PREPARED BY.

UsS. ARMY AIR, MOBLDITY -I & BLABORAT.00Y

AVIATION SY8STEMS COMMAND
AMES RESEARCH CENTER 4 MOFFETT FIELD oCALIFORNIA 94035'

cvz

Distrib"va3
' unimitedau@

•i D s~zb u i~ n ,U li ite , ... _ [ C • •4

.7 1 II
 -Unclassified ,
SECUOUTY CLAStVr.CA'f1o OP
OF T "-AlE Me. A& Ahvme ._

SRMN DOCUMENTATION PAGE sT.TA

L E ERcP OJT
I. CEPOTRT
OUMING "•E D.S ACCISAM NO. REIPIORT*S CATALOG NUIL

US"r-Aito Sytm•. C,.n..a.1,17

Voin VVto;, CopayM_•4

1,. tF 1 ^a

St- ous-isor 631 , ,,U ,ROPO,

GIN.,
O AH laCY. NAME & AOORESi.•
O
Cmr.I.. olf.-.) fi~ f'rom, IS. S"CURITY CLA'SS. fra eI.. ,.,,N)'
..Development
Amy Air Mobility
LaboratoryResearch and Unclassified
SMoffett Field, California 94035 ii,. OCkASSIFICAT~oioNOOWGADING-

It.Philadestb
SUPLONTAROLH
io
OF NOTES
of'thsa 40ADES
d cumrtcserism Z- '7.RZQR AI

Boelingterso CompanyMoen

repor
WIs
GAIYV
onAin aiDrfoil da1tae
hof ionterle..Ofst
1 SCroT
o. Ls.rto werVpica

lopmnt LboraoryUnclassified

UiS. WOD
Army iatiom Systems C.mmaned froy 31e 1976ce-n..

Rt. Lor MBliad

s •2r 1.sestiharacf tF iaic
s

Liftt

drag, and pitching moment coefficients

an and, in most cases,
S% covers the complete Mach number range from low subsonic to super-
critical fl.ow conditions. An introductory section presents air-
ifoil data trends and information pertaining to the source and use-
, tD el1473 aliIoNi 9403
OS ISOSOL Sa
S16.}
S(OSTmE S URITY CLASIFIATION OF THIlS PAGE Dat( Rgle.,
 ... ... . .. . .... AD-
I 1m1*4 m'lil su•:,.* rt

WitR11nlU l ITAIL4IIII! Calls

fill. AbM,!LI'ut IflC11i

US ARMY
HELICOPTER DESIGN DATCOM
VOLUME I - AIRFOILS
IISAAMRDL CR 76-2

SEPTEMBER 1976

PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT NAS 2-8637 BY

THE BOEING COPA11Y

BOEING VERTOL, PO BOX 16858 DD C

This Document Contains PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19142 r
Missing Page/s That Are a,'l
Unavailable In The T U
Original Document FOR THE:EC 17

SYSTEMS. RESEARCH INTEGRATION OFFICE j)

US ARMY AIR MOBILITY R&D LABORATORY

•e~t Available Copy US AkMY AVIATION SYSTEM COM•NoD

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102
rApp".
Di•rL
kjq,• . .• ....
 DISCLAIMER STATEME~NT
The findings in this report are not to
be construed as an official Depart-
ment of the Amy position.

I.

•-(
 1.0.10 FOREWORD
-k• This program was cenducted under the technical cognizance of
M.A. Schwartzberg of the Systems Research Integration Office
(SAVDL-SR) ,U.S. Army Air Mobility Research and Development
Laboratory, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Comand, St. Louis,
Missouri.

The assistance and cooperation of the Aerodynamics staff and

Advanced Research group is gratefully acknowledged. Particu-
larly valuable was the assistance of J. McLaughlin in prepar-
ing the airfoil data sheets, of T. Fukushima and J. Davis for
the sections on unsteady aerodynamics, compressibility, and
mean line/thickness effects, W.Z. Stepniewski and E. Kisielowski
for their support in the search and selection of the most use-
ful data, and W.L. Metz and D.L. Deibler for their efforts in
preparing the final document.
The assistance of Mr. R.W. Prouty (Hughes), Mr. C. Capelier
(ONERA), Mr. G. Reichert (MBB) and Dr. J. Williams (RAE) is
also gratefully acknowledged.

rn............-.
1.0.20 TABLE OF CONTENTS
"Shout NMUbwir Description
Introductory Material,
1.0.10 Foreword

20 Table of Contents
30 Introduction to Volume
40 Guide to Volume
Definitions
1.1.10 List of Symbols
20 Airfoil Geometry - Designations and
Conventions
30 Definition of Aerodynamic Parameters
40 Definition of Airfoil Desiln Characteristics
Description of Methods
1.2.10 Airfoil Related Problems and Solutions
20 Theoretical Methods of Airfoil Analysis
30 Experimental Techniques
40 Tabulation of Key Theoretical and Experimental
Characteristics
50 Compressibility Effects on Airfoil Character-
istics
.1 Compressibility Corrections
.2 Local Mach Number Limits
.3 Subsonic Flow Tables
.4 Compressibility Effects
.5 Compressibility Effects on Drag
.6 Compressibility Effects on Pitching Moment
.7 Compressibility Effects on the Location of
.8 the Aerodynamic Center
S.8 Compressibility Effects on the Center of
Pressure

