Hand launch glider airfoils

HLGs are simple flying machines; its the flying indoor and the digital stopwatch that
complicates things. Those factors separate the theorist from the flyers.and the bullshit
from the real world.
I have spent 50 years in the real world of the Hand Launch Glider. I have won both
indoor and outdoor hand launch at the Real Nationals, I have held both indoor and
outdoor records many, many times. I held both indoor and outdoor records for about 10
years after I quit flying hand launch. My two sons won the Nationals and still hold junior
and senior hand launch records they set in the 1970s. My point in all that is; you never
once beat me in any HLG contest. Only those who beat me can prove Im wrong. Ed
Sobot beat me once, Dick Peterson beat me twice, Lee Hines beat me once, and Ken
Happersett beat me once. Each time I learned more than they did, and came back better
prepared, so can you.
In the real world of serious Indoor Hand Launch Glider competition, Weight is
where its at. Weight is the single most important factor determining glider
performance. Weight is also the second and third most important factors.
When a glider is over weight there is nothing that will save it. Indoors there is no
magic strong enough to rescue a poorly built glider. These new digital stopwatches are
not impressed by manure, no matter how deep its piled.
The ideal weight for a conventional hand launch glider is about 1 oz per 100- sq. in.
of wing area. Windy weather outdoor gliders are just barely competitive at 1.5 oz. per
100-sq. in. of wing loading. Anything heavier and you might just as well be throwing
golf balls at the thermals.
Only after you have convinced your self that weight is by far the most important factor
in small model performance, only then can you turn your attention to the minor details.
Drag is the fourth most important thing to a HLG. Drag is a relatively minor item
compared to weight.
Thou shall never add any drag reduction details that increase flying weight.
Unless of course you need to increase weight for a good reason. The only good reason I
know of is to get the model higher. Indoors you should fly a model that uses all of the
available ceiling height. But remember that heavier models have a difficult task in
slowing down and making that first turn at the top. Better to be a bit too light rather than
a bit too heavy.
I. In the climb portion of the flight, DRAG increases roughly

on

the square of the frontal area of the model.

II. In the glide portion of the flight, DRAG increases roughly on

the
cube of the weight. of the model
These are two very simplified rules that do contain much of our low speed and low
Reynolds number knowledge. You will not win consistantly unless you follow these
rules.
The fifth most important thing to a HLG is the wing. The wing is the only part of a HLG
that actually contributes anything to the end result. Everything else is extraneous matter
along for the ride. The stabilizer is just that, it stabilizes the wing and keeps it operating at
the optimum angle of attack.
The rudder provides directional stability in the climb phase, nothing else. The
fuselages sole purpose is to hold everything together in their correct positions. The
correct positions are as follows: High wing, Low nose weight, and Low stabilizer, and
also of course a very low moment of inertia. The important thing to remember is that
although the wing is the only functional part of the HLG, it is number five on the list of
important factors and its still just a minor factor compared to flying weight.
In wing design the most important factors are wing planform, wing section, airflow
turbulation, and dihedral. Dihedral must include polyhedral break locations and amounts
of dihedral, in relation to the lateral areas and vertical locations of such areas of the
rudder and of the fuselage.
There is no magic gee haw you can glue on and suddenly become a contest winner.
There simply is no magic.
In 50 years I have built well over 1000 gliders, no more than 6 or 8 were identical. I
test in the real world. I keep records. I keep that which is of value and discard that which
is of no value. The wing section I have currently settled on is a simple flat plate with an
expanding logarithmic spiral curve on the top surface to delay the stall. I do not expect
the top surface of the wing to produce much useable lift.
In the world of the HLG, about 90% of the lift is produced on the bottom surface
of the wing. With a properly undercambered section, that number is perhaps 95%. The
main reason for a curve on the top surface of the wing is to control drag at the very high
angle of attack that is required to fly slow and rack up glide time. Your wing produces
lift by displacing air downward, equal to the weight of the glider. The lighter the model,
the lower the required airspeed, the lower the airspeed, the lower the drag, and the lower
the drag the lower the sink rate and the better the flight times. No kidding, there is no
magic here.
All wings with their associated airfoils produce exactly the same amount of lift.
All wings produce lift exactly equal to the weight of the model, its just that some do it
with less drag.

