airfoils show a sudden loss in lift at
the maximum indicating that separation is occurring
o 8
100,000 2 :3 4 56/,000,000 2 :3 4 5/0,000,000
near the leading edge but, as the camber is increased, Effective Reynolds Number

the lift curves become rounded. (See figs. 6,7, and 8.) FIGURE 34.-Section maximum lift coefficient, e'm .. ' Airfoils with and without flaps.

For the N. A. C. A. 2412, which shows a sharp break


Reference to figure 34 shows the correctness of this
in lift at the maximum but a small gain in cZmax due to
conclusion. It will be noted, moreover, that each scale-
camber at the high Reynolds Numbers, the boundary- effect curve representing an airfoil with a split flap tends
layer thickening or turbulent separation must become to parallel the corresponding curve for the same airfoil
pronounced near the trailing edge at the higher Rey- without a flap. The split flap thus simply adds an in-
nolds Numbers before the flow breakdown occurs near crement to the maximum lift without otherwise chang-
the leading edge. This alteration of the flow results ing the character of the scale effect. In this respect. the
in higher angles of attack for a given lift and con- behavior with the flap differs from the behavior with
sequently more severe flow conditions over the nose of increasing camber. With the split flap, the distribution
the aU·foil. These flow conditions, which really origi- of pressures over the upper surface is apparently not
nate near the trailing edge, thus bring about the flow affected in such a way as to increase the tendency
breakdown near the leading edge that finally produces toward trailing-edge stalling, otherwise the scale-effect
the actual stall. It must not, however, be concluded variations would not be similar with and without the
that more gradually rounding lift-curve peaks with in- flaps. Incidentally, it is of interest to note that the
creasing R should be the result; actually, the opposite maximum lift increment due to the split flap is not
is usually true (e. g., figs . 6, 7, and 8) . The explana- independent of the airfoil section shape but, for ex-
tion is probably that increasing the Reynolds Number ample, increases with the section thickness. (Cf. the
reduces the extent of the local separation near the N. A. C. A. 230 series, with and without split flaps,
leading edge, which influences the boundary-layer table 1.)
thickening near the trailing edge, at least until the As regards flaps other than split flaps, recent tests
transition region reaches the separation point. That have shown that the maximum lifts attainable are ap-
Cz maX continues to be influencf>d by the flow conditions proximately equal for either the ordinary or the split
near the leading edge, even for highly cambered sec- flap. TlUs result might have been expected because the
26 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

results of references 18 and 19 had indicated that the increasing Clmaz throughout the Reynolds Number
flow does not follow the upper surface Of an ordinary range but shows a peculiar change. in the character of
flap except for small angles of flap deflection. It should the stall in the full-scale range near R~=3,000,000.
therefore make little difference whether or not the upper (See also fig. 24 .) The airfoil with the external-airfoil
surface of the flap is deflected with the lower. Further- flap shows a break in the scale-effect curve. Two
more, the same reasoning might be applied to predict values of Clmaz were measured for the condition corre-
the effects of camber, when the mean line is of such a
sponding to R.=1,700,000 (fig. 23, test R=645,000),
shape that the maximum camber occurs near the trail-
one lift curve having a sharp break at the maximum
ing edge so that the separation associated with increas-
and the other being rounded. It is believed that the
ing camber is localized in this region. Thus it might
change is associated with the action of the slot at the
have been predicted that the scale effect as shown in
nose of the external-airfoil flap. It is particularly
figure 35 for the N. A. C. A. 6712 airfoil would be more
interesting because it represents one of the cases men-
like that of an airfoil with a split flap than like that of
tioned under the interpretation of the wind-tunnel
the usual type of cambered airfoil.
data for which the failure of the tunnel flow to repro-
Another important conclusion can be deduced from
duce exactly at the effective Reynolds N umber the
the results in figure 35 showing the scale effects for air-
corresponding flow in flight becomes of practical im-
foils having various mean-line shapes. When a mean-
portance. A comparison of these tests with tests in
line shape like that of the N. A. C. A. 23012 is em-
the 7- by 10-foot tunnel (reference 5) indicated that
such scale effects, may be due primarily to the action
2.0 r-)A.~.J ~f111 ~
r-.
cJ
i 1.8 t--- ..... r- 430120
6412 'Q
i
.2.0 I
..c:: 4412 0
-- i: 1.8 J
'

.~
1.6
-r--
i--I"'"
W-
- -
-j-"
-~
~ 1.6
NA.C.A.'23012
!>
- --/:
.- - .l1 ~
,
~/.4 ~
10 .-:::'
tJl; I-':; f/
0.; _ ;J:! 1.4 r--
~u 1.2 .re::::t-
'l:::
:.::: 1.0 .1P'
~ I- -
-~

/
/'
.....
III
8 /.2
~ L
to:'
- -
--- ---
,
V ..... 1.0
S .8 §
N.A.C.A.23012-33-

tt+ .m
.~ 0. NA.C.A. 2412 .8
ti
!;
t
.6

.4
o<l
+
x
..

..
2R 12
0012•
23012
23012 with
'1.
c: .4
6
-
:glJ external- airfoil flop set at -3°
III
.2
11 II IIII 111
2u .2
V) 0 JJ II I I Ii II JJJ 6 8
Jl 0 8 6
100.000 2 .3 4 S 61.000.000 2 .3 4 S 10,000.000
EffectIve fieynolds Number
100,000 2 3 4561,000,000 2 3 4510,000,000
Effective fieynolds Number
FIGURE 35.-Section maximum lift CO<\IIlcient, CIMor- Airfoils with various mean-
FIGURE 36.-Section maximum lift coeffiCient, CI..... Tltickness·shape variation.
line share3.

ployed-that is, one havihg marked curvature near the of the slot as affected by the boundary-layer thickness
nose and a forward camber position-the effect is to relative to the slot width, which is a function of both
alter the conditions of the leading-edge stall. The critical the test and the effective Reynold.;; Number, rather
Reynolds Number is thus shifted to the left and the than to the transition from laminar to turbulent flow.
general character of the scale effect becomes more like When interpreted on the basis of the test rather than
that of the usual airfoil of 15 instead of 12 percent the effective Reynolds Number as regards the occur-
thickness. rence of the break in the low Reynolds Number range,
The opposite effect on the nose stall is shown in figure better agreement with the results from the variable-
36 where the critical Reynolds Number is shifted to the density tunnel was obtained. On this basis the dis-
right by decreasing the leading-edge radius, that is, by continuity shown in figure 37 as occurring at R.=
changing from the N. A. C. A. 23012 section to the 1,700,000 would be expected to occur in flight at a con-
23012-33. Thus it appears, in general, that the charac- siderably lower Reynolds Number out'3ide the usual
ter of the Cl maz scale effect, particularly in relation to flight range.
the value of the critical Reynolds Number, depends With regard to c'maz scale effects for conventional
mainly on the shape of the airfoil near the leading edge. types of airfoils, it now appears in the light of the
The two remaining airfoils not covered by the previ- preceding discussion t; t a position has been reached
ous discussion (fig. 37) have slotted high-lift devices. from which the seal .!ects appear rational and suf-
Both the Clark Y airfoil with Handley Page slot and ficiently regular and ,,;ystematic so that general scale-
the airfoil with external-airfoil flap show unusual scale effect corrections fifty be given for such airfoils. This
effects. The airfoil with Handley Page slot shows an position represents a marked advance. In a later
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUM BE R 27
section of this report such generalized scale-effect cor- 2.8
1
rections for Cl ma " are presented for engineering uses. 2.6
Lift variation near czmaz.- The variation of the lift
With
=
s p lit -v ..-
-
fl ap I~
'V

near the maximum as indicated by the shape of the - deflect ..,-


- ed 75°;
lift curve is of some importance because it often affects ..... N.A.C.A.43012 ,
1$ -
:
the character of the stall and the corresponding lateral ~ 2.0
:~
"
.
23015-
23012- r-.. -tr
control and stability of the airplane in flight. The :t 1.8 .../
I p-
character of the stall for the airfoils may be inferred Qj
T I"l"
approximately from the preceding discussion of Clma " 8 1.6 ......... I :
-\
and is indicated by the lift curves in figures 2 to 24 . ~ 1.4 NA .C. A . 23012 w ifh
I I ex t ernal- airfoil
The moderately thick symmetrical airfoils in the critica l § 1.2 , I. I I flap set 30 °. I I
Clark Y with Handley- Page
or flight range of R show sudden losses of lift beyond .§ 5101 open
~ 1.0
the maximum. Efficient airfoils of moderate thickness E:
and camber, for example, N. A. C . A. 2412 and 23012 , c: .8
likewise usually show sudden breaks in the lift curve :gu .6
at the maximum for the higher Reynolds umbers. ~ -
.4
When th e influence of trailing-edge stalling becomes
sufficiently marked as it does with airfoils N. A. C. A. .2
4412 and 6412, the breaks in the lift curves disappear o B B

and the lift curve becomes rounded at the maximum. 100,000 2 3 4 561. 000,000 2 3 4 5 10,000.000
Effective Reyn olds Number
It is interesting to note that breaks occur at compara- FIGURE 37.-Section maximum lift coefficient, e'mo.' Airfoils with hIgh-lilt devices.
tively low values of the Reynolds Num er for the
N. A. C. A. 8318. In this case the brea s appear in
the critical range of R, where critical leading-edge .12 _ N. A.C1' ,'23012 N.A. CA. 23012 with e~(rlrl-
" j 2412.1 a i rfoil t'lOI2. a t -3,"
stalling occurs, and disappear at higher and lower ey- I 4~ Iii I .
0.10 -
nolds Numbers. (See figs. 11 and 32.) ~ I I . 1"
I :
Lift-curve slope ao.- The scale effects for ao are QJ'.08 -N.A. C. A. 2rOI21-33~ --N. A.C.A. 2Rz 12
g-
represented in figure 38. It will be note t at, within o; I I III
NA.C A. 6 412
the full-scale range, the airfoils show little variation of QJ./2 . ---I "I II 6712
ao with either airfoil shape or with R. In this range 'I..~" . IO lft..- -~ EN. IIII :-y---- ...j,
'i.
most of the airfoils show a slight tendency toward I

