REPORT No.

530

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL FROM TESTS IN THE

FULL-SCALE AND VAEL4BLEDENSITY TUNNELS
. By EASTMAIJN. JACOBSand WILLIAM C. CLAY

SUMMARY of lesser interest, owing to adverse effeck on the

pitching-moment coeficienti, and the forward positions
This report giaes the results of tests in the N. A. C. A.
could not be satisfactory investigated with the mean
f+scale and variable-dendy tunnei% of a new wing
lines avsilabIe in the original family.
section, the N. A. 0. A. %9019,which is m of the more
One series of the new airfoils hav@ the forward
promising of an em%nded8erk8 of rel&d airj%ik re-
camber position appears to be of particuk interest.
cently developed. Th4 hwts were mude ai wveral vakes
The mean-Iine shapes for this series are designated by
of theReyn.o?.dxNumber between1,000,000 and 8,000,000.
numbers thus: 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50, where the second
2!h.enew a?kfoit?deve-hp8a remmndy high maximum
digit (0) represents the numerioal designation for the
lift and a low prom drag, which reswilsin an unueually
entire series and the first refers to the position of the
high value of the speed-range index. In ad.dii?ion,tlw
maximum camber. These positions behind the lead-
pitching-momeni coejickni h vw small. The supe+
ing edge are 0.05c, O.1OC,0.15c, 0.20c, and 0.25c,
O&y Of the W 88Cti07t0V8r &k710wTL a7Ut CO?M10?@
respectively.
used sectitma of & camber and moderaie thickm?ssis
The mean line having the shape designation 30 and
indiazted by making a direct annparison with wmiaMe-
a camber of approximately 0.02c (designated 230)
dendy tests of the N. A. 0. A. %??19,tlw well-known
when combined with the usual family thiclmess dis-
N. A. (7. A. family airfoil thd nw8t nearly rewnbles it.
tribution of 0.12c maximum thickness produoes the
Th4. superiority 1%further indixzted by comparing the
N. A. C. A. 23012 section. This airfoil seotion ap-
characteriatimwith those obtainedfrom f&caLe-tunnel
peared h be one of the most promising invcdigated in
teds of the Clark Y airfoiL.
the variabh+density tunnel. A preliminary announce
A compation h made betweenthe resu.1.%forilu newly
ment of this section, then referred to as the (N. A;
o%vel~ed airfoil from tests in the N. A. C. A. UZriuble-
C. A. A312, was made at the Ninth Annual Aircraft
d-eneityand fuLL8caLewind Wm.eL3. When the T88ui%e
Engineering Research Conference in M~y 1934.
from the two te8t8 are inierprded on the hawk of an
At the subsequent request of the Bureau of Aero-
e$ective Rwlds Number to allawfor th e$ect8 of
nautic, Navy Department, a 6- by 36-foot model of
turbulence,reamnu.bly8ati8fac40ryagreem.eniis obtaiwd.
the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil was tested in the N. A.
C. A. full-scale tunnel to verify the aerodynamic
INTRODUCTION
oharaotaristics found for this airfoil in the variable-
As a continuation of the invediigation recently com- demitg tunnel. This test was made possible through
pleted of a large family of related airfoils (reference 1), the cooperation of the Chance Vought Corporation,
two new series of related airfoils have been built and who constructed the wing and supplied it to the Com-
tested in the vmiabldmsity tunnel. The original mittee for the purpose. The present report has been
investigation indioated that the effects of camber in prepared to present and compare the results of the
relation to maximum lift coeilicients are more pro- tmts of the N. A. C. A. 23012 motion made in the
nounced when the maximum camber of the mean line N. A. C. A. variable-density and fulkcale tunnels and
of an airfoil section ooours either forward or aft of the to compare the results with those for well-known
usual positions. The after positions, however, are sections.
435
436 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY cohmmrrm FoR tiONATJTTCS
.

.CbOrct

.44

2.0 .40
18 .36
1.6 .32
Q
L4 28;
.? -5 , , , l\l 1 I w
-..--2 I I i I I I Ic.pl I 1/IIlfkt I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I { n

I I 1. I 1, I I I ! I
O?
I I I I I I I I I I r
,.
2 04

00

-.2 m.-3 t~! &dO1/:/i!A.C.,i23012 I ,.-

$ I I (Eff R.IVV8,160
t?.IM?3J090,CX?0 O(M) c
d
ti- Y/l W&e fesfed-LJL.U. Test: KD.ZIA57-8
.Dafe: 9-7-34 Tes+: 1}67-8 --,6
-8 Correc+ed fir +unnekwalJ effecf. --.4
5-.4 -1
I Correcfed io in finlfe aspect roiio
8 /2 16 20 2.4 28 32 4
-404 76 74 72 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 LO 12 44 L6
Angle of offuck, a (degrees) Lift coefficie~ C=

