https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19930091662 2017-10-06T18:28:07+00:00Z

{
-- / I

NATIONAL ADVISORY COl\fMITTEE

FOR AERONAUTICS

REPORT No. 586

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED

BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER

By EASTMAN N. JACOBS and ALBERT SHERM AN

REPRINT OF REPORT No• .5S6. ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 1937

1939
REPROOUCED BY
NATIONAL
INFORM A Tl6ECHN/CAL
u. S. DcPARTME TN SERVICE
SPR'NGF'El~'• VOA . COMMERCE
F
- - -- - - - - - -
22161
 }.

AERO NAUT IC SYMB OLS

1. FUNDA MENTA L AND DERIV ED UNITS

Metric English
Symbol
Unit Abbrevi a- Abbrevi a-
tion Unit
tion

Length _ _____
.
m eter __________________
I m foot (or mile) _______
Tirne ________ t second _______ _______ ___ ft. (or mi.)
J:'orce ________ s second (or hour) _______ sec. (or hr.)
F weight of 1 kilogram _____ kg weight of 1 p ound ___ __ lb.

PoweL ______
Speed __ __ . __
P
V
horsepo wer (m etric) _____
{kilome ters per hour __ .. _. -------
m eters per second _____ ._
k.p.h.
--- ho rsepowe r _____ -. _ -'-1
miles p er h OUL . • ___ ••
hp .
m.p.h.
m.p.s. feet p er second. _______ f.p .s.

2. GENER AL SYMBO LS
w, Weigh t=mg v, Kinem atic viscosi ty
g, Standa rd acceler ation of gravit y=9 .80665 p, Densit y (mass per unit volume)
m/s2 or 32.1740 ft ./sec. 2 Standa rd density of ID'y air, 0.12497 kg-m- 4_s2 at
l-F 15° C. and 760 mmi or 0.002378 Ib.-ft.- 4 sec.2
m, Mass = -
9 Specific weight of "stand ard" air, 1.2255 kg/m 3 or
I, Mome nt of inertia =mk 2 • (Indica te axis of 0.07651 lb. /cu. ft.
radius of gyratio n k by proper subscr ipt.)
/1-, Coefficient of viscosi ty
3. AEROD YNAMI C SYMBO LS

S, Area Angle of setting of wings (relative to thrust

Sw, Area of wing line)
G, Gap Angle of stabiliz er setting (relativ e to thrust
b, pan line)
C, Chord Q, Result ant momen t
b2 n, Result ant angula r velocit y
Aspect ratio
S' Vl
V, True air speed p -;;:'
Reyno lds Numbe r, where l is a linear dimens ion
(e.g., for a model airfoil 3 in. chord, 100
q, Dynam ic pressur e=~p V 2 m.p.h. norma l pressu re at 15° C ., the \ "r-
L, Lift, absolu te coefficient OL = :s respon ding numbe r is 234,000 i or for a modi 1
of 10 em chord, 40 m.p.s., the corresponding-
numbe r is 274,000)
D, Drag, absolu te coefficient OD= -:s Center -of-pre ssure coefficient (ratio of distanc e
of c.p. from leading edge to chord length )
Profile drag, absolu te coefficient ODO=~S Angle of attack
Angle of downwash
Induce d ID'ag, absolu te coefficient ODi= ~S Angle of attack, infmite aspect ratio
Angle of attack, induce d
Parasi te drag, absolut e coefficient OD'P=~S Angle of attack, a.bsolute (measured from zero-
lift positio n)
0, Cross-wind force, absolu te coefficient Oc= q~
Flight- path angle
R. Result ant force
 NOTICE

THIS DOCUMEN'r HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM

THB BEST COPY FUR NISHED US BY THE SPONSOR I NG

AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT C E R -

TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE -

LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAI L ABLE

AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.

./
 REPORT No. 586

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED

BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER

By EASTMAN N. JACOBS and ALBERT SHERMAN

Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory

,. #

II
 - -----

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

HEADQUARTERS. NAVY SunDING. WASHINGTON. D. C.

LABORATORIES, LANGLEY FIELD. VA.

Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for the supervision and direction of the scientific study of the problems of
flight (U. S. Code, Title 50, Sec. 151). Its membership was increased to 15 by act approved March 2, 1929. The members are
appointed by the President, and serve as such without compensation.
JOSEPH S. AMES, Ph. D., Chairman, ROBERT H. HINCKLEY, A. B.,
Baltimore, Md. Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Authority.
VANNEVAR BUSH, Sc. D., Vice Chairman, JEROME C. HUNSAKER, Sc. D.,
Washington, D. Q. Cambridge, Mass.
CHARLES G. ABBOT, Sc. D., SYDNEY M. KRAUS, Captain, United States Navy,
Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
HENRY H. ARNOLD, Major General, United States Army, CHARLES A. LINDBERGH, LL. D.,
Chief of Air Corps, War Department. New York City.
GEORGE H. BRETr, Brigadier General, United States Army, FRANCIS W. REICHELDERFER, A B ..
Chief Materiel DiviSion, Air Corps, Wright Field, Dayton, Chief, United States weather Bureau.
Ohio. JOHN H. TOWERS, Rear Admiral, United States Navy,
Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
LYMAN J. BRIGGS, Ph. D., EDW ARD WARNER, Sc. D.,
Director, National Bureau of Standards. Greenwich, Conn.
CLINTON M. HESTER, A. B., LL. B., ORVILLE WRIGHT, Sc. D.,
Administrator, Civil Aeronautics Authority, Dayton, Ohio.

GEORGE W. LEWIS, Director of Aeronautical Research

JOHN F. VICTORY, Secretary

HENRY J . E. REID, Engineer-in-Charge, Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, Va.

JOHN J. IDE, Technical Assistant in Europe, Paris, France

TECHNICAL COMMITTEES
AERODYNAMICS
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES
POWER PLANTS FOR AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
AIRCRAFT MATERIALS
INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS

Coordination of Research Needs of Military and Civil Aviation

Preparation of Research Programs

AUocation of Problems

Prevention of Duplication

Consideration of Inventions

LANGLEY MEMORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY OFFICE OF AERONAUTICAL INTELLIGENCE

LANGLEY FIELD. VA.
W ASmNGToN. D. c.
Unified conduct, for all agencies, of scientific research on the Collection, classification, compilation, and dissemina.tion of
fundamental problems of flight. scientific and technica.l information on aeronautics.

",
/If
 REPORT No. 586
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE
REYNOLDS NUMBER
By EASTMAN N. JACOBS
SUMMARY
An investigation oj a systematically chosen representa-
tive group oj related airjoils was made in the N. A. O. A.
variable-density wind tunnel over a wide range oj the
Reynolds Number extending weU into the flight range.
The tests were made to provide injormation jrom which the
variations oj airjoil section characteristics with changes in
the Reynolds Number could be injerred and methods oj
allowing jor these variations in practice could be deter-
mined. This work is one phase oj an extensive and general
airjoil investigation being conducted in the variable-density
tunnel and extends the pr'eviously published researches
conceming airjoil characteristics as affected by variations
in airjoil profile determined at a single value oj the
Reynolds Number.
The object oj this report is to provide means j01' making
available as section characteristics at any jree-air value
oj the Reynolds Number the variable-density tunnel airjoil
data previously published. Accordingly, the various cor-
rections involved in deriving more accurate airjoil section
characteristics than those heretojore employed are first
considered at length and the cortections jor turbulence are
explained. An appendix is included that covets the
results oj an investigation oj certain consistent errors
present in test results jrom the variable-density tunnel.
The origin and nature oj scale effects are discussed and
the airjoil scale-effect data are analyzed. Finally, meth-
ods ate given oj allowing jor scale effects on ai1joil section
characteristics in practice within ordinary limits oj accu-
racy jor' the application oj variable-density-tunnel airjoil
data to flight problems.
INTRODUCTION
When data from a model test are applied to a flight
problem, the condition that should be satisfied is that
the flows for the two cases be similar. The Reynolds
Number, which indicates the ratio of the mass forces to
the viscous forces in aerodynamic applications, is ordi-
narily used as the criterion of similarity. The practical
necessity for having the flow about the model aerody-
namically similar to the flow about the full-scale object
in flight becomes apparent from the fact that aero-
dynamic coefficients, as a rule, vary with changes in the
and ALBERT SHERMAN
Reynolds Number. This phenomenon is referred to as
"scale effect."
Early investigations of scale effect were made in
small atmospheric tunnels at comparatively low values
of the Reynolds Number and, for airfoils, covered a
range of the Reynolds Number too limited and too
remote from the full-scale range to permit reliable
extrapolations to flight conditions. Attempts were
made to bridge the gap between the two Reynolds
umber ranges by making full-scale flight tests for
comparison with model tests. These investigations of
scale effect, however, proved disappointing owing
partly to the difficulty of obtaining good flight tests
and to tbe difficulty of reproducing flight conditions
in the model tests and partly to the large unexplored
Reynolds Number range between the model and flight
tests with consequent uncertainties regarding the
continuity of the characteristics over this range.
Furthermore, the flight tests could not ordinarily
include a sufficiently large range of the Reynolds
N umber to establish the character of the scale effects
for certain of the airfoil characteristics over the full-
scale range of the Reynolds Number, which may extend
from values as low itS a few hundred thousand to thirty
million or more.
These limitations of the early investigations were
first overcome by the N. A. O. A. through the use of
the variable-density tunnel, which was designed to
facilitate aerodynamic investigations over the entire
range of Reynolds Numbers between the wind tunnel
and flight values. Several miscellaneous and com-
monly used airfoils were investigated for scale effect
in the variable-density tunnel dUTing the first years of
its operation. The results indicated that important
scale effects for some airfoils may be expected above
the usual wind-tunnel range and even within the flight
range of values of the Reynolds Number. Later,
when the N. A. O. A. full-scale tUllllel was constructed,
airfoil tests therein served to confirm the importance
of scale effects occurring in the full-scale range and also
provided valuable data for the interpretation of the
variable-density-tunnel results, particularly in con-
nection with the effects of the turbulence present in the
1
• c ------------- --- ~
2 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
variable-density tunnel. The interpretation of the
variable-density-tunnel results has consequently been
modified to allow for the turbulence on the basis of an
"effective Reynolds Number" higher than the test
Reynolds Number.
In the meantime, the investigations of airfoils in
the variable-density tunnel had been turned to an
extensive study of airfoil characteristics as affected
by airfoil shape. This phase, which resulted in the
development of the well-known N. A. C. A. airfoils,
involved the testing of a large number of related
airfoils, but these tests were largely confined to one
value of the Reynolds umber within the full-scale
range. Such a procedure expedited the investigation
and provided comparable data for the various airfoils
within the full-scale range of the Reynolds Number
but, of co urse, gave no information about scale effects.
As previously stated, the full-scale-tunnel results had
provided information regarding the application of the
yariable-density-tunnel data to flight. Methods were
accordingly developed for correcting the data and for
presenting them in forms that would facilitate their
use as a,pplied to flight problems. Flight problems,
however, require airfoil data at various values of the
Reynolds umber between values as low as a few
hundred thousand in some cases to thirty million or
more in others. Obviously the results available from
the tests of related airfoils at one value of the Reynolds
Number (effective Reynolds Number=8,000,000) are
inadequate for the purpose unless they can be corrected
to other values of the Reynolds Number. The present
investigation was therefore undertaken to study the
scale effects for the related airfoil sections primarily
with a view to the formulation of general methods for
determining scale-effect corrections for any normal
airfoil section so that the standQ,rd test results from
the variable-densit,V tunnel could be applied to flight
at any Reynolds rumber. For most practical uses it
is considered desirable and sufficient to present airfoil
test results in the form of tabular values giving certain
important aerodynamic characteristics for each airfoil
section. The primary object of this investigation,
therefore, is to give information about the variation of
these important airfoil section characteristics with
Reynolds Number.
In regard to the scope of the experimental investiga-
tion, the Reynolds umber range was chosen as the
largest pos ible in the variable-density tunnel and the
airfoil sections were chosen to cover as far as possible
the l'ange of shapes commonly employed. Accord-
ingly, groups of related airfoils (fig. 1) were tested to
investigate the following variables related to the
airfoil-section shape :
Thickness.
Camber.
Thickness and camber.
Thiclmess shape.
-
Camber shape.
Sections with high-lift devices.
The testing program was begun in May 1934 and
extended several times as it became apparent that
additional tests would be desirable. The final tests
in the variable-density tunnel were made in September
1935.
TESTS AND MODELS
Descriptions of the variable-density wind tunnel
and of the methods of testing are given in reference 1.
The tests herein reported were made for the most
part for each airfoil at tank pressures of 1/4 , 1/2, 1, 2,
4, 8, 15, and 20 atmospheres, covering a range of test
Reynolds Numbers from 40,000 to 3,100,000. The
1/4- and 1/2-atmosphere runs were omitted for many
of the airfoils a,nd, in several cases, only the lift-curve
peaks were obtained at the lower Reynolds Null' bel's.
Runs at reduced speeds (1/5 and 1/2 the standard value
of the dynamic pressure q) at 20 atmospheres were
sometimes substituted for the tests at 8 and 15 atmos-
pheres. Several check tests at 8 and 15 atmospheres
and results from some earlier investigations have shown
that the specific manner of varying the Reynolds
Number with respect to speed or density is unimportant
when the effects of compressibility are negligible. For
all the airfoils, the air in the tunnel was decompressed
and the airfoil repolished before running the higher
Reynolds Number tests. Tares obtained a t corre-
sponding Reynolds Numbers were used in working up
the results.
The airfoil models are of metal, usually of duralumin
and of standard 5- by 30-inch plan form; the sections
employed (see fig. 1), except for the slotted Clark Y,
are members of N. A. C. A. airfoil families (references
2 and 3). The slotted Clark Y model is of 36-inch span
and 6-inch chord (with the slot closed) and was made
to the ordinates given in reference 4. For this airfoil,
the coefficients are given as based on the chord and area
corresponding to the slot-closed condition. The slat
was made of stainless steel and fastened to the main
wing in the position reported (reference 4) to result in
the highest value of maximum lift coefficient. This
model was tested at a much earlier date than the others,
and the test data are somewhat less accurate. The
main wing of the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil with external-
airfoil flap is of 30-inch span and 4.167-inch chord.
The flap is of stainless steel and is also of N. A. C. A.
23012 section having a chord of 20 percent that of the
main airfoil. It was fastened to the main wing in the
optimum hinge position reported in reference 5. Data
for this airfoil combination are given herein for two
angular flap settings: _3 0 , which corresponds to the
minimum-drag condition; and 30 0 , which corresponds
to the maximum-lift condition. The coefficients are
given as based on the sums of the main wing and flap
chords and areas.
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 3
Thickness Comber shape

~~/~~-------=======---
N.A.C.A .
0003 C _______------=-

OOICC ~
----------------
0015 C ____--~ 23012 C
0 0 1 8 C_ _ ~

4412C

Cumber

00/2 C ______--======---- 43012

2412 C_______====--====-_----~
4412 C----~-------"""" 67/2C==
--
Thickness and comber
G012C: =v:
High-lift devices

~__---====-==-------=-------=====-. 23012~ ~.
==v
4409

230lSS
===v
4412C

4415 C____--~----~ 2302/S

8318C_~_ 43012 ~
23012 C
===v ===---------=-c:::==------.L
I

----r- Ci(;: &

Thickness shape
-3° ~;;::
.....
~~
230/2C QJ~

230/2 C =====-===- ~
~
.r::.~
f:':::tl
30·3:

n012- 33 C c/arkv(/'L ~
~J
With Handley-Page slot
l<'IGUltE I.- Airfoil sections employed for tbe scaJe--eITect investigation_ The sections, except for f.he slotted Clark Y, are members of N. A. C. A. airfoil familics.
4 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
.ACCURACY
The accuracy of the experimental data of this investi-
gation at the highest Reynolds Number is comparable
with that of the standard airfoil test data as discussed
in reference 2. The systematic errors of measurement
therein mentioned, however, have since been investi-
gated and the results are presented in the appendix to
this report. The systematic errors of velocity measure-
ment have hence been eliminated, the errors associated
with support deflection have been largely removed, and
the errors associated with model roughness have been
minimized by giving careful attention to the model
surfaces.
The remaining systematic errors are mainly those
associated with the interpretation of the wind-tunnel
results rather than the direct errors of measurement.
These errors are associated, first, with the calculation
of airfoil section characteristics from the tests of finite-
aspect-ratio airfoils and, second, with the correction
of the test results to zero turbulence or free-air condi-
tions. Such errors will be IIl£)re fully treated in the
discussion where the methods of correction, including
the interpretation of the results as involving the effec-
tive Reynolds Number, are considered.
The magnitude of the direct experimental errors,
particularly of the accidental errors, increases as the
Reynolds Number is reduced. Any variation of the
support interference with the Reynolds Number was
not taken into account in spite of the fact that the test
results tend to indicate that the uncorrected part (see
appendix) of the support interference may cease to be
negligible at low test Reynolds Numbers. These errors
may be judged by a study of the dissymmetry of the
test results for positive and negative angles of attack
for the symmetrical airfoils and l;>y the scattering of the
points representing the experimental data. (See figs.
2 to 24.) Such a study indicates that the results from
tests at tank pressures at and above 4 atmospheres
(effective Reynolds Numbers above 1,700,000) are of
the same order of accuracy as those from the highest
Reynolds Number tests. The drag and pitching-
moment results for effective Reynolds Numbers below
800,000, however, become relatively ~accurate owing
to limitations imposed by the sensitivity of the measur-
ing equipment. In fact, it appears that the accuracy
becomes insufficient to define with certainty the shares
of curves representing variations of these quantities
with angle of attack or lift coefficient. Hence airfoil
characteristics dependent on the shape of such curves,
e. g., the optimum lift coefficient and the acrodynamic-
center position, are considered' unreliable and in most
cases are not presented below an effective Reynolds
Number of 800,000.
RESULTS
Figures 2 to 24 present the test results corrected after
the methods given in reference 1 for approximating
infinite-aspect-ratio charact.eristics. Ourves are given
(for each airfoil for different test Reynolds Number) of
lift coefficient OL against effective angle of attack ao,
and of profile-drag coefficient ODO and of pitching-
moment coefficient about the aerodynamic center
Om a.c. against lift coefficient OL' The x and y coordi-
nates of the aerodynamic center from the airfoil quarter-
chord point are also given where the data permit.
Although not precisely section characteristics, character-
istics so corrected have been used heretofore as section
characteristics because of the lack of anything more
exact.
Further corrections, however, to allow for the effects
of wind-tunnel turbulence, airfoil-tip shape, and some
of the linutations of the previous corrections based on
airfoil theory were developed during the course of this
investigation and, when applied, give results repre-
senting the most reliable section data now available
from the variable-density wind tunnel. These addi-
tional corrections and their derivation are fully dis-
cussed later in this report. The more exact section
characteristics have been distinguished by lower-case
symbols, e. g., section lift coefficient Cll section profile-
drag coefficient Cdo, section optimum lift coefficient
Cl oPI ' and section pitching-moment coefficient about the
aerodynamic center cma . c .• These values are then con-
sidered applicable to flight at the effective Reynolds
umber, R e .
TH,ble I presents, for various Reynolds Numbers, the
principal aerodynamic characteristics, in the form of
these fully corrected section characteristics, of the air-
foils tested. Oross plots of certain of these section
characteristics against Reynolds Number are also given
for use with the discussion. (See fig. 28 and figs. 32
to 43.)
DISCUSSION
Scale effects, or the variations of aerodynamic coef-
ficients with Reynolds Number, have previously been
considered of primary importance only in relation to
the interpretation of low-scale test results from atmos-
pheric wind tunnels. It now appears from variable-
density and full-scale-tunnel data that important
variations of the coefficients rou t be recognized within
the flight range of values of the Reynolds Number,
pa.rticularly in view of the fact that the flight range is
continually being increased.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTE RISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARI ATIONS OF TH E R EYNOLDS NUMB ER 5

i±
'~H;1:~il nJljluM 1
m . 10 H--I---t--1-+--+-+--+-H-jfH----t-t-f-+--+,-' T~ 5
I17
I

7. 5~3:.150
-3.150
10 .51;? -.J.51;?
15 .009 4.009
m 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percenf orchord
t.J
.09
..... . 0 8
HH-+_~+_JH-+-++-+I_~I--+--+-+-+-~Reynold~+-
I
0
INumber:~_
3,140, OO~ _
: 6 - - - 2.3 10, 000
~~ ~~~~ :~~g~h""""T-r-r-,---,--,-,-,.--,.-,,-,-,-1 ~ x- ------ - I ,290:0 0 0 -
~g ~ }g~ :~:}~~ 1. 8
:u.0 7 + - - -- 665,000-
~ '7- -·--- 334,000-
~g~~ij :J.~~~H-I-+-+++++-+-+-H-I--1
702.748 - 2.74 8 1. 6
~. 06
u
I:
;
0 - - · - - /69, 000_
8 4,400_
80 1.967 -1.967f-H-I-+-I-++++-+-+-H-I
90 1.086 -1.OB6I-H-I-+-+++++-+-+-H_ 1.4
g-. 05 d '<;J- " ' - ' "
17- - ..- - 42,300.-
1
I~ ig~~: i~~,:S~H-I-+-+d--+++-+-+-H--+­ ~ :i!
~/O~O~O~-L~O~-r+++-~V~'~H-+-+++++-
I I
~ . 04H-I+++-H-+~1~U :~~
/ 4, -1-+-I-H-++~
L. £. Rod.: 0.89 I. 2 t:f
~ !-~HH-+-~-I--l-+-~I
P ~ jg ..... !,'/
~ . 03 1--+~+-I- ~~+-~~-~:!~~~~~+-h.4.~--t-+-j-+-
I : I
~.-+--t<:>.J~P>-4:1-....c--f-++++--t--1
f-H--+-++++-+I-..f. ~
"
I. 0
l(;< t!_lil! ~ ::.t!
. 8~ .tt:t--t- ..,.-- ,~
. 02 ~-W~4-_~~~-~~ . ~
-~
- ) '(
)/~/~4~~~~+-~
)~ --H~:~-l=l -!---'"f-i (!J

HH-+-I-++-i~~-++~· c.pos~lion+-H-+- .6 3 k~ - b.;::P;:: j::l'

HH-+-I-++,"A-+-+-HI oX - Y -f- em •. c : -I- ~ . 01 W=~"~~-~~=tw=tttttt:1

H-l--+--+--l--F-l7'-+--j.O--- I. q_ 5 _I- 0 - I - .4-..J u O H-~~~~~~~~~~
~ .~~_~_~~H--1
H-I-I-+--f'jl..I."J-I---+ 6 - - I.C!.- «_1- - .00 1 -I- > t I I~
x··-·-- I .8 8 0 ~ - IH-+-+-~-~~--t-+-j~-HI£~~~~+-j~~+-~
H-l--+--+-~+-+-+-++-- - I. 7 13 -I- - .00 I - I - .2 <...: W7
(!J
I I I o 8-·2f-H--f-+-++--t-4-+-+-H-I-+-++--t-4-+-+-~
t-+-+-bJH -l Aidoil: NA .C.A. 0009
H-l--f>-,-+--j.Size: 5 "x3 0" Vel. (ff./sec):68 - .2 ~ ~ 3 f-H--+-+-L~-~4-~+-~~-+-L~-L~~+-L-f
I--+-I----I-+---l Pres.(sin d . o fm.) : 1/4 1020 ~ Airfoil: NA .C.A. 0009
I--+-I---+-+--l-Tes f : V. D. T. 1/34, 1136 ~ - . 4 H-l--I--j.Dofe: 5 -34 Tes f : V.D.T. 1134, / 136
- .4 Results correc fe d fo infinite aspect rafio
Where fested : L.M.A .L .
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -. 2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 16 /.8
Angle of allack for infinile aspecf ratio, ct. (degrees) Lift coefficien t, Cr.
F IGURE 2.-N. A. C. A . 0000.

JJ1 l.li,Ji
n-11t11 Iml
510. I I I I I
J JIJJ
Up'r. L'w';.
0 0 0
. 10 I I I I Test .!, .1 ,1J a .c.posilion
1.2 1.894 -1.894
2.5 2.615 -2.615
[I 1 1-r
Reynolds Number x y em. c. -r
5.0 3.555 -3.555 .09 o 3 . 180.000 1-1--0.6 3-1- 0 '-
7.5 4.200 -4.200
0 20 40 60 80 10o d 1-- 0 - - - - - 2 ,380. 000 1-\1'-. 8 3 -f- .001 -
~~ 13~~ -5.345
-4.683
Percenf orchord 2 .0 , .08 I-- x ------- - -- -1.340.000 1-j+1-- /.0 4- 0 -
205.738 -5.738 I:: f--+ _ __ _ _ _ 660. 000 I - I-- f.l - 3- - .001 -
25 5.941 -5.941 .lll
306.002 -6.002 1.8 ~ .07 1--"1-·-- ---330.000
405.803 -5.603 0,.::
~D -- - ---I7O'OOO I
505.294 -5.294
604.563 -4.563 1.6 ~.06
I
703.664 -3.664 ~ u :
802.623 - 2.623 .1
901.446 -1.448 l' " 1.4 g-.05
95 .807 - .807
100 (.126) (- .125)
a
~, . l
W t il
I

.
100 0
L.t.Rod: 1.58 i ll ~ v· 04
~
~ rY
~'\ ~ ~. 03
II ' Itl
leA , I), [}
, /~
~ Hi 1:", I 1'1'-. ' , I ..,
- .02 l,/.y _f.>< ~!y
J.
If . Of
~ r-:-lC - - -b i€r

J
11
o - -f"'!P" i'U
I.J , 1.1· ~
It
.2 d-·f ~~

o <...:
111-. 2
J
Airfoil: N.A .C.A . 0012
1* Size : S"x30 " Vel. (fl./se c ):68 -.2 3
.... ·- .3
Pres.(sl nd. aim) : /fo20 Airfoil: N.A.C.A 0012
Test: V. D. T. 1237-8 Dale: 3 - 3S ~ Test: V. D. T 1237-8
'"Where tested : L.M.A .L. -,4 -.4 g Dote: 3-35
Resulfs corrected to infin ite aspec t ratio
~
-8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 ... 2 o . 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 104 1.6 I.B
Angle of attock for infinite aspecf rofio, ct. (degrees) L i ft coefficient,C.
F IGURE 3.- N. A. C. A. 0012.
6 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

H-:'--
Slo Up'r. L"w'r.
I I I I I ~ I I I I
./0
0
12
0
-2.J67 I I I I J I Test ,I ! I
2.5 5j~~ - J.268 I I I I Reynolds Number
5.0 4044 -4.44J .09 r- o 3,260,000
7.55.250 -5.250 r- 6----2,270,000
105.853 -5.853 0 20 40 60 80 10o ~o
15 6.6~~ -6.68/
207.17 -7.172
Percent orchard 2.0 ...... 08 r- x----------- 1,270,000
<:: r- +------ 655,000
5g -7AC?
~~q~ -7.502
407.254 -7.254 1.8 ~.07 r- \7--- - ----.3.3 1,000- ~
.Q)

506.618 -6.6/8 ~ r- 0 - - - - - - 166'000 _ ~

605704 -5.704
-4.580 1.6 ~.06 r- "'1- --- - - - - - 84,000.. _
~gj:~~~ -J.279 10: u [7-------- 42,900
r-
901.8/0 -1.810 $ , • ,
1.4 ~.05 •
I~g i.ff~ -1.008
ra
158)
I
~ ,
100:0 ~ IX. ~ ~
Q,.04 , I '6
L.E. Rod.: 2.48 ~ -" "~ i(i
~)In. r\ ". ~ ~ I

,, e·03 1/ ~
r¥t " Q; / ~ iP /
, ~
I&l~ l'r V' r-.... ~-trl ,~v-- P
~_1: t---... ...... - _- 1:-:.
.oc 'l --
L::.c
;'l-" -- !;-:- ;.of:! .,,; .P-
Yr
~ic.posifion _0/
ID_ - -- .
Ii
,x - y -t- C"'o.c."- r-
'I
l~
Ir
0--/.2 - 4 - 0
6--1.1 - 3 - D
- r-
- t-
Ye----- 1.2 - I - t- .002- t-
" 0
d· -./ tt
F{
-:1 ::-4
1£ ~ . -..
.2
~ +---2.4.- ~ - t- .001_ r- <..: ~ -ii!I--"
V--- I .5 0 - .001
o ~-2
\J .
A irfoi/:NA.C.A .0015
Jf Size; 5"x30" Vel. (ftjs ec): 69 - .2
Pres. (stnd. afm.): 1/4 to 20
~-:.3
E: AirfoIl.' N A.C.A. 0015
Tes t : V O. T. 11.35 Dote: 5 -.34
Where tes ted : L.MA.L. -.4 ~-.4 Dote: 5-34 Test:V.O.T.//J5
Resulfs corrected to infinite aspect ratio
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.c a _c .4 .6 .8 /.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of allocA for infinife aspecf ratio, ct, (degrees) L iff cae fficienl, CL
FIGU!tE 4.-N. A. C. A. 0015.

