Reproduction Quality Notice

This document is part of the Air Technical Index

[ATI] collection. The ATI collection is over 50 years
old and was imaged from roll film. The collection has
deteriorated over time and is in poor condition. DTIC
has reproduced the best available copy utilizing the
most current imaging technology. ATI documents
that are partially legible have been included in the
DTIC collection due to their historical value.
If you are dissatisfied with this document, please feel
free to contact our Directorate of User Services at
[703] 767-9066/9068 or DSN 427-9066/9068.

Do Not Return This Document

To DTIC

Reproduced

by

AIR DOCUMENTS DIVISION

/
,y..,*

HEADQUARTERS AIR MATERIEL COMMAND

WRIGHT FIELD, DAYTON, OHIO

Ji
K-..;i.:

J, W, fT ^

'<>..

US GOVERNMENT
IS ABSOLVED
FROM ANY LITIGATION WHICH MAY
ENSUE FROM THE CONTRACTORS IN FRINGING ON THE FOREIGN PATENT
RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE INVOLVED.

^V^V ;

f *,- V:,-* ,1. " ;V*". i,'"-!.- .-.IS' *".. -- "-. . >,-'i. '
'''^w*. -''

'**$>

':

i*

"\,-V'

'>-'".'^.'V

"?*-.. /..

^ftft^fk

fed? if^F- ;:

-v* V-'

"-V

5<t

.;*'

<.j,i"

:'.*

M CLASSIFIED
m$&&&.&'.3

v.-/*^;^

.-.;**;."^SiAi-- ;' -^.'^ .: ^a;-#

. * *:
:'%

-'#";,

fa

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL NOTK

ATI No. -?/?

No. 1299

EFFECTS OF MACH NUMBER AND REYNOLDS NUMBER

ON THE MAXIMUM LIFT COEFFICIENT OF A WING
OF NACA 230-SERIES AIRFOIL SECTIONS
By G. Chester Furlong and James E. Fitzpatrick
Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory
__JLangleyField, Va.
i\

r:
'* -.w

G0?Y

RETURN ;0
i

Spi-ciat Documtn s L^ra.ich - TS3WF--6

Wnghi Fislo B,ere:.i; Lb iry Section
Aij uoc iii.nis l-A-j ,h.,i - iiei'iiifliiLtf f [?)
WBH fulJ, Ujlon, Oiiio.

Washington
May 1947

RATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TECHNICAL MOTE NO. U99
EFFECTS OF MACH NOMHER AND REYNOLDS NUMBER
ON THE MAXIMUM LIFT COEFFICIENT OF A WING
OF RACA 230-SERIES AIRFOIL SECTIONS
By a- Cheater Fur3oxv and Janes E. Fitapetrick
SIMJARY
The effects of Mach number and Reynolds number on the maximum
lift coefficient of a wing of MCfi 230-nerIes airfoil sections are
presented- The ranges of Maoh number for the wind-tunnel teats were
frost 0-10 to 0-33 and from O.08 to 0-&7; the corresponding Reynolds
number ranges were from 1,530,000 to 4,530,000 and from 2,450,000
to 7,880,000, respectively.
The wine was tested with fuU -span ar.d partial-span split flaps
deflected 60 and without flapn. Leading-ed^e-roiifjhneea tests were
made with the flaps -re tracted ccniMguration- Sou chordwiae pressure distribution measurements were made for all flap configurations of
the modelThe results of the tests indicated that peek values of maximum
lift coefficient were obtalnod at relatively low free~etream Mach
numbers (approx. 0.20 for the flapts-deflected configurations and 0-25
to 0.30 for the flaps'retracted configuration) and occurred when the
critical pressure coefficient was reached on the upper surface of
the wing. The values of maximum lift coefficient wore increased
by increasing Reynolds number or deflecting the flaps, but in both
cases the critical pressure coefficient wan readied at lower freestream Mach numbers. After the critical Mach number had been
reached, tho value of maximum lift coefficient was appreciably
reduced and there wan an indication that beyond the critical
Mach number the effect of Reynolds number on 'he maximum lift becomes
markedly reduced. The value of maximum lift coefficient before the
critical Mach number was reached was almost entirely dependent on
Reynolds number, but even in the low Mach number range, Mach number
effects should not bo neglected. Any method, therefore, that 1B
utilized to predict Hi,.'hi values of maximum lift coefficient from
wind-tunnel data by accounting for a difference in Reynolds number
and neglecting any change in Mach number may civ erroneous results.