FMumLTIM N. A. O.A. !Z?412

s&IML Vaiabkiemitywindhnmd:standardt.A

Q 2C % n7 I I ! I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1

20

40

.60

80

100 i .-
o
.2 .04 .:.- I
-45
c) Ml I I I I II I 1-1 q
L: 1 I I
0 0 G-.2 -8 %
o 4
72 -/2
i-.3
-.4 $-.4 -16
1
$
-404 8121620242832
of attack, U (degrees)
Y6Y4:Z 0.24 .6 .8 LO [2 L4 M
Angle Liff coefficim~CL - - . -

2TheN. A.
FI13URE O. L !Z3MZ
8hfOil. VsriabkimsltyWnd hnnel: mimed EeYMIdsNumtw.
 CHARA~RISTICS OF THJ3 N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 437

DESCRIPTION OF THE AIRFOIL SECTION Descriptions of the variabl~density tunnel, methods

The mean-line shape for the series to which the of testing, standard airfoil models, and the accuracy of
N. A. G. A. 23012 belongs was derived empirically to the tests are given in references 1 and 2. The sys-
tematic errors mentioned in reference 1 have since been
have a progressively decreasing curvature from the
leading edge aft. Somewhat behind the mmmum- largely eliminated by allowing for the deflection of the
camber position, the curvature of the mean line de- model supports and correcting for the errora involved
creases to zero and remains zero from this point aft; in the measurement of the air velocity. As an aid in
thrttis, the mean line is stiaight from this point to the evaluating differences between results from the two
trailing edge. The 230 mean line has its maximum tunnels, the estimated errors from reference 1 axe
camber at a position 0.15c behind the leading edge. reproduced as follows:
The camber is not exactly 2 percent but was deter-
hors dnc
mined by the condition that the ideal angle of attack Quantitymwsard Acdderdal )Zup Ii
Intern%.
for the mean line shouId correspond to a lift coefficient mm
of 0.3, a value corresponding approximately to the
G.-. --.....------------------ #. 16 +aCtJ
usual conditions of high-speed or cruising flight. The CL---------------------- { _;g
N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil results born the combination ma
c .a ~---------------------------- Lm
of the 230 mean line with the usual N. A. C. A. thick- CDO(CL=O)---------------- --.... { :g .Mma
.m
ness distribution of 0.12c maximum thickness by the
C%(CL-l)-------------- . ----- { _:~ +. 0310
method described in reference 1. The airfoil profile and
a table of ordinates at standard stations are presented
in figure 1. In order to give a basis for the develop- FIJLIACALE-TUNNEL TESTS AND RESULTS
ment of related airfoilE of diflerent thiclmwsw, the
A description of the full-scale mnd tunnel and equip-
ordirmtesy of the N. A. C. A. 230 mean line we given
ment is given in reference 3. The N. A. C. A. 23012
as follows:
airfoil was mounted in the tunnel on two supports
Nose, from z=O to x=m
!/=; W-3mo?+m2(3m)3]
Tail, from x=m to x=1

where, for the 230 mean line, m= O.2025and k= 16.957.

VARL4ELE-DENSITY-TUNNEL TESTS AND RESULTS

Routine measurements of lift, drag, and pitching

moment were originally made at n Reynolds Number
of approximately 3,000,000 to compare the vtious
airfoils of the forward-camber series under the con-
ditions of a standard 20-atmosphere test in the
vmiabledensi~ tunnel. Later the N. A. C. A. 23012
airfoil was reheatedm a pfut of a general invcdigation
of scale effect. The data presented in this report were
taken from the latter twts which were made at several
values of the Reynolds Number between 42,400 and
3,090,000. FIGURE3.-The N. L O. A. !a312a.!rfoilmountedin the fnIlaale wind tunnel.
The test results obtained in connection with the
forward-camber airfoil investigation, as well as the that attached to the one-quarter-chord point (fig. 3).
complete remits of the scale-effect investigation, are The genemil arrangement was similar to that used in
omitted from this report but both sets of results will testing a seriw of Clark Y airfoils (reference 4).
appear subsequently in reports on the respective sub- The airfoil had a chord of 6 feet and a span of 36
jects. Complete results are given, however, &m tests feet. The frame was constructed of wood and cov-
at two values of the Reynolds Number (figs. 1 and 2). ered with sheet aluminum. The surface was smooth
Some additional data taken from the available tests at and the section throughout was not in error by more
other values of the Reynolds Number are also pre- thsn +0.06 of an inch from the speciiied ordinates.
sented with the discussion to indicate the scale effect for The lift, drag, and pitching moments were measured
some of the important characteristics. throughout a range of augles of attack from 8
438 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI!IWDE FOR AERONAUTICS