~. 08 f--N~.C.rI'#CJ9: :
II
N.A.CA. 0009 e:.
increasing ao with R but, for engmeerrng purposes, the c::
I~ - "-r- 4 4 12:.' .. I 00 120
o - " - f - 4415 "-"0015 ~
variation of ao may usually be considered negligible '.;:.,.12 -- =- , , - 1-0018 0
o o ~
within the flight range. The lift-curve slope, like QJ t! ....... , y- "831 8 x
fJJ . IO
several of the other section characteristics, begins to ........ r-- - -
.08 ,..... -- I I I
display abnormal variations below a Reynolds Number 8 I II Ii lei
of approximately 800,000. For the -lowest values of R 100.000 2" 3 4 5 6 1, 000,000 2 3 4510,000,000
Effec tive Reyn Ol ds Num Der
the lift curves often became so distorted that lift-curve FIGURE 38.-Lilt-curve slope, ao.
slopes were not determined. (See figs. 2 to 24. )
Angle of zero lift a lo.- Scale-effect variations of Effec five trt!yno/ds NumDer
100,000 2 3 4 56 1,000,000 2 3 4510,UOo,OOO
alo are represented in figure 39. The conclusions with o 8-
respect to this characteristic are almost the same as
e:. NA.~~A.I 'f~oI:? 8JI NA .CA._2~~2' 6
-It -

for the lift-curve slope ao. Symmetrical airfoils, of ~\" - 2 I~-+i tt l~ .- ~. Cr23Jt2m II :
:
course, give alo=O at all values of R. The cambered g. .6,
'v I I.:
'
NA.C.A." 23012 wtfh
'5 10' , N. A;CA. 2412
exrernol -OIr f o i l
airfoils, in general, show a small decrease in the abso ute
value of the angle with increasing R above the va ue ~u_4 l~' 6 flap
I
a t -3"1
_ . _ 1
0:: 'n..
at which the variations are abnormal.
~.

~
'fi . ,:, N.A .C.A. 440.9
_ - • r--4412
Minimum profile-drag coefficient cdOmtn.-The mini- I~ '0..
-
" 4415
mum profile-drag coefficient is indicative of the wing I II I
drag in high-speed flight and is the other important
section characteristic, aside from CI rna" ) that sows
'r----.
Nt- Cf54i2! [\
.. 6712--
_~_II
"'I
I
'" ..
I 8318
It Ii V I Nn ,<-:A. 0009 I
marked scale-effect variations within the full-sea e
~ I '"I
" oo~~~
I DOl
range which must be ta en into account in engineermg -10 I !> • I OU/81
work. F lOUR" 39.-Angle of Ul'O Itt, <.
r
28 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISO RY COMM ITT EE FOR AERO NAUTICS

.030
~
,
"f'....
/020
\,j
...... ~ r--....
c:
.~
.~
;::: .010
- ~
~
I'
R~
f'\; I-~ t-- r-.
.
N. A.C.A . 0018

---
r-. ,
, ' 0015
QJ I- ,"
.... .,
3.008 .......
..............
r::;
1"1-<
-v
- , ,
,
, "
,"
0012
0 009
8'.006
~. OOS r--~
....--:
-
~.004
o I'-
~.003
...........
%
.§.002
I'-
.'i; ........
~
(a)
8 I, 8 6
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1,000, 000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000.000 .3 4 5 /OQOOQOOO
Ef fec tive Reyn o lds Nu m ber
(a) Symmetrical airfoils of varying thickness .
.030
0-........
"'--...... ~
-..:
.~
.~
"
I-- '" -h
r--
I"""
I'<\. ~ I'-
1"- :--,1"<
-~ "-
~ .010 1'--
. 'N. A.C.A. 6412
QJ
r- , , , " 4412
8. 008 ........... K - -k' ' -- " 2412
....... " 0012
(),
I"-.... ,,~
r- - -
~.006
-:
't?oos
QJ
1-
'=
~.004

t003 r--....

§ ............. r-....
.§ .002
.C: i'-....
~ ........
1'1-....
(b)
B t"--r--.... 8 6 8
.00 1
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effecfive Reynolds Number
(b) Camber series.

.030
x.......... 1
I~
t
'E
----
f'-
x
t-- t-I-~
.:;.020 r-- t-- t-x
r.; " "<:::
-..:
c:
k t---..
-x
t-- t-- 1"-I"- t-- I-X xf- f.>< -
.~ I - i- I'-. t< t"--
.~ t--- t-['c N.A.C. A. 8 3 18
~.OIO
QJ
8. 008 ............
I"-....
" -
I-
- l- i- <
- _."
,
__ u

-
-"
4415
4412
4409

f:~~~
i-f-..
V-

i7'
~.004
l- F

to03 r----

% ...............
.§ .002
r--....
~ r--....
I'-
(e)
8 ........ 8 6
·00 1
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000 .000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 .3 4 5 100.000.000
Effecti ve Reynolds Number
(c) T hickness and camber .
FIGUR I.-Minimum i>rofile-Jrag coefficient. Cdo ... i n'
--
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS N U MBER 29
.020
.! ~

- - '"
E

J r--
.•.I::: l- t-- ~ N, . A.C.A.23012
.~.01O
.U
:t. 008 -.........
- - I ,-23012-3..,

,.::
"

Q)
.......... - 1-
8.006
tJ-..oos
tl
-t .004
~ ........
~.003
0
b.
~ . OOZ
............
.......

::J ...........'
.1:: ;-....
(d)
~ 8 .... 6 8
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000.000 2 3 4 5 6 10.000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000'
effective Reynolds Number
(d) T hi ck ness shap".

.OZO
~ -N.A .C. A.24IZ II

-- ~~
1
.! ;N.lC.A. Z301211
J . ··N.~:C.A. 0012
1-.'<
rJ
.,..: __ p:~./'~~!!i NA.C.A.2RzI2
:-
::S~l" :....r.." 23012 with external-airfoil flap of -3"
I::
. ~ . 010 .....::
.u
~.008
Q)
-......... >:::
8.006 ~ -f.- . -I-

g-.oos
-t.004
,
~ ......
;;: .003
0
I..
Q. -......... ......
~.OOZ
::l ........
.§ I'--
.1:: ;-....
~ (e)
.001 ......... 6 8
100,000 2 3 4 56 1,000.000 Z 3 4 5 6 10.000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective ReynOlds Number
(e) Cam ber shape.
~
I:>. x ..
.040 ........
1><-..
.030
.! 0........... '-
l"- t-- -><-
E
............... .0.. r... ~"Cla':'k with 'U'. 'w Icy:Po9e. s lo,
rJ° n .""
...,-
.VLV
u...,::
c: ~ I'-.. f".."
.~
.\.J
..:::
-..:
Q) .010
I--
- r- i- t--
"- f'..r-...
f:! 1'1'- . -..
A.
.
A.6712
0
~.OO8 -......... -- -t-
u
' -
"
6412
4412
tl
-t.006
.......... --
k ·OOS
..::o nn.
I..
~ . 003 i"
::J
.~ ............ ;-....
.~.002
~
........
b-
...........
(f)
,....
·~o;O.OOO
~
2 3 4 5 6 1,000 000 2 3 4 5 6 10,OOC 000 2 3 4 5
Effecfive Reynolds N.umbe,-
(f) Camber shape.
FIGU RE 40 (continued.) - Minimum profile-drag coeffiCient, CdO m'•.
--
30 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