20 - _ _ ~
I

H:~IIIW
Slo up'r. L·w·r.
~ I I I
00' 0 I .12 .1.1 _, I Test , I ,
125 2.841 - 2.841
2.5 3.922 -J.922 .1 I I I Reynolds Number
5.0 5.JJ2 -5.3J2
7.5 6.300 -6.JOO
.11 - o 2,970.000
10 7.024 -7.024 0 20 40 60 80 100 r- 6----;::.364.000 I
I
.10 r-
_ I

~1~gd~ =z:g&g Percenf orchord x--- -------- I. 25/.000 -r-i-\-

258.912 -8.9/2
JO 9.003 -9.003 . ~ _I , IF ' _1.1
a .c,poSl lonl :",~ 2.2.
I- +------
. 09 r- \7-------- 328.000
654.00 0 -t-1-~ :i
40 8.705 -8. 705
50 7.941 -7.941 ,I I l ,x -t- y - - C", r- r- 0 - - - - - - 1 6 3.000 J
60 6.845 -6.845 t-- r- r- e.O a.ool.- d '<)---------- 8/. 000 J I

::t-
I
705.496 -5.496 0 - - 1.7 4 - - -..., ,08 l - p - - - - - - - - 41.400
80 J.9J5 -3.935 l- I- 6--1.6 3 - 0 - c: r- I

~~ ~:i~~ =~:~~~ I- - X------2.2 3 -t-- .001 - - /. 8 :G.07 .I I

100 1.189, (-.189) I- - +---2.2 0.-1- 0 r-- - ~

~ -'I
1000 a ~---··2.4 ~ -l- a , •
L.E. Rod. : 3.56 0---1 .8 0 a r- ,-- :-- 1:6 ~.06
I
~
\J
--l
l,Pj ~ 1.4 g.. OS ~
t- t- r-I- ~! I
I

I i '~ ~ {j I

il, r--: ~ r-I- /.2 (.j Q,.04

I-c;
I-r- 11'~!. p'
~L ro
t' ~
I. O§ -- ~
e · 03
v
,
,
li
If
I

/
I- t-t- r- , ~. ,, ~lli!
.\,! Cl 1/ / ~
J), ~I -- -- +- V_ F-1 v ~
f-I-
I-
-~
' ~
,~
-\ - .8:::=
0
V
.02 I-'V
,[].
-~r

= .-<1: :A-:..
~"'"
"
tv
f-+- ;';~ .6 \.) . 0/
I- -r- I,jil ~->- .:....1)---I-=--:- r
~
i-f- r- 'I' . 4...J
• 0
-In ~
i-i-r- tj~ -
I~
.e
'<:
·
<.J• - . 1 t-- 1--
r-r-
=
I-\:~
15,
j
_- 1JU ..,i~ ~
l-vi'"
.>11.&'

r
, Airfoil N.A.C.A 00/8
Size : 5"x30" Vel (ftjsec):69 -.2
0 8u -.2 r-r-
....
~-.3
- 1-
1-
r- r-f-

Pres. (sind atm.) '1/4 to 20 I:; Airfod: NA.C.A. 00/8

Test: VO.T./16/ Oale: 8-34
Where lesled·L.MA.L. -.4 ~-.4 Dale: 8-34 Tesf: V.O.T. //61
Resulfs corrected10 in(inite, asp(!cf r,ati?_
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 4 -: 2 o .c .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of otlocK for infimfe aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, C,.
FIGUnE 5.-N. A. C. A. 0018.

J
AI R FO I L SECTIO N CH ARACTE RI STICS AS AF F E CT E D B Y VA R IAT IONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBE R 7

I I _I II

H-111fl IHI
5to. Up'r, L'W'r.
0 - 0 olD
I I I TestT 1 I
/.25 2.15 -/.65 Reynolds Number
2.5 2.99 -2.27 . 0.9 I- c-I I I I
5.0 4.13 -3.0/
7.5 4.96 -3.46 0
0 3,120.,0.0.0.
I- ~ _ _ _ _ 2.3Ia,aaa
l:
80 10 ~ 1
/0 5.63
/5 6.61
-3.75
-4.10
0 20 40 60
Percenf ofchord ~.O ....- .0.8 e- x----------- 1,235.0.0.0. I
20 7.26 - 4.23 c: e- + - - --- - 656,0.0.0. ,
25 7.67 -4.22 .~
30 7.88 -4.12 1.8 ~.0 7 l -
'V- - - - -- - 333,0.0.0.
I II I
~
40 7.80 -3.80 I- 0 - - -- - - 166,0.0.0.
50
60
7.24 -3.34
6.36 -2. 76 .l 1. 6 "" "'l _ _oo __ ___ 82,80.0.
~(J . a6 I- c-v- - -- - - -- 4I ,5DD
rr ',
,
I

70 5.18 -2.14 ~ I If ,
80 3.75 -1.50 ;11_", ~
l-
I t
,
90 2.08 - .82 1. 4 g-.a5 I
95 1,/4 - ."18 ,0 ~ II I
!i
,, ,
I
100 (.13) (-.13)
0 ,~ ~ R , 14
100 '<+-' ~ . a4
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 l " ': _0
IZrJ
~
, I~
Slope of radius '{f. r;v \1, , -, , T I
II
fhrough end of
chari:!: 2/20 l ~ 1', ~ :r,0v.
,
~
, I.a.~ e. a3
Cl
'" " to' - 1<:_ -.".. U .- 1-1- "P7
I

h
.u __ Kf ,
19 -, :"I. --
~ -- ~ -:i!
. 8~ .0.2 IUo ,
"1-'-_
"1' -
~y I1t
- -1i I~ ~ V
- .,.- -
o ;:; ~_

II Q)
"""
If a.c.posilion .6 \)
0
.0.1
Ii: -- - !IliIo co
) I .x _ Y_I-
Cma .c . _ e- ~
0 - - 0. 5 _ ~_~ a.a4~_e-

,"
.4-.J <i a
1.4 ~-- ~.~_ ~ _I- - . a4~ _ ~

x------ I. I I - .045 e- d- - . 1 ~ I.+

+--- .9 -2 -1-- .045-e- .2
<..: I;:; ~ " LAP
!t, 'Vi -Io,,/ . ~ - 0. - I-
T·Q5 i -1- a
Q)
8 - .2 J - I}o"

J Airfoil: NA.C.A . 2 412 ....

tit" Size: S"x3a" Vel. (ff./s ec):6B - .2 ~ -.3
,If? Pre's. (stn d. a i m'): 1/4 t o 20. ~ Airfo il : N.A.C.A. 2412
VI Test: VD. T. // 64 Oaf e:8-34
- .4 ~-. 4 Da t e: 8-34 Test: V. D. T. 1164
il Where fested : L. M A. L. Results correc ted to infinite aspect ratio
-8 -4 a 4 8 12 16 EO. E4 28 32 -.4 -. 2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Angle of a ttoc k for in finite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, C
FIGURE 6.- N. A. C. A. 24 12.

H-:~lIuf1l
510. UPT: ('wi-. I I I I I I
0 . 12 I I Test I I I 'TI
0
1.25 2.44 -1.43
2.5 3.39 -1.95
I I I I Reynolds Number Ii , I"
5.0 4.73 -2.49 . iI e--o 3,0.0.0.,0.0.0. i.l , i
7.5 5.76 - 2 . 74 - ~---- 2,3Ia,aGG
10 6.59 - 2.86 0 20. 40 60. 80 10a ' I
15 7.89 -2.88 f"ercenf of chord ./0. - x---- ------ - 1, 240,0.0.0. II, i,
20 8.80 -2.74 e- +- -- - -- 638,0.0.0.
25 9.41 -2.50
30 9. 76 -2.26 2. 2 . 0.9 ~ 'V-- - - - - - 33/.aOG 17 ,: !
40 9.80 -1.80 I- 0 - - -- - - 164,00.0.
50 9.19 -1.40 ~
0
, !
I- '1---------- 83,0.0.0.
60
70
80
8.1-4 -1.00
6.69 - .65
4. 89 - .39
2.0 .,;:.0.8 I- [ 7 - - - - - ---42,10.0.
c:
q,
tI
90 2.71 - .22 :iJ. a7
95 1.47 - .16 1. 8
100 (.13. (-.13) ...,
!<: I" ' i
100 0
L.E Rod.: 1.58 1;;1
I"
rJ!!! 1. 6 ~ . 06
u
. , I

Slope of radius
fhr ough end of
~ t;..r ,I'"
1. 4 g-. 0 5
\ : ·1 111 I

chord: 4/20 , V- i-" , ~ '. 1/ " I j

~ ,
LP-K;.\'i;::
Ii" >J....r-,. I<..
,
,~
1.2 (f
- v·a4
....
-.:::
s
, ., ,
Ji II '
,
I

~J

"'" r--.
lr ./ ~ t>< K 'p.. - I ,) IY
- I.O§ E·a3
~
~
I
I'di ,1'17 °hA
. \) Cl
-0

or-, - -
s:r'
~
I

If.' V' \Z. ;)-- -'

. 8~ .02
""' ;~ . :Jtl~
- ~~
jV T cpoSi/ion II>
'{/ .x _ Y_I- Cma .c .
- _ .6 \)
0
. 0.1
';;;;
'" - -
1- 0 - - 0.8_ 2_0,..::.0.0.88_ - ~
W {).x------
- - I.a..9.- - I~ -e- -- .088
.0.91
_- .4 -.J a
VI.
F, +--- / .2- - S-e- - .o.95- - d"
!l
'V-- --- I. I - -8- 1-- - .0.97- -

I I I I
.2

0
_ -. J
<,.;
Q)
8 - .2 .d.-~ !;¢
L~l,')I:
:-..:. ... ,Di

/ Airfoil: NA.C.A.4412 ....

'( , Size: S"x3a" Vel. (ff./s ec.): 69 -.2 ~ - ,3
rJ / Pres . (sf nd. aim.): 1/4 fa 20. ~ Airfoil: N.A .C.A.4412
Test : VD.T./153 Dale: 7-34 Dale : 7-34 Test: V. D. T. )153
";I,
Wh ere tested: L. M. A.L.
-.4 ~ -.4 Results corrected to infinite aspec t ratjo
- 8 -4 a 4 8 IE 16 20 24 2 8 32 -. 4 -.2 a .2 . 4 .6 _8 1.0 1. 2 1. 4 1.6 1.8
Angle of a llack for in fin ite aspe cf ratio, ct. (degr ees) Lift coeffici ent, CL
FIGURE 7.-N . A. C. A . 4412.

t184380 0-39--2
8 R E PORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERO AUTICS

5to. Up'r. L'w'r. " "t1 20 a .C. " ,X

~ 10 IHf t-J
..L . 11 ,.r-r-
.1. .1. .1.11 I ,,,
0 - 0
1.25 2 .73 -1.23 ~l! 0
l
_I, I I Test
.1 I I ,
2.5 J80 -1.64
5.0 5.36 -1.99 ~.::' -IOmt )" c/4
. 10 I I I I Reyno lds Number " ,
7.5 6.57 -2.05
0.: 0 -I o 3,110,00.0. +
10 7.58 -1.99 0 20 40 50 80 /0a .09 I 6 - - - - 2.2 60.000
,,,
1111 1 I
15 9.18 - 1.67 Percent of chord cJ° x----------- 1,270,0.0.0
2010.34 -1.25 \ + - - - - - - 645,00.0
I

25 II. '" - .78

30 11.65 - .J8
...., ,08
c
\
' 7 - - - - - - - 334.000. II ,
40 /1.80 .20 1.8
50 1/.16
.~ \ I" 0 - - - - - - 167,000 'll
.55 ~ ~.07
50 9.95 .78
1.6 -;::
\ ~ "/--------- 82,500 I' I
70 8.23 85 ~--lf "l! \ P'--------41,800
80 60J
90 3.33
.73
.39 ~-:+ --+ x , ~.06
95 1.79
100 U21 (-.12)
.15 ~ -'''i~
, "'b2' 1.4
()

g-.05
\ ,
I
fl
100 - 0 /fl ,
I i' 1\ 1\
L. E.RQd.: 1.58 ,1":3' 1.2 r.J i3 II\\\ \ ,,
Slope of radius
through end of
chord: 6/20 .i
I!t' 1', ~t" "- ... 1.0 t q,.04
....-
<;:
\
~ I

t"" ..... .:;;,

:~ e.03
l'Pi ~ Ii' ~l£
'f/ I

1 a. c.po5i1ion .8 t:::
II!
o
Q.
.02
I

~."r
" b 1":-~ r- --;>'
!.
!A ~
Y c,.t:-:-- ~ ~,
o--10.x9 I ~'r: 0..133 -1- .6 u -
~ . 01
eo- -- -
1- - . 130 -1-
wt 6--1 . 1
x------ .8 -3 - -.131 - 1- .4-...1
If>i
IV
+ ' - - 1. 0 -2 - 1. 135 -:-- • 0
.2
j I I d, -. 1
If I I a <,.: Iht
!J Airfoil: NA.C.A. 641 2
II!
8 ~ .2 ,~
i Size: 5 "x 30 " Vel. (fl.jsec):69 -.2 >P r- I
IV
I Pres.(slhd,. aim.),' 1/4 to 20
Test: V.D.T.1165 Dale:8-34 ~-.3 Airfoil: N.A.C.A.6412
Dale : 8-34 Tes!: V. D. T. / /65
Where lesled: L.MA.L. -.4 ~ Results correcfed to infinife aspect ratio
:::"-.4
-8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of attack for infinite ospect ratio, a, (deqrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE S.-N . A. C. A. 64 12.

H~mll ~I
. 13 1
510. up'r. L'w'r. I .I ~ I I I
0 - 0 I ' , ,Test I I , I

1.25 1.8/ -1.05 ,12 Reynolds Number

2.5 2.61 -1.37
5.0 J.74 -/.55 &: ti -10 Y- fCI.4 r- ~ 3,060,000
I'
I
7.5 4.64 - /.74 .11 r- A - - - - 2,260, 000
105.37 -1.73 0 20 40. 60 80 /0a I,'
15 6.52 -1.55 I'ercenf of chord r- x----------- 1,265,000 ,ULl
20 7.33 -1.30 ,10 r- +- -- - - - 64~000
25 7.90 - 1.02 .lUi
30 8.25 - .76 t- < ; 7 - - - - - - - 329,000
40 8.35 - .35 0------165,800 .l ',,
50 7.87 - .07 .0.9 t- "/--------- 82,800
60 7.00 .14 <? t- J. t- 1;+-
70 :'.76 25 2.0 ~ P'- - -- - - --41, 700 :li
80 4.21 .25 ..... . 08 r- ~:I I
90 ;!.33 .14 C
95 1.26 .OJ 1.8 f
100 (.09) (-.091
. iii J I

100 - ~ . 07 17: , ,
0 f?< /.6 '>0
L.E. Rod.: 0.89 1! b ~ J, :1.
Slope of radiUS
~
~ ,06 \ J,
through end of E 1.4
()
,
chord: 4/20 '/'
~. 05 ll!l
If ,
~ i<t ~~~.
,,
".
~~'" ..h: '
i3
q, .04 ~ L'.
~ , IA
!

~i-
VJFv- f- p.. .. . I
'R r-- ~ ~, ,
dr./ 'V _:
.~ 'c
e ·0.3 I ~/) , 'I'{Y
n 17 - - -17
Q.
\
I
\'f;
- [<:1-
- l7' r- ir7-
'17- , V'
!, ' 17'
,, I" .......
\ \
.02 ,
If a .c.posilion 1'. !~~
~ I . .x r- Y I em a .c .
-- .0 1
4' ~ .~ ~- , t"'- . - ~ ~v

It o--O.5r- 2 ..,:: 0.088 r-r-

6--.7 I -.088
x------ I. a f--I - -.090 r-r- u 0.
+ - - -1. 1 1- -1 - - .0.92 r-r- .2 rJQ
til <:1-----1.4 -4 -1 -·p9~ r-r- • -.1
If I L I j j
o <,.: L~ --,;,0 ~
"1/ II! -do F-
Airfoil: NA .C.A . 4409
Size: 5 "x30" Vel. (ff./sec.):59.o -.2
8 - .2 Ill'
I~ ,- Pres .(stna. atm.): 1/4 to 20
Test: V. D. T. //62 Dole: 8-34
~-.3 Airfoil: N.A .C. A. 4409
'flI -.4 !:; Dole: 8-34 Tes!: VD. T. //62-
Where lested: L.MA.L. Results corrected 10 infinife aspect ratio
~-.4
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 0. .2 .4 .6 .8 !.O 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Anale of alfock for infinile aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE 9.-N. A. C. A. 4409.
- - - - - - -- ---

