filllllllllllllllll~11

3 1176 00122 3115

DEC 23 1946

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

ORIGINALLY ISSUED February 1946 as Restricted Bulletin L5K02

AERODYNAMIC C1IAR.ACTERISTICS OF FOUR NACA AIRFOn.

SECTIONS DESIGNED FOR BELICOPrER ROTOR BLAIlI!'.S

By Louis S. Stivers, Jr. and Fred J. Rice, Jr.

Langley Memorial. Aeronautical. Laboratory LSllglrv Field, Va.

FOR REFERENCE

NOT TO BE TAl{EN FROM THIS ROOM

,

N f",_ C A. L .J:. ;';_

'v"'" ",,,. J -1-.iCAL LU1GJ~EY MEMOt'l,U, ,')_ .. .J~ . .,.d;:''-' ~

I..PJ:.0F • .e:!'OR'l

~~ ~ii..t4., V~

NACA WARTIME REPORTS are reprints of papers originally issued to provide rapid distribution of advance research results to an authorized group requiring them for the war effort. They were previously held Wider a security status but are now unclasslfled, Some of these reports were not technicallyedited. All have been reproduced v.1thout change in order to expedite general distribution.

WASHINGTON

NACA RE N~. L5K02

RESTRICTED

NATIONAL PJWISORY CONITaTTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

RESTRICTSD BULLETIN

AERODYN IIvTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FOTJR 2~ liC.Ii AI2FOIL

SECTIOI-;S DESIGNED FOR H2LIOCFTE:: ROTOR BLADES

By LOUlS S. Stivers, Jr. and Fred J. Rice, Jr.

SUr,IMAR.Y

Four N 1\C A air f c i 1 sec t i '" n s , the N AD A 7 - E -12 J 8 - H -12 J 9-H-12, and lO-H-12, suitable for use as roter-blade sections for helicopters and other rotary-wing aircraft have been derived and tested. These airfoil sections Lave comparatively low drags ill. the r ang.e of Low and moderate lifts and small pitching moments that are nearly c eris t an t up to m ax Lmurn lift. 'I'he urrde s Lr ab I.e adv e r s e changes in ae r-o dyn arn i c characteristics at higher lifts

and the undue sensitivity to r-oughrie s s , wni c.h were found for the airfoil sections rsported in NACj~ OB No. 3113,

are minimized for the airfoil sections presented. A comparison of calculated profile-drag losses for a rot~r successively incorporating the lTACA 3-3-13.5 (reported

in NACA CE No, 3Il~,) and the 3-2-12 airfoil sections showed that the HACA 8-H-12 had smaller profile-drag losses in nearly every operating condition uressnted. Fr-om aerodynamic cons iderat ions, the lIT AC A 8-H-12 and 9-E-12 airfoil sections appeared mere promising fnr use

as r"tnr- bl ade se c t ions than 8...YJ.y other airfoils thus far tested at the NACA laboratories.

INTRODUCTION

The de s j_ rab Le aero dynamic char ac teris tic s of airfoil sections suitable for use as rotor-blade s0cti~ns are:

(1) nearly zero pitching moments, (2) low drags thrcughcut the r 8.jJ.ge of low and mode rate 1 ift::', , sr: .. d (3) moderate drags at hiCh lifts. With these characteristics in mind seve~al rotcr-blade sections we~e derived with special emphasis o~ obtaini~g high lift-drag ratios. These airfails, dat a f'"l'r which are presented Ln reference 17 had maximum lift-drag ratios ne&rly twice as large as thOS/2 of the .N.ACA 230-series airfoils at the 38.r,;e Reynolds nurnbe r .

RSSTRICTED

2

NACA HB No. L5K02

They showed, however, some undesirable characteristics: name Ly , sensitivity to roughness and abrupt adve r-s e changes in drag, lift-curve slope, and pitching moment in the vicinity of the high-lift end of the range of low drags.

The 9urpose of the present work is to extend the previous investigation and to derive additional airfoil sections designed to minimi~e the undesirable characteristics of the previously tested ai~foils. The tests of these additional airfoils were made in the Langley twod irne ns ional low-turbulence t unn e I (LT'r).

By the use of the procedure given in reference 2, profile-drag losses have been calculated for a typical helicopter rotor operating in v ar Lcus -flight conditions and successively incorporating the airfoil sections developed in the present investigation. These calculations oermit the evaluation of the relative profiledrag losses associated with the use of the verious airfoil sections.

SYlvIBOLS

c

section angle of attack
chord
section drag coefficient
section lift coefficient cli (CL/Cd)max

design section lift coefficient

maximum lift-drag ratio

mc.ne n t cO'3fficient about aerodynamic center

moment co e f ILc Lerrt about t h e qu ar-be r= c hc r-d ;Joint

hp

horsepower

free-stream total pressure

critical Mach number

3

p

local static pressure on airfoil surface

free-stream dvn amj o o r-e s s ure

R

Reynolds number

s

pressure

coefficient

(Ho - P \ '( qo /

tic

airfoil thickness ratio

x

distance along chord from leading edge

dist2nce per)endicular to chord

The following symbols are used only in tables VI, VII, and VIII:

w/s

rotor d i s k Lo sd Lng , ;)ounds p e r square foot

f

perasite-drag areB, squsra faet

f,_JR

s pe e d of axial flow through rotor disk (positive upward)

rotor angular velocity, radians per second

R

rotor blade radius

a

angle of attack of rotor disk

solidity; ratio of total blade area to sweptdisk area

9

pitch angle of blade element, degrees

difference between ~lb fuld tip pitch angles, Jegre3s (positive whe n tip angle i8 greater)