HACA TH No. 12P9

TJRROXOCTXOV

Estimates of flight values of maximum lift coefficient from windtunnel teets are usually made by accounting for the incremental
change In lift coefficient that results from differences in Reynolds
number. The effects of a variation of Reynolds number on the maximum
lift coefficient and the stall phenomenon are described In references
and 2 References 3 and h indicate that compressibility effects on
the maximum lift coefficient may occur at relatively low free-stream
Mach numbers (0.20) A knowledge of the Interrelated effects of
Mach number and Reynolds number on maximum lift coefficient is
Important in the interpretation of wind-tunnel test data, in flight
problems concerning airplane maneuvering psrforwmce, and in
propeller performance at high thrust conditions. Becaune of the
importance of Maoh number aa shown in references 3 and k, any
estimated flight values of maximum lift coefficient may be
questionable if only the difference In Reynolds number la taken
Into account. As data concerning these phenomena are incomplete,
the present testB have been made to explain further the effects of
Mach number and Reynolds number on the maximum lift coefficient of
a wing.
The present paper contains the results of teats made with a
wing of NACA 230-series airfoil sections in the Lanjjley 19-foot
pressure tunnel- The tests were conducted at tunnel pressures
of 14.7 and 33 pounds per square Inch absolute These tunnel
pressures gave Mach number ranges of 0.10 to 0 35 and O.08 to O.27.
The corresponding Reynolds number ranges were from 1,530,000
to k,530,000 and from 2,U50,O0O to 7,800,000, respectively. The
tests included force tests and chordwise pressure-distribution
measurements at six apanwlse stationsThe tests were made with the wing model equipped with full-span
and partial-span eplit flaps deflected 6o end without flaps. Da
addition, force tests were made with leading-edge roughness for the
flaps-retracted configuration.
There are included herein data from tests of this wing In the
Langley 16-foot high-speed tunnel, port of which data has been
published la reference 5SYMBOLS
Q?/8)

aepeot ratio

cross-sectional area of test section, square feet

HACA TN No. 1299

lift coefficient

(I./q E)

Kaximum lift coefficient

max
D

diameter of tunnel test section

I.

lift, pounds
free-stream Mach number

feet

(V0/a)

critical Mach number; free-utruam Mach number when

local Mach number lc 1.00
ore-iBure coefficient

er

(H*)

critical pressure coefficient; pressure coefficient

at a local Mach number of 1 00
free-utream Reynolds number

()

vlng area, square feet

free-stream velocity, feet per second
speed of sound, feet per second
elope of lift curve in compressible flow

(m

slope of lift curve in incompressible flow

a-

--

two-dimensional lift-curve slope

(nee reference 6)|

/dc,/da0\

wing span, feet

mean aerodynamic chord (M.A.C). feet IT I

.10
local chord, fe3t

cS dy 1

ittCA Tfl No. 12?9

chord of tip section

I
V
P0

section lift coefficient

local static preaoure, pounds per square foot
free-stream static recsure, pounds per square foot
pressure in Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel, pounds per
square inch absolute

"r,

free-stream dynamic; pressure, pound" per aquure foot

distance along local chord from leading edge, feet

lateral distance perpendlculur to root chord, feet

ft

angle of att-ick (wing root chord), degrees

section angle or attack, degrees

Vx

angle of attack at maximum lift coefficient,

decrees

coirpresslbility factor I i/l - M0

(/

flfip deflection

A/

degrees

Jet-fcoundary correction factor (reference 7)

p

mas density of air

clu :s per cubic foot

coefficient of viscosity of air, pound-seconds

per square foot
M3UET., APPARATUS, AND TESTS
Model and Apparatus

A three-view drewt nt; of the win; Is presented as f i.^ire 1 . All

pertinent geometric characteristics have teen incorporated in this
figure
The root section of the wing Is an IIACA 23OI6 airfoil
section and the construction tip is an NACA 23009 airfoil section The wing has a span of 12 feet, rn aspect ratio of 6. a taper ratio
of 2, an aerodynamic waehout of I (4" jjeometrii; washout), a dihedral
arwle of 0 , and sweeps*ck of 3.2 (one-quarter chord line).

NACA TN Mo, 1299

Inasmuch aa the wing was of rigid steal construction, no
appreciable amounts of deflection or twist were encountered during
the tests.
The split flaps tested had a chord 20 percent of the local
wing chord- The spans ot the full-span and partial-span flaps
were 99 percent and yf> percent of the wing span, respectively.
Both flaps were deflected 60 with the lower surface of the wing,
and the flaps were held in place by blocks. Figure 1 shows the
layout of the flaps
The leading-edge roughness was obtained by spraying finegrained carborundum (Mo. 60) on freshly applied shellac
The
roughness extended across the complete span over a surface length
of 8 percent chord measured along the win surface from the leading
edge on both the upper and lower surfaces
The model was mounted on the normal wing-support system of
the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel. (See fig. 2.) The tips of
these supports, or that part extending up from the support fairings,
were designed to duplicate those used in the tecte of reference 5The aerodynamic forced and moments were measured by a simultaneous recording six-component balance system.
The win contained 33 surface-pressure orif'ces at each of
the six epanwlse stations. Figure 1 shows the spanvise location
of the stations and a typical chordwise distribution of pressure
orifices. The pressure leads were nonducted internally to a pipe
protruding from the root-chord trailing ed,\se (fig. 1). Firm the
trailing edge, the pressure leads were taken to multiple-tube
manometers through a specially designed tube-transfer system.
This system, which is shown in figure 3, allowed continuous testing
through the angle-of-attack range without necessitating manual
adjustments. The tube - transfer system, however, did not allow
force tests to be made simultaneously with pressure measurements
and, consequently, force tests were made with the system removed.
During the force tests a short fairing cap covered the pipe
extending from the root-chord trailing edge.
Teats
Tests were conducted at two tunnel pressures of lb.7
and 33 pounds per square inch absolute. The ranges of Mach number
and Reynolds number thus obtained are
Tunnel pressure
(lb/sq in.)
_j