-- .....
--
1.0.20-2
Sheet Number Description

1.2.60 Reynolds Number Effects on Airfoil Character-

istics

1.2.70 Unsteady Aerodynamic Effects

.1 Dynamic Stall Delay

.2 Aerodynamic Damping
.3• Gaun~a-Functions

1.2.80 Effects of Airfoil Geometry

.1 Mean Line Distributions
.2 Thickness Shapes

1.2.90 Effect of Airfoil Trailing Edge Modifica-

tions

1.2.100 Effect of Airfoil Leading Edge Contours

Airfoil Test Data

1.3.10 NACA 0006

1.3.20 NACA 0012

1.3.30 NACA 0012 - Including Reverse Flow

1.3.40 NACA 0012 (Modified) with 00 T.E. Tab

1.3.50 NACA 0012 (Modified) with -3° T.E. Tab

1.3.60 ,ACA 0015

1.3.70 NhCA 23012

1.3.80 NACA 23012 with 0.043 c T.E. Tab at 00

1.3.90 NACA 23012 with 0.087 c T.E. Tab at 00

1.3.100 NACA 23015

1.3.110 NACA 63A009

1.3.120 NACA 63A012

1.3.130 NACA 63A012 - Including Reverse Flow

1.3.140 NACA 63A015

3.7
 Sheet Number Description 1.0-20-3

1.3.150 NACA 63A018

1.3.160 NACA 64A(4.5)08

1.3.170 NACA 64A608

1.3.3180 NACA 64A312

1.3.190 NACA 64A(4.5) 12

1.3.200 NACA 64A612

"1.3.210 NACA 64A516

1.3.220 NACA 8-H-012

1.3.230 V13004-0.7

1.3.240 V(1.9)3009-1.25

1.3.250 V23010-1.53 with 00 T.E. Tab

1.3.260 V23010-1.58 with -3* T.E. Tab

1.3.270 V23010-1.58 with 00 T.E. Tab, in

Reverse Flow

1.3.280 V23010-1.58 with -30 T.E. Tab, in

Reverse Flow

1.3.290 V23010-1.58 with +30 T.E. Tab, in

Reverse Flow

1.3.300 V43012-1.58 with 00 T.E. Tab

1.3.310 V43012-1.58 with -60 T.E. Tab

1.3.320 SA 13109-1.58

1.3.330 NPL 9615

1.3.340 NPL 9626

1.3.350 NPL 9627

"1.3.360 NPL 9660

M 1.3.370 NACA-Cambre

1.3.380 VR-7 with 00 T.E. Tab

- - - - ----- ----- '-

 1.0.20-4

Sheet Nqmbor Description

1.3.390 VR-7 with -3.10 T.Eo Tab

1.3.400 VR-7 with -5.90 T.E. Tab

1.3.410 VR-8 with 0* T.E. Tab

1.3.420 VR-7.1 with -10 T.E. Tab

1.3.430 FX 69-H-098
Sample Calculations

1.4.10 Evaluation of Approximate Lift/Drag Polars

1.4.20 Lift, Drag, and Pitching Moment Coefficients
at Large Angles of Attack

ji

mi
 1. 0. 30 INTRODUCTION
The objective of a Data Compendim (Datoom) is to provide a
source of easily accessible technical information to the engin-
eer, designer, or scientist. Since new technical information
is constantly being generated. the Datcom format has to be
flexible enough to allow additional material to be included
with the least amount of overall revisiozts.
This particular Data Compendium suzmarizes the key helicopter
airfoil information available to date from unrestrictcd sources.
In the future, additiona. airfoil data might be included which,
at present, is either prvprietary or classified.
At its first release, the Datcom contains forty-three (43)
sheets of airfoil data, covering the basic configuration and
modifications of the sections employed on most rotors, with
the exception of proprietary or otherwise unavailable
information on some recent rotor sections.
Besides the systematic presentation of airfoil data, the Datcom
includes sections which review:
0 The definition and significance of the airfoil
parameters of interest in rotor applications.
* Key trends in airfoil data.

* Theoretical ani experimental methods for the

evaluation of section characteristics.

(2
 1.0.40 GUIDE TO VOLUME

The material presented in the Airfoil DATCOM is

divided into four main groups:

"1. Definitions
This section explains the meaning, use, and
derivation of the aerodynamic parameters of
interest for rotor airfoil applications, in-
cluding the classification of airfoils and
the definition of basic NACA airfoil coordi-
nates.

2. Thsory and Empirical Methods

This section covers material that will assist
in the proper understanding and utilization
of both theoretical methods and test data.

3. Data
A systematic ccailation of available test
data presented in a standardized format.
Each airfoil is shown under a separate data
sheet which includes coordinates, a descrip-
it• tion of the model, and key characteristics
of the method of testing.

4. Sample Calculations
This section shows how theoretical and experi-
mental data can be utilized to obtain in-
formation not covered by available test data.
 1.0.40-2

DATA SHEFT IDENTIFICATION

The numbering system used in the present DATCOK volume identi-

fies the broad category and the subject under which each item
of information is described. This system will allow the addi-
tion of new sheets within the initial set of data sheets with-
out having to renumber the entire volume.
The significance of the numbers identifying each data sheet is
described below:
Topics
Number for within
Additional Data Page
Data Sheet Number Data Sheets Sheet* wmr*

To be used only
SXDfor additions
C .Dfl-O0 a between pages*

Volume Number Type of Information

. - Airfoil DATCOM 0 - Introduction

1 - Definitions. Standards, Sign

Conventions
2 - Theoretical and Empirical Methods,
Description of Physical Phenomena,
and Design Methodology

3 - Theoretical and Experimental Data

4 - Sample Calculations

*Shown only when neeaed

L,-
 1.1.10 LIST OF SYMBOLS

a quantity used to define mean lines of NACA 6-series air-

foils, where a is the distance in chords fr.xm the leading
edge over which the loading is uniform at the design
lift coefficient

a speed of sound

a airfoil chord
etab chordwise length of trailing edge tab

Cc chordwise force coefficient

Cd drag coefficient
Cdmin minimum drag coefficient

Cdo drag coefficient at zero lift

Cf skin friction drag coefficient

4 C, lift coefficient

Cti design lift coefficient

C maximum lift coefficient

Cm pitching moment coefficient, resolved about the quarter-

chord unless otherwise noted

Cmo pitching moment coefficient at zero lift

Cn normal force coefficient

CP press-are coefficient, (P -- P.,)/4pV7

CpC pressure coefficient compensated for compressibility

Cpi incompressible presaure coefficient

fD drive frequency in oscillating airfoil test

k reduced frequency, cf/2V

k, constant used in describing the mean line of MACA 5-digit

series airfoils
in constant used in describing the mean line of NACA 5-digit
* series airfoils

M Mach niunber
1.1.10O"2

Merit critical Mach number; freestream Mach number at which the

local Mach number, ML, first equals 1.0 at some point on
an airfoil
MDD drag divergence Mach number, defined as the freestream
Mach number at which dCd/dM = 0.10