The experimental drag results are presented by means necessarily be unreliab e. Nevertheless, much en-
of logarithmic plots with the well-known laminar and gineering work requires a knowledge of airfoil drag
turbulent skin-friction curves and the Prandtl-Gebers coefficients within this range so that the engineer must
transition curve s own for comparison. (See figs. resort to extrapolation. For this purpose the data may
40 (a) to 40 (f).) At the higher Reynolds Numbers a be studied in relation to the slopes of the curves for the
striking simi arity exists between the minimum profile- various airfoils (fig. 40) in the hig est range of R
drag coefficients for the airfoils and the transition curve reached in the experiments. Such a study indicates
representmg the drag coefficient variation with R for a that the airfoils, excluding the unusual airfoils N. A.
flat plate towed in water. The other stri ing feature of O. A. 8318, N. A. O. A. 6712, and the Olark Y with
the drag curves is their departure from regularity at Handley Page slot, show a decreasing Cdo min with R
Reynolds Numbers below a certain critica value. This that seems, in general, to parallel approximately the
critical value of the Reynolds Number usually lies in corresponding curve for the flat plate. Thus, in
the range oetween 400,000 and 800,000, but a stu y of general, the slope of the Cao min scale-effect curves in
the experimental resu ts will show that the critical the neighborhood of a eynolds Number of 8,000,000
value itself is irregular, that is, does not vary system- may be taken as apprOximately -0.11, which leads to
atICa y with t e airfoil shape. 'I he results appear as the followmg extrapo atlOn formula:
though tWO or more drag values were possib e within
this Reynolds umber range and accidental disturb-
ances eterrnined whether a high or a low va ue of the
drag was measurea at a given va ue of R within this
range. One is rerrun ed of Baker's experiments towing wnere the subscript std refers to the standard airfoil-
aI.l'shlp models in water in a towing oaSIn woere meas- test resu ts from the variable-density tunnel corres-
urements cou d not be repeated until transition was ponding to an effective Reynolds umber of approx-
defimtely brought about by the use of a cord passing imately 8,000,000 . In such extrapolation formulas,
ar( nd the model near the nose. values or the exponent have been used between 1/5,
rhe shape of the scale-effect curve for the N. A. O. A. taken irom Prandtl's original ana ysis of the completely
0012 airfoil at zero angle of attack (fig. 40 (a)) was tur ulent skin-friction layer, and 0.15, which agreed
stu ied in the light of bounaary-layer calculations. better with experiments with pipes and flat plates at
The results mdicated tnat the computed skIn-friction very high va ues of R ana agl'ees better with von Kar-
drag coefficients to give scale-effect vanatlOns in agree- man's recent analysis of the comp ete y turb ent layer
ment with the measured ones requITed the presence of in this range of R . It should be emphasized, however,
ratner extensive arrunar oounaary layers in this that tnese comparatively arge exponents are not
critical range of the Reyno' ds Number. In fact, for conservatlve and would be expected to lead to pre-
tne N . A. O. A. 0012 airfoil, the lammar oounaary layer ictlOns of large-suale arag values mucu toO low, partic-
W&.S found to nave become so eXtenSive when R was u ariy when the extrapola ion is made from measure-
reduced to the experImentally determinea critical va ue ments made in the transition region; for example, in
that a further reduction of R woul have reqUIred the figure 40 (a) measurements in the range between
laminar bounaal'Y layer to extend behinci the computed 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 snou d not be extrapo ated by
laminar separatlOn pomt, which wou d have inVOlved such methods to 20,000,000. Extrapolations from
at least loca separation. It seems evident, thef'efore, R=8,000,OOO using t e comparatively low exponent 0.11
that the mcreased d.rag coefficients belOW the critical are, however, consiael'ed reasonably conservative for
range are the result of thIs conaition, willch is pI'obably ael'O<lynamically smooth airfoils.
associate wit iammur separatIOn and a resultmg In regara to profile- rag coefficients a t lift coefficients
mcrettse of the pI'essure or form Ol'ag 0 toe secdon. other than the Optunum, figure 41 (a) shows the scale
FortunatelY, however, tms poenomenon seems to effects for ca o at cl=0 .8 for the symmetncal series of
appear belOW the usual flight range of R. ail1oHs. The drop in the scale-effect curves in the
When aeslgnS1'S are concer'nea With tne rrlilllmum tranSitlOn regIOn has dlsappearea and the two thinner
drag 01 an alrIoil SeCtIOn, it is usually for hlgn-speed or airfoils snow eviaences of the approaching stall. Ourves
cruising fugnt, WnlCh for moaern transport aU'planes may for mem'oers of the camber series of airfoils, N. A. O. A.
correspond to a Reynolds ' umoer of 20,000, UOO or more 0012, 2412, 4412, and 6412 at zero lift are shown in
tor some of the Wlllg sections. The al'ag coeffiCients for figure 41 (b). Here the symmetrical airfoil i3 operating
the Reyno ds . "umoer range above toe highest reached at its optimum lift alld the departure from toe optunum
In toe tunnel are therefore ot more Interest to an those for t e other airfoils increases with camber. A p 0-
wen W:thln toe experImental range. Unfortunately, gI'essive transition from the Cdomtn type 0 sea e effect
.. , ':lIOn of the meaSUl'ementS pe1'TOlts only an to tnat of figme 41 (a) is apparent. ReSUlts (reference
'e aeliermmatlOn of the snape of these sca e- 10) from other wind wnne s for the Olark Y airfoil,
. even in the hlgner experImental range of w . ch is in a Sollse simi ar to the N . A. O. A. 4412 but
"()latlOnS into the higher flight range will has slightly less camber, are a so indicated in figure
..
------~.,.-----------------------------~------------~~
~ ------------~

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 31


41 (b) for comparison. The comparison of the results Optimum lift coefficient clove-The optimum lift
from the various tunnels should serve to indicate the coefficients are presented in figure 42. This character-
limitations of accuracy that must be accepted when any istic is of importance mainly in relation to Cdo values at
of the data are extrapolated to the higher full-scale other values of C I' It is not possible, nor essential for
Reynolds Numbers . this purpose, to evaluate CloPt very accurately. In fact,
.050
0---
.040 ,
~,
.030 ............ ,
........ ,

'- --
Q:)
-v-
c:i
.020 -~'b
-.'- ,
II

~ -]::::
(,)~ -- f- -<'- ,

.....
c:
.1lJ
.G .010
..:::
'Q; .008 "'-
--- -- -- f-

-
i-o-
- , -I'-'- '1:1<- N.A.C.A.0018
•• - "
...;;~- .- . "
-- "
0015
0012
0009

- I -r-
8
"".006
I'--.. f-- 1-= I- I-t-

~
'15
.005 =

:--
004
..::: i"-,
0.003
.{:
.002
"'--r-..
I"-- I........
(a)
......... 8 8
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 10,000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective Reynolds Number
(a) Symmetrical airfoils of varying thickness; cl=O.8 .

.040 .... I I I III I I I TTTT nT


.030
EiI Q", I"'-- I I I III I I I I I I II I
"- Clark \.-:. s. T. ; 4'by24 ' ~ ,
IF! 6'by36'x , 8'~y 48' v,
'\ 20-ft. tunnel!>. • TbylO'funnel <l
~ r.......
~.020
.;:: ---- ~
"'~
2
III
N

t
...... 010
--- 1--
I- r- ~~t--
~
-~
--
...............

ro-
.........
--
~
x
r- r-<'
- V.O. T.
- 'tV_A.C.A. 6412
c:
· ~ .008
~ j
*-
xN -
- ---"
___ - II
4412
2412
.!:! "'- i".. ~

i"j....c - - __ II 0012
~Q)' 006 ...... 1-1-

8.005
g- .004
r-..
{j r.......
v· 003
:--
..::: .......
~.002
.... 1'-....

i'
(b)
.001 ....... 6
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective Reynolds Number
(b) Camber series; CI=O.
FIGURE 41.-Proftle-drsg coefficient.

The determination of Cdo values at various lift co- the accuracy of the experimental data is not sufficient
efficients in engineering work is best accomplished by to establish the scale-effect variations with certainty.
a consideration of increments from Cdo m t n· The Nevertheless, the results show a definite tendency
method of a "generalized polar" discussed in a later toward a decreasing Cl opt with increasing R. Thus
section of this report gives such increments in terms of values measured in small atmospheric tunnels may be
the departure of Cl from Cl opt as compared with the expected to be too high. Values from the standard
departure of Clmox from Cl opt. airfoil tests in the variable-density tunnel may usually
32 REPORT NO.5 6-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

be taken as approximn tely correct within the usual full- Such calculations as applied to tapered wings are fully
scale range but may be somewhat too high for the discussed in reference 8. It remains therefore to pre-
higher flight rango of R. dict the airfoil section characteristics at any value of
Pitching-moment coefficient Cm a .c. and aerodynamic- the flight Reynolds umber. The preceding discussion
center position a. c.-The values of the pitching- has shown that for engineering purposes many of the
1.0 important airfoil section characteristics may be con-
.8 x J II I I sidered independent of R within the flight rallge, so
that for application to flight at any value of R these
~' , N. A.~.A .14409
,
characteristics may be taken directly from the tabu-
f'- I'"
bJ:tM
t:!::: ,- NA.C.A.44IZ
i:"i-
- lated values from the standard airfoil tests in the
N.A.C.A~ 44i~'7 ~ ~- L-
r- 1- variable-density tunnel. There remain then the two
important section characteristics CI mQZ and Cdo , which in
,I general will require correction to the design Reynolds
I umber before they are employed .
'<7 NA. . A.0009
!'- " 0012 Section maximum lift.- For the prediction of the
p " f-'oO IS section maximum lift coefficient Cl max at values of R
[> " 0018
NA.C.A. other than the Re value for which they are commonly
67IZ~..
... tabulated, the correction-increment curves of figure 44
r-, have been prepared from the data in this report. In
64{Z-'"'t>-r- , this figure, curves givinbO" the corrections ~CI max are
t-8318-1~':::" grouped in families corresponding to the measured scale-
1 1 - 1-_
230/2-.{J.~Ri!~2
2412- - - ,(j •• t! ~ effect variations for various types of airfoils. In gen-
~3012. 0 r I . - '--- ~ r- '~l.l_ 1-.t-~-
eral, for normal airfoils the curves in figure 44 marked 0
.2
1230/2 'o¥ifh ex- .R.
~-
. ..
r- for types B, C, D, and E correspond to the symmetrical
o ferf,ol-Flop -3'-.,( Ii< - - -
100,000 2 3 4 561,000,000 2 3 4 510,000,000 airfoil sections of different thickness and the curves
Effective Reynolds Number
indicated by increasing numbers correspond to airfoil
FIGURE 42.-0ptimwn lift coefficient, c, ....
sections of increasing camber.
moment coefficient and the aerodynamic-center position In practice, the particular curve to be employed for a
estu blish the pitching-moment characteristics of the given airfoil will be indicated in the standard tables of
airfoil section in the normal operating range between aU'foil characteristics such as table II of this report
zero lift and the stall. In this range the pitching (see also reference 3) under: "Classification, SE."
moment about the aerodynamic-center point may be
" .02 23012 wifh eXfesf.?~ ~/op sef.-:?_
considered constant for conventional airfoils. The I NA. C.A. 2R212 j - ::.., =-lI. -==- Ii:
,} 0 t-~:
accuracy of the low-scale data did not permit the J .!J ~1123OI2- .-

"t~ -.OZ "l NA.CA230/2-33 -


evaluation of aerodynamic-center positions for values
of R much below the flight range, and the variations II>
u-.04 b.
. . 0009
0012
0015
NA.C.A.2412
,
found in the higher range showed little consistency. .\,! .d "
Values are indicated in figures 2 to 24 and in table I, .... ~ -.06
17 " 00/8
----
but it is not considered advisable in practice to allow ~t::
!2~-.08 III } ,1_'
N.A.C.A.4409
for a variation of aerodynamic center with R. The ~e N.A.C.A ." 4415-~
-- ~
fd'Hl-l:+~
,- 1 I
~ II> -.10
cma .c . values corresponding to these aerodynamic-center iv~A~C~A.4412
positions are plotted in figure 4:3. The values are ~1!
t::
0
-.IZ II 1
\J ....
N.IA.C.~ . 6412- •
-- - -
nearly independent of R at high values of R but usually
show a tendency to increase numerically as R is reduced
~":i -_14
o ==
N.'A.C.A . 's3'18 -
,

1l-.16
toward the lower extremity of the flight range. Thus ....
t:: 1111
low-scale tunnel tests may be expected to give pitching .~ -.18
.u N.A.C.A. 6~/2 "
moments that are numerically too large. ~-20
II> •

