You are on page 1of 80

NASA Technical Paper 1324 Technical

AVRADCOM Report 78-45

Low-Speed Airfoil Aviation

Aerodynamic for

Characteristics Variable-Geometry

of a 16-Percent-Thick Designed Applications

General

Richard and

W.

Barnwell,

Kevin

W.

Noonan,

"

Robert

J. McGhee

DECFMBER

1978

fUI A

NASA Technical Paper 1324 Technical

AVRADCOM Report 78-45

Low-Speed Airfoil Aviation

Aerodynamic for

Characteristics Variable-Geometry

of a 16-Percent-Thick Designed

General

Applications

Richard Langley Kevin Structures Langley Robert Langley J.

W.

Barnwell Center, Hampton, Virginia

Research W. Noonan

Laboratory, Research McGhee Research

A VRADCOM Center, Hampton,

Research Virginia

and

Technology

Laboratories

Center,

Hampton,

Virginia

NIL A
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office 1978

SUMMARY

Tests determine urations aviation number 20.0 that range 1.8, Stall section the 0.15, 0.4 and for x

were the of a

conducted aerodynamic 16-percent-thick (NASA 0.10 an to

in

the

Langley

low-turbulence of climb,

pressure cruise, and

tunnel landing for over 2.0 x

to configgeneral a Mach ]06 show to

characteristics

variable-geometry GA(PC)-]). 0.35, a chord range coefficients x 106 and reached and the cruise These Reynolds from -8

airfoil tests were

designed conducted range Test from

applications range from

number to

]06 , and maximum 2.0 1.5 x

angle-of-attack lift 9.0

20 . in of the

results

the from and

section ]06 the to

increased values

Reynolds

number 2.1,

approximately

for

landing, although

climb, of climb at a 4.0 x

configurations, type, with of lift obtained agreement were

respectively. abrupt. transition a Mach number of same 0.9 angle between theoretical The near of and of

characteristics, lift-drag edge a Reynolds climb 6 , results and as ratio was

trailing-edge

of

the 78 of

configuration lift coefficient Design were good of 106 .

fixed 0.9,

leading

about number cruise

coefficients at was the

the about

configurations Generally, predictions

attack, method.

intended. and the

obtained

experimental

a viscous,

attached-flow

INTRODUCTION

Research conducted Aerodynamic airfoils, the ences and frcm sented General 2 and with in the a a over

on

advanced last

low-speed several were years

aerodynamic at the in one for NASA

technology Langley ] which (NASA with airfoils camber airfoil for system line has this are

airfoils Research for has the been

has Center. first In flap

been

the

characteristics ]7-percent-thick Aviation 3, results

reported

reference airfoil

of

these

fixed-geometry

designated refersystem prethe the an derived

(Whitccmb)-number were 4 for reported respectively. 13and by using

airfoil this airfoil

GA(W)-]). a Fowler which and been

spoiler reference GA(W)-]

system, airfoil The

Aerodynamic the same

characteristics were scaling designated

are

2J-percent-thick

NASA

thickness NASA GA(W)-2 aileron, reference

distribution. airfoil. flap, 5. slotted

]3-percent-thick characteristics and spoiler flap,

Aerodynamic Fowler

airfoil presented

with in

Aerodynamic combinations wings pressure NASA the having with

characteristics two advanced of also aspect ratios are

are nine. given data

reported NASA Section for each

in drag of

reference GA(PC)-] polars three at for and and

for NASA some

wing-body GA(W)-] chordwise of midspan low the of chord

rectangular

distributions airfoil.

configurations

GA(PC)-] NASA

These

were

obtained and are

approximately the relatively

GA(PC)-] number of

wing-body ].72 x

combination ]06 .

Reynolds

In three has

this

report,

low-speed of the a

aerodynamic

characteristics variable-geometry (Peterson-Chen)-number

are

presented which airfoil

for

configurations been designated

]6-percent-thick Aviation

airfoil one

General

(N_SAGA(PC)-]). The climb configuration of the NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil designed to have minimumdrag at the design climb lift coefficient of
The boundary layer was assumed which so that of is to be turbulent by over most the of the airfoil. cruise upward, attained the mized design for configuration, was at designed the climb both same lift the obtained design at As a deflecting lift the trailing-edge of 0.4 the cruise which result, coefficient climb the

was
0.9. The flap would attains be

angle

attack

configuration drag can also

coefficient. and cruise is

fuselage The the airfoil

be has

minia

climb

configurations. by deflecting

landing downward.

configuration

which

obtained

trailing-edge

flap

This tunnel from over 2.0 x

investigation a ]06 Mach to number 20.0 x

was 106

performed range for from angles

in 0.10

the to of

Langley 0.35 and from

low-turbulence Reynolds -8 to number 20 .

pressure range

attack

SYMBOLS

Values and

are

given were

in made

both in

SI U.S.

and

U.S.

Customary Units.

Units.

The

measurements

calculations

Customary

p-p_
Cp pressure coefficient,

q_
c chord of airfoil, cm (in.)

cc

oncorer co flcin
section profile-drag coefficient determined frem wake measurements, _w ake c d ' d(!) point drag coefficient,

Cd

cd '

cz
cm

section

lift

coefficient,

Cn(COS

e)

Cc(sin

e)

section

pitching-moment

coefficient

about

quarter-chord

point,

cn

section

normal-force

coefficient,

_Cp

d(_)

h _/d
M

vertical

distance

in

wake

profile,

cm

(in.)

section free-stream

lift-drag Mach

ratio, number

cZ/c

P
Pt q R

static

pressure,

Pa

(ib/ft

2)

total

pressure,

Pa

(Ib/ft

2)

dynamic

pressure,

Pa

(ib/ft

2)

Reynolds airfoil

number abscissa,

based cm

on (in.)

free-stream

conditions

and

airfoil

chord

airfoil

ordinate,

cm

(in.)

zc

mean-line

ordinate,

cm

(in.)

zt

mean

thickness,

cm

(in.)

angle

of

attack,

deg

Subscripts: max maximum free-stream conditions

Abbreviations: General Aviation (Peterson-Chen)-number one

GA (PC)-] GA (W)-] GA (W)-2

General

Aviation

(Whitcomb)-number

one

General

Aviation

(Whitcomb)-number

two

AIRFOIL

DESIGN

The general designated for Chen climb to this in and

airfoil aviation the airfoil reference cruise

section by NASA have 8. design The that a flap John

used B.

in

these

investigations Jr., and Allen

was W. of 7

developed and, design by low would

for hence,

use was

in

Peterson, airfoil. given by

Chen the and

GA(PC)-] been The

Descriptions Chen in reference were an airfoil to the be achieve upper that the The same about to

procedures and the difficult include be for a the of climb

Peterson drag not at be

design

objectives with used of would or to convex. be the be

obtain which these

conditions criteria drag in such

manufacture. that and lower cruise

design the be used

objectives of that the of airfoil attack the

specifications minimum, climb the and cruise surface

profile conditions flat had

surface the same, angles so that same was and of

a manner

angle

design be

segments for the drag could to be

either

attack fuselage

design for by on the

conditions two

the

increments minimized turbulent because on

conditions designer. and

would The

the

and,

hence,

be

the both

aircraft the upper

boundary

layer downstream near lift c Z =

considered of the 0.]c edge for c Z =

lower

surfaces occurs

position, of wings

boundary-layer

transition aircraft. The were

usually design

the

leading

general-aviation

section to be

coefficients 0.9 and

the

climb and cruise respectively.

conditions

specified

0.4,

The In the

procedure first step, with of pressure

for

designing

the

airfoil

section

involved the

two

basic

steps.