Mt local Mach number

n frequency of vortices in wake, used to define the Strouhal
number
p static pressure
q dynamic pressure, 4pV 2

r leading edge radius of an airfoil section

R gas constant

Re Reynolds number, pVL/I, where for airfoils, the character-

istic length L is the chord. Reynolds numbers can be based
on other dimensions such as maximum thickness or boundary-
layer thickness
S Strouhal number, nD/V where D is a characteristic dimension
of the body
t maximum thickness of airfoil
T absolute temperature
u'v local velocity components
V velocity
X abscissa
z
__ abscissa, upper surface of airfoil contour

XL abscissa, lower surface of airfoil contour

ordinate
Y0.0125 upper surface ordinate at x/a - 0.0125; used for correla-
tion of lift stall characteristics
ordinate of the mean line of an airfoil section

S
Yt ordinate of the thickness distribution of an airfoil
section

, I, i I I I I I I I i ........
 1.1.10-3

a8' skewed coordinate, used in plotting suction loops

1 angle of attack, in degrees
O•i angle of attack at the "design" condition of an airfoil
section
Y ratio of specific heats of a gas
6 tab trailing edge tab angle measured from the chordline of
an airfoil, defined as positive in the direction f-ir
which positive camber is increased
increment
e an angle, the tangent of which is the slope of the mean
line

u absolute viscosity
Po function used in thin airfoil theory to evaluate the
pitch'.ng moment of a section
IV kinematic velocity
p density
rotational velocity

Subscripts
Sac aerodynamic center
c identification of mean line characteristics
c/4 for quantities referenced to the quarter-chord
COMp compressible
cp center-of-pressure
i "ideal" or design value
inc incompressible
S£ lower surface, in identification of airfoil coordinates
Slocal, in reference to flow conditions

SL.E. leading edge

S(
1.1.10-4

max maximum value

0 zero lift condition
2' total
tab trailing-edge tab
u upper surface, in identification of airfoil coordinates
freestream condition

- -
 1.1.20 AIRFOIL GEOMETRY - DESIGNATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

Figure 1 illustrates how mean lines and thickness forms are com-
bined to form NACA airfoils. Although some modern airfoils are
designed by taking into account the locnl contour curvature to
optimize some specific supercritical characteristics, many air-
foils for helicopter rotor applications can be approximated by
the NACA ciassification.

8 , WHERE TAN e IS THE SLOPE

--- - - - -OF THE MEAN LINE

CIRCLE
LFOR LOCATION OF L.E. OF CHORD
*RADIUS THROUGH END
*CENTER ON LINE THROUGH END OF CHORD,
WITH SLOPE OF MEAN LINE AT 0.52 OF CHORD.

Figure 1 method of combining mean lines and

basic-thickneas forma

In the NACA system, an airfoil shape is obtained by wrapping a

symmetrical thickness form around a mean line. The airfoil
thickness is applied along lines perpendicular to the mean line
by the following relationships:
Xu "x- yt sin 8

-Yu Y + Yt coo e

x, x.- + y sin 0

y -o - Y..Coe e
where
x is the abscissa
(y is the ordinate of the mean line

,• ----. - -- --- -
 1.1.20-2

6 is the angle whose tangent is the slope

of the mean line
Ut is the ordinate of the thickness distribu-
tion at z.
By definition,
"* Leading edge and trailing edge are the forward and
rearward extremities of the mean line.1
" The chordline is the straight line connecting the
leading and trailing edges.'

The leading-edge circle associated with each thickness shape is

applied to a cambered airfoil by
* Drawing a line passing through the leading edge with a
slope corresponding to the mean-line slope at 0.005c.
Drawing a circle centered at one radius distance from
the leading edge along such a line.
Fairing the airfoil contour into the leading edge circle
on the upper and lower surfaces.

Helicopter rotor airfoils generally fall into one of the follow-

"ing categories:
A. NACA Four-Digit Sections
These sections were defined from the best early airfoils. Only
the symmetrical sections of this serie9 have been used on heli-
copter rotors and, until recently, the majority of rotors used
the NACA 0012 airfoil almost exclusively.
The thickness distributions of the NACA four-digit sections
follow the relation:

±(ytl/c) - [(t¢/)/o.2][O.2989/X'l - o.126(x/a) - o.3516(z/eP)

+ 0.2843(x/c)' - O.101S6x/c) 4 1,

where t is the maximum thickness.

¶; The leading edge radius is

r•c 1.1019(t/)2.
 1.1.20-3

The significance of the numbering system is as follows:

NACA 0 0 12

Maxim= value of Section thickness

mean line ordinate in percent of chord
ind percent of
chord
Distance along chord from
leading edge to location
of muxi=m camber, in tenths
of chord

B. NACA Five-Digit Sections

Until recently, most of the cambered sections successfully
employed on helicopter rotors have been of the NACA five-digit
series, or modifications thereof. In a number of instances,
the zlosest NACA identification has been used to describe air-
foils resembling NACA sections.

The thickness forms arp the same as for NACA four-digit series.
Mean lines are describe by the following equations:

YI
•/- (-16A, [(X/C)3 - 3m(X/C)2 + m2 (3 _ m)(z/e)]

0<: X/c < M*

i - (i/6)kmS'[1 - (zic)] m . x/c.- a - 1.

Values for m and ki are tabulated below. Equations and tables
have been taken from Reference 1.