to 25. These tests were made at 5 d.itlerent air
speeds between 30 and 75 miles per hour corresponding
to values of the Reynolds Number between 1,600,000
and 4,500,000. The maximum lift was not measured
at speeds above 75 miles per hour as the wing was not
designed for the loads under these conditions. Addi-
tional tests to determine the scale effect on minimum
drag were made at several speeds up to 120 miks
per hour corresponding to a Reynolds Number of
6,600,000.
The interference of the airfoil supports upon the air-
foil was determined by adding a duplicate supporting
are given for the airfoil of infinite aspect ratio. Values
of the pitching-moment coefficient about the aero-
dynamic center, C.=.O.,are considered independent of
aspect ratio and are tabulatwd against 0.. The loca-
tion of the aerodynamic center (z, y) is given as a
fraction of the chord ahead and above the quarter-
chord point. A typical plot of the dnta from table VI
is given in figure 4.
Curves summarizing variations of these principal
characteristics that change with Reynolds Number are
given in figures 5 I% 9. Curves obtainod from similar
full-scale-tunnel tests on the Clark Y airfoil are

ord .13 52

.12 48

.// 44

48 .10 40
T
.%?Q
44 .09
& !!
y 40 ~.oo F
c ~
-i? Q
.
o .36 :5.07 L?

Om I , , I t , , , I I 1 , N I
Riiili (

40

.60

80

109 .4d.08

.2 .04
~

:{=--
o j-.2 -o~
o 4

R-es. (s findofm+ I Oofe:/O-24-34

:-.3 -12

Correcfed >or fun;ebwall ef;ect. .4

E-.4 -16
$
-8-404 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 :6+:20 .2 .4 .6 .8 LO L2 14 16
Angle of offock, ct [degrees) Lift coefficient CL

~QTJIIE 4.TheN. A. 0. A. T301!2

ahtoil. Rdl+walewindtunnel.

strut at the center of the wing. This dummy sup- presented in these figures for purposes of comparison.
port was not connected to the airfoil or to the balance These curves are presented in semilogaritlugic form to
and all change-sin the measured forces with the strut assistin extrapolation to higher valuea of the Reynolds
in place could be attributed to its interference. Dou- Number. Figure 5 shows the variation of the maxi-
bling the effect of this single dummy support was mum lift coefficient for the two airfoils; the scale effect
considered to account for the total interference of the on the angle of attack at zero lift for the airfoil section
two airfoil supports. All the data are corrected for is show in figure 6; figure 7 gives the effect of Rey-
wind-tunnel eflects and tares. The corrections are - nolds Numb: on he slo~e of the profile-lift curve;
the same as those used for the corresponding Clark Y rmd figures 8 and 9 show, &pectivel~, the scale-effec~
airfoil (reference 4). variation of the drag cceflicient at zero lift and the
The results of the full-tale-tunnel tesb of the minimum-profile-drag coefficient.
N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil are given in tables IV to VIII. A detailed discussion of the prtilon of airfoil tests
The values of C., a, C!=,LID, and c. p. me tabulated in the full-scale tunnel is given in reference 4. In
for the airfoil of aspect ratio 6 and values of ~ and Cw brief, it may be mentioned that a consideration of cdJ
 CHAE4~RISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 439

the contributing errors ihvolved in these tests gives bhat of the Clark Y (reference 4) shows that the new
the following es-tinted precision: &oil has a sharper break at maximum lift than does
the Clark Y.
+O.1
a=
The curves of the angle of attack of zero lift for the
c.mG=&o.03 hvo airfoils are shown in figure 6. The Clark Y has a

dC.
~= +0.0015 per degree .
o G ----- I 1111111
~ -6 1 -- _
h
C.. (c.= o)=+0.0004
CL).(C.=1.o)= +0.0015 a
L

c~a.c.=&o.oo3
:-

x= +0.005 chord $-

y= &o.03 chord

8 /0 20 xIOS
Reynolds Number
Fmums O.-Angle of atWk far z.ero-lfftvmfatlon. Variationwith Rnynold6
Numberfmmtqts fn theftdkale windtunnel.

considerable scale effect; whereas the N. A. C. A. 23012

isunaffected by cha~~es in Reynolds Number. At zero
lift a huge adverse gradient of pressure exists at the
forward portion of the lower surface of the Clark Y
that probably results in an early disturbance of the

t7eynoJcfs Number

FumrmS,hfaxfmnrnIIftax.llldents. VarfafIonwltb ReynoldsNmnkr from

testsfn thefulkxde wfndtunneL

DISCUSSION

Comparison with the Clark Y.The comparison be-

tween the new section and the Clark Y section is en-
I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 II
tirely based on the test results from the full-scale
tunnel, The curves in figure 5 show that the maximum o
I 2 4 6 8 10 20 xI06
lift coefficients for the two airfoils difler by little more Reynolds Number

than the e.sperimental error. The scale effect on the
maximum lift coefficient for the new airfoil is, however,
slightly greater than that for the Clark Y within the
rrmgo of Reynolds Numbers tested. The results indi-
cate that the coefficient for the N. A. C. A. 23012 is
somewhat greater than that for the Clark Y at Rey-
nolds Numbers above 3,000,000. A compmison 01
the shape of the lift curve of the 23012 (@. 4) with
7.-uftQmv0 .dofk3.vdn~ titbmOm
FIGVES ~UMknomkm fUm
fulkalo wfndtemd.
flow at the leading edge (reference 4). This condition
of flow has a critical effect on the angle of zero lift and
varies considerably with Reynolds Number. The
N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil has much less oamber than
the Clark Y and the general profile, which is more
nearly symmetrical, sets up a flow about the leading
... .._ _

