Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
530
.CbOrct
.44
2.0 .40
18 .36
1.6 .32
Q
L4 28;
.? -5 , , , l\l 1 I w
-..--2 I I i I I I Ic.pl I 1/IIlfkt I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I { n
I I 1. I 1, I I I ! I
O?
I I I I I I I I I I r
,.
2 04
00
Q 2C % n7 I I ! I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1
20
40
.60
80
100 i .-
o
.2 .04 .:.- I
-45
c) Ml I I I I II I 1-1 q
L: 1 I I
0 0 G-.2 -8 %
o 4
72 -/2
i-.3
-.4 $-.4 -16
1
$
-404 8121620242832
of attack, U (degrees)
Y6Y4:Z 0.24 .6 .8 LO [2 L4 M
Angle Liff coefficim~CL - - . -
2TheN. A.
FI13URE O. L !Z3MZ
8hfOil. VsriabkimsltyWnd hnnel: mimed EeYMIdsNumtw.
CHARA~RISTICS OF THJ3 N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 437
to 25. These tests were made at 5 d.itlerent air are given for the airfoil of infinite aspect ratio. Values
speeds between 30 and 75 miles per hour corresponding of the pitching-moment coefficient about the aero-
to values of the Reynolds Number between 1,600,000 dynamic center, C.=.O.,are considered independent of
and 4,500,000. The maximum lift was not measured aspect ratio and are tabulatwd against 0.. The loca-
at speeds above 75 miles per hour as the wing was not tion of the aerodynamic center (z, y) is given as a
designed for the loads under these conditions. Addi- fraction of the chord ahead and above the quarter-
tional tests to determine the scale effect on minimum chord point. A typical plot of the dnta from table VI
drag were made at several speeds up to 120 miks is given in figure 4.
per hour corresponding to a Reynolds Number of Curves summarizing variations of these principal
6,600,000. characteristics that change with Reynolds Number are
The interference of the airfoil supports upon the air- given in figures 5 I% 9. Curves obtainod from similar
foil was determined by adding a duplicate supporting full-scale-tunnel tests on the Clark Y airfoil are
ord .13 52
.12 48
.// 44
48 .10 40
T
.%?Q
44 .09
& !!
y 40 ~.oo F
c ~
-i? Q
.
o .36 :5.07 L?
Om I , , I t , , , I I 1 , N I
Riiili (
40
.60
80
109 .4d.08
.2 .04
~
:{=--
o j-.2 -o~
o 4
strut at the center of the wing. This dummy sup- presented in these figures for purposes of comparison.
port was not connected to the airfoil or to the balance These curves are presented in semilogaritlugic form to
and all change-sin the measured forces with the strut assistin extrapolation to higher valuea of the Reynolds
in place could be attributed to its interference. Dou- Number. Figure 5 shows the variation of the maxi-
bling the effect of this single dummy support was mum lift coefficient for the two airfoils; the scale effect
considered to account for the total interference of the on the angle of attack at zero lift for the airfoil section
two airfoil supports. All the data are corrected for is show in figure 6; figure 7 gives the effect of Rey-
wind-tunnel eflects and tares. The corrections are - nolds Numb: on he slo~e of the profile-lift curve;
the same as those used for the corresponding Clark Y rmd figures 8 and 9 show, &pectivel~, the scale-effec~
airfoil (reference 4). variation of the drag cceflicient at zero lift and the
The results of the full-tale-tunnel tesb of the minimum-profile-drag coefficient.
N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil are given in tables IV to VIII. A detailed discussion of the prtilon of airfoil tests
The values of C., a, C!=,LID, and c. p. me tabulated in the full-scale tunnel is given in reference 4. In
for the airfoil of aspect ratio 6 and values of ~ and Cw brief, it may be mentioned that a consideration of cdJ
CHAE4~RISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 439
the contributing errors ihvolved in these tests gives bhat of the Clark Y (reference 4) shows that the new
the following es-tinted precision: &oil has a sharper break at maximum lift than does
the Clark Y.