Peterson minimum

iteratively profile drag. which

determined This had

upper-surface was

pressure from five for

distribution a family

distribution the pressure

determined at

distributions

prescribed coefficient equation

points these

along the computations

chord. was

The upper-surface determined from the

profile drag approximate

Cd, u

where ity edge. (ref. velocity Values the at momentum

U_ the

is

the

free-stream edge, and c this that

velocity, is the

ue airfoil

is

the

boundary-layer and @ and at 6* the

edge are of

velocthe Betz

trailing

chord, the more and

thickness Peterson 9) after u Z' the

displacement equation the

thickness, from

respectively, general the

trailing

obtained assuming in the momentum pressure (ref. 9).

equation

static @

pressure

hypothetical the boundary thickness method

inviscid la_er. 6 for of

for

Betz equation thickness distributions

are constant across and the displacement were determined with

different

the

Truckenbrodt

In shape This (ref. same

the

second had the

step

of

the

design

procedure, pressure the design with that

Chen

determined

an and

airfoil which and be the Chen the flap

which airfoil ]0). for the

optimum was found climb

upper-surface at iteratively the requirement

distribution climb the lift method angle be of of

satisfied

the

geometric shape

constraints obtained that and

coefficient. Ormsbee attack if

It

was

the

design

cruise

conditions

could

satisfied

had a width of 0.2c and was deflected upward ]0 for cruise. The lower surface of the flap and a considerable part of the lower Surface ahead of the flap were constrained to be flat to minimize manufacturing costs. The lower surface immediately ahead of the flap was contoured so that the slope would be continuous across the airfoil/flap juncture in the cruise configuration. The flap pivot point was located at the airfoil/flap juncture on the lower surface. The NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil
landing are the configuration design by in addition of flap configurations the thickness are shown obtained deflecting The

is

depicted to the the

in climb

figure and The frcm the

]. cruise landing

Note

that

there

is

configurations, configuration for the

which is climb for the

airfoil. ]0 and 2.

downward distribution in figure

the mean

setting camber

configuration. three configurations

lines

MODEL,

APPARATUS,

AND

PROCEDURE

Model

The foil flap (36.00 design cruise both in

aft

portion

of are

the

airfoil by

model using

is

detachable brackets has a

flap. to span

Various this cm

air-

configurations relative in.), to and the the

obtained of the

flush The of

position of is The of midspan orifices 9].44 the

rest climb has

model.

model the

configuration a chord of 60.96

model, (24.00 frcm along of

which in.). that the these

basic of the conon given

configuration, and the landing The upper I (all orifice the and of model

cm

chords the climb

configurations is equipped surfaces. entries in lower the

differ with The the

slightly orifices locations

figuration.

station are trailing config-

table are

table, 3 is a

except photograph

those of

for the

the

edge, uration

locations).

Figure

climb

of The

model. model surface the various were machined in provide the a was of machined the from an and the aluminum pressure The plastic billet. tubing tubes into were the The 400 Grooves was routed in were through plastic The surface

airfoil in and was the to

machined the grooves resin, plastic was

aluminum, hrough the

orifice drilled to

locations.

potted tubing. airfoil dry

orifices then by hand to

reform

original with

surface. number

sanded

chordwise smooth

direction aerodynamic

silicon-

carbide

paper

finish.

Wind

Tunnel

The ]0

Langley

low-turbulence tunnel with The which maximum at ft) a wide can unit Mach by tunnel-empty

pressure be operated

tunnel at number about (7.50

(ref. stagnation Mach is 0.22.

]])

is up 49

closed-throat, from 0.42 per test and meter section ] to 0.22, to ]06

single-return atmospheres respectively. (]5 is ]06 per cm

pressures

test-section Reynolds number 228.6 of cm

numbers about The

foot) (3.00

tunnel

9].44

ft) provide are the

high. positioning cm (40.00 wall. and in.) The attachment in airfoil diameter, ends

Hydraulically for the two-dimensional with the rotate

actuated airfoil, and

circular The are flush

plates plates with

model.

]0].6 tunnel

are attached to rectangular model-attachment plates as shown in figure 4, and the airfoil is mounted so that the center of rotation of the circular plates is at 0.25c on the model reference line. The air gaps at the tunnel walls between the rectangular plates and the circular plates are sealed with flexible sliding metal seals (fig. 4). WakeSurvey Rake A fixed, wake survey rake (fig. 5) at the model semispan is mounted perpendicular to the airfoil trailing edge on supports cantilevered from the tunnel sidewall at a distance of one chord behind the airfoil trailing edge. The
wake in survey diameter The rake and 6 has 9] total-pressure tubes have been in.) tubes which which are are 0.3]75 to tip of 90 0.]524 cm 0.]0]6 the cm (0.]25 cm tube. and (0.060 in.) (0.040 The in.) in diamstatic-pressure tubes cm four the eter. for total-pressure of each tubes. 0.6096 have from flattened from the in.) static

a distance tubes tube

(0.240 flush tip

pressure eight

orifices of the tube

drilled in the

apart

located of the

diameters

measurement

plane

total-pressure

Instrumentation

Measurements wake-rake uses pressures

of

the are

static made with

pressures an

on

the

airfoil

surface

and

of

the which are with a

automatic transducers.

pressure-scanning Basic of a pinion on a tunnel is and gear

system pressures measured rack

precision with

variable-capacitance precision shaft quartz encoder plates. on magnetic

measured calibrated to one of

manometers. operated Data tape. are by

Angle

attack

digital the

attached acquisition

circular

obtained

high-speed

system

and

recorded

r-b_

TESTS

AND

METHODS

The numbers imately 0.]0 to ied The to ]2.0 from

climb from -8 0.20 ]06 zero was located

and 0.]0 2.0 x

cruise to 0.35 ]06 The to

configurations and 20.0 Reynolds ]06 in

of the

the

airfoil based was on

were

tested range

at from numbers 2.0

Mach from approxfrom ]06 var-

numbers,

airfoil at Mach

chord,

approximately to

angle-of-attack tested from The zero at

20 .

landing numbers

configuration based on chord range. then (natural surfaces of from

and in to on

Reynolds the the tested the same maximum both upper

approximately angle to the and of attack

angle-of-attack valueand smooth and lower

was value. were

minimum with strips granular the ]2.

airfoil

transition) 0.05c.

roughness

strips 0.]27 rial rial numbers number the roughness edge to

These

cm

(0.05

in.) to the

wide model by

and

consisted clear

sparsely The in the

distributed size of

matematewere

attached was of 60, 2.0

with

lacquer. described 6.0 ]06 ,

granular For grits used

determined

the 4.0 and

technique ]06 , and number of the

reference commercial For with surfaces

Reynolds

]06 , ]00, 60

number (number

]20, airfoil

respectively. was over tested both

comparative the NACA from the

purposes, standard leading

landing

configuration grains

distributed

0.08c).

The static-pressure measurementsat the airfoil surface were reduced to standard pressure coefficients which were numerically integrated to obtain section normal-force coefficients, section chord-force coefficients, and section pitching-moment coefficients about the quarter chord. The section lift coefficients were obtained from the section chord-force and normal-force coefficients. The section profile-drag coefficients were computed from the wake-rake total and static pressures by the method of Jones described in reference 13. PRES_TATION DATA OF The results Results Pressure distribution of this investigation
Airfoil Config Climb Cruise Landinc Climb M 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

are presented as follows:


R Transition Variable Figure

GA

(PC) -1

0.15 .15 .15 .15 .15 0.15 .20 .28 Varied .15 iVaried .15 .15 .15 .15 20 .28 Va r led .15 Varied .15 .15 .15 ing .10 .15 Va r led Varied .15 .15 .15 .15 .15

106

Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Airfoil

GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W) -]

GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -1 GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -I

Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Land

Var led Varied Varied 4.0 106

Natural Natural Natural Natural Fixed Fixed Varied Varied Varied Natural Natural Natural Natural Fixed Fixed Varied Varied Varied Natural Natural Natural Fixed Varied Varied Fixed Fixed Fixed

R R R M R M Transition Transition Transition R R R M R M Transition Transition Transition R R M M Transition Transition

10(a) I 0 (b) I0(c) 1] 12 13 14(a) 14(b) 14(c) 15 (a) 15(b) 15 (c) 16 17 18 19(a) ]9(5) 19(c)

Varied 4.0 2.1 4.0 6.0 Varied Varied Varied 6.0 Varied 6.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Var ied Varied 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

e,

C and d, cm against cZ

GA (PC)-]

GA (PC)-]
GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -I GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -1 GA (PC)-] GA (W) -I

Landing Landin_ Landin Landin Landin Climb Cruise

20 (a) 2O (b)
21 22 23 23

24(a)

Results

Airfoil

Config. Climb Cruise Landing Climb Cruise

M
0.]5 .]5 .]5 .]5 .]5 .]5 .]5

I
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

R lO 6

_ransition

Variable

Figure

GA (PC) -1 GA (PC) -]

Fixed Fixed Fixed

Airfoil

24(b)

e,

Cd, and cm against


c_

GA(PC)-] GA (W) -] GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -] GA (W) -]

Fixed Fixed Fixed

Airfoil

24(c)

GA (PC) -I GA (PC) -] GA (PC)-] Cz,max against GA (W) -] R GA (W) -2 GA (PC) -] GA (PC)-] GA (PC) -1 GA (PC)-]

Climb Cruise Landing

0.15 .15 .15 .15 .15

Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied 4.0 4.0 6.0 x 10 6

Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Natural Natural Natural Natural Varied Varied Varied