440 REPOILT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMIT13EE FOR AJ?IRONAUTK!$3

edge that is not critical; hence, the effects of male 01 TABLE I

FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL TESTS COMPARING
the angle of zero lift should be small. This view % N. A. C. A. 23012 AND CLARK Y AIRFOILS
supported by the tests in the full-scale and variable At R. N. = 4,6W@YJ
denti~ tunneIs.
Figure 7 shows that the slope of the lift curve for thf cbamet81i9uo
N. #.~ A
OlerkY
N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil is slightly higher than thal
c L---------------------------------
for the Clark Y. Both sets of results indicate thal 1.47
aJ+(d )------------------------- :: -5. b
the lift-curve slope increases slightly with Reynokb dy
a-, @mrdegea
)_... . . . . . .. . . . . . .101 .Q33
Number. .
%.{.-.. ...-. ..-- .. .-...- .. -. ..-. ~ .Mm .Wa
The curves of drag coefficient at zero lift (fig. 8) CLWe--------------------------------
and minimum profihdrag coefficient (fig. 9) show that
cq*,.--i...-i

-.;..........-.
-----------------------
1.19
-1. m
1.016
1.20
-1.076

I
1.0-26
the drag of the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil is deii.nikly Aerdynmrf
center ----------------------n.@J
lower than that of the Clark Y. These @ures &c c
indicate that the drag decreases more rapidly with aD
increase of Reynolds Number for the new airfoil than cf..~ IA,
.1---------------------------- m 161
Cn.b --------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . .W9
for the Clark Y. It should be mentioned that the tiDmu -----------------------------
!250
CL at (~~.u_---__--..--..--..--
minimum-proille-drag re9uhk are relatively inaccurate ;~: ;;:
:g:~:doP&e)E::?::::::
as compared with the drag at zero lift so that caution
will be used in extrapolating them to higher vahs 1No m&$tant verfetion with cbangm in Regnolda Number.
of the Reynolds Number.
The remaining important characteristics for one Following a recently adopbd standard procedure,
wdue of the Reynolds Number are presented for com- pitching-moment coefficients are referred to the aero-

$
G.
~?
g
; .012
h I f I I f I f f
N !
1.
9J
<.
9
&w.4 t
~
~
1 2 46 8 10 20 XIOS
~ 0/ 2 4 6 8 10 20 XIO0
Re yriolds Number ? Reynolds Number
FIGURE 9.Mlnhmm profde-drag mftkient. VerMkm with ReynoldsNumber
FIGmE &Dragemtlldmt at zeroUft. Vmiationwith ReynoldsNnmkmrfrom from@s@InthefuH@e windttmnol.
tam fn theftdfsmlewfndtnnnal.
dynamic center rather than to the quarter-chord
pa&on in the following table. The method of obtain-
point. This procedure is considered preferable be-
ing the ratios of CzJC~Omfm~ he ~ble & somewhat
cause, by definition, a constant pitching-moment co-
fallacious as both the lift and drag dues were taken efficient is obtained throughout the flight range. The
at the same Reynolds Number; wherea!sin fLight the average values of the pitching-moment coefficients
two conditions occur at different air speeds. The thus found for the two airfoils together with the merm
comparative ratios indicate, however, that the speed location of the aerodpamic center are given in the
range of the new airfoil is much better than that of table. The coefficient for the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil
the Clark Y. As the result of the smaller mmber of is very small and is only about 9 percent of the value
the N. A. C. A. 23012 as compared with the Clark Y, found for the Clark Y.
C.On,,the lift coefficient cmm.spending to the minimum- In brief, it may be concluded from the results that
proiih+d.rag coefficient, might be expected to be con- the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil with the exception of o
siderably less. Airfoils such as the N. A.
C. A. 23012 Amper break in the lift curve is superior in all respects
having the camber well forward tend, however, to have to the Clark Y airfoil.
higher optimum lift coefficients than airfoils with usual Comparison with the N. A, C, A. 2212,&other com-
mean-line shapes. Actually, table I indicates that the mrison betwean the new section and a well-known sec-
optimum lift coefficiemk for the two sections are nearly ~on is atlorded by table H, in which are compared the
equal. mportant charactetitics of the N. A. C. A. 23012 and
 CHARACTERISTICS OF THEJ N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 441