PREDICTION OF AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS AT ANY 8"".22


/00,000 2
I~ II
3 4 5 61,000,000 2
.q
3 4 5 10,000,000
REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR ENGINEERING USE
Effective fieynolds Number
In the consideration of methods of predicting wing FIGURE 43.-Pitching-moment coefficient about the aerodynamic ceDter, c~ •. , ..
characteristics, it should be remembered that the scope
of this report is confined to the prediction of the airfoil From the curve thus designated, the correction incre-
section characteristics. Actual wing r.haracteristics are ment is read at the design Reynolds Number. The
obtained from these section characteristics by integra- required CI max for the section at the particular Reynolds
tions along the span with suitable allowances for the Number is then obtained by adding this increment to
induced downflow and the corresponding illduced drag. the tabulated C1max value.
VARIA TIONS OF THE REYNO LDS NUMB ER 33
AIRFO IL SECTIO N CHARA CTERI STICS AS AFFEC TED BY

·2

."..
a -.:;::;? ~ ;II""" "', 8 f-- I-::::~

-.2
6 E:::: ~~ ~
.....
'"
Q)
..... f--
7
6
f-
--:::::: -...-r;f-":
I-f-
I:::: ~~
p- .....
'"
.....<I>
~ ~ 1/:[1 5

~ ~8
8
ZVtV ,~
0
~ f- - f-

f.-- ~ t;::V
0
,~

-.4
-- ::::. .0 Type B
~
§
.....
~~
~

f-
2
-
.J- r- -- v
I-
--l- V
V
------
~
Type D
~

....§
-.6 h..:'" jJ;. ~
'"
h..:
'c:i
'c:i ~-
:::.:
8.
•~ .2 ~ r--.?
r- r-- t-
r,J
<I
o
I--::: Io;~
i--'"
~
~
..... j..::::::: ~
-- f-
!----
c::-
I-::: r- r-- t)-
r- r--
·8 ~~
P'
~ F::::::= ~ f-
l - f--
r-f-"
r- vf-'
.....Q)
-.2 f - - 7 ' 0 ~ ~ ........ f-I- ~ '0
6 t::: j:::: '\.. ~ ~-
5
-.4 f-- 4
~ I--' V
~ V V Vv
r:: vV'
Type C
.g ~ 2 Vr--
§ I=-
.....
--
f:1 ~ r-
t-;
V r-
Type E
~
§-
.....
3 '- I-v
f.- V 'h..:
Cf) ~ '"
' h..:
£.1--' l- V V c:i
c:i-
-.6 :::.:
I f - l- f.- V :::.:
f--
o. l- I-
/'
1 2 3 4 5 6
f
/0,000,0 00
-.84 5 6 /'000,00 0 2 3 4 5 6 /0,000,0 00 6 /'000,00 0
Reynol ds Number
to the standard-t est value
ma.,imum Ii(t coefficient at the desired Reynolds Number, apply
FIGURE 44.-Scale-1llTect corrections (or C'MOZ' In order to obtain the section t designation o( the airfoil.
the increment indicated by the curve that corresponds to tbe scale-elTec

Airfoil section drag.-I n design work, values of The Cdo values at other lift coefficients may now be
the section minim um drag coefficient Cdo mi" for aerody - obtaine d from the generalized variati on of ~CdO with
ICI-cl l i d ' fi gure 45, where the standa rd
-'--_----'-::<: 01>'-='- present-e ill
Clm.x-C l ovl
036 I airfoil charac teristic table is again employed to find
I CI OV (' The Cl max value employed should, of course, cor-
.032 1/
respon d to the Reyno lds Numbe r of the Cdo value being
028 calcula ted. This proced ure may involve the use of
I Cl m • x values corresp onding to very
high Reyno lds
i.024 / Numbe rs. These values, 'howev er, may be estima ted
.j scale-e ffect curves ,
by extrapo lating the maxim um-lift
, .020
~o .L. little accura cy being require d becaus e Cl will usually

" .016 be near C'ovl and ~CdO therefo re small. A series of


/
Ii ~CdO values may thus be derived for various lift coef-
/
<1.012
/ ficients and Reyno lds Numbe rs. The corresponding
V values of Cdo are ~hen obtain ed by adding these incre-
.008 V ments to the Cdo min value calcula ted from the preced ing
V extrapo lation fonnul a for the corresponding Reyno lds
.004

o
f - f-
~ -- 4
~

.5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Numbe r. In practic e, a series of values of edo may
thus be derived to form a curve of Cdo agains t Cl along
.I .2 .3
lei - c/ Optl/c1",0Jt - c,OP ( which the Reyno lds Numbe r varies with lift coefficient
bulllt>. 45.-Qener alized varia Lion o( ACdO.
as in flight.

namica lly smooth airfoils are first obtain ed from the


tabula ted data by means of the extrapo lation fonnul a ,
previou sly given, LANGL EY MEMOR IAL AERON AUTICA L LABOR ATORY
R )0.11 NATION AL ADVISO RY COMMI TTEE FOR AERON AUTICS ,
CdQ min= ( CdO min. ) SId ( Rd LANGL EY FIELD, VA., June 24,193 6.
APPENDIX
INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN CONSISTENT ERRORS PRESENT IN TEST RESULTS FROM THE
VARIABLE.DENSITY TUNNEL
By IRA H. ABBOTT

INTRODUCTION
each wing tip and of a sting and angle-of-attack strut
An investigation has been made to evaluate three so located as to be free from aerodynamic interference
corrections that were not applied to the data, obtained with the usual supports. The sting used was sym-
in the variable-density wind tunnel, and published in metrical with respect to the airfoil and was attached neal'
reference 2 and earlier reports. The need for these cor- the trailing edge instead of to the lower surface, as
rections had been recognized, and possible errors in the is usual.
data resulting from the lack of these corrections have The tares due to the wire supports were determined
been listed as consistent errors (reference 2) due to the from the data obtained from the tests with the models
following effects:
on the usual supports with and without the wire
1. Aerodynamic interference of the model supports supports. Some difficulty was experienced in obtaining
on the model.
sufficiently accurate tares because of the relatively
2. Effect of the compressed air on the effective weight large drag of the wires as compared with the drag of
of mn.nometer liquids used to measure the dynamic the model. Sufficient accuracy was obtainable only at
pressure.
the highest value of the test Reynolds Number ordinar-
3. Combined effects on the measured dynamic pres- ily obtained (about 3,000,000). The profile-drag coeffi-
sure of blocking due to the model and to errors in pitot- cients obtained for the two airfoils are plotted as solid
tube calibration arising from differences in dynamic lines in figures 46 and 47, together with data obtained
scale and turbulence between conditions of use in the from several tests made with the usual supports over
variable-density tunnel and conditions of calibration. a considerable period of time. The scattering of the
These effects result in errors in the calibration of the points obtained from the tests with the usual supports
static-pressure orifices used to determine the dynamic about the solid line is within the limits of the accidental
pressure.
INTERFERENCE OF MODEL SUPPORTS
errors listed in reference 2, showing that there is no
support interference within the accuracy of the results
The model supports used in the variable-density tun- at high values of the Reynolds Number.
nel and the method of determining the tare forces are It is evident that the data obtained can be analyzed
described in reference 1. The usual tare tests deter- in different ways. For example, the data obtained
mine the tare forces on the supports including the inter- with the models mounted on both the usual supports
ference of the model on the supports. In addition, and the wire supports can be corrected for the usual sup-
the usual method of determining the balance alinement port tares and compared with the data from tests with
with respect to the air-flow direction by testing an air- the models mounted only on the wire supports. The
foil erect and inverted includes any interference of the comparison was made correcting the data for the change
supports on the model that is equivalent to a change in in air-flow direction due to the usual supports and failed
air-flow direction. Earlier attempts to determine any to show any support interference within the test
additional interference of the supports on the model were accuracy.
inconclusive except to show that such interference was Analysis of the data to determine the effects of the
small.
support interference on the measured pitching-moment
Two airfoils of moderate thickness were chosen to be coefficients was more difficult. The supp')rt wires
used in the present investigation, one being a symmetri- stretched under the lift and drag loads, necessitating
cal airfoil (N. A. C. A. 0012) and the other an airfoil of a correction to the measured pitching-moment coeffi-
moderate camber (N. A. C. A. 4412). Tests were made cients, and the method of supporting the model at the
of each airfoil using three methods of supporting the wing tips allowed the model itself to deflect under the
model. Besides the method using the usual support lift loads much more than when mounted on the usual
struts, tests were made with the models mounted on the supports. The correction due to the deflection of the
usual supports with the addition of special wire sup- model is difficult to evaluate with certainty because it
ports and with the models mounted only on the wire involves integrations along the span after determination
supports. The wire supports consisted of three wires of the span load distribution. Accordingly, the effect
attached to the quarter-chord point of the model at of the support interference for the pitching moments
34
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NU MBER 35
was determined only at zero lift where it was found tively small buoyancy effect on the mercury was com-
that the measured pitclllng-moment coefficient was too puted and applied to the results as a correction. The
large (algebraically) by 0.002. This same correction effects of other factors on the mercury were considered
had been found previously from tests with symmetrical negligible. In addition to the correction determined
in this way, a further small correction was applied to
Angles V.D.T. Dafe Condition Tes f R.
millions the specific gravity to compensate for the small change
PosNeg Tes f
- -1080-6 10-26-33 Wire support 3.07 in balance calibration with air density due to the buoy-
o 743 12-30-31 Us ual • strut s 3 .24
0
4-/7-34 3.20 ancy of the air on the balance counterweights. The
+ x 1120
II v 12 3 3 2- 6-35 317 net correction at 20 atmospheres tank pressure was
.06
found to be 2.0 percent for the alcohol and 1.7 percent
for the water, the dynamic pressure as measured being
d...: .0 5 too high. It is planned to replace the manometers by
C
<U I(
a pressure balance in the near future. Measurements
].04
....
+
of dynamic pressure will then be independent of specific
<U
o gravity.
\J .03 [7""
g> CALIBRATION OF STATIC.PRESSURE ORIFICES
l.. [7
~.02