A typical flat bottom airfoil produces only about 3-5% of the lift on the top surface.
Another 3-5% is produced by down wash behind the trailing edge, much of this down
wash is a result of the curve on the top surface. Undercamber will increase lift drastically
by increasing the down wash drastically, however undercamber increases drag even more
drastically at low angles and high speeds. Remember that a properly launched HLG
leaves your hand at a speed of over 100 MPH. Really. If yours don't, you are not throwing
hard enough
We take exception to Bernoullis law for hand launch gliders. Bernoullis law really
does not have much to do with wing sections. He was a 17 th century Scientists who
published a book in which he proved that the sum of static and dynamic pressures over a
streamline shape always remain constant.
For years our teachers, none of whom ever read the book and didnt understand the
physics, have been teaching their unquestioning students that the air over the top of the
wing has to travel further that the air over the bottom of the wing. Therefore the air over
the top of the wing has a lower static pressure and produces all the lift we need.
My teachers also injected the well know fact that the air molecules that separated at
the leading edge had to really speed up in order to rejoin the same air molecules again at
the trailing edge. This is all sort of true under certain conditions. The sad news was that I
for one believed them, . Even when I knew that there was something wrong and things
did not add up correctly.
The air molecules that separate at the leading edge of the section never ever meet
again at the trailing edge. There are at least 20 good reasons for this but one major reason
is the span ward flow of those air molecules on the top of the wing. The very best reason
for them not meeting again at the trailing edge is simply that there is no good reason why
they should.
Wind Tunnel data collected within a confined airflow type tunnel is almost totally
useless.
Not totally useless, but almost. Hand launch gliders fly at a very low Reynolds number
and at an angle of attack that is unbelievable to the old school of aerodynamics. In the
climb portion HLGs operate at near a 1 degree angle and in the glide portion we float
along in the range of +12 to +18 degrees. And thats for real.
Wing planform does matter in that it plays a major role in controlling span ward
airflow. The wing platform developed by Don Foote in the late 1930s seems to be about
the best. This is the platform used on his old timer gas model, the Westerner and all the
Hand Launch Gliders that have ever exceeded 1:20 in dead air. Don Foote claimed that
this wing platform resulted in a model that would glide slower and thermal better. I
suspect the thermal better part come about because he also reduced rudder area about
50% at the same time he went to the new wing platform. Incidentally, that beautiful 1/3

by 2/3 elliptical platform that looks so great on a Spitfire is just about the worst you can
choose for any glider type model.
What I have decided is that the only part of the wing that is really operating up to my
expectations is the portion with the trailing edge perpendicular to the intended airflow.
The trailing edge must be perpendicular to the airflow to minimize the spanwise flow of
the air that must produce the lift we need. Wing planform is another subject altogether
and is dependent up on the intended use and required angle of attack.
The section I use is just a flat plate with some curve on top to delay the stall. Figure 1
is the basic section. The top surface is a 6% thick expanding logarithmic spiral curve
with a very sharp leading edge. Note there is no Phillips entry and no leading edge radius.
The 6% may seem thin but it is a fact of life that as you fly at lower and lower Reynolds
numbers you must also reduce wing loading and wing section thickness. No room for the
bull.
The section shown in figure 2 is the actual section I use under most conditions. Over
the years I have shifted the high point of the section from 18% to as far aft as 40% of the
chord. I think the 25% location is best for most conditions. The true expanding
logarithmic spiral has its high point at 30.06%; I fudge this location by treating the
distance from the leading edge to the desired high point as the total wing chord. You can
do that with this curve and it works out perfectly every time.
The most noticeable part of this section is also one of the least important details of the
section. From the high point to the trailing edge is a straight line. This has no measurable
affect on the glide times when tested with identical gliders at identical weights.
The big reason for doing this is that it eliminates wood from the wing and as a side
effect, this section provides a better recovery at the top. We no longer have to waste
altitude with the classic HLG Roll Out at the top; we can now use a simple slip out
recovery at the very top with no loss of altitude.
The wood that is eliminated from the wing is very substantial, far in excess of the
material needed for the entire tail assembly. The model weighs less and flys better.
Figure 3 shows a similar section that does not glide very well. I think the reason is the
lack of sufficient curvature right behind the leading edge. This is where many, many
would be glider flyers have gone wrong and ended up with good flying gliders with no
hang time and poor flight times. Now indulge me for a moment. Take a sharp pencil and
straight edge and draw a line from the leading edge to the high point of the section. Go
ahead and do this on figures 2 and 3 and note the differences. Figure 3 does not work,
never seems to get up on the step.
That straight line you just drew measures out to be just about a 14-degree angle of attack
to the bottom of the wing. When we get the wing to operate at a 14-degree angle of attack
we will have a perfectly good airfoil from the leading edge to the high point of our wing

section. And, a couple of degrees either way wont hurt much. What happens behind the
high point doesnt seem to matter much.
Our only objective is to displace air equal to the weight of the glider and with the
least possible drag.
A flat plate at 12 to 18 degrees angle of attack pushes a lot of air downward and creates a
lot of drag on the top surface, I think the curvature on the top surface does alleviate the
drag problem.
My own totally untested, unproven theory is that low Reynolds number wing sections, all
tend to retain most of their laminar flow characteristics until the air is past the trailing
edge of the wing. Laminar flow sections sure are beautiful in the wind tunnel.
I am certain that the sharp leading edge starts the turbulation on the top surface of any
airfoil at a high angle of attack. On these very low Reynolds number sections I suspect
that a flowing burble of air forms on the top surface and has the ability to change size,
shape, and location to delay the stall point.
To take advantage of this section you also need to keep your wing tips light and thin like
a trailing edge, keep your leading edges light and sharp. With any flying model you
always must keep the extremities very light to reduce the moment of intia.
Your HLGs should be made to fly, not to survive a crash. The crashes are you own fault.
When a model survives a crash you should reexamine you design. Are you building
airplanes or tanks ?
Now that you suspect that I may be a bit of a nut who probably believes the world is also
flat, let me say that I have traveled around the world, and I have seen the curvature of the
earth from 45,000 feet. The world may not be perfectly round but its not flat either.
There are no sure things and you have no good reason to assume that Im right about
everything.
But let the digital stopwatch be the final judge

Curt Stevens Model Research Labs 3-1-97,

revised 08-30-02