NAGA HE No. L5K02

DERIVArrION itND TESTS

In the derivation of the four airfoil sections tested in this investigation several basic thickness distributions having a ruax Lmum thickness of' U.12c w e r-e emp Lo y e d , The NACA 7-H-12 airfoil e e e t.I on ri a s an NAGA 0012 t.n i.c knes s d l s t.r-Lbu t.Lon , the NAGA 8-B-12 arid 9-E-12 airfr;il sections havechickness distributions that h ave t.he i.r- m i n i.rnum pressure 2t 0.3c at zero Ll I t , and the :t·:ACA 10-H-12 airfoil section has a thickness distribution that has its minimum pr-e s s ur-e C"t J. 5c at z e r-o lift. Tr-L8 mean lines of these four airfoil sections were designed so that s~all

p i t c h i ng moments arid e.x t.eris l ve f8.voraole pr-e s s ur-e gradients along the lower surfaces were produced. In the designation of these a i r-f o i Ls the first numbe r- is a serial numbel', the c indicates that the airfoil has been designed for use on helicopters and ether retsting-wing aircraft, and the last two digits designate the thickness in percent of the chord. Ordinates for these airfoil sections are given in tables I to IV.

The rnr-de Ls , constructed '"If m eho g any laminated in the c ho r-dwa s e d i r-e c t.Lon , had ,q chord of 24 inches and a span

of 35~ inches. In preparation fer the tests the surfaces of the medels were sanded in a chordwise direction with No. 1+-00 carborundum p ape r in order to obtain aerodynamically smooth surfaces. Each model was tested in the Langley two-dimensional low-turbulence tunnel. This wind tunnel has a closed throat with a rectangular test sec-

tion 3 feet wide and 7~ feet high and iS~designed to test

L.

models c omp Le tely spanning the wr.d t.h of the tunnel in

t.wo= d.irne n s Lori a L rLow , The lew-turbulence level amounts to 0nly a few hundredths of 1 percent and is achieved by the large c o n t r ac t Lo n ratio (apprex. 20 tl") 1) and by the introduc t ion o.f a numbe.r of fine -w i r-e small-me sh turbulence-reducing screens in the widest part of the entrance cone. The maximum s pe e d of this Vi ind tunnel is approximately 155 miles per hour.

The lift and pi tching rnor.ie n t s were obtaine d f'r-orn balance readings; the drags ware obtained from measurements cf pressures in the wake. The pressure-distribution measurements were nbtained by the use of a static-pressure tube placed at convenient positiens along the Rirfoil surface. The roughness, applied along the span to the

N AC A. RB No. L5K02

leading edge of the models, consisted of a l-inch-wide strip of carborundum-covered cellulose tape. This roughness was suf.ficient to cause transition virtually at the Le ad i.ng edge. Li.ft, dr ag, and pi t ch Lng-cnomen t dat a we r-e

obtained at Reynolds numb e r s of 1.8 and 2.6 x 106 for each of the models in the smooth and rough conditions. Pressure-distribution measurements were made for each air.foll at an angle of attack co r-r-e ap oridl ng approximately to the design li.ft coe.fficient.

All pitching moments were obtained in the tunnel about tho quarter-cbord position and were t.r an s I'e r-r-e d to the ae r-od ynam i.c center. Only the pitching moments about the aerodynamic center are presented. The li.ft, drag, and pi t.c h i.ng-enomerrt dat a have been ccrre c t e d for tunne 1- wall interference by factors that include corrections due to the shape, size, and the effect upon the velocity measured by fixed static-pressure orifices in the tunnel walls of the 2irfcil model mounted in the tunnel. .?or the airfoils of t.r.e pr e s en t report the c o r-r-e ct.Lon s reduce to the f o LLow Lng form, in which the primed quanti ties refer to the v2lu6S measured in the tunnel:

N ' "1" 7 _-, ~ 2 8 TT -t r, d

I ACA -1:.-1. ,-n-.L::::, an

9-£-12 air~oll sections

]IT.lJ..C A 10-2-12 airfo il section

cL == O.977c~ ,
ao = 1.015 ao '
cmc/L~ == 0.992C111C/4'
Cd == 0.992cd' cL = .' 97q r
U.· 0C i
ao == 1.015 ao r
C"l /' - 0·993c.-., /4'
-
L e 4 lL .. C r
Cd == 0.993cd' RZSULTS AL'JD DISCUSSION

The results of the tests of the NACll. 7-H-1.2, 8-H-12, 9-H-l;'~, arid lO-H-l2 airfoil s e e t i on s aI'e presented in figures 1 to 4, respectively. sach figure is divided into two parts: the first part presents the lift, drag, and pitching-~oment data anJ the second part presents

the pressure distribution obtained at approximately the design lift coefficient.