+O.1
a=
The curves of the angle of attack of zero lift for the
c.mG=&o.03 hvo airfoils are shown in figure 6. The Clark Y has a
dC.
~= +0.0015 per degree .
o G ----- I 1111111
~ -6 1 -- _
h
C.. (c.= o)=+0.0004
CL).(C.=1.o)= +0.0015 a
L
c~a.c.=&o.oo3
:-
x= +0.005 chord $-
y= &o.03 chord
8 /0 20 xIOS
Reynolds Number
Fmums O.-Angle of atWk far z.ero-lfftvmfatlon. Variationwith Rnynold6
Numberfmmtqts fn theftdkale windtunnel.
t7eynoJcfs Number
DISCUSSION
than the e.sperimental error. The scale effect on the 7.-uftQmv0 .dofk3.vdn~ titbmOm
FIGVES ~UMknomkm fUm
fulkalo wfndtemd.
maximum lift coefficient for the new airfoil is, however,
slightly greater than that for the Clark Y within the flow at the leading edge (reference 4). This condition
rrmgo of Reynolds Numbers tested. The results indi- of flow has a critical effect on the angle of zero lift and
cate that the coefficient for the N. A. C. A. 23012 is varies considerably with Reynolds Number. The
somewhat greater than that for the Clark Y at Rey- N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil has much less oamber than
nolds Numbers above 3,000,000. A compmison 01 the Clark Y and the general profile, which is more
the shape of the lift curve of the 23012 (@. 4) with nearly symmetrical, sets up a flow about the leading
... .._ _
-.;..........-.
-----------------------
1.19
-1. m
1.016
1.20
-1.076
I
1.0-26
the drag of the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil is deii.nikly Aerdynmrf
center ----------------------n.@J
lower than that of the Clark Y. These @ures &c c
indicate that the drag decreases more rapidly with aD
increase of Reynolds Number for the new airfoil than cf..~ IA,
.1---------------------------- m 161
Cn.b --------------------- . . . . . . . . . . . .W9
for the Clark Y. It should be mentioned that the tiDmu -----------------------------
!250
CL at (~~.u_---__--..--..--..--
minimum-proille-drag re9uhk are relatively inaccurate ;~: ;;:
:g:~:doP&e)E::?::::::
as compared with the drag at zero lift so that caution
will be used in extrapolating them to higher vahs 1No m&$tant verfetion with cbangm in Regnolda Number.
of the Reynolds Number.
The remaining important characteristics for one Following a recently adopbd standard procedure,
wdue of the Reynolds Number are presented for com- pitching-moment coefficients are referred to the aero-
$
G.
~?
g
; .012
h I f I I f I f f
N !
1.
9J
<.
9
&w.4 t
~
~
1 2 46 8 10 20 XIOS
~ 0/ 2 4 6 8 10 20 XIO0
Re yriolds Number ? Reynolds Number
FIGURE 9.Mlnhmm profde-drag mftkient. VerMkm with ReynoldsNumber
FIGmE &Dragemtlldmt at zeroUft. Vmiationwith ReynoldsNnmkmrfrom from@s@InthefuH@e windttmnol.
tam fn theftdfsmlewfndtnnnal.
dynamic center rather than to the quarter-chord
pa&on in the following table. The method of obtain-
point. This procedure is considered preferable be-
ing the ratios of CzJC~Omfm~ he ~ble & somewhat
cause, by definition, a constant pitching-moment co-
fallacious as both the lift and drag dues were taken efficient is obtained throughout the flight range. The
at the same Reynolds Number; wherea!sin fLight the average values of the pitching-moment coefficients
two conditions occur at different air speeds. The thus found for the two airfoils together with the merm
comparative ratios indicate, however, that the speed location of the aerodpamic center are given in the
range of the new airfoil is much better than that of table. The coefficient for the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil
the Clark Y. As the result of the smaller mmber of is very small and is only about 9 percent of the value
the N. A. C. A. 23012 as compared with the Clark Y, found for the Clark Y.