the N. A. C. A 2212 sections. For this pyrpose ordy TABLE III

standard 20-atmosphere test results from the variable- COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM TWO TUNNEL$I
N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOILS
density tunnel corresponding tom effective Reynokk
Number (discussed lm%) of approximately 8,000,000
Ftdkcale
~m-&ble-
are employed. These are the usual test results from ctmra.3twktIo
Qmnal
tmn z
the standard plot in iigure 2 except that the drag co-
efficients have been reduced, as indicated in this figure EfkmtlveFLN---------------------- 3,4c9),lWJ &4a3,1Ml
W R. N-------------------------- $Wl,llxl L%@m
and discussed later, to allow for the reduction in the CL-------------------------------
L40 L43
skin-friction drag to be expected in passing horn the ah (d~)----------------------- L 2 L 2
test Reynolds Number to the higher effective Reynolds %=j~~d~).-.-.-.---..---. .Q3g .102
Number. The Reynolds Number of 8,000,000 at cD0.{.---------. ---------------- .m .Cw4
cL*,t---=..-=-------------------- .19 .16
which the comparison is made, corresponds approxi- c..4 ---------------------- ------- . m . W7
mdely to that for a modern two-engine transport air- r
------ . . . .. . . . . .015 .013
plane flying near its minimum speed. , Amxiymunio canterC
?---------- .Ce .0s
[
TABLE II .am
~d :
;$;+~::z::=;:::::::::::::
COMPARISON OF N. A. C. A. 23012 AND 2212 AIRFOIL8 - ------------------

