AIAA-83-1867

Airfoil Generation with a Desktop Computer

Using Lighthill's Exact Inverse Method
M.R. Schopper
David W. Taylor ~ a v aShip
l Research and
Development Center
Bethesda, MD

AlAA Applied Aerodynamics

Conference
Danvers, Massachusetts f

For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautios and Astronautics
1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
 AIRFOIL GENERATION WITH A DESKTOP COMPUTER
USING LIGHTHILL'S EXACT INVERSE METHOD

M. R. Schopper flf3-39O 96 *
Aviation and Surface Effects Department
David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center
Bethesda, Maryland 20084

Abstract The primary purpose of the paper is to demonstrate the types

Lighthill's 1945 exact inverse conformal-mapping method for the
incompressible potential flow design of two-dimensional airfoils has
been reviewed and numerically implemented on a desktop computer
having 55 kilobytes of working memory. Numerous examples are
presented of airfoils and their velocity distributions. The designs
include both symmetric and cambered airfoils encompassing a wide
range of lift coefficients and thicknesses. M. B. Glauert's methods
of c&trolling the leading edge radius and applying rear loading are
also demonstrated. Examples are given of various types of velocity
decays over the rear portion of airfoils. Very good control over the
velocity in the airfoil plane is demonstrated using piecewise con-
tinuous linear velocity segments.
Introduction
of airfoils which can be generated with Lighthill's method using
a desktop computer. Some desktop computers now have megabytes
of memory, but the present program was developed on a machine
with a working memory of approximately 55 kilobytes. The design
method is reviewed and its numerical implementation is discussed
in some detail. Numerous examples of symmetric and cambered air-
foils with cusped trailing edges are shown which encompass a wide
variety of lift coefficients and thicknesses. The capability of employ-
ing different leadingedge radii and varying the degree of rear loading
are illustrated. Different types of upper-surface pressure recovery
distributions are shown to illustrate various degrees of velocity con-
trol in this region. An example of precise control using piecewise-
continuous linear velocity segments is included. The computer code
was written in the standard BASIC programming language. Pro-
grams were run on a Tektronix 4052 computer.

In 1945, ~ighthill'presented an exact inverse conformal-mapping Review of the Method

method for the incompressible potential flow design of two-dimen-
sional airfoils. With this method the shape of the airfoil is deter- The material presented is liberally taken from Refs. 1,4,7, and
mined in terms of the velocity distribution prescribed as a function 8. It is expected that the interested reader will study Refs. 1 and
of the angular coordinate around the circle into which the airfoil 4. The nomenclature will follow that of Lighthill and Glauert.
may be transformed. Lighthill presented examples of airfoils de-
signed using the method, and shortly thereafter applied the method Basic Theory
to airfoils with leading-edge suction.2 That same year, M. B. Gla-
uert presented four suction airfoils designed with Lighthill's For two-dimensional incompressibleflow a complex potential w(z)
method3 Glauert employed additional techniques to obtain suitable exists which is an analytic function defined by
velocity distributions. These techniques, which he documented in
1947,4 contained some very attractive design procedures including
the capabilities to rear load the airfoil and to allow some control
over the leading-edge radius. Most important for future users of
the method was an appendix to the article containing analytic ex-
+
where z = x + iy; is the velocity potential, and y is the stream func-
tion. The complex velocity is the analytic function defined by dw/dz,
pessions which greatly facilitate the application of the method. and dw/dz = u - iv, where u and v are the velocity components
Although no such claim was made, Glauert's paper provided those in the direction of the axes. In polar form dw/dz = q e - h, where
with no special gift the tools and techniques for a straightforward q is the magnitude of the fluid velocity, and X is the direction of
implementation of Lighthill's inverse design method. the flow with respect to the x-axis. With unit velocity at infinity
and at an angle of attack of a with respect to the real axis, the com-
Although Lighthill's method has been a basis for later inverse plex potential of the flow in the 5 -plane around the unit circle
computational design codes,S the method itself does not seem to 141 = 1 is given by the superposition of the complex potentials of
have been widely employed in airfoil research or design; at least, uniform flow, a doublet, and a vortex, as
it has not been as widely referenced as might be expected. Sat06
has utilized the method, and no doubt other articles and papers exist.
Books devoted to potential flow generally do not discuss inverse
methods, and few of the books on airfoils or aerodynamics men-
tion Lighthill's method (or inverse methods). Two notable excep-
tions are the books by Robinson and Laurmann7 and Thwaites.8 where r is the circulation. The complex velocity is
Both of these British books review Lighthill's method. The situa-
tion is similar with airplane design books; in the chapters dealing
with airfoil design methods few contain discussions of inverse
methods or mention Lighthill's method. It thus appears that it is
not generally recognized that Lighthill's method can be implemented
without a major research effort, and that it can be programmed on On the unit circle 5 = eie and here
a small computer. The method has been and is being used to design
single-element airfoils in an R&D environment; it should be emi-
nently suitable in an academic environment where it could be used
as a teaching and research aid for potential flow and boundary layer
studies.
This pawr is declared a work of the U.S.
The flow speed over the surface is

Therefore, if qo is prescribed in the circle plane as a function of

With the trailing edge stipulated to be at 5 = 1 on the circle, the
Kutta-Joukowsky condition requires the velocity to vanish at 8 =
0. Hence, from Eq. (5) the circulation is 4n sina and, therefore,
Suppose now the region outside the circle is conformally trans-
formed into the region outside an airfoil in the z-plane by means
of an analytic function z(5), such that the airfoil trailing edge cor-
responds to 5 = 1 on the circle and the velocities at infinity are
equal. Now the velocity in the airfoil plane is dw/dz = (dw/dt)
(dC/dz); thus for equal velocities at infinity, dC/dz-* 1 as 5 -,0
(or z = 5 as 5 -, 03). On the airfoil at incidence a, the modulus of
the velocity, q, is now given by
8, the airfoil coordinates can be found if X(8) is known.
The matter of the sign in Eq. (14) may be resolved as follows.
To determine X(O), use is made of the equation for the complex
velocity dw/dz = q e- ix. Here X indicates the direction of motion.
This is consistent with the definition of x by dz = ds eix at the air-
foil surface, since the flow must be tangential to the surface, pro-
vided s is measured in the direction of flow. Thus, ds must be mea-
sured in the local direction of the flow, and in Eqs. (12) through
(14) the + sign applies if the direction of flow is in the direction
of increasing cos8. Since the front stagnation point occurs at 19 = n,
the direction of the flow always coincides with the direction of in-
creasing cos8. Equation (14) may thus be taken as
x = - $&cas X sin 8 d8
y = - J L90 sin X sin 8 dB

Returning to theX(8) problem, dwo/dz is given by qo e-ix. Thus

On the airfoil surface dz = ds eix, where ds is the element of
length of the airfoil, and X is its local incidence or slope. Correspond-
ingly, on the circle ds = d(ei8) = ieie dB, and so q, becomes
Now dwo/dz is an analytic function of z in the region outside the
q, = 4 1 sin-cos
8
2
(--
I9
2
a)-/dB
ds
airfoil, including the point at infinity and, therefore, is an analytic
function of 5 outside the unit circle. The term dwo/dz does not
vanish in the region, and becomes equal to one at infinity. Hence,
The velocity modulus at no lift (a = 0) is thus ln(dwo/dz) is also an analytic function of 5 outside the unit circle.
Thus In qo and x are harmonic conjugate functions. They can be
expanded in conjugate Fourier series in 9 on the circle and are related
qo = 2 ( sin 8-1dB by Poisson's integral. Poisson's integral relating the conjugate func-
ds tions is

hence, X(8) = 1
-So 2"
In qo(t) cot -
I9 -t dt
2n 2
8
cos ( 3 - a)
40 = qo (10) where the Cauchy principal value is taken at the singularity 19 = t.
COS
I9
- No constant appears since X is zero at infinity. If In q, is an even
2 or odd function of 8 the integral is simplified.
Equation (10) shows that once qo(8) is known the value of q, (8) Because there is not always an airfoil corresponding to any qo(8),
at any other incidence can easily be determined. the q0(8) term cannot be prescribed arbitrarily. Three integral con-
~ ~ u a t i o(9)
n can be written as ditions exist, as derived in Eqs. (18) through (23). The mapping of
the z- and <-planes must be of the form

The equation dz = ds eix may also be expressed as

where the coefficients a, are constants. Hence

From Eq. (3)

Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (12) yields

2 .
dz = 2 I-e~Xd(cos%)
qo Dividing Eqs. (20) by (19) yields

Taking dz = dx + idy and eix = cos X + i sin x and separating

the real and imaginary parts gives
 To find the first term in the expansion for ln(dw,/dz), use is made The procedure employed in task 1 is the method of "direct design
of the formula ln(1 -t) = t - t2/2 + t3/3 - . . . Then, . at incidence." In this method the upper-surface velocity is prescribed
at an incidence a l , and the lower-surface velocity at a lower inci-
dence a2. The incidence angles a1 and a2 are design parameters and
the range of incidence from a1. to a2- is referred to as the incidence
range i f the airfoil.