C.On,,the lift coefficient cmm.spending to the minimum- In brief, it may be concluded from the results that
proiih+d.rag coefficient, might be expected to be con- the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil with the exception of o
siderably less. Airfoils such as the N. A.
C. A. 23012 Amper break in the lift curve is superior in all respects
having the camber well forward tend, however, to have to the Clark Y airfoil.
higher optimum lift coefficients than airfoils with usual Comparison with the N. A, C, A. 2212,&other com-
mean-line shapes. Actually, table I indicates that the mrison betwean the new section and a well-known sec-
optimum lift coefficiemk for the two sections are nearly ~on is atlorded by table H, in which are compared the
equal. mportant charactetitics of the N. A. C. A. 23012 and
CHARACTERISTICS OF THEJ N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 441
factor, may be applied to the test Reynolds Ntiber the drag associated with skin friction is known to de-
to obtain the effective Reynolds Number. The value creasewith the Reynolds Number. Therefore, although
of the turbulence factor for a given wind tunnel may the conditions as applying to the trrmsitionfrom lam-
be determined by a comparison of sphere drag tests or inar to turbulent flow may be considered as reproduc-
airfoil masimum-lift tests in the wind tunnel and in ing those at the higher effective Reynolds Number, the
flight. Because the factors determined by the two value of the drag coefficient should be reduced in prlss-
methods might not agree, the airfoil method is con- ing to the effective Reynolds Number. The actut-d
sidered preferable; but adequate data on mtium lift value of this increment that should be subtracted is
coefficients are not a,vaihtblefor making the comparison somewhat uncertain, but a value determined as sug-
between both the full-scale tunnel and the variable- gested in reference 5 is used in this report for correcting
density tunnel and flight by this method. A value of the variabledensity-tunnel results. The evaluation of
the factor of 2.4 was tentatively established between the increment is based on the assumption that at the
the variable-density tunnel and the full-scale tunnel higher values of the Reynolds Number encountered in
by a comparison of tests of Clark Y airfoils in both flight, when the profle-drag coefficient is of importance,
tunnels. This value was employed im reference 5, most of the profile drhg is due to skin friction from the
assuming the factor for the full-scale tunnel to be turbulent boundary layer. The increment may then
unity (no turbulence). redetermined from Prandtls analysis of the completely
The assumption that the factor is unity for the fuU- turbulent skin-friction layer (reference 6) aa the
scale tunnel is approximately correct because dif- amount by which the skin-frictiondrag coefficient
ferences in the turbulence between the full-scale decreases in the Reynolds Number range from the
tunnel and flight produce only small chaqges in the test Reynolds Number to the effective Reynolds
Number. Thus, when the standard airfoil test remdta
a from the variable-density tunnel at a test Reynolds
~:. Number of approximately 3,000,000 me applied to
. flight at the effective Reynolds Number of approxi-
2
.-
mately 8,000,000, the measured profile-drag coefficients
0.
~ should be corrected by deducting the increment 0.0011,
N It should be emphasized that the values employed
~.
in this report for both the turbulence factor and the
] drag increment should be considered as only tentative
approximation. The values may be revised as the
8, result of further twts now on the program at the
&,
Committees laboratory. In particular, the fact that
Effective Reynolds Number the skin-friction coefficient for airfoils tends to be
FIGURE 10.Dragmeflldmt at ZMOIUt. Comp.dson of resnlbfromvariable higher than for flat plates (upon which the present
denskyandMLswJewind tnnnel%
value of drag increment is based) agrees with the
mrmimum lift coefficient, probably within the experi- present results in indicating that the drag increment
mental accuracy for most airfoils. Recent comparative may be too low.
