Airfoil characteristic analysis

Jesús Eduardo Cazares Trejo1

Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica

This documents present characteristics from different airfoils to compare them against
airfoil thin theory with objective to do an analysis about data recollected and build a simple
mathematical model where patterns or exceptions in theory and models can be described.

I. Nomenclature
Cl = Lift coefficient
Z = Airfoil Camber
zl = Camber location
t = Maximum thickness of the airfoil

II. Introduction
A lot of airfoils have been designed along history and these airfoils have different characteristic as chord line and
camber line, which parameters are useful to describe an airfoil. Knowing this, generate models to predict exactly
how a fluid will act over an airfoil are non-existent, so most of the closest approximations is thin airfoil theory,
which it helps to calculate lift coefficient with angle of attack varying. This theory assumes airfoil has an infinitely
long wingspan and a thickness infinitely small, assumptions which in real world are applicable under some
conditions. As thin airfoil theory is one of the most accurate models to predict lift coefficient, it will work as base to
compare different airfoils and make comparatives which it can help to understand variations of lift coefficient in
different airfoils and limitations of the current literature theory.

III. Brief history of the airfoils

To understand airfoils characteristics is necessary to explain some of the historical development of this and its
characteristics. In early stages of aviation, airfoils were so limited and not studied enough to analyze efficiency
variance. Around 1880s was proposed and patented by Horatio Philips, who developed a serious of drawings where
airfoils are extremely thin and cambered.

1
Aeronautical Engineer Student 2082401

1
 Fig 1. First designs of airfoils
Even when these airfoils were designed in very premature years of the aviation, they were tested at the first wind
tunnels. After this first approximations to airfoil design, tragic events, as Otto Lilienthal accident trying to
demonstrate gliders and airfoils or successful events as first flight (in terms of stability) from Wright Brothers,
motivate to keep doing research in aeronautical field, mainly from governments who found a variety of institutions
to fortify knowledge in general aviation. One of the most known is the extinguished National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics (NACA), who it helps to create systems to easily identify airfoils according to their characteristics.
Before we analyze NACA system or another type of airfoil identification, it´s important to mention to Max Munt
and Blauert, engineers who developed thin airfoil theory which main function was to understand how an airfoil with
more camber at leading edge changes lift coefficient. Some extra theories as Joukowski theorem worked as an
approximation to solve pressure distribution for an airfoil. Wind tunnel was useful to test all designs, these test were
realized mainly in Germany, USA, and UK.

Fig 2. Evolution of the first airfoil

Although theoretical information was important, most of the improvements comes by trial and error. Even when
today there´s software to predict airfoil characteristics, wind tunnels are much reliable because approximations fail
in critical situations as higher angles of attack or transonic flights.
In terms of airfoil design, there´s multiples classifications according to the optime speed to operate, thickness,
camber, etc. To be able to difference airfoils, it´s necessary to understand camber and chord line concepts, which
parameters are normally used to characterize airfoils.

Fig 3. Basic characteristics of an airfoil

Airfoils has chord line as one of the most important parameters because normally its length is a reference to
compare camber, thickness, and locations of important points. Chord line is defined as straight line between leading
edge and trailing edge, this line can have zones out of the airfoil perimeters. Camber line is a line which it connects

2
midpoints between lower and upper surface. Maximum camber is when distance between chord line and camber line
reach until maximum value. After, we can thickness, which it´s maximum distance between upper surface and lower
surface. These parameters look so simply, but they are very important because factors as air distribution pressure,
lift coefficient or moment produced are directly related to these variables.
As it was mentioned, a diversity of classifications can be found, but some of them doesn’t have a way to identify
parameters explained in last paragraph. This is because during development of airfoils these parameters weren’t
considered or other method was used to determine airfoil characteristics as Joukowski airfoils, where a circle is
converted to an airfoil, but an easy-to-understand classification wasn’t made. However, when NACA started to
analyze airfoils, it was found that there was a non-existing systems to compare airfoils easily, so this institution
creates four-digit system and some years later, it creates five-digit system. These systems can be understood with
next explanation:
• Four-digit system:
• Five-digit system:
Even when these systems aren’t so used as before, these systems are important to understand them because they
work as a starting point to create new airfoils which analysis include more variables as v

IV. Methodology
To analyze model of the lift coefficient prediction according to the thin airfoil theory and create two models to
calculate lift coefficient and maximum angle of attack when input values are camber, thickness, and location
camber, it was designed a table where it´s compared lineal zone slope, thickness camber and its location, maximum
thickness of the airfoil and its location, ideal and real Cl0 and, maximum angle of attack with its corresponding angle
of attack. To get all this date was used Airfoil tools database, which it includes description of each camber, also this
data was obtained by condition where Reynolds number is equal to 1,000,000. In this way, all theorical data is
obtained from database excepting, ideal Cl0 where it´s calculated by next formula:
𝐶𝑙0 = 4𝜋𝑍
This formula is deducted because lift coefficient zero is when angle of attack is zero, so in this way, we can say
that circular variation which it´s represent two times pi times angle of attack can be omitted, so it´s just remains part
of the lift coefficient due to the camber.