--
~ [;6 The static-pressure orifices used to measure the dy-
~
<;: iI>'" namic pressure are calibrated by making 11 velocity
o
1t·01 survey at the test section, using a calibrated pitot tube
(reference 1). The calibration may be in error partly
o 0 ±.2 ±.4 ±.6 ±.8 ±1. 0 ±1.2 ±1.4 because of differences in dynamic scale and turbulence
Lift coefficient, CL between conditions of pitot-tube calibration and of use
FI GU RE 46.- Lift and drag characteristics of the N. A. C. A.OOI2 airfoil as determined in the variable-density tunnel and also because of pos-
from tests with the model mounted on the usual support struts and on special wire
supports.
sible blocking effects of the model. It is evident that
a new method of calibration is necessary to eliminate
airfoils and had been applied so that no new corrections these uncertainties.
were necessary. These uncertainties may be largely eliminat ed by
Ei .'ECTIVE WEIGHT OF MANOMETER LIQUIDS calibrating pitot tubes on an airplane in flight and by
The dynamic pressure is measured by two manome- calibrating similar pitot tubes, similarly mounted on a
ters connected to two sets of calibrated static-pressure model of the airplane in the tunnel. A detailed 1/20-
orifices as described in reference 1. One manometer V.D.T. Dote Condition Test R.
is filled with grain alcohol and the other with distilled Te s t millions
-1090-2 12-19-33 Wire supporf 3.11
water, the one filled with alcohol being ordinarily 0 1085-2 11- 8-33 Usual • s truts 3.05
used to hold the dynamic pressure constant through- x 1159-8 7 -27-34 3.00
+ 732 12-15-31 3 21
out a test because it is more eftsily read than .06 x
the water manometer. Readings of the water
manometer taken during each test serve to check rJ05
..... +~
the alcohol manometer and to indicate any C<U
chftllge in the specific gravity of the alcohol, ~.04 I
/
which is obtained from time to time by cftlibrating '--<U
the alcohol manometer at atmospheric pressure \J.03 o r
)( /
against a head of distilled water. g> V......
l..
It is apparent, as has been pointed out by ~.02 "-'
Relf, that when the tank is filled with compressed <;: ~ <"
~
/6
air the increased density of the air reduces the o ~I-
"
effective weight of the alcohol or water in the 1t·01
manometers. This effect may be considered as a
o -2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1. 0 1.2 1.4 1.6
buoyancy of the air on the liquid and may be L i ff coefficient, CL
computed, but there is no assurance that the
effects of other factors such as the amount FIGU RE 47.-Lil t and drag cbaracteristicsof the N . A. C. A.44 12 ai rfoil as determined Irom tests
with the model mounted on the usual support struts and on special wIre supports.
of air dissolved in the liquid are negligible.
An experimental determination of the effect of the scale model of the FC- 2W2 airplane ~leterence 20) d
compressed air was made by calibrating the alcoh0l the airplane itself were available. Truee non \ Tl ' 0 1 g
and water manometers at several tank pressures against pitot tubes were mounted on the m plane as shown ill
a third manometer filled with mercury. The compara- figure 48. These pitot tubes were inches I lameter
36 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL AD VISORY COMMITTEE F OR AERONA UTICS

with two staggered rows of static-pressure holes. Each AU pressures were measured by a multiple-tube, photo-
row consisted of 12 equally spaced holes 0.22 inch in recording manometer using a mixture of alcohol and
diameter. The pitot tubes were calibrated in fligh t water. Ratios of pressures were obtained dircctly
against a previously calibrated trailing air-speed head . from ratios of measured deflections and are independent
Three geometrically similar pitot tubes 0.10 inch in of the specific gravity of the manometer liquid. A
diameter were similarly mounted on the model and test was made with the pitot tubes interchanged as to
calibrated in the variable-d ensity tunnel. Great care position on the model to check the accuracy with which
Stalion I (Axis of they were made. The results checked satisfactorily.
tube parallel to Surveys were made upstream from the model with and
ax es o f tubes at
stations 2 and 3) without the model in place using a bank of 21 small
1%' .J O· 50 ' pitot tubes mounted on a strut extending across the
-_-:) 5 t'_ j tunnel, surveys being made on the vertical center line
I~~
IS." l;;}"
1
Stations
7" 0 ' 4" 9~ ' 2& 3
and 6 and 12 inches to one side of the center line.
The data obtained from these surveys are used to check
Wk7g sec tion: the calibration of the static-pressure orifices from time
G6 ftingen 387
to time as required. Force tests were also made on the
mod el with and without the pitot tubes in place and
with several tail settings.
The results obtained from the calibration of the pitot
tubes are presented in figure 49. The data are pre-
sented as ratios of the dynamic pressures measured by
- - - - - - -25' 0" - - -
the pitot tubes to the dynamic pressure as usually
obtained from the static-pressure orifices. A fairly
FIGURE 48,-Outline drawing sho wing location o( pitot tubes On tbe FC-2W 2 airplane.
consistent variation of the results is shown with
was taken to make the small pitot tubes geometrically changes in R eynolds Number and tail settings. The
similar to the large ones and to mount them in the results obtained from the calibration of the pitot tubes
correct positions on the model. in flight are shown by outlined areas indicating the
The pitot tubes Were calibrn.ted in the tunnel over location of all points obtained.
an angle-of-attack range from _8° to 14° and over a Comparisons between the tunnel and flight results
range of the test Reynolds Number from 1,000,000 to have been made on the basis of angles of attack, cor-
2,500,000. Tests were made with three tail settings. rected in the case of the tunnel results for the tunnel-
VD T. Test No. Dote Tes l Reynolds Number (based on wing chor d) Stab ilizer angle Elevator angle
I 1/ 11-2 3- 29-,]4 1, 100,000 3.3' 10'
:I
1/ 1/-4 ,]-29- 34 2 ,570,000 3.3' 10'
3 11 10-3 3-27- 34 2 ,560,000 3.3' O·
4 r--- / / 1/-3- 3- 29- 34 2 ,000,000 3.3 ' 10'-
S 11 10-2 3 - 2 7-34 1,990,000 3.3' o·
6 _1110-(_ 3 -27- 3 4 1,040,000 3.3' O·
7 1108-3 3-22 -;34 2,570,000 0' 0' -
B 1107 - 2 3- 20 - 34 2 ,000,000 0' O·
9 1107-/ .]- 20-,]4 1, 120,000 0' o·' -
<8
Outlined a r eas mdi ca t e location of points obta ined in flight.
Corrected calibration in the variable - densit tunnel.
I 7 I
~ -;=
I .I I 9 7 7 7
/./0 t- ~-t- ~t-
9
t- ~t-: ,~ r-~
III I 9 7 8 9
I~ 1'5 5
12 ,~ ~ " 3 f- t- r- 9 r--c 87 r--c Bf- 5 t-:, 1s3 9
r3 ~~ v~ 9 B ~

fii jft r~ lit< '5


'6 Z 9

, "•
3 5 8 I 8 7 I 5 7
~IOO
~~ ~~ p, ~~ 7 tf ~ \"; ~,~ t-: ~.89
L';" '" ~ iJ- ~ 6 ~ ~. ~ ~ \.~ ~ ~5
3 / 1; ~ Ii£: ti I.e [.1 II 7 l(;: r<
I.\ii; I l1; ~ ~ ti.~ :.; I~ :; ~ Ig
I

'" • • • J LJ 3 1 6
b'
.90 ~ s r- 8 t-: 38 I- ,s8
~t-:
\.....
- --.,;
,6 ~ 7~ I-<
7
~
~~
5
~ ~;
5
~ 6
,
5 3 • ~ • ~ 6 ~ Z ~ 6
6
• t-:~
I 5
8
3
,,>'

~
• 8 i~
8 6
- t-: 8 I- z
7 3
J r- h- g ~6
7 t-: U· I- 8
I t<' ¥ <'
" 6

~ 80
~70
,~
~ .00
c:
-S .50
'tJ (S t ation I (St ati on 2/ (S tation 3)
'IJ 40
~
ti'IJ .30
E>
'c 20
o
.;:: 10
.{?
a
~2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 0 8 10 12
Angle of attock, lX, degrees
FIGURE 49.-Calibration o( pi tot tubes mounted on the FC- 2W2 airplane in flight Bnd on the F C-2W2 airplane model in the variable·density wind tunnel. Results
corrected (or tunnel·wall effect.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 37
wall effect. Force tests made in the tunnel and in effective Reynolds Number. Data obtained in flight
flight show that this method of comparison is very tests (reference 20) are shown on the figure.
nearly equivalent to making the comparisons at equal Although the model was much more detailed and
lift coefficients. A value of the ratio q/qo was selected accurate than is usual in wind-tunnel models, it was
from the tunnel data to correspond as wen as possible not considered before the tests to represent the air-
to flight conditions of trim and Reynolds Number for plane with sufficient accuracy and detail to give
each pitot-tube position at each angle of attack. The reliable drag results. Therefore too much emphasis
values obtained were, in general, higher than the flight should not be given to the good agreement of drag
values at small angles of attack. Accordingly, the coefficients obtained in flight and in the tunnel. At
values obtained were reduced by increasing the value lift coefficients less than 1.0 the agreement between
of qo by 1.5 percent, which is equivalent to a change flight and tunnel data is considered satisfactory. At
in the static-pressure-orifice calibration factor from higher lift coefficients some divergence of the tunnel
1.172 to 1.190. The values of the ratio so obtained and flight data is indicated. As previously stated,
are plotted on the figure as solid lines, and the values the results obtained from the pitot-tube calibmtion
agree reasonably wen with the flight data at small showed that an additional correction to the calibration
1.6 32 factor of the static-pressure orifice might be desirable
_ l 1 ;/,qhL tLtJOInI!.? Qc>;l /
'cL X
x
at high angles of attack. Such a correction has been