Mach number range

Reynolds number range

14.7

0.10 to 0.35

1,530,000 to It,530.000

33

O.08 to 0.27

2,450,000 to .7,880,000

NACA TN No. 1299

For convenience, tents made at tunnel pressures of ik.f *d 33 pounds
= 14.7 and p
33,
per square Inch absolute are desigu&ted

^19

19'

respectivelyTare tests were made for all model flap configurations at both
tunnel pressures. In addition, scale effect on tares was Investigated
for the flaps-retracted configuration. The result indicated no change
in tore through the Mach number and Reynolds number ranges obtainable
in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel.
Force tests were made through the tunnel-speed range at both
tunnel pressures for all flap configurations. Leading-edge-roughness
teste wore also mad at both tunnel preaauroo for the flapsretracted configuration. The forte tests at a tunnel preBaure
of 33 pounds per square inch absolute were made at speeds which
would produce either the same Mach numbers or Reynolds numbers ao
those of similar tests reported in reference 5.
A comparison of the maximum-lift-coefficient data obtained
in the two wind tunnels for the same test conditions was made.
A Langley 16-foot high-speed tunnel condition (Mach number
of 0.15 and Reynolds number of 2,450,000) was reproduced In the
I/angley 19-foct pressure tunnel at a tunnel pressure of I0.5 pounds
per square inch absolute
Chordvise-pressure-distribution measurements were made at
Plg 1 33 for v*lues of Mach number and Reynolds number obtained
in force tests.
Vleual observations of the stw.ll pattern were made by tuft
surveys at several tunnel airspeeds.
The wing was tested through an angle-of-attack range from-3.7
through the stall. A constant value of Mach number or Reynolds
number was maintained during a mn by proper adjustment of the
dynamic pressure to account for changes in temperature and pressure.
CORRECTIONS TO DATA
Force Teats
The lift coefficients have been corrected for support-strut
interference ts determined by tare tests.

iKGA m No. 1299

Tho angle of attack have teen corrected for air-stream
mloallnement and Jet-bound>ry effects. The air-stream mieallnement
was determined during tbe tare teste, and the jot-boundery
correction was determined \iy the following equation derived from
reference 8:
,JJO.

(--1f1) \e"-*:

This equation contains the angle-of-attack correction at the

lifting line for the case of a win.' with an elliptical spanwlse
load distribution and also an additional correction for the induced
streamline curvature. The torm has been introduced to account for
compressibility effects (reference 6). For the teets in the
Langley 12-foot pressure tunnel, a mean value of was found to
suffice and the correction to an^le of attack becomes 0-70C
Pressure Distribution
So corrections have been applied to the local values of stetlc
prespure. The local effects of the struts and wolle on these
pr9srures are assumed to be negligible. In tho computation of the
pressure coefficients, however, average dynamic preesura and freestream static pressure across the span have been u'ed.
RESULTS
The variation of Mach number w.'th Reynolds number obtained
from tests reported in reference 3 Of the seme wing an tested herein
Mid obtained at both tunuel pressures in the langley 19"foot
pressure tunnel is shown in figure b. All values of Reynolds
number have been bared on the mean aerodynamic chord of tiio wing.
The maximum deviations of Mach number an.l Reynolds number from the
curves for these testa in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel
are within values of M^j = tO-01 and * t20,000.
The 11ft-coefficient data obtained from force tetts in the
Langley 19-foct pressure tunnel are presented in fijure ?. This
fijure includes data for four confitjurationo, that ic, for flaps
retracted, for partial-span flap?, for full-span flapr, and for
flaps retracted with leading-edge roughness at both the Langley
19-foot pressure tunnel conditions.
A check run to determine the values of maximum lift coefficient

MAC/. T! Wo. 12?'.'

that would be obtained in the two tunnels under the same teat
conditions gave a value of maximum lift coefficient of 1-35,
ae compared with a velue of I.36 (reference 5) obtained in the
Langley 16-foot high-speed tunnel. This agreement was considered
satisfactory and Juctlfied any conclusions interpreted fx-oa the
results of both tunnels
The slopes of the lift curves for the flaps-retracted
configuration with and without leading-edge roughness and tho
Elopes corrected to incompressible-flow conditions by the method
of reference 6 are plotted against Reynolds number in figure 6.
The figure shows the applicability of the correction factor of
reference 6 in converting slopes of these lift curves from
compressible-flow conditions to incompressible-flow conditions.
After the correction factor had been applied **o the slopes, the
results from the T^an^ley 16-foot high-speed tunnel (reference 5)
and the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel vere in excellent agreement.
The maximum lift coefficients and correapoiidvj angles of
attack have been plotted against Mach number &nd Reynolds number
in figure 7, which also includes data obtained frcm reference 5The variations of maximum lift coefficient with Mach number and
Reynolds number for all model configurations and tunnel conditions
resemble those shown in reference for a wing of NftCA 0012 airfoil
section. Figure 7 shows that for each tunnel condition the
maximum lift coefficient increases with an increase in airspeed
K and M increasing (see fit;, k) - to a maximum or peak value,
after which the maximum lift coefficient decrease? with a further
increase in airspeed. The peck values of maximum lift coefficient
occur at Mach number- of approximately 0.20 for the fImps-deflected
confijj-urations and between O.25 ard 0-30 for the flaps-retracted
configuration. There vere no peak maximum lift coefficients for
the flaps-retracted leading -edge -roughness configuration iii the
Mach number ranges obtainable in the Lang.ley 19-foot pressure tunnel.
A comparison of the flaps-deflected configurations (figs- 7(b)
and ?(c)) with the flapti-retracted confi.-iurat-'oii (fig- 7(a)) at
similar tunnel conditions shows that flap deflection usuries the
peak maximum lift coefficients to occur at lover M.ch numbers. For
each model configuration a similar ccmpari&on between the two
tunnel conditions
pj-i = 33 and plt,, Ik.f shows.' that tho peak
maximum lift coefficients occur at lower Mach numbers for
than for

, = lU.7.