3
 Fig 4. Characteristic table of airfoils
At the table, it´s just necessary to remark that database gives angle of attack in degrees, so to compare real lineal
zone slope, it was necessary to convert this degrees to radians to get useful data. Also, I decided to add two columns
where I can analyze in percentage difference between real and theorical values of the lineal zone slope and lift
coefficient zero. Using Excel, we plot comparations between values, which it´ll serve us to compare values
variation.

4
 CAMBER VS CLO REAL
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-0.2

Camber vs Cl0 Ideal

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Fig 5. Lift coefficient at zero angle of attack variation due to camber.

In this two graphics, it´s too simple to visualize that airfoil thin theory works in an excellent way to predict lift
coefficient at zero angle of attack. Most of the points in first graphics are following same tendency that lineal
variation of the graphic for ideal values.

Camber vs AoA Max

20
18
R² = 0.2649
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Fig 6. Angle of Attack Maximum due to the camber variation.

5
 In this case, it´s hard to visualize a relationship because a tendency is not so clear, and when we analyze a linear
regression, we can observe that this value is far from one, which it means we can’t ‘describe maximum angle of
attack just with camber. We will need to generate hypothesis about what other factors can be affecting to the system.

Thickness vs AoA Max

20
18 R² = 0.4045
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Fig 7. Angle of Attack Maximum due to the thickness variation.

We can see again a hard relationship between values due principally because to the same points we can observe
different maximum angles of attack. I think this strange behavior happens because thickness as only value can´t no
define how gradients of pressure or variations of the air characteristics will be acting, it´s necessary to analyze where
it´s located this maximum thickness and check for example if it´s located in critical points where due to the
thickness, air properties can be changing too much.

Thickness vs Cl Max
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Fig 8. Lift coefficient maximum due to the thickness variation.

A similar deduction is made here, it´s necessary to check location of the maximum thickness and possible
relationship between air characteristics and camber of the airfoil.

6
 V. Results and analysis and conclusions
After analyzing each data, which it´s too complicated due to the variation, it was selected as tool to build
mathematical model an option from Excel called Data analysis where it can be compared different input values with
just one output values. Obviously, it has a margin of error, but it´s necessary to do it to analyze what airfoils tend to
have deviations more considerable.
𝐶𝑙 max = 6.9889𝑧 − 0.100𝑧𝑙 + 0.5984𝑡 + 1.2654

Fig 8. Values obtained from equation to get angle attack and its error percentage against real values.

In this case, it was defined as big deviation to values above 10, because normally this error can be acceptable in
different experiments and thinking about our model is very limited.
𝐴𝑜𝐴 max = 37.1802𝑧 − 1.1853𝑧𝑙 + 29.1992𝑡 + 10.915

7
 Fig 9. Values obtained from equation to get lift coefficient and its error percentage against real values.

As past table, values above ten percent are considered to analyze deeper. In this case, we can observe that 6,7, 8 and
18 values are common deviations in two models. This models are RAE 5214, NACA 64A210, LOCKHEED C-14
and NACA 2412.

Fig 9 Airfoil NACA 64A210

Other models are very similar, and I can observe that camber is so pronounced, and this helps to increase lift, but
reading each characteristics of this aircraft with considerable error value, it´s important to mention that this airfoils
are especially designed for transonic and sonic flows. So, it´s obviously that our models can’t no cover this
situations because at first instance we use airfoil thin theory as an approximation, but this model is just useful when
flow is incompressible and at high velocities, air will be compressible which it means that theory will be failing.
Also, other assumption made is that we have an infinite wingspan, which it neglects effect of vortex generated at
wing tips.

8
So, as conclusion, it´s important to define delimitations to the system and when it can be useful. For me it´s
important to know this because airfoil thin theory can be useful as a first approximation when design of the airplane
is starting, but if we want to have more accurate values, we need to start from thin airfoil theory until reach to the
analysis of more variables which it must be considered at the final design.