MEAN-LINE POS lON OF 14AXMUM k,

DESIGNATION CAMBER. c m
210 0.05 0.0580 361.400
220 0.10 0.1260 51.640
230 0.15 0.2025 15.957
L 240 0.20 0.2900 6.643
250 0.25 0.3910 3.230
1.1.20-4

The significance of the numbering system is as follows:

NACA 2 30 12

2/3 of design lift

coefficient, in|
1 -
Section thickness
in percent of chord
tenths
Twice the distance
from the leading
edge to the location
of maximum camber,
in percent of chord

C. NACA 6-Series Airfoils

This airfoil family includes sectiors with mean lines and
thickness forms selected to conform to prescribed loading
distributions. Such mean lines and thickness distributions
cannot be summarized by simple expressions as was the case
for four- and five-digit series airfoils. A tabulation of
mean-line and thickness values for 6-series airfoils can be
found in standard airfoil reference texts such as Reference 1.
The significance of the numbering system is summarized below:

Design lift
Series coefficient Thickness, in
designation in tenths percent of chord

NACA 6 41 2 12 (a= 0 .8)

Chordwise position o! Range of lift Type of man line

minimum pressure in coefficient in used, where "a" is
tenths of chord, mea- tent-he above and the distance in chords
sured from leading below the design from the leading edge
edge, as defined for lift for which for which the loading
the basic symmetrical favorable pressure is uniform.
thickness form at zero gradients exist on
lift both surfaces
 1.1.20-5
D. NACA Helicopter Sections
During the 1940's, NACA conducted a systematic investigation of
a series of cambered low drag and low pitching-moment helicopter
airfoils. However, the performance of those sections was dis-
appointing, because they rely too much on the maintenance of
extensive laminar flow. The difficulty in achieving the low drag
potential, and the low maximum lift characteristics, prevented
their actual application to helicopters; but, in a few instances,
they have been employed on gyroplanes.
NACA helicopter3 airfoils were identified with the following
desigr-tion: 2.#

ACA
Ser 8-H- 12

Serial Abbreviation Thickness in per-

number for "helicopter" cent of chord

E. Other Designations
Other designations of helicopter airfoils have been arbitrary, as
they usually identify the originating organization, the serial
number, and sometimes, the design lift coefficient and thickness.

References

1. Abbott, I.H., Von Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing Sections,

Dover Publications, N.Y., N.Y., 1958.
2. Tetervin, N., Tests in the NACA Two-Dimensional Low-TurbuZence
Tunnel of Airfoil Sections Designed to have Small Pitching
Moments and High Lift-Drag Ratios, NACA CB No. 3113, 1943.

3. Stivers, L.S., Jr., Rice, F.J., Jr., Aerodynamic Character-

istics for Four NACA Airfoil Sections Designed for Heli-
copter Rotor Blades, NACA WR L-29, 1946.

rI
1 F f
1.1.30 DEFINITION OF AERODYNAMIC PARAMETERS

The objective of this section is to review the definition

of serodynamic parameters of interest with airfoils for heli-
copx er rotors.

The following parameters are reviewed:

(1) Aerodynamic Center
(2) Angle-of-Attack
(3) Camber and Mean Line
(4) Center-of-Pressure
(5) Chordline
(6) Crestline
(7) Critical Mach Number
(8) Drag Divergence Mach Number
(9) Drag Rise after Drag Divergence
(i0) Force and Moment Cofficients
(11) Lift-Break Boundary
(12) Lift-Curve Slope
(13) Mach number
(14) Mach Tuck - Compressibility Effects on Pitching Moments
(15) Maximum Lift Coefficient
(16) Reynolds Number
(17) Suction Loops
(18) Stall, and Types of Stall
(19) Static Stall Hysteresis
(20) Strouhal Number
1.1.30-2
1. AERODYNAMIC CENTER

The aerodynamic center of an airfoil is defined as the

point about which the sectional pitching mament is inde-
pendent of lift, or angle of attack. The pitching moment
about the aerodynamic center, identified as Cmia, is
identical to the zero-lift pitching moment, Cmo.
The zero lift pitching moment, which is a pure couple,
can be easily determined from test data or by means of
potential flow theory.

According to thin airfoil theory, the aerodynamic center

is always located at one-quarter chord from the leading edge.
Viscosity and compressibility influence the aerodynamic cen-
ter so that on airfoils of finite thickness, the aerodynamic
center is seldom at the quarter-chord, even at low speeds.
Over the unseparated range of lift, the aerodynamic center
can be determined from test data by evaluating

(X/0)ac - dCmLE/dCz, for dCz/da - constant.

or, since the pitching moment about the quarter-chord,

CmC/4 is a more commonly quoted value,

(X/a) ac " (1/4) - (dCM/4 IdCU.

While not a primary design objective, the aerodynamic

center location is important, and the general consensus
is that at low speed, it should be as far aft as possible;
typically between 27 and 28 percent of chord from the
leading edge.
There is experimental evidence that by modifying a standard
NACA 4- and 5-digit series trailing edge to include a cusp or
undeflected trailing-edge tab, the aerodynamic center of a
section will be shifted aft (p. 182 of Ref 1). This can also
be seen by c mparing data for the NACA 23012, with and without
T.E. tab, in sheets 1.3.200, 1.3.210, and 1.3.220.

SEI
 1.1.30-3

2. ANGLE-OF-ATTACK

On a two-dimensional basis, the angle-of-attack is defined

as the angle between the remote wind and the chordline of an
airfoil. The angle of attack is also defined as positive in
the direction for which its increase results in increasing
lift..

Figure 1. AngZe of Attack

The calculation of the angle-of-attack environment in the

flow field of a rotor in flight is quite complex as it in-
volves an evaluation of the velocities induced along rotor
blade elements in a flow field influenced by rotational, for-
ward-flight, and flapping-motion components.

0
 1.1.30-4
3. CAMBER AND MEA LINE

Camber is the curvature of the airfoil section relative to

its chordline. Camber distribution, magnitude, and position
of maximum cater are determined by the spedification of the
mean line (see Figure 2; also Section 1.1.40). The shape
and displacement of the mean line determine the chordwise
load distribution, angle of zero lift, and pitching moment
coefficient of an airfoil.

MEAN LINE OR

it=

Figure 2. GCeometry of airfoiZ eeotions

The amount and location of the maximum camber for a number

of airfoils is listed in Section 1.2.40.

SThe mean line is the locus of points situated halfway be-

tween the upper and lower surfaces of an airfoil section-the
distance between the, upper and lower surfaces and the mean
line being measured normal to the mean line. In the case of
an uncambered airfoil, the mean and chord lines are the same.
A typical cambered airfoil section is composed of a mean
line and a thickness distribution combined using the following
relationships:

For the upper surface:

XU W - yt sin 6,
U YiO + Yt coo

~i .•
 1.1.30-5
For the lower surface:

M Me " Y- 0o8 e*

where zx. y and tan e are the abscissas, ordinateu, and

slopes t mean line, and Mt is the ordinate of the sym-
metrical thickness distribution at chordwise point x.
Airfoil section properties associated with the shape and
magnitude of the mean line are:
(1) chordwise load distribution
(2) angle of zero lift
(3) pitching moment coefficient
(4) maximum lift coefficient.