R, R, R, R, R,

Transition Transition Transition Transition Transition R R R R

25 (a) 25(a) 25 (a) 25(a) 25 (a) 25(b) 25 (b) 25(c) 25 (c)

Climb Cruise Climb Cruise

.20 .20 28 .28 tar ied raried raried

C_,max against

GA (PC)-] M GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -]

Climb Landing Cruise

M, M, M,

Transition Transition Transition

26 (a) 26 (a) 26(b)

cd cZ R cd

at

climb aga inst

CA(PC)-]
GA (W) -] GA (W)-2

Climb

0.15 .15 .15

Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied Varied

Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Airfoil 27 (b) Airfoil 27 (a)

at cz R

cruise against

GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -] GA (W)-] GA (W) -2 GA (PC) -1

Climb Cruise

.15 .15 .15 .15

Z/d c z R Z/d c Z R

at

climb

Climb

0.15 .15 .15

Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Airfoil 28(b) Airfoil 28(a)

against at cruise

CA (w)-]
GA (W) -2 GA (PC) -] GA (PC) -] GA (W) -] GA (W) -2 Climb Cruise

.15 .15 .15 .15

against

/d cZ

aga in st

GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W)-] GA (W)-2 GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W)-] GA (W)-2 GA (PC)-] GA (PC)-] GA (W)-I GA(W)-2

Climb Cruise

0.15 .15 .15 .15

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

10 6

Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 29 (b) Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 29 (c) _ Airfoil _ Airfoil 29(a)

Cl imb Cruise

.15 .15 .15 .15

Climb Cruise

.15 .15 .15 .15

__r_

Results Pressure distribution, theory/ experiment

Airfoil
GA(PC)-I GA(PC)-]

Config.
Climb Cruise

r Transition
Fixed Fixed

Variable

Figure

Type Type

of of

data data

30(a) 30(b)

(_,

c d, cm

and

GA (PC)-]

Climb

0.]5

4.0

106

Fixed

Type

of

data

3]

against

cz, theory/ experiment


i__

DISCUSSION

OF

RESULTS

Experimental

Results

Pressure pressure shown the the in Mach climb

distributions.for 7, 0.]5, and and the 8,

The

effects

of

angle and

of

attack

on

the

chordwise are x/c the = 106 0.05, for

distributions figures number and 6, is landing

climb,

cruise,

landing is 6.0 is

configurations fixed x 106 at 4.0 for

respectively. the Reynolds and

Transition number approximately

approximately

configurations

cruise

configuration.

Most peak and the on

of

the

load

is

carried at the

on nose is

the

forward not than

portion exceed those and A

of -5.5

the for

airfoil, any of as

and the that

the three

pressure

coefficient This peak

does less

configurations. ]7-percent-thick 21-percent-thick the flap of

value

for about

the the

]3-percent-thick same load In of is load of for

general-aviation airfoil. climb of the the upper (See

airfoils ref. 4.) as indicated of the

small in a The

positive figure of results 6.

is

carried turshow for on = 6o), of landand angles of

the

configuration, is airfoil surface than about trailing ]2 . near on of the

shown by edge. climb A small

general, constant figure carried (e rest the separated

bulent pressure that angles the and the ing the flap

trailing-edge upstream flow on of attack of the no for the

separation

region

nearly the is attack of flap

configuration negative angle portion 7,) _ climb is The

greater cruise load larger carries

configuration is carried

the flap

design and rear fig. of the

virtually airfoil

the of

angles more edge 0 .

attack. than the fig.

(See that upper 8.)

configuration flow near greater the than

load of (See

configuration, for

trailing about

surface

separated

attack

A the lift near most utes lift tion NASA

comparison GA(PC)-] The nose its load data of load over

of

the

pressure and the

distributions NASA climb higher GA(W)-] lift

for airfoil

the

climb is shown for

configuration in figure 9 peaks carries

of for

airfoil near show the on NASA the the The the

coefficients the of the

design GA(PC)-]

coefficient The NASA the are the NASA of

the

NASA

GA(PC)-]

airfoil.

somewhat

upper-surface

negative GA(PC)-] GA(W)-I flow

pressure airfoil airfoil separation pressure

airfoil. portion, while

forward chord. recovery

distribat this

Both

airfoils of of 14).

free

coefficient. for the NASA

portion is (ref.

upper-surface type,

distribuyields distribu-

GA(PC)-I

airfoil

the

concave The

which

usually

low-drag,

abrupt-stall

behavior

upper-surface

pressure

tion of the NASA GA(W)-] airfoil exhibits a reduced pressure gradient in the mid-chord region which is followed by a nearly linear pressure recovery. This type of pressure distribution results in soft stall behavior at higher angles
of attack (ref. ]). Lift.on and the prior when (M from from = the Shown in figures between smooth ]0, the (natural ]5, section and 20 lift at over are the effects of c z Mach the Reynolds and the In number angle cruise, general, range are ]5(a) varies changes by section the further lift of is small of

relationship _ for the

coefficient transition) several most in In of the

attack

boundary-layer

climb, numbers.

landing dependence to they 0.]5), about

configurations, of occur, the 0.]] Over for which cZ The and on the _

respectively, is stall slope to ]06 range 0.]2 to 9.0 of linear from is for per

angle-of-attack range and ]0(a)

stall. do

deviations

linearity abrupt. the ]06, climb The

prestall

figures cruise is the about 2 as

lift-curve per the these maximum ]0(b) 9.0 lift shown above degree 2.0 x same two lift

and as

configurations number unchanged maximum 0.3 the and

degree

the slope

Reynolds

approximately

increases. coefficients attack Reynolds slope, lift at

Reynolds

numbers, increase about

configurations occurs ]5(b) ]06 does increase (M or 20(b) =

angles number

Reynolds the at

increased. the occurs.

Figures number maximum As

and x

0.20) the

illustrate affect of attack

that

increasing lift-curve which maximum for

the

not

appreciably angle 0.]5),

coefficient, in figure from from

(M

the degree 2.0

lift-curve to ]06

slope

the

landing as the

configuration Reynolds number

varies varies

about 0.]0 per approximately The about 3

about 0.]] _er degree to 9.0 x ]0 v, and the coefficient attack at is increased

slope is unchanged by further for the landing configuration which over maximum this lift occurs

increases. increases about

maximum 0.4 and as the

section lift the angle of number

increases

Reynolds

range.

In against Only for

figures _ the for

]], the largest For

]6, Mach

and

2], climb, number

the

effects M

of and =

Mach landing 0.35,

number is slope at which the

on

the

curves are of Mach

of

c z

smooth

cruise, tested, the and

configurations effect the

shown. number lift occurs

significant. coefficient is decreased

this

Mach

number, slightly,

lift-curve the angle

and

maximum lift

are increased about ]o

maximum

shown ness those shown ber

The effects of for the climb strips with in trends applied the figures for on model ]4 the Cz,max,

Reynolds number on the relationship of c I (fig. 12) and cruise (fig. ]7) configurations at x/c = 0.05. This where cruise in figure These conclusion the effects effects can of are also essentially be drawn on smooth. and climb ]9, and

to

_ with the

are roughsame as the results numof as CZ,ma x

from the

roughness are

Reynolds Effects

configurations 25(a), are

compared.

roughness

shown

configuration

dependent

well as Reynolds occurs for the

number dependent. The greatest climb and cruise configurations

effect of roughness on at low Reynolds numbers.

The landing ures ]3, observed

effects

of

Mach

number with

on

the

lift fixed

curves at x/c

for =

the 0.05

climb, are

cruise, shown in from

and figthose

configurations ]8, for and the 22, smooth

transition

respectively. configurations.

These

effects

differ

very

little

]0

In figure 23, the effects of roughness on the landing configuration are shown. In addition to the data obtained with a roughness strip at x/c = 0.05, data are shown which were obtained with the standard NACA roughness (number 60
grit lower the distributed surfaces). standard lift occurs The NACA between The the effect leading of is about 4 . of 17 the NASA and GA(W)-I the numbers three 2.0 airfoil (which has of percent) ]06 , by respecat GA(PC)-I greater between same Note angle that x/c = 0.08 airfoil. than the of the occur The abrupt lift and a a the the edge and x/c strip The angle = 0.08 is on the but upper the and effect the maximum of roughness small, roughness appreciable. 0.4 and the latter of roughness at which reduced the

maximum lift

coefficient by at least

attack

section

characteristics ratio airfoil of 24

thickness-to-chord NASA are 6.0 light tively. for The those attack angles for stall than the the GA(PC)-I compared ]0 6 . in These

percent) a the Reynolds are during with at

configurations ratio of 16 ]06 , 4.0

(which for

has

thickness-to-chord

figure

Reynolds

numbers

approximately landing, roughness climb,

those and the

encountered cruise,

general-aviation These NASA data GA(W)-I slope NASA for between attack at were

airplane obtained and NASA airfoil for GA(PC)-I the

strips for is

applied NASA

x/c

0.05 airfoil The

lift-curve for are of the

GA(W)-I

slightly

configurations. and 0.5 the cruise when climb are NASA the and about flow cruise the

differences at attached. design as lift intended is the

coefficients

the

climb and

configurations is

0.4

which

coefficients ((x = much 6.]o). more

NASA

GA(PC)-I of the each NASA

airfoil of the

same

behavior that of

GA(PC)-I (See

configurations fig. 24.)