Cbaracierwo N. A. C. A. N. &l~ A, The method of comparison employed utilizes the

. concept of an efkctive Reynolds Number in order to
Efl@lve IL N---------------------
Test R. N--------------------------
CL
. ...............................
U%(d_)---. ...................
ao=~~d~).--.........----.
u~hi.-. -.--- . . . . . . . ..--- . .. . . . . . . .
c et...............................
c. ..#--------------
..................
z
..........-----
Aerodynandc
(xrdtwe
g--------
{c
CLmWICD,
,_-----------m-----_--
. 217
CD ....... ..........................
(AD) -._.. ___. _......__.._
CLat (L@) . ..... ......... .....
c, p. forward pmitfon (permnt c)---
G p. at H CLm= -t c) -...-.
All the important characteristics of the two sections
me compared in a form that requires practically no
discwion. It will be noted that the characteristics of
the N. A. C. A. 23012 are approximately the same as, or
slightly superior to, those of the N. A. C. A. 2212 except
that the pitching-moment characteristics of the new
airfoil are markedly superior. The N. A. C. A. 23012
airfoil shouId therefore be used in preference to the
N. A. C. A. 2212 for airplanes requiring this general
type of airfoil section.
Comparison of variable-density-tunnel and full-scale-
tunnel results.-l%e comparkon of the results from the
two tunnels is made fist at one value of the effective
Reynolds Number by means of table III, which lists
all the important characteristics at one value of the
Reynolds Number, and later by a more detailed ccm-
pmison of the characteristics that show marked varia-
tions with Reynolds Number within the full-scale
range. In the table, the results from the variable-
dmsity tunnel were taken diredly from figure 2. The
rewdts from the full-scale tunnel were taken from
curves representing variations of the different char-
acteristics with Reynolds Number.
mu
$$la, m S,mxl,m allow for the effects of the turbulence present in the
&craQm amwo
wind tunnels. This method, which was first proposed
-LL? -LL? in reference 5 and is discussed in the succeeding para-
. KM .103 graphs, appears to be the best at present available for
. (074 .mm
the interpretation of wind-tunnel rwults as applied to
.M .17 flight.
. m . Gm Marked scale effects, such as the ropid decrease of
.012 m drag coe.tlicientwith Reynolds Number for the sphere,
.07 .M
the rapid increase of the maximum lift coefficient for
some airfoils, and the increase of drag coefficient for
210 &in-friction plate9, are associated with a transition of
.CO& .M177
!a-9 the boundary-layer flow from laminar to turbulent.
.W .40
Numerous experinmnts including Reynolds original
2: Fi~ classic experiments have indicated that the transition
occurs at progressively lower values of the Reynolds
Number as the unsteadiness, or initial turbulence,
}f the general air stream is increased. Hence, when
turbulence is introduced into the air stream of a wind
mnnel, these marked scale effects appear at a progres-
sively lower value of the Reynolds Number as the
sir-stream turbulence is increaaed. In a wind tunnel
having turbulence, the flow that is observed at a given
Reynolds Number therefore corresponds approximately
to the flow that would be observed in a turbuhmcdree
stream at a higher value of the Reynolds Number.
The observed coefficients and scale effects likewise
mrespond more nearly to a higher value of the
Reynolds Number in free air than to the actual test
Reynolds Number in the turbulent stream. It is then
~dvisable to refer 40 this higher value of the Reynolds
Number at which corresponding flows would be ob-
)erved in free air as the WIective Reynolds Number
)f the test and to make comparisons and apply
he tunnel data to flight at that value of the Reynokk
$umber.
As regards the relation of the effective Reynolds
~umber b the test Reynolds Number, it appears that
Lfactor, which will be referred to as the turbulence
 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
factor, may be applied to the test Reynolds Ntiber
to obtain the effective Reynolds Number. The value
of the turbulence factor for a given wind tunnel may
be determined by a comparison of sphere drag tests or
airfoil masimum-lift tests in the wind tunnel and in
flight. Because the factors determined by the two
methods might not agree, the airfoil method is con-
sidered preferable; but adequate data on mtium lift
coefficients are not a,vaihtblefor making the comparison
between both the full-scale tunnel and the variable-
density tunnel and flight by this method. A value of
the factor of 2.4 was tentatively established between
the variable-density tunnel and the full-scale tunnel
by a comparison of tests of Clark Y airfoils in both
tunnels. This value was employed im reference 5,
assuming the factor for the full-scale tunnel to be
unity (no turbulence).
The assumption that the factor is unity for the fuU-
scale tunnel is approximately correct because dif-
ferences in the turbulence between the full-scale
tunnel and flight produce only small chaqges in the
a from the variable-density tunnel at a test Reynolds
~:.
. flight at the effective Reynolds Number of approxi-
2
.-
0.
~ should be corrected by deducting the increment 0.0011,
N It should be emphasized that the values employed
~.
] drag increment should be considered as only tentative
8,
&,
Effective Reynolds Number
FIGURE 10.Dragmeflldmt at ZMOIUt. Comp.dson of resnlbfromvariable
denskyandMLswJewind tnnnel%
mrmimum lift coefficient, probably within the experi-
mental accuracy for most airfoils. Recent comparative
sphere tests in the full-scale tunnel and in flight have,
however, indicated that the factor for the full-scale
tunnel may be taken as approximately 1.1 instead of
1.0 in deriving the factor for the varhbledensity
tunnel. The corresponding value for the variable-
density tunnel then becomw 2.4X1.1 or 2.64. These
turbulence factors are used throughout this report to
derive values of the eifective Reynolds Number.
Incidentally, it maybe noted that sphere tests in the
variable-density tunnel and in flight indicate values for
the turbulence factor in approximate agreement with
the values given; the actual values derived from sphere
tests are, however, dependent on the size of the spheres
employed.
The results of the test at a given Reynolds Number
might be directly applied at the higher effective
Reynolds Number; however, one change for which ap-
proximate allowance may be made is to be expectid in
passing to the higher Reynolds Number. The part of
the drag associated with skin friction is known to de-
creasewith the Reynolds Number. Therefore, although
the conditions as applying to the trrmsitionfrom lam-
inar to turbulent flow may be considered as reproduc-
ing those at the higher effective Reynolds Number, the
value of the drag coefficient should be reduced in prlss-
ing to the effective Reynolds Number. The actut-d
value of this increment that should be subtracted is
somewhat uncertain, but a value determined as sug-
gested in reference 5 is used in this report for correcting
the variabledensity-tunnel results. The evaluation of
the increment is based on the assumption that at the
higher values of the Reynolds Number encountered in
flight, when the profle-drag coefficient is of importance,
most of the profile drhg is due to skin friction from the
turbulent boundary layer. The increment may then
redetermined from Prandtls analysis of the completely
turbulent skin-friction layer (reference 6) aa the
amount by which the skin-frictiondrag coefficient
decreases in the Reynolds Number range from the
test Reynolds Number to the effective Reynolds
Number. Thus, when the standard airfoil test remdta
Number of approximately 3,000,000 me applied to
mately 8,000,000, the measured profile-drag coefficients
in this report for both the turbulence factor and the
approximation. The values may be revised as the
result of further twts now on the program at the
Committees laboratory. In particular, the fact that
the skin-friction coefficient for airfoils tends to be
higher than for flat plates (upon which the present
value of drag increment is based) agrees with the
present results in indicating that the drag increment
may be too low.
The comparison between the profile-drag results
from the two tunnels may be made on the abovo-
described basis by comparing the dotted curve in
figure 2 with the profile-drag curve from the full-
scale tunnel in iigure 4, although the values of the
effective Reynolds Number differ slightly. A better
comparison is afforded by the curves in figures 10 and
11 representing variations of certain characteristics
with the effective Reynolds Number. It will be noted
that the results from the full-scale tunnel indicate
somewhat lower profledrag coefficients but that the
diilerences are smaller at zero lift where the results
are more reliable owing to the absence of severnl more
or less uncertain corrections involved in deducing the
profile-drag coefficient when the airfoil is developing
lift.
The values of the maximum lift coefficient are com-
pared in figure 12 by means of curves representing
variations with the ,Reynolds Number. The agree-
 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 943