C
 1.1.30-6

4. CENTER-OF-PRESSURE

The center-of-pressure is the distance from the leading

edge to a point on the chord through which the resultant
pressure forces on the airfoil section can be assumed to
act. The position of the center-of-pressure shifts with
changes in lift coeffici-Aent, and falls outside of the chord
at lift levels approaching zero lift.

The location of the center-of-pressure is:

xC.p./0 - 0.25 - (Cmc 1 4 /CZ),

for pitching momerts defined about the quarter-chord.

V
 101.30-7
5. CHORDLIME

The chordline is defined as the straight line connecting

the leading and trailing edges of an airfoil profile, where
the leading and trailing edges are defined as the forward
and rearward extremities, respectively, of the mean line.
For some highly cambered airfoils with pronounced trailing-
edge cusps, this results in the chordline passing outside
of the contour (Figure 3).

CHORDLINE. . S

Figure 3. Chordline of an airfoiZ

Some airfoils use a reference line which differs from the

standard NACA chordline; e.g., the reference line on the
V23010-1.58 is such that the aft 50 percent of the airfoil
profile is bisected by it (Figure 4).

NACA REFERENCE LINE

REFERENCE LINE FOR THE

V23010-1.58

Figure 4. Comparison between the NACA reference Line

and the reference Line for the V23010-1.58
airfoi7
C.
1.1.30-8

6. CREST LINE

The crest line is a location on the surface of a wing

section which is tangent to the remote wind (Figure 5).
The crest location at a given incidence it used in the
methods for the theoretical determination of drag-rise con-
ditions. At low incidence, there are two crest locations
of interest, one on each surface.

CREST LOCATION

Figure 6. Crest Zocation over an airfoiZ

section
 1.1.30-9
7. CRITICALL MACH NUMBER

By definition, the "critical" Mach number: is the freestreazu

Mach number corresponding to the first occurrence of sonic
flow over the surface of a body in motion through a fluid;
i.e., the condition for which M1 - 1.0-somewhere on the air-
foil.
If the local Mach number first equals .1.0 in the vicinity
of the leading edge of an airfoil, experience shows that no
significant effects take place until M.
1 - 2.2 or higher, pro-
vided that the velocity peak is not so sharp as to cause
boundary-layer separation.
A typical critical Mach number boundary is illust~rated in
Figure 6.

BSOUNDARY FOR M1-1.0

MACH NUKBER, M,,

Figure 6. Critical Mach number boundary

The evaluation of critical Mach number boundaries from poton-

tial flow solutions for &.irfoils i3 useful for the preliminary
assessment of the li4ft levels at which significant compressi-
bility effects first take place.
 1.1.30-10
8. DRAG DIVERGENCE MACH NUMBER

The drag divergence Mach number of an airfoil section is

defined as the Mach number for which dCd/dM - 0.1 as airspeed
over the airfoil is increased at constant angle-of-attack.
This is illustrated in Figure 7.

a a -CONS?

4 0

MACH NUMBER, M

Figure 7. Drag divergence Mach number

derived from test data

Drag divergence boundaries are generally described in terms

of lift coefficient, as shotmn in Figure 8 for a number of
sections

Ca0
.60 .65 .70 .75 5
S•-.21 DRAG
WkC1 DIVERGENCE
NUMBER, MDD a

Figure 8. Comparison of drag

divergence boundaries

This boundary can also be estimated theoretically when a

potential flow solution for the velocities on the surface of
an airfoil is available. The theoretical estimate of drag
divergence involves idertifying the conditions for which the

' , Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ni r'a
 1.1.30-11

slow is first sonic (MZooaZ 1-.0) at the crest of an airfoil

wnere the crest is a location on the surface tangent to the
remote wind. Although such an estimate is always somewhat
conservative, theoretical MDp boundaries are very useful in
comparing airfoil sections, as might be required during airfoil
design and optimization.
Crestline theory is described in detail in Reference 2. The
use of the drag divergence boundary has typically been limited
to the low-lift range, but recently, it has been extended to
lift levels comparable to the maximum lift boundarys.
The drag divergence Mach number at zero lift, or at some
low-lift level, can be used as an indicator of the usefulness
of a section over the outboard portion of a blade on a rotor
in forward flight.

VI
 1.1.30-12

9. DRAG RISE AFTER DRAG DIVERGENCE

This is more critical than the drag divergence Mach number

because drag rise after drag divergence is the source of the
power penalty and loads associated with operation at high Mach
numbers on the advancing blade. One approach" utilizes, as a
measure of the usefulness of a section, the Mach numbef at
which the low-speed, zero-lift drag coefficient of the NACA
0012 is doubled. The drag coEifficient value suggested for
reference is Cdo = 0.018. A further refinement could be made
by using drag coefficients approximately compensated for
dynamic pressure and chord, such as Cd xM 2 as shown in Figure
9, or Cd x (chord) xM2 as would be necessary to take blade
tape: into account.

.015
aV23010-L.S6
SVIS-1
•.014 VaI
U *VL3006-0.7

.012

.00i

0.*- 0,/ :
S.002 / /

SMAEUMBER. N

Figure 9. Compreeeibility effecta

on airfoil drag at zero lift

The approach used in Reference 4 is a good criterion

by which to judge the usefulness of a section employed near the
tip of a rotor blade; its disadvantage being that a reliable
assessment of the drag rise can only be obtained through tests.
However, since shock- boundary-layer interaction and flow sepa-
ration are subjects of intensive research, in the near future,
it might be possible to accurately estimate drag beyond drag
L divergence using analytical methods. I.
 1.1.30-13

The rate of change of drag with Mach number, dCd/dN, after

drag divergence is not necessarily a good measure of drag per-
formanc- because some sections undergo early drag "creep,"
followed by some leveling off of the drag with increasing
Mach number until a steep drag-rise condition is reached. It
is important to remember, however, that some sections display
a more pronounced growth in drag
2 after drag divergence than
others; e.g., rooftop airfoils .