GA(W)-I

airfoil.

The measured figurations number the bers tively, values number the NASA NASA from of

effects for the of 0.]5, GA(PC)-] 2.0 for for

of NASA

Reynolds GA(W)-]

number and lift increase

on NASA

the

maximum

section and figure three

lift for 25.

coefficients the At three a Mach of numrespeccon-

GA(W)-2 are

airfoils shown for in all in of the 2.l,

the the

NASA

GA(PC)-I

airfoil

maximum

coefficients substantially and and NASA reach cruise GA(W)-2 of 2.0 x

configurations of Reynolds 1.5,

airfoil 106 to 9.0

range 1.8,

]06

values

and

the the

landing, NASA and GA(W)-]

climb, and

configurations. airfoils ]06 , the NASA ].6, are

The both landing GA(W)-I

corresponding 2.]. At a Mach of configuration

of

0.]5 GA(PC)-I have

a Reynolds airfoil lift and

number the

fixed-geometry of 1.7,

and

NASA

GA(W)-2

airfoils

maximum

coefficients

and

].7,

respectively.

GA(W)-] the 2.0

Addition of airfoil, 106 . The

roughness the cruise of of effect

strips decreased configuration the adding NASA GA(PC)-I roughness

of

Cz,ma x the NASA airfoil is

performance GA(PC)-I at a negligible

for the NASA airfoil, and number for the of NASA

climb

configuration

Reynolds

strips

GA(W)-2 Reynolds of 4.0

airfoil, the landin_ configuration number of 4.0 10 , and the climb x 106 and 6.0 ]06 .

of the NASA configuration

GA(PC)-I airfoil at a at Reynolds numbers

Pitchin@ show not that affected to the

moment.section appreciably

The

data

for

the

climb

configuration for has 8. value a this value As of the the

(figs.

10

to

14) is from is

pitching-moment by angles angle of the of

coefficient attack less angle, and than the negative.

configuration in the range of

-0.045 increased moment

-0.030 above

for 8

attack stall

angle section the

attack pitching-

toward increases

coefficient

but

remains

Increasing

Reynolds II

number to a value of 9.0 x ]06 has the effect of decreasing the pitching-moment coefficient of the climb configuration slightly. The section pitching-moment coefficient is essentially independent of Reynolds numberswith values greater than 9.0 x ]06. The pitching-moment coefficient of the climb configuration is insensitive to Machnumber, except for the two largest values (M= 0.28 and 0.35) and angles of attack near stall. Under these conditions, the effect of the Mach number is to increase the value of the section pitchingmomentcoefficient toward zero. Roughnessstrips increase the value of the section pitching-moment coefficient slightly. The data
tion dependence and has a on value number configuration. section is for the cruise coefficient of attack 0.035 and The in and Mach configuration for the this range in (figs. ]5 to ]9) has 0 to show no the that the secpitching-moment angle configuration from this _ = appreciable stall range. as those the of value This angle The the of

between effects

0.055 number of

angle-of-attack are the same

Reynolds climb the

effects roughness of the

addition

strips cruise

decreases configuration.

pitching-moment opposite to that

coefficient found for the

effect

climb

configuration.

The section -0.]20 from cient it did larger. roughness -8 of

data

for

the

landing

configuration increases and -0.065

(figs. from as the the section with but range increase

20 a

to value

23)

show

that

the and

pitching-moment to a to the Mach and value the between stall

coefficient -0.080 In angle. configuration and has cruise no NACA of effect

between of attack

-0.]30 is

angle

increased coeffinumber is strip as

general, decreases

pitching-moment Reynolds of of standard the zero

landing climb number the

increasing the the amount The value tested.

for

the

configurations, in the roughness the landing

decrease section as they

standard

pitching-moment did for the climb

coefficient configuration.

configuration

toward

The GA(W)-] NASA 0.05,

attached-flow airfoil and airfoil the

section landing, have (See

pitching-moment climb, of the and order

coefficients cruise of -0.], -0.],

for

the of

NASA the and

configurations

GA(PC)-]

values fig. 24.)

-0.03,

respectively.

Drag.(natural figures number number x/c from = ]0, range on 0.05 2.0 x

The ]5,

effects and 20, from and in 6.0

of climb,

Reynolds cruise, 2.0 x ]06

number and at to

on several

the

drag Mach

polars numbers.

for are

the

smooth in

transition) extends climb shown to a

landing 20.0

configurations ]06 . with The effects

shown Reynolds at range

respectively,

The of fixed number Reynolds greater number

Reynolds

the ]06 for

cruise figures ]06 .

configurations ]2 In and ]7 for drag For with general,

transition Reynolds as numbers Reynolds

are

the

decreases Reynolds

number than is small.

increases about 9.0

given

lift decrease

coefficient. in drag

]06 , the

increasing

In for the numbers Mach at x/c

figures smooth of 4.0 on x

]], climb,

]6,

and

2], and

the

effects 4.0 x

of

Mach

number

on are

the shown The ]3,

drag for

polars Reynolds of 22

cruise,

landing

configurations

]06 , 6.0 three

]06 , and configurations numbers

]06 , respectively. are shown roughness in the drag in figures strips

effects ]8, and at of for

number the = same 0.05.

these

respective There are

Reynolds very as

with

applied

slight the Mach

increases number

coefficients The results

the the

roughened ]2

configurations

increases.

smooth configurations show the sametrend. However, for lift coefficients near the design values, the variation of the drag coefficient with Mach number for the smooth climb and cruise configurations is larger than that for the roughened configurations. Apparently the drag reduction due to the presence of
regions number. lence of laminar is of flow probably tunnel on a the smooth model decreases due to with increasing in the Mach turbuThis level wind-tunnel increasing effect dynamic increases (ref. the with pressure 15).

The numbers

effects from 2.0 of band of 0.4, strip

of are x the of 0.9. the

adding shown 106 to in

roughness figures x ]06 . rough 6.0 and

strips ]4, The ]9,

to and

the 23,

climb,

cruise, in

and for the

landing Reynolds drag occur climb

configurations

respectively, differences

greatest of

coefficients for a broad value near

smooth lift The design

versions

the

climb centered

configuration about the

coefficients greater value the The to drag increase that caused

approximately differences for

design occur

the

cruise for landing

configuration cruise. Adding a for rough-

of

the

lift

coefficient of the

roughness all ness lift strip

increases

coefficient in drag by

configuration by this

coefficients. is comparable

coefficient the standard

caused NACA

roughness.

The airfoil airfoil for cient

drag with with

coefficients roughness roughness numbers climb As

for strips strips

the added added x ]06 is drag

three at at to

configurations x/c x/c 6.0 = = 0.05 0.08 ]06 . lower landing and are In than

of for

the the

NASA NASA in the

GA(PC)-] GA(W)-] figure drag 24

compared

Reynolds of the

from

2.0

general, that of

coefficonthan

configuration the

slightly of the

the is

cruise larger

figuration. that of the

expected,

configuration

other

configurations.

The the are climb

variations and cruise in

with

Reynolds

number at of

of the the

the

section

drag design and

coefficients lift NASA number of 6.0

of

configurations, 27 with of presented for Reynolds those the

respective NASA with 28. airfoils from 2.0 GA(W)-]

coefficients, GA(W)-2 of the airsec-

compared Similar lift-drag ratio in

figure

foils. tion drag

comparisons ratio lift 29 are for

variations in figure these

Reynolds The

variations fixed to 106

the ]0 6 .

liftare For

with

coefficient

with

transition

compared the R =

figure

numbers the of NASA the and The

same design 4.0 ]06),

climb conditions as the lift-drag ratios NASA are GA(PC)-] about 78 airfoil and 76.