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 9

~~~~I-~I~~~I~~I~I-~I~I~-~~

H-1111tH
StD. up'r. L'wi":
0 0 I I· I J 1 Te 5 fl-I..J--i.
I-.I-jlf-.l-.+-+--+-
1.25 3.07 -1.79 f-H-t--+-+-HI-t--+-+Reyno Ids Numbe:-r+--H-t--+-
2.5 4.17 -2.48
5.0 5.74 -3.27 . 10. 0 3,000,000
7.5 6.91 -3.71 1--1--1-+-+-1-- 6----2,380.,0.00. --1-+-1-)(.,.; , 1---1-+-
10 7.84 -3.98 o 20 40 60 80 10o
15 3.27 -4.18 f'ercenlo f chord .09 x-- --------- 1,26O,OOO-+IM- -f..';'I-i,f -+-j
n :' I--i,--l--j
20 10.25 -4. IS <l' 1--1--1-+-+-1-- + -- - -- - 654,000 -t"!;!l,+-t-':'<
25 10.92 -3.98
30 //.25 - 3.75
40 11.25 -3.2S
50 IO,S3 -272
60 9.30 -2.1 4
2.0 l·
·.~.07
08I--H-+-+-I--. ~_~~~_-_ ~~j:ggg =~I~C~~~~,~I~:=~~
""I- . . --
--- - 83, DD °-tlAl1+4j...J...j'+'--l--j
70 7.63 -1.55 1.8 ~ [7- - - · - - ·-41,700 ': ' I),,'
80 s.ss -1.03 '<: , , -,
30 3.08 - .57
~.06
I,...,
35 1.67 - .36 1.6 -[ , 'T
100 (.16) (-.16) o 1fT
lao a ')i -l< -x,
LL Rad.: 2.48 ~. \'I , 1.4 g-. DS ~'T ,
Slope of radius
I~ ~;:i ~r- i ' I'
, ~ ~ 7
through end of
chord: 4/20 JII( ~'
1.2 tJ
.,.:
k 04 < • f7.... ((, , x 19
II,< ~ ~. "
.I'n r,iU
I, i""
, 1.0 S -.::~.0.3 H-+~~~~-+~~~-b~~I/~~~~~~/~~4-.J-j-l
f'-.- -'N, - iv_ 1..-. /l/ , I

ih\3
t-,.,
1"--_ '-F: P€i :u [J. - ~~ -- , !Skr/V

i .oj; . 8 ttv .02~~~=+p4 ·· ~~~~n+-~~~~_~v~~~,~~~~~+-H

tbe·~~-~~--~~~tljj=tttjj
()
'I' ~".pfd,on,c f-+- - .6~ .0./
II .x - ~ y.- ma.c.
IJ 0 - - /.0 ~_ -0.085_ - .4 -..J
vi 6- - 1.4 I -.086
ff x------ 1.4 -2 - -.085 -
+---1 . 7--4 -f- -.090 - .2
1
v;·~"t1-:-~- 1 ·~9~- f- o 't -. 2 H-+-+-+--1H+-+-.J-j--+--I--l--jZf.,.'=I·i==i...:q..iZ;i~"t=!-:::;:+-+-.J-j-l
n, Airfoil: NA.C.A. 4415
8
Size: 5"x30" Vel. (ffjsecJ:69 - .2 .... -.3 HH--+-++--1....-l-..L....j-L-!--l-t.......l.-+-L-l--...L-I-L-+--Y
rJ/ Pres.(sthd. aim.) : 1/4 to 20 ~ Airfol!: N.A.C.A. 4415
."
Test: V.D. T 1163 Dale:8-34 4 E: 4H-+-+++Dote: 8-34 Test:V.D.T.1163
~ Where tested.: L.M.AL -. () -. Res(Jlis corrected to infinite aspect rotic
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 Z4 28 32 ~ -. 4 -.2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0,1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8
Angle of affaGif for infinde aspect rolio, ct. (degrees) L ifI coefficient. CL
FIGURE 10.-N. A. C. A. 4415.

H~_~I
5ta. up'r. L·w'r.
.11 I I I I I I I I
- J
~~_/~~!!' a~~
a a I Test I I I I
1.25 5.50 -1.33 Reynolds Number
2.5 6.97 -1.86 Y 'I I I : I
s.o 9.23 -2.3S .10. 0 3,200,000
7.5 10.97 -2.42 6 - - - - 2,430.,0.00.
1012.40 -2.34 0 20 40 60 80 100.
1514.53 -1.34
20 15.94 -1.43
Percent ofchord .09 x----------- 1,310,000
25 16. 74 -1.14 r,J0 +--_._- 680,0.00.
30. 17.00. -/.00. z.o _-.08 v-··--·-345,000
4016.57 - .86 D - - - - - - 170,DOO
50.15.34 - .55 c:
60. 3.49 - .2S 1.8 : ~.07 «-.-.----- 85,000 ,
70. 1.04 - .0.4
80. 8.0.2 + .0.3
90. 4.41 - .0.1
95 2.33 - .0.8
J,li7; ~ tn
1.6
~
~.06
I"
. p----·----42,50D
,
,, )'
lao .19 (-.19) ~ -Xt~ PiJ ~ o 11 1\
100 - a k~ ~ ;.:, , ' ~I;....,
~. 05
' II' . ~n '
L.E. Rod.: 3.56 ) b F->f-l 1.4 ,I ~ r,., ) ';'
Slope of radius ~/ \ -B \1'-( } U'
through end of
chord: 8/IS Ii£ ,
.. --
1.2tJ~·04
....-.;::
- ~ - h7- 1.< r1 V!4
~
- 1\ I·' . ~
,
lHI ,
/I!? 1'1" 1.0£e·D3
.'Q...
~
I~ ! h
Ifii
In
~-~ -1-
- L ~~'
- t-...

I)
If) 'l
-
-l- .8~
o
0
.0.2 16: -. 1-4-
-"" ~
""
.6 .01
If a .c.posilion -:::
.,
l;jl x_ Y-t- ema .c. _ f-- .4-.) • 0
O--/.!!._ ~_~o.I3~_ f--
~
x------ l.ir 2~_r~·13~_
6--1.8
-.135 f-- .2
J• -.1
.i +j--2.1 - 3- r -.137 - f-
<,.:
I.,.j~

"
Q)

\'I' o 8 -.2
Airfai/:NA.C.A.83/8 .....
I.... · ; Size: 5"x30" Vel. (ft.jsec):68 - .2 ~ -.3
Pres.(sfnd. aim) : { / to 20 E: Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 8318
ICl Test: V. D. T. 124/,1. '14 Dale: 3 -35,4-35 Tesl: V.D.T.1Z4/, 1244
Where fesfed: L.M.A.L. -.4 ~ - .4
Results corrected to infinite aspect ralio
-/2 -8 -4 0. 4 8 IZ /6 20 24 28 -.4 -. 2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 /.2 1.4 /.6 1.8
Angle of attack for infinite aspect rotio, ct. (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE ll .-N. A. C. A. 8318.
10 R E PORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUT ICS

n-1Itf1mm
Sto. Up'r. L'wr. I I I I I I I I I
a - a . 11 I Tes t I I I
1 1
1.25 2.67 -/.23
2.5 3.61
5.0 4.9/
-1.7/
-2.26 . /0
I Reyno lds Number
7.5 5.80 -2.6/ 0 3,090,000
10 6.43 -2.92 a 20 40 60 80 10o 6 - - - - 2,300,000
15 7.19 -3.50 Percent orchard .09 x- - ---- ---- - 1,286,000
20 7.50 -397
2 .0 ~o +- -- -- - 665,000
25 7.60 -4.28
JO 7.55
40 7.14
50 6.41
-4.46
-4.48
-4.17 1. 8
"....~.. 0 8 "7- -- - -- - 335,000
0 - - - - - - 170,000
60 5.47 -3.67
:'0. 0 7
~- - - - - - - - - 8 4, 2 00 I
70 4.J6 -3.00 17- - ---- --42,400
80 3.08 -2./6 ~
Ig 1.6 -.;: ,
90 /.68 -1.23 ~
95 .92 - .70
100 1.13) 1 .13)
lao 0 Ie/,
115r-,><,

'Q~
\ . /, 4
~. 06
u
g- .OS
:
\
1<
L.E. Rod.: /.58 J.
Slope of radius
through end of
chord: 0.305 J,~
~'h j;;( "\7'-',-"'- ~
-t~.04 : /I
1/ I
,
I

~
IfJ
r'i!
I\o.fLC
~
,,'" -,~
_: J1 ....... - <~
'"
-.:::
~ . 03 ~ -- i7: 1..--::
/'
>:
I
!}J , 17 'b;
19' '(;R f- - ~, - ::::!i
0..:
.02
~ - --
_ b-- - LJ /- f'-'
14 a.c.posihon i- :~ v, ~p
I .x _ Y _I- ema .c . r- .0 1 -
In)_ F p-
IS!' 0 - - /.2._ ~ o.o0a. _r- 7. - .4-...)
:~
1- -.OO~ _r-
~-
6- - 1.3
x----- - 1.3 o
, IAli
"7~ ~ }. ?
- .00 7
+ -- - 1.4- 5 - 1--.012 r-
~- I-~.~/~ -r-
.2
" /
,./-. J/" ~
"'~ ~~ .. -
IP o ,).---- V P"
I I -...:QJ - .2
l..tl Airfoil: NA. C. A. 23012 - .2
~ Size : 5"x30" Vel. (ff/s e c):68 8
.... -.3
LI. Pres. (sihd. aim.) : 1/4 to 20
- .4 ~ Airfoil: NA.C.A. 23012
;W Test: V.O.T.I/67 Dafe:9 -34
~- ,4 Dote : 9-34 Tes t: V. O. T. / 167
Where teste d: L .M A.L. Res'llt s corrected to infin ite aspect r a tio
.6 ~
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /. 8
An g l e of attock f or infinite aspect ratio, €X. (de grees) Lif t coefficien t, CL
F IGURE 12.- . A . C. A. 23012.

H-:ltll m
Sto. Up'r: L'w"'.
. 11
I I I I I _I 1 I I
a - a I I I I I 1 I Te st I I I
1.25 1.90 - .77
2.5 2.89 - 1./5
5.0 4.J4 - 1.70 . /0
J r II
.;reyno lds Number
3 , 030, 000
0
7.5 5.38 -2./8
10 6.15 -2.62 0 20 40 60 80 10o 6- - - - 2,4 20, 00.0
/5 7.08 -3.40 Percent ofchord .09 x- ---------- 1, 280,000
20 7. 4 9 -3.98 +----- - 665, 000
25 7.60 - 4.30 <?
JO 7.55
40 7.11
50 6.52
-4.46
- 4 .4 6
- 4.30
2.0
"
-<: .08 f- 1-1-
c:
- 1-"7- -- - -- - 34 1,000
0 - - - - -- 172, 0 0 0
60 5.61
70 4.48
- 3.83
-3.14 1. 8 : ~ .07
80 J.16 -226 ~
~
90 1.70 -/.25
95 .93 - .70 1.6 ~ . 06
100 (.12) (-.12) u I
IDa 0 , I
II
I); ):. 1.4 g> .05
L. E. Rod.: 0.40 I I
Slope of rod/us
throu9h end of
'\'
1.2~
-t
~.04
I
chord: 0.305 1// ' ~ '-. ,,' + I
:.... +- 'X- ~ 'tQJ ~ , I
,,
:'0 0..:e·
1.0 03 , ' ,
Ijiif '''' ~. ~ I
J I€: ~ r.-;,- ~ ~ Ii1 /~ t,;;:
a .c posifion • 8 QJ . 02
L.!- ~ V
o
J J .r Y_I- ema .c. _ r- .6 \.) ,01
It:' :3 ~ ~
0--0.6 5 _ -O.D!o. _ r- -:::
"
d .8
6~-
6- - I- -.010 _
x------ 1. 0 - .01 I r- .4" a ~~
+--- .9 3 - 1- -.014 - r-
I'" '1----- - .9
o-~ ~ .4 - ~ - j- ~ . q/i - r-
1-0- 1- - .01/ - r- .2 d"-·I JV'II <jF
lr<l ~.bc
}
o 't -. 2
Airfoil : N A. C.A . 230 12 -33 o
d Size : 5"x3 0" Vel. (ff./sec):68 -.2 u
..... - .3
'" Pr es.(s/ i?d. aim.): It020
<U
c:: Ai r f o il : NA .C.A. 23012-33
Tes t: V. O. T.1240 Dole: 3 -35 Do te : 3 -35 Tes t : V. D. T. 1240
Where fes/ed: L. MA.L. -.4 ~ -.4
Results correcfed to infin ite asp ect r atio
~
-8 -4 4 a 8 12 /6 20 2 4 28 32 -.4 -.2 a .2 .4 .6 .8 1. 0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1. 8
An g l e o f oltac /:( f o r infin ile aspect ro'fio, €X. (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
F IGURE 13.-N. A. C. A . 23012-33.
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARIATIO NS OF TH E REY OLDS U MBE R 11
20

lnllltfM
5to. up'r. L'wr. I
- 0 . /1
0
1.25 2.30 -1.52 I
2 .5
5.0
3.16 -2.10
4.38 -2.76
7.5 5 .29 -3.17
./ 0 T~;t
105.98 -3.42
15 6.97 -3.74
0 20. 40 60 80 10 o (?eynolds Number
Percent ofehord .0.9 0 3,1 70.,0.0.0
20 7.58 -390
25 7.91 -3.97
30 8. 00 -4.00 d
.....,. 08
6 - - - - 2, 3 90.,0.0.0.
x--- -------- 1,340.,000.
40 Z63 -3.98
c:
50 6.73 -3.87 +--------6 7QO'O'O'
60 5.49 -3.66 :~ .07 '1-- ------- 3 3 5,0.0.0.
70
80
4.06 -3.27
2.61 -2.64
I. B
,
~ 0 - - - - - - 172,0.0.0.
90 1.26 - /. 63
95 .66 - .95 1. 6 ~ . a6
100 (.13. (-.13) u <6 I
100 0 - ?/lb 1. 4 g..OS i ;I: 1
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 15'1<--, t""l: I ' I
Slope of radius
Ihrough end of
, ~ -6 , ,, I
Q, . 04
chord: (J.153 J; -t;., ,~ :-.;:
<.;::
J I

H~""
, ' t",. ;/
"/~
I

' ~ e · a3 ,
1fj '\-1 ~ '1-, Q;
L : r-..:, - .0.2 fl. f ~/
=;,;
V .1;:::, l~ ~ ./ f-"'"'
a .c.position .1::.- "
" Ix .0.1
7~-
f7 I-.
Cma c
. .. - -
0 - - /.0. 0.005
i1JI 6 - - 1. / 6 - 1- .006 - - a v
'y ~:»'
x- - ----I.a 4 - .005 -1-
0 +--- - .8 - " rl -~- rt
IT
0. - - .0.02 -1- .2
d-·' -
~ - -~.~O /l-I-
\/- ·- --1.1 - I"l'!

.5 Airfoi!: NA .C.A. 2R~/2

I I I I
o 't - .2
Size: 5"x30." . el (ff./secJ:68 -.2 8
.... -.3
Ii! Pres. (sfhd. afm.) : I f02D
Test: v. O. T.!23 9 ~ Ai r f o il: N A.C.A. 2R212
Where tesfed : L.MA.L.
Dofe: 3-35
-.4 ~ - ,4 Do t e: 3-35 Tes!: T. 1239 v. o.
Resulfs correcfed fo infinite aspecf ralio
~ L-L-
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20. 24 28 32 -.4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 /.6 18
Ang le o f o tfa cl<. for irifinife aspect ra fio , lX, (degr ees) L i f f coe fficienl, CL
}'IGURE 14.-N. A. C. A. 2R,12.

$.~" ~~E<lll ./ 3
I I I .I .1 1 I

f~ 1Jg =~:~~ ~-/~ :c.: :: '

M I I I 1 I Test I I
I I I I Reynolds Number '
M - . 12 o 3,0.80., 0.0.0.
~g ~:~~ :::§'~ &' 0 20 40 60 8 / 0 C>.- - - - 2, 330., 000
15 7. 75 -3.01 Percent of ehord .11 x-- - - ------- 1,280.,0.0.0. :
20 8.75 -2.80 +-------- 664,0.0.0
25 9.51 -2.43
30 10.07 -1.99 2.4 . /0 '\7------ - 338,000
40 10.70 - .92 0 - - - - - - -170.,00.0.
50 10.80 .19 :
60 10.44 1.31 2.2 .0.9 I- - I - ~- .. -- - - - - - 84,500
70 9.67 2.34 117 v - - - - - - - - 42,5aD ',J,
80 8.02 2.73 t,J0
90 4.88 1.88 2.0 -,.: .0.8
\ '
'1
, i
95 2.71 1.02 '. t I
100 r.12) (-.12)
Wl c: I
100 - 0 ':C' .~ I Ir
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 !:Y' ~
/.B
,~.07 .\\ / I,' 1/
,.
Slope of radius rj'x , .; /'1, I
fnrough end of - -
1. 6{j ~.o.6
~ ~±-
xl~
chord: 6/35
, \) Qi I
IA .<"
Art rJ ;.:\ "
'l; , "-
1.4~ g>.o.5 ". --~- --I"- - Ii + I 1/2.
,. ~~iI:'
."-
,
" ~
,
1. 2~
'-
.0 il L,\
\ '.
_V'
",-- -<;0 , S :
/ I
/}J
/
~/ ' ~ ~: - Q,.04
I,'IJ. X >-(
/Jr:J
'(
~,
B t"'" ~f!.
-V
1.0 \)
III
0

;;::
~
Q,
e· 03
I"'" p:.. 1-(
-[
"" -,

I~
....
b'
~~
.'
V
1:'1 . 8~ ~V
.11 'I ' a .cposifio n
. 0.2
"
.t. r-, - 7- - <;} - :-.., ~~
i'" ' / I X + y- _ emo • _
- .6 . 0/
~

.~ ~ ~! . 2-t--2.- - 0. 199.. _ -
f,( r7 6 - - 1.1 -+-~ __ -. 19 ~_ -
, X- - --- -I ./.J.-8 -./98 .4 0
' Jl
;II.:: jV + ----/ .6 1-12 - - - .210. - I-
.2 ~
"
ra _. I
If! .
"Y I
I
I
I
I I
I I o
,11) - .2 of- - .".- -
II.! Airfoil:N.A .C.A.6712 o\) T -~
IT'-
rf. : Size: 5"x3a" Vel (ff./s ec):68 - .2 .... - .3 *
J. Pres. (sfnd. aim.): 1/4 f020
~ Airfoil: N. A.C.A. 6712
I~ Tes! : V. D. T.I 166
Where fesfed: L.M.A .L . -.4 ~ -.4 Dofe: 8-3-'1,9-34 Tesf: T. 1166 v.o.
Resulrs correct ed fo infintte aspect roria
~
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 2 0 24 2 B -.4 -: 2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 /.4 1.6 1.8 2.0.
Ancjle of a llaeA fo r infinife aspe cf ratio, lX, (Cleqrees) L i fI c o e l l /den!, CL
F I GURE 15.- . A. C. A. 67 12.
12 REPORT NO. 586-NATIO AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AER O AUTICS

.26

n=lItl II~
Sto. Up'r. L'w 'r. I I I I I I I I
0 '. ' , , '..' , , ~ 1 1 I.
°
I.i'S 1.894 -1.894
i'.S 2.615
5.0 3.555
° --
=5:m --
.24 • a .c.posd,on x = O. 6; Y =3 1 1 I
. " " x=O.6;y=3;C••.• =0
7.5 4.200 -4.200 -,--- .22
10 4.683 -4.683 ,--'- 0 20 40 60 80 10o
f'ercenf ofchord
~~
5.345 5.345
5.738 -5.738 A
2.2 .20
25 5.941 -5.941
.30 6.00<' -6.00<' R, ~
40 5.803 5.803 Iii , 2.0
50 5.<'94 -5.<'94 \ (r iB '. Wifh flop \
60 4.563 - 4.563
70 3.664 -3.664 -..: K
, -
\ ,
80 <'.623 -2.621 1:8 .§.16 ( .-fV
90 1.448 -1.448 .1 Test R.N. I--
95 .807 - .80 [HI), .10
With flap I--
100 (.12~ (-.Ii' 1.6 ~. 14 ,,
100 0 a 1:61 18". ' iQ:>~ Q) ~3,070,OOO~
L. E.Rod.: 1.58 I'I I;~ : o /,';-- 2,240,000 t-
1. 4 !.J.12
II f \ ~
'. x----- 1,300,000 t-
f.. Cl +--- 661,000
: ~
1.2 ~.I0 "
'<1--- 348,000 t-
r. t.J Q) 0-7 - Ilr O'lOOo I--
I. D.,.: ~.OB
I>-' Ll " _Ll Wifhoul flop
1=
.B.G
<:
.'1> e
0.. .06 ~-:"'---3, 180,000'
Ijo-Wilh flop 1/ \
~
) "
:
.6 ~ .04
!.J
Wilhout flop
.4~ .02 . Ll l"'i
IF'
,.J -- ~ f-- -- : Wtfhouf flop
--.I
-- :
II Ll
.2 ; 0 f.<l.!-,1- Ll --r- r- .- ~- r- -- f1--- __ lA_

.
.
o J- -.1 ~
lJ -..: --
~.
Air foil: NA. C. A. 0012 wilh split - .2 'I> -.r, With floo
flap: Size: 5",,30"
8 -.2
~
Pres.(sf'nd. afm'): !fo 20 Airfoil: NA.C.A. 001i' with split flop deflected 60·
-.4 -.3 1-1- Tesf : v. 0. T.
Vel. (ft.jse c.): 4B to 69 1255 Oale: 5-35

-16 -12 -B -4 0
Tested: L.M.A',L., VO. T. 1255
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
-. 6 " -.2
~ -.4
1-1-
Results corrected to infinite aspect ratio
o .2 .4 .6 .8 !.D 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 22 2 .4
Angle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) L iff coefficient, CL
FIGURE J6.-N. A. C. A. 0012 with split fl a p deflected 60°.

20 .24
Sto. Up'r. L'w'r.
t ~ 10
x va.c. II I I I I I I I I
- 0
-~ ~c! p~s}tibn l xl =j.2; t=7 + . 1
0 J.
I.i'S 2.67 -1.23 I- ~.g 0 IY t-
.22 I .1 J
I. \)
<'.5 .3.61 -1.71 l-
~a-IO ~ '" • x = I .2·, Y = 7·' c...·• ..=1- O. 008
5.0 4.91 -2.26 :c/4 I Q 1
7.5 5.80 -i'.61 I-- .20
10 6. 43 0 20 40 60 80 10o I
15 7.19
i'0 7.50 -3.97
I-- =H& {I % ofchord J j I
25 7.60 -4.<'8 . IB
~ i With flof,'. .
30 7.55 -4,46 2.2
40 7.14 -4.48 ~ ," d
50 6.41 -4.17 .•.:.16
,, ,, ",\
( ['-'
60 5.4 7 -3.67
70 4.36 -3.00 2.0 .§ Test R.N._
80 3.08 -2.1 6
90 1.68 -123
, , .\).14
~ \ Wifh flop:-
95
.~~ -(- .70 if \ , I.B ~
~ 3,100, 000*_
100 (.I .I3) ~ . 12
100 a 6 w
'" t:. 1.6
\) \ /,';- - 2.260. 00~_
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 1\ 'fk' \ x----- 1,370,000 _
Slope of radius 8'.10 \
+-- - 658,000
fhrough end of / {.
,,1: \

chord: 0.305 ~
1.4 -l5 '<;1--- 334,000 -
<h .OB \ 0 - - - 168,000
I L 1.2 t.J ~ ,
f1...
-'
\

I....... e·06
P -f 1.0 ~ tl.:
r>'l :G .04
/ .. Wtlh flop I . 8~ :!: "
tf
Wdhout flop-
.
QJ
o .02
I I- 'b-----3,090, DOO'-
.6 !.J
:
_Wilhout flop
~ o
P j
.4 --.1 u
.
II 1<1 t,j"-.I ~t"'"
~ /
.2
I
~
1
't -.2 ~ Wifh flOR
, lr. ..J"
o 8 -
Air oil: NA.C.A. 23012 with split L~ - -t -
I
j£l
flop: Size: S'x30'
Pres. (st'nd. atm.): Ito 20
Vel.(ft.fsec.) :31 to 69 Dote: 6 - 35
- .2
... - .3
~
~ -.4 I-r-
I- Airfoil.' N.A.C.A. 23012 with sp lit flop deflected 60°
Test : V. O. T. 1265 Date: 6 -35
---- I I

Tested: L.MA .L. , V O.T. 1265 - .4 ~ 1-1--

I-- Resulfs cor rected fo inf inite aspect pio
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 2B - .5 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 . 8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 I.B 2.0 2.2 2.4
An gle of ottock for infinite aspect ratio, ct, (degrees ) Lift c oe fficie nt, G.
FIG URE 17.-N. A. C. A. 23012 with split flap deflected 60°.
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTE D BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NU MBE R 13
20
Sto. Up'r. L'wi-.
t~ 10
:... a .c. I
.24 ~~~~~1-~11-~1.1-
HH-+-+-+ ·
. ~
II-~I'-II~'~I-r.-,,-..-~~
a . c. pos ,l,on x = I . Z; y =7 -1--1-++++-+--1-1-
0 - 0.
/.25 2.67 - U?3 t- t-
Q} 0
0 Y J. .22 ' N x = I . 2 ; y ~7; C••~= -0.008 +-+-+-;-
2 .5 3.61 - 1.71 t- t-
l)o{:
L l) , H

\1- ~~~=t~~~~~~~~P*~t~JI~~bl~ \
!lJ .... -10
5. 0 4.91 -2.26 1(0 II /4
7.5 5.80 -2.61 t- t- .20 r
0 20 40 60 80 10o . h-
ID 6.43 -2. 92
15 7. 19 - 3.50 t- t- " ·wt.'ercenf of chord I-H--I"cl--
q:f'J++++.J-+-H--I-,+-+-I-H Wi In
f l op t-~t-
. I 8 >---+..qv
r:-+--!-+--+-+-.J----!--+-~H Te 5 f R . N. +-l-l-+-H--l-1-+-
20. 7.50. - 3.97
25 7. 60. - 4.28
30 7. 55 - 4.46
40 7.14 -4.48
50. 6.4 1 - 4.17
I.~
IN, I ~
I
. d e.-1----I--4--4-+-+-+-+-I-+-+-H Wi I n f l op -I---I-H--+-+-I-++-I
..... . 16 f--H--+-+++++++ 0 - - - 3,0 70, OOO*~HH--+-+-I-++-1
60 5 .41 - 3.6 7 ~ -t I
,,
\
c: 6 - - 2,270,000 -I--H-+-++++--H
2 .0
70 4.36 - 3.00
80 3.08 -2.16
\ :~'/4 x----- 1,440,00 0 -I--H-+-++++--H

"" 1"..... Ii--1;jJl:.

90 1.68 - 1.23 IP'( \ ,-:: + - - - 660,000 -I-H--+-+++-+-H
95 .92 - .70 1. 8 -.;: "'l--- 336,000
100 (.1.3) (- .13) I!! I

~ .IZ 0 - - - 169, 000 -I--H-+-++++--H

100 - 0. IR' tQ I~ 1.6
()
L.E. Rod.: 1.58
Slope of r odivs
fhr ough end o f
/
~

If t;':!:i
g-.I0
i5
i -\ Wi fhout flop ++-I-+-H--+-+-i
.6----- 3,090, OOO t ++-I-+-H-+-+-i
1.4
chord: 0.305 II Ij, 't
~ . 08 I-H--+-+-+++-I-++--I-H--+-+-I-++\+-I--+--I-H--+-+~
/ ~
~ I'l" P I.Z <J ~ \
..... 2·06 H--I-+++++-H-+-++++--H--+-I-~+++-H-+-+-i

I/ -Wil h flo
d
>1 1. 0 ~ Q..

.~ . 04 ~-+~+-~~~~~~~~-++4-+~4-+-i-++~~
d Ii .8~
' Wi th out flo{- v ~"
/ o . 0Z HH-+-I-+++++-+--I-~_-I~--+
_ -+~-~~~W~i~
th~0~u+t~f~/'
0~p++-+-i
/ .6 u
~ O~=m~~--~~~-~-~=r--~
- &.+~b-~-p~_~~
~flrt-r+-r+~
I
" .4 -..J
~-. / H--I-+-+++-I-4-+-+-~H_-_~~~~+-I-4-+-+-~~j-4-+~
L.a - -
d Ll
.2
cJ C- -c Wilh flop
o ....:_ -. 2t~tj~:E1=tj~~~Ei~~~~;t~~~~~~ ---
II " A irfoil: NA .C.A. Z3012 wilh spli t v _ -H -1
/ flop : Oote : 8 -35 8 -.3 krf-O 1" I I
Pres.(sf'nd olm.): 11020
- .2
S - . 41-1-1- Airfoil: NA. C. A. Z3012 witli spli t flop d efl e cted 75 '
S ize:5 "x30" Vel. (ff.jsec.j:31 fo 70
-.4 I!O t-I-I- Test: v. o. T. IZ88 Do te: 8-35
I Tested: L.M.A .L., v.D. rl288 ~ Resull s corre cled fo infinite aspec t 'r olio :
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 IZ- 16 20 Z4 28 -.Z 0 .Z .4 .6 .8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 1. 8 2.0 2.2 Z.4
Angle of a t lack for infinite asp ect ratio, a D (degrees) L i ff coefficie n t. CL
F IG O&E IB.- N. A. C. A. 23012 with split fl a p deflected 75° .

,~~Ji ~"'.> ~I~H*~~

I I I I I I I I 1" I
j ~ . .
.24
~:~~. =t.~~ ~ ='.
5.0 5 .89 - 3.0.4
~t/~j I( 0 c/4, ,
. 22
• a .c.p osilion x =I . I: y =6
t x = 1. I . y=6 · C. = -0.008
1 I 1 I' ".

"i& ~:~~
15 8.52
=~:~; r- -
- 4.84 t- -
0 20 40 60 80
?er cen f of chor d
100
.20 .}'
20. 8.92 - 5.4 1 "'..- f..:'F- Wil;' flop
2 5 9.08 - 5.78 f( ..--'-
.30 9.0.5 -5.96
40. 8 .59 - 5.92 ,
I@ '
2 .4 . 18
Test R . N. t-
50. 7.74 -5.50.
60. 6.61 - 4.81 l.airT , , I

Z. 2
d
...... 16 Wil;' flop t-
70 5.25 -391 ~ I I I
c:
80. 3.73 - 2.83
IJ" , \ I \ 0 - - - 3,1 10, 000' -
90 2.0.4 -1.59 I
2 .o . ~ 14 6 - - 2, 2 70,00.0 t-
95 1,/2 - .90 IN..... 1\ I I ~. , x----- 1,450,000 t-
100 (.1 6) (- .16) I -..:
100 I
I. 8 ~ .1 2 , +--- 68 0,000 t-
L. E. Rod.: 2.48 k> I I I u 'V~-- 350,000 t-
,
Slope of rad,uS
thr ough end of
!U ~ :' I. 6 g- .10
I

I
° -,- 17 I ,OO,O_t-
I I I I I
chord : 0.305 I;'" 1,Zl ~ I 1

~ V ' 'l; i5 I Wi (hqu ( flop -

f/,r I~ I" I.4 ~ .08 , 4 · --- -3,/70, 00.0· -
,; 1'; "...:: , t;,.--- -1,4 70, ODD t-
I ~ I.
I

P ~ J'... e ·06 I
0.:
If Wilh flop
,
j I" . 04
h

It' In-
:'Wi th o ul flop . 0.2
--~
~-- .,.-,
II
f-<: t- 6- 1-< f-- ~ - ". W!'houl flop
I
o -- --- -- :W
II /
, 1""-

kJ·
d-· I -
IY & ....:QJ - .2 >-1-.
2 ~ilt /~fl- t- t-
Lr
:
o 8
.... - .3
- '::-I--l--=t -i -
U Air foil: NA. C. A. 23015 wi lh c:Q) >-== F lU'
Date:8-.35,Z-.351 split flop: Vel.(ff.jsec.j:3110 70 _ Airfoil: NA.C. A. 2 015 with split flop de f l e cfe d 75 '
Pre s. (s l'n d aim.): /to ZO
2' ~ - .4 t- t-t-
Size: 5" x 30"tJ Tested:L. M.A .I..'v' O. T 1289, 1232 : Corre c te d 10 infinile A.R.
- 16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 IZ 16 20 Z4 ~ -. 2 o . 2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 12 1.4 1.6 1.8 Z.O c .2 Z.4
An gle of attock for infin i le aspec t r atio, aD (degrees) L iff c o e fficien t, CL
FI GU RE 19.-N. A. C . A. 23015 with split fl ap deflected 75°.
14 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Sto. Up'r. L·wr. .... 'll 20 a·f-!,. tl I I I I I I I I I I

o - 0 ~ 10
/.2 4.87 -2.08 """""" lJ 'S O~.[
y a ml r-t--J .24
1 J I I 1..1 .1 .1 l I I 1_ I I I I
2.56.14 -3.14,.....,..... I. 10 lilT'" I--
f-t-' n1
'5'
* a.c.posdlon x=2. 3; y=7 I, !. ,I. I J.
5.07.93-4.52 ~'(;-IIIII c~ VI .22 t. • x (2.3 ;y=7; ~=-0.005
i8 I~b} =g~"""""" 0 2.0 ..ifP. 60 80 100 I
1~5 1/.19 -7.51 1-1- -;n'l"';' "I. of chord 0
2 /1,80 -8.30 fl. ' 11)
2 12.05 -8. 76 }) .. !-- :r Wit flop ' IV
~~~1:~~ ::~:~~ ~ \\ ' .1 8 -A
SO 10.40 -8.14 II' .' ;\ \ d..:.1 6 Cf' Test R..N. t - -
~g 1.g~ :~~~ n ;. \ \ 2.e
4 With flop 1-_
80 5.05 -4.13 \', \
~ 11~ =13~ HH-+-IH.+-f+\+.\+--H,-;';+-H-+-+-1 2. 0 .§
.\).
I
4
0----- 3,080,000' __
/:,-- 2,260,000 __
-r .22j H-+-+>/H--+-+7-\Hc,M\\+"'~'-++-+-+--4
100 (.2;>; ~
'i::
x----- 1,440,000 __
IOC - a " f \ 1.8 ~ . 12 +- - - 650,000
L.E. Rod.: 4.85 1-+-t,£-j-/+-+-~HH~='l;liiH---+-+--+-1
Slope ofrodius \ "".
lJ
v--- 333,000 - -
MnwgnendofH~-+-+-+-++-+-+-~
chord: 0.305
I ~
'rl-+-+-11
1(' 1""-'
6 ~.I 0 ,, 0--- 1~5,OOO - , -
{; II. Without flap_ I-
1.4($ ~.O8
II ..... ~ J. -'- -!-3,110, 000'_ I-
~ 1>.---.2,250,000 _
IF·WI h flop 1.2.§
.S;! Q.:
e·O6 , <l-----I, 430,000 _ I-
I-
...... tr------653,000
dOlt: .04 <?-----338,000 - I -
1>5 q)
0
rL1' 0-----167,000 -c-
...-~
I
Without flop
.8
~
lJ .02
'=:Ll ~ -1<1- f--..<I--:
__ Ll
- "'Iithout flop
.6-..J
/ / I'2f
.4 I , "
J
Ir .2 2
10-
1-1-
II 0 3
With flap-.
I
Airfoil: N.A.G.A. 23021 with split flop deflected 75'
4 Results corrected to infinite aspect ralio Date: 8-35
o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 -1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Liff coefficient, CL
FIGURE 2O.-N. A. C. A. 23021 with split flap deflected 75°.