V.
 1.1.30-14

10. FORCE AND MOMENT COEFFICIENTS 2

Force and moment coefficients are nondimensionalized by the
freestream dynamic pressure and a reference area. In the case
of two-dimensional characteristics, the forcesand moments are
per unit length of span. The coefficients most commonly used
in theoretical and experimental work are:

CZ lift coefficient lift fqrce/q•,c on wind axis

Cd drag coefficient drag force/qc on wind axis

Cn normal force normal force/q~c on body axis

coefficient
Cc chordwise force chordwise force/q~c on body axis
coefficient

Cm pitching moment moment/q~c2

coefficient
where

q,.= 4pV2 is the freestream dynamic pressure, and p is

the density of the fluid medium.

Two-dimensional force and moment coefficients are identified

by lower-case subscripts; for example, C , Cd, while three-
dimensional coefficients are identified uy capital subscripts;
CL, CD. In helicopter rotor calculaticas, two-dimensional data
is generally employed in conjunction with a strip-analysis
approach.
Figure 10 illustrates the relationship and sign convention

.7' of forces and moments.

.
Cn

cc

_CM,

Figure i0. Sign ccnv*n'tion for forces and moments

I.'
4•...I. . i - .. I ...i• : -=;
 1.1.30-15

where
C = CZ cos a + Cd sin a

Cc a Cd cos a - C, sin a.

The pitching moment is defined as positive in the nose-up

direction (the direction of increasing angle-of-attack).
NOTE: Unless otherwise noted , the pitching moment information
contained in the DATCOM will be resoZved about the
quarter-chord.

f
h

Ii
 1.1. 3a-16

11. LIFT-BREAK BOUNDARY

The lift-break boundary is defined by the lift coefficient

and Mach number values for which dClIdM - 0 when Mach number
is increased at constant angle-of-attacS. This boundary has
Le-.-n successfully related to rotor noise. Examples of lift-
break boundaries are shown in Figure 11, and the derivation
of a lift-break boundary is shown in Figure 12.

-W1.2
R&A64A206
o V13006-0.7

0 O1
-4.

14.4

V23010-1.58

0 L
S , .7 .8 .9
MACH NUI"ER, M

Figure 11. Lift-divergence boundaries

of eeveral airfoiZl

& -a
LIFT-BREAK
BOUNDARY
0
¶ d0
I C.C)

. .4

MACH NUMBER, M,,

Figure 12. Determination of Zift-break boundary

from Lift-coefficient data
 1.1.30-17

12. LIFT-CURVE SLOPE

In incompressible, inviscid flow theory, the lift-curve

slope (dCt/da) of a thin aizfoil section is 2w/Aadian or
0.1097/deg. Compressibility, viscous effects, and airfoil
geometry influence the lift-curve slope. Compressibility
effects can be accounted for by the Prandtl-Glauert rule,
and the c~ombination of thickness and compressibility by the
Kaplan rule1 .

The Prandtl-Glauert relation is

(dCLt/de)COP 10
4;• Cdct/daJ
,(dC/da), -no 1--01..
-= Mz

The Kaplan rule is

(dCtl/da)
(
apt/
/c•ompdC
d
(dCL/da)inc +.
+ .0o+rt0e .t/o)
[ - 1.0) + 4(y + 1.0) (U,2 1.0) I

where

1.0/4i.M
=~r
1. 2,

y is the ratio of specific heats, and

t/c is the thickness ratio of the airfoil.

_=i
 1.1.30-18

13. MACH NUMBER1

Mach number is the ratio between the airspeed and th~e speed
of sound. the Mach number is used in the correlation of phe--
nomena in which comipressibility effects cannot be considered
negligible.
X V/a

where the speed of sound: a =/T

In air, tha specific heat ratio is y -1.4 for temperatures

up to 10000R, the gas constant R - 1715 ft-Zb/sZug*R, so the
speed of soirnd is a - - 49.1VT (ft/eec), for temperatures
expressed in degrees anie
Increasing the velocity over an airfoil section from low to
hiagh sub~onic Mach numb~ers at constant angle-of-attack will
cause flow conditions which can be described as follows:

FTOW CONDITION PHENOMENA OBSERVED

A. Fully attached flow -Drag is low
. Lift, pressre nd lift-curve slope vary
as ./10M'
* Miocal < 1.0 everywhere
1 ~B. Incipient
effects
coupressIbility ,MZocal -01.0 over some portion of the
airfoil surface
Drag is low, but no longer at minimum
drag levels
Loads start to deviate from the1/.

Early turbulent transition

~'C. Full transition from * Drag divergence is reached, dCd&'~ Z 0.1

subcritical to super- * Wilda~ reaches highest value and then
LLLL4.5 decreases rapidly
- Lift and pitching moment start breaking
(onset of lift break and "Mach tuck")
c'> 1.0 over a small. pcrl~ion of th~e
airfoil surface
 SI~.1. 30-19

D. Supercritical flow "ZO*at > 1.0 over a sbstantial portion of

the airfoil surface
-- Large pitchingmomats
• l drag rise beyoad the drag divergence

it

EII
'1 1.1.30-20

14. COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON SECTIONAL PITCHING MOMENTS

The growth of Aitching moments with Mach numxber became a

significant parameter with the introduction of cambered air-
foils and structurally softer blades. '12is phenomen"n is re-
A ferred to as "pitching moment break" or, borrowing the terir
from fixed-wing terminology, "rach tuck." This growth in
pitching moments coincides with the onset of transonic flow
conditions, and it is associated with both a rearward shift
in the aerodynamic center and an increa3e in pitching moments
about the aerodynamic center.

The pitching moment break boundary can be dcfined either

by some rate of change criteria; e.g., dCm/dM - constan•,, ,nr
by an absolute pitching moment value corrected for chord ane.
dynamic pressure, such as CM X M2 shown in Figure 13, or
Cm x (chord)' x M.