From Eq. (10) it follows that on the upper surface

Equation (22) shows that because n starts at 2 the conjugate Fourier
series for In q, and - X on the circle have no constant terms or 8
terms in cost3 and sine. This implies that In q, satisfies the follow- cos -
ing three conditions: In qo = In +Inqa1
8
cos (? - all

and on the lower surface

The first condition is a consequence of requiring unit velocity at

infinity; the other two conditions ensure that the airfoil defined by
In q, is a closed contour. Where the upper and lower surfaces join
Once the airfoil shape has been determined, the lift coefficient
can be found quite easily. By the Kutta-Joukowski law the lift co-
efficient of an airfoil is 2 r k , where c is the chord length. For
cos (8- a1 =
2
+ cos (--28 ad
the present case r is 4n sina; thus,

Thus,

The chord length is found from the resultant airfoil shape. The air-
foil is computed in its no-lift attitude and, therefore, the no-lift angle
can be determined from the orientation of the computed airfoil.
The angle a in Eqs. (10) and (24) must be measured from the no- The joining at 8 = n + a1 + a 2 is near the nose.
lift angle.
For a cambered airfoil, therefore, the general expression for the
Expressions for the moment coeffieient and other aerodynamic velocity distribution may be written as
properties are given by Lighthill' and Glauert.4

Design Procedure

lcos~~
As envisioned during the present effort, the design procedure con- L
sists of the following six basic tasks: In , a1 + a:! <B<n + a1 +a:!
1. Prescribe In q, over the airfoil as a function of 8 in the circle
plane; the expression for In q, should have three arbitrary
constants.
- 2. Determine the three constraints using the three integral condi-
tions of Eq. (23).

3. Find X(8) from Poisson's integral, Eq. (17).

16
4. Compute the airfoil shape by evaluating the integrals in Eq. f43.

5. Measure the chord length and the orientation of the airfoil; deter-
mine the lift coefficient using Eq. (24).

6. Obtain the velocity distribution using Eq. (10) and the prescribed
velocities.
The art is to choose a distribution of In q, which enables the design
requirements to be met, yet is simple enough to allow the integrals
for X(8) and the three constraint conditions to be evaluated ana-
lytically. Then X(8) becomes a matter of evaluating expressions in-
stead of computing an integral, and the three integral conditions
reduce to a system of three algebraic equations to solve. The inte-
grals involved in the computation of the airfoil shape are evaluated
numerically.
where S(0) is the value of In qa, on the upper surface and of In
qaz on the lower surface. When the airfoil is flown at an angle of
attack of al, the velocity distribution on the upper surface is es@),
where S(8) is the prescribed distribution on the upper surface.
Similarly, when flown at a2, the velocity distribution on the lower
surface is es(e); where S(8) is the prescribed distribution on the
lower surface. Many examples are considered in the Results and
Discussion which provide good insight into appropriate quantities
to prescribe for S.
 Glauert4 determined the conjugate of the first two terms in Eq.
(29) as well as the contribution of the terms to the three integrals
of Eq. (23). He also determined the conjugate as well as the values
of the three integrals for a number of simple trigonometric func-
tions prescribed between two arbitrary angles. These simple func-
tions are suitable for velocity prescriptions around the circle. The
results are conveniently displayed in Appendix I of Glauert's report.4
This appendix was a vital document in the present effort.
As an example of the conjugate function and of the contribu-
tion to the three integrals, consider as part of S the constant func-
tion k prescribed over the range K O - + . From Glauert,4 the con-
jugate function is(k/n)lnl sin% (8 - A)/sin% (8 - p)l. The three
integrals of Eq. (23) are k(p - A), k(sin p - sin A), and k(cos A
- cos p), respectively. Other functions, such as the k cos8 prescribed
over an interval, give corresponding expressions which are only
slightly more complicated. In this example, k would be an unknown
constant to be determined by satisfaction of the three integral
conditions.
It should now be clear that if simple trigonometric functions are
used in a piecewise continuous manner to define S completely around
the circle, each of the three integral conditions reduces to a condi-
tion that the sum of algebraic quantities representing the pieces be
zero. By using simple functions for S containing three unknowns,
where the unknowns are often the functions amplitude coefficients,
the three integral conditions of task 2 can be reduce to the solving
of a system of three algebraic equations for the three unknown
constants.
Using Glauert's Appendix I,4 task 3 can be reduced to the sum-
ming of algebraic quantities corresponding to the pieces of S. The
quantities involve the three constants determined in task 2. The air-
foil shape in task 4 can now be computed with a straightforward
numerical integration using Simpson's rule. Here, it is important
to keep track of the developing X,8 relationship because this is needed
in task 6. Once the airfoil shape is computed, the chord and no-lift
angle can be measured and the lift coefficient computation of task
5 is trivial for any angle of attack. For the velocity distribution task
Eq. (10) is used. By taking ratios of velocities at two different angles
of attack, q, can be eliminated to give, 'for incidences a and ai,
Letting i take on the values 1 and 2 to represent the upper- and lower-
surface design angles of attack, the desired result is
where
By keeping track of the relation between 8 and x, (i.e., developing
x as a function of O), Eq. (31) can be used to express the velocity
distribution over the airfoil for any angle of attack.
Svmmetric Airfoils
In the development of an airfoil design computer code, it is natural
to consider symmetric airfoils first. Symmetrical airfoils are simplest
to compute because advantage can be taken of the symmetry prop-
erty. The symmetric airfoils generated for the present report, in fact,
were produced with codes which were among the first developed
for the airfoil design task by the author.
For a symmetrical airfoil a1 = - a2 = a , and Eq. (29) takes
the simpler form
where S = In q,, and In q, is an even function of 8 . The tasks
outlined above are still followed (but are again simpler; e.g., the
no-lift angle is zero).
An example discussed by both Lighthilll and Glauert4 is the case
where
The velocity at the design incidence is constant from the nose to
8 = /3 and thereafter decays steadily. There are only two unknown
constants here, 1 and k, but these are sufficient because the third
integral condition of Eq. (23) is satisfied automatically for sym-
metric airfoils. After the appropriate expressions are determined
from Glauert's report,4 the two integral conditions are reduced to
a linear system of two equations. This is one of the nice advan-
tages of simple symmetric airfoils. A linear system solver is not even
needed beacuse the system can be manipulated by hand to give
algebraic expressions for the two unknowns. At the design incidence
the upper-surface constant velocity is el; therefore as soon as 1 is
determined the velocity can be determined. This velocity informa-
tion-which comes early in the computer run-is nice to know (es-
pecially for complicated cambered airfoils), because it can some-
times provide a hint as to whether the upcoming airfoil is likely to
be satisfactory (e.g., too thick or too thin). This early velocity in-
formation was especially important in the precomputer days; it could
save days instead of seconds of wasted time.
Cambered Airfoils
With the move to cambered airfoils the symmetry and simplicity
is lost. Lighthilll found that if an unsymmetrical airfoil is designed
so that it has the same maximum velocity on the upper surface at
incidence a1 as on the lower surface at a2, the resultant airfoil has
an undesirable shape. This was stated in connection with airfoils
having a suction slot; in fact, all of Lighthill's cambered airfoils
were suction airfoils. To avoid the problem, Lighthill stated that
is is necessary to have the maximum velocities at the two ends of
the incidence range different, with that at the upper end being
greater. Lighthill employed a velocity distribution which was con-
tinuous at the nose (although the derivative was not) and had the
desirable upper- and lower-velocity difference. The conjugate func-
tion was obtained in an approximate manner. Glauaert4 chose a
different form of the velocity distribution, one which did not re-
quire approximations. Clauert simply added a term to In q, over
a portion of the upper surface, but this was done in a manner which
ensured continuity of In q, and d(ln qo)/d8 at the locations
8 = n + a1 + a2. The significance of the continuity of the derivative
is discussed in the next section of the paper. (It may be noted that
all of Glauert's cambered airfoils were suction airfoils also.)
In Glauert's method, S is now taken to include the upper-surface
terms