Sor of the chcrdwlse pressure-distribution data obtained

during the tests are presented for three cf the six spanwlse
stations in figures 8 to 12. Pressure-diatrlbut^in data were

. = 33

NAGA TM 'Jo. 129?

obtained In the Langley .19-foot pressure tunnel for only the tunnel
33 as sons atmospheric-pressure data were
condition p.
19'
available from tests in the Langley 16-foot high-speed tunnel.
The data are presented at the maximum angles of attack for several
values of Mach number and Reynolds number with flaps retracted and
deflected. A comparison was made of data from the Langley l6-foot
high-speed tunnel with data from the Langley 19-foot pressure
tunnel (p15< 33) at comparable values of either Mach number or
Keynolds number- As a result of the large pressure peaKs encountered
with flaps deflected, the pressure-coefficient scale has been reduced
from that used for the flaps-retracted configuration.
From the pressure-distribution data that were available from
tests of the wing in both tunnels, figure 13 has been prepared.
The peak pressure coefficients obtained for each section at the
maximum lift coefficient of the wing were first plotted against
the semlspsn to obtain the faired maximum value of peak pressure
coefficient on the wing; the maximum peak pressure coefficients of
the wing were then plotted against Mach number to obtain figure 13The figure is not so complete as would be desirable because of the
limited Mach nuniber range of the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel.
Tho res-Its of the visual stall studies are summarized in
figure 14 in which the stall progressions for the flaps-retracted
and flaps-deflected configurations are presented.
DISCUSSION
The significance of a variation of Reynolds number alone on
the maximum lift coefficient of an airfoil has been fully described
In reference 1 In which data are presented of testa conducted at
low free-stream Mach numbers (M 3O-08). T0 reiterate, the
effect of increasing Reynolds number is to cause an earlier
transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layer. The increased
turbulent boundary layer Is then capable of resisting separation,
and a higher angle of attack is reached before stalling occurs;
thus, an Increase in maximum lift coefficient Is obtained. Aa
pointed out in reference 2, the Reynolds number first affects the
lift of an airfoil at moderately high angles of attack. When the
Reynolds number has reached a value at which the entire boundary
layer has become turbulent, there is evidence that a further
increase In Reynolds number will not produce any increase in the
maximum lift coefficient.

10

NACA TN No. 1299

In the region of the critical Mach number

Mcr

a pronounced

change exists in the flow, hut whether an actual separation of flow

occurs seems to depend on both the type of airfoil involved and the
angle of attack at which the critical Mach number is reached.
When, as in the teste of the wing, a variation in Mach number
is accompanied by a variation in Beynolds number, the explanation
is not readily apparent. The most
for the variation of CT

max
significant point of the variation of

C,

with Mach number and

'max
Beynolds number is the peak value attained; hence, the determining
factor or factors of this point will be discussed first. The peak
values of C,
may be determined by the critical Mach number,
Tnax
by the Beynolds number at which the entire boundary layer Is turbulent,
or by both.
The maximum pressure peaks encountered in tests cf the wing have
been plotted against Mach number in figure 13. The curve of P_
cr
against Mach number Is also shown- The intersections of the curves
of maximum pressure coefficient with the curve of P
occur at
wer
free-stream Mach numbers at which the peak values of C. .
Tnax
obtained in force tests (fig. 7)- The probability Is Indicated that
the peak values of C.
for each tunnel condition occurred when the
critical Mach number had been reached. The possibility that the
Beynolds number at which the entire boundary layer is turbulent would
be reached in these tests is excluded. The effect of increasing
the magnitude of Beynolds number for a given Mach number, however,
by changing from the Langle.v l-foot high-speed tunnel condition
(reference 5) to the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel condition
of p
33 (oee fig. h) increased the peak pressure coefficients

19'

and, consequently,

CL

but reduced slightly the free-stream

max
Mach number (fig. 13) at which the peak value of

occurred.
Tnax
When the flaps are deflected, an increase in pressure coefficient
along the chord result? and this increase causes an increased
maximum lift coefficient; but because of the increased pressure
peaks, the critical pressure coefficient Is reached at lower freestream Mach numbers with flaps deflected than with flaps retractedThe foregoing discussion of figure 13 is based on consideration
of the maximum pressure coefficient that occurred on the wing.