.01

MAC i4UMM~,M

-.03

-04 0 -7 6TAB-O .
"V''TAB-$
V1- 7, TArA 3*--
3" /
i • "'0' vVR-7, a .G 41TAB'0'
V23010-1"51, k

.V23010-1L.S&, 'TA:--
• VR-i 1
V1106-0

-. 07

-.08

Figure 13. Compreseibility effects on airfoil

pitching moment at zero lift
 .7

1.1.30-21

15. MAXInmM LIYT OR NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT

At low Mach numbers, the maximum lift coefficient from test

data car, be defined as the lift for dCj/da - 0.0 as airfoil
incidence is increased at constant Mach number. At higher Mach
numbers (M > 0.5 for typical helicopter rotor airfoils) or, in
the presence of thin airfoil stall, the maximum lift cannot
always be defined as the condition at which dCj/da w 0 because
at angles-of-attack approaching stall, the lift-curve slope
can decrease to low values without reaching dCj/dc & 0. This
is illustrated in Figure 14.. When dCz/dc = 0 is not a prac-
tical criterion, a finite value of dCj/dc or Cd can be used
instead. In some airfoil work, a value of Cd = 0.05 has been
suggested 5 . ac1
-LC
0.
C dCj
4C- °" • 14> .5

ANGLE OP ATTACK, a

Figure 14. Definition of maximum

iift coefficient
1.1.30-22

16. REYNOLDS NUMBER

The Reynolds number is a nondimensional parameter defined

as the ratio of inertial to viscous forces. The
Reynolds number level has to be taken into account when deal-
ing with sectional data, since viscosity has a significant
effect on key characteristics such as the drag coefficient
and the maximum lift capability.
Reynolds number has the form:

Re - pVL/l,

where
V is the velooity of the fluid

p is density of the fluid

V± is absolute viscosity of the fluid

L is a characteristic dimension of the body.

In airfoil work, the characteristic dimension L is taken to

be the chord, although the maximum thickness could be used in
correlating the drag of blunt bodies, and a Reynolds number
based on boundary-layer thickness is used in boundary-layer
theory.
Typical values at sea level standard conditions are:
3
p - 0.002378 sLuga,/ft

- 3.719 x 10 s ZSugS/ft-3ec

forH
M= = 1.0, Re = 7.1 x 106/ft

or Re 5.93 x 10 5 /in.

dr. - . . . 4 .- . . - . - - - - -
 1.1.30-23
17. SUCTION LOOPS

Suction loops are used in evaluating the drag coefficient

of an airfoil section from surface pressure measurements. In
recent years, the suction loops obtained from incompressible,
inviscid flow solutions have been used to judge the potential
for good transonic performance on the basis of extensive corre-
lation work with experimental data 2 .
A suction loop is obtained by plotting theoretical or experi-
mental pressure coefficients against a skewed coordinate, z'/c,
measuring the distance between the surface of the airfoil and a
line parallel to the remote wind, e.g. passing through the
trailing edge, as illustrated in Figure 15,

As discussed in Reference 2, the transonic performance of an

airfoil is related to the way in which the surface pressures, at
low speeds, vary between the leading edge and the crest. A good
transonic airfoil should have low-speed suction loops similar to
the one shown in Figure 15, i.e. displaying a low dCp/d(t'/c)
approaching the crest from the leading edge.

LEADING EDGE
PRESSURE PEAK

CREST
PRESSURE

II

Figure 15. E'xampie of a suction ioop

 1.1.30-24

18. STALL AND TYPES OF STALL

A commonly recognized definition of stall describes it as

the flow condition which follows the first lift-curve peaks.
As substantial separated regions develop with the onset of
Z stall, sectional drag forces and pitching moments grow to
very large values, while the lift, after reaching some maximum
level, decreases to an after-stall level more or less rapidly,
depending on the character of the stall.
The flow conditions over an airfoil as incidence is increased
from zero lift through stall at constant Mach number can be sum-
marized as follows:

Phenomena Observed

(1) Fully Attached Flow • Linear dCj/da and dC/da

• Low drag coefficients

S dCg/dm and dCm/dc become nonlinear

12 S (2)
• Incipient Separation • Slow
S growth in drag

o
( • Attainment of maximum lift
* Pitching roment stall occurs with-
in a small to excursion from Ctr.
4 (3) Stall Events • Reduction in lift beyond CLm,.
M iThis change ,ien te extremely
C-13 abrupt in leading edge stall.
Large increase in drag
* Relatively small changes in loads
with increasing angle-of-attack
(4) Separated Flow Beyond until angle-of-attack becomes
Stall very large (a > 20').

As discussed in detail in Reference 7, there are three basic

and clearly distinguishable types of stall. An airfoil can
undergo one type of stall or some combination of two types, de-
pending on its goemetry, Reynolds number, and Mach number. The
surface condition should be included as another variable, but
S
there is not enough experimental information to allow any
general conclusions to be drawn.
The three basic types of stall are described below, with
illustrations from Reference 8.

%I
 1.1.30-25

TraiZing-Edge Stall - Due to turbulent separation over the aft

portion of an airfoil. Trailing-edge stall will start at the
trailing edge and progress toward the leading edge. In some
cases, the spreading of turbulent separation can be delayed by
recontouring the trailing edge (e.g., eliminating the excessive
cusp). Trailing-edge stall is gradual, and it is not accom-
panied by a sudden loss in lift. Static stall hysteresis is
generally small. High-lift levels are possible.

0000

Figure 16. TraiZing-edge stall (GraduaZ)

Leading-Edge Stall - Due to sudden separation of the boundary

layer because of very high leading-edge velocities. Leading-
edge stall will result in abrupt and large losses in lift.
Static stall hysteresis is always large. High-lift levels are
possible.

C,

j SHORT lUBLl

Figure 17. Leading-edge staZZ (Abrupt)

----------------------- !
 1.1.30-26

Thin Airfoil StZl - Associated with the growth and eventual

bursting of a separated region which originates with laminar
separation at the leading edge. This separated region,
called a Zaminar bubble, reattaches downstream as a turbulent
boundary layer. Actual stall occurs when the bubble reaches
the trailing edge. Static stall hysteresis is very small, and
the maximum lift-range is limited.

CtL

/ ffiWBBLE

Figure 18. Thin airfoiZ staZZ (GraduaZ)

Some simple rules have been suggested to relate the leadirn-

edge geometry of an airnoil to the type of stall 7 , but such
criteria do not .,rk on all airfoils;
_family.
one notable exception
being airfoils of the NACA 230XX family.