GA(PC)-] airfoil climb configuration of the ]7-percent-thick the

(c Z s 0.9, of the NASA

]6-percent-thick GA(W)-] NASA R = the the The drag NASA fig. NASA ratio airfoil

value

for

]3-percent-thick 0.4, of for

GA(W)-2 airfoil 6.0 x ]06), the NASA NASA climb ratio GA(W)-2 29.) GA(PC)-] at about At GA(PC)-] GA(W)-]

is about lift-drag are

88. At the design ratios of the climb about 43 and 40, are

cruise conditions (c Z = and cruise configurations The 47, the NASA x 6.0 ratios

airfoil and NASA of values at

respectively. about 38 and

GA(W)-2 the of NASA the of NASA

airfoils GA(PC)-] lift numbers 2.0

respectively. maximum GA(W)-] ]06 . of liftand (See the

configuration at larger airfoils a Reynolds airfoil the same

airfoil of 4.0 x

obtains than ]06 climb obtain the and

coefficient ]06 , the airfoil

Reynolds number

configuration the maximum

and

the lift

GA(W)-2

lift-drag

coefficient.

]3

Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Results Experimental pressure distributions obtained with fixed transition are compared in figure 30 with theoretical pressure distributions calculated with the method of reference ]6 for viscous attached flow. This viscous-flow method is composedof a potential-flow treatment and an integral boundary-layer treatment. A surface vortex singularity method is used in the potential-flow treatment. In figures 30(a) and (b), the experimental results for the climb and cruise configurations are comparedwith the results of the viscous-flow method for M = 0.]5 and _ = 6 . At this angle of attack, the section lift coefficients for these configurations are near the design values of 0.9 and 0.4, respectively. The Reynolds number is about 4.0 x 106 for the climb configuration and 6.0 x ]06 for the cruise configuration. The agreement between experimental and theoretical pressure distributions is good. Comparisons between experiment and theory are not madefor the landing configuration because the flow on the upper surface of the flap is separated for all angles of attack of interest. The experimental aerodynamic characteristics for the climb configuration with transition fixed, at the conditions M = 0.]5 and R = 4.0 x ]0 _, are compared in figure 3] with the theoretical results of the viscous, attachedflow method of reference ]6. The theoretical predictions for the section lift coefficient agree well with experimental data for angles of attack where there is no flow separation (up to about ]0). In general, the levels for the section pitching-moment coefficient obtained from theory and experiment are in fair agreement for lift coefficients less than about ].0. However, the theoretical method predicts a slight decrease in the pitching-moment coefficient with increasing lift coefficient, whereas the experimental results show a slight increase. In the lift-coefficient range where there is attached flow (cz < ].]), the theory generally predicts the shape of the drag polar. However, the values for the section drag coefficient are overpredicted. CONCLUDING REMARKS Tests have been conducted in the Langley low-turbulence pressure tunnel to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of the climb, cruise, and landing configurations of a ]6-percent-thick variable-geometry airfoil designed for general-aviation applications (NASA GA(PC)-]). These tests were conducted over a Machnumber range from 0.]0 to 0.35, a chord Reynolds numbero range from 2.0 106 to 20.0 10_, and an angle-of-attack range from -8 o to 20 . The test data were co[nparedwith the test data for the fixed-geometry NASA GA(W)-] and NASAGA(W)-2airfoils and with the predictions of a theoretical method. The following results were determined from this investigation: ]. Maximum section lift coefficients increased substantially at a Machnumber of 0.]5 in the Reynolds number range from 2.0 ]06 to 9.0 x ]06 for all three configurations and reached values of approximately 2.], ].8, and ].5 for the landing, climb, and cruise configurations, respectively. These values compare to a value of approximately 2.] for the fixed-geometry NASA GA(W)-] and
]4

NASA GA(W)-2 airfoils. At a Machnumber of 0.]5 and a Reynolds number of 2.0 ]06 , the NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil landing configuration has a maximum lift coefficient of ].7 comparedto ].6 and ].7, respectively, for the NASA GA(W)-] and NASA GA(W)-2 airfoils. Stall characteristics were of the
trailing-edge GA (PC)-] type but were abrupt for all three configurations of the NASA airfoil.

2. cruise about

The

design

section

lift

coefficients were

of obtained

0.9

and at

0.4 the

for

the angle

climb of

and attack,

configurations, 6 , as intended.

respectively,

same

3. ing, order

At

a Mach and

number cruise

of

0.] 5,

the

pitching-moment of the NASA

coefficients GA(PC)-] airfoil

of are

the of

landthe

climb, of 4.

configurations and 0.05,

-0.], The the the

-0.03,

respectively. ratio is with about 78 for the fixed climb near configurathe = is leading

section NASA design =

lift-drag

tion edge

of at

GA(PC)-] climb 4.0

airfoil condition ]06). The with

transition lift

(section section transition lift

coefficient ratio near the =

0.9, about 42 edge

Reynolds for at the the

number cruise design number Predictions showed

lift-drag fixed

configuration cruise = 6.0 condition ]06).

leading 0.4,

(section

coefficient

Reynolds 5. method

obtained good

with

a viscous, with

attached-flow experimental

theoretical results.

generally

agreement

Langley National Hampton, October

Research Aeronautics VA 25, 23665 ]978

Center and Space Administration

]5

REFERENCES I. McGhee,Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Low-SpeedAerodynamic Characteristics of a 17-Percent-Thick Airfoil Section Designed for General
Aviation Applications. NASA TN D-7428, ]973.

2.

Wentz, System ]974.

W.

H., for a

Jr.; High

and

Seetharam,

H. General

C.:

Development Aviation

of

a Fowler NASA

Flap CR-2443,

Performance

Airfoil.

3.

Wentz, a High

W.

H.,

Jr.:

Effectiveness Fowler Flap.

of

Spoilers CR-2538,

on

the 1975.

GA(W)-I

Airfoil

With

Performance

NASA

4.

McGhee,

Robert

J.;

and

Beasley, of

William an

D.:

Effects Low-Speed TM X-72843, GA(W)-2 and ]0%

of

Thickness of

on

the

Aerodynamic for 5. Wentz, General W. H., 25%

Characteristics Aviation Jr.: Wind

Initial NASA

Family ]976. Airfoil Slot-Lip

Airfoils

Applications. Tunnel Flap, 30% Tests Fowler

of

the Flap,

With

20%

Aileron, NASA

Slotted 1977.

Spoiler.

CR-145139,

6.

Morgan, istics Airfoil

Harry of

L.,

Jr.;

and

Paulson,

John With Systems.

W., Two

Jr.: Advanced NASA for

Aerodynamic General D-8524,

CharacterAviation ]977. Air-

Wing-Body and

Configuration Simple Flap

Sections W.:

TN

7.

Chen,

Allen

Advanced

Technology Aircraft

Airfoils

General

Aviation

craft. Aircraft pp. ]-]2.

Experimental Theory and

Symposium: Western

Homebuilt Periodicals

Experimental Co., c1975,

Practice,

8.

Peterson, Subsonic

John

B.,

Jr.;

and NASA

Chen, Tech

Allen Brief

W.: B75-I0256,

Design

Procedure

for

Low-Drag

Airfoils.

1975.

9.

Schlichting, Hill Book

Herman Co.,

(J.

Kestin, c1955.

transl.):

Boundary

Layer

Theory.

McGraw-

Inc.,

10.

Ormsbee, mized pp.

Allen for

I.;

and Lift

Chen,

Allen

W.:

Multiple AIAA J.,

Element vol. 10,

Airfoils no. 12,

OptiDec. ]972,

Maximum

Coefficient.

1620-1624.

II.

Von

Doenhoff,

Albert

E.;

and

Abbott, Pressure

Frank

T.,

Jr.: NACA

The TN

Langley ]283, ]947.

Two-

Dimensional

Low-Turbulence

Tunnel.

12.

Braslow, tion Layer of

Albert Critical

L.;

and Height at

Knox, of

Eugene Distributed

C.:

Simplified Roughness 0 to 5.

Method Particles

for for

DeterminaBoundary-

Transition R. & C.;

Mach

Numbers D. W.:

From

NACA

TN

4363,

1958. Sir Isaac

13.

Pankhurst, Pitman

and Ltd.

Holder, (London),

Wind-Tunnel

Technique.

Sons,

]965.

14.

Smith, June

A.

M.

O.: pp.

High-Lift 50]-530.

Aerodynamics.

J.

Aircr.,

vol.

12,

no.

6,

1975,

16

]5. Dryden, Hugh L.; and Abbott, Ira H.: Tunnels. NACA Rep. 940, ]948.