1.4 r- - - - - 11.0.
I I
- - - V.D. T. tests <@)
T. tests cor- 0:. ~ v;: 19? x
/",0 28
determined from figure 49 and applied to the data.
The results are plotted as dotted lines in figure 50 and
r ected Tor ~ 0 /
odd/l/onol .~ hli CO show an improved agreement of the lift coefficients
blocking ~ ~

eFfecf / ~1' obtained in flight and in the tunnel at high angles of


1.2 24 attack.
- ,~ Xi1 CD
This additional correction is not ordinarily applied to
t.J 1.0
-...:
c:
.~
.~
~ .8
III
o
U
¥
, V
d1-
t;,

~
.,i'
l1i1<
if

I
t!
the data obtained in the variable-density tlmnel be-
cause it is doubtful whether the correction in most cases
would give a better approximation to the actual condi-
tions than no correction. The pitot-tube calibration
tests were less accurate at high angles of attack than at
~
0.:J .6 !I L'*~ I CJ)e low ones and, as previously stated, the drag of the
model was larger than is the case for the models usually
-I I~ ,/ tested. Another fact indicating that this correction is
.4
1/ J<~ ~ /' 08
small is that, up to the point of maximum lift, the lift
curves obtained in the tunnel for some airfoils are very
>~ ~ I--V nearly straight. Any appreciable correction of this
~W
.2 04
type would result in such lift curves being concave
upward.
CONCLUSIONS

o
4 8 12 16 20 1. The results of the investigation show no inter-
An gle of attack, d ,de grees
ference of the model supports on the model for which
FIGURE 5O.-Comparison of data obtained in !light and ill the variable·density wind
tunnel for tbe F C-2W2 a irplane and model.
corrections had not previously been made.
2. The investigation of the effects of compressed air
angles of attack. A comparison of the hmnel and on the effective weight of the manometer liquid showed a
flight data indicates that a further correction, which 2.0 percent error in the measured dynamic pressure; the
may be due to blocking effects, may be desirable at. dynamic pressure as previously measured was too large.
rugh angles of attack. The airplane model, however, 3. The investigation of the calibration of the static
had large drags at high angles of attack as compared pressure orifices showed an error of 1.5 percent in this
with models normally used in the tunnel, making the calibration; the dynamic pressure as previously meas-
application of this additional correction questionable ured was too small.
for the usual airfoil tests. 4. The total eiIect of the investigation is a change in
The results of the force tests of the model are shown the measured dynamic pressure of 0.5 percent; the
by means of composite curves drawn as solid lines in dynamic pressure as previously measured was too large.
figure 50. The curves were obtained from the test Data previously published (reference 2 and earlier
results by selecting, at each angle of attack, test results reports) to which these corrections have not been
to correspond as well as possible with flight conditioils applied may be corrected by changing the coefficients
of trim and Reynolds rumher. The tunnel results to correspond to a reduction of measured dynamic
have been fully corrected including corrections to the pressure of 0.5 percent.
38 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COM lITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

REFERENCES
10. Platt, Robert C.: Turbulence Factors of N. A. C. A. Wind
1. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Abbott, Ira H.: The . A. C. A. Tunnel as Determined by Sphere Tests. T. R. No. 558,
Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. T. R. No. 416, N. A. N. A. C. A., 1936.
C. A. 1932. 11. Stack, John: Te ts in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel to
2. Jacobs, Eastman N., Ward, Kcnneth E., ane! Pinkerton, Investigate the Effects of Scale and Turbulence on Air-
Robert M .: The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil foil Charaeteristics. T. N. No. 364, N. A. C. A., 1931.
Sections from Tests in the Variable-Den ity Wind Tun- 12. Toussaint, A., ane! Jacobs, E.: Experimental Methods-
nel. T. R. No. 460, N. A. C. A., 1933. Wind Tunnels. Vol. III, div. I of Aerodynamic Theory,
3. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests in W. F. Durand, editor, Julius Springer (Berlin), 1935, p.
the Variable-Density Wine! Tunnel of Related Airfoil 332.
Having the Maximum Camber Unusually Far Forward. 13. von Karmali, Th., ane! Millikan, C. B.: On the Theory of
T. R. No. 537, N. A. C. A., 1935. Laminary Boundary Layer Involving Separation. T.
4. Wenzinger, Carl J., and hortal, Joseph A.: The Aero- R. No. 504, N. A. C. A., 1934.
dynamic Characteri ticB of a Slotted Clark Y Wing as 14. Dryden, H. L.: Air Flow in the Boundary Layer Near a
Affeeted by the Auxiliary Airfoil Position. T. R. No. Plate. T. R. No. 562, N. A. C. A., 1936.
400, N. A. C. A., 1931. 15. Dryden, I-l. L., and Kuethe, A. M.: Effect of Turbulence
5. Platt, Robert C., and Abbott, Ira H.: Aerodynamic Cllar- in Wind Tunnel Measurements. T. R. No. 342, N. A.
acteristics of N. A. C. A. 23012 and 23021 Airfoils wilh C. A., 1930.
20-Percent-Chord External-Airfoil Flaps of N . A. C. A. 16. Jacobs, Eastman N.: The Aerodynamic Characteristics of
23012 Section. T. R. No. 573, N. A. C. A., 1936. Eight Very Thick Airfoils from Tests in the Variable-
6. Millikan, Clark B.: On the Lift Distribution for a Wing of Density Wind Tunnel. T. R. No. 391, N. A. C. A., 1931.
Arbitrary Plan Form in a Circular Wind Tunnel. Pub- 17. Jones, B. Melvill: Stalling. R. A. S. Jour., vol. XXXVIII.
lication No. 22, C. 1. T., 1932. No. 285, Sept. 1934, pp. 7013-769.
7. Jacobs, Eastman ., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests of 18. Higgins, George .T., and Jacobs, Eastman N.: The Effect
N. A. C. A. Airfoils in the Variable-Density Wind Tun- of a Flap and Ailerons on the N. A. C. A. -M6 Airfoil
nel. Series 230. T. . No. 567, N. A. C. A., 1936. Section. T. R. No. 260, N. A. C. A., 1927.
8. Anderson, R. F.: Determination of the Characteristic of 19. Jacobs, Eastman ., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Pressure
Tapered Wings. T. R. No. 572, . A. C. A., 1936. Distribution over a Symmetrical Airfoil Section with
9. Jacobs, Eastman N., allCl Clay, William C.: Characteristics Trailillg Edge Flap. T. R. No. 360, N. A. C. A., 1930 .
of the N. A. C. A. 23012 Airfoil from Tests in the Full-
20. TI10lhp on, F. L., and Keister, P. H.: Lift ane! Drag Char-
Rcale and Variable-Den ity TUllnels. T. R. No. 530,
N. A. C. A., 1935. acteri tics of a Cabin Monoplane Determined in Flight.
T. N. No. 362, N. A. C. A., 1931.
AIRFOIL. ECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 39
TABLE I
IMPORTANT AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS
a. c.
R, aI,
a, c'mal: I C'opt Cd Ornin emo . c • x V
N. A. C. A. airfoil (millions) (deg.) (percent c) (percent c)