!' o

NACA HB Ko. L5K02

All the p Lt.c h Lng mome n t s abou t the ae r-o d yn am l c center' fer trw airfoils 0:C this report are 8s8ent1811y constant

UD to m ax imum lift and s how no breaks in the curves as

w~re shown for some of the airfoils of reference 1. The data s how that the KACA, 7-H-12 and 8-3-12 airfoil sections (rigs. l(a) and 2(8.)) have p r t.ch Ln.; moments t.h a t are nearly

'- , t'" ' r t ~. Tl-- V ~C '. 9-' H l?

zero t hr-ougriou t an ex e n s i ve J..lI range .~~e l'U. 1' •• -~"-_c_

and 10-8.-12 airfoil sections (figs. 3 (a) and 4( a)) have

- 1 .' , t 1 • t s u·,· -I- n ",l-- e s J- ,,~ 1 f'T'b '"

srn a.r neg8tl..Ve p::.. cnlng me'men u 1:- G .• i.r.; Loc..:.. .l.l.~

addition of' r-ousrhne s s on the leadir-f'; edge Ol~ e ac h of t~e airfoil section; ~a3 very little effect on the nagni~ude of t he p.i t c h l ng moments except in the region of max Lrnum lift.

A c omp ar Ls on ef the m ax lrnum lifts of the a Lr fo Ll.a of

this :1.11v8stip.:btion witl: those of the TTACil. Ju12 and 2301';: airfoil Sections (1.36 at a Heynolc.s numbe r of 2.5 x 10° for t.he NACA 0012 ,9ir£'oil s e c t Lcn and 1.6 at a Reynolds number of 3.0 x 10° for the EAC.A_ 23012 8irfoil sectien) shows th!:i.t the max Lmum lifts for t he a.Ll'foils of the

»r-e s en t re;)oY't are 31i[~htl y lO'N82 than for the NACA :JOl2 airfoil se;tion anci materially lower than for the

J"JACA 23012 a i.r-f o i L section at" the S&'11e Reynolds numb e r . TLe lift c ur ve s 1'01' t he airfoil s e c t.Lons investigated

he r-e Ln , howe ve r , Gre more rounded neap the peak, especially for the NACA 8-n-12 and 9-H-12 airfoils where high lifts

are ma Ln t a Lrie d over a considerable r-ange of ang Le s both

in the smooth and rough conditions. In tb.e rough cundition the max rmum lLCts of each oi the f our- airfoils reduce to essentially the sWns value (1.13). Data for other airfoil se c tions at approximatel-y t he s ame Reynolds number indicate a s Irn i l az- value of max unum lift for most airfoil sections with le8ding-edge roughnes3. There is no measurable change in li.ft due to roughness at the small angles of attack.

The mi n i mum drags of the NACA 8-H-12, 9-H-12, and 10-5-12 airfoil sections correspond very closely to the

m Ln irnurn drags of airfoil sec tions for wh i ch t h s t h'l c kne s s distributions have their minimumpres8ure at 0.5c at

zero lift. The aforementioned airfoils of the preaent report also show a definite range of lifts for low drags. For the NACA 7-H-12 airfoil section (having an NACA 0012 thickness distribution) the m Ln Irnurn drag is somewhat higher t.h an for the other three a.l r-fo i l s but is less than that expected of the NACA 23012 or 0012 airfoil sections at the s ai.118 Re;;Y1_01ds number.

NACA HB No. L5KD2

7

The drags for each of the airfoils of the present report increase rapidly at high IH'ts, but this Lnc r-e ase i3 muc n !:.1na11e,r than that of the NACA 3-H-13.5 airfoil section reported in reference 1. The addition of roughness on t.he leading edge results in an increase in dr ag , for the four airfoils, similar to thst found for other airfoil sections.

A s ummar-y of the Lmpo r t arrt characteristics of the NACA 7-H-l2, G-E-12, 9-H-l2, and 10-H-l,2 l:1.i::o[oil sections is given in table V in wh i.c h the aerodynamic c h ar ac t.e.r-,

. t" , "'" R 1" . f r-. (' 1"1--',

13 lC S are pre senteo. .L or a ie yrio CiS numoe r a c!.. • 0 X ..L u- •

Data for the NAGA 3-2-13.5 airfoil se ct i on , as obtained from table II and figure 8 of refereLce 1, have been included for comparison.

Although the flow conditions over E.E airfoil section mounted rigidly in the wind tunnel are different from those over a section of a rotor blade in operation, the section characteristics measured in tb'3 wind tunnel, particularly for low end moderate angles of attack, are not expected to be very differeht from those exhibited

by the rotor-blade section. BeCD.1:se the greatest part

of the profile-drag losses occurs while the blades are operating in the region of low to moderate angles of attack, less accuracy is required for calculations at

the higher angles of attack. It is therefore concluded that relative merits of rotor-blade sections may be evaluated from airfoil section data. The relative merit of a particular airfoil section depends largely on the operating conditions and the design of the rotor. In reference 2 rotor characteristics and flight conditions t.hac vies:e believed typical were assumed, and weighting factors were obtained for each condition to permit the rotor-blade profile-drag loss to be calculated. Table .VI presents these as sume d rotor c har ac t e r is t Lc s and flight conditions foI' the sample helicopter. Ey the use of the weIghtIng factors the profile-drag losses were calculated for a rotor that successively Lnc or-por-a t e d the NACA 7-H-12, 8-H-l2, 9-H-12, and lO-H-12 airfoil sections in the smooth and rough conditions. For comp&rison, calculations were also made of the rotor-blade profile-drag losses of a rotor incorporating an NACA 23012 airfoil section in the smooth condition. Drag data for each airfoil were incomplete at high angles of attack and a method given in reference 2 was used to extend these data. The rotorblade profile-drag losses were calcul2ted for several

8

NACA RD No. L5K02

flight conditions and the results glven in table VII show the effect ol~ loading in hovering and in f'o r-w ard flight and the effect of tip-speed ratio.