ment between the results from the two tunnels, con- density and full-scale tunnels are interpreted on the
sidering the diihculties of mwumrement, is reasonably basis of an effective Reynolds Number to allow
satisfactory. The small discrepancy that remains may for the efi%ct.sof turbulence, reasonably satisfactmy
indicate either that the value of the turbulence factor
should be modified or possibly that an increment
corresponding to that used with the drag should be
employed.
For the remaining characteristics, tabular values
may be directly compared. The results from both
tunnels agree in indicating that within the flight
range of values of the Reynolds Number investigated
the following characteristics for the N. A. C. A. 23012
section show no variations with Reynolds Number
su5ciently marked to require
account in engineering work:
their being taken into
angle of zero lift, aLo;
m
optim~ hft coefficient, C.O~; pi~~g.moment co-

J
c.
~ 11, ,
111111
8, .- .4 .6 .8 /
Effeciive
2
Reynolds
4
Number
6 .8x10n

~ l?mmm 12MaxinmmIfft cc@llldenLCompa+wn of msolta fmm vmiabl~

1. demfty and fnllde wfnd tunnel%
m
~
0 agreement may be expected, at lenst for efhcient
k.
airfoils of moderate thickness.
~
~

$ Effecflve Reynolds Number

FmmE 11.hflnlmum pm~edmg ccallkfent. Cemrarlmn of results fmm
varinbledcndty and kdkcrde wind tunnels LANGLBY ME~ORIAL AIiIRONA~CAL LABORATORY,
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUJfI~E FOR AERONAUTICS,
efficient about the aerodynamic center, Cm~.C,;and LANGLEY I?IDLD, VA., March 1, 1936.
the corresponding aerodynamic-center position. I?or
REFERENCES
these characteristics, the tabular values presented in
table III may therefore be directly compared. It 1. Jacobs, Eactman N., Ward, Kenneth E., and Pinkerton,
Robert M.: The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil Sec-
will be noted that, in all cases, the values obtained from tions from Teats in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel.
the two tunnels show reasonably good agreement. T. R. No. 460, N. A. C. A., 1933.
2. Jacob~, Eastman N. and Abbott, Ira H.: The N. A. C. A.
The lift-curve slope % shows a slight in~rease with Varwble-Density bind Tunnel. T. FL No. 416, N. A.
incensing Reynolds N-umber in both wind tunnels. C. A., 1932. -
3. DeFrance, Smith J.: The N. A. C. A. Full-scale Wind
Tunnel. T. R No. 459, N. A. C. A., 1933.
CONCLUSIONS 4 Silve&eiu, Abe: Scale Effect on Clark Y Airfoil Charaoter-
ktks from N. A. C. A. Full-scale VJind-Tumel Test..
1. The N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil section shows T. R. No. 502, N. A. C. A., 1934.
5. Jacobs, Eastman N.: Recent Progresg Concernin the Aero-
characteristics that are generally superior to those of dynamica of Wing Section.. Paper prmen% d before
well-known and commonly used sections of small or A. S. M. E., Berkeley, California, June 19, 1934 (available
from the Office of Aeronautical Intelligence, N. A. C. A.,
medium camber md moderate thickness.
2. When airfoil test results at large values of the m~~%$%;bulenten
6. Prandtl Str5mung in IWmen und
IAnge Platten. Ergb. Aero. Vera zu Gtittingen, IV
Reynolds Number from the N. A. C. A. variable- Lieferung, 1932, pp. 1S-29.
 REPORT NATIONAL ADV18011Y COMMITIZEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TABLE IV TABLE VH.-FULI.A3CALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA

N. A. C. A. 23012
FULL-SCALEWTTD-TUNNEL DATA
AIE701L
oEA2AmE6iEmC9
N. A. C. A. 23012 RN Zero lUt-3,9W~ MaL llft-3,6&9@3
A12Yon.
CEARAcrmlsm=
c=
-l
a Cn LID c. p. c =0
RN-:ZeroUt?-L72Lm Max. IUCI.EZWW %