The Design of Low-Turbulence Wind

]6. Smetana, Frederick 0.; Summey, elbert C.; Smith, Neill S.; and Carden, D Ronald K.: Light Aircraft Lift, Drag, and Moment Prediction - A
Review and Analysis. NASA CR-2523, ]975.

]7

TABLE

I.-

MEASURED

COORDINATES

FOR

NASA

GA(PC)-]

AIRFOIL

(a) Main

section

Upper

surface

Lower

surface

x/c
0.0002 .005] .0096 .0] 47 .0248 .0350 .0502 .0600 .0750 .0998 .]496 . ]997 .2497 2998 .3498 .3998 .4498 .4999 .5496 .5998 .6500 .6998 .7499 .7995

z/c
0.000] .0]59 .0238 .0306 .0407 .0488 .0584 .0637 .0705 .0794 .0910 .0969 .0990 .0994 .0980 .0949 .0910 .0858 .0793 .0718 .0640 .0556 .0463 .0364

x/c

z/c

0.0048 .0099 .0]47 .0253 .0352 .0503 .0597 .075] .0999 .1500 .2000 .2498 .3000 .3498 .400] .4501 .5002 .550] .6007 .6503 .7004 .7505 .8006

-0.0203 -.0276 -.0322 -.039] -.0433 -. 0475 -. 0493 -. 05] 4 -.0534 -.0556 -.057] -.0584 -.0598 -.06]] -.0623 -.0632 -.063] -.06]8 -.0597 -.O558 -.0488 -.0382 -.0258

]8

TABLE

I.-

Concluded

(b) Flap

Upper

surface

Lower

surface

x/c

z/c
Climb

x/c
configuration 0.8507 .9008 .9509 .9909 ] .0000 configuration 0.8485 .8970 .9456 .9845 .9933 configuration 0.8506 .9005 .9504 .9907 ].0000

z/c

0.8498 .9003 .9503 .99]0 ].0000

0.026] .0]53 .0044 -.0043 -.0067 Cruise

-0.0206 -.0]67 -.0] 28 -. 0098 -. 009]

0.8396 .89] 2 .9422 .9830 .9930

0.0326 .0309 .0290 .0275 .0268 Landing

-0.0]32 -.0006 .0]2] .022] .0244

0.858] .9060 .9528 .9908 ] .0000

0.0]80 -.00]4 -.0205 -.036] -.040]

-0.0280 -.0328 -.0377 -.04]7 -.0425

)9

/ / /
/

Cruise

Climb

Landing

Figure

].-

Profiles

of

cruise, NASA

climb,

and

landing

configurations

of

GA (PC)-]

airfoil.

2O

08 Ti _i!r ........ IIHI :::r:;;:il il!ll

!_Ii i
ii]

Li

. li 06
_' llttl .....J1i _

t_

zt/c

.04
ttt tM

_ ....... i_ i!
,_,

_! _ ::_I HH .... ....

_iiii

tt!!_ ........
[H

H'H IM' IiH! IiI!

02

-H _
-_

" ,_i_ iiilIl?I, iiil iill II_llIIillliii_iii


_ FT

Thickness

distribution

,--+,++_--.+_ Itttltttf:_HHMH
..... ittt ..........

Ht H LX
LI

::

0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8

7
x/c
;?t _' !I

N
1.0

!!!
_t

_!
_

_H

}H
t;i
:M-4

Zc/C
_ M; + ..

HI N
1.0

x/c
Figure 2.Thickness distribution and mean lines for NASA GA(PC)-I airfoil.

21

L-75-57] Figure 3.NASA GA(PC)-] airfoil climb configuration.

22

Tunnel

side walls

....

Airflow

-I
I

/-_

Circular plate---_

./.
.

\
:_

z...-___.,.o,,
_

_o.,,on,,
attachment

Model-attachment Seal -_ detail "z" S plate

-7
Tunnel center line

__ Zero

incidence

reference

c/4

End

view

,section

A--A

Figure

4.-

Typical

airfoil mounted in wind tunnel. All dimensions of airfoil chord, c = 61 cm (24 in.).

in

terms

23

IO

.042c Sfatic- pressure probe i_,[_... Rad =0.02]c i _-,25c ----_


I

1t I

_t___
.042c---

L ---F
,02 (typ.) Static-pressure probes -____ ic

--__L
-.OIIc (typ.) Airflow _ Tunnel 1,17c

L --V
i .0052 (typ.) c

Total-

pressure

probes }

(tubes

flattened

(typ.I

Figure

5.-

Wake

survey

rake. c =

All 6]

dimensions cm (24 in.).

in

terms

of

airfoil

chord.

24

-5.6

o o O A

a -q.0 0.0 q.! 5.9 8.4


__ O G

q -.2t0 .2_0 .690 .880 1.150


[] [] O _ A ,'_

r.d .0097 .0101 .0!03 .0114 .Ol_O


t,, Upper _ Lower

cm -.038' -.03q9 -.03_0 -,0330 -.0310


mr[ace surface

- .q

-q .n

-2.8

-2 .q

Cp

.1

.2

.3

.q

.5

.6

.7

.8

,9

1.0

x/c
(a) _ = -4 0 , 0.0 , 4.1 5.9 , and 8.4

Figure for R _

6.clfmb 4.0

Effect

of

angle

of

attack Transition

on

chordwise fixed at

pressure x/c =

distributions 0.05; M = 0.]5;

configuration. x ]06.

25

-5 .I

h. 8.q r',12.0 o 15.1 o 18.1 \


Ix
-q .t

i.l 0 1.q90 1.680 1,220

q:[ .OlqO .0172 .030q

Cm -.0310 -.02_q -.01_2 -.0q52

th r_

c_ _

0 _

Upper Lower

surEace ntrEace

-q .(

-3 .!

-3.2

-2.8

Cp

-! .6

< \

-1.2 -'_] k <

-.q

1.2 0 .5 x/c .6 .7 .6 .3 [.0

]2.0 , ]5.] Figure 6.Concluded.

and

]6.]

26

-5.6

-5.2

o [] O A

-q.8

0.0 -.280 4.0 .170 6.2 .810 8.0 .620 11.9 1.050

.0097 .0098 .0098 .0099 .0135

.0564 .0554 .0549 .0535 .0510

-4._

0 o <> z_ _. Upper surface


[] <_ A _. Lower mrfa_

-4.0

-3.2

-2.8

-2 .q

F
,.

\
',,

Cp
-2.0

\
\

-1.8 "/
-1 ._ >

\'

-'_

J'--ib. _'J
i

,_ .<_-- <->_ '_] [-%

....

" __
1.; 0 .I .2 .3 .H .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

x/c
(a) e = 0.0 , 4.0 , 6.2 , 8.0 , and 11.9 .

Figure for R _

7.-

Effect

of

angle

of

attack

on

chordwise fixed at

pressure x/c =

distributions 0.05; M = 0.15;

cruise 6.0 x

configuration. 106.

Transition

27

-5.6 ll.3 -5.2 o o


r-,

7 1.0_0 1.260 1._20 1.070

Cd .0135 .0t79 .0389

cm .0510 .0501 .0_61 .0062

i4.0 16.3 17.0

-4 .,-1

c3

Ix 13 o I/_ _

o _

Upper Lower

surface surface

-tt -c

-34
................

-2.8

Cp -2.0

-I ._ --

F E

x/c
(b) _ = 11.9 , 14.0 , 16.3 , and 17.0 .

Figure

7.-

Concluded.

28

-5.6 0 -5.2 0 0 A -q.O 0.0 4.0 5-9 7.9 .260 .680 t.070 1.260 1.440 .0124 .0148 .0231 .0259 .0258 --1099 --1065 -.0994 -.0958 -.08tl

-q .q

o !_

o []

IXUpper

mrf_e

@ A

_-Lower_r_ce

-3.6

-3.2

Gp

x/c
(a) e = -4.0 , 0.0 o, 4.0 , 5.9 , and 7.9 .

Figure for R _

8.-

Effect

of

angle

of

attack

on

chordwise fixed at

pressure x/c =

distributions 0.05; M = 0.]5;

landing configuration. 4.0 x" ]06 .

Transition

29

-5 .B a

-5.2
IU

7.9 r_ 12.0 o 13.9 o 15 .':3

I. 0 1.800 i._i0 1.300

Cd .0258 .0237 .0338

Cm -.0911 -.08_4 -.0803 -.II_6

-q .8

D [h c_ 0 Upper Lower surface surface

-q .
)

h.

[hm

-_.{

-3 .B

I, \\

-2 .B

-2.4

Cp
-2 .D

\ \
k

-1 .B

1-P 0 I ._ .3 .[i .5 -6 .7 .8 .9 l.O

x/c
(b) e = 7.9 , 12.0 o, Figure 8.13.9 o, and 15.9 .