A comparison of the values given in table VII for the amo ot h airfoil ~ndicate3 t h st the N . .'\CA 8-H-12 8..:.'1d 9-S-12 airfoil sections have, in ger;_eral, the least profile-drag losses for the flight conditions presented. For a particular disk loading or tlp-s~eed rati~ a choice of one of t~e other aIrfoil sections might be indicated. ,H .. '"en,7 l''''~o''n n I t .... i-, s et t Lnz s ';" hove r-Lnc fl-ia!lt (cono'i-

... '-i.1..J 'v 'rL. .,' .i-a..;....L ....... v'.....-;._j....... ..i-). co,..j _..1-_ ~ 'J ~.l.l.o - ..J...u- .

tion 3) and the l"liSL tip-speed r a t Lo (~ = 0.3, condition 6) the ~TACA 23012 airfoil section n as the least profile-drag losses. In these conditions, sections of tile rotor ar-e operating at hit;.b 2nt,,le::o of attack whe r-e t~le N AC A 2,3;)12 ai ':,f 0 11 sec t ion has 10'1)21" drags than t he airfoils presented herein, which accounts for the lower profile-drag losses. For the airfoils of this report in the rough condition, the values of profile-drag loss differ very little. Ineith~r the smooth or rough surface condition, the airfoil secti~ns having, in general, the least prof'ile-drag los s e s for the operating condi-

t Lons presented herein ar-e the NACJ 8-II-12 and 9-E-12 sections. Preference, however, would probably be given the HACA 8-B-12 airfoil section be c au s e it has a smaller pitchir~::~-mo~f1ent coefficient about ti"le aerodynamic center (0.005) than the NACA 9-H-12 airfoil section (-0.012).

In order tc previde a comparison of the calculations of rotor-blade profile-drag loss given in this report with similar calcul8.tions for the most promising airfoil section of reference 1, data for the ;.rACA 8-H-12 and 3-H-13.5 airfoil sections in the smooth cODrli~i~n C~D

pr-e s en t e d in table VIII. Ths v al ue s f'r , the N.ACA 3-H-13.) airfoil section. were obtainAd from t8.bl'3 I 01' reference 1. The N ACA 3-H-13. 5 8.irfoil sec t i on h8d tL'" larger value of max Lmum lift-crag ratio (see t ab l e V), bu i, the profiledrag losses for the NACA 8-H-12 airfoil sect~~~ are less in every condition presented except for the disk loadings o~' 3.33 and 2.5 in hovering flight (conditions 2 ano ~:). The magnitude of t he lift-drag r at.Lo in i t s e Lt' tn.ereforo:.. is net a reliable indication as to the relative merit of airfoil sections intended for use in rotor blades. The

N J.C A 8-H-12 e:Lrfo i1 sec t ion shows 8. 1 a:t'ge reduc t ion in profile-dr-e.g less as c ornp ar-e d with that of the NACA 3-H-13.5 airfoil section at the highest pitch setting in hovering flight (condl t I on 3). Large reductions are al s o shown

N.'i.C.A HB Nn. L5K02

Cl /

at the high disk loading in cruising flight (c0nc.iti"'D 8) and at high speed (condition 6). These reductions were made pos sible by the lower drags at the high angle s of attack.

The weighting curves of reference 2 provide not only a means for the calculation of the rater-blade profiledrag 10s3 but also a direct indica~ion as to the relative Lmpc r tanc e of r-e g Loris of the drag of a r-o t o.r airfoil section. For the a s s ume d conditions these weighting curves indicate that for h~vering wlth & rotor-blade

pitch angle ~f approximately 6° to 100 and for low forward speeds, the region of sectinn drag coefficients corresponding to cl ~ 0.2 tn 0.6 has the greatest effect

upnn the magnitude of the rntor profile-drag l~ss. Fnr high disk Inadings in hovering and low f"Jrward speeds and fnr high forward speeds at normal or high disk loadings, the same region of' drags still has the greatest effect, but the drags at high lifts are als,", prominent in affecting the magnitude of the profile-drag lrss.

CONCLUDnTG ?8TviARKS

The NACA 7-8-12, 8-H-12, 9-2-12, and 10-5-12 ~irfoil sections, derived for use as rotor-blade sections of rotary-wing aircraft, have been tested in the Langley t.we=-d.Ime n s Lon a.l lew-turbulence tunnel. These airfrdl sections had c crnpar at I vely lew dr-ags in the r-ange of low and moderate lifts and nearly c~nstant pitching moments up t o maximum. 1 ift and the ae r-e dyn am Lc charac teris tic s were not unduly sensitive to roughness. The NACA 8-H-12, 9-H-12, and 10-H-12 airfoil sections had a definite range 0f lifts for 1 e ',\! drags and had ~;,_inimum drags c o r-r-e spond.ing closely t e the m Ln i.mum dr ag s of a l r-fo LL sections f,-,r

wh i.c h the thickness d l s t.r-Lbu t Le ns have their m Ln i.mum pressure at 0.5e at z e r o lift. :[."ro!TI a comparison of the calculated prof'ile-d::'°ag Lo s s e s 01' [, typical helicopter rotor successively incorporating the airfoils of this report, the NACA 8-8-12 and 9-H-12 airfoil sections had, in general, tbe least l~sses in the operating conditions presented. The NACA 8-H-12 21r.f'oil section, having the smaller pitching moments, would probably receive preference as a rotor-blado section. Corr~;,arec with the

ITACA 3-E-13.5 airfoil section reported in NACA CB

No . 3113, the NACA 8-H-12 airfoil showed sma l Le r profileJrag l,sses in nearly every operating condition presented.