----- --
.. .. .-. . ---- ' 0.0001 .. ----- ------------ ------------
... 8. 'liO -------
0
.
0.09
-.
AI. 3V 0 .0001 0 l.0 5
8.290 .0064 0 1.0 4
fi.IOO 0 .00i 'I. 28 0 8
.94 0 .0002 0 1.8
:l.410
I. ,(iO
0
0
. 00i
.000i "".88 0 .0060 0 1.7 13
0 .0049 0 ---- .------ ---- --- -----
. ~h2 0 · ()<J6 " Ii 0 . 0005 0 ------------ -------- ----
. l4Ii
.223
0
0
· 105
.117 "0 .835 0 .0131 0 .. ------- ----- -------
0 . 0135 0 ------ ---.- --------- ---
.112 0 .104
.OW
" .78
AI. G6 0 .0009 0 .6 3
0012 . .. .3iO 0
.100 'I. 65 0 .0009 0 .6 3
S.450 0 .0073 0 .8 3
0. 280 0 · Ol)i '1. 62 0 4
AI. 49 0 . OOi7 0 1.0
3.040 0 .09i 1.1 3
. 096 '1. 18 0 .0075 0
I. ;40 0
. Sil 0 .091 D .91 0 .0065 ------------ ------- ----- --------_.--
.449 0 .0% 1)
9 0 . 0105 ------------ ------------ ------------
.0077 0 1.2 4
.010 0 .09i AI. 66 0 1.1 3
001.5 .096 AI. 60 0 .0082 0
;;.990 0 0 1.2 I
:J.:!.IO 0 .094 cl.4 0 .0086
. 0088 0 2.4 I
I. no 0 .093 ci. 28 0 0
cl.Og 0 .0084 0 1. 5
0 · ()<J2
'7 I
0 .091 !)
.98 0 .0079 -.---------- ----- ------- -----.------
. ·I:lX
-.-- ----- .014\l --- --- ------ ------------ ------------
.222
.In
0
0
.10)
.13-1 "D:OO9
---- ----- .01DS -.------ . --------- ------------
AI. ;;3 . 008l:\ 0 1.7 4-
i. 10 0 .00G 0 1.6 3
OOlh . 09(; AI. 53 0 .0092 0
fl. 210 0 0 2.2 3
0 · 09(l CI. 42 0 . 0098
:I. :100 .0lOO 0 2.2 0
I. no 0 .0UO
.090
oI.2G
Cl.15
0
0 .0102 0 2.4 0
. hun 0 0127 0 1.8 0
0 .OSO AI. 03 0
· 1:10 0 .0179 ------------ ----- ----- -- ------------
.211
.10l)
0
0
.0<J2
· 114
" .90
n . 80 0 .0297 ------ ... ------ ---- -------- ----
.0071 -.013 .5 3
-2.0 .098 AI. 72 .14
.. 8.210
-2.1 .09i AI.08 . 14 .0080 -.043 1.1 3
fl. 100 -.045 1.1 I
:1. 120 -2.0 · Ol)X Cl. sa .15 .0079
-.015 .9 -2
01.33 .:30 .0089
I. no -2. I .O\lf>
. 0085 -.004 1.8 0
-2.1 .oun DI. 16 .22
------------
· HiU
· I:!~ -2.0 .098 "1.08 .42 .006i .------...... ---------.-- --------- ---
.21X -2. 2 .102 "I. 08 .26 .0159 ----- --------- --- -----_._----
.110 -1.3 -------- "1. 03 . 0227 ------ ... --- ---------
... 3. 0071 .. .- . .- . ---.- ------------
23012 .3iO -----
-1.2
-----
.100 AI. 72 .0 .00iO -.00 1.2 7
8. HlO .0079 -.007 1.3 7
-1.2 .()<J8 At. (ii .08
1i.0iO .00 0 -.007 1.3 5
3.400 -1.2 .098 AI. 53 .05 5
"I. 41 .16 .0090 - . 0)2 1.4
I. iliO -J.2 · ()<Ji - . 010 2.0 7
4 -1.2 .096 "1. 28 .28 .0084
.449 -1.3 .096 "1.19 .12 . 0098 ._----------
---- -------- ---- ------- ------------
.221 -J.6 · )09 D1. 15 .3i . 0179 ---- ------- ------ -----
.. . ------- ----------- ---------_.-
01.00 .20 .0182
.112 -1.4 --------- - .010 .6 5
-1.2 .097 1lJ.49 .20 .0071
~.OOO -.0 10 5
- 1.2 .09 AI. 42 .10 . 0075
6. :390 .ooi6 - . 011 1.0 6
3.380 -1.2 .096 ulo 26 .23 3
"1. 12 .28 . 0071 -.014 .9
1. iOO -1.2 .096 -.011 .9 0
-1.2 . 094 01. Oi .10 .00 4 -1
. 000 .0096 -.014 .4
.454 -1.4 .096 01.01 .40
.0073 .005 1.0 7
-.6 · 0l)8 AI. 6) .10
... ._--- 8.3iO
-.7 .09i "I. 55 .02 . 0078 .000 J.1 0
(i. 310 .0077 . 005 1.0 4
3.010 -.7 .0<J7 °1.41 .11 0
.23 .0077 .002 .8
1. i70 -.8 . 095 "1.28 -.001 1.1 0
- 8 .096 "I. 14 .28 .0073
.1>01
.4 :>-1 -.9 .100 OJ. 08 · :35 . 011 ------------ ------------ ------------
.0073 -.088 .0 2
.080 -3.V .090 AI. 77 .26 .7 1
-3.9 .096 1)1. 70 .26 .0080 -.088
5.970 . 0077 -.090 1.0 -1
3. 340 -4.0 .095 cJ. 50 .34 -1
oJ. 2<J .41 .00 4 -.092 1.1
I. 700 -4.0 .098 -.09 1.4 -4
-4.1 · ()<JO D1.2fi .40 .0080
• SHU
-4.1 .097 "I. 23 · ;;5 . 0097 -.---------- ------ ------ ------------
.438
-3. i .105 "I. 21 .57 .()()9(\ ---------- ..----------- ------------
.21
· 110 -2.5 . 115 oJ.()<J .77 .01 9 ------ --------- ------------
.0082 -.088 .8 2
7. H2O -4.0 . 098 D1. 74 .32 .9 1
4·112 -4.1 .Ol)r, 01. 70 .22 .0085 -.088
6.100 . 0087 -.()<JI 1.0 -I
:1. 2iO -4.1 .OUS "I. 61 . 30 1.2 -5
01. 4fi · :17 .OO<J5 -.095
I.f;XO -4.2 .0Ui -.097 1.1 -8
--4 . 3 .00n 1)1. :lG .3G .0091
· ~i4
.4:\:3 -4.3 .OUI "1.:0 .51 .0109 ------------ ------------ ------------
.. . ... ------ ----- ------------
-4.~ 1>1. :l2 .57 .0194
.21U
· III -2.9
· lOll
· 113 "I. 20 ... . 027G . ------ ...
.OO<JO -.OS;; 1.0 I
7.920 - ·1.0 .0Ui cl. i2 .22 1.4 I
·141 .5 . . .09;; JJI.(jG .20 .0093 -.086
G.280 -1.0 .OO<J4 -.085 1.4 -2
I 3.340 -4.1 · ()<JO "I. 5f) .23 1.7 -4
"1.4b · 31 . 009!J -.0'.10
1. 730 -1.2 .095 .0103 -.092 1.4 -8
-4.3 .094 1)1.41 .34
2
-4.4 .089 "I. 35 .39 .0123 ------ ----- ------------ ------------
.431
.219 -4.4 .089 "I. 31 .46 . 019 ---- ----- ------------ ------------
. .. -----
.. 01.34 .68 .0269
.110 -3. I ------ .0091 - . 133 .9 1
8. 210 -5.9 . 098 "1.82 .37 1.1 1
· ()<J(j 01. i5 .2.> . 0090 -.130
6.020 -.1.9 . 0099 -.13 1 .8 -3
3.3,,0 -0.1 · ()<J7 "1.61 .38 1.0 -2
"I. 04 .52 .0104 -.135
-0.2 .097
I. 700
-0.3 · ()<J7 VI. 48 .60 .0096 --_._------ .-- --------- ------------
.ll!!2
01.47 .55 .0129 ------------ ------------ ------------
. 441
.219
-6.2
-5.9
.097
.106 01.4u .70 .0205 ------------ ------------ ---- -------
01. 45 ---------- . 0160 . .. . - .. --- -------- - ------------
.110 -5.4 ----------
- - -
, F rom refereoce 2.
IType lift· curvo peak: , From reference 7.
40 REPORT NO. 586- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AER ONAUTICS

TABLE I-Continued
IMPORTANT AIRFOIL SECTION CHA R ACTERISTI CS-Continued

fl.. C.
N. A . C. A . airfoil R. alo
(millions) (deg.) G.
x v
1 - - - - -- - - - - - - 1 · - - - - 1 - - - - - - _ _ __ 1_ __ _ _ __ 1_ _ __ 1_ (percent
___ (percent
e) 1___ __ e) 1
6712___ __ _________________________ _
8.100 -7. 3 0.090 °2.05 0.35
6. 120 -7. 4 0. 0115 -0.199 1.2 -2
.095 01.99 .32 .0119 -.197
3.380 -7.4 .098 1)1.83 1.1 -4
J.750 . 33 .0120 - . 198 J.l -8
-7.ij . 103 °1.65 .45
.892 -7.8 .0124 - . 210 1.6 - 12.
. J03 /)1. 52 . 82 .0138
.449 - 5.7 /) J. 45
.222 .88 .0228 -----------. ------- - ---- ------------
-4.6 /)1.50 1.01 .0283
.1l2 -3. 9 01. 41 - . 02
8318 ___ . __________________________ _ . 04U
.450 -7.2 . 095 01. 59 .24
6.420 -7.3 . 0127 -.132 1.5 2
. 092 .lO . 0128 -.132
3.460 -7.4 .093 01. 67 1. 8 2
J.790 .31 . 0128 -.135 1.8 2
- 7. 6 .093 "I. 76 .36 .0140
.9 11 -8.7 -.137 2. 1 3
.088 "1. SO .43 .0173 ------------ ---------- -- -- -- -----.--
. 449 -9.0 .085 /)1. 78 .58
.224 -9.2 .0215
.080 °1.40 . 58 . 0269 --- --------- ------------ ------------
.112 -8.0 .077 ° 1. 02
00 12 ______________ . _______________ _ .0332
8.110 • -13. I '. 091 A2.35
(With 'pli! lJap at 60°.) .5.910 '.167 8-.220 .6
A2.35
3.770 A2.30 -------._--- ------------ ----- -------
3.430 A2.21
J. 740 AI. 84
.919 °1.67 ---------- ---------.-- ------------ - ----------- ------------
------------ ------------ ------------
.449 °1.63
23012 __ ___ ______________________ . __ ---------- ------------ ------------ ----- -- ----- ------------
8. ISO , -11.3 '.088 A2.48
(With split lIap at 60°.) '.166 8 -.236 1.2
5.970 A2.51
3.620 A2.39 ---------- ------------ ------- ----- ---- -- ------ ------ --- ---
(Average) ---------- ---- ------ -. ---- -------- -------- -- -- ------------
J. 740 A2. 24
.882 A2,07 ---------- ------ ---- -- ------------ ------------ - ---- ----- --
.444 "1.92 -------- ---------- -------- -- -- ------------ -------- -- -- --- - -- -- --
23012_________________ . ___________ _ -- ------------ ------------ ------------ --- --- ----- -
8.100 • -15. 6 '.085 A2.54
(With split flap at 75°.) '.201 8 -.228 1.2
5. 990 A2.52
3.800 A2.4 1 -------- - - ------- - ---- ------------ ------------ ------ - -----
I. 740 A2.21 ---------- ------- - ---- ------------ --- - -------- ------------
.887 A2.0 1 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
23015 _______ _____________ . ________ _
. 446 AI.90 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
---------- - - ---------- ------------ -- ---------- --- -- ----- - -
8.370 -1.1 .098 AI. 73 .10
3.880 .0081 -.008 1.1 6
23015___ ___ __ . ___________________ _ CI.60
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- --- --
8.210 • -16. 2 ' . 086 A2.70
(With spli t flap at 750.) - 5.990 ' .198 8 -2.45 1.1 6
A2.69
3.830 A2.59 ---------- ------------ ------------ ----- ----- - - ------------
J.8OO A2.45 ------- -- - ------------ ------------ --------- --- ------------
.924 A2.32 ----- - ---- --- --------- ------------ ------------ ------------
2302L _____ __ _____________________ _
.450 A2. II -------- -- ------------ ------------ -- ---------- ------- --- --
--------- - -------- ---- ------------ ------------ - - ----------
8.210 -J.2 . 092 IIJ. 50 .07
5,940 .0101 -.005 2.3
AJ. 54
3. 770 AI. 47 ---------- ------------ ------- ----- ------- -- --- ---------- ... -
I. 720 oJ. 32 ---------- --- - -------- ------------ ------- - ---- ------------
.892 D1. 26 ---------- --- - -------- ------------ ---------- -- ----- --- --- ..
2302 1__ __ __ _______________________ _
. 441 AI. 20 ------- -- - ------------ ----------- - ------------ ------------
---------- --- --------- ------------ ----------- - ------------
. 130 • -16.5 '.094 A2.74 , - . 300
(With spli t lIap at 75°.) 5.960 '. 191 2. 3
A2.81
3.800 A2.79 ---------- ----- -- ----- ------------ --------- --- -- ------ ----
1.720 A2.58 ------ - --- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----- --- ----
.879 A2.46 ---------- ------------ ----------- - ---------- - - -- ---- ------
. 435 A2.28 --- ------- --- - -------- ------------ -- -- -------- ------------
43012 ________________ ___ __________ _ ------- - - - ------- -- --- ------------ --- - -------- ------------
8.390 -2.3 .100 AI. 84 .26
3.890 .0079 -.019 1.0 '7
AJ. 71
.449 AI. 44 --------- - -------- ---- ------------ ------- --- -- - -- ------ ---
43012_____________________________ _ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
8. 240 '-17. 3 '.082 A2.65
(With split tJap at 750.) ' .200 8 -.225 1.0
0.040 A2.60
3.830 A2. 47 ---------- ------------ ------- - ---- ----- --- -- - - ------- -- --.
1. 740 A2.39 ---------- - -- --------- ------------ ----------- - ------------
.887 "2. 29 -------- -- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
.449 A2.18 ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- - ------------
23012 ____________________________ _ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
8. 210 - . 9 .101 AJ.68 .07
(With 23012 flap 3° up.) - 6. 150 -.8 .100 .0069 . 009 .5 8
AJ. 62 . 15 .0074
3.300 -.8 .100 A1. 54 .009 1.0 9
1.680 .19 .0078 .010 1. 1 11
-.8 .097 AI. 39 . 13 .0068
.858 - .8 .096 01. 24 .011 1.2 11
.430 .08 .0093 ------------ --- --- - -- --- ------------
- 1. 2 .096 01.12 .08 . 0119 ------ - ----- ----- - - --- -- ------------
23012 _______ __ ___________ __ _______ _
8.140 • -13.8 '.102 A2.46 .45
(With 23012l1ap set 300.) 6.200 .0161 • -.260 .5 8
A2. 40
3. 410 A2.32 ----- -- -- - -- -- ---- ---- ------------ ------------ ------------
I. 700 • - 12.5 '. 103 'C2. 13 -- ----. 70 ---- --- ---- -- - -- ---- -------- ------------ --- -- -------
1.700 .0184 • -.260 1.2 11
, " 1. 95
.879 • - 11.9 ' .102 "I. 75 -----.-60-- -----.-o2ig-- ~~::~::::~:: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
.441 "1.66
Clark Y 10 ___ _________ • ___________ _ -- -- ------ ---------- - - - ----------- --------- - - - --- -- ---- ---
9.900 -4.2 '.099 °2.12
(With Haodley Page slot.) 8. 080 .76 .0242 -----_.----- ------- - ---- ------ -- ----
-4. 3 '.099 02.06 .76 .0248 ------------ --- - -------- - -----------
4.990 -4.2 J. 098 "2.02
3.090 .69 .0260 ------------ ------------ ------------
-4.2 '. 097 ° 1. 96 .62
2.040 -4.1 '.096 .0260 ------- - ---- - - - - ------ - - - - ----------
°1.98 .65 .0264 ------------ - - ---------- ------------
1.290 -4.1 ' .092 °1.92
. 784 .63 .0272 ------------ --- - -------- ------------
-4. 1 "1.82 .64
. 520 -4.1 .0301 ---------- -- ------------ ------------
"I. 75 .63 .0291 ------------ ------------ -- -- ------ --
.261 -4. 1 "1.60
.135 -4. 3
.64 .0322 ------------ ------------ - - --- --- --- -
° 1. 41 .63 .0431 ------------ ----------- - ------------