where a, = (al - a2)/2. The E term provides the velocity incre-
ment on the upper surface. The quantity E is unknown and is one
of the three constants to be determined by satisfaction of the three
integral conditions. With the terms provided in Eq. (35) there is con-
tinuity of In q, at both 8 = n + a1 + a2 and 8 = n + a1 +
a2 - E. The choice of E cot a, stems from consideration of
d( ln qo)/d8. Examination of Eq. (29) shows that at 8 = n + a1
+ a2 there is continuity of In q,, but d(ln qo)/d8 has a discon-
tinuity by the amount -cots,. This is a consequence of using the
method of direct design at incidence. With the addition of the terms
in Eq. (35) d(ln qo)/d8 has been rendered continuous at 8 = n
+ a , + a2. However, there is now a discontinuity in the derivative
by the same amount of -cots, at the point 8 = n + a1 + a2 - r.
Thus, the r technique did not cure the derivative discontinuity prob-
lem-but that was not its purpose. Its function was to provide the
upper-surface velocity increment. Glauert solved the derivative prob-
lem with a leading-edge term.
A simple cambered airfoil could be designed using Glauert's r
technique in the following manner. With cambered airfoils the
velocity must be specified around the whole airfoil, and, of course,
the velocity must be continuous. Glauert's velocity terms in Eq. (35)
did satisfy velocity continuity on the,upper surface. To complete
the design problem, consider a cambered airfoil design that is akin
to the symmetric airfoil example presented earlier. The velocity
prescription S(8) contains the term 1, which is now prescribed from
0 to 2n instead of 0 to n. Just as in the previous example, assume
that at the prescribed angle /3 the upper-surface velocity begins a
decay described by - k (cos 8 - cos /3). With the addition of the
terms of Eq. (33, the velocity on the upper surface at incidence
a1 will be constant from 8 = rr + a1 + a2 - r to 8 = /3. The velo-
city here will be el +Ecotao. There must be a velocity decay region
on the lower surface; assume it begins at the prescribed angle d .
At incidence a2 the lower surface will then have a velocity of el from
8 = n + a1 + a 2 to 8 = d . The decay must be prescribed so that
S is continuous at the trailing edge, 8 = n. On the upper surface
at 8 = 0, d has the value E cot a, - k (1 - cosp). Thus, an ap-
propriate decay for the lower surface would be [r cot a, - k(l -
cosp)] (cos8 - cosd )/(I -cosd ). Examples of airfoils with velocities
prescribed in this manner are shown in Results and Discussion.
The three unknowns in the above example are 1, k, and E. A com-
plication arises in the determination of these values. When the con-
tributions from the new upper-surface S terms given in Eq. (35) are
included in the algebraic system of equations comprising the three
integral conditions, the system becomes nonlinear. Thus, in going
from symmetrical to nonsymmetrical airfoils, the problem of sat-
isfying the three integral restraints jumps from one of needing no
system solver to one of needing a nonlinear system solver. Once
the hurdle of incorporating a nonlinear system solver into the com-
puter program is cleared, the complication ends. The equations to
solve are well conditioned, and no difficulty has ever been en-
countered in solving the system of equations.
It should be noted that it is possible to prescribe values for a l ,
a2, /3, and d which willproducenegative values for r. In this case,
the whole problem should be restructured so that rcota, is added
to the lower surface, and Eq. (35) restructured in an appropriate
manner. Then E will be positive, and the discontinuity in d(ln q,)/d
8 will be moved to n + a1 + a2 + r. These airfoils are usually
of little practical interest.
Leading-Edge Term
If a function has a discontinuity, its conjugate has a logarithmic
infinity at the same point. This can be seen, for example, by examin-
ing the conjugate function for a constant k prescribed over the in-
terval A<O<p. Examination of the conjugate, given earlier, shows
that as 8 A the conjugate behaves as (k/n)ln(8 - A). The con-
+
jugate of d(ln qo)/d8 is dX/d8, as shown by differentiating the
conjugate Fourier series. There, dX/dO becomes logarithmically in-
finite at 8 = n + a1 + a2, because in the method of direct design
at incidence d( In qo)/d8 is discontinuous at this point. Now the
curvature of the airfoil surface is dX/ds = (dX/dB)(dO/ds), and
since dO/ds remains finite and non-zero, the curvature has a
logarithmic infinity. This implies that at 8 = n + a1 + a2 the sur-
face has a zero radius of curvature. As a result of the zero radius
of curvature, this airfoil would have a velocity peak at the nose
for angles of attack above a]. Boundary layer separation in the im-
mediate recovery downstream of the peak would seriously limit the
performance of the airfoil. Lighthill recognized the problem and
presented a leading-edge term to add to In q, to eliminate the
derivative discontinuity. An asymptotic formula was used for the
conjugate expression. Glauert used a different term which had more
deisrable characteristics.
Glauert's leading edge term eliminates the discontinuity in d(ln
qo)d8. The value of the discontinuity is -cot a, and the E techni-
que for cambered airfoils merely shifted the location of the discon-
tinuity from 8 = n + a1 + a2 to 8 = n + a1 + a2 - E. Because
the magnitude of the discontinuity is the same for symmetrical or
cambered airfoils, Glauert's leading-edge term is valid for both types
(for symmetrical airfoils, E = 0, a 2 = - a l , a, = a1 = a).
-
Glauert's leading-edge- term eliminates the discontinuitv in the
derivative by, respectively, adding and subtracting one-half the
discontinuitv as it is avvroached from each side. Letting 4 = 8 -
(n + a1 + i2 - E ) , ihe leading-edge term to be added'to S is
+
At = 0, dK,/d+ = 2 %cots,, as required There is no discon-
+
tinuity in d2Kn/d+2 anywhere. Furthermore, at = + n/Y2n),Kn
and its first two derivatives equal zero, so the function blends
smoothly at the limits of its domain. The velocity is reduced by K,,
with the largest reduction occurring at 4 = 0 where K, = - (n - 2)/
(4n)cotao. As n decreases, the reduction increases and the reduction
occurs over a wider range of +.One effect of this is that with small
n the velocity peaks formed for incidences above a1 are reduced
and rounded. The effect on the airfoil shape is a rounding of the
nose.
There is a restriction on n which depends on a,. In essence, a
large radius cannot be put on a thin airfoil. If an attempt is made
to do this, a negative radius of curvature will occur. The thickness
of an airfoil depends on a,. Glauert's analysis showed, for exam-
ple, that for n = 6 the incidence range (2a0) should be specified
to be over 4 degrees; for n = 3 the range has to be greater than
8 degrees.
Glauert4 presented tables for the conjugate function of Kg, but
t'here appear to be some problems with the analytic expressions as
presented. For example, expressions for the three integrals in Eq.
(23) are presented for Kg (Appendix 111); however E is not involved
and this cannot be correct. If Glauert was actually considering the
symmetrical airfoil case (E = O), the results appear to be of the wrong
sign. Sign discrepancies also appear to be present in the conjugate
function. Use of Glauert's conjugate and integral expressions
resulted in unsuccessful results. Thus in the present effort, the con-
jugate and the three integral expressions have been rederived, and
the results are presented in a general form for all n. Glauert often
used the letters G, A, B, and C to represent, respectively, the con-
jugate function and the values of the three integrals in Eq. (23).
For convenience, this practice has been followed here. Letting
R = n + a l + u ~ - E ,
 The procedure, then, is that in the specification of S the velocity
on the lower surface is defined to be greater than the velocity on
the upper surface at the trailing edge by the amount, for example.
b, where b is a quantity input by the designer and the larger the
value the greater the rear loading. If b = 0, then no rear loading
+ 2)
+$ kos n4 ln
sin 'h

sin 'h
(+

(+ - ?n;)
+ 2n
n sin n+
occurs. The quantity % b P , is then added to the S terms. A
negative value for b will produce an airfoil with the upper surface
having the greater velocity near the trailing edge. The addition of
the rear loading term produces no discontinuities in either In qo or
d (In qo)/d8 at 8 = + n/(2m).