cU

n-:~II«~~I N
Sto· up.,., L'wr. I 1 I I I I I I I I
0 - 0 .24 ! III !.I 1 1 111 l I I
1.25 .J.55 -0.82 -f- *a.c.posdlon x-I.0;y=7 I.I.!. _I.
2.5 4.71 -1.00 -f- x-I.0;y=7 ; c.~.=-0.0IB
1
5.0 6.33 -1.06 .22 t. •
,
7.5 7.42 -1.09 -f-
10o
lO 8.20 -1.21 -,..... 0 20 40 60 80 r\ I c
15 9.02 -1.66
20 9.26 -2.22
25 9.25 -2.64
30 9.10 -2.91
40 8.46 -3.15
I'ercent ofchord

Ii' ,
~
2.'"
.20

.18
-- !--iY I
Test R.N.
Wifh flop
I Willi flop ':"""f--

SO 7.S3 -3.07
1ilI1', d 0----- 3,120,000*
, ",,
60 6 .35 -2.78 2.2 ..._.1 6
70 5.00 -2.32 ~ l l - - 2,290,000
ff'fd , ,
80 3.52 -1.73 c:
90 1.90 -1.00 .q, )(- ---- 1,450,000
95 J:'/ \ , " 2.0 ~.14 +--- 660,000
100 I.~~
- .58 \

100
(.1 (-.13)
",\ , <;;: v- - - 336,000
0
L.E. Rod.: 1.58 a (
~
, 1.8 ~\) .12 [J - - - 170,000
Til 1 1 I 1 1
Slope of radius I I Withouf flap
fhrougn end of / 1& 1.6 8'.10
chord: 0.610 14V \~ ~---3, lBO, 000 t
{;
r k' I'r ($
1.4 ...., ,k.OB
'cr----1,4BO, 000
0-----/7/,000
II" -<~ ~ c:
j , I', .q) ..-::
~p
,, 1.2.1J e·06 \
" ~
0;;: Cl \
I_With flop ~ "<]
1.0 ~ .04
1,.( If lJ A
Without flop la' '.
. 8~ .02
- lop
/ Ii ~-,
~, Wdhout
:
.6 0 ,..... --
/ L f-- ~ r-l t- 16' -
-
ci 141'
.4 r..l-.I ,'"
¢"-

.2 ....:QJ-.2 r- Wifh floe,

I: -
I o
8
.... -.3 - --1-1'-
/
Air oil: N.A.C.A. 43012 with spli
~
flop: Pres.(st'nd ot~: Ifo 20 - .2 Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 43012 with split flap deflected 75'
~-.4 c-r-
Size: S ' x 30": Tested: L.M.A.L., 7.1296, ~ 27, 1297 V.O. Corrected to infinite aspect ratio: Date: 9-35 2-35
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 ~ --.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 /.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 2.2 2.4 e.o
Angle of aTfack for infinite aspect rarlO, a. (degrees) Lif' coefficient, G.
F'IGURE 21.-N. A. C. A. 43012 with split flap deflected 75°,
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 15
20 .r
.... "\) 10 a . c ~ L;. I I I I I I /1 11 I I I I I I 1. 1. I
t ~
Qj 0
U~ 0
.12
I I I I J I Test I I I a .c.postllon
,- C.
I.±-l -
Pivot oft T. E. 11I Reynolds Number
f vi ~ l -
l- f-
I. U
~'(5-10 f>/Vof":' X I--Y I-
..... c. f-
ofmoln wing .11 I - o 3,/10,000
.03c. .025 c. I j'cf4 0.51- 8 1-{!:009
I- Pivot below c, f-
I- 1.0 9 .008 l -
10 6----2,330,00o
t- .054c, .045 c. I -
Pivot oft L.E.
0 20 40 60 80
f'ercent orenora ° .1 0 I - x---- ------- 1,250,000 1./1-1/ 1-1-.010 f-
t-
of flop
f- + - - - - - - 636,000
l i 2 I-~I I- 1-.011-1-
t- .24c• . 040c. 2.2 .09 I- "V------- 325,000
I- Pivot below c, f- 0 - - - - - - 163,000
t-
.I0c, .0IS7e.
Flop disploce- 2.0
d
...... . 08
f-i-Co efficien ts based on the sums of the mai,., 1-1-
'!!'!flt ongle c: f- f- f- wing and flop chords and areas.
t-
.~ I
1.8 ~.07

1.6 '"~ . 06 11 11
W. u lQi,
lih ,
1.4 g-.05
'~N 1111
I! ~
{; 11 , , ,,
1.2 (j ~.04 , ,
i'; " 0.. I II
~ II ,
1..4.
lJ"l
Q
IU N-i h7
'0_
+ 1.0 t
:G
e·03
Q.; ,'In:
~ ~7

J ~ 1J.,J , \,0,
.8~ .02
'6 QJ ~- .-(>-;- ~ Y. iS~
), o ..l: I-<: - ~ I:::::: ~~
.6 lJ .01
Ii 'l::
"

"
IIjij"
.4--.)

.2
~
tJ -.1
o
,~
............

'I L-'~
J c 't - .2
';1. Airfoil: N.A.C. A. 23012 with external
j airfoil flap, Size : S'x 30 '
-.2
8
.... -.3
r- I- r- Pres. (sl'na. aim.): 110 20 00t8:7-35 ~
Airfoil: .A.C.A . 2 012 with external-airfail
Ve/.(ft.jsec.) : 69
-.4 ~-. 4
flap deflected -3:
Test: V.O. T. In3-1276
Tested: L.M.A.L., VO. T. 1273,1276 Results corrected fo infinite aspect ratio:
-/0 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 .32 ~ -.6 -.4 -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Angle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, a, (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE 22.-N. A. C .. A. 23012 with external-airroil flap deflected-3°.
Main wing section _____ ________________ N. A. C. A. 23012 Main wing chord, CI ___ _______ ______ __ _________ __ __ 0.83.3c
Flap section ____ _______ __ ____________ N. A. C. A. 23012 Flap chord, C2=0.2<. ____.. ____________ ________ __ __ _ .167c

20
1 l'l:'
10
I~ ~.c.l I I I I _I I I I 1 T T T T Tf
r- p,lvo~
I- of main wing -_
;ft I r~. - ~~ 0
I. " -/O
tJ ....
l'
. 12

.11 f- - I- 0
I
1-11 1 T
.1. I I Test T l
l _t-7:z·c-kpoSifion'
feynalds Number I z y
I( 0 c/.4 Pivo:J 3,080,000 0.5 8
I- .03c• . 02Sc. f- -
Pivot below c 1 '0 20 40 60 80 I 00 ~----2,350,OOOI 1 I-r
I- .054 c, .045 c. - f'ercent orehora .10 f- - I- x----------- 1,290,OOO T -1 I T ·~l .1
Pivot oft L.E. i - - 1-+-
I-
of flap I", ~ - - - - - 6~5,OOO I I I I (~- /I
I- .24c, .040c.
f'f \1 2.2 .09 f- - f-<;7----.-- 333,000
i- Pivot below c,
v.; . i - - f- O - - ' - - - 167,000 I 1 I
.I0c, .0167c.
t- Flop displace- 2.0
d
-;:.08 l- I-
j-Coefficients based on the sums of the main t- I -
I- T30~ angle
1/.- '\ c: wing and flop chords and areas. I
\ ' .Q) "(for flap 01 -3°) In
" 1.8 ~.07 IT
~ ~
~+ pt.. IXjQ ,,
~ . 06 117,
.h
1.6
III I.lZ I-!J I'>i tI
VI iL
--I- 1.4 g-.OS
I~ !P. I}
rt' 1"-
{; 1\\ lY' ~
. ~ . 04 , I)

11
" rf}
I '~
"
.;::
e·03
Q.
,\
l\7 b-- )-.j"17
,
L-l V
W' j.~ ['VF - -t- pcp 1:"1- - I - Jry
j
.02 1-

~i' . 01
j;
ri' .4 o
~'l
I r. . .2
0"
J-.I
'A
II-~
Llfi
IlL Airfoil: N.A.C. A. 23012 with
o 't - .2 b. :--I-- .J! . _ -hoi
~ externa/-airf'oil flap . 8
.... -.3 I
Pres.(st'nd. atm.): I to 20 - .2
Airfoil: N.A.C.A. 23012 with external-airfoil flop
Size: S'x 30' Oate:7-35,8-.35 ~ f- f-
deflected 30·; Date 7-35,8-35, Test : V.o.r. /278
Tested: L.M.A.L., VO.T. /278 -.4 ~ -.4 l- f- Results corrected to infinile aspecf r atio:
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 ~ -.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Angle of attock for in,finife aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) Lift coefficient, CL
FIGURE 23.-N. A. C. A. 23012 wjth external-airroil flap deflected 30°,
Main wing section __ ___ _____ ______ N. A. C. A. 23012 Main wing chord, c. ____ ________ _____________ O.833c Datum cbord, C-CI+e,.
Flap section _________ ________ ____ N. A. C. A. 23012 Flap chord, c.=O.2<. _________________ ___ ___ __ .167c

tl84380 0-39--3
16 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

20-- .14

H-:~.I ~I
Sfa. up'r. L'w'r. I I 11.11 11.1 .1.1.1 I~JI!~
Reynolds Number I J !.I ,I
c- 1-0.1 I I I I Test
0 3.50 3.50
1.25 5.45 1.93 - .13 - 3750000' '<;j- ..• - ... - 297000'-
2.5 6.50 1.'17 _
5.0 7.90 .93 - - r : : , - - - -3;060.000' V - - .. - - .. IS7,OOO-
7.5 8.85 .63 -
.42 _ 0 20 40 60 80 10 o .12 - - r x----------- I, 830,000' T------- 99.000-
109.60
10.68 Percent of chord - - r + - - - - - I , 170,000' .1.------51,000-
~~ 11.36
.15
30 11.70 0
.03 ./1 - - H7-·-----775,000' ,
40 11.40 0 2.2 - - t t - D - - - ' - - 490,000'
5010.52 0 r: '(a. c.l. pasifion (for t
60 9.15 0 d· IO
70 7.35
80 5.22
90 2.80
95 1.49
100 .12
0
0
0
0
0
~
,. "...6K
~ ~;r.: ,["':Iil.
!I!"~
jj ~ ~ i'<;t rh' ,
k
~
2.0

1.8
f09
:13
\

! \
wing with slof
closed)
x = 1.1; Y= 4
I
,
:.I-
r
, ~
/
,
L. E. Rod.: 1.50 rlj ~ I'R t.",' ~ , ~Q)' 08 ~.
\
,
\'(;
1.6 I
o
II :r~T-
-'" '" I';
~ ~' :l'~ / ~ : ,,
l
u 07 /
,,~~ , 1;),'
\I~, 1\ r
,, v: 1--, r-_ _ ~S ..
1.4 o \~ \ IL " l':i
"- ~.06 ,\, II ,'lj
I .,/ IT
A, ,
1.2 tj
-- :f ~ ~\.Jl liz' / Ii
r; ...: \;::.05
1.0 ~ e ~ ' - oj--' /
" /'
~- I'
r
1&;0
~ .8~
:0 0:..04 iI.
'" if!. - ..-:I-c ~.
-- .
:r- ---
n-
1/

F
f
J o
.6 u
Q)
.03 ~~ ~ ..... ,-1;>-
I!";;~ --~
--I--'
,
-'
- ~%-

~ .02
.4-.J
~ .01

-
.2
I d" 0 -
Airfoil: Clork Y with Handley-Page slot
o
~ -./
Iq: ~=
Size: 6"x36" Vel. (ft.jsec):69 - "'1'9"I I I
Pres.(stnd. aim.): 1/4 to 20
-.2 8
..... -.2 - - Airfoil: Clark V with Hondley-Poge slot(N.A CA. T.R.400}
Test: v.o. T. 848 Dafe:6-32
Where fested: L.M.A.L. -.4 ~ - - Oafe: 6-32 Test: V.D.T. 848
Results corrected to infinite aspect ratio
L- fii-3
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 ~ '-.2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 /.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 /.8 C.O 2.2
AAgle of attock for infinite aspect ratio, ct. (degrees) Liff coefficient, G.
FIGURE 24.-Clark Y witb Handley Page slot.

As an example of scale effects within the flight range, The most efficient airfoil for a landing Reynolds
figure 25 has been prepared to show how the choice of Number of 1,000,000, for example, is definitely not the
an airfoil section for maximum aerodynamic efficiency
may depend on the flight Reynolds Number at which 440
the airfoil is to be employed. The efficiency is judged
.•
)----..
by the speed-range index Clmax/CdQ' Values of Clmax were 8.060,060/
determined for the airfoil sections (N. A. C. A. 230
r---

r--- .....
~

,,- ~ '" '\

'\.
series) with a deflected 20 percent chord split flap '\
~ 4,060.060
and at a Reynolds Number as indicated on each curve - l. v

'"
Qj
corresponding to the landing condition. The cor- -
-Q
~ ""I'--
responding values of CdQ were taken as the actual profile- ~ "
drag coefficients associated with a high-speed lift
coefficient suitable to an actual speed range of 3.5,
-
-
-ti
"0
t
2,000. 0 00_,

----
r-----.. '" ""
"'" '"
'\

I"

'"
>,
but corrected by the methods of this report to the high- r--- ~
speed Reynolds Number (indicated landing Reynolds
Number R times 3.5). Four curves were thus derived
indicating the variation of speed-range index with
section thickness for four values of the landing Reynolds
,
1060000
, ,

- "'"'"
"
"",'

Number: 1,2,4, and 8 million, the extremes correspond-

ing to a small airplane and to a conventional transport 4 8 12 /6 20 24
airplane. The highest value shown, 414, of the speed- Airfoil Ihickness, t . percent c
range index may appear surprisingly high, but it should FIGURE 2S.-Airloil speed-range indexes for various Reynolds Numbers. N. A. C. A.
be rem<:lmbered that the corrections to section character- 230 series sections; CIM . . taken tor airfoil with O.2Oc split flap deflected 75°; CdO taken
for airfoil witb flap retracted (or a bigb·speed value of c, and at 3.5 times tbe R (or
istics and for Reynolds Number, as well as the use of the CI".az_
flaps, are all favorable to high values. The important
point brought out by figure 25 is that the section thick- most efficient for a larger airplane landing at a Reynolds
ness corresponding to the maximum aerodynamic Number of 8,000,000. An analysis such as that of
efficiency is dependent on the Reynolds Number. the foregoing example or further analyses such as those
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER
discussed in reference 8 concerning the determination
of the characteristics of wings evidently require a
knowledge of the variation of airfoil section character-
istics with profile shape over the practical range of
flight Reynolds Numbers.
DETERMINATION OF SECTION CHARACTERISTICS APPLICABLE TO
FLIGHT
The present analysis is intended primarily to supply
a means of arriving at airfoil section characteristics that
are applicable to flight at Reynolds Numbers within
the practical flight range. This object is best ac-
complished by applying corrections to the standard
airfoil test results from the variable-density tunnel.
The standard airfoil characteristics at large Reynolds
Numbers are customarily defined in terms of a few
parameters or important airfoil section characteristics
that may be tabulated for each airfoil section. These
important characteristics are:
c, max , the section maximum lift coefficient.
ao, the section lift-curve slope.
alo' the angle of zero lift.
('do m in ' the minimum profile-drag coefficient.
c I ,the optimum lift coefficient, or section lift co-
op t
efficient corresponding to CdOm/n'
Cm
a .c.
,the pitching-moment coefficient about the sec-
tion aerodynamic center.
a. c., the aerodynamic center, or point with respect to
the airfoil section about which the pitching-
moment coeffiClent tends to remain constant
over the range of lift coefficients between zero
lift and maximum lift.
Essentially, the general analysis therefore reduces to an
analysis of the variation of each of these important
section characteristics with Reynolds Number. Before
this analysis is begun, however, it will be _necessary to
consider how values of these section characteristics
applicable to flight are deduced from the wind-tunnel
tests of finite-aspect-ratio airfoils in the comparatively
turbulent air stream of the tunnel. The variation of the
important section characteristics with Reynolds Number
will then be considered. Finally, consideration will be
given to methods of arriving at complete airfoil charac-
teristics after the important section characteristics have
been predicted for flight at the desired value of the
Reynolds Number.
Correction to infinite aspect ratio.-The derivation
of the section characteristics from the test results un-
corrected for turbulence will be discussed first; the
turbulence effects will be considered later. The reduc-
tion to Sl' '{on characteristics is actually made in three
SuC '.!f>"",. If ~ .pproximations. First, the measured charac-
teristics for the rectangular airfoil of aspect ratio 6 are
corrected for the usual downflow and induced drag,
using appropriate factors that allow at the same time
17
for tunnel-wall interference. These induction factors
are based on the usual wing theory as applied to rec-
tangular airfoils. The methods of calculation are
presented in reference 1. (Second-order influences have
also been investigated; that is, refinement of the tunnel-
wall correction to take into account such factors as the
load grading and the influence of the tunnel interference
on the load grading. (See reference 6.) For the con-
ditions of the standard tunnel test such refinements were
found to be unnecessary.) The results thus yield the
first approximation characteristics, e. g., the profile-drag
coefficient ODO that has been considered a section
characteristic in previous reports (reference 2) .
These first-approximation section characteristics are
unsatisfactory, first, because the airfoil theory does not
represent with sufficient accuracy the flow about the
tip portions of rectangular airfoils and, second, because
the measured coefficients represent average values for
all the sections along the span whereas each section
actually operates at a section lift coefficient that may
differ markedly from the wing lift coefficient. The
second approximation attempts to correct for the
shortcomings of the wing theory as applied to rec-
tangular airfoils.
It is well known that pressure-distribution measure-
ments on wings having rectangular tips show humps in
the load-distribution curve near the wing tips. These
distortions of the load-distribution curve aI;e not rep-
resented by the usual wing theory. The failure of the
theory is undoubtedly associated with the assumption of
plane or two-dimensional flow over the airfoil sections
whereas the actual flow near the tips is definitely three-
dimensional, there being a marked inflow from the tips
on the upper surface and outflow toward the tips on the
lower surface. This influence not only affects the
induction factors and hence the over-all characteristics
of the rectangular wing but also produces local dis-
turbances near the tips that may be expected to affect
the average values of the section profile-drag coefficients.
Theoretical load distributions for wings with well-
rounded (elliptical) tips agree much more closely with
experiment than do the distributions for rectangular-
tip wings. Local disturbances near the tips should also
be much less pronounced. Test results for rounded-tip
wings were therefore employed to evaluate the rectangu-
lar-tip effects and hence to arrive at the second approx-
imations. Four wings, having N. A. C. A. 0009, 0012,
0018, and 4412 sections, were employed for the purpose.
The normal-wing airfoil sections were employed
throughout the rounded-tip portion of the wing but the
plan area was reduced elliptically toward each tip
beginning at a distance of one chord length from the
tip. Section characteristics were derived from tests
of these wings in the usual way but using theoretical
induction factors appropriate to the modified plan
form. These section characteristics when compared
18 REPORT NO. 58B-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
with the first approximation ones from tests of wings
with rectangular tips served to determine the second
approximations. These values indicated by double
primes were given from this analysis in terms of the
first approximation values indicated by single primes
as follows:
C Lma x " = 1. 03 CLmax'
ao" = 0.96ao'
ao" = ao' +0.39CL ' (degrees)
CDO" = CDO ' +0.0016C/2-~(t-6)0.0002(t >6)
where t is the maximum section thickness in percent
chord. In some recent reports on airfoil characteris-
tics (references 3, 5, and 7) these values have been
presented as section characteristics except that a small
correction has in some cases been applied to the aero-
dynamic-center positions. This correction is no longer
considered justifiable.
These corrections are, of course, entirely empirical.
They must be considered as only approximately correct
and as being independent of the Reynolds Number.
The corrections themselves, however, are small so that
they need not be accurately known. All things con-
sidered, it is believed that through their uae the reliabil-
ity of the section data is definitely improved, at least
within the lower part of the range of lift coefficients.
For lift coefficients much greater than 1, however, the
profile-drag coefficients from the rounded tip and rec-
tangular airfoil tests show di~crepancies that increase
progressively with lift coefficient and, of course, become
very large near the maximum lift coefficient owing to
the different maximum-lift values. This difference
brings up the necessity for the third approximation.
The second approximation values may, however, be
considered sufficiently accurate to determine the section
profile-drag coefficient Cd O over the lower lift range and
also the following important section parameters that
are determined la.rgely from the characteristics in the
low lift range:
alO
ao
C lopi
CdO mIn
Cma . c .
a. c.
In this runge of the lift coefficient the deviations from
the mean of the Cl values along the span have been
adequately taken into account. The mean values of Cl
and CdO represent true values as long as the deviations
along the span are within a limited range over which
t.he quantities may be considered to vary lineally. Near
the maximum lift, however, the deviations become
larger and the rates of deviation increase so that the
profile drag of the rounded-tip airfoil, for example, is
.
predominantly influenced by the high Cd 0 values of the
central sections which, according to the theory, are
operating at Cl values as much as 9 percent higher than
the mean value indicated by the wing lift coefficient CL .
Moreover, the actual lift coefficient corresponding to
the section stall (in this case the center section) might
thus, in accordance with the theory, be taken as 9 per-
cent higher than the measured wing lift coefficient
cOlTesponding to the stall.
Several considerations, however, indicate that this
9 percent increase indicated by the simple theory is too
large. The simple theory assumes a uniform section
lift-curve slope in arriving at the span loading and
hence the distribution of the section lift coefficients
along the span. Actually on approaching the maximum
lift the more heavily loaded sections do not gain lift as
fast as the more lightly loaded ones owing to the bend-
ing over of the section lift curves near the stall. This
effect has also been investigated approximately. The
results showed that for commonly used airfoil sections
the center lift drops from 9 percent to 5 or 6 percent
higher than the mean at the stall of rectangular airfoils
with rounded tips. For some unusual sections that
have'very gradually rounding lift-curve peaks and with
little loss of lift beyond the stall, this correction may
practi.cally disappear either because the lift virtually
equalizes along the span before the stall or because the
maximum lift is not reached until most of the sections
are actually stalled. Omitting from consideration these
sections to which no correction will be applied, the
question as to whether or not such ~ correction should
be applied to usual sections was decided by considering
how it would affect predictions based on the Cl max
values.
Maximum-lift measurements had been made for a
number of tapered airfoils of various taper ratios and
aspect ratios. The same airfoil section data presented
in this report were applied (taking into account the re-
duced Reynolds Number of the sections near the tips
of highly tapered wings) by the method indicated in
reference 8 to predict the maximum lift coefficients of
the tapered wings. These predictions appeared some-
what better when the section data were obtained on
the assumption tha t the center-section lift coefficient
at the stall of the rectangular airfoil with rounded tips
is 4 percent higher than the wing lift coefficient. Hence
the third approximation as regards the section maximum
lift coefficients was obtained by increasing the maximum
lift coefficients by 4 percent, although the value of the
correction could not be definitely established because
it appeared to be of the same order as possible errors
in maximum lift measurements and preilicti,ons for
tapered airfoils. The correction has been applied,
however, except in the unusual cases previously men-
tioned where it obviously was not applicable, by in-
creasing the maximum lift coefficients for the sections
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 19
by 4 percent. With the rounded-tip correction tills influenced by the variation of Cao along the span. A
increase makes the total maximum lift coefficient for reference to figure 26 will show the relation of these
the section 7 percent higher than the measured maximum successive approxTInations to the original measurements
lift coefficient for the rectangular airfoil of aspect ratio 6. and to the final results.
The correction of the important airfoil section para- Turbulence.- The correction for turbulence is made
meters has thus been completed, but the curve of pro- as in reference 9 by use of the concept of an effective
file-drag coefficient against lift coefficient should now R eynolds Number. Marked scale effects that have been
be modified at high lift coefficients owing to the change experimentally observed are usually associated with a
in Cl maz and the variation of Cao along the span. Com- transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the boundary
pletely corrected Cao curves are not presented for the layer. As examples, consider the more or less sudden
various airfoils in this report. The change resul ting increase in the drag coefficient for skin-friction plates
from the variation of Cdo along the span has been ap- and airsillp models and the drop of the drag coefficient

I I I I I I
2.8 .13
I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I T -II , , , TTl
2.6 ./2 o Experimentol points
o Exper imen tal points I-
roumfed-tip airfoil tesf rounded-tip airfoil test
First approximation (CLl I- 2.4 ./1 corrected to effective
Second ~ " I
_____ Third I I"
I I
I- I I I
(cd - c....... 2.2
Reynolds Number
First appraximati~n (CD)
.10
-,.... - Second ' , ,,' '
____ _ Third I I . I I I I(c d ,)
2.0 .09
1.8
. ., .... . 08
c:
i:;,<: -0 1.6
. III
1/,1 ~.07
) t'-..
1.4
""~ . 06
,.. t'-..
1.2§
.... <J

g-.05
I.