Concluded.

30

o 0 _._I..l -r.t

OD )13_ .,d ,..N 0 J []

I
A

vQ

0 0 []

[] 0 o [] [] D @

[] []

o,:n
0 _0 [] []

;d
,...I II 0

0 0 []

,.-t X _ .,.4 J

0 0 OE] []

[] E

o
_

-,-4 4.1 UI -,-t

e_

[]
I/1 -_.,I -,..I 0

DQ DO []
I/1

I..l

[] 0 0 0

[]

[] []

o (Zff] []

m_
_I 1.4

_ ,0t

I
I

[Ipt

IFI
GO I
Q,.

'F3 0

0 I

-r.t

31

co

32

:: "

"

--[ r

:: ....

::

: I .... I

..... " : : " "

T ::::;

, :::: :: {: :

_I:_1 lii:i :L::I i

i!t ::_t: 1:! i::, t::_.

i:::: b:tl: [L:il::G!7!_t_d_::::tY!!::ii:Ll_i_i:: li_i-t i_tH_fi S. !!_,f[!_._

o
',1

r"
-.-I 4-1

,=;
II

0 r,,,j I

,=;
v

14
.,-I

........ "__:_L_,'_ ,'-zth I_'t:t_: _ ,,,r, __' t:_: ,", _,_,i

_'_ :_ ..... _. t :: .I'd::

Oa

:_:_ :1:1 :::: v,_t _:::_:i,:[_ !i:i H

:LL: LiL: _

.......

.:,,:_:

,,,_ H,f! _, , +P:"' ili! _

013 OJ Od --(3

I"

--I

33

Od

q
od t

34

,'{:1

<:;
II

o
I

35

0
-P.t

t_
1+.4

0 13

0 0 _3
.P-I t_

_3 x m

=g
o_ O_

14-I

0 0
144

ip
14

or,,I

36

0 i I

37

0
-,-I

4J

0 0

(D 0

to too

.r-I .In L) 0

O ,-.t _ _ o N

O 'lJ N

.._ _

-_ .,--i

_
O

m
c-, _

o v,-i

_4

t_

(M

8_

38

,X
L_ . i::; L _:: ii ;_ ,ii:::i::_r;.: E
o

_._._-.,_li_,

I -_,. _;_i" iiI!i_

,g
II

Od I'

u_ 0 0

,"-t 0

M _

r_

g
Ill

0 m

,-! Q

g.l 0

i- _

_i i_i i _, ....._..____ _
[ M _M I

_- __i L -_,-i _ i _ ,
I o c_l 0d m --

O_

39

co

6-'

40

_:+:ii

:_ ::::;

" :::

::

:: ::

:'::: "_:::: ::!; ::I

o
d
0 0 r_ I

4
OJ

:!_l::i:

:;_::::

_ ::: ;_- ":;_ _."! t'.i_ !If _ _:_-:. i i

:_ _

_;:

! . *.4:

:iii-:_l _

i:/i_ ilM_i;:!:_,-xd_2 _ o :I: 2:::i:::

_ ! I } _ _ !-I_:: t::il::l!_l _iil::_::!li_lil F:I:::

x,i

(,,j

--

--

I"

41

8 _._ i_i_.___ .... ._ .... ._ _ _


0 E
0

F
0
-,'4 I"

Q
r_ Q)
-,"4

0 (J U_

q
0

0 oJ

-r,t

4-1 r_

N e.

,-'t 0 e" 0 0

0 I 4..1 114

a) t

d
_.1 (M --0

I'

I"

o i-i
.,'4

42

43

co

0 I

44

45

6
u .r-i

-J-I

or-I

1,4 ,._ X

e-, 0 m

1:i

_4

iIJ

,rq

0 I

46

0
o_

-,-I U_

0 0

0 u_

o_
,_ d
m II o

C,_

J"-

o II e., 0 o _ _ o

O'_J _
I_

N
.,-4

-,.4

g-I

0 o

I.i
or.4

47

f'

kL _ b_!:

Til

I J

4
0 t_

-i

i-:

*_-'_

L L__

_'1 I i:i!fl [I! : } !_ :

f
0
. I, [

S
I I " i....

Oo 0 x Q

S
S

.M

0 II 0 -,-i o

0'_ o -M

co

4_ 0

}!_

?F?T i ....

; .......

_ l=_,_= .-_
I

d .LL!_ i _i _! l _ I.._L_IL_ i_.: _I


o

i
o,] _1

i : !_' _ 1 .... _ H
-_ --

_i_!
I 1

-[

48

49

x o 0 rj

5O

0 I

51

A
.I.I

i
i: ::I ii;ft_ TN]!_t-!!t]iiit!_iitii_!f:ilEt_]ii i ff!_i_!t_iHi!:-+t!_!t!iii t
0
L)

:??? :

:?

;. :!_.i':!i??_'.-_t??!i?t?ii?

I
0,1

.,-I -IJ I..I

.-_-:

i.

::

i ii_:!_!i!-_i i:: _i ',:

i',i _}::i

;i-_{ :l_r)l,: _'_il;:::, !:,_ ::i:::: ::_{:::,!t!!i11!:. _{ !tl it:::i _:!7_:: Q


0

4J

:.::t:::

:::::- lii]__I::: ::it !_

:::

i_,_

;::

I-I

<g
II

-IJ

t,-I m o r_ to -H 4J L)

27 _: _ .....

f: _::::

ii :

= 0

.Q

0 4-1

"
_

"

i
i

!
i I

!
;

c_
I

g.4

r_
!

',D

od

oD

co

c_Jt

ea

od

8_

7
I1/ .,.t

r_ 52

.4
E) I| o = 0 U I (3 .Q
I-I

.PI

r_

53

0
r,4

0 o

0 D

_'
r'4 I_

fl) l.J o

0
.F-,I

0 4.1 tM I.M ! cN

-r.t

LO

0 I

GO I

oJI

-T

54

:_!_l!iiil
0

E
0

0
.,-_

O_
i_ _i I

0 o

e_

o
t--

0
0

4 _

o.
0 II

o
co

0 _ ,..t _

m O_ _ 0_

0
_..'1

_ _ 0

m 1.4 _

_4
,1

t_
-_..I

55

0 II

0
-,-'1

4.J

O"
-,-I

0 o', rO

,.-I u_l 0 o
.r-I

4-J

GJ 4-J

o
0 0 Od 0

,._ 0

0 0

I CN

0 od

CO

0 I

t_
or,,I

56

,&
,-I 0
I..I

I
A

"0 cO
i--,

I
A

k & d
II
O

I..l 0
X 0 i

<N II

I.) .el .i_

M g-I 0
.+,"4

or,l
v

e" Q 0
-,-I

.iJ i13 0 0 if) -,-i

4
tN tl)

57

d
iv i:l
-r-I 4.1 e'

0 u I

4
OJ I,,,4

.Pl

58

::::i:
":_.

_.'

i _

-i

I:::t:
_

::._

_' _t t_-:--1_ -I

_ :!:

" _

:!

t- : t_
I

_i; : ! ,i:i_ I
._ r:::l::

t I _-: o
L. 1. t tT

i:

i:_

:J

: .'_m_,p--_-.e_
i :: :

:::

:':

:::',::::E::

::

::H: :[ : :i I :i. i _ l.-_i!i_ ;_:I: i:,


:::,,i: : i_ ::::, :: ii!! -: ::: i::: ::: : I : !:_ !:[ : ::::: Lo : :F: : : : : ::: :: :if:':: :ii : : :i_;7:: :_!! _:: :::i _::: _"

:d_::9:,_f I

o.

4
1 _D 13 ,,H U
X Z::: ;i7 :1 :}:::7:;J_t.t ,::_ !:_" ::_:

0 U

:::

_f
r3

-_"t

r_
*tH O,J

! -z::U.....
:'"J": L:H-_ _:' :!::l::::

_.

o _i

_0 --

o_ --

cO

_.

'_I

m I'

_-T 7

59

0 X 0

M4 0

i
o_

::: _-, ,, ,_. ,_,_ ...... _ _ : _ _,_I . ____


ili_/;;'_l_ -_ t-1 iL --:: iLL] "0 0,,I

o
u_

_A
_d''-' [_1" II :; I'' _*'I : _| _ n n tl_ _ _ .... o

"_,_

_ _

t-_

:J, ..

__..__t :: 7

_. '-17-4---

<

(:3

< 0

< 0

< 0

< (.3

:,_.u_

aO_

o_
o u_ t-

II I o_._
A

.........