"-2 sin [(n -j - 1) L] Glauert presented the conjugate function and the three integral
+ 2 ,=o
,I 2n sin [(j + l)+l expressions for Pg (and the Pg conjugate function is tabulated). The
n-j-1 more eneral expressions for P,, derived by the present author, are

1 n2
A =~ ( - - 11 cot a.
8

B = (- n2 c o IIs - l ) c o s R c o t o o
- (1 + sin me) In +-
2m
cos me
n2 -1 2n

C= (-
n2
n2
-
cos %- 1I sin R cot a. m-j

The function X (8) is defined by

1 8 In sin-dt
X(8) = --J t
n o 2

and is tabulated in Glauert's report. The function will be discussed

later.
Rear Loading
On an airfoil with a cusped trailing edge the velocities on the up-
per and lower surfaces usually approach the common trailing-edge
velocity with deceleration gradients which are nearly constant in
magnitude-although not equal-over about the last 20% of the
chord. Most often, the upper-surface velocity is greater than the
lower-surface velocity over the rear region of the airfoil. The pressure
difference between the upper and lower surfaces drops steadily, and
the rear portion of the airfoil develops little lift. A rear-loaded air-
foil is one in which the pressures on the upper and lower surfaces
are kept different until the very end of the airfoil. The velocity gra-
dients on these airfoils thus become very steep near the trailing edge
of the airfoil. The upper-surface velocity near the trailing edge can
be either greater or less than the lower-surface velocity. Rear loading
can be employed for such purposes as boundary layer control, pitch-
ing moment control, or adding lift to the airfoil.
With Lighthill's inverse design method, rear loading can be em-
ployed in a rather direct fashion. In Glauert's approach the velocities
on the upper and lower surfaces must be specified so that there is
a velocity difference near the trailing edge. The trailing-edge term
blends the two velocities together at the trailing edge by adding half
of the velocity difference to the slower velocity and subtracting half
from the faster velocity. The trailing-edge term to be added to S is
[
C = 2 I--
2,
q
- 1 cos 21-17
Suction Airfoils
The majority of airfoils presented by Lighthill and Glauert were
suction airfoils. This type of airfoil apparently was originally sug-
gested by A. A. Griffith, whose idea was to concentrate all of the
pressure recovery on a surface into a single point. At this point a
suction slot was to be located so that the boundary layer could be
removed to prevent boundary layer separation. Symmetrical air-
foils of this type, called Griffith airfoils, were designed and tested9
(although they were originally designed using an approximate
method of Goldstein). Glauert concentrated on cambered airfoils
with a single slot on the upper surface3; such airfoils have also been
tested. l o
A suction airfoil can be designed with the inverse method by sim-
ply requiring the velocity to have a discontinuity at the desired loca-
tion. For example, with a slot to be located at 8 = 0 on a cambered,
single-slot airfoil, the terms prescribed for S upstream of the slot
could be the usual constant velocity 1 + E cota,; downstream of
the s b t a constant velocity of 1 - k would be used, instead of 1
- k (cos8 - cosp). The magnitude of the velocity drop is not pre-
scribed but comes from the solution (k is an unknown constant).
At incidence a , the magnitude of the velocity drop is el + m t a o
- el - k. A positive or negative velocity gradient can also be
prescribed for the region downstream of the slot by simply adding
_t re, &&/I. The value of r is a prescribed quantity. Of course,
rear loading can also be applied.

- 1 - sinm8 , - - ! ! - < @ < ( I At 8 = /3 there is a singularity inX(0) and, therefore, the airfoil
2m shape must be generated in two segments. The region downstream
p m =( (39) of the slot on the upper surface is created via an integration of Eq.
1 - sin m e , 0<8<& (14) from 8 = 0 to 8 /3. The lower surface, nose region and up-
-+

per surface ahead of the slot come from integrating from 8 = 2n

The blending occurs over the region of 8 = rt n/(2m) in the circle
plane, so large values of m produce a sudden blending with very
steep velocity gradients.
to 8 + /I. No actual slot opening is generated by this method.
Lighthill and Glauert discuss the fact that the surfaces ahead of and
behind the slot come together in a logarithmic spiral. The slot open-
ing must be created by altering the surface shape after the airfoil
is generated. The region over which the surface shapes curl together
is very small and would be removed with any practical slot open- The first 30 nonzero Bernoulli numbers may be found in Ref. 12.
ing. A slot opening would be created if a sink were placed at the
velocity discontinuity location, as discussed by Lighthill1 and
Glauert .4 Evaluation of X(8) is the next task. As indicated, this requires
the summation of the G expressions obtained from Appendix I of
Numerical Implementation Glauert's report for all of the terms in Eq. (29). The resulting ex-
pression is long and is evaluated in a subroutine. The expression
The alogrithm developed in the present effort essentially follows contains a number of logarithmic terms involving trigonometric ex-
the six tasks listed earlier. It is a relatively straightforward implernen- pressions which become singular at certain angles (e.g.,
tation of Lighthill's method as applied by Glauert. To date, no time In lsin l/2 (0 - A)/sin ?h(0 - p)l , where A and p are given angles such
has been taken to review the algorithm to see if significant improve- as the velocity decay angles p and 6). If done properly these log
ments in speed and storage requirements could be made. The com- terms will either cancel or be multiplied by expressons which go to
puter programs were written in standard BASIC. zero faster than the logarithms approach infinity (suction airfoils
will retain a singularity at the slot).
Because of limited storage capacity no attempt was made to
develop a general code that would allow the user to specify the type As given by Glauert, the G function for the first two terms of
of decay law at run time. Instead, individual programs were writ- Eq. (29) contains the integral F function defined by
ten for each type of decay law. Differences in the programs exist
primarily in two subroutines: one evaluatingX(8) and the other con-
taining the algebraic expressions associated with the three integral
equations. Implementing the first task, that is, prescribing In qo(8),
thus rests largely on the writing of these two routines. Appendix
I of Glauert's report4 is used to obtain the G,A,B, and C algebraic
expressions for each term prescribed in S as well as the first two
terms in Eq. (29). The expressions are then combined and inserted This function is tabulated in Table 1 of Glauert's report. The tabular
values were used in a spline-fitted manner as described earlier. If
in the routines. The algebra is not tricky, but it is a little long; the
desired, this integral may be evaluated as follows. The integrand
expression for X ( B ) can take over 40 lines of code. The developer
is singular at t = 0 and, therefore, is broken into two parts as before.
should be prepared to go over-and over-the algebra and the cod-
ing during the debugging stage. As part of the first task, provisions The second part can be accurately evaluated using, for example,
Romberg integration. The first part may be integrated using the
must also be made for user input at run time of the values of the
approach given in the text by ~ t k i n s o n !for
~ evaluating the integral
design parameters (such as a l , a2, the velocity decay angles /I and
of g(x) In x from 0 to A. The g(x) term is expanded in a Taylor
d, and the leading- and trailing-edge fhctors n,m,and b).
series, and each term of the integral is then obtained by integrating
by parts. The result in the present case can be shown to be
The second task is the solution of the nonlinear system of equa-
tions fj(xl,x2,x3) = 0, i = 1,2,3 associated with the three integral
conditions. For example, f l is simply the sum of the A expressions
for each of the terms describing In q,; xl, x2, and x3 represent the
three unknown quantities. For the cambered airfoil programs written
so far, the unknowns have always been the 1, e , and k quantities
discussed in the examples. Newton's method has been used to solve
the system. Newton's method, which requires a linear system solver, The fourth task, which is the last major task, is the integration
also requires evaluation of afi/axj.The derivatives were approx- of Eq. (14) to obtain the airfoil shape. Using Eq. (lo), the 2/ qo
imated by [fi(xj + h) - fi(xj)]/h, where h was a small number. term in Eq. (14) can be replaced by
Newton's method is an iterative procedure and requires an initial
solution guess. The values 1 = 0.8, E = 0.02, and k = 0.5 were
often used. As stated, no problems have been encountered with the
solution. The time for convergence is only a small fraction of the
total problem computation time.