r=a 0147
c a CD WD e. P. CDO a. c
-a.<. + pa 058
. 2 o -LO -L 3 a w

1111
. 1 26 23 -, Cu3
r-o.(KKw 0 L 2 L 1 -. W3
. s.ao22c . W7
.1 .3
-a; --1o aolfa ....-..
- Ia o a omI 3. 3 -_: ;g .!2 ig , m
. 26 .0104 ..-. 120 .m .23 .3 H -. m
o L 2 .m o ---=-G- .am L 2 . 012 .4 46 ;: -. m
.1 .2 lL 4 .aw .1 . 013 .6 4.0 . am
.2 :%% la 4 3L2 ~~ . 014 .6 :: &o . Oua
.3 ;; .0131 22; !m.o k! . 014 .7 a4 0.0 -. Mt3
.4 4.5 .0173 27.9 .m4 3-0 . 014 9.7 0.9 -. U19
.5 E.9 .0228 2L 9 27.0 .Cm9 40 . 014 :: lL O -. ara
.6 7.1 .03al ~: ~; .C#3 &o . 013 LO 123 k: -. Mt3
.7 .C4m .0107 . 012 L1 137 -. w
.8 1;: .M8s 10.6 25.6 .01Z3 H -.011 L2 16.1 1;; . m
.0m7 I&1 26.5 .0146 8.2 . 011 L3 l&6 1L9 . W3
i; %: .0723 12.8 %6 .ole8 Q3 . 011
011 L4 l&l lx o -. w
LI 14.3 .aw 1%8 25.6 . Olsa la 4 . L 46 IQ 2 13,8 . w?
L2 16.9 . 102I lL 8 %5 .0m3 IL 7 . o12 L2 la 6 lh 5 -. ml
:? 10.9 .m lL 3 =5 .02w ~: -.012 L 1 m.7 1&8 -, M3
17.5 .140 8.6 .Clsm . 021 Lo 226 19.1 -, on
L1 .104 w .1287 15.7 . w
l.; E: .m :; 33.0 .165 . C&2
.3al 28 35.5 .276 ~~ . 107
.224 21 33.0 .248 . 118
.8 $% TABLE VIH
I
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA
TABLE V
N. A. C. A. 23012
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA
-IL OIIAEA~
N. A. C. A. 23012 RN. 2km lUt-4456,M0; MaI. Mt+143,CBll

AIRroLcEA2A~
RN: ZemUft2,6S0.W Max. Uft-2j4WW0
CL a L/D c. P. @ c
c-..
,.
J-o
-
CL a CD VD ~ P. CD# =~ c f=a 014
---- Ud. 6i9
. %rceni

o
x-a OM6 -a;
.
%
26
Q 18.8
140
-L 2
22
-o.m
. WJ
PaCmt g~a ~ -. w
aolm ------ 19.o aom o L 2 ...... -L2
-0.: LO .1 .2 320 -, -am
. 26 .Oalo _i-.. 13. o .030 :: . ma
. m .2 n.8 .: -, m
o L 2 .W4 -----..- .ar34 L 2
. m .3 :: aLo -. an
.1 .2 .asl 124 23.5 .0375
. m .4 43 25.5 4: -. au
.1 .m34 2L3 no ~g i; -. m
k: .0L26 &: . m .5 h7 2h2 3.8
.3 2s.0 49 -. Km
% . ml N . 010 .6 7.0
.4 4.6 .0170 -. w
6.9 .0240 m.7 ~: .010 41 . 010 .7 a3 2s0 &9
. 011 .8 2ho -, w
:: la 9 .012 &1
. 011 It i 26.0 ;; -.025
:; g 17.5 2s.1 .012 Ill
. 011 $; 123 2ho aa -. CQ7
:: la o 10.2 2s1 .013
. 010 137 2ho -. Mm
.9 11.4 .aw l&2 2s.1 .014 k;
. m 16.1 251 I&: -, m
LO 128 .071 142 Ml .016 6.1
la 1 . m ?: 10.4 g: 1L8 -. m
L1 141 .CR3 ~; 2&l .015
IL 1 . 037 L4 17. Q 13.0 . w
L2 L5.5 :OJ 26.1 .017
12.2 . m? L46 19.2 2&4 13.9 -.010
L32 17.8 ILO 25.1 .Cu2
. m L2 23.2 I&4 -.037
.162 . 7.9 .072 12.9
l&5 . 064 L1 E.: 3ao 17.1 -. MT?
:: w .210 6.2 2: .143 .
LO 221 .246 . 40 320 . 1s4 1s. 5 . 076
1 111

TABLE VLFULIA3CALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA

N. A. C. A. 23012
A7FLPon cHAuACm2usnca
W !ko lUt-3,362)~ bfu IIR-3,189,13XI

CL a
.
CD

UD
c----
I
r-a o191
p===aa~
-a; Lo 0.0110 --------
. 26 .Owl.--.6-.. . Cm
o :: .UB2 . Cm
.1 .m 125 . m
.2 .Cm4 2L 3 . w
.3 i; .0125 2L0 . m
44 .0175 228 . on
:: h8 .O!m 2L 7 . m
.6 .m la o . m?
.7 ii .am 18.4 . Cm
.8 .0470 17.0 . m
lk : .am 16.6 . Cm
i; 124 .CD?a2 147 . m
138 .CEm I?L6 . m
:: 16.2 .0a46 127 . m
16.7 .1102 IL8 . 0)5
L 41 18.6 .124 la 5 . lx?
L3 18.9 .M3 a5 -. am
Kl o .IEa . m4
:: m3 .212 :; . 055
LO 223 .222 40 . 072