I
.\.1 {j

r " I.O~

.8
III
0
ll
;:::::
'"
~ . 04
'i::
~ . O3
Q..
I
/,, "
I

~ ....
"
/;:.
.6 r::. . 02
:g ..,., ~ F
v
~
.4~ . 01
V)
U'
"
.2 a
/.
0

- .2
Airfoil: N A.C. A. 4412
Airfoil: N. A.C.A. 4412
-.4
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 -. 6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 /.6 1.8 2.0
Angle of attack for infinite aspect ratio, ct, (degrees) Section IIlI coefficient
FIGURE 26.-Airfoil section cbaracterist ics. Comparison of tbe various approximations.

plied only in a general way in the construction of a for spheres and cylinders with increasing Reynolds
generalized CdQ curve. From this curve, values of Numbers in the critical range. The latter scale effects
cdQ at any Cl may be derived in terms of the presented are associated with the greater resistance to separation
airfoil section parameters. Tills "generalized section of the turbulent layer. The increase of maximum lift
polar" (see fig. 45) was derived from tests of rounded- coefficient with Reynolds Number shown by most com-
tip N. A. C. A. 0012 and 4412 airfoils, taking into monly used airfoils is a similar phenomenon, The drag
account the variation of Cdo along the span. For con- scale effect for most airfoils, moreover, is at least com-
ventional airfoils of medium thickness, Cdo values from parable with the corresponding scale effect for the skin-
this generalized section polar should be more nearly friction plate.
true section characteristics than the GDo values obtained Tills transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the
directly from the test data. Tills conclusion is particu- boundary layer, as in Reynolds' classic experiments, is
larly important for lift coefficients above 1 where the primarily a function of the Reynolds Number but, as he
second approximation correction becomes definitely showed, the transition is hastened by the presence of
unreliable and near Cimaz where the Gvo values are unsteadiness or turbulence in the general air stream.
tl84380 ()-3~1j,
20 REPORT O. 586- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Likewise, the transition in the boundary layer is in passing from the test to the effective Reynolds
hastened by the turbulence in the air stream of a wind umber, moreover, is approximately allowed for by
tunnel so that transition occurs at a given point on the dedu cting a small correction increment from the
model at a lower Reynolds Number in the tunnel than measured airfoil profile-drag coefficients.
it would in free air. Likewise the associated scale This correction increment was originally employed
effects that appear in the tunnel tend to correspond for tests at high values of the Reynolds Number when
with those that would appear in flight at a higher the boundary layer on an airfoil is largely turbulent.
Reynolds umber. This Reynolds Number may there- The correction was therefore .estimated as the amount
fore be referred to as the "effective Reynolds Number" by which the drag coeffi~ient representing the turbulent
and is, of course, higher than the actual Reynolds skin friction on a flat plate would decrease in passing
Number of the test. from lhe test Reynolds umber to the effective
It appears that the effective Reynolds Number for R eynolds Number. The values of the increment thus
practical purposes may be obtained by multiplying the deduced from Prandtl's analysis of the turbulent

.020
,
.! ){.IA I.t.~. 10012
rJ°
.•.:
c::
--- :f " - . :-- ._-- I'-..
H~·
,Q)
~
~ . 008
QJ
8.006
.010
-c =
.'
0 ..910
~ (logR) z5.

i""- '"
r-

I'--x
- - x
- " "
~.005
--- -' =r-.o.
Cl
~.004 - --Prandtl- Gebers Irons ilion curve
~ I'--
~ . 003
o
~ Cd = 2.656R-! ~,. . "'-
~.002
::) '--- ..........
.§
.C:
~
.001 h Q 6
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 /0,000,000 2 3 4 5 /OQOOQOOO
Effective Reynolds Number
FIG URE 27.-Variation or ed om;. with R . Comparison of N . A. C. A. 0012 airroil with skin-friction plates.

test Reynolds Number by a factor referred to as the fric tion layer, which is substantially in agreement with
" turbulence factor." This factor was determined von Karman's original derivation, are as follows:
(reference 9) for the variable-density tunnel by a com-
parison of airfoil tests with tests in the N. A. C. A. T est Reynolds Effect ive R ey-
/led
full-scale tunnel and hence indirectly with flight. The Number nolds Number

value 2.64, which was thus obtained after a considera-

300, 000 792, 000 0.0020
tion of sphere tests in the full-scale tunnel and in flight, 500,000 1, 320, 000 .0017
1,000,000 2,640,000 .0014
agrees with a subsequent determination (reference 10) 2,000,000 5,280, 000 .0012
3,000,000 7, 920, 000 . 0011
by sphere tests in the variable-density tunnel that were
compared directly with corresponding tests in flight.
An effective Reynolds Number is thus determined at The objection might be raised that the increments
which the tunnel results should, in general, be applied to are based entirely on a turbulent skin-friction layer
t:..Cd
flight. Flight conditions as regards the effects of the whereas the boundary layers on airfoils are actually
transition may then be considered as being approxi- laminar over a considerable part of the forward portion,
mately reproduced, but it should be remembered that particularly for the lower values of the Reynolds
the flow at the lower Reynolds umber cannot exactly umber. The t:..Cd correction was nevertheless em-
reproduce the corresponding flow in flight. Both the ployed over the complete range of Reynolds umbers
laminar and turbulent boundary layers are relatively for several reasons: primarily for simplicity and con-
thicker than those truly corresponding to flight and sistency, because in the practical flight range the
both boundary layers have higher skin-friction coeffi- turbulent layer predominates; and secondarily because
cients at the lower Reynolds Number. Nevertheless on most airfoils the boundary layer mu t be turbulent
the most important source of scale effects is taken over a considerable part of the surface at any Reynolds
into account, at least approximately, when the tunnel Number sufficiently high to avoid separation . Refer-
results are applied to flight at the effective Reynolds ence to the corrected minimum-drag results for the
Number, The change in skin-friction drag coefficients N_ A. C. A. 0012 section shown in figure 27 may

. AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER
clarify these statements. Included in the figure are
curves representing the variations with Reynolds
Number of flat-plate drag coefficients for laminar and
turbulent boundary layers and the Prandtl-Gebers
transition curve, which represents a computed variation
substantially in agreement with Gebel's' measurements
of the actual variation in drag coefficient for a flat plate
towed in water at various Reynolds Numbers. The
computed curve is the result of a calculation of the
average drag coeffieient for the plate when the fNward
part of the boundary layer is laminar and the after
part turbulent and the transition is assumed to take
place at a fi.xed value of the surface-distance Reynolds
Number R z . It is apparent that the airfoil curve tends
to parallel the actual flat-plate curve throughout the
flight range of values of the Reynolds Number.
In references 11 and 12 corresponding curves were
presented for a very thin airfoil section . These results
were uncorrected for the turbulence in the tunnel and
hence, although they appear to parallel a transition
curve like the present corrected results, the transition
curve does not correspond to zero turbulence, or flight,
but is displaced to the left. The correction increment
could have been based on the difference between these
two transition curves for flat plates, the one calculated
for the tunnel and the other calculated for flight con-
ditions. Such a correction increment would have
ceen slightly different from the one actually ~mployed,
particularly in the range of the Reynolds Number
below the flight range, owing to larger drag reductions
in the laminar part of the boundary layer in passing
to the higher Reynolds Number. Both the test
results for the N. A. C . A. 0012 (fig. 27) and theoretical
calculations for the same airfoil by the method of
reference 13 indicate, however, that separation must
occur as the Reynolds Number is reduced even in the
case of this excellently streamlined form at zero 1ift.
The separation is indicated by the abnormal increase
of the drag coefficient shown by the experimental
results below a Reynolds Number of 800,000. This
separation may at first be a local phenomenon, the
flow subsequently changing to turbulent and closing
in again downstream from the separation point. In
any case it is apparent that the flow will either be to
a considerable extent turbulent or will separate so
that a correction increment based mainly on a laminar
layer would have little significance.
The applied correction increment based on the
turbulent layer is thus justifiable as being COIIJerva-
tive over the flight range of the Reynolds umber
and the influences not considered in its derivation
will henceforth be considered as sources of error in
the experimental results. Admittedly it would be of
interest to give further consideration to the results in
the range of Reynolds Number below the usual flight
range where the influences of extensive laminar bound-
ary layers and separation are of primary importance,
«,
21
but the relatively poor experimental accuracy of the
test data for these low Reynolds Numbers and the
lack of practical applications tend to discourage an
extensive analysis of the low-scale data.
The accuracy of the final results as applied to flight
is best judged from a comparison of the results with
those from the N. A. C. A. full-scale tunnel. Such
comparisons have been made in references 9 and 10 .
The agreement for both the maArimum lift and minimum
drag for the Clark Y is easily within the accuracy of the
experiments. For the other airfoil for which a compari-
son is possible, the N. A. C. A. 23012, the results show
similar satisfactory agreement for maA'imum lift, within
4 percent, and for the drag coefficient at zero lift,
within 5 percent. The polar curve of the profile-drag
coefficients from the full -scale tunnel, however, tended
to show a marked drop for a small range of lift coeffi-
cients near that for minimum profile drag. Although
the same phenomenon was apparent from the variable-
density-.tuJmel tests, it was less marked. The fact that
the minimum drag shown by the full-scale-tunnel test
was 17 percent lower than shown by the variable-
density-tunnel test thus appears less significant than it
otherwise would. Furthermore, it might be expected
that this localized dip in the profile-drag curve would
tend to disappear at the higher Reynolds Numbers
common to flight at low lift cofficients. In spite of the
fact that the above-mentioned difference between the
results is but slightly outside the limit of possible
experimental errors, the difference does tend to show
how much the turbulence corrections applied to the
variable-density-tunnel data may be in error, particu-
larly for a condition like the one considered for which
rather extensive laminar boundary layers may be
present. Comparatively high velocities over the lift-
ing airfoil as contrasted with the flat plate may also
tend to increa'5e the value of the correction increment
so that all these considerations are in agreement in
indicating that the correction incremen~ applied may be
considerably too conservative in some instances, par-
ticularly for the lower range of flight Reynolds Num-
bers.! The greatest uncertainty, however, in regard to
the application of the drag data to flight is due to the
possibility tbat under certain favorable conditions in
flight, corresponding to very smooth surfaces and to
practically zero turbulence, the transition may be
1 Since the writing of this report, the results of comparative experiments made in
the less turbulent British C. A. T. on the N. A. C. A. 00!2 airfoil have come to the
attention of the authors. For the mod~1 with the most carefully finished surface,
the results do show lower drags over the lower range of flight Reynolds Numbers
than the data in this report.
Still mOre recently the results of tests from England and Germany at moderately
large Reynolds Numbers hav~ added further support to the conclusion that the
correction increments applied herein are too small. Furthermore, as indicated
by the foregoing discussion, the increments should probably increase with tbe airfoil
thickness or drag. For example, better agreement is obtained if, instead of the
increment 0.0011 subtracted from the usual large-scale proflle-drag results, a cor-
rection as a factor applied to the measured profile drag is employed. This factor
is 0.85, as similarly determined from the tlat plate with completely turbulent bound·
ary layer. Final conclusions, however, must await further information on the tran-
sition as it actually occurs in tlight.
22 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

abnormally delayed. For example, Dryden (reference
14) found very large values of Rx corresponding to
transition on a flat plate. The conditions are remi-
niscent of those of super aturation in solutions. Fol-
lowing this analogy, it may be impossible to set an
upper limit of R above which transition must occur.
Unusually low drags would, of course, be associated
with the presence of this type of abnormally extensive
laminar boundary layer; but, while this possibility
should be recognized, it is pi'obable that in most prac-
tical application" conditions such as slight surface
irregularities, vibration, or self-induced flow fluctuations
will operate against it. The present results may there-
fore be used in flight calculations as conservative for
wings that are not aerodynamically rough.
VARIATION OF IMPORTANT SECTION CHARACTERISTICS WITH
REYNOLDS UMBER
Maximum lift coefficient clmox.- The maximum lift
coefficient is one of the most important properties of the
airfoil section. It largely determines not only the max-
imum lift coefficient of wings and hence the stalling
speed of airplanes but also, for example, influences how
and where tapered wings stall and hence the character
of the stall in relation to lateral stability and damping
in roll. The maximum lift coefficient, moreover, in-
separation than the laminar boundary layer. This
dependence of separation on the character of the bound-
ary-layer flow was first observed in sphere-drag tests.
At low Reynolds umbers separation of the boundary
layer develops near the equator of the sphere. When
the boundary layer on the sphere is made turbulent, how-
ever, as it is when the Reynolds Number is sufficiently
increa ed, the separation shifts to a position considerably
aft.
The occurrence of separation for airfoils, as affected
by the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in the
boundary layer, is indicated by the scale effects on
Clmax (fig. 28) for symmetrical Eections of varying thick-
ness. For these airfoils at any considerable lift coeffi-
cient the low-pressure point on the upper surface tends
to occur just bebind the nose, on the leading-edge-radius
portion of the airfoil. When the boundary layer is
laminar behind this point, separation may be expected
2.0
• ~.1~~~} bbl~ 0
,} 1.8 .. - ,. 0015 'V
. I- 0012 0
'i 1.6 . r- 00096
.~
.~ 1.4
, -1
::: .A:l;
I-::';

~ 1.2 ,
dicates the useful lift range of the section and tends to u /"
:::: 1.0 /
define the nature of the variation of profile drag with ..::: 0- f/"
.,.
lift. Finally, the maximum lift coefficient is the im- 10' - -
§ .8 ~
f.<>--
portant aerodynamic characteristic that usually shows .§
the largest scale effects. ti .6
~
It is not surprising to find large variations of Clmox t
.4
with Reynolds Number because Cl mox is dependent en- ;gu .2
tirely on the boundary-layer behavior, which in turn is III
II) 0 8 6 8

directly a function of viscosity as indicated by the 100.000 2 3 4 561,000,000 2 3 4 5 10.000.000

value of the Reynolds Number. In other words, po-
tential-flow theory alone is totally incapable of any pre-
dictions concerning the value of Cl mox '
The following discussion traces the mechanism of the
stall with a view to reaching an understanding of how
the stall, and consequently the maximum lift, is affected
by variations of the Reynolds Number. Basically, the
discussion is concerned mainly with air-flow separation.
The pressure distribution over the upper surface of the
conventional airfoil section at .l ift coefficients in the
neighborhood of the maximum is characterized by a
low-pressure point at a small distance behind the leading
edge and by increasing pressures from this point in the
direction of flow to the trailing edge. Under these
conditions the reduced-energy air in the boundary layer
may fail to progress against the pressure gradient.
When this air fails to progress along the surface, it
accumulates. The accumulating air thereby produces
separation of the main flow. The separation, of course,
reduces the lift.
Whether or not separation will develop is dependent
on the resistance to separation of the boundary layer.
The turbulent layer displays much more resistance to
Effecfive Reynolds Number
FlOlJRE 28.-Section maximum lilt coeffiCient. elm,, ' Symmetrical airloils 01 varying
thickness.
to occur very quickly behind or almost at the low-
pressure point owing to the presence of large adverse
pressure gradients. In fact, the von Karman-Millikan
method of calculating the incipient separation point
for laminar boundary layers (reference 13) has been
applied by Millikan to estimate the position of the
separation point and also its relation to the tran-
sition point as it is assumed to influence the scale effect
on the maximum lift coefficient. The number and char-
acter of the assumptions involved iL such an analysis,
however, are such that the results may be expected to
yield only qualitative predictions. Elaborate calcula-
tions in such cases are of doubtful necessity as indicated
by the fact that qualitative predictions, perhaps more
reliable, had previously been reached without them.
(See references 12, 15, and 16.) Exact methods of
calculation are unquestionably desirable but are defi-
nitely not a matter for the present but for a time when
much more experimental data concerning both separa-
tion and transition shall have been secured.
 AIRFOIL SECTIUN CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 23
For the present discussion it is sufficient to consider the separated boundary layer behind the laminar sepa-
that, jf the bOUIidal'Y layer remains laminar, separation ration point. Incidentally, it should be remembered
will occur very close behind the low-pressure point on that the transition point is not really a point but is a
the upper surface. Incidentally, the actual separation more or less extended and fluctuating region in which
point is expected, in general, to be forward of the calcu- the laminar layer ii:> progressively changing to the fully
lated incipient separation point; that is, nearer the
low-pressure point. It should not, however, be assumed
that the occurrence of separation defines the maxi-
mum lift coefficient. For example, at very low Rey-
nolds Numbers, separation on the N. A. C. A. 0012
airfoil occurs even at zero lift, which on this assumption
would define zero as the ma}.rimum lift. Motion
pictures have been made showing the air flow and
separation for airfoils at low values of the Reynolds
Number. Three photographs from the smoke tunnel
are included in figures 29, 30, and 31 to indicate the
position and character of the laminar separation for a
cambered airfoil. The first two pictures show well- FIGURE 3D.-Separation occlllTing on an airfoil at a low angle of attack (fig. 29) but
at an increased Reynolds Number.
developed separation even at zero aJlgle of attack; the
third shows how laminar separation occurs just behind developed turbulent layer. This transition region now
the nose at higher angles of attack. moves forward toward the separation point as the
Reynolds N umber is further increased. The formation
of turbulence results in a thickening of the boundary
layer between the dead air and the overrunning flow
until the turbulent mixing extends practically to the
airfoil surface. The separated flow may then be con-
sidered reestablished. This process would leave a bubble
of "dead air" between the Eeparation point and the
transition region, the exi tence of which was predicted
several years ago. SubEBquently Jones and Farren
(reference 17) have actually observed this phenomenon.
As the Reynolds Number is further increased, the
transition region progresses toward the leading edge,
FIGURE 29.-Separation occurring on an airfoil at a low angle of attack. approaching the region of the laminar separation point.
Consider now, for example, the flow about the N. A.
It is thus apparent that separation of the laminar
C. A. 0012 at a value of R in the neighborhood of R e,
boundary layer will always be present at a point near
the critical ReynOlds Number, where the maximum lift
the nose at any moderately high lift coefficient if the
Reynolds Number is not sufficiently high to make the
flow turbulent at that point. This condition certainly
exists for the results in figure 28 over the lower range
of the Reynolds Number; that is, separation near the
no£e must have occurred at angles of attack well below
that of Cl maz owing to the very small Reynolds Number
associated with the short distance from the nose to the
laminar separation point. In this range of R the Clmaz
values are of the order of 0.8 and change little with
either R or the section thickness. (See fig. 28.) This
value of c 1maz corresponds approximately to that for a
flat plate. FIGURE 3J.-Separation occurring on an airfoil at 8 high angle of attack.

Now consider the character of the flow as the Rey-
nolds Number is increased. The effects are shown very
clearly by a comparison of figure 29 and figure 30.
Figure 30 corresponds to a higher Reynolds Number and
shows turbulence forming at a "transition point" along
increases rapidly with R. As shown in figure 28, CI:naz
for the N. A. C. A. 0012 begins to incre!lSe rapidly with
R at approximately R.= 1,000,000. Consider therefore
two flows, one at R . =l,OOO,OOO just at the attitude of
Cl maz ' and the other at the same attitude but at a higher

t
24 REPORT NO. 586- NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTJCS

effective Reynolds Number, say 1,750,000. For the
former, separation is probably occurring near the low-
pressure point, but the turbulence is forming closely
enough behind the separation point so that the fiow
over the upper surface is partly reestablished. An
increase of angle of attack fails to increase the lift,
however, because the turbulence is forming so late that
the local separation and its resulting adverse effect on
the thickening or separation of the turbulent layer
farther aft prevent a further gain of lift. Now as the
R eynolds umber is increased the transition region
moves to a position nearer the separation point, the
extent of the separated region is reduced and, as shown
by reference to figure 3, CL at the same angle of attack
is increased from 0.85 to 1.05 (for the approximately
corresponding test Reynolds Numbers of 330,000 and
660,000). Furthermore, the angle of attack may now
be increased until CL reaches 1.1 before the flow follow-
ing the upper surface fails. The failure now occurs
I--NAC.A." aql8
1M
(:'1.6
'I I
The range of R is limited by the wind tunnel so that
in most instances the cale effect above the critical
range could not be determined . It. is probable, how-
ever, that the highest maximum lift coefficients are
reached when the Reynolds N umbel' corresponds to
th03 occurrence of fully developed turbulence practically
at the laminar separation point but that t,his condition
occurs above the highest Reynolds ' umbers reached
except possibly for the thickest airfoil, . A. C. A. 0018.
High local Reynolds umbers at the laminar separa-
tion point could, however, be reached by employ.ing a
thick, highly cambered airfoil. The N. A. C. A. 83 i8
airfoil was included for this reason. The results (see
fig. 32) indicate, as expected, a very low critical Rey-
nolds Number. With increasing Reynolds Number,
clmax rises to a maximum at R=900,000 and then falls
off slowly. In this instance, at the highest Reynolds
umbers transition probably occurs ahead of any point
at which laminar separation could occur. The ma}'-1-
2 .0
II 1111
"
,} 1. 8 lUI
-x r- b! I II I I....
t 1.6 t---
NA.CA. 6412-
.
/

.~ II 'Y1.CiAj ~f!5' iL- 1=1'" V/ .~ 0--

" 4412.
.- j-¢-t- :
' ~
f-!Y
f/
/
. ~ 1.4 ~/.4
~ I-
-
:
;::: 10-- ..-

~U? ~
r: J Jd..j-I-H" - '"_N.A.C. A.4409 't-:
~ 1.2
+-
0
/
/
.-LX

\.) /

1:/
N.A. C. A . 4412 u
a-- - t - - :
1/
~ /.0 :::: 1.0 L
~ ..:::: I-NA~ CA . 2412) f-/
0012-_.
~ .8 § .8
.~
.§ . 6 >< .6
~ o
12 .4 t: .4
t::
~_~ .2 :g
\J
.2
u QJ

I.fj
°
CIJ 100,000 2 3
8
4 56 1,000,000 2 3
6
4 5/0.000,000
V) a
100,000 2 3 4 56/.000,000 2 3 4 510.000,000
6 8

Effective Reynolds Number Effective fi'eynolds Number

FIG URE 32.-Section maximum lin coeffi cient, CI~... Camber and thickness series. FIG URE 33 .- Section maximum lift c;ootficient, C'''' U ' Camber series.

suddenly, causing a break in the lift curve, but again
may be delayed by a further increase of the Reynolds
Number.
In such cases the scale effect evidently varies with
the shape of the nose of the airfoil. If the leading-edge
radius is reduced by making the airfoil thinner, the
local Reynolds Number for the separation point or the
tran~ition region, either R6 based on boundary-layer
thickness or Rx based on the distance along the surface,
is reduced with respect to R because the local dimen-
sions near the nose are reduced with respect to the air-
foil chord. Higher values of R are therefore required
to reach the critical Rx or R6 values in the neighborhood
of the nose. This result is indicated by the higher
critical Reynolds Number Re for the N . A. C. A. 0009
than for the N . A. C. A. 0012, as shown in figure 28.
Likewise, the 15 and '18 percent thick airfoils show
progressively lower values of Re than the N. A. C. A.
0012, but the critical range tends to disappear as the
thickness is increased.
mum lift coefficient must therefore be determined by
the behavior of the turbulent layer. The significant
conclusion is that Cl max then decreases with increasing
R. Another signifiqant observation is that under these
conditions stalling id progressive as indicated by the
rounded lift-curve peaks in figure 11. This type of
stalling corresponds to a progressive separation or
thickening of the turbulent layer in the region of the
trailin~ edge.
The process of stalling in general is more complex
than either of the two distinct processes just discussed.
It has been compared by Jones (reference 17) to a
contest between laminar separation near the nose and
turbulent separation near the trailing edge, one or the
other winning and thus producing the stall. ~~ctually
it appears from these scale-effect data that, for com-
monly used airfoils at a high Reynolds NUlllber, the
forward separation usually wins but that it is largely
conditioned and brought about by the thickening' or
separation of the turbulent boundary layer near the
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 25
trailing edge, which, in turn, may be largely influenced tions, is shown by the fact that the critical Reynolds
by the local separation near the leading edge. The Number is little affected by increasing the camber to
reasons for these statements will become clear from the that of the N. A. C. A. 6412 in spite of the fact that
consideration of the scale effects for the different types the actual gain in Czmax throughout the critical range
of airfoil. becomes less for the more highly cambered airfoils.
Consider first the maximum lift of the conventional This conclusion is an important one because it can be
type of cambered airfoil. Where stalling is determined extended to predict that the critical Reynolds Number
largely by separation near the leading edge, the maxi- will not be affected by flaps and other high-lift dev ces
mum lift would be expected to be a function of the placed near the trailing edge, which act much like a
curvature near the leading edge and also a function of camber increase.
the mean camber because the effect of the camber is to
3.0
add a more or less uniformly distributed load along 1 LIIIIII
J. jllill
the chord. At some angle of attack above that of zero 2.8
N.A.1C.A. 23021 ~ith - P
lift the flow over the nose part of the cambered airfoil 2.6 t- split flap 1 I k:::.
I-"-'
approximates that over the nose of the corresponding t- dlflected
I
75°" ,
•
2.4 ....-
symmetrical airfoil at zero lift. This correspondence 1 II ~
I-'
~ J. II ~
of flows at the leading edges between the symmetrical <3 2 . 2
N.A.c.A. 23012 /
/

and cambered airfoils continues as the angles of attack ,.;- with split· ;- ,
~2.0 t- flap de- I il-
i-"
of both are increased. If the stalling were determined
largely by the flow near the nose, the two airfoils would
:0 18 t- flected1 _60·
~. L1
p'
/' . A.C. A. 230/2
QJ II ~
stall at the same time, but the lift of the cambered 8 /.6
N.A.C.A. 0012 wdh ' J. ~
airfoil would be lUgher than that of the symmetrical
airfoil by the amount of the initial lift increment.
t- split flap I I
~/.4 deflected 60·
t-'
/- ..a-
-::I~II
4.A.'dA. 2302i
1

Reference to figure 33 shows that this expected change § 1.2

l/" N.A.C. A~ 0012
tA-
of CzmaX with camber is approximately that shown by .~ 1.0 -- L
the results from tests in the lower range of the Reynolds ~ .8
Number. At high Reynolds Numbers, however, the c:
change of CIrna'" with camber is much smaller than would t· 6
·2

be expected if the stall were controlled only by condi- ~ .4

tions near the leading edge. On the other hand, some .2
of the cambered airfoils show a sudden loss in lift at
the maximum indicating that separation is occurring
o 8
100,000 2 :3 4 56/,000,000 2 :3 4 5/0,000,000
near the leading edge but, as the camber is increased, Effective Reynolds Number

the lift curves become rounded. (See figs. 6,7, and 8.) FIGURE 34.-Section maximum lift coefficient, e'm .. ' Airfoils with and without flaps.