The fi for the terms prescribed in S involve simple trigonometric

expressions. The A expression for the first two terms in Eq. (29), To reduce the number of cosine evaluations Eq. (45) can be writ-
however, involves the X integral function defined in Eq. (38). This ten as
function is tabulated in Table 2 of Glauert's reportd, and the
tabulated values were used in the present effort. This was done by 2 = -
2 sina (cot a
first fitting a cubic spline through about 80 of 180 points given in -
qo qo
+ tan-)20
the table. The computed spline coefficients, which allow the spline
to be evaluated at any point, were then saved and used in all airfoil
design programs. If desired, the table may be generated using the
following procedure. The integrand is singular at t = 0, but the provided a f 0. Now q, is simply eW), and Eq. (14) finally can
integral may be evaluated by breaking it into two parts, viz., be written as
t dt =
In sin -
2
5 A In sin f- dt
2
+ A
t
In sin 2 dt (41) 0
(cot ai + tan -2t ) sin t
x(8) = 2 sinai lo ,S(t) cos X(t) dt
where A is appropriately small. The second integral, from A to 8 , (47)
may be integrated accurately using Romberg integration. The in-
tegral from 0 to A may be handled by expanding the integrand in a
Taylor series (see formula 20.48 of Ref. 11) and integrating term
by term. The result contains Bernoulli numbers and may be writ-
ten as
This is the form used in the present programs. For a1 + a2<0<n
+ a1 + a2, ai = al; for the other half of the circle ai = a2. As
8 is increased from 0 to 2n, the airfoil is generated in its no-lift
orientation.
 The integration in Eq. (47) may be performed using Simpson's
rule. The circle is partitioned into sectors, and partitions are located
at the angles where the prescription of S changes or where ai
changes. For the typical cambered airfoil design with a rear-loading
capability, there will be 10 sectors. Partitions will be located at 8
equal to 0, + n/(2m), a1 + a2, /3, n + a1 + a2 - r , f n/(2n)
n + a1 + a2 - r , n + a1 + a2 and d, where (as in the examples)
/3 and d are the angles on the upper and lower surfaces, respectively,
where the velocity decay begins. At run time, the user inputs for
each sector the number of surface coordinate points to be defined
in the sector. The greater the number of points, the greater is the
accuracy of the integration. The x and y arrays have presently been
dimensioned to 300.
To determine the lift coefficient using Eq. (24), the chord must
be measured. This task is done by simply scanning the points to
see which one has the greatest distance from the origin, which is
the tail. This distance is saved as the chord length, and the no-lift
angle is given by tan- l(y/x) of the maximum-distant point. For
plotting purposes the airfoil is rotated so that the chord is horizon-
tal, the lengths are scaled by the chord, and the nose is placed at
the origin.
Because x has been determined as a function of 0 , the last task-
that of computing the velocity distribution over the airfoil at any
particular angle of attack-may easily be done using Eqs. (31) and
(32). The values of the quantity es@)/cos(0/2 - ai) in Eq. (31) are
actually stored in an array at the time the integrands in Eq. (47)
are being evaluated. Thus, this array is available for repeated use
in Eq. (3 1) for velocity distributions at a variety of angles of attack.
Results and Discussion
The remainder of the paper presents illustrations of some of the
types of airfoil which can be generated. The results are typically
displayed with figures showing both airfoil shapes and the surface
velocity distributions. In most figures, a single parameter is varied,
and two or three designs are superimposed to show the effects of
the parameter variation. With one exception, the velocity distribu-
tions are shown for the airfoil at its upper-surface design angle of
attack. At this angle the upper-surface velocity has always been pre-
scribed to be constant for some length, and the velocity is called the
rooftop velocity. The expression "design angle of attack" stems
from the method of direct design at incidence, and use of the ex-
pression is not meant to imply that the airfoil is designed to be flown
at the "design" angle. In fact, flight at this angle generally should
be avoided, because a slight increase in incidence can result in an
adverse pressure gradient near the nose and possibly a laminar
separation bubble and/or early boundary layer transition. Note that
all angles are with respect to the no-lift position. The no-lift angles
are given in the figure captions. The order in which the angles are
given corresponds to the order of the airfoils as ranked by lift co-
efficient; the no-lift angle of the airfoil with the highest lift coef-
ficient is listed first.
The terms and nomenclature used in this section are as follows.
The upper- and lower-surface design angles of attack are q , and
02, respectively. The angle in the circle plane where the upper-
surface rooftop velocity ends is called /3. The angle /3 is measured
in the same manner as is 0 (counter-clockwise from trailing-edge
region); /3 will also be referred to as the velocity decay angle, since
the velocity begins its decay at 0 = /3. The decay angle for the lower
surface is d. In the velocity decay region, the velocity is prescribed
as being proportional to f(8) - f(/l), and the form of f(8) is refer-
red to as the type of velocity decay law. For example, if the pre-
scribed velocity is taken as being proportional to c o d - cos/3, the
airfoil will be termed as one having a c o d decay law. Because the
cos8 decay law is a simple one having a reasonable behavior from
a boundary layer viewpoint, this law has been used for many of
the airfoils presented. In the decay region the boundary layer is tur-
bulent, and a turbulent boundary layer can withstand a steeper velo-
city decay earlier in its life time than it can when it is older and
thicker. The cosine decay starts out at 8 = /3 with its steepest velocity
gradient, and the deceleration decreases as the trailing edge is
approached.
Symmetric Airfoils
Many of the properties of the design method are best illustrated
with symmetric airfoils. The effects of changes in design parameters
are readily apparent with symmetric airfoils in that the changes af-
fect both the upper and lower surfaces in a similar fashion. For
symmetric airfoils, a2 = - a1 and d = - 0. Because of the sym-
metry the calculation need be performed for only one surface.
The first results illustrate the effect of the velocity decay angle
/3 on the airfoil and velocity distribution. The design angles of at-
tack are + 5 degrees, and the results for the three decay angles of
/3 = 45,90, and 135 degrees are shown in Fig. 1. The cosine decay
law is used. Important observations are: (1) The chordwise loca-
tion of the velocity decay point is approximated by the projection
onto the horizontal axis in the circle plane of the point on the cir-
cle at the angle /3. Thus, x/c of the velocity decay point is approx-
imately given by (1 + cos8)/2. The correspondence between points
on the airfoil and on the unit circle is described by x/c = (1 +
cos8)/2. (2) The smaller the decay angle, the longer the rooftop
region and the thicker the airfoil. (3) The cosine decay law does
indeed produce velocity decays which are the steepest at 8 = /3. (4)
These airfoils were generated without the leading-edge term, and
the rooftop velocities begin abruptly. This is due to the zero radius
of curvature at the nose. (5) The rooftop velocities do not differ
significantly, nor do the lift coefficients. A long rooftop region is
generally conductive to high lift performance, however, for sym-
metrical airfoils, the long rooftop specification also gives a lower-
surface velocity with its maximum velocity at the decay point nearly
matching the rooftop velocity. The lift coefficients for all of the
symmetric airfoils presented in the paper agree to within 2 percent
of the standard formula CL = 2n (1 + 0.77 t/c)sina.
The effect of the design angle of attack is shown in Fig. 2. Here
d = - /3 = 90 degrees; airfoils with design angles of attack of 2.5,
5.0 and 10.0 degrees have been plotted. Again, the cosine decay
law is used. The figure shows rather dramatic changes in lift coef-
ficient and thickness among the three airfoils. These differences il-
lustrate two general observations concerning the design method
which are also valid for nonsymmetric airfoils. (1) The most domi-
nant parameter affecting the lift coefficient is a l , the upper sur-
face design angle of attack; and (2) the most dominant factor af-
fecting the thickness is a1 - a2, the difference between the upper-
and lower-surface design angles of attack (the incidence range of
the airfoil). These observations are reinforced later in connection
with a cambered airfoil. Figure 2 also shows the expected result that
as the lift (and circulation) increases, the stagnation point on the
lower surface moves further downstream.
In Fig. 3, three simple forms of velocity decay law are compared.
For all three airfoils, a2 = - a1 = 5 degrees and d = - /3 = 90
degrees. The three decay laws illustrated are the cos8, sine, and 8.
The results show that there is little change in lift coefficient and
that the velocity distributions over the front half of the airfoils are