11

WvZk TM ?Jn. 1D99

Visual observations of the 3tall pattern (fig. 14) Justified the
discussion of the stall witii rei'erenco to only one point on the
wing. The stall studies were made at several Mech nurbers end
revealed an abrupt simultaneous stall over the entire surface of
the wln^.

after the peak value has teen reached

C.
Tnax
Is due to the fact l-hat the critical pressure coefficient diminishes
(fig. 13) aa the airspeed is increased beyond this point. A.? the
airspeed is increased, therefore, the critical pressure coefficient
is reached on the wing at progressively lower angles of attack;
early stall is thus precipitated and, consequently, lower values
of maximum lift coefficient ere obtained. The principal contribution
of Reynolds number toward increasing C
as previously pointed
The decrease In

out, lr. its effect in lncreaslnf the engle of attack at which the
wing stalls; hence, when the critical Mach number limits the peak
value of Cr
the effect of a further increase In Reynolds

max
number is markedly reduepd. The data from tho present tests
(figs. 7(a) to 7(c)) are too Limited to de'^erolno whether at very
hifjh airspeeds CL
is affected at all by Bc^ncldp nanber. Flight
"max
tests of an airplane equipped with a ving of NACA S6-eeriet; airfoil
sections (reference 9I have shown that fit values of Mach nunber in
exuesi; of 0.!?0 the ei'fecte of Reynolds number arc ne^li^ible. The
value of Mach number at which the Reynolds nuaber wJJl become
negligible will probP-lly depend on the particular airfoil involved.
The increase in

C.

before the critical Mach nunbor Js

hnax
reached is due almost entirely to the chanpe in Reynolds number; that
is, the natural transition from laminur to turbulent boundary layer
with increasing Reynolds number allows higher angles of attack to be
reached before the wing stalls. Wien the values of C,I,
cempured it equal Reynolds numbers (figs. 7(a) to 7(c)), .it is neen
that, in the ran/;e belov the peak value of CT
lower values of

max
C-

ere obtained at a tunnel pressure of 14.7 poundE per square

max
inch absolute than are obtained at a tunnel pressure of 33 pounds per
square inch absolute. The values at p , 1J*.7 are actually at
19
higher Mach numbers than are the values at p10, => 33 (fig. k).
A plausible explanation of this loss in lift due to the increase

32

HAC,

n No. 1299

In Mach number may be that a7 though the leading-ede prusrures

at lift coefficients below tho ttall are almost the Barne, tho
transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layer ir delayed by
the increased Mech number aud, since the win^ tested exhibited
laminar separation, the win will stall at slightly lower angles
of attack. This rearward movement of transition, because ct tn
increase in Mach number, has been determined for the low-drau ronS
at the Ames laboratory, end a continuation of tho discuenior. to
Cr
appears rearonr.ble from tho results obtained in the present
"max
tents.
Reference 1 presents a method for pradicting incremental changes
in the maximum lift coefficient that occur as a result of the
difference between wind-tunnel and flight Reynolds number. 2ecanee
the flight value of Mr.ch number will usually be somewhat hi.jher
than that used as a baeie for the method of reference 1 (MQ a C'.oS),
the application of tlict method for the prediction of flight value*,
from tests at low Eeyncldc number will probably yield
of CL
max
-. hlf:h,!' v tine : ' C.
- oven 11' tlie critical Mach number has not
ij
nax
been reached.
The preceding discussion has dealt with tho effects of Much
number and Reynolde number on tho maximum lift coefficient of a
wing which ha3 a abrupt dtall precipitated by hich peak values of
leading -edge preai?ure. The characteristics of a wir.3 with lower
peak values of lead Li; 3-edge pressure and u more cou^lei: stall may
be materially different. If a wing exhibits a stall produced by
trailin3-ed(je separation, the leading-ed/jo pressures Hay be low
enough to allow a rathor hi^h free-ntream Mach number tc be reached
before the critical pressure coefficient is encountered- In Buch a
case, the Reynolds m-jriber at which a completely turbulent boundary
layer oiirtr ma;'be reached before the critical M?ch number itattained. Tho flapn-retracted leadng-edKO-rou/^hnafe confi;^iration
(fig. 7(d)) IK an example in which the coinpletj boundary layer is
turbulent. Thero is very little change in Cr
through the
Reynolds number ran.-i.e. The peek leading-ed-je preesrrer furthoi'inore
have probably been reduced so that no critical Mach number it
indicated in the range of the present tents The value of CT
'max
at the lowest Mach number and Reynolds number for p. , = 1^.7
causes the curve in figure 7(d) to have a sharp drop in the low
Reynolds number range. The shape of the lift oi'rve for thin test
condition (fl. lj(s)) at C,
is such as to suggest the
,L
max