For the N. A. C. A. 2412, which shows a sharp break

in lift at the maximum but a small gain in cZmax due to
camber at the high Reynolds Numbers, the boundary-
layer thickening or turbulent separation must become
pronounced near the trailing edge at the higher Rey-
nolds Numbers before the flow breakdown occurs near
the leading edge. This alteration of the flow results
in higher angles of attack for a given lift and con-
sequently more severe flow conditions over the nose of
the aU·foil. These flow conditions, which really origi-
nate near the trailing edge, thus bring about the flow
breakdown near the leading edge that finally produces
the actual stall. It must not, however, be concluded
that more gradually rounding lift-curve peaks with in-
creasing R should be the result; actually, the opposite
is usually true (e. g., figs . 6, 7, and 8) . The explana-
tion is probably that increasing the Reynolds Number
reduces the extent of the local separation near the
leading edge, which influences the boundary-layer
thickening near the trailing edge, at least until the
transition region reaches the separation point. That
Cz maX continues to be influencf>d by the flow conditions
near the leading edge, even for highly cambered sec-
Reference to figure 34 shows the correctness of this
conclusion. It will be noted, moreover, that each scale-
effect curve representing an airfoil with a split flap tends
to parallel the corresponding curve for the same airfoil
without a flap. The split flap thus simply adds an in-
crement to the maximum lift without otherwise chang-
ing the character of the scale effect. In this respect. the
behavior with the flap differs from the behavior with
increasing camber. With the split flap, the distribution
of pressures over the upper surface is apparently not
affected in such a way as to increase the tendency
toward trailing-edge stalling, otherwise the scale-effect
variations would not be similar with and without the
flaps. Incidentally, it is of interest to note that the
maximum lift increment due to the split flap is not
independent of the airfoil section shape but, for ex-
ample, increases with the section thickness. (Cf. the
N. A. C. A. 230 series, with and without split flaps,
table 1.)
As regards flaps other than split flaps, recent tests
have shown that the maximum lifts attainable are ap-
proximately equal for either the ordinary or the split
flap. TlUs result might have been expected because the
 26 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

results of references 18 and 19 had indicated that the increasing Clmaz throughout the Reynolds Number
flow does not follow the upper surface Of an ordinary range but shows a peculiar change. in the character of
flap except for small angles of flap deflection. It should the stall in the full-scale range near R~=3,000,000.
therefore make little difference whether or not the upper (See also fig. 24 .) The airfoil with the external-airfoil
surface of the flap is deflected with the lower. Further- flap shows a break in the scale-effect curve. Two
more, the same reasoning might be applied to predict values of Clmaz were measured for the condition corre-
the effects of camber, when the mean line is of such a
sponding to R.=1,700,000 (fig. 23, test R=645,000),
shape that the maximum camber occurs near the trail-
one lift curve having a sharp break at the maximum
ing edge so that the separation associated with increas-
and the other being rounded. It is believed that the
ing camber is localized in this region. Thus it might
change is associated with the action of the slot at the
have been predicted that the scale effect as shown in
nose of the external-airfoil flap. It is particularly
figure 35 for the N. A. C. A. 6712 airfoil would be more
interesting because it represents one of the cases men-
like that of an airfoil with a split flap than like that of
tioned under the interpretation of the wind-tunnel
the usual type of cambered airfoil.
data for which the failure of the tunnel flow to repro-
Another important conclusion can be deduced from
duce exactly at the effective Reynolds N umber the
the results in figure 35 showing the scale effects for air-
corresponding flow in flight becomes of practical im-
foils having various mean-line shapes. When a mean-
portance. A comparison of these tests with tests in
line shape like that of the N. A. C. A. 23012 is em-
the 7- by 10-foot tunnel (reference 5) indicated that
such scale effects, may be due primarily to the action
2.0 r-)A.~.J ~f111 ~
r-.
cJ
i 1.8 t--- ..... r- 430120
6412 'Q
i
.2.0 I
..c:: 4412 0
-- i: 1.8 J
'

.~
1.6
-r--
i--I"'"
W-
- -
-j-"
-~
~ 1.6
NA.C.A.'23012
!>
- --/:
.- - .l1 ~
,
~/.4 ~
10 .-:::'
tJl; I-':; f/
0.; _ ;J:! 1.4 r--
~u 1.2 .re::::t-
'l:::
:.::: 1.0 .1P'
~ I- -
-~

/
/'
.....
III
8 /.2
~ L
to:'
- -
--- ---
,
V ..... 1.0
S .8 §
N.A.C.A.23012-33-

tt+ .m
.~ 0. NA.C.A. 2412 .8
ti
!;
t
.6

.4
o<l
+
x
..
•
..
2R 12
0012•
23012
23012 with
'1.
c: .4
6
-
:glJ external- airfoil flop set at -3°
III
.2
11 II IIII 111
2u .2
V) 0 JJ II I I Ii II JJJ 6 8
Jl 0 8 6
100.000 2 .3 4 S 61.000.000 2 .3 4 S 10,000.000
EffectIve fieynolds Number
100,000 2 3 4561,000,000 2 3 4510,000,000
Effective fieynolds Number
FIGURE 35.-Section maximum lift CO<\IIlcient, CIMor- Airfoils with various mean-
FIGURE 36.-Section maximum lift coeffiCient, CI..... Tltickness·shape variation.
line share3.

ployed-that is, one havihg marked curvature near the
nose and a forward camber position-the effect is to
alter the conditions of the leading-edge stall. The critical
Reynolds Number is thus shifted to the left and the
general character of the scale effect becomes more like
that of the usual airfoil of 15 instead of 12 percent
thickness.
The opposite effect on the nose stall is shown in figure
36 where the critical Reynolds Number is shifted to the
right by decreasing the leading-edge radius, that is, by
changing from the N. A. C. A. 23012 section to the
23012-33. Thus it appears, in general, that the charac-
ter of the Cl maz scale effect, particularly in relation to
the value of the critical Reynolds Number, depends
mainly on the shape of the airfoil near the leading edge.
The two remaining airfoils not covered by the previ-
ous discussion (fig. 37) have slotted high-lift devices.
Both the Clark Y airfoil with Handley Page slot and
the airfoil with external-airfoil flap show unusual scale
effects. The airfoil with Handley Page slot shows an
of the slot as affected by the boundary-layer thickness
relative to the slot width, which is a function of both
the test and the effective Reynold.;; Number, rather
than to the transition from laminar to turbulent flow.
When interpreted on the basis of the test rather than
the effective Reynolds Number as regards the occur-
rence of the break in the low Reynolds Number range,
better agreement with the results from the variable-
density tunnel was obtained. On this basis the dis-
continuity shown in figure 37 as occurring at R.=
1,700,000 would be expected to occur in flight at a con-
siderably lower Reynolds Number out'3ide the usual
flight range.
With regard to c'maz scale effects for conventional
types of airfoils, it now appears in the light of the
preceding discussion t; t a position has been reached
from which the seal .!ects appear rational and suf-
ficiently regular and ,,;ystematic so that general scale-
effect corrections fifty be given for such airfoils. This
position represents a marked advance. In a later
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUM BE R 27
section of this report such generalized scale-effect cor- 2.8
1
rections for Cl ma " are presented for engineering uses. 2.6
Lift variation near czmaz.- The variation of the lift
With
=
s p lit -v ..-
-
fl ap I~
'V

near the maximum as indicated by the shape of the - deflect ..,-

- ed 75°;
lift curve is of some importance because it often affects ..... N.A.C.A.43012 ,
1$ -
:
the character of the stall and the corresponding lateral ~ 2.0
:~
"
.
23015-
23012- r-.. -tr
control and stability of the airplane in flight. The :t 1.8 .../
I p-
character of the stall for the airfoils may be inferred Qj
T I"l"
approximately from the preceding discussion of Clma " 8 1.6 ......... I :
-\
and is indicated by the lift curves in figures 2 to 24 . ~ 1.4 NA .C. A . 23012 w ifh
I I ex t ernal- airfoil
The moderately thick symmetrical airfoils in the critica l § 1.2 , I. I I flap set 30 °. I I
Clark Y with Handley- Page
or flight range of R show sudden losses of lift beyond .§ 5101 open
~ 1.0
the maximum. Efficient airfoils of moderate thickness E:
and camber, for example, N. A. C . A. 2412 and 23012 , c: .8
likewise usually show sudden breaks in the lift curve :gu .6
at the maximum for the higher Reynolds umbers. ~ -
.4
When th e influence of trailing-edge stalling becomes
sufficiently marked as it does with airfoils N. A. C. A. .2
4412 and 6412, the breaks in the lift curves disappear o B B

and the lift curve becomes rounded at the maximum. 100,000 2 3 4 561. 000,000 2 3 4 5 10,000.000
Effective Reyn olds Number
It is interesting to note that breaks occur at compara- FIGURE 37.-Section maximum lift coefficient, e'mo.' Airfoils with hIgh-lilt devices.
tively low values of the Reynolds Num er for the
N. A. C. A. 8318. In this case the brea s appear in
the critical range of R, where critical leading-edge .12 _ N. A.C1' ,'23012 N.A. CA. 23012 with e~(rlrl-
" j 2412.1 a i rfoil t'lOI2. a t -3,"
stalling occurs, and disappear at higher and lower ey- I 4~ Iii I .
0.10 -
nolds Numbers. (See figs. 11 and 32.) ~ I I . 1"
I :
Lift-curve slope ao.- The scale effects for ao are QJ'.08 -N.A. C. A. 2rOI21-33~ --N. A.C.A. 2Rz 12
g-
represented in figure 38. It will be note t at, within o; I I III
NA.C A. 6 412
the full-scale range, the airfoils show little variation of QJ./2 . ---I "I II 6712
ao with either airfoil shape or with R. In this range 'I..~" . IO lft..- -~ EN. IIII :-y---- ...j,
'i.
most of the airfoils show a slight tendency toward I

~. 08 f--N~.C.rI'#CJ9: :
II
N.A.CA. 0009 e:.
increasing ao with R but, for engmeerrng purposes, the c::
I~ - "-r- 4 4 12:.' .. I 00 120
o - " - f - 4415 "-"0015 ~
variation of ao may usually be considered negligible '.;:.,.12 -- =- , , - 1-0018 0
o o ~
within the flight range. The lift-curve slope, like QJ t! ....... , y- "831 8 x
fJJ . IO
several of the other section characteristics, begins to ........ r-- - -
.08 ,..... -- I I I
display abnormal variations below a Reynolds Number 8 I II Ii lei
of approximately 800,000. For the -lowest values of R 100.000 2" 3 4 5 6 1, 000,000 2 3 4510,000,000
Effec tive Reyn Ol ds Num Der
the lift curves often became so distorted that lift-curve FIGURE 38.-Lilt-curve slope, ao.
slopes were not determined. (See figs. 2 to 24. )
Angle of zero lift a lo.- Scale-effect variations of Effec five trt!yno/ds NumDer
100,000 2 3 4 56 1,000,000 2 3 4510,UOo,OOO
alo are represented in figure 39. The conclusions with o 8-
respect to this characteristic are almost the same as
e:. NA.~~A.I 'f~oI:? 8JI NA .CA._2~~2' 6
-It -

for the lift-curve slope ao. Symmetrical airfoils, of ~\" - 2 I~-+i tt l~ .- ~. Cr23Jt2m II :
:
course, give alo=O at all values of R. The cambered g. .6,
'v I I.:
'
NA.C.A." 23012 wtfh
'5 10' , N. A;CA. 2412
exrernol -OIr f o i l
airfoils, in general, show a small decrease in the abso ute
value of the angle with increasing R above the va ue ~u_4 l~' 6 flap
I
a t -3"1
_ . _ 1
0:: 'n..
at which the variations are abnormal.
~.

~
'fi . ,:, N.A .C.A. 440.9
_ - • r--4412
Minimum profile-drag coefficient cdOmtn.-The mini- I~ '0..
-
" 4415
mum profile-drag coefficient is indicative of the wing I II I
drag in high-speed flight and is the other important
section characteristic, aside from CI rna" ) that sows
'r----.
Nt- Cf54i2! [\
.. 6712--
_~_II
"'I
I
'" ..
I 8318
It Ii V I Nn ,<-:A. 0009 I
marked scale-effect variations within the full-sea e
~ I '"I
" oo~~~
I DOl
range which must be ta en into account in engineermg -10 I !> • I OU/81
work. F lOUR" 39.-Angle of Ul'O Itt, <.
r
28 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISO RY COMM ITT EE FOR AERO NAUTICS

.030
~
,
"f'....
/020
\,j
...... ~ r--....
c:
.~
.~
;::: .010
- ~
~
I'
R~
f'\; I-~ t-- r-.
.
N. A.C.A . 0018

---
r-. ,
, ' 0015
QJ I- ,"
.... .,
3.008 .......
..............
r::;
1"1-<
-v
- , ,
,
, "
,"
0012
0 009
8'.006
~. OOS r--~
....--:
-
~.004
o I'-
~.003
...........
%
.§.002
I'-
.'i; ........
~
(a)
8 I, 8 6
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1,000, 000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000.000 .3 4 5 /OQOOQOOO
Ef fec tive Reyn o lds Nu m ber
(a) Symmetrical airfoils of varying thickness .
.030
0-........
"'--...... ~
-..:
.~
.~
"
I-- '" -h
r--
I"""
I'<\. ~ I'-
1"- :--,1"<
-~ "-
~ .010 1'--
. 'N. A.C.A. 6412
QJ
r- , , , " 4412
8. 008 ........... K - -k' ' -- " 2412
....... " 0012
(),
I"-.... ,,~
r- - -
~.006
-:
't?oos
QJ
1-
'=
~.004

t003 r--....

§ ............. r-....
.§ .002
.C: i'-....
~ ........
1'1-....
(b)
B t"--r--.... 8 6 8
.00 1
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effecfive Reynolds Number
(b) Camber series.

.030
x.......... 1
I~
t
'E
----
f'-
x
t-- t-I-~
.:;.020 r-- t-- t-x
r.; " "<:::
-..:
c:
k t---..
-x
t-- t-- 1"-I"- t-- I-X xf- f.>< -
.~ I - i- I'-. t< t"--
.~ t--- t-['c N.A.C. A. 8 3 18
~.OIO
QJ
8. 008 ............
I"-....
" -
I-
- l- i- <
- _."
,
__ u

-
-"
4415
4412
4409

f:~~~
i-f-..
V-

i7'
~.004
l- F

to03 r----

% ...............
.§ .002
r--....
~ r--....
I'-
(e)
8 ........ 8 6
·00 1
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000 .000 2 .3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 .3 4 5 100.000.000
Effecti ve Reynolds Number
(c) T hickness and camber .
FIGUR I.-Minimum i>rofile-Jrag coefficient. Cdo ... i n'
 --
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS N U MBER 29
.020
.! ~

- - '"
E

J r--
.•.I::: l- t-- ~ N, . A.C.A.23012
.~.01O
.U
:t. 008 -.........
- - I ,-23012-3..,

,.::
"

Q)
.......... - 1-
8.006
tJ-..oos
tl
-t .004
~ ........
~.003
0
b.
~ . OOZ
............
.......
.§
::J ...........'
.1:: ;-....
(d)
~ 8 .... 6 8
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000.000 2 3 4 5 6 10.000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000'
effective Reynolds Number
(d) T hi ck ness shap".

.OZO
~ -N.A .C. A.24IZ II

-- ~~
1
.! ;N.lC.A. Z301211
J . ··N.~:C.A. 0012
1-.'<
rJ
.,..: __ p:~./'~~!!i NA.C.A.2RzI2
:-
::S~l" :....r.." 23012 with external-airfoil flap of -3"
I::
. ~ . 010 .....::
.u
~.008
Q)
-......... >:::
8.006 ~ -f.- . -I-

g-.oos
-t.004
,
~ ......
;;: .003
0
I..
Q. -......... ......
~.OOZ
::l ........
.§ I'--
.1:: ;-....
~ (e)
.001 ......... 6 8
100,000 2 3 4 56 1,000.000 Z 3 4 5 6 10.000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective ReynOlds Number
(e) Cam ber shape.
~
I:>. x ..
.040 ........
1><-..
.030
.! 0........... '-
l"- t-- -><-
E
............... .0.. r... ~"Cla':'k with 'U'. 'w Icy:Po9e. s lo,
rJ° n .""
...,-
.VLV
u...,::
c: ~ I'-.. f".."
.~
.\.J
..:::
-..:
Q) .010
I--
- r- i- t--
"- f'..r-...
f:! 1'1'- . -..
A.
.
A.6712
0
~.OO8 -......... -- -t-
u
' -
"
6412
4412
tl
-t.006
.......... --
k ·OOS
..::o nn.
I..
~ . 003 i"
::J
.~ ............ ;-....
.~.002
~
........
b-
...........
(f)
,....
·~o;O.OOO
~
2 3 4 5 6 1,000 000 2 3 4 5 6 10,OOC 000 2 3 4 5
Effecfive Reynolds N.umbe,-
(f) Camber shape.
FIGU RE 40 (continued.) - Minimum profile-drag coeffiCient, CdO m'•.

30 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
The experimental drag results are presented by means
of logarithmic plots with the well-known laminar and
turbulent skin-friction curves and the Prandtl-Gebers
transition curve s own for comparison. (See figs.
40 (a) to 40 (f).) At the higher Reynolds Numbers a
striking simi arity exists between the minimum profile-
drag coefficients for the airfoils and the transition curve
representmg the drag coefficient variation with R for a
flat plate towed in water. The other stri ing feature of
the drag curves is their departure from regularity at
Reynolds Numbers below a certain critica value. This
critical value of the Reynolds Number usually lies in
the range oetween 400,000 and 800,000, but a stu y of
the experimental resu ts will show that the critical
value itself is irregular, that is, does not vary system-
atICa y with t e airfoil shape. 'I he results appear as
though tWO or more drag values were possib e within
this Reynolds umber range and accidental disturb-
ances eterrnined whether a high or a low va ue of the
drag was measurea at a given va ue of R within this
range. One is rerrun ed of Baker's experiments towing
aI.l'shlp models in water in a towing oaSIn woere meas-
urements cou d not be repeated until transition was
defimtely brought about by the use of a cord passing
ar( nd the model near the nose.
rhe shape of the scale-effect curve for the N. A. O. A.
0012 airfoil at zero angle of attack (fig. 40 (a)) was
stu ied in the light of bounaary-layer calculations.
The results mdicated tnat the computed skIn-friction
drag coefficients to give scale-effect vanatlOns in agree-
ment with the measured ones requITed the presence of
ratner extensive arrunar oounaary layers in this
critical range of the Reyno' ds Number. In fact, for
tne N . A. O. A. 0012 airfoil, the lammar oounaary layer
W&.S found to nave become so eXtenSive when R was
reduced to the experImentally determinea critical va ue
that a further reduction of R woul have reqUIred the
laminar bounaal'Y layer to extend behinci the computed
laminar separatlOn pomt, which wou d have inVOlved
at least loca separation. It seems evident, thef'efore,
that the mcreased d.rag coefficients belOW the critical
range are the result of thIs conaition, willch is pI'obably
associate wit iammur separatIOn and a resultmg
mcrettse of the pI'essure or form Ol'ag 0 toe secdon.
FortunatelY, however, tms poenomenon seems to
appear belOW the usual flight range of R.
When aeslgnS1'S are concer'nea With tne rrlilllmum
drag 01 an alrIoil SeCtIOn, it is usually for hlgn-speed or
cruising fugnt, WnlCh for moaern transport aU'planes may
correspond to a Reynolds ' umoer of 20,000, UOO or more
tor some of the Wlllg sections. The al'ag coeffiCients for
the Reyno ds . "umoer range above toe highest reached
In toe tunnel are therefore ot more Interest to an those
wen W:thln toe experImental range. Unfortunately,
.. , ':lIOn of the meaSUl'ementS pe1'TOlts only an
'e aeliermmatlOn of the snape of these sca e-
. even in the hlgner experImental range of
"()latlOnS into the higher flight range will
--
necessarily be unreliab e. Nevertheless, much en-
gineering work requires a knowledge of airfoil drag
coefficients within this range so that the engineer must
resort to extrapolation. For this purpose the data may
be studied in relation to the slopes of the curves for the
various airfoils (fig. 40) in the hig est range of R
reached in the experiments. Such a study indicates
that the airfoils, excluding the unusual airfoils N. A.
O. A. 8318, N. A. O. A. 6712, and the Olark Y with
Handley Page slot, show a decreasing Cdo min with R
that seems, in general, to parallel approximately the
corresponding curve for the flat plate. Thus, in
general, the slope of the Cao min scale-effect curves in
the neighborhood of a eynolds Number of 8,000,000
may be taken as apprOximately -0.11, which leads to
the followmg extrapo atlOn formula:
wnere the subscript std refers to the standard airfoil-
test resu ts from the variable-density tunnel corres-
ponding to an effective Reynolds umber of approx-
imately 8,000,000 . In such extrapolation formulas,
values or the exponent have been used between 1/5,
taken irom Prandtl's original ana ysis of the completely
tur ulent skin-friction layer, and 0.15, which agreed
better with experiments with pipes and flat plates at
very high va ues of R ana agl'ees better with von Kar-
man's recent analysis of the comp ete y turb ent layer
in this range of R . It should be emphasized, however,
that tnese comparatively arge exponents are not
conservatlve and would be expected to lead to pre-
ictlOns of large-suale arag values mucu toO low, partic-
u ariy when the extrapola ion is made from measure-
ments made in the transition region; for example, in
figure 40 (a) measurements in the range between
1,000,000 and 2,000,000 snou d not be extrapo ated by
such methods to 20,000,000. Extrapolations from
R=8,000,OOO using t e comparatively low exponent 0.11
are, however, consiael'ed reasonably conservative for
ael'O<lynamically smooth airfoils.
In regara to profile- rag coefficients a t lift coefficients
other than the Optunum, figure 41 (a) shows the scale
effects for ca o at cl=0 .8 for the symmetncal series of
ail1oHs. The drop in the scale-effect curves in the
tranSitlOn regIOn has dlsappearea and the two thinner
airfoils snow eviaences of the approaching stall. Ourves
for mem'oers of the camber series of airfoils, N. A. O. A.
0012, 2412, 4412, and 6412 at zero lift are shown in
figure 41 (b). Here the symmetrical airfoil i3 operating
at its optimum lift alld the departure from toe optunum
for t e other airfoils increases with camber. A p 0-
gI'essive transition from the Cdomtn type 0 sea e effect
to tnat of figme 41 (a) is apparent. ReSUlts (reference
10) from other wind wnne s for the Olark Y airfoil,
w . ch is in a Sollse simi ar to the N . A. O. A. 4412 but
has slightly less camber, are a so indicated in figure
 ..
------~.,.-----------------------------~------------~~
~ ------------~

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 31

41 (b) for comparison. The comparison of the results Optimum lift coefficient clove-The optimum lift
from the various tunnels should serve to indicate the coefficients are presented in figure 42. This character-
limitations of accuracy that must be accepted when any istic is of importance mainly in relation to Cdo values at
of the data are extrapolated to the higher full-scale other values of C I' It is not possible, nor essential for
Reynolds Numbers . this purpose, to evaluate CloPt very accurately. In fact,
.050
0---
.040 ,
~,
.030 ............ ,
........ ,

'- --
Q:)
-v-
c:i
.020 -~'b
-.'- ,
II

~ -]::::
(,)~ -- f- -<'- ,

.....
c:
.1lJ
.G .010
..:::
'Q; .008 "'-
--- -- -- f-

-
i-o-
- , -I'-'- '1:1<- N.A.C.A.0018
•• - "
...;;~- .- . "
-- "
0015
0012
0009

- I -r-
8
"".006
I'--.. f-- 1-= I- I-t-

~
'15
.005 =
v·
:--
004
..::: i"-,
0.003
.{:
.002
"'--r-..
I"-- I........
(a)
......... 8 8
.001
100.000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 10,000.000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective Reynolds Number
(a) Symmetrical airfoils of varying thickness; cl=O.8 .

.040 .... I I I III I I I TTTT nT

.030
EiI Q", I"'-- I I I III I I I I I I II I
"- Clark \.-:. s. T. ; 4'by24 ' ~ ,
IF! 6'by36'x , 8'~y 48' v,
'\ 20-ft. tunnel!>. • TbylO'funnel <l
~ r.......
~.020
.;:: ---- ~
"'~
2
III
N

t
...... 010
--- 1--
I- r- ~~t--
~
-~
--
...............

ro-
.........
--
~
x
r- r-<'
- V.O. T.
- 'tV_A.C.A. 6412
c:
· ~ .008
~ j
*-
xN -
- ---"
___ - II
4412
2412
.!:! "'- i".. ~

i"j....c - - __ II 0012
~Q)' 006 ...... 1-1-

8.005
g- .004
r-..
{j r.......
v· 003
:--
..::: .......
~.002
.... 1'-....

i'
(b)
.001 ....... 6
100,000 2 3 4 5 6 1.000,000 2 3 4 5 6 10,000,000 2 3 4 5 100.000.000
Effective Reynolds Number
(b) Camber series; CI=O.
FIGURE 41.-Proftle-drsg coefficient.