nearly identical. The shape of the aft part of the airfoils to some
extent mimics the shape of the velocity decay. The sin8 decay law
gives a velocity distribution whose decay becomes steeper as the trail-
ing edge is approached-a feature which is unattractive from a
boundary layer standpoint. The 0 decay law produces a velocity
distribution which is nearly linear until very close to the trailing edge.
Both the sin0 and 8 decay laws have a disconcertingly large velo-
city gradient very close to the trailing edge. These abrupt decelera-
tions would cause boundary layer separation. Unlike cos8 decay
law airfoils, which have surfaces with a natural concavity leading
nicely into cupsed trailing edges, the sin0 and 8 decay law airfoils
have surfaces which appear to be more natural for trailing edges
with finite trailingedge angles. The trailing-edge compression
regions appear to be associated with the rather sudden concavity
enforced by the cusped trailing-edge requirement.
Other simple decay laws are available. A prescribed cos0/2 decay
produces results very similar to the cos0 decay (a slight increase
in concavity occurs). The cos 20 decay produces initial velocity ac-
celerations if 0 is greater than 90 degrees. There is a corresponding
local increase in airfoil thickness in the acceleration regions. One
can learn a lot beforehand about how the velocity distributions are
going to look by simply plotting and comparing the decay func-
tions themselves (e.g., cos 8 - cos /3,181 - /3, suitably scaled so
that they go through zero at ' 81 = /3 and one a t , 81 = 0). All other
airfoils presented have a cos I Bl decay law on the lower surface.
All of the airfoils so far have had a zero radius of curvature nose.
The following airfoils all have the leading-edge radius of curvature
terms incorporated into the solution and, therefore, have finite
leading-edge radii. The leading-edge radius capability is illustrated
in Fig. 4. The decay law is the d81; again a2 = - a1 = 5 degrees
qnd d = - /3 = 90 degrees. As stated, the leading-edge factor n
spreads the leading-edge region over an angle of *90/n degrees.
In the figure the values of n are 3, 5. and 20, and it is clear that
significant changes in the nose radius have occurred. The largest
radius is for n = 3; the results for n = 20 differ very little from
the zero radius case. Despite the large changes in the thickness of
the airfoils, the lift coefficients are comparable (a1 is the same for
all). The increase in thickness allows for greater structural efficiency.
To keep the airfoil thickness approximately unchanged while the
nose radius is increased requires a reduction in the design angles
of attack (and consequent reduction in lift). If too large a nose radius
is requested for given design angles of attack, unsatisfactory sur-
faces develop.
The effect of a finite nose radius is also quite apparent in the
velocity distributions. The rooftop velocities no longer begin in an
abrupt manner. The rounding of the nose and the associated round-
ing of the velocity distribution near the beginning of the rooftop
are important conditions at angles of attack above the upper-surface
design angle of attack. The greater the nose radius the less the velo-
city overshoot for angles above the design angle. This is illustrated
in Fig. 5 where the velocity distributions for the n = 3 and n =
20 airfoils in Fig. 4 are shown for angles 2 degrees above and below
the design angle of attack. The absence of the overshoot spike is
quite noticeable for the n = 3 airfoil.
Cambered Airfoils
With cambered airfoils, at, a2, /3, and d can be varied in-
dependently, and different series of airfoils can be generated by vary-
ing one parameter at a time. The leadingedge radius factor n can
also be varied. While it is instructive to go through such a parametric
variation, this is not really necessary. With the knowledge gained
from the symmetric airfoil study, ii is not difficult to understand
and anticipate the effects of various parameter variations. In fact,
only four figures are used to illustrate these effects. All of the air-
foils in these figures have a cos 0 decay on both surfaces.
In Fig. 6, a2 = - a1 = 5 degrees (just as in Figs. 3, 4, and 5);
however, /3 and d are varied independently. Examination of the upper
and lower surfaces gives no surprises in airfoil shapes or in the loca-
tions of the velocity decays points. Although a1 - a2 is constant,
the thicknesses of the airfoils differ. This shows (as did Fig. 1) that
large variations in the decay angles can appreciably affect the
thickness. The lift coefficients of the airfoils are comparable; a1
is still dominating the lift determination.
In Fig. 7 the lower-surface design angle of attack is varied while
everything else is held constant. For these airfoils a1 = 10 degrees,
/3 = 85 degrees, d = 260 degrees, and n = 8. The parameter a2
varies in 4 degree increments from - 2 to 6 degrees. The airfoils
exhibit a considerable change in thickness, which reflects that a1
- a2 varies from 4 to 12 degrees. The lift coefficients are within
6 percent of each other, and agaip this is attributed to a1 being held
constant. The lift coefficients of these airfoils-in fact, of all of
the cambered airfoils shown in the report-are within 6 percent of
the values predicted using the simple lift coefficient formula pre-
sented earlier.
In Fig. 8, the lower-surface design angle of attack is held at 2
degrees, while the upper-surface design angle of attack varies from
7 to 13 degrees in increments of 3 degrees. The values of P, d, and
n are the same as in the previous figure. Because a1 is the quantity
I varied, the lift coefficients vary significantly. There is an appreciable
1 change in thickness due to the variation in a1 - a2 (5 to 11
degrees). Figure 9 illustrates a case where both a1 and a2 are varied,
but in such a way that a1 - a2 remains constant at 5 degrees. The
thickness of each of these airfoils is essentially identical at 21 per-
cent. There is a significant change in the lift coefficients since a1
has been varied from 7 to 11 degrees.
The airfoils thus far have all been "smooth" inasmuch as they
were defined using many points, typically 250 to 300 points. A large
number of points is desirable for final design purposes, but for other
purposes it is more efficient to work with far fewer points. The
tlesign method allows this in that it generally provides a reasonable
representation of an airfoil with only 20 to 30 points. These air-
foils, appropriately called "stick" models, are quite useful. Crude
stick models with 20 to 30 points are suitable for program debugg-
ing purposes. More refined stick models with 30 to 40 points are
often adequate for parametric studies or for boundary layer analyses.
A comparison of a stick model with 28 points and a smooth model
withi 292 points is shown in Fig. 10. The stick models appears to
be quite satisfactory. The comparison, however, is not strictly cor-
rect because the present algorithm scales the airfoil so that its chord
length is one. A direct measure of the differencein the actual chord
lengths can be made, however, by taking the ratio of the life coef-
ficients. Equation (24) shows that for equal design angles of attack
cI/c2 = CL2(CLI. For the two airfoils shown in Fig. 10, the lift
coefficients differed by only one percent. Thus the stick model was
is quite satisfactory. Note that the number of points only affects
the accuracy of the numerical integrations giving x and y; the
magnitude of the surface velocities do not depend on the intergra-
tions. Experience to date has shown that occasionally a single sec-
tor in a stick model will require many more points than do the other
sectors before the airfoil will satisfactorily close.
With unsymmetrical airfoils the design repertory can include rear
loading. Two examples of rear loading are shown in Fig. 11. The
two airfoils have identical input parameters except for the rear-load-
ing amplitude coefficients, which differ only in sign. The magnitude
of the coefficient if 0.5. The trailing-edge factor m is 6; thus the
rear-loading is relieved within the angular region of 8 = 15
degrees in the circle plane. A higher factor would tend to square
off the tail velocity distribution because the reduction would be con-
fined to an even smaller region.
The most obvious effect of rear loading on the shape of an air-
foil is the "wagging" of the tail of the airfoil. The tail is turned
down or up depending on whether the upper-surface velocity near
the trailing edge is greater than or less than the lower-surface velo-
city. Rear loading significantly affects the velocity distribution and
thus would have a large effect on boundary layer development. The
lift coefficients did not change appreciably with the rear loading.
The airfoil with no real loading was previously shown in fig. 8.
All of the basic features of the airfoil design method have now
been illustrated. They have been illustrated using simple velocity
decay laws, primarily the cos8 decay law. While the cos8 law is at-
tractive, it is desirable to have greater flexibility and greater con-
trol over the decay. By using more complicated decay laws, it is
possible to achieve this. Figs. 12 through 15 show airfoils designed
with decay laws offering progressively more control over the decay.