10

NACA RB No. L5K02

Frnm ae r-e dyn am.i c considerations the NASA 8-~1-12 and 9- H-12 Etirf'oil S Be tions appe ared more pr-om i sing fer use as rotor-blade sections than any other a l r-f c I Ls thus :Car tested at the NACA laboratories.

Lang l.e y Mem0::cia1 Aeronautic a L Laboratory N[;_tional Advis0ry ClJnL'11i ttee fer Aeronautic s Lan g Le y Field, 'lao

1. Te~ervin, Keel: Tests in the NACA Two-Dl~ensinna1 Lo~-Turbulence Tunnel of' Airfoil Sections Designed to Have Small Pitching ~oment3 wld High Lift-Drag

D,_ptl-O"'. ~\JAn" c= 1ITo 7:.1.1"3 lcl;:<.

__ '--"- ...... .1.. \..t ... -._ U J.\ • ./ , 7~·""/.

2. Gu s taf s ori , F. B.: Effect on Helicopter Ferformance of Modifications in Profile-Drag Characteristics of' R."~0r-Blad~ Airfoil Sections. :'JACA ACR

No. L4E05} 191.+4.

NACA RE N·o. L5K02

11

TABLE 1.- ORDINATES FOR

NACA 7-H-12 AIRFOIL SECTION

[Stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil chord]

TABLE 11.- ORDINATES FOR NACA 8-H-12 AIP~OIL SECTION

~tations and ordinates given in percent of airfa il chord]

~pper surface Lower Surt'ace
a t Lon IOrdinate I Station i Ordinate

o 0 0 0
.627 ~:4t6 1.87~ -1.232
1.802 5.01~ 3.19 -1.576
~.296 ~.704 -1.952
.853 6.127 .~t,7 -2.173
r4·t31 6.97~ 10·5 9 -2.3~
• 08 8.13 15·392 -2·t
~.779 8.816 20.221 -2. 52
I .932 9.14~ 25.068 -2·739
;:;°.059 ~.20 - 29.9t1 -2.~96
40.23~ ·737 4§:~8~ -2. 59
~0.31 ~.712 -2.858 I
0.315 .326 ~9.685 I -2.7~8
~0.2M 4.7Eo 9·Mt1 I -2.5 0
0.1 3.0 ~ p. 0 I -2.193
90.0 l·tO 4.954 -1.1.40
95·003 • 65 9 ·997 -.9 9
100.000 0 100.000 0
L.B. radius: 1.58 0.443
Slope of radius through L.E.s Upper Surface Lower surface
station Ordinate Station Ordinate
a I 0 0 0
.14~ 1.229 'U' -.819
.g5 1.520 1. 2 -.946
• 04 2.006 1.696 -l.128
1'480 2.941 ,.020 -) .. 415
t. 24 4.312 ~. 5~6 -1. 730
'414 5·380 .0 6 -1.920
9. 27 5.263 10·573 -2.~9
14·t97 J.62b 15·503 -2. 2
~. 07 .605 20"43 -2'E51
.7~ 9.243 25.2 6 -2. 17
29·9 4 9·R33• 30.031 -2.455
E5•17 9. 32 34.826 -2·490
0.292 9·030 U·708 -2.49t
45.360 8·t2O .040 -2.47
I 50.3~0 1. 66 ~.610 -2.436
55.3~ ~:~g .613 -2.377
60.3 t4·642 -2.290
65·311 ~.850 .689 -2.178
70.2~ ,.838 tpo -2.034
Z5.1 2.838 7 • 16 -1.860
0.11 1.8E_~ ~.882 -1.6~~
85. 060 1.0 .9~ -1.3
9°·016 .343 89.9 -1.051
94.995 -.119 95·005 -.629
100.000 a 100.000 0
L.E. radius: 1·325
I Slope of radiu5 through L.E.: 0.344 TABLE III. - ORDINATES FOR NACA 9-H-12 AIRFOIL SECTION

[Stations and ordinate. given in percent of airfoil chord]

TABLE IV.- ORDINA'lES FOR NACA 10-H-12 AIRFOIL SECTION

[Stations and ordinates given in percent of airfoil chord]