The determination of Cdo values at various lift co- the accuracy of the experimental data is not sufficient
efficients in engineering work is best accomplished by to establish the scale-effect variations with certainty.
a consideration of increments from Cdo m t n· The Nevertheless, the results show a definite tendency
method of a "generalized polar" discussed in a later toward a decreasing Cl opt with increasing R. Thus
section of this report gives such increments in terms of values measured in small atmospheric tunnels may be
the departure of Cl from Cl opt as compared with the expected to be too high. Values from the standard
departure of Clmox from Cl opt. airfoil tests in the variable-density tunnel may usually
 32 REPORT NO.5 6-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

be taken as approximn tely correct within the usual full- Such calculations as applied to tapered wings are fully
scale range but may be somewhat too high for the discussed in reference 8. It remains therefore to pre-
higher flight rango of R. dict the airfoil section characteristics at any value of
Pitching-moment coefficient Cm a .c. and aerodynamic- the flight Reynolds umber. The preceding discussion
center position a. c.-The values of the pitching- has shown that for engineering purposes many of the
1.0 important airfoil section characteristics may be con-
.8 x J II I I sidered independent of R within the flight rallge, so
that for application to flight at any value of R these
~' , N. A.~.A .14409
,
characteristics may be taken directly from the tabu-
f'- I'"
bJ:tM
t:!::: ,- NA.C.A.44IZ
i:"i-
- lated values from the standard airfoil tests in the
N.A.C.A~ 44i~'7 ~ ~- L-
r- 1- variable-density tunnel. There remain then the two
important section characteristics CI mQZ and Cdo , which in
,I general will require correction to the design Reynolds
I umber before they are employed .
'<7 NA. . A.0009
!'- " 0012 Section maximum lift.- For the prediction of the
p " f-'oO IS section maximum lift coefficient Cl max at values of R
[> " 0018
NA.C.A. other than the Re value for which they are commonly
67IZ~..
... tabulated, the correction-increment curves of figure 44
r-, have been prepared from the data in this report. In
64{Z-'"'t>-r- , this figure, curves givinbO" the corrections ~CI max are
t-8318-1~':::" grouped in families corresponding to the measured scale-
1 1 - 1-_
230/2-.{J.~Ri!~2
2412- - - ,(j •• t! ~ effect variations for various types of airfoils. In gen-
~3012. 0 r I . - '--- ~ r- '~l.l_ 1-.t-~-
eral, for normal airfoils the curves in figure 44 marked 0
.2
1230/2 'o¥ifh ex- .R.
~-
. ..
r- for types B, C, D, and E correspond to the symmetrical
o ferf,ol-Flop -3'-.,( Ii< - - -
100,000 2 3 4 561,000,000 2 3 4 510,000,000 airfoil sections of different thickness and the curves
Effective Reynolds Number
indicated by increasing numbers correspond to airfoil
FIGURE 42.-0ptimwn lift coefficient, c, ....
sections of increasing camber.
moment coefficient and the aerodynamic-center position In practice, the particular curve to be employed for a
estu blish the pitching-moment characteristics of the given airfoil will be indicated in the standard tables of
airfoil section in the normal operating range between aU'foil characteristics such as table II of this report
zero lift and the stall. In this range the pitching (see also reference 3) under: "Classification, SE."
moment about the aerodynamic-center point may be
" .02 23012 wifh eXfesf.?~ ~/op sef.-:?_
considered constant for conventional airfoils. The I NA. C.A. 2R212 j - ::.., =-lI. -==- Ii:
,} 0 t-~:
accuracy of the low-scale data did not permit the J .!J ~1123OI2- .-

"t~ -.OZ "l NA.CA230/2-33 -

evaluation of aerodynamic-center positions for values
of R much below the flight range, and the variations II>
u-.04 b.
. . 0009
0012
0015
NA.C.A.2412
,
found in the higher range showed little consistency. .\,! .d "
Values are indicated in figures 2 to 24 and in table I, .... ~ -.06
17 " 00/8
----
but it is not considered advisable in practice to allow ~t::
!2~-.08 III } ,1_'
N.A.C.A.4409
for a variation of aerodynamic center with R. The ~e N.A.C.A ." 4415-~
-- ~
fd'Hl-l:+~
,- 1 I
~ II> -.10
cma .c . values corresponding to these aerodynamic-center iv~A~C~A.4412
positions are plotted in figure 4:3. The values are ~1!
t::
0
-.IZ II 1
\J ....
N.IA.C.~ . 6412- •
-- - -
nearly independent of R at high values of R but usually
show a tendency to increase numerically as R is reduced
~":i -_14
o ==
N.'A.C.A . 's3'18 -
,

1l-.16
toward the lower extremity of the flight range. Thus ....
t:: 1111
low-scale tunnel tests may be expected to give pitching .~ -.18
.u N.A.C.A. 6~/2 "
moments that are numerically too large. ~-20
II> •

PREDICTION OF AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS AT ANY 8"".22

/00,000 2
I~ II
3 4 5 61,000,000 2
.q
3 4 5 10,000,000
REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR ENGINEERING USE
Effective fieynolds Number
In the consideration of methods of predicting wing FIGURE 43.-Pitching-moment coefficient about the aerodynamic ceDter, c~ •. , ..
characteristics, it should be remembered that the scope
of this report is confined to the prediction of the airfoil From the curve thus designated, the correction incre-
section characteristics. Actual wing r.haracteristics are ment is read at the design Reynolds Number. The
obtained from these section characteristics by integra- required CI max for the section at the particular Reynolds
tions along the span with suitable allowances for the Number is then obtained by adding this increment to
induced downflow and the corresponding illduced drag. the tabulated C1max value.
 VARIA TIONS OF THE REYNO LDS NUMB ER 33
AIRFO IL SECTIO N CHARA CTERI STICS AS AFFEC TED BY

·2

."..
a -.:;::;? ~ ;II""" "', 8 f-- I-::::~

-.2
6 E:::: ~~ ~
.....
'"
Q)
..... f--
7
6
f-
--:::::: -...-r;f-":
I-f-
I:::: ~~
p- .....
'"
.....<I>
~ ~ 1/:[1 5

~ ~8
8
ZVtV ,~
0
~ f- - f-

f.-- ~ t;::V
0
,~

-.4
-- ::::. .0 Type B
~
§
.....
~~
~

f-
2
-
.J- r- -- v
I-
--l- V
V
------
~
Type D
~

....§
-.6 h..:'" jJ;. ~
'"
h..:
'c:i
'c:i ~-
:::.:
8.
•~ .2 ~ r--.?
r- r-- t-
r,J
<I
o
I--::: Io;~
i--'"
~
~
..... j..::::::: ~
-- f-
!----
c::-
I-::: r- r-- t)-
r- r--
·8 ~~
P'
~ F::::::= ~ f-
l - f--
r-f-"
r- vf-'
.....Q)
-.2 f - - 7 ' 0 ~ ~ ........ f-I- ~ '0
6 t::: j:::: '\.. ~ ~-
5
-.4 f-- 4
~ I--' V
~ V V Vv
r:: vV'
Type C
.g ~ 2 Vr--
§ I=-
.....
--
f:1 ~ r-
t-;
V r-
Type E
~
§-
.....
3 '- I-v
f.- V 'h..:
Cf) ~ '"
' h..:
£.1--' l- V V c:i
c:i-
-.6 :::.:
I f - l- f.- V :::.:
f--
o. l- I-
/'
1 2 3 4 5 6
f
/0,000,0 00
-.84 5 6 /'000,00 0 2 3 4 5 6 /0,000,0 00 6 /'000,00 0
Reynol ds Number
to the standard-t est value
ma.,imum Ii(t coefficient at the desired Reynolds Number, apply
FIGURE 44.-Scale-1llTect corrections (or C'MOZ' In order to obtain the section t designation o( the airfoil.
the increment indicated by the curve that corresponds to tbe scale-elTec

Airfoil section drag.-I n design work, values of The Cdo values at other lift coefficients may now be
the section minim um drag coefficient Cdo mi" for aerody - obtaine d from the generalized variati on of ~CdO with
ICI-cl l i d ' fi gure 45, where the standa rd
-'--_----'-::<: 01>'-='- present-e ill
Clm.x-C l ovl
036 I airfoil charac teristic table is again employed to find
I CI OV (' The Cl max value employed should, of course, cor-
.032 1/
respon d to the Reyno lds Numbe r of the Cdo value being
028 calcula ted. This proced ure may involve the use of
I Cl m • x values corresp onding to very
high Reyno lds
i.024 / Numbe rs. These values, 'howev er, may be estima ted
.j scale-e ffect curves ,
by extrapo lating the maxim um-lift
, .020
~o .L. little accura cy being require d becaus e Cl will usually

" .016 be near C'ovl and ~CdO therefo re small. A series of

/
Ii ~CdO values may thus be derived for various lift coef-
/
<1.012
/ ficients and Reyno lds Numbe rs. The corresponding
V values of Cdo are ~hen obtain ed by adding these incre-
.008 V ments to the Cdo min value calcula ted from the preced ing
V extrapo lation fonnul a for the corresponding Reyno lds
.004

o
f - f-
~ -- 4
~

.5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Numbe r. In practic e, a series of values of edo may
thus be derived to form a curve of Cdo agains t Cl along
.I .2 .3
lei - c/ Optl/c1",0Jt - c,OP ( which the Reyno lds Numbe r varies with lift coefficient
bulllt>. 45.-Qener alized varia Lion o( ACdO.
as in flight.

namica lly smooth airfoils are first obtain ed from the

tabula ted data by means of the extrapo lation fonnul a ,
previou sly given, LANGL EY MEMOR IAL AERON AUTICA L LABOR ATORY
R )0.11 NATION AL ADVISO RY COMMI TTEE FOR AERON AUTICS ,
CdQ min= ( CdO min. ) SId ( Rd LANGL EY FIELD, VA., June 24,193 6.
 APPENDIX
INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN CONSISTENT ERRORS PRESENT IN TEST RESULTS FROM THE
VARIABLE.DENSITY TUNNEL
By IRA
INTRODUCTION
An investigation has been made to evaluate three
corrections that were not applied to the data, obtained
in the variable-density wind tunnel, and published in
reference 2 and earlier reports. The need for these cor-
rections had been recognized, and possible errors in the
data resulting from the lack of these corrections have
been listed as consistent errors (reference 2) due to the
following effects:
1. Aerodynamic interference of the model supports
on the model.
2. Effect of the compressed air on the effective weight
of mn.nometer liquids used to measure the dynamic
pressure.
3. Combined effects on the measured dynamic pres-
sure of blocking due to the model and to errors in pitot-
tube calibration arising from differences in dynamic
scale and turbulence between conditions of use in the
variable-density tunnel and conditions of calibration.
These effects result in errors in the calibration of the
static-pressure orifices used to determine the dynamic
pressure.
INTERFERENCE OF MODEL SUPPORTS
The model supports used in the variable-density tun-
nel and the method of determining the tare forces are
described in reference 1. The usual tare tests deter-
mine the tare forces on the supports including the inter-
ference of the model on the supports. In addition,
the usual method of determining the balance alinement
with respect to the air-flow direction by testing an air-
foil erect and inverted includes any interference of the
supports on the model that is equivalent to a change in
air-flow direction. Earlier attempts to determine any
additional interference of the supports on the model were
inconclusive except to show that such interference was
small.
Two airfoils of moderate thickness were chosen to be
used in the present investigation, one being a symmetri-
cal airfoil (N. A. C. A. 0012) and the other an airfoil of
moderate camber (N. A. C. A. 4412). Tests were made
of each airfoil using three methods of supporting the
model. Besides the method using the usual support
struts, tests were made with the models mounted on the
usual supports with the addition of special wire sup-
ports and with the models mounted only on the wire
supports. The wire supports consisted of three wires
attached to the quarter-chord point of the model at
34
H. ABBOTT
each wing tip and of a sting and angle-of-attack strut
so located as to be free from aerodynamic interference
with the usual supports. The sting used was sym-
metrical with respect to the airfoil and was attached neal'
the trailing edge instead of to the lower surface, as
is usual.
The tares due to the wire supports were determined
from the data obtained from the tests with the models
on the usual supports with and without the wire
supports. Some difficulty was experienced in obtaining
sufficiently accurate tares because of the relatively
large drag of the wires as compared with the drag of
the model. Sufficient accuracy was obtainable only at
the highest value of the test Reynolds Number ordinar-
ily obtained (about 3,000,000). The profile-drag coeffi-
cients obtained for the two airfoils are plotted as solid
lines in figures 46 and 47, together with data obtained
from several tests made with the usual supports over
a considerable period of time. The scattering of the
points obtained from the tests with the usual supports
about the solid line is within the limits of the accidental
errors listed in reference 2, showing that there is no
support interference within the accuracy of the results
at high values of the Reynolds Number.
It is evident that the data obtained can be analyzed
in different ways. For example, the data obtained
with the models mounted on both the usual supports
and the wire supports can be corrected for the usual sup-
port tares and compared with the data from tests with
the models mounted only on the wire supports. The
comparison was made correcting the data for the change
in air-flow direction due to the usual supports and failed
to show any support interference within the test
accuracy.
Analysis of the data to determine the effects of the
support interference on the measured pitching-moment
coefficients was more difficult. The supp')rt wires
stretched under the lift and drag loads, necessitating
a correction to the measured pitching-moment coeffi-
cients, and the method of supporting the model at the
wing tips allowed the model itself to deflect under the
lift loads much more than when mounted on the usual
supports. The correction due to the deflection of the
model is difficult to evaluate with certainty because it
involves integrations along the span after determination
of the span load distribution. Accordingly, the effect
of the support interference for the pitching moments
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NU MBER 35
was determined only at zero lift where it was found tively small buoyancy effect on the mercury was com-
that the measured pitclllng-moment coefficient was too puted and applied to the results as a correction. The
large (algebraically) by 0.002. This same correction effects of other factors on the mercury were considered
had been found previously from tests with symmetrical negligible. In addition to the correction determined
in this way, a further small correction was applied to
Angles V.D.T. Dafe Condition Tes f R.
millions the specific gravity to compensate for the small change
PosNeg Tes f
- -1080-6 10-26-33 Wire support 3.07 in balance calibration with air density due to the buoy-
o 743 12-30-31 Us ual • strut s 3 .24
0
4-/7-34 3.20 ancy of the air on the balance counterweights. The
+ x 1120
II v 12 3 3 2- 6-35 317 net correction at 20 atmospheres tank pressure was
.06
found to be 2.0 percent for the alcohol and 1.7 percent
for the water, the dynamic pressure as measured being
d...: .0 5 too high. It is planned to replace the manometers by
C
<U I(
a pressure balance in the near future. Measurements
].04
....
+
of dynamic pressure will then be independent of specific
<U
o gravity.
\J .03 [7""
g> CALIBRATION OF STATIC.PRESSURE ORIFICES
l.. [7
~.02

--
~ [;6 The static-pressure orifices used to measure the dy-
~
<;: iI>'" namic pressure are calibrated by making 11 velocity
o
1t·01 survey at the test section, using a calibrated pitot tube
(reference 1). The calibration may be in error partly
o 0 ±.2 ±.4 ±.6 ±.8 ±1. 0 ±1.2 ±1.4 because of differences in dynamic scale and turbulence
Lift coefficient, CL between conditions of pitot-tube calibration and of use
FI GU RE 46.- Lift and drag characteristics of the N. A. C. A.OOI2 airfoil as determined in the variable-density tunnel and also because of pos-
from tests with the model mounted on the usual support struts and on special wire
supports.
sible blocking effects of the model. It is evident that
a new method of calibration is necessary to eliminate
airfoils and had been applied so that no new corrections these uncertainties.
were necessary. These uncertainties may be largely eliminat ed by
Ei .'ECTIVE WEIGHT OF MANOMETER LIQUIDS calibrating pitot tubes on an airplane in flight and by
The dynamic pressure is measured by two manome- calibrating similar pitot tubes, similarly mounted on a
ters connected to two sets of calibrated static-pressure model of the airplane in the tunnel. A detailed 1/20-
orifices as described in reference 1. One manometer V.D.T. Dote Condition Test R.
is filled with grain alcohol and the other with distilled Te s t millions
-1090-2 12-19-33 Wire supporf 3.11
water, the one filled with alcohol being ordinarily 0 1085-2 11- 8-33 Usual • s truts 3.05
used to hold the dynamic pressure constant through- x 1159-8 7 -27-34 3.00
+ 732 12-15-31 3 21
out a test because it is more eftsily read than .06 x
the water manometer. Readings of the water
manometer taken during each test serve to check rJ05
..... +~
the alcohol manometer and to indicate any C<U
chftllge in the specific gravity of the alcohol, ~.04 I
/
which is obtained from time to time by cftlibrating '--<U
the alcohol manometer at atmospheric pressure \J.03 o r
)( /
against a head of distilled water. g> V......
l..
It is apparent, as has been pointed out by ~.02 "-'
Relf, that when the tank is filled with compressed <;: ~ <"
~
/6
air the increased density of the air reduces the o ~I-
"
effective weight of the alcohol or water in the 1t·01
manometers. This effect may be considered as a
o -2 o .2 .4 .6 .8 1. 0 1.2 1.4 1.6
buoyancy of the air on the liquid and may be L i ff coefficient, CL
computed, but there is no assurance that the
effects of other factors such as the amount FIGU RE 47.-Lil t and drag cbaracteristicsof the N . A. C. A.44 12 ai rfoil as determined Irom tests
with the model mounted on the usual support struts and on special wIre supports.
of air dissolved in the liquid are negligible.
An experimental determination of the effect of the scale model of the FC- 2W2 airplane ~leterence 20) d
compressed air was made by calibrating the alcoh0l the airplane itself were available. Truee non \ Tl ' 0 1 g
and water manometers at several tank pressures against pitot tubes were mounted on the m plane as shown ill
a third manometer filled with mercury. The compara- figure 48. These pitot tubes were inches I lameter
 36 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL AD VISORY COMMITTEE F OR AERONA UTICS

with two staggered rows of static-pressure holes. Each AU pressures were measured by a multiple-tube, photo-
row consisted of 12 equally spaced holes 0.22 inch in recording manometer using a mixture of alcohol and
diameter. The pitot tubes were calibrated in fligh t water. Ratios of pressures were obtained dircctly
against a previously calibrated trailing air-speed head . from ratios of measured deflections and are independent
Three geometrically similar pitot tubes 0.10 inch in of the specific gravity of the manometer liquid. A
diameter were similarly mounted on the model and test was made with the pitot tubes interchanged as to
calibrated in the variable-d ensity tunnel. Great care position on the model to check the accuracy with which
Stalion I (Axis of they were made. The results checked satisfactorily.
tube parallel to Surveys were made upstream from the model with and
ax es o f tubes at
stations 2 and 3) without the model in place using a bank of 21 small
1%' .J O· 50 ' pitot tubes mounted on a strut extending across the
-_-:) 5 t'_ j tunnel, surveys being made on the vertical center line
I~~
IS." l;;}"
1
Stations
7" 0 ' 4" 9~ ' 2& 3
and 6 and 12 inches to one side of the center line.
The data obtained from these surveys are used to check
Wk7g sec tion: the calibration of the static-pressure orifices from time
G6 ftingen 387
to time as required. Force tests were also made on the
mod el with and without the pitot tubes in place and
with several tail settings.
The results obtained from the calibration of the pitot
tubes are presented in figure 49. The data are pre-
sented as ratios of the dynamic pressures measured by
- - - - - - -25' 0" - - -
the pitot tubes to the dynamic pressure as usually
obtained from the static-pressure orifices. A fairly
FIGURE 48,-Outline drawing sho wing location o( pitot tubes On tbe FC-2W 2 airplane.
consistent variation of the results is shown with
was taken to make the small pitot tubes geometrically changes in R eynolds Number and tail settings. The
similar to the large ones and to mount them in the results obtained from the calibration of the pitot tubes
correct positions on the model. in flight are shown by outlined areas indicating the
The pitot tubes Were calibrn.ted in the tunnel over location of all points obtained.
an angle-of-attack range from _8° to 14° and over a Comparisons between the tunnel and flight results
range of the test Reynolds Number from 1,000,000 to have been made on the basis of angles of attack, cor-
2,500,000. Tests were made with three tail settings. rected in the case of the tunnel results for the tunnel-
VD T. Test No. Dote Tes l Reynolds Number (based on wing chor d) Stab ilizer angle Elevator angle
I 1/ 11-2 3- 29-,]4 1, 100,000 3.3' 10'
:I
1/ 1/-4 ,]-29- 34 2 ,570,000 3.3' 10'
3 11 10-3 3-27- 34 2 ,560,000 3.3' O·
4 r--- / / 1/-3- 3- 29- 34 2 ,000,000 3.3 ' 10'-
S 11 10-2 3 - 2 7-34 1,990,000 3.3' o·
6 _1110-(_ 3 -27- 3 4 1,040,000 3.3' O·
7 1108-3 3-22 -;34 2,570,000 0' 0' -
B 1107 - 2 3- 20 - 34 2 ,000,000 0' O·
9 1107-/ .]- 20-,]4 1, 120,000 0' o·' -
<8
Outlined a r eas mdi ca t e location of points obta ined in flight.
Corrected calibration in the variable - densit tunnel.
I 7 I
~ -;=
I .I I 9 7 7 7
/./0 t- ~-t- ~t-
9
t- ~t-: ,~ r-~
III I 9 7 8 9
I~ 1'5 5
12 ,~ ~ " 3 f- t- r- 9 r--c 87 r--c Bf- 5 t-:, 1s3 9
r3 ~~ v~ 9 B ~

fii jft r~ lit< '5

'6 Z 9

, "•
3 5 8 I 8 7 I 5 7
~IOO
~~ ~~ p, ~~ 7 tf ~ \"; ~,~ t-: ~.89
L';" '" ~ iJ- ~ 6 ~ ~. ~ ~ \.~ ~ ~5
3 / 1; ~ Ii£: ti I.e [.1 II 7 l(;: r<
I.\ii; I l1; ~ ~ ti.~ :.; I~ :; ~ Ig
I

'" • • • J LJ 3 1 6
b'
.90 ~ s r- 8 t-: 38 I- ,s8
~t-:
\.....
- --.,;
,6 ~ 7~ I-<
7
~
~~
5
~ ~;
5
~ 6
,
5 3 • ~ • ~ 6 ~ Z ~ 6
6
• t-:~
I 5
8
3
,,>'

~
• 8 i~
8 6
- t-: 8 I- z
7 3
J r- h- g ~6
7 t-: U· I- 8
I t<' ¥ <'
" 6

~ 80
~70
,~
~ .00
c:
-S .50
'tJ (S t ation I (St ati on 2/ (S tation 3)
'IJ 40
~
ti'IJ .30
E>
'c 20
o
.;:: 10
.{?
a
~2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2 0 2 4 0 8 10 12
Angle of attock, lX, degrees
FIGURE 49.-Calibration o( pi tot tubes mounted on the FC- 2W2 airplane in flight Bnd on the F C-2W2 airplane model in the variable·density wind tunnel. Results
corrected (or tunnel·wall effect.
 AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER
wall effect. Force tests made in the tunnel and in
flight show that this method of comparison is very
nearly equivalent to making the comparisons at equal
lift coefficients. A value of the ratio q/qo was selected
from the tunnel data to correspond as wen as possible
to flight conditions of trim and Reynolds Number for
each pitot-tube position at each angle of attack. The
values obtained were, in general, higher than the flight
values at small angles of attack. Accordingly, the
values obtained were reduced by increasing the value
of qo by 1.5 percent, which is equivalent to a change
in the static-pressure-orifice calibration factor from
1.172 to 1.190. The values of the ratio so obtained
are plotted on the figure as solid lines, and the values
agree reasonably wen with the flight data at small
1.6
_ l 1 ;/,qhL tLtJOInI!.?
37
effective Reynolds Number. Data obtained in flight
tests (reference 20) are shown on the figure.
Although the model was much more detailed and
accurate than is usual in wind-tunnel models, it was
not considered before the tests to represent the air-
plane with sufficient accuracy and detail to give
reliable drag results. Therefore too much emphasis
should not be given to the good agreement of drag
coefficients obtained in flight and in the tunnel. At
lift coefficients less than 1.0 the agreement between
flight and tunnel data is considered satisfactory. At
higher lift coefficients some divergence of the tunnel
and flight data is indicated. As previously stated,
the results obtained from the pitot-tube calibmtion
showed that an additional correction to the calibration
32 factor of the static-pressure orifice might be desirable
Qc>;l /
'cL X
x
at high angles of attack. Such a correction has been

1.4 r- - - - - 11.0.
I I
- - - V.D. T. tests <@)
T. tests cor- 0:. ~ v;: 19? x
/",0 28
determined from figure 49 and applied to the data.
The results are plotted as dotted lines in figure 50 and
r ected Tor ~ 0 /
odd/l/onol .~ hli CO show an improved agreement of the lift coefficients
blocking ~ ~

eFfecf / ~1' obtained in flight and in the tunnel at high angles of

1.2 24 attack.
- ,~ Xi1 CD
This additional correction is not ordinarily applied to
t.J 1.0
-...:
c:
.~
.~
~ .8
III
o
U
¥
, V
d1-
t;,

~
.,i'
l1i1<
if

I
t!
the data obtained in the variable-density tlmnel be-
cause it is doubtful whether the correction in most cases
would give a better approximation to the actual condi-
tions than no correction. The pitot-tube calibration
tests were less accurate at high angles of attack than at
~
0.:J .6 !I L'*~ I CJ)e low ones and, as previously stated, the drag of the
model was larger than is the case for the models usually
-I I~ ,/ tested. Another fact indicating that this correction is
.4
1/ J<~ ~ /' 08
small is that, up to the point of maximum lift, the lift
curves obtained in the tunnel for some airfoils are very
>~ ~ I--V nearly straight. Any appreciable correction of this
~W
.2 04
type would result in such lift curves being concave
upward.
CONCLUSIONS