Figure 12 shows three airfoils designed with an upper-surface velo-
city decay proportional to cos(8 - q) - cos(l3 - q). Values of q
are 10,0, and -20 degrees, respectively, and it is shown that q of-
fers some control over the velocity decay. With q = 0 this law
reduces to the c o d law. To illustrate the effect of q more clearly,
a1 has been adjusted from 11.6 to 12.1 degrees so that all three air-
foils have the same rooftop velocity (d must be varied slightly to
keev a constant initial decay station). With n = 10 degrees,
- - the
velocity gradient approache: zero at'the trailing edge; q = - 20
degrees
- vroduces
- a more linear-like decay. The distributionsn shown
are reasonable, but the velocity distributions can be made to go
through a minimum or a maximum between the decay point and
the trailing edge. In fact, q can be varied so that the velocity
distributioin curve at the velocity decay point ranges from shooting
nearly straight up to shooting nearly straight down. The upper and
lower surfaces can cross if a velocity distribution with a minimum
is produced.
Figure 13 shows an airfoil with a two-tiered velocity decay. The
purpose of the two tiers is boundary layer control. One applica-
tion, illustrated in a rather exaggerated fashion in the figure, is pat-
terned after airfoils designed by Wortmann.I4 The first tier pro-
vides a gentle adverse pressure gradient region to induce boundary
layer transition before the flow enters the second tier which con-
tains the primary pressure recovery region. Each of the tiers has
a decay law similar to the type in Fig. 12. The chordwise location
of the initial and final decay points may be controlled with I j 2 and
PI, respectively. The velocity magnitude at which the final decay
begins can be controlled with k,. Finally, the slope of the velocity
decay just downstream of each decay point can be controlled with
the q values.
Nearly complete control of the velocity decay distribution can
be achieved by simply approximating the desired velocity distribu-
tion with piecewise continuous linear velocity segments. The 8 decay
law is appropriate for each segment. Although this law does not
yield truly linear velocity segments, for small segments the velocities
are very close to being linear. Each segment requires a velocity and
an angular coordinate specification for each of its two end points.
The velocities can conveniently be specified as a fraction of the roof-
top velocity. The rooftop velocity is largely controlled by the design
anbles of attack and thus can be kept rather stable during the design
iteration process. The problem can be set up such that the number
of segment end points and their relative velocity amplitudes can
be input a run time. Considering the problem encountered earlier
with the 0 law near the trailing edge, a c o d decay for the trailing-
edge segment seemed appropriate.
An example airfoil is shown in Fig. 14. Rather than develop an
airfoil tailored for optimum boundary layer control-such as air-
foil having a Stratford-like velocity rec0very,l5~16-for demonstra-
tion purposes it was easier (and more fun) to develop an airfoil with
a monogrammed potential-flow velocity distribution. Thus, the
lumpy airfoil shown is the author's MRS airfoil (if his initials had
been BXQ he would have opted for the Stratford airfoil). The air-
foil has 17 linear segments and took only three attemps to make
the initials legible (at least the M is clear). More segments require
only more input values and longer run times. For n segments there
are n inputs of angular coordinate, relative velocity amplitude, and
number of integation points along each segment. For the airfoil
shown, there are eight coordinate points along each linear segment.
The facetiousness of the airfoil in Fig. 14 may undermine the im-
portance of the linear segment contouring capability. To seriously
test the claim of nearly complete control of the velocity distribu-
tion, a velocity decay was specified in the airfoil plane as a func-
tion of the chordwise poistion. The challenge was to generate an
airfoil with a reasonably matching velocity distribution. To add a
little realism to the problem, the decay was taken as an expotential
one, but the form was rather arbitrarily specified as
Reasonable rooftop and trailing-edge velocities of 1.8 urn and 0.8
urn, respectively, were used. The rooftop was to end at 0 . 5 ~ .For
these conditions, A = 1.8, B = - 1.143, and x, = 0.5. A com-
parison between the specified and resulting airfoil velocities is shown
in Fig. 15(a). Twenty-four segments were used, and the two curves
are nearly coincident. The airfoil and complete velocity distribu-
tion are shown in Fig. 15(b). The procedure took many more than
three attemps; it could be automated.
Boundary Laver Control Airfoils
A Glauert-type suction airfoil is shown in Fig. 16. The slot is at
I j = 50 degrees for this airfoil, and although (1 + cos 8)/2 is 0.82,
the slot is located near 0.73. For this type of airfoil the chordwise
position of the slot is usually overestimated by the preceding rela-
tion. No sink has been incorporated into the design of this airfoil;
therefore, no slot opening appears in the design. So far only a hint
of the logarithmic spiral has shown up in the calculations of these
airfoils (the spiral is too small).
Interesting airfoil shapes occur when /3 and d are varied. With
small values of /3, such as /3 = 20 degree, airfoils can be generated
having slot locations on the underneath side of an overhang region
(the upper-surface trailing edge region is C-shaped). With /I= 80
degree, typical slot locations fall within the range of x/c = 0.41
to 0.45 (depending on 6); hence these airfoils have long thin tail
regions (these airfoils have a thickness of 20 percent). Airfoils hav-
ing velocity distributions in which no deceleration occurs anywhere
other than at the slot can be designed. Such airfoils would appear
to be a good candidates for an all-laminar flow airfoils, but expe-
rimental evidence 9.10 indicates that the concave surfaces downs-
stream of the slot produces Gortler vorticies which induce bound-
ary layer transition.
Accuracy and Run Times
A measure of the accuracy of the computations can be obtained
by seeing how well the airfoil closes upon itself at the trailing edge.
Typical values for the magnitude of the nondimensional distance
of the last point from the trailing edge are 1 x 10- 3 to 6 x 10- 4
for the cambered airfoils in the present effort. This accuracy is quite
acceptable. The accuracy, of course, is machine dependent, but the
results show that spline-fitting through the tabulated X and F func-
tions of Glauert will not significantly reduce the accuracy of the
computations.
The accuracy has also been checked by comparing velocity
distributions with those obtained by running generated airfoils
through the potential-flow panel-method code contained in the Tran-
sition Analysis Program System (TAPS) code.17 The results were
equally satisfactory.
The primary factor affecting the run time is the number of points
specified to define the airfoil. Because the leading-edge and rear
loading terms involve summations in the computation of X ( B ) , the
values of n and m in these terms also affect the run times. Sym-
metrical airfoils having the equivalent of 300 points (only 150 are
used in the computation) with no leading-edge terms can be
generated in less than a minute. A 300-point cambered airfoil takes
about seven minutes with n = m = 6. Lighthill mentioned that
for airfoils of high accuracy (use of seven-figure tables) the com-
putation time was 4 to 5 days. Someday people will smile at the
present runtimes.
Viscous Effects
Viscous effects reduce the lift of an airfoil. The reduction is most
dramatic when boundary layer separation occurs, but a reduction -
is present when the boundary layer remains attached. The interest
here is in the attached flow case. The boundary layer tends to reduce
the effective camber of an airfoil. Furthermore, the circulation is
affected by the wake thickness and curvature. To obtain an idea
of the magnitude of the lift coefficient decrement, a very brief survey
of measured lift coefficients was conducted.
Only six airfoils were included in the survey and all had cusped
trailing edges.'0*1s-22Except for the Glauert suction airfoiPO, all
of the airfoils were of recent vintage. The thicknesses ranged from
13 to 28 percent for the conventional airfoils; the Glauert airfoil
was 31 percent. The Mach numbers were low (M 5 0.1) and the
chord Reynolds numbers were moderately high (Re, 2 106). The
experimental lift coefficients were taken from the published curves
of lift coefficient vs. angle of attack. The points selected were well
away from the stall condition. The potential flow results were ob-
tained using the published airfoil coordinates and the panel-method
code contained in TAPS.17. The code models the Kutta condition
by equating the velocities at the center of the last panels on the up-
per and lower surfaces. It is thus important that the two panels be
small and of the same size. T o satisfy this requirement, and to en-
sure that the panel size increased in a smooth manner with distance
from the trailing edge, new coordinate points were established in
the trailing-edge region by fitting the existing points with cubic
splines.