Upper Surt'ace Lower Surface
Station Ordinate Station ordinate
0 0 0 0
.117 1.238 .883 -.788
.3~ 1. 537 1.17~ -·907
.7 2.037 1. 73 -1.073
1.933 4.003 ;.067 -1.32~
~·t9 .427 ~:U~ -1.54
• 57 g.~o _1.~2
4·"0 • 1 10.630 :i:9 ~
1. 3 ~. 90 15'a~
~:1~ .919 20. -2.029
9.599 25.2 6 -2.0~7
29·93 9.~21- 30•064 -2.0 7
E5•15O 9· 4~ 34.850 -2.0Z*
0.277 9.45 R4.~23 -2.0
45.353 8.859 • 47 -2.039
50.390 8.107 ~.610 -1.99~
g5.323 Z·232 .607 -l.~~
0.3~ .21' ~~.6'1 -1. 1
65.3 4..2 1 .676 -1.~65
70.26 .22~ 6l·~34 -1. 45
~5.200 3·19 7 • 00 -1.500
0.134 2.212 ZE_·866 -1. 326
85.07~ 1.314 ·927 -1.114
90.02 .550 89.974 -.844
95.000 .008 95·000 -·502
100.000 0 100.000 0
L.E. radiu.e: 1.325
Slope of rad1us through L.E.: 0.378 Upper Surface Lower Surface
Stat10n Ordinate Station Ordinate
0 0 a 0
.234 1.062 .766 -.~06
.451 1.3~ 1.~9 -. 1('
·911 1.7 1. 9 -.966
2.108 2·5 2'ZZ2 -1.158
4.551 I 4'~20 5· 9 -1.414
7.028 • 95 7'K72 -1. 579
r/!.521 ~:~~~ 10. P -1.~~
.~o 15.4 0 -1.
~J ~ ~.9251 20.412 -1.9 7
.721) 25.343 -2.064
~.~ 9·315 30.25~ -2.105
9·695 G5•15 -2.12~
E9:9~ 9.860· 0.03Z -2.1
5.1 9·789 44.89 -2.10~
50.~10 9.~0 4~.690 -2.0~
g5. 76 8. 98 5 .~24 -2.0
0.~18 rp6 gE_' 82 -2'0§4
65. 97 • 22 .503 -2.0
7°'M3 ~.405 6l·t7 -2.0,1
p. 1 .15~ ~:~~ -1.92~
0.236 2.90 -1·75
85.1~ 1. 739 -1.511
90.0 .723 89.952 -1.1~
94.999 -.002 95.001 -·7
100.000 0 100.000 0
L.E. radiuB: 1.000
Slope or radius through L.E.: 0.301 NATIONAl ADVISORY COMMIlTE£ FOR AERONAUTICS

12

NACA RB No. L5K02

TABLE V.- AIRFOIL SECTION CHARACTERISTICS [R = 2.6 x 106 ]

I NACA airfoil I
I
section 3-H-13.5
I 7-H-12 8-H-12 9-R-12 10-H-12j Crei'er-
Section ence 1)
characteristics
(Cl/Cd) 106 135 152 149 163
max J
Om ------ 0.005 -0.012 -0.022 0.003 i
a.c. 0.0050 I
cdmin 0.0055 0.0046 o. 00~.6 0.0043
I
0.25 0.39 0·30 0·38
Low-drag range ------ to to to I to
0·91 0·93 0.76 0.88
~
Smooth 1.34 1.26 1.26 1·30 1.20
C Lmax 1.14
Rough 1.10 1.13 1 .. 12 --------
I Mcr at 0.601 0.569 0.569 0.619 0.56 I
I CLi I
cli (approx. ) 0.42 0·57 0.60 0.46 0.60
t/c at 0.25c 0.119 0.117 0.117 0.108 0.1208
x/c 0.250 0.278 ,0.267 0.261 0 .250~
a.c. position y/c 0.020 10.025 0.021 i--------
0.021
i I i NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONA1TTIC3

13

TABLE VI. - FLIGI::T conDITIONS AND ASSU1\IED CHARACTERI STI CS OF THE SAMPLE HELICOPTER OF REFEREnCE 2

l- Ro tor di am ; , 40 ft; tip speed, 400 fp s : 1 gro S3 'weight for w/s of 2.5, 31L;_0 los _

~c~~-~~~-nJ_:_0~!S __ J __ ~e 1 l_8 __ L __

I 1 'I' 0 ! 1. 55 I 0.07 I 0 I 7 I - - - - - --

I ! iI' I I

i 2 13.33 ! I 113 I -------

I I:, I l n I

t 5· L:.2 -'- /' i

!

2·5 i 10·3 I - - - - - --

; ,

3

v
5 0.2 2·5 G
, ./
I I I
0 :;z: 2,5 I I 11
<> I I
I I
7 .2 1.9 I i 7
,
I I
i 1 i
I
8 .2 ! ~ " I I 11
i ./'.1 I I I
I I
i \V i
! I
a .2 I 2·5 0.10 I 7
I
./ , i \V
!
I
10 ·3 2·5 .07 I -8 ia10.5
I I
-8 I ac.) -
11 ·3 2·5 .07 I I G.)
I
, 1 i

aNI e a aur-e d at 0·75 R.
bRotor alone. -0.0385

- .0695

- .0319

- .oL.69

-.0680

I

i W -.0435 i bO

HA'T'IOEAL ADVISORY

cor .... Tlv!ITTEE FOB. AEROl-JAUTICS

lh

NACA HE No. L5K02

H :s
"'-'
0 P...
~ ~~
..--, ... -r~
U) H H

P-

U)
0
H
H
:>-< :_::,
~ <tt
~-::O'
,,-~
r!} 0
H r;5
P-
o <-<:
~~!~
H p;
~-~ ~ .
.....,
.,_" f2
G
H
H H
<:! H
~ H
~
()
u KACA BB No. 15KJ2