sphere tests in the full-scale tunnel and in flight have, The comparison between the profile-drag results
however, indicated that the factor for the full-scale from the two tunnels may be made on the abovo-
tunnel may be taken as approximately 1.1 instead of described basis by comparing the dotted curve in
1.0 in deriving the factor for the varhbledensity figure 2 with the profile-drag curve from the full-
tunnel. The corresponding value for the variable- scale tunnel in iigure 4, although the values of the
density tunnel then becomw 2.4X1.1 or 2.64. These effective Reynolds Number differ slightly. A better
turbulence factors are used throughout this report to comparison is afforded by the curves in figures 10 and
derive values of the eifective Reynolds Number. 11 representing variations of certain characteristics
Incidentally, it maybe noted that sphere tests in the with the effective Reynolds Number. It will be noted
variable-density tunnel and in flight indicate values for that the results from the full-scale tunnel indicate
the turbulence factor in approximate agreement with somewhat lower profledrag coefficients but that the
the values given; the actual values derived from sphere diilerences are smaller at zero lift where the results
tests are, however, dependent on the size of the spheres are more reliable owing to the absence of severnl more
employed. or less uncertain corrections involved in deducing the
The results of the test at a given Reynolds Number profile-drag coefficient when the airfoil is developing
might be directly applied at the higher effective lift.
Reynolds Number; however, one change for which ap- The values of the maximum lift coefficient are com-
proximate allowance may be made is to be expectid in pared in figure 12 by means of curves representing
passing to the higher Reynolds Number. The part of variations with the ,Reynolds Number. The agree-
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 943
ment between the results from the two tunnels, con- density and full-scale tunnels are interpreted on the
sidering the diihculties of mwumrement, is reasonably basis of an effective Reynolds Number to allow
satisfactory. The small discrepancy that remains may for the efi%ct.sof turbulence, reasonably satisfactmy
indicate either that the value of the turbulence factor
should be modified or possibly that an increment
corresponding to that used with the drag should be
employed.
For the remaining characteristics, tabular values
may be directly compared. The results from both
tunnels agree in indicating that within the flight
range of values of the Reynolds Number investigated
the following characteristics for the N. A. C. A. 23012
section show no variations with Reynolds Number
su5ciently marked to require
account in engineering work:
their being taken into
angle of zero lift, aLo;
m
optim~ hft coefficient, C.O~; pi~~g.moment co-
J
c.
~ 11, ,
111111
8, .- .4 .6 .8 /
Effeciive
2
Reynolds
4
Number
6 .8x10n
r=a 0147
c a CD WD e. P. CDO a. c
-a.<. + pa 058
. 2 o -LO -L 3 a w
1111
. 1 26 23 -, Cu3
r-o.(KKw 0 L 2 L 1 -. W3
. s.ao22c . W7
.1 .3
-a; --1o aolfa ....-..
- Ia o a omI 3. 3 -_: ;g .!2 ig , m
. 26 .0104 ..-. 120 .m .23 .3 H -. m
o L 2 .m o ---=-G- .am L 2 . 012 .4 46 ;: -. m
.1 .2 lL 4 .aw .1 . 013 .6 4.0 . am
.2 :%% la 4 3L2 ~~ . 014 .6 :: &o . Oua
.3 ;; .0131 22; !m.o k! . 014 .7 a4 0.0 -. Mt3
.4 4.5 .0173 27.9 .m4 3-0 . 014 9.7 0.9 -. U19
.5 E.9 .0228 2L 9 27.0 .Cm9 40 . 014 :: lL O -. ara
.6 7.1 .03al ~: ~; .C#3 &o . 013 LO 123 k: -. Mt3
.7 .C4m .0107 . 012 L1 137 -. w
.8 1;: .M8s 10.6 25.6 .01Z3 H -.011 L2 16.1 1;; . m
.0m7 I&1 26.5 .0146 8.2 . 011 L3 l&6 1L9 . W3
i; %: .0723 12.8 %6 .ole8 Q3 . 011
011 L4 l&l lx o -. w
LI 14.3 .aw 1%8 25.6 . Olsa la 4 . L 46 IQ 2 13,8 . w?