The comparisons between the observed lift coefficients and those

obtained from potential flow theory are shown in Fig. 17. The or-
dinate is the experimental lift coefficient and the abscissa is the
potential flow value; along the 45-degree line shown in the figure
the two values are equal. The other line on the figure is a least-
squares straight line fitted through the data from five of the six air-
foils, and the scatter about the line is not large. The slope of the
line is 0.855, implying that the actual life coefficients are about 86
percent of the potential flow values. Before accepting such a crude
rule-of-thumb estimate more data need to be examined.

The data from the Kennedy and Marsden airfoil22 were not
included in the least-squares fit because the data do not follow the
trend shown by the other airfoils. This airfoil is a very thick airfoil
and is significantly rear loaded. With this type of airfoil wake cur-
vature and displacement thickness effects may become important.

The drag of the airfoil can be estimated using the Squire-Young

formula. This formula requires the boundary layer properties at
the trailing edge, and a boundary layer analysis can conveniently
follow the airfoil inverse design program. The design code was writ-
ten with the option of storing the coordinates and velocities for later
use by a boundary layer codes. An intermediate program was writ-
ten to locate the stagnation point and determine the velocity-surface
distance information. The program could also be used to delete any
of the points.
 Concluding Remarks
Lighthill's 1945 exact inverse conformal-mapping method for the
incompressible potential flow design of two-dimensional airfoils has
been reviewed and numerically implemented on a desktop computer.
With this method the shape of the airfoil is determined in terms
of the velocity distribution prescribed as a function of the angular
coordinate around the circle into which the airfoil may be trans-
formed. M. B. Glauert presented may useful analytic results in 1947
which enable the Lighthill method to be numerically implemented
in a straightforward manner, and in the present effort considerable
use has been made of Glauert's work.
Lighthill's method was programmed using the BASIC language
on a desktop computer having 55 kilobytes of working memory.
The numerical implementation has been discussed in some detail.
Use has been made of some of Glauert's tables by fitting them with
splines; however, a numerical procedure is presented for genera-
tion of the tables. The spline routine, a nonlinear system solver using
Newton's method, and Simpson's integration method comprise the
basic numerical repertory of the inverse design method.
The primary purpose of the paper is to demonstrate some of the
types of airfoils which may be generated using the method on a small
computer. Numerous examples are presented of airfoils and their
velocity distributions. The designs include both symmetric and
cambered airfoils encompassing a wide range of life coefficients and
thicknesses. The primary factors affecting lift and thickness are iden-
tified. Glauert's methods of controlling the leading edge radius and
applying rear loading are also demonstrated (the latter technique
has been corrected and generalized somewhat). Examples are given
of various types of velocity decays over the rear portion of the air-
foils. Run times for 300 point airfoils varied from under one minute
for symmetric airfoils to seven minutes for cambered airfoils with
rear loading.
Although seemingly restricted by the use of simple velocity
description terms in the circle plane, very good control over the
velocity in the airfoil plane is possible. The capability was tested
and demonstrated by specifying a velocity decay as a function of
the chordwise distance in the airfoil plane and then designing and
airfoil having an upper-surface velocity distribution which matched
the specified distribution. The design was completed in a trial-and-
error fashion by approximating the desired velocity decay with 24
piecewise-continuous linear velocity segments. The program was set
up so that the number of segment points, their location in the cir-
cle plane, and their relative velocity magnitudes could be input at
run time.
Lighthill's method has been shown to be quite suitable for use
on a small computer. In the interactive user-friendly environment
of the desktop computer the method is very flexible, enlightening,
and powerful. The method has been and is being used to design
single-element airfoils in an R&D environment; it should be emi-
nently suitable in an academic environment where it could be used
as a teaching and research aid for potential flow and boundary layer
studies.
References
1. Lighthill; M. J., "A New Method of Two-dimensional
Aerodynamic Design," A. R. C. R&M 21 12, pp 105-157 (Apr 1945).
2. Lighthill, M. J., "A Theoretical Discussion of Wings with
Leading-Edge Suction," A. R. C. R&M 2162, pp 556-564 (May
1945).
3. Glauert, M. B., "The Design of Suction Aerofoils with a Very
Large CL-Range," A.R.C. R&M 21 11, pp408-415 (Nov 1945).
4. Glauert, M. B., "The Application of the Exact method of
Aerofoil Design," A.R.C. R&M 2683, pp 733-797 (Oct 1947).
5. Eppler, Richard and Dan M. Somers, "A Computer Program
For the Design and Analysis of Low-Speed Airfoils," NASA TM
80210 (1980).
6. Santo, Junzo, "An Exact Two-Dimensional Incompressible
Potential Flow Theory of Aerofoil Design with Specified Velocity
Distributions," Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical
and Space Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 14, pp 11-18 (1%6).
7. Robinson, A , and J. A. Laurmann, Wing Theory, Cambridge
University Press (1950).
8. Thwaites, Bryan, ed., Incompressible Aerodynamics, Clarendon
Press, Oxford (1960).
9. Richards, E. J., Walker, W. S. and C. R. Taylor, "Wind-tunnel
Tests on a 30 per cent. Suction Wing," A.R.C. R&M 2149, pp
465-486 (July 1945).
10. Glauert, M. B., Walker, W. S., Raymer, W. G. and N. Gregory,
"Wind Tunnel Tests on a Thick Suction Aerofoil with a Single
Slot," A.R C. R&M 2646, pp 261-275 (Oct 1948).
11. Spiegel, Murray R., Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and
Tables, Schaum's Outline Series, McGraw-Hill Book Co. (1968).
12. Beyer, William H., ed., CRC Standard Mathematical Tables,
25th Ed., CRC Press Inc. (1974).
13. Atkinson, Kendall E., An Introduction to Numerical analysis,
John Wiley & Sons (1978).
14. Wortmann,, F. X., "Progress in the Design of Low Drag
Aerofoils," in Boundary Layer and Flow Control, Vol. 2, Ed. by
G. V. Lachmann, Pergamon Press, pp 748-770 (1961).
15. Stratford, B. S., "The Prediction of Separation of the Turbulent
Boundary Layer," J. of Fluid Mech., Vol. 5, pp 1-16 (1959).
16. Smith, A. M. O., "High-Lift Aerodynamics," J. Aircraft, Vol.
12, No. 6, pp 501-530 (June 1975).
17. Gentry, Arvel E., "The Transition Analysis Program System,"
Vol. 1, Rept. No. MDCJ7255/01, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics
Co. (June 1976).
18. Bingham, G. J . and A. W. Chen, "Low-Speed Aerodynamic
Characteristics of an Airfoil Optimized for Maximum Lift Coeffi-
cient," NASA TN D-7071 (Dec 1972).
19. Somers, D. M., "Experimental and Theoretical Low-Speed
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Wortman Airfoil as Manufac-
tured on a Fiberglass Sailplane," NASA TN D-8324 (Feb 1977).
20. Somers, D. M., "Design and Experimental Results for a Natural
Laminar Flow Airfoil for General Aviation Applications," NASA
TP-1861 (June 1981).
21. Somers, D. M., "Design and Experimental Results for a Flap-
ped Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoil for General Aviation Applica-
tions," NASA TP-1865 (June 1981).
22. Kennedy, J . L. and D. J. Marsden, "The Development of High
Lift, Single-Component Airfoil Sections," Aeronautical Quarterly,
pp 343-359 (Feb 1979).
 0.2 f(8) = Sin 8

0.1 0.1

ylc 0 ylc 0

-0.1 -0.1

"0 0.5 1 .O -0 0.5 1 .O

xlc xlc
Fig. 1 - Effect of Varying Velocity Decay Angle Fig. 3 - Effect of Type of Velocity Decay Law, f(8) - f(0)

0.2

0.1

ylc 0

-0.1

0 I I

0 0.5 1.O 0.5 1.O

xlc xlc
Fig. 2 - Effect of Varying Upper-Surface Design Angle of Fig. 4 - Effect of Varying Leading-Edge Factor
Attack
 nL. a , = - a 2 = 5 O , 8 = - B = 9 0 , C o s 8 - C o s B DECAY

-
0 I 8 8 . P 1

n = 8 , a, = 1 0 , B = 8 5 0 , 8=260,
Cos 8 - Cos B DECAY
0
OO 0.5 1.O 0 0.5 1 .O
xlc xlc
Fig. 5 - Velocity Distributions for Angles of Attack 2 Degrees Fig. 7 - Effect of Varying Lower-Surface Design Angle of
Above and Below Design Angle of Attack Attack, No-lift Angles; -2.85, -3.69, -4.61 Deg.

0.2
/B = 90
0.1

ylc 0 ylc 0
0.5
-1 .o

I I
I
ulu, .

n = 8, a , = 2O, B = as0, 8 = 260, C o s 8 - C o s B DECAY

0.5 0.5 1 .O
xlc xlc
Fig. 6 - Cambered Airfoils With Equal Magnitude Design Fig. 8 - Effect of Varying Upper-Surface Design Angle of
Angles of Attack, No-lift Angles; 3.39, 4.53 Deg. Attack, No-lift Angles; -4.56; -3.69, -2.79 Deg.
 b =-0.5

ylc 0 1
I ylc 0
0.5

, I I
I

n = 8, 8 = 8s0, 8 = 260, COS8 - COS8 DECAY

HY/ COS8 - COS8 DECAY
I I

0.5 1.O 0.5

xlc xlc
Fig. 9 - Effect of Varying a , and a, While Keeping a , - a, Fig. 1 1 - Effect of Rear Loading, No-lift Angles; -0.37,
Constant, No-Lift Angles; -4.95, -2.79 Deg. -8.75 Deg.

ylc 0 j
lo

0
0.5 1.O
xlc xlc

Fig. 10 - Comparison of Stick Model (28 Pts) With Smooth Fig. 12 - Illustration of Cos ( 9 - q) - Cos (13 - r ~ Decay,
)
Model (292 Pts) No-lift Angles; -4.07, -3.35, -2.67 Deg.
 1.21. \ ,ulu, FROM AIRFOIL

n = 6 , a , = 10,a2=50,fi1=800,@2=1000,'l)l=loO,
I,=-20
kl = - 0.85 xlc
1 1

0.5 0.1 Fig. 15(a) - Comparison of Specified and Airfoil Upper-Surface

xlc Velocities
Fig. 13 - Illustration of Two-Tiered Decay, No-lift Angle,
-3.38 Deg.

0.2 -

MONOGRAMMED POTENTIAL-FLOW VELOCITY

-0.2L DISTRIBUTION AIRFOIL
2.0 r

n=6,a1=12O, a2=1.2S0,@= , 8=280

I
T"; 1

0.5 1.O
xlc
Fig. 15(b) - Airfoil Having Specified Velocity Decay
xlc
Fig. 14 - Illustration of Custom Velocity Contouring With Fig. 15 - Test Case Airfoil Generated With Linear Velocity
"Linear" Segments Segments in Upper-surface Velocity Decay
 0' 0

5 1.5
W
Ref. Re, x
1 .o 0 18 9.0
0 10 0.96
0 19 1.5
A 20 1.0
0.5 a 21 3.0
0 22 1.o
I I I I I I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
POT. FLOW CL
Fig. 17 - Comparison of Potential Flow and Experimental Lift
Coefficients for a Variety of Airfoils
xlc
Fig. 16 - Glauert (Griffith) Suction Airfoil, No-lift Angle,
-3.75 Deg.