13

HACA T!I No. 1299

possibility of premature stall although no cause Is evident. Because

the drop In the curve of C.
against Reynolds number occurs
max
through a large part of the complete Reynolds number range and is a
result of this one test point, the curves have been shown dashed
between this test condition and the next highest test condition.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
On the basis of the wind-tunnel investigation made to determine
the effects of Mr.ch number and Reynolds number on the maximum lift
coefficient of a wing of NACA 230-series airfoil sections, the
following conclusions may be drawn. These conclusions appear
applicable to other wings which exhibit an abrupt stall precipitated
by high leading-edge pressures.
1. The peak values cf maximum lift coefficient are determined
by a critical Mach number which Is attained at relatively low freestream Mach numbers (approx. 0.20 for the flaps-deflected configurations and O.25 to 0.30 for the flaps-retracted configuration).
2. The values of maximum lift coefficient are increased when
the Reynolds number Is increased but the critical pressure coefficient
(critical Mach number) is reached at lower free-stream Mach numbers.
3- The increased pressure peaks that result when the flaps
are deflected cause the critical pressure coefficient (critical Mach
number) to be reached at lower free-stream Mach numbers than when
the flaps are retracted.
k. After the critical pressure coefficient (critical Mach
number) has been reached, the value of maximum lift coefficient
is appreciably reduced by further increase in Mach number and there
is an indication that the effect of Reynolds number on the maximum
lift becomes markedly reduced.
5. The value of maximum lift coefficient before the critical
pressure coefficient (critical Mach number) is reached is almost
entirely dependent on Reynolds nualber. but even in the low Mach
number range, Mach number effects should not be neglected. Any
method, therefore, that is utilized to predict flight values of
maximum lift coefficient from wind-tunnel data by accounting for
a Oifference in Reynolds nuuber and neglecting a difference in
Ifech number nay give erroneous results.
Lan^ley lianorial Aeronautical Laboratory
national Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
Lancley Field, Va., :iovomber 1?, 19h6

NACA TN No. 1299

Ill
KEFEREHCEE
1.

Jacobs, Eastman N., and Sherman, Altert: Airfoil Section

Characteristics as Affected by Variations of the Eeynolda
Number. NACA Bep. Mo. 586, I937.

2.

PinXerton. Bobert M.: The Variation with Reynolds Number

of Pressure Distribution over an Airfoil Section NACA Bep- No. 6l3, 1938.

3.

Stack, John. Fddzluk, Henry A., and Cleary, Harold E.:

Preliminary Investigation of the Effect of Compressibility
on the Maximum Lift Coefficient. NACA ACS Feb. I9U3.

k.

Muse, Thomas C: Some Effecta of Reynolds tad. Mr>.eh Numbers

on the Lift of en NACA 0012 Iiectaiujular Wing in the
NACA 19"Foot Pressure Tunnel. NACA CD Ho. 3E2&. 191*3.

5.

Pearson, E.O. Jr., Evens. A. J., end West, F. E... Jr.:

Effects of CoSpresalDillty on the Maximum 1 ift
Characteristic.-, and Spenwiee Load Distribution of a
12-Foot-Span Fighter-Type Win.; of NACA 230-Series
Airfoil Sections. NACA ACB No. 7.5G10, ISjk^.

6.

Goldstein, E., and Young, A.D-: The Linear Perturbation

Theory of Compressible Flow with Applications to WindTunnel Interference. B-: M. No. I909, British A.B.C.,
I943.

7.

Sllverstein, Abe. and White James A.: Wind-Tunnel Interference

with Particular Reference to Off-Center Positions of the
Wing end to the Dovnwasft at the Tall. NACA Bep. No. 5^7,
19:5.

8.

Lotz, Irmgard : Correction of Downwcsh in Wind Tunnels of

Circular and Elliptic Sections. NACA TM No. 3Q1, 1936.

9.

Spreiter, JohnR.. and Steffen Paul J.s Fffect of Mach

and Reynolds Numbers on Maximum Lift Coefficient.
NACA TN Ho. lOMt, I9W.

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 1

ri

.^

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 2a

0
..;
-
.5

7
c
-J

:i

fcs
a)

kJ

o (3
a
'i c.

1'
CO

..-<
.H

tu

*->H
0)

*
.~*

:o

to

cd W
:

H
->

u
En
d

U
:'

to
i

:,
.M

-+-

(>

v
1

< !?

S3
O

'..

.S
ri

.;
!
P,
.

r-t
[i.

NACA TU No. 1299

Fig. 2b

r
a)

r:c

%
"!

"

:'
.:.

>

>;

-.'.
:
u

Pn

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 3

Figure 3.- Close-up of tube-transfer system used in tests of a wing of

NACA 230-series airfoil sections in the Langley 19-foot pressure
tunnel.

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 4

Fig. 5a

NACA TN No. 1299

f.

*
o

if*'
o

V<
;"s

flK

t
fO

*: 8*
= ...

8 ;=
<s

s. f

*;
ts

>o

$
::

VJ

* f
o

1
:in

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 5b
.

S
v

. J

Ml

s . ,k -

-* _

sv

- 'J.

k
'
""
k-

v,

v.

'

- '.

X ".

N'
"

Ai

Sj

s .,

>

N: -

NV

N
X %
X-

>.

"
,

'

^.

"

*1
T

*M

\
N^

CM*

co

ua

t^

t^

>
!
*

-2

to

ki

'N

se
ssaassassa

to

*\
\

^x.

XN

VV.

*. .

NV

>

,
1

V^

<

';:

it
ii

-.

<\l

Fig. 5c

NACA TN No. 1299

T.

'

>
-,

'

i|
-

M
s

'I

"

'

sl

r1

's

,,

>

\k

>.

's

'* v

v^

ACS

CM

v.

Co

s. >.

4 U U 5
I s S

0j

'

u's

s.