L2 16.9 . 102I lL 8 %5 .0m3 IL 7 . o12 L2 la 6 lh 5 -. ml
:? 10.9 .m lL 3 =5 .02w ~: -.012 L 1 m.7 1&8 -, M3
17.5 .140 8.6 .Clsm . 021 Lo 226 19.1 -, on
L1 .104 w .1287 15.7 . w
l.; E: .m :; 33.0 .165 . C&2
.3al 28 35.5 .276 ~~ . 107
.224 21 33.0 .248 . 118
.8 $% TABLE VIH
I
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA
TABLE V
N. A. C. A. 23012
FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DATA
-IL OIIAEA~
N. A. C. A. 23012 RN. 2km lUt-4456,M0; MaI. Mt+143,CBll
AIRroLcEA2A~
RN: ZemUft2,6S0.W Max. Uft-2j4WW0
CL a L/D c. P. @ c
c-..
,.
J-o
-
CL a CD VD ~ P. CD# =~ c f=a 014
---- Ud. 6i9
. %rceni
o
x-a OM6 -a;
.
%
26
Q 18.8
140
-L 2
22
-o.m
. WJ
PaCmt g~a ~ -. w
aolm ------ 19.o aom o L 2 ...... -L2
-0.: LO .1 .2 320 -, -am
. 26 .Oalo _i-.. 13. o .030 :: . ma
. m .2 n.8 .: -, m
o L 2 .W4 -----..- .ar34 L 2
. m .3 :: aLo -. an
.1 .2 .asl 124 23.5 .0375
. m .4 43 25.5 4: -. au
.1 .m34 2L3 no ~g i; -. m
k: .0L26 &: . m .5 h7 2h2 3.8
.3 2s.0 49 -. Km
% . ml N . 010 .6 7.0
.4 4.6 .0170 -. w
6.9 .0240 m.7 ~: .010 41 . 010 .7 a3 2s0 &9
. 011 .8 2ho -, w
:: la 9 .012 &1
. 011 It i 26.0 ;; -.025
:; g 17.5 2s.1 .012 Ill
. 011 $; 123 2ho aa -. CQ7
:: la o 10.2 2s1 .013
. 010 137 2ho -. Mm
.9 11.4 .aw l&2 2s.1 .014 k;
. m 16.1 251 I&: -, m
LO 128 .071 142 Ml .016 6.1
la 1 . m ?: 10.4 g: 1L8 -. m
L1 141 .CR3 ~; 2&l .015
IL 1 . 037 L4 17. Q 13.0 . w
L2 L5.5 :OJ 26.1 .017
12.2 . m? L46 19.2 2&4 13.9 -.010
L32 17.8 ILO 25.1 .Cu2
. m L2 23.2 I&4 -.037
.162 . 7.9 .072 12.9
l&5 . 064 L1 E.: 3ao 17.1 -. MT?
:: w .210 6.2 2: .143 .
LO 221 .246 . 40 320 . 1s4 1s. 5 . 076
1 111
CL a
.
CD
UD
c----
I
r-a o191
p===aa~
-a; Lo 0.0110 --------
. 26 .Owl.--.6-.. . Cm
o :: .UB2 . Cm
.1 .m 125 . m
.2 .Cm4 2L 3 . w
.3 i; .0125 2L0 . m
44 .0175 228 . on
:: h8 .O!m 2L 7 . m
.6 .m la o . m?
.7 ii .am 18.4 . Cm
.8 .0470 17.0 . m
lk : .am 16.6 . Cm
i; 124 .CD?a2 147 . m
138 .CEm I?L6 . m
:: 16.2 .0a46 127 . m
16.7 .1102 IL8 . 0)5
L 41 18.6 .124 la 5 . lx?
L3 18.9 .M3 a5 -. am
Kl o .IEa . m4
:: m3 .212 :; . 055
LO 223 .222 40 . 072