I See (oOLDote I, p. 39.


• A ngle of zero lift determined from linear lift curve approxi mating exper imen tal , Value of the drag that app lies approximatel y over t he entire useful range of lilt
lift cur ve. coefficients.
, Slope of lift cur ve determined from linear lift cur ve approximat ing experim en taJ 8 eM •. , . is taken abou t the aerodynam ic center of t he pJain lYing a nd is fairl y COn-
un curve. sta nt at h igh lift coeffi cients.
, Discon t inuity p resent in the scnle etrect.
, eM • .,. is taken about t he aerod Ynamic center of tbe wing wi th tJap neutra I a nd is
fairl y constant at high lift coefficien ts.
I' Not N . A. C. A,

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 41


TABLE II
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Fundamental section characteristics
Classification

Q.c. (percent
R.'
(Millions)
e from c/4)
N. A. C. A. airfoil "'I, a.o, per C
Chord I SE ' CLm ll % c'",oz (deg.) del!ree c'QP' CdO Min '" • . c: ,
Ahead Above

- - - - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - -
0 0.0064 0 1.0 5
A 8. 2\l 1. 39 0 0.098 3
0009 A B 0 . 0069 0 .6
0012________ - -- --- -----
_____________ --- --
________ ----__----
_____ -- -----
__ _____ _____--
A CO A 8. 37 1.68 0 . 099
. 0077 0 1. 2 4
0015 _________________ ________ ____ _____ _______ A 8. 61 1.68 0 .097 0 4
A DO .096 0 .0088 0 1.7
0018 __________ __________ ___ _____ __ _____ __ ___ _ A EO A 7. 84 1.53 0 -.043 .5 3
8.24 1. 72 -2.0 .098 . 14 . 0071
2412__________ ______ _______ __ ___ __ _------ - --- A C2 A . 08 .0070 - . 008 1.2 7
D2 A 8.16 1. 72 -1.2 .100 5
23012 __________ _-- -- --- --- --- -- -- ---- --- -- --- A -1.2 .097 . 20 .0071 -.010 .6
A BO B 8.00 1.49 .005 1.0 7
23012--33 _____ __ _--- --- ------ - --__________
-- --- --- - --- -- 8.37 1. 61 -.6 .098 . 10 . 0073
2R,12 __________________ ______ __ ___ A C3 A .26 .0073 -.088 .6 2
B4 A 8.08 1. 77 -3.9 . 096 2
4409 _______ - -- ------ -- ------ - --- --- ---- ---- -- A -4.0 .098 .32 .0082 -.088 .8
A C4 D 7. 92 1. 74 - . 085 1.0 1
4412 __ ___________ - --- ----- --- -- --- - -- ---- --- - 7. 92 1. 72 -4.0 . 097 .22 . 0090
A D4 C .37 . 0091 - .133 .9 1
4415 _________ ----- -- --- ---- --- - -- -- ---- ------ C6 D 8. 21 1.82 -5.9 .098 1.2 -2
6412 A .35 . 0115 -.199
6712_________
___ ________- ---
__ -- - ---- - ----___
___________ -- ---- ----
______ -- ----
______ __ D 8.10 2.05 -7. 3 .096 2
8318 ___ ____________________ __ _____ ___________
0012 with split flap at 60 0 _ _ __ _ ____________ _ __
A
A
A
C2
E8
CO
D2
D
A
A
8.45
8.11
8.18
1. 59
2.35
2.48
-7.2
1-13. 1
' -14.3
.095
'.091
' . 088
. 24 .0127
7 .167
7 .1G6
7 .201
.-
,-
-.132
.220
-.236
1.5
.6
1.2
1.2
3
7
7
23012 with split flap at 600 ___ _ ______ _ ___ _ ____ A . 228
23012 with split flap at 75 0 __ __ _ ____ __ _ ___ _ _ __ A D2 A 8.10 2.64 ' -15.6 • .085 -.008 1.1 6
8. 37 1.73 -1.1 . 098 . 10 .0081
A D2 A 7. 198 ' - . 245 1.1 6
23015 _____ ___ ---- --- ---- --0 --- ---- - --- --- - -- -- D2 A 8. 21 2.70 ' -16.2 • .088 7
23015 with split flap_________
at 75 - -_________ A .092 . 07 .0101 -.005 2.3
23021 ______________ __ ______
- - - ----- -- -- - - - --
A E2 B
A
8.21
8.13
1.50
2.74
-1.2
, -16.5 7 .191 ,- . 300 2.3 7
7
23021 with split flap at 75 0 _ _ __ _ ___ ___________ A E2 • . 094
. 100 .26 . 0079 - . 019 1.0
A 8. 39 1.84 -2.3 7
43012 __ ____ __ __ --- - ----- -- -- -- --- ---- -- ---- -- A D4
A 8.24 2.65 '-17. 3 • .082 7. 200 5 - • :1'25 1.0
8
43012 with split flap at 75 0 ___ ________________
23012 with 23012 flap 30 up ___ ____ ____ ________
0
23012 with 23012 flap set 30 - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - -
A
A
A
D4
D2 A
A
D
8. 21
8. !4
8.08
1.68
2.46
2. 06
-.9
' -13.8
- 4.3

.101
.102
• . 099
.07
. 45
.76
.0069
. 0161
.0248
.- .009
.260
---------- . -
.5
.5
------
8
- - --- - --
Clark Y with Handley Page slot 10---------- B

I Type of chord. A refers to Q chord defined as a line joining the extremities of the lift curve.
• Slopo of lift curve determined from linear lift curve approximating experimental
mean linc. lift curve.
• '1'ype of scale effect on maximum lilt. 1 Value o( the drag that applies approximately over the ontire useflll range of lilt
, Type of lift-curve peak as shown in the sketches below: coefficients.
8 eM is taken ahout ,the aerodynamic center of the plain wing and is fair ly con-
stant ~tbigh Jilt t'OOfficientS. 0
'em is tnkon about the aerodynamic center of the wing with flap neutral (_3 )
and i;i:iirly constant at high lift coefficients.
IONotN . A . C.A .
• 'rur bulence [actor is 2.64 .
, Angle of zcro lift determined from linear lift curve approximating experimontal

II. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OHICE : IU7