II

,, --'>.

--i_,-I

o_
4,.1
' N 0 :: ; oO / ' I I _ I _0 I r i ' ! !: _ L i _]_! [ _ :TT_I li i :7: _ .,_-! ! !t_ oO

,.i4

I 0
N

o 0

6O

0 x 0

d
Or" _i
o

e_

0 I

i7+_ i

!7 _l:_:_ ....

"''

:_r :'_1 -

',1
_ ] _ :

i .iJ i 11

[ i

'

_ _

--+

---

7-_ : 7
,

'L IL. _+t,, I imt_l,+_ I_+ ;L IA ti:: 4-+ :;._+lh,+l t++


t _ l I i I I

:,+!ii+=:_7,:!+5,52-2

!:-:

i iif_7-il::
+ .......... . +L471;-,-4 7 li lit+

L_+

:t:

iki:
_ +- +-4

tt_
c',,i

X 121

61

I1) "O

cr d
II

r,.) 0 U I

_4
CN
A

o,,t

62

pX

.i-I

_l*

.:,.4

d
0 r.I

o
g4 .r.I

! _ 0 A

o o

},-I

0
tM

o
0

x o

63

_D rB Q

r--I rJ

0
ol-I

_J ! (_1
aJ

4J C_ :3
_1

0 _J r_
o_-I 14

_J ..Q
v

64

7
A

<
x

_ 0 _4

u,.4 C 0

_ll

_t!

* ,

.... , ._t'

[i]
_'1 4.1 Om

II

tii.!
0
-,-I ['

!if_
I'

flH _!#_f!_W,.iiilf[iiiHtl!r_
'_ l' ; l{i ;i : i_[i li_ _] }:ci

e-

.o .,-# C 0
,4

!_L_

"

'

t7':

'

_:t,f I [i

i :7

<"
r-t

_4 ,,.4 _.I

_-,_

I; !

LI I

ill i i t _! D

_4

....
[H tiil !mi[t_i [1I
1_' ii

--._ _ _ _ _
Iit! tl iL
A_ 1l

I] 'i7I[I._iqlil]_

o [] o

ii
,H, _

-, ! 0"-"

t
It C=

I! _
N o
0

_ !
N

i-i
-r4

65

_:;

_ .._

0 .-I 4.-, ,,--i

0 r,_ I

66

'T
L_
v

-i.-I

0 0 ..IQ -,-I =:

II o
_

n_

o_-i ,a o L) ..Q
.,-_

,-I

4J o,-I 0

_i ,,I I I

UZ

0 0 !

,Z

r_

67

d
0 0

or

_
,.4

o
I

_
0 0 m

d
_ tlJ _

68

_ o.
Od
(-o
f f _

LD

J
f

co

I
IT_ it

Od
m

oo

I
Ii
1

1
L L I t ! i

q-

c_

0 0

0 (3O

0 LD

0 '<I"

0 od

69

,._,

0 r@

or-I

0
Od

70

d
0
_' 'a

d _

_
o

i d

.r-t

JL

0 o,..I

0 0

0 O0

0 qO

0 _

0 Od

71

-5.2 --<>-Upper surface Lower surface Theory

-L1.4

--U,.O

-3.6

-3.2

-2 .I

-2

.I

Cp -2 .i

-1 .I

-1.2

x.. ,....
-.4

"()"x

I
8 _, 1.2 0 .1 .2 .3 .u, .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 ....

./c
(a) Climb configuration, e = 5.9o; R _ 4.0 x 106 .

Figure

30.-

Comparison

of

experimental fixed at

and x/c

theoretical = 0.05; M =

pressure 0.]5.

distributions.

Transition

72

-5.6

-5.2 Upper surface Lower surface -4.8 Theory

-q .4

-.0

-3.2

-2.8

-2.4 Cp -2.0

-I .6

-1.2

-.8

-.4 I

I_

.I )_ 1.8 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 ,8 .9 1.0

._
(b) Cruise configuration. = 6.20; R _ 6.0 x ]06 .

Figure

30.-

Concluded.

73

o
,In

O_

I:

0 rj

_i;:_

,.!ii r

........ I .... __i


t:_t2_:] _ _I '_ ,:: ......

or4 _

o,-I i_

_::

_:

_,::_::::

:= _:_":_i_ll--_

:-:

:T

_;l:'if

!:

"

_4
(D

8=
4.1

.............

H,I:...... -, ,
o,-.I (_ 4..1

_d
I-1 O

II

N
e-, f/I! _ 'Hi!,PP <'i,L' iii i:HIt!i ]!I}!Ii: :}ff _}_!}-,_}iH_ '!tl .7,_L OJ ,.-4

Ii....... I

_:'. !::I

4-1

i11

_.,_
o_'-I

N I_ .... , , .,:i i_i::_-:-*_'_'" _ !'_,..::i


i iL_i :

_ ,,"4

lJi_iLii ::i_',l_:i;:_
_._lli_i ._;,i:i::

O _
:i
.:

:Jr ;!::

:=:L ii'k

,_

_t_!

]
I,i::

O !i" '::N_:.... h ..... TNc.


L/ill 1?: .: :: i:: II :i:J :i:_'

, _ _-- :p'-,.I ..... ::k_:

, ,,:i ......... %t!,

:,
r.j
I

i :':HIH_" o_ o oJ co -o_ -I I I
@ I.l

r_

74

1. Report No. NASA TP-1324

2. Government AVRADCOM TR 78-45

Accession

No,

3. Recipient's

Catalog

No.

4. Title and Subtitle LOW-SPEED AERODYNAMIC ] 6-PERCENT-THICK DESIGNED 7 Author(s) W. Barnwell, J. McGhee FOR

5 CHARACTERISTICS OF AIRFOIL APPLICATIONS 6 A

Report

Date 1978 Organization Code

December Performing

VARIABLE-GEOMETRY GENERAL AVIATION

8 Kevin W. Noonan,

Performing L-] 21 07

Organization

Report No

Richard and 9

Robert

Performing Organization Langley

Name and Addre_ Center

10 Work Unit 505-06-33-1 11 Contract

No. 0

NASA

Research and

or Grant No

Structures AVRADCOM Hampton, 12. S_nsoring National Washington,

Laboratory Research VA A_ncy 23665 13 Name and Address and Space Administration 14 Army Project No. 02AH45 DC 20546 and Aeronautics Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Paper and Technology Laboratories

1 LI 611 and Development Command

U.S. St. 15

Army Louis,

Aviation MO Notes W. Barnwell 63]66

Research

_pplementary Richard Kevin W.

and

Robert

J.

McGhee:

Langley AVRADCOM

Research Research

Center and

Noonan:

Structures

Laboratory,

Technology 16. Abstract Tests were

Laboratories

conducted

in

the

Langley of climb,

low-turbulence cruise, airfoil and designed over

pressure landing for a Mach 20.0 the 2.0 the x

tunnel

to

determine of a

the

aerodynamic ]6-percent-thick (NASA 0.35, attack ficients reached

characteristics

configurations general-aviation number x 106 maximum ]06 range , from

variable-geQmetry These Reynolds from -8 in tests number to 20 . the were range Test

applications 0.10 to

GA(PC)-]). a chord range

conducted

from 2.0 x ]06 to results show that number range and 1.5 from for

and an section 9.0 x

angle-oflift coef]06 and cruise

increased values of

Reynolds 2.1, Stall

to

approximately

1.8,

landing, of

climb, the

and

configurations, type, were abrupt. near of 0.4 for about 0.]5, the

respectively. The the and climb as section edge

characteristics, ratio 78 4.0 x at 106 of a . the lift

although climb

trailing-edge with 0.9, a fixed Mach of angle 0.9 of

lift-drag was number about of

configuration of

transition number and

leading a Reynolds and

coefficient lift at

Design obtained was

coefficients the same

cruise

configurations Generally, good of a

were

attack, experimental method.

6 , results

intended. and the

agreement viscous,

obtained

between theoretical

predictions

attached-flow

17. Key Words (Sugg_ted by Author(s)) Low-speed airfoil section Reynolds number effects comparison

18. Distribution Unclassified

Statement Unlimited

Experimental-theoretical General aviation aircraft GA(PC)-] airfoil

Subject 20, Security Classif. (of this _) 21 No of Pages 74 22 Price" $5.25

Category

02

Ig.

S_urity

Cla_if.

(of this re_rt)

Unclassified

Unclassified

For sale by the National

Technicallnformation

Service,

Springfield,

Virginia

22161 NASA-Lang]ey, 1978