15

':"ABLE VIII. - COLIPARISOE OF f\OTOR-BLADE PROFILE-DRAG LOSS OF TEE NACA 3-H-13.5 A11) 8-H-12 AIRFOIL SECTIONS, IN '2:'i:IE SMOOTH CONDITION FOR VARIOUS FLIGHT COl,r::JITIONS

OF THE SANIPLE EEJ..JICOPTER

r----l- I R~ tor- ~lade -1-·-·--------------1

j, I! Condi.tions I_~:~!~.!~-~;_ag J aemarks I

(see table VI) i NACA!! I

II I 'I' I

I 13-H-13.5:NACAjl I

I I 1 (refer- 18-2-121 ,

I I : ence 1) Ii!

i ----t---------i------t----+----tl - .. ------~

I 1 !w/s - 1. 55 i ~ = 0 i 16.0 I 1~_ .L. I

I, I 1 ,l-f~ , f' 1 00

I 2.! 3 . :z; 3 i 0 i 14.5 18 .5 i r' _e; lee 1:; . 0 0 acu ng I

i i ~ \ I (hovering flight) ,

\ _21--_~ .42.1__ I) 204.6 56.8 L- ----- J

1 L / 11.:;: 0 i-v\' /s :;: 2.51 14.2 16.3 J I

!I \' I '2.51 !1 I

~; 2 I 2~.? ?1.? Effect of tip-

, ~'I' ../ c: '- '-! d t . i

! 1 i I ! s pe e ra lC i

6: ·3 2.51 5L.5 j~6.7_L ,~ I

7 !w /s :;: 1. 9 J-L :;: 0.21 12.2 ! 17·5 11 l

5 ! 2.5 I .2! 23.2 I 21.2 I, ~EL(':fect of ~ 10a1<iin)g

j II! I .L orward l1ig It

l-~J _).1 ~ .21 54.3 ,2[3.6jJ I

I 5! 0:;: 0.071 J-L:;: 0.21,' 23·2 121.211

I I ! : ::>EI'fect of solidity

I 9\ .10 i .21 26.1 I 25.2 ! I

f " _--.L.:.::.- ----I

i 6181:;: 00 [.L:;: 0.31 5L-·5 ! 36·7 i-, T:1.f'f f b1 "

I I I,...." I Rt. e c t o .i ac.e

!_~_ _8° .31 h2.~ __ ~7.7_LL tWi,_s_t __

I 10! f =~105 i \-L - 0.31' 42.4 I 27·7 i',

I I I I Ef,fect of power

! 11 ,i • 31 3 5 . 9 '27 .4 j r i n pu t

__ ~ _ __j_.J

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMJ:t1ITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

NACA RB No. L5K02

Fig. la

,~ . . mill

',I

,I ,

,_,.,,1,

, "

. . j,t

ltl x x

,:.,1

0<1

1''-''.' ,

.1.2:. .

, ,

, ,

• I'~~ 'c\ I'''', 'I""',~r ::;:. ',Ii:'.''l.

, --, ' :

, 'I:

, ,

:g

, "

c: o ... ..,

o C>

"

~ , !

. ~' ;

I 1M'

I ,

" ,

, , in' '

.' b ;'

, " 1"', Ilid, ,ii' I'::H', : Ii' ,I '1< hili Hi," :I', CH, I.r !' E 'i t~ i!

i : ' , U' I'!! H'" "',, " , ': I::' : i"", t UI"'}' ',V' r'PI! j'I' I" • h S"'" ,l~io r

, , , I r,,;' ": I:nll" 'l'E1 ":"1", iii Ib" ,I'" " "h" II ,[:oI,'I«'! ", ',' 1'1' : W' ",

,,',,' "I." 'I :,IIH",'I':';[' ',','S""";'."',,:,;,, 'i" ": ,I "~I /:" ,

I'll' • i ' ': k' ".H:" I 11" ."1:,:' ii'" ,:, > ,iI"" r: ',r: :

; '::," ' ' I ,I" " hi , U'k',i'":i;,, ii ,'" I'k" " ,I: I' 'I' I 1"14" I·, :::'1';:

1,)',. :;,i,.' , "II ,',' Iii. I, :,'I~:i ' II ~"'" 1:1"I'it! I" I'.' "",.,1 .... : 'I ,17>',H

k ":i i' • i" : I., k '", ,I'I,i,: :," I",,::V" ,'I,'" ,I' "f ,"}," r-

,'i: ;:" 1",'" I I:' '"" Ie""II <U{I' i~",k+I ',i' ',+.... ,!" ,,' I:. 1,.:.' I' ':"

I Ii'

,,, , , iI:,'" : i:' 1"'1. , • '';'f'i'Ii'.H''I' "'T"t':~ i'l HlC\nll~~ __ ' I' i"Y"'I': , "~"~I ",

"i"'" '11',,"" 1,':"1':": :"1':1"''1 i::!I"'TI;fi i:l" 'i 1- .. " I

:'IIIi'~: ' "i; ,'1',:,::1::1 '";ikl, "i;, " :;,1,'1 i' k,;:: I' I"'" 1:1,,' "", 'I, ,'I I'" I~

HI"I',,: f;1!, Ti;, :1;:1,.1':11;' , '";I':"I", •• 'I:<}' : IT: '1".'1': -c-1:",j''Fd, " I-T' , ,I,' I I'

l:;::ITUI' :ii::, '11',,1,::1" !'I' :111 'I'" "I::L' '-I' • ,Xl'; . !':"k :,'::1":>1"':>1'1';1,,, 1'1/7 ,-:: 'I,:

2.0 ~--~---+--~~--+---~--~----~--1----+--~

Fig. Lb

1.6

S 1.2

.4

I

Figure 1.- Concluded.