1
N

\s

11

0s

>

*"

sh
^

0J

C>

*>

>

cv

CO

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 5d

I I _ttt!gtttMi
I ft g S 8 8 |_ 8 ^ 8 8 sj
to

CM

OJ

tO

<q

C-

>

Fig. 5e

NACA TN No. 1299

n
**

Ai

"s

'N

S -.

*'

--..

f
i.

'

vN

\
N.
Mj)

..
'

s;

s ^s

s. N

\ k.

CD

C3

US

s,

CD

sT,,

hs

ig t

"-

^ 'v

s s S3 a s g

s.

-.

*"

NVs

N
* t

',

s,

USIU
1 * 1 . *
*-

CO

if

s '-4

^>

* * * t fr 4
1

2*

ft*
cvi

s>

<t)

>

X>

ft'

c>

IV

<*1

<Q

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. bf

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 5g

./

J.

s
"XI

t
V s.

>

ks

fj .

<HT1

I
$

0
OB

XS

"t

I d 1 3 i ;

ia

' '

1I 1S 1S 18 \S 1
B

fU

<*

li

| - " , ,

r
1 .
<M

s*

N \>

1
ey

<N

M:

Fig. 5h

NACA TN No. 1299

;1

i.

1
a

a 3
pa

pj

gsssssaas
. ifj, q ic
"i "i, * '"
H

<J> }
<\j

us

in

in

>

T r-

t*

^ * ^ rj * 11
o

00

*o

*
tf

Fig. 6a

NACA TN No. 1299

a~

o
o

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 6b

r*

ir

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FM AERONAUTICS

J
,

n
to
c5
a

li

o.

rH
Pi

vo
r>

8.

H
1

ri
II

CD

i-f

a.

K
Q
tf

I
o"*
o
i

rH

a.

--*

*>

N
Q

Pig. 7a

NACA TN No. 1299

1.6

'

r - 33

1.4
cL

y'

,,
' \ V

1.2

Laagley 18-foot hit

>

L_

10
.8
24
"mu

20

ie

J_

IV - 33

A'

^
\
i

t.6

.2

l.angley 16-foot hlg

(reference 5)

/
, ,
1

.5

.6

V-33

1.4

-' ""

"

4
V
\

Laagley 10-foot hj gh-ftpeed tunnel

(reference 5)
x-

^\
\

<V

*/

10

8
24

-H~H
III T"

PI9, - 33

20

" /

t:

16

Laagley 16-foot high -speed tunnel

ff v-v.

:-

p:. - M.7
tlOMl OV'S Mr
cmum rat m> JUT

12
l

<.?

1f

8x10*

*
w

(a) of-0 .

Figure 7.- Variations of maximum lift coefficients and maximum angles of attack with Mach number and
Reynolds number for wing of NACA 230-series airfoil sections tested In the Langley Id-foot pressure
tunnel.

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 7b
S4

.'

ZS

ao
18

Figure

_ P19. - 14.7

Fig. 7c

NACA TN No. 1299

28
26
/

,.-'
\
\

Pig. 33

'

22
20
24
/

r "

/,

20
um

v-M

\^

-pi ..

-1

^J

16
12

./

.4

.5

.ff

28
PjB, - 33

2.6
'/na

/
'

22

- p19, - 14.7

2.0
24

]*-.

p19. - 33

20

'

-'

mt

16
12

12

8xl06

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FM AlHHUUTK S

(C) Q( - 60 (fullapu).
Figure ?.- Continued.

NACA TN No. 1299

12
ClLman

Fig. 7d
P]a, - 33 -

-n

1.0
"

"IF"
. - **"
v

i- 14.7

20
'ma*

1
P
- :C

\
; IB'

16

" 33

V- p19, - 14.7

12
0

'

1.2

P18. - 33 -

.6

~\\

- P,. - 14.7

20
mox

.5

.--

P,8, -33 _

~\
i

16

\\

12
1

i)

- Pi9. - 14.7

Jr

4r
/P

P
NATi
CO MlTt

id) 8

Figure 7.- Concl i LI.

; 1.

MM

DVI soov

n fo UMjut

lint; "!)' roil 0UM n.

.7

Fig. 8

NACA TN No. 1299

?'
/

1
-

Vlt

f
s

c L C L<
SD" "

<

t
3-

<o

'*

JL

hii-

5/

j
1

w to
in
S

S3
1

,'

O ra O f

SI I

y
Cl,

-$

s
?!

is

s *

fis

u .

gas
'

Ei

1 3

g o a

'''

<H*

_~ ta

Nt

^a

' H

u1

- '
\h

M >

0J

ci

>

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 9

5
U

<0 hi,

? ii

HI
\

it!

1.

JU

>

*"
(
M

&

Ill
III1

i1

0 0

*
Vt)

1
.

^>
Op

if

r^-

ra i '

8S
<U O

a<J
<- .,",-

" w "
- IS
Hi

.-

, '
TT5

i*

u3

ui

sh

*1

g5g
BOA

to

^
<Nj

,
I. i

% C>

'

01

gal ;
<g3 to
i o

0i

'

N
Q.

"S"

11.

j;

w ^

V- V -'

i-rjj-ij

I*

<

l >

'

I-

-1

Fig. 10

NACA TN No. 1299

i
>
>

a
*
*

<*>

?
.

![
M

<o

;:,

<\1

,
\

11

'. J
n

33 a

a t

!a8
$ <i

ill

. 05

,
/
.

