Can the Old NACA Airfoils Be Improved?

By Michael Shuck, © 2002

Definitely maybe. But is it worth it? Are the “improvements” to these old, well-
understood airfoils significant enough to warrant the changes? Let’s look at the old
NACA 4415 airfoil. It has served well.
The Luscombe 8 series of aircraft are known for being fast on low horsepower
and for having a very forgiving, gentle stall. If you look at the Clmax on the following
figure, you can follow the beautiful stall from AOA 14 on…very little loss in lift.

But when I look at the high negative pitching moment, I just cringe. In most cases, the
higher the lift potential of the airfoil, the more negative the pitching moment. A good
study which explains the detriments of this well is Harry Riblett’s “GA Airfoils”
(available through the EAA).
If these “detriments” can be lessened and yet be allowed to retain the desired
effects of the airfoil, can we still trust the airfoil? No type of wind tunnel testing is going
to match 75 years of flying in actual, real world conditions. Once they’ve been changed,
albeit in small ways, can we still depend upon them not having ugly little demons rare
their little faces?
I don’t know. Certainly, without testing, there is no good answer.
 It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that the design of a good, lower speed,
turbulent flow airfoil is going to have a much greater likelihood of repeating those results
in the real world testing than computer-derived laminar flow airfoils. Just my opinion.
I’m going to “tweak” the 4415 here and see what I can come up with. I want less
drag, less pitching moment and would settle for retaining the great, soft stall.

Hmm, maybe it’s just me, but I think I see some distinct improvements here with
very little sacrifice to drag. The stall at an AOA of 14 degrees through18 degrees is pretty
nice. Now, the NACA 4415 retains it’s Clmax of around 1.6 through more degrees AOA,
but if you can’t fly your airplane at those degrees (which you can’t…on purpose,
anyway), then I’d rather go back and fluff up the lift around the AOA’s where stall might
more realistically be expected. In the original NACA 4415, we have a Clmax of 1.6645 at
AOA 16 degrees, and the tweaked version sports a Clmax of 1.77. I’d go with the greater
lift at Clmax if it were my butt. The extra increase in lift may be the difference between a
saved stall/spin accident or driving into dirt. But we have higher drag here, and that’s part
of the price we pay.
Remember, that we only fly at these highest Clmaxi (sounds better than
“Clmaxes”) for a moment during each trip. What about concentrating more on something
that contributes to the entire duration of the flight?
Well, that would be reducing the negative pitching moment even more. There’s no
such thing as a free lunch, so to reduce the pitching moment we’re going to lose a little
lift and gain a little drag. Here goes:
 See any changes you like? I DO! Look at that Cm! It’s enough to make a mother
want to cry. But…we lost some cruise lift. We picked up a little more drag. Is it worth
it? Look at AOA 15 degrees: see the Clmax? Looks like 1.8309 to me. Look back at
the original NACA 4415 and see what the Clmax is at the same AOA: 1.6588. Nice
improvement, but it came at the cost of drag and cruise lift. Is that okay? It depends on
your project. If you want a Lift Monster 9000 Turbo Plus, then you’re likely going to
give up a lot in the drag department. If you want to lift a woolly mammoth, you really
don’t care if you need to fly at 200 knots if you are moving it 3 miles to the barn. So, the
drag is not that demanding of a factor in this mission. But, if you have to get the sucker
to New York and you live in Greensburg, Kansas, then you need to get it there fast before
it thaws out! In that scenario, you’ll need a lot of power, but low drag will definitely fit
your mission’s demands. So, it just depends.
The negative pitching moment of the Tweak-O-Matic 2 is significantly less than
the NACA 4415. In fact, it is TWENTY-ONE POINTS LESS! Whew, that’s a lot!
So, see? It can be done. Now, before I end this madness, I’m going to show you
the next figure. It is a superimposition of the original NACA 4415 and the final
perversion, I mean conversion, to the Tweak-O-Matic 4415 Mod 2:
 Are these changes noticeable and desirable? Yes. Do these changes affect the
preferred performance traits of the original airfoil?
I don’t know. It will have to be tested, but my gut feeling (that means not using
your head) is yes.

…..Mike Shuck