4 8 12 16
An gle of attack, d ,de grees
FIGURE 5O.-Comparison of data obtained in !light and ill the variable·density wind
tunnel for tbe F C-2W2 a irplane and model.
angles of attack. A comparison of the hmnel and
flight data indicates that a further correction, which
may be due to blocking effects, may be desirable at.
rugh angles of attack. The airplane model, however,
had large drags at high angles of attack as compared
with models normally used in the tunnel, making the
application of this additional correction questionable
for the usual airfoil tests.
The results of the force tests of the model are shown
by means of composite curves drawn as solid lines in
figure 50. The curves were obtained from the test
results by selecting, at each angle of attack, test results
to correspond as well as possible with flight conditioils
of trim and Reynolds rumher. The tunnel results
have been fully corrected including corrections to the
o
20 1. The results of the investigation show no inter-
ference of the model supports on the model for which
corrections had not previously been made.
2. The investigation of the effects of compressed air
on the effective weight of the manometer liquid showed a
2.0 percent error in the measured dynamic pressure; the
dynamic pressure as previously measured was too large.
3. The investigation of the calibration of the static
pressure orifices showed an error of 1.5 percent in this
calibration; the dynamic pressure as previously meas-
ured was too small.
4. The total eiIect of the investigation is a change in
the measured dynamic pressure of 0.5 percent; the
dynamic pressure as previously measured was too large.
Data previously published (reference 2 and earlier
reports) to which these corrections have not been
applied may be corrected by changing the coefficients
to correspond to a reduction of measured dynamic
pressure of 0.5 percent.
38 REPORT NO. 586-NATIONAL ADVISORY COM lITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
REFERENCES
1. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Abbott, Ira H.: The . A. C. A.
Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. T. R. No. 416, N. A.
C. A. 1932.
2. Jacobs, Eastman N., Ward, Kcnneth E., ane! Pinkerton,
Robert M .: The Characteristics of 78 Related Airfoil
Sections from Tests in the Variable-Den ity Wind Tun-
nel. T. R. No. 460, N. A. C. A., 1933.
3. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests in
the Variable-Density Wine! Tunnel of Related Airfoil
Having the Maximum Camber Unusually Far Forward.
T. R. No. 537, N. A. C. A., 1935.
4. Wenzinger, Carl J., and hortal, Joseph A.: The Aero-
dynamic Characteri ticB of a Slotted Clark Y Wing as
Affeeted by the Auxiliary Airfoil Position. T. R. No.
400, N. A. C. A., 1931.
5. Platt, Robert C., and Abbott, Ira H.: Aerodynamic Cllar-
acteristics of N. A. C. A. 23012 and 23021 Airfoils wilh
20-Percent-Chord External-Airfoil Flaps of N . A. C. A.
23012 Section. T. R. No. 573, N. A. C. A., 1936.
6. Millikan, Clark B.: On the Lift Distribution for a Wing of
Arbitrary Plan Form in a Circular Wind Tunnel. Pub-
lication No. 22, C. 1. T., 1932.
7. Jacobs, Eastman ., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests of
N. A. C. A. Airfoils in the Variable-Density Wind Tun-
nel. Series 230. T. . No. 567, N. A. C. A., 1936.
8. Anderson, R. F.: Determination of the Characteristic of
Tapered Wings. T. R. No. 572, . A. C. A., 1936.
9. Jacobs, Eastman N., allCl Clay, William C.: Characteristics
of the N. A. C. A. 23012 Airfoil from Tests in the Full-
Rcale and Variable-Den ity TUllnels. T. R. No. 530,
N. A. C. A., 1935.
10. Platt, Robert C.: Turbulence Factors of N. A. C. A. Wind
Tunnel as Determined by Sphere Tests. T. R. No. 558,
N. A. C. A., 1936.
11. Stack, John: Te ts in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel to
Investigate the Effects of Scale and Turbulence on Air-
foil Charaeteristics. T. N. No. 364, N. A. C. A., 1931.
12. Toussaint, A., ane! Jacobs, E.: Experimental Methods-
Wind Tunnels. Vol. III, div. I of Aerodynamic Theory,
W. F. Durand, editor, Julius Springer (Berlin), 1935, p.
332.
13. von Karmali, Th., ane! Millikan, C. B.: On the Theory of
Laminary Boundary Layer Involving Separation. T.
R. No. 504, N. A. C. A., 1934.
14. Dryden, H. L.: Air Flow in the Boundary Layer Near a
Plate. T. R. No. 562, N. A. C. A., 1936.
15. Dryden, I-l. L., and Kuethe, A. M.: Effect of Turbulence
in Wind Tunnel Measurements. T. R. No. 342, N. A.
C. A., 1930.
16. Jacobs, Eastman N.: The Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Eight Very Thick Airfoils from Tests in the Variable-
Density Wind Tunnel. T. R. No. 391, N. A. C. A., 1931.
17. Jones, B. Melvill: Stalling. R. A. S. Jour., vol. XXXVIII.
No. 285, Sept. 1934, pp. 7013-769.
18. Higgins, George .T., and Jacobs, Eastman N.: The Effect
of a Flap and Ailerons on the N. A. C. A. -M6 Airfoil
Section. T. R. No. 260, N. A. C. A., 1927.
19. Jacobs, Eastman ., and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Pressure
Distribution over a Symmetrical Airfoil Section with
Trailillg Edge Flap. T. R. No. 360, N. A. C. A., 1930 .
20. TI10lhp on, F. L., and Keister, P. H.: Lift ane! Drag Char-
acteri tics of a Cabin Monoplane Determined in Flight.
T. N. No. 362, N. A. C. A., 1931.
AIRFOIL. ECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 39
TABLE I
IMPORTANT AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS
a. c.
R, aI,
a, c'mal: I C'opt Cd Ornin emo . c • x V
N. A. C. A. airfoil (millions) (deg.) (percent c) (percent c)

----- --
.. .. .-. . ---- ' 0.0001 .. ----- ------------ ------------
... 8. 'liO -------
0
.
0.09
-.
AI. 3V 0 .0001 0 l.0 5
8.290 .0064 0 1.0 4
fi.IOO 0 .00i 'I. 28 0 8
.94 0 .0002 0 1.8
:l.410
I. ,(iO
0
0
. 00i
.000i "".88 0 .0060 0 1.7 13
0 .0049 0 ---- .------ ---- --- -----
. ~h2 0 · ()<J6 " Ii 0 . 0005 0 ------------ -------- ----
. l4Ii
.223
0
0
· 105
.117 "0 .835 0 .0131 0 .. ------- ----- -------
0 . 0135 0 ------ ---.- --------- ---
.112 0 .104
.OW
" .78
AI. G6 0 .0009 0 .6 3
0012 . .. .3iO 0
.100 'I. 65 0 .0009 0 .6 3
S.450 0 .0073 0 .8 3
0. 280 0 · Ol)i '1. 62 0 4
AI. 49 0 . OOi7 0 1.0
3.040 0 .09i 1.1 3
. 096 '1. 18 0 .0075 0
I. ;40 0
. Sil 0 .091 D .91 0 .0065 ------------ ------- ----- --------_.--
.449 0 .0% 1)
9 0 . 0105 ------------ ------------ ------------
.0077 0 1.2 4
.010 0 .09i AI. 66 0 1.1 3
001.5 .096 AI. 60 0 .0082 0
;;.990 0 0 1.2 I
:J.:!.IO 0 .094 cl.4 0 .0086
. 0088 0 2.4 I
I. no 0 .093 ci. 28 0 0
cl.Og 0 .0084 0 1. 5
0 · ()<J2
'7 I
0 .091 !)
.98 0 .0079 -.---------- ----- ------- -----.------
. ·I:lX
-.-- ----- .014\l --- --- ------ ------------ ------------
.222
.In
0
0
.10)
.13-1 "D:OO9
---- ----- .01DS -.------ . --------- ------------
AI. ;;3 . 008l:\ 0 1.7 4-
i. 10 0 .00G 0 1.6 3
OOlh . 09(; AI. 53 0 .0092 0
fl. 210 0 0 2.2 3
0 · 09(l CI. 42 0 . 0098
:I. :100 .0lOO 0 2.2 0
I. no 0 .0UO
.090
oI.2G
Cl.15
0
0 .0102 0 2.4 0
. hun 0 0127 0 1.8 0
0 .OSO AI. 03 0
· 1:10 0 .0179 ------------ ----- ----- -- ------------
.211
.10l)
0
0
.0<J2
· 114
" .90
n . 80 0 .0297 ------ ... ------ ---- -------- ----
.0071 -.013 .5 3
-2.0 .098 AI. 72 .14
.. 8.210
-2.1 .09i AI.08 . 14 .0080 -.043 1.1 3
fl. 100 -.045 1.1 I
:1. 120 -2.0 · Ol)X Cl. sa .15 .0079
-.015 .9 -2
01.33 .:30 .0089
I. no -2. I .O\lf>
. 0085 -.004 1.8 0
-2.1 .oun DI. 16 .22
------------
· HiU
· I:!~ -2.0 .098 "1.08 .42 .006i .------...... ---------.-- --------- ---
.21X -2. 2 .102 "I. 08 .26 .0159 ----- --------- --- -----_._----
.110 -1.3 -------- "1. 03 . 0227 ------ ... --- ---------
... 3. 0071 .. .- . .- . ---.- ------------
23012 .3iO -----
-1.2
-----
.100 AI. 72 .0 .00iO -.00 1.2 7
8. HlO .0079 -.007 1.3 7
-1.2 .()<J8 At. (ii .08
1i.0iO .00 0 -.007 1.3 5
3.400 -1.2 .098 AI. 53 .05 5
"I. 41 .16 .0090 - . 0)2 1.4
I. iliO -J.2 · ()<Ji - . 010 2.0 7
4 -1.2 .096 "1. 28 .28 .0084
.449 -1.3 .096 "1.19 .12 . 0098 ._----------
---- -------- ---- ------- ------------
.221 -J.6 · )09 D1. 15 .3i . 0179 ---- ------- ------ -----
.. . ------- ----------- ---------_.-
01.00 .20 .0182
.112 -1.4 --------- - .010 .6 5
-1.2 .097 1lJ.49 .20 .0071
~.OOO -.0 10 5
- 1.2 .09 AI. 42 .10 . 0075
6. :390 .ooi6 - . 011 1.0 6
3.380 -1.2 .096 ulo 26 .23 3
"1. 12 .28 . 0071 -.014 .9
1. iOO -1.2 .096 -.011 .9 0
-1.2 . 094 01. Oi .10 .00 4 -1
. 000 .0096 -.014 .4
.454 -1.4 .096 01.01 .40
.0073 .005 1.0 7
-.6 · 0l)8 AI. 6) .10
... ._--- 8.3iO
-.7 .09i "I. 55 .02 . 0078 .000 J.1 0
(i. 310 .0077 . 005 1.0 4
3.010 -.7 .0<J7 °1.41 .11 0
.23 .0077 .002 .8
1. i70 -.8 . 095 "1.28 -.001 1.1 0
- 8 .096 "I. 14 .28 .0073
.1>01
.4 :>-1 -.9 .100 OJ. 08 · :35 . 011 ------------ ------------ ------------
.0073 -.088 .0 2
.080 -3.V .090 AI. 77 .26 .7 1
-3.9 .096 1)1. 70 .26 .0080 -.088
5.970 . 0077 -.090 1.0 -1
3. 340 -4.0 .095 cJ. 50 .34 -1
oJ. 2<J .41 .00 4 -.092 1.1
I. 700 -4.0 .098 -.09 1.4 -4
-4.1 · ()<JO D1.2fi .40 .0080
• SHU
-4.1 .097 "I. 23 · ;;5 . 0097 -.---------- ------ ------ ------------
.438
-3. i .105 "I. 21 .57 .()()9(\ ---------- ..----------- ------------
.21
· 110 -2.5 . 115 oJ.()<J .77 .01 9 ------ --------- ------------
.0082 -.088 .8 2
7. H2O -4.0 . 098 D1. 74 .32 .9 1
4·112 -4.1 .Ol)r, 01. 70 .22 .0085 -.088
6.100 . 0087 -.()<JI 1.0 -I
:1. 2iO -4.1 .OUS "I. 61 . 30 1.2 -5
01. 4fi · :17 .OO<J5 -.095
I.f;XO -4.2 .0Ui -.097 1.1 -8
--4 . 3 .00n 1)1. :lG .3G .0091
· ~i4
.4:\:3 -4.3 .OUI "1.:0 .51 .0109 ------------ ------------ ------------
.. . ... ------ ----- ------------
-4.~ 1>1. :l2 .57 .0194
.21U
· III -2.9
· lOll
· 113 "I. 20 ... . 027G . ------ ...
.OO<JO -.OS;; 1.0 I
7.920 - ·1.0 .0Ui cl. i2 .22 1.4 I
·141 .5 . . .09;; JJI.(jG .20 .0093 -.086
G.280 -1.0 .OO<J4 -.085 1.4 -2
I 3.340 -4.1 · ()<JO "I. 5f) .23 1.7 -4
"1.4b · 31 . 009!J -.0'.10
1. 730 -1.2 .095 .0103 -.092 1.4 -8
-4.3 .094 1)1.41 .34
2
-4.4 .089 "I. 35 .39 .0123 ------ ----- ------------ ------------
.431
.219 -4.4 .089 "I. 31 .46 . 019 ---- ----- ------------ ------------
. .. -----
.. 01.34 .68 .0269
.110 -3. I ------ .0091 - . 133 .9 1
8. 210 -5.9 . 098 "1.82 .37 1.1 1
· ()<J(j 01. i5 .2.> . 0090 -.130
6.020 -.1.9 . 0099 -.13 1 .8 -3
3.3,,0 -0.1 · ()<J7 "1.61 .38 1.0 -2
"I. 04 .52 .0104 -.135
-0.2 .097
I. 700
-0.3 · ()<J7 VI. 48 .60 .0096 --_._------ .-- --------- ------------
.ll!!2
01.47 .55 .0129 ------------ ------------ ------------
. 441
.219
-6.2
-5.9
.097
.106 01.4u .70 .0205 ------------ ------------ ---- -------
01. 45 ---------- . 0160 . .. . - .. --- -------- - ------------
.110 -5.4 ----------
- - -
, F rom refereoce 2.
IType lift· curvo peak: , From reference 7.
 40 REPORT NO. 586- ATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AER ONAUTICS

TABLE I-Continued
IMPORTANT AIRFOIL SECTION CHA R ACTERISTI CS-Continued

fl.. C.
N. A . C. A . airfoil R. alo
(millions) (deg.) G.
x v
1 - - - - -- - - - - - - 1 · - - - - 1 - - - - - - _ _ __ 1_ __ _ _ __ 1_ _ __ 1_ (percent
___ (percent
e) 1___ __ e) 1
6712___ __ _________________________ _
8.100 -7. 3 0.090 °2.05 0.35
6. 120 -7. 4 0. 0115 -0.199 1.2 -2
.095 01.99 .32 .0119 -.197
3.380 -7.4 .098 1)1.83 1.1 -4
J.750 . 33 .0120 - . 198 J.l -8
-7.ij . 103 °1.65 .45
.892 -7.8 .0124 - . 210 1.6 - 12.
. J03 /)1. 52 . 82 .0138
.449 - 5.7 /) J. 45
.222 .88 .0228 -----------. ------- - ---- ------------
-4.6 /)1.50 1.01 .0283
.1l2 -3. 9 01. 41 - . 02
8318 ___ . __________________________ _ . 04U
.450 -7.2 . 095 01. 59 .24
6.420 -7.3 . 0127 -.132 1.5 2
. 092 .lO . 0128 -.132
3.460 -7.4 .093 01. 67 1. 8 2
J.790 .31 . 0128 -.135 1.8 2
- 7. 6 .093 "I. 76 .36 .0140
.9 11 -8.7 -.137 2. 1 3
.088 "1. SO .43 .0173 ------------ ---------- -- -- -- -----.--
. 449 -9.0 .085 /)1. 78 .58
.224 -9.2 .0215
.080 °1.40 . 58 . 0269 --- --------- ------------ ------------
.112 -8.0 .077 ° 1. 02
00 12 ______________ . _______________ _ .0332
8.110 • -13. I '. 091 A2.35
(With 'pli! lJap at 60°.) .5.910 '.167 8-.220 .6
A2.35
3.770 A2.30 -------._--- ------------ ----- -------
3.430 A2.21
J. 740 AI. 84
.919 °1.67 ---------- ---------.-- ------------ - ----------- ------------
------------ ------------ ------------
.449 °1.63
23012 __ ___ ______________________ . __ ---------- ------------ ------------ ----- -- ----- ------------
8. ISO , -11.3 '.088 A2.48
(With split lIap at 60°.) '.166 8 -.236 1.2
5.970 A2.51
3.620 A2.39 ---------- ------------ ------- ----- ---- -- ------ ------ --- ---
(Average) ---------- ---- ------ -. ---- -------- -------- -- -- ------------
J. 740 A2. 24
.882 A2,07 ---------- ------ ---- -- ------------ ------------ - ---- ----- --
.444 "1.92 -------- ---------- -------- -- -- ------------ -------- -- -- --- - -- -- --
23012_________________ . ___________ _ -- ------------ ------------ ------------ --- --- ----- -
8.100 • -15. 6 '.085 A2.54
(With split flap at 75°.) '.201 8 -.228 1.2
5. 990 A2.52
3.800 A2.4 1 -------- - - ------- - ---- ------------ ------------ ------ - -----
I. 740 A2.21 ---------- ------- - ---- ------------ --- - -------- ------------
.887 A2.0 1 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
23015 _______ _____________ . ________ _
. 446 AI.90 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
---------- - - ---------- ------------ -- ---------- --- -- ----- - -
8.370 -1.1 .098 AI. 73 .10
3.880 .0081 -.008 1.1 6
23015___ ___ __ . ___________________ _ CI.60
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- --- --
8.210 • -16. 2 ' . 086 A2.70
(With spli t flap at 750.) - 5.990 ' .198 8 -2.45 1.1 6
A2.69
3.830 A2.59 ---------- ------------ ------------ ----- ----- - - ------------
J.8OO A2.45 ------- -- - ------------ ------------ --------- --- ------------
.924 A2.32 ----- - ---- --- --------- ------------ ------------ ------------
2302L _____ __ _____________________ _
.450 A2. II -------- -- ------------ ------------ -- ---------- ------- --- --
--------- - -------- ---- ------------ ------------ - - ----------
8.210 -J.2 . 092 IIJ. 50 .07
5,940 .0101 -.005 2.3
AJ. 54
3. 770 AI. 47 ---------- ------------ ------- ----- ------- -- --- ---------- ... -
I. 720 oJ. 32 ---------- --- - -------- ------------ ------- - ---- ------------
.892 D1. 26 ---------- --- - -------- ------------ ---------- -- ----- --- --- ..
2302 1__ __ __ _______________________ _
. 441 AI. 20 ------- -- - ------------ ----------- - ------------ ------------
---------- --- --------- ------------ ----------- - ------------
. 130 • -16.5 '.094 A2.74 , - . 300
(With spli t lIap at 75°.) 5.960 '. 191 2. 3
A2.81
3.800 A2.79 ---------- ----- -- ----- ------------ --------- --- -- ------ ----
1.720 A2.58 ------ - --- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----- --- ----
.879 A2.46 ---------- ------------ ----------- - ---------- - - -- ---- ------
. 435 A2.28 --- ------- --- - -------- ------------ -- -- -------- ------------
43012 ________________ ___ __________ _ ------- - - - ------- -- --- ------------ --- - -------- ------------
8.390 -2.3 .100 AI. 84 .26
3.890 .0079 -.019 1.0 '7
AJ. 71
.449 AI. 44 --------- - -------- ---- ------------ ------- --- -- - -- ------ ---
43012_____________________________ _ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
8. 240 '-17. 3 '.082 A2.65
(With split tJap at 750.) ' .200 8 -.225 1.0
0.040 A2.60
3.830 A2. 47 ---------- ------------ ------- - ---- ----- --- -- - - ------- -- --.
1. 740 A2.39 ---------- - -- --------- ------------ ----------- - ------------
.887 "2. 29 -------- -- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
.449 A2.18 ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- - ------------
23012 ____________________________ _ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
8. 210 - . 9 .101 AJ.68 .07
(With 23012 flap 3° up.) - 6. 150 -.8 .100 .0069 . 009 .5 8
AJ. 62 . 15 .0074
3.300 -.8 .100 A1. 54 .009 1.0 9
1.680 .19 .0078 .010 1. 1 11
-.8 .097 AI. 39 . 13 .0068
.858 - .8 .096 01. 24 .011 1.2 11
.430 .08 .0093 ------------ --- --- - -- --- ------------
- 1. 2 .096 01.12 .08 . 0119 ------ - ----- ----- - - --- -- ------------
23012 _______ __ ___________ __ _______ _
8.140 • -13.8 '.102 A2.46 .45
(With 23012l1ap set 300.) 6.200 .0161 • -.260 .5 8
A2. 40
3. 410 A2.32 ----- -- -- - -- -- ---- ---- ------------ ------------ ------------
I. 700 • - 12.5 '. 103 'C2. 13 -- ----. 70 ---- --- ---- -- - -- ---- -------- ------------ --- -- -------
1.700 .0184 • -.260 1.2 11
, " 1. 95
.879 • - 11.9 ' .102 "I. 75 -----.-60-- -----.-o2ig-- ~~::~::::~:: :::::::::::: ::::::::::::
.441 "1.66
Clark Y 10 ___ _________ • ___________ _ -- -- ------ ---------- - - - ----------- --------- - - - --- -- ---- ---
9.900 -4.2 '.099 °2.12
(With Haodley Page slot.) 8. 080 .76 .0242 -----_.----- ------- - ---- ------ -- ----
-4. 3 '.099 02.06 .76 .0248 ------------ --- - -------- - -----------
4.990 -4.2 J. 098 "2.02
3.090 .69 .0260 ------------ ------------ ------------
-4.2 '. 097 ° 1. 96 .62
2.040 -4.1 '.096 .0260 ------- - ---- - - - - ------ - - - - ----------
°1.98 .65 .0264 ------------ - - ---------- ------------
1.290 -4.1 ' .092 °1.92
. 784 .63 .0272 ------------ --- - -------- ------------
-4. 1 "1.82 .64
. 520 -4.1 .0301 ---------- -- ------------ ------------
"I. 75 .63 .0291 ------------ ------------ -- -- ------ --
.261 -4. 1 "1.60
.135 -4. 3
.64 .0322 ------------ ------------ - - --- --- --- -
° 1. 41 .63 .0431 ------------ ----------- - ------------

I See (oOLDote I, p. 39.

• A ngle of zero lift determined from linear lift curve approxi mating exper imen tal , Value of the drag that app lies approximatel y over t he entire useful range of lilt
lift cur ve. coefficients.
, Slope of lift cur ve determined from linear lift cur ve approximat ing experim en taJ 8 eM •. , . is taken abou t the aerodynam ic center of t he pJain lYing a nd is fairl y COn-
un curve. sta nt at h igh lift coeffi cients.
, Discon t inuity p resent in the scnle etrect.
, eM • .,. is taken about t he aerod Ynamic center of tbe wing wi th tJap neutra I a nd is
fairl y constant at high lift coefficien ts.
I' Not N . A. C. A,
 •

AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS OF THE REYNOLDS NUMBER 41

TABLE II
AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS
Fundamental section characteristics
Classification

Q.c. (percent
R.'
(Millions)
e from c/4)
N. A. C. A. airfoil "'I, a.o, per C
Chord I SE ' CLm ll % c'",oz (deg.) del!ree c'QP' CdO Min '" • . c: ,
Ahead Above

- - - - - - --- - - - - - - --- - - -
0 0.0064 0 1.0 5
A 8. 2\l 1. 39 0 0.098 3
0009 A B 0 . 0069 0 .6
0012________ - -- --- -----
_____________ --- --
________ ----__----
_____ -- -----
__ _____ _____--
A CO A 8. 37 1.68 0 . 099
. 0077 0 1. 2 4
0015 _________________ ________ ____ _____ _______ A 8. 61 1.68 0 .097 0 4
A DO .096 0 .0088 0 1.7
0018 __________ __________ ___ _____ __ _____ __ ___ _ A EO A 7. 84 1.53 0 -.043 .5 3
8.24 1. 72 -2.0 .098 . 14 . 0071
2412__________ ______ _______ __ ___ __ _------ - --- A C2 A . 08 .0070 - . 008 1.2 7
D2 A 8.16 1. 72 -1.2 .100 5
23012 __________ _-- -- --- --- --- -- -- ---- --- -- --- A -1.2 .097 . 20 .0071 -.010 .6
A BO B 8.00 1.49 .005 1.0 7
23012--33 _____ __ _--- --- ------ - --__________
-- --- --- - --- -- 8.37 1. 61 -.6 .098 . 10 . 0073
2R,12 __________________ ______ __ ___ A C3 A .26 .0073 -.088 .6 2
B4 A 8.08 1. 77 -3.9 . 096 2
4409 _______ - -- ------ -- ------ - --- --- ---- ---- -- A -4.0 .098 .32 .0082 -.088 .8
A C4 D 7. 92 1. 74 - . 085 1.0 1
4412 __ ___________ - --- ----- --- -- --- - -- ---- --- - 7. 92 1. 72 -4.0 . 097 .22 . 0090
A D4 C .37 . 0091 - .133 .9 1
4415 _________ ----- -- --- ---- --- - -- -- ---- ------ C6 D 8. 21 1.82 -5.9 .098 1.2 -2
6412 A .35 . 0115 -.199
6712_________
___ ________- ---
__ -- - ---- - ----___
___________ -- ---- ----
______ -- ----
______ __ D 8.10 2.05 -7. 3 .096 2
8318 ___ ____________________ __ _____ ___________
0012 with split flap at 60 0 _ _ __ _ ____________ _ __
A
A
A
C2
E8
CO
D2
D
A
A
8.45
8.11
8.18
1. 59
2.35
2.48
-7.2
1-13. 1
' -14.3
.095
'.091
' . 088
. 24 .0127
7 .167
7 .1G6
7 .201
.-
,-
-.132
.220
-.236
1.5
.6
1.2
1.2
3
7
7
23012 with split flap at 600 ___ _ ______ _ ___ _ ____ A . 228
23012 with split flap at 75 0 __ __ _ ____ __ _ ___ _ _ __ A D2 A 8.10 2.64 ' -15.6 • .085 -.008 1.1 6
8. 37 1.73 -1.1 . 098 . 10 .0081
A D2 A 7. 198 ' - . 245 1.1 6
23015 _____ ___ ---- --- ---- --0 --- ---- - --- --- - -- -- D2 A 8. 21 2.70 ' -16.2 • .088 7
23015 with split flap_________
at 75 - -_________ A .092 . 07 .0101 -.005 2.3
23021 ______________ __ ______
- - - ----- -- -- - - - --
A E2 B
A
8.21
8.13
1.50
2.74
-1.2
, -16.5 7 .191 ,- . 300 2.3 7
7
23021 with split flap at 75 0 _ _ __ _ ___ ___________ A E2 • . 094
. 100 .26 . 0079 - . 019 1.0
A 8. 39 1.84 -2.3 7
43012 __ ____ __ __ --- - ----- -- -- -- --- ---- -- ---- -- A D4
A 8.24 2.65 '-17. 3 • .082 7. 200 5 - • :1'25 1.0
8
43012 with split flap at 75 0 ___ ________________
23012 with 23012 flap 30 up ___ ____ ____ ________
0
23012 with 23012 flap set 30 - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - -
A
A
A
D4
D2 A
A
D
8. 21
8. !4
8.08
1.68
2.46
2. 06
-.9
' -13.8
- 4.3
•
.101
.102
• . 099
.07
. 45
.76
.0069
. 0161
.0248
.- .009
.260
---------- . -
.5
.5
------
8
- - --- - --
Clark Y with Handley Page slot 10---------- B

I Type of chord. A refers to Q chord defined as a line joining the extremities of the lift curve.
• Slopo of lift curve determined from linear lift curve approximating experimental
mean linc. lift curve.
• '1'ype of scale effect on maximum lilt. 1 Value o( the drag that applies approximately over the ontire useflll range of lilt
, Type of lift-curve peak as shown in the sketches below: coefficients.
8 eM is taken ahout ,the aerodynamic center of the plain wing and is fair ly con-
stant ~tbigh Jilt t'OOfficientS. 0
'em is tnkon about the aerodynamic center of the wing with flap neutral (_3 )
and i;i:iirly constant at high lift coefficients.
IONotN . A . C.A .
• 'rur bulence [actor is 2.64 .
, Angle of zcro lift determined from linear lift curve approximating experimontal

II. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OHICE : IU7