NACA RE No. L5K02

Upper suri'ace Lower suri'ace

-)

.8 I

o

I

NATIONAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

o

1.0

(b)

.2

.4

x./c

.6

.8

Pressure distribution i'or design lift coei'i'icient, c~ = 0.42; R; 2.6 x 106

i

NACA RB No. L5K02

ur.r: ,t """ 00

..-In

'f!F' ,

": ,

~xx

[TiC,'

,,,

T

'1:: -j'i

:;: 'i ''Ii

: t :1

~
't:l.,
ii i IDol <e-,o
14) 00
w~ f""'! .......
; ! !:i ~xx
""'"
I;: "'0 co-,o
:g" ,...iN
iC', .::! 0<1
::: "'.

, :::,'i.'

e '.!"""," .. : :: I! .:" . :;':::: Yi'i. .. !:::iii'

Fig. 2a

~~
..
0
..cl
0
..cl
0
!l
1
-'It
C\I
,;
0
...
...,
0
co
OJ
....
...
"
..
..
III ...
.... III
01
't:l ~
.... ,
<: =
~ 1
<D
i ~
~ ~
0 ~
....
...
Po ...
o
""
i ..
0
...
~ ...
•
'" ...
.. ..
"" ..
. ....
... ~
!:I ..
.... A
tl 0
a 0
... ...
... a
0
.. ~
rn
-g •
-;; "0
.,,,,
-<'"
...
IOJ
...
<\I ....
f~
~H
...
II> Fig. 2b

NACA RB No. L5K02

.4



~ I
.> ~.
( :r ~
.~
',\
, \ I
V; 0 Upper surface
GJ Lower surface
~ N
I '1 ..
I -.
<; ~ .~
V ~.
... -r.J_
I
rrr
T
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOA AERONAUTICS 2.4

2.0

1.6

S 1.2

.8

o o

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

x/c

(b) press~e distribution for d~sign lift coefficient,

c~ - 0.57; R = 2.6 x lOb,

i

Figure 2.- Concluded.

NACA RB No. L5K02

u:. i

! '

Fig. 3a

,t"

, I

" :t

•.•....• ::

IIi' .

, "

~~.

, '" <o .

00 ........

'~ :a·,

::;: .

~xx

[,," j;::' . "',:1:" "'1'1",::, '1::'" ..... i: i, [: '1"''- r:,", I' < . i,:: :, " <3

". rd i ' ' , 1'-: : I,,:, + ;jU:': ,: ' ,.,,:1,' . i: :,;C"" I 1,"[:" I" 1:::1

i"" 'I'; ,:i:: '''T, ;'0 '1; if'/ j'( ,. ,. 'if ".to I Ii ~:' HI.· I.

",:!" ' ;,: H:'::' i" ,: ~,.::: ,:;: ' I'i",!, H " ! I,.' ::, ..•. [. :.~~, .•.

• I: ,Ii;:i" 1::;:" 110.:;' , : "I,;:: 1-,":,' 'i"" :>1:' 'Tt, , '1'.1 IT i

~; .. ~::~r:'.::;:,~'i~ I~~ rfJ::~ '1

:,;' :t,,:;:.;, : I",: '"i':" ", '1;:,:,1,"'· I',J["':"'::: •.. "", .j'

,;;:1 .J":,!,!' 1'::;.: : .;:i::;·:i:tJ:, :i: : I" ',iI " •• ' ':' ,:1" .... , i.

,'l, : ,:::. Hi" ", il: ['::" ,',,:,j:, TY"··.,· ""I'i" ·"'1',' : :,'.' '.,'.

, , : : I,:i' " ::I'L: ; Iii' Ui!::iH, i:' I?T' :":'i-:<":Ht} .• , .•.. 1"1"'::' ""i .. " ',.'

Fig. 3b

NACA RB No. L5K02

7 \ I ----- 0 Upper surface __ ,\-v r: EJ Lower surface

1.6 rlr--+--~----~--+-~~~-- i~----~--~--~~

~ i't.

s

.4 ~~---+---+--~--~---+---+---~~~~ NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOIl AERONAUTICS

.2

.4

.6

a ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~j __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ L-~

a

1.0

x/c

.8

(b) pressu~e dis~ribu~ion for dgsign lift coeffiCient, cL - 0.60, R - 2.6 x 10 •

i

Figure 3.- Concluded~

NACA RB No. L5K02

Fig. 4a

Fig. 4b

NACA RB No. L5K02

2.0~--~---+----~--~--~---4----+---~---+--~

s

I

. 8l(

[ .

r-s>

.4~-+--~--+-~--~--+-~---+--'_~ NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE fOR AERONAUTICS

o L- __ ~ __ ~ __ -L __ _L __ ~ __ ~ ~ __ L- __ ~ __ ~

o .2 .4 .6 • B

x/c

1.0

(b) Pressure distribution for d~slgn lift coefficient, cl = 0.46; R = 2.6 x 106•

i

Figure 4.- Concluded.