<to

il

0 0 0

/
<

^o

I1
1

<\i

\
\

rn

fcl

03

r^ s.

,1

"'<,

o
^B 1

<
1

F
0

1 1

'

V\j

.
P <l

Sa " 'S

<i

*.

ss:
& 8
K
a 3 s

"5

9-1

SS

O h u .j

g * So

J)

^Q

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 11

i
i
- i
f

T> to
o

to

JJ

1 11

I.

$
r

-*>

>

>

11
1

to

11/! >:

s g

|n
^ *

^ *?

1
9

to

^
^.

.'

^J si! 5:

<> *

i
-V

1-

''

>

a*
" a?
sa .
r;.
,.:

S M 'S

."
"", 'u '?

jgS

n<

lag

~ tt)
J

iQ

^
-

<Y>

....

1
0)

tf

to
<J

<\l

i g

r> ^

<j 3

ai'"1.
IR * *

f.

>

,2Q*
t. ^
-

'

;.

gun
I* p.

bo

'? 4

i. i

Q>

as

~'8 5 '
,. .r: !
S S3 Bo?

Fig. 12

NACA TN No. 1299

CO

HI

3 to

t c ^

f'
o<

8 "-a

s *> <R

w .^
flJ -^ -j

.OS"

a ii ,

!fjs
oo

"ao rM ^i_a 2 g
5> 2

* I'- t

s a
5?
*
,

I
o

q
Uj

'

5!
<*>

ll 3

I^h '' c

VI

's

i * 0S

...
<l 3

-'
Sh

0 VI

<s

0^

a as

NACA TN No. 1299

Fig. 13

/x.

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FM AERONAUTICS

Figure 13.- Variations of maximum wing pressure coefficients with

Mach number for a wing of NACA 230 -series airfoil sections
tested in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel.

Fig. 14

' T"

I5j
s

-r-^
^ ' -.

ZLZ:

NACA TN No. 1299

m
i
_

TrmtitlJdflo

$ S: ^ <t) <o >

isowwies {am 1
Furlong, G. C.
Fitzpatrick, J

FORG'N. TITLE:

ORIG. AGENCY NUM8ER

TN-1299

230 (99150.8)

AUTHOR(S)

AMER. TITLE:

ATI- 7157
DIVISION: aerodynamics (2)
SECTION: Wings and Airfoils (6)
CROSS REFERENCES: Pressure distribution - Vinas (7i500);
'.Yings - aerodynamics - Flap effect (99150.8); NACA

ORIGINATING AGENCY: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D. C.

TRANSLATION:

COUNTRY

Effects of Mach number and Reynolds N'umber on the maximum lift coef ficient^of
a wing of MACA 230 series...

LANGUAGE FORGN.CLASS

DATE

PAGES

ILLUS.

FEATURES

photos, graphs
26
VUy'i7
ABSTRACT
'.Ying was tested with full-span, partial-span, or split flaps deflected 60 and without
flaps. Ghordwiae pressure-distribution measurements were made for all flap configurations.
Peak values of max.1 mum lift coefficient were obtained at relatively low free-stream lach
numbers and, before critical Mach number was reached, were almost entirely dependent on
Reynolds Number. Lift coefficient increased by increasing Mach number or deflecting
flaps while critical pressure coefficient was reached at lower free-stream Mach numbers.
U.S.

Eng.

U. S.CLASS

Unclass.

NOTE: Requests for copies of this report must be addressed to N.A.C.A., waehington, D. C.
, HO., AIR MATERIEL COMMAND

AlR TECHNICAL

INDEX

WRIGHT FIELD. OHIO, USAAF

WF-O-il MAI 47 MM

raraFoaes (ntet)
Furlong, G. C.
Fitzpatrick, J

AUTHOR(S)

A170- 7157
DIVISION: Aerodynamics (2)
SECTION: Wings and Airfoils. (6)
CROSS REFERENCES. Pressure distribution - 'Yings (74500);
'.Kings - Aerodynamics - Flap effect (99150.8); NACA

ORIG. AGENCY NUMBEI

TN-1299

230 (99150.8)

Effects of Mach number and Reynolds Number on the maximum lift coefficient of
wing of MACA 230 series...
FORG'N. TITLE

ORIGINATING AGENCY: national Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, '..'ashington, D. C.

TRANSLATION:
LANGUAGE |fOG'N.CU5S| U. S.CLASS
DATE
PACK 1U.US
FEATURES
Unclass. liay'47
photot, graphs
26

asraaar
Wing was tested with full-span, partial-span, or split flaps deflected 60 and without
flap3. Chordwise pressure-distribution measurements were made for all flap configurations
Peak values of maximum lift coefficient were obtained at relatively low free-stream Kach
numbers and, before critical Mach number was reached, were almost entirely dependent on
Reynolds Number. Lift coefficient increased by increasing liach number or deflecting
flaps while critical pressure coefficient was reached at lower free-stream Mach numbers.
NOTE: Requests for copies of this roport must be addroosed to N.A.C.A., Bashington, D. C.
T-2. HO.. AIR MATERIEL COMMANO

_JW2_

Ala

VECHNICAL DNDEX

WRIGHT FIELD, OHIO. USAAF '

P^t-ll MAO 47 tta