S- - - - . . , -.
 1.1.30-27
19. STATIC STALL HYSTERESIS

Lift stall hysteresis is determined experimentally by in-

creasing the incidence of an airfoil model until complete stall
has been attained, and then by decreasing the incidence until
the flow is again fully attached. Care should be taken to vary
the incidence at a sufficiently slow rate to avoid any dynamic
stall delay effects.

Leading edge stall airfoils display a large static stall

hysteresis loop, whereas airfoils with trailing edge stall or
thin airfoil stall have very little hysteresis. Oscillating
airfoil experience has shown that airfoils with pronounced
stall hysteresis under quasi-steady conditions will display
substantial negative damping during forced pitch oscillation
through stall.

STATIC STALL HYSTERESIS

SEDG STALL CHARAC•TERISTICS

ANGLE CF ATTACK, a

Figure 21. Example of static 8ta~l hyateresic

II

4
 1.1.30-28
20. STROURAL NUMFI

The Strouhal number relates the frequency of organized

vorticity in the wake of a bcdy to the stream velocity and
some characteristic dimension of the body.

S - nD/V,

where
n is the frequency of vortices in the wake
D is a characteristic dimension of the body
V is the stream velocity.

In the case of airfoils, the characteristic dimansion is

the thickness of the separated region at the trailing edge,
although the trailing-edge thickness might be adequate for
blunt or truncated airfoils. Trailing edge bluntness can
result in vortex shedding within an audible range of fre-
que,,cies.
For circular cylinders at 500 < Rs < 200,000, the Strouhal
number is approximately constant, with a value of S - 0.21
Ref. 9, p. 32).

Ii

gi.

14.
 1.1.30-29

References

1. Abbott, I.H., von Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing Sections.

Dover Publications, Inc., N.Y., 1958.
2. Royal Aeronautical Society Transonic Aerodynamics Committee,
A Method of Estimating Drag-Rise Mach Number for Two-
Dimensional Airfoil Sections. Transonic Data Memorandum
6407, July 1964.

3. Bingham, G.J., An Analytical Evaluation of Airfoil Sections

for Helicopter Rotor Applications. NASA TN D-7796,
February 1975.
4. Davenport, F.J., Front, J.V., Airfoil Sections for Rotor
Blades - A Reconsideration. Presented at the 22nd Annual
Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 12, 1966.
5. Dadone, L.U., McMullen, J., HLH/ATC Rotor System Two-
Dimensional Airfoil Test. Boeing Document No. D301-10071-1.
6. McCullough, G.B., Gault, D.E., Examples of Three Representa-
tive Types of Airfoil-Section Stall at Low Speed. NACA
TN 2502, 1951.
7. Gault, D.E., A Correlation of Low-Speed, Airfoil-Section
Stalling Characteristics with ho.4nolds Number and Airfoil
Geometry. NACA TN 3963, March 1557.
8. vandenBerg, B., Reynolds Number and Mach Num,'r Effects on
the Maximum Lift and the StaZling Chazvct~riatic8 of Wings
at Low Speeds. NLR TR 69025U, March 1969.
•. Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory. McGraw Hill Co.
New York, N.Y., Sixth Edition, 1968.

I
I
 1.1.40 DEFINITION OF AIRFOIL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS

Design lift, ideal angle of attack, angle of zero lift and zero
lift pitching moment are all airfoil chiaracteristics used either
to design or to catalog airfoils.
Because of the simplifying assumptions in thin airfoil theory,
the best correlation with test data is obtained for airfoils
with thickness not exceeding 10 to 12 percent of the chord and
moderate camber slopes.
Design lift is the lift achieved at the ideal angle of attack.
The ideal angle of attack is defined as the angle of attack at
which the flow enters the leading edge smoothly or, more pre-
cisely, as the angle of attack at which the lift at the leading
edge is zero.* The lift distribution at this particular angle
is shown to be a characteristic property of the section and has
been termed the "basic distribution." It is shown that the lift
of a wing section may always be considered to consist of: (a)
the basic distribution, and (b) the additional distribution,
where the latter is independent of the mean camber line and thus,
identical for all thin sections.'
Practically, the design lift corresponds to an operating condi-
tion close to the minimum drag level, and allows some excursion
in lift above and below the design point with little penalty in
drag.
Details of the determination of design characteristics can be
found in any text on aerodynamics . There is one formulation
by Glauerte2 which lends itself easily to either numerical or
graphical integration. In Glauert's formulation, the angle
for zero lift, the zero lift pitching moment and the design
lift coefficients are, respectively:

i =--S ~ f(xC/').+IdxI) (1)

0

where the angle for zero lift is a0 -B0;

Cm 2Vio + (/2)ao (2)

• This condition of smoothness of flow at the leading edge,

together with the Kutta condition at the trailing edge, are
the basic assumptions of thin atrfoil theory.
1.1.40-2

II
where

p1
0 -f'Y
I 0 /c~fp(X/cadr/c)u

and
Cti - 2,r(aq
where
W f(Yol/c)f3(/c)(dxio).
-Qi (3)

The functions f1 , f2 , and fs, respectively, are

f IWo)<- /W[1.0- (X/C)4x,7x7F•10 - (C,)),],

1.0 - (Ar/e)
f2 ('X/C) - (r/c) ()-

f ,(x/c) - l 2.0 - .- (2:/a) l)]l

lo "(6)
f3(XC) -2¶rE/c)[1.0 -(x/c])3V2

The angle of zero lift, the zero lift pitching moment coeffi-
cient, and the design lift coefficient can be estimated graph-
ically utilizing the values for f1, 4, and f. listed in Table
I.
As the functions fl, f2, and f3 become infinite at the leading
and trailing edges, some portions of the integrals defining ao,
Cm, and rx must be evaluated analytically.t This is accomplished
by assuming that near the ends, the mean line has a general form
wMich can be expressed as

YIC- A + BR(/c) + C(:/c) 2 . (7)

By using Eq (7) in Zq (1), with f,(r/c) from Eq (4), and inte-
grating.from r/o - 0.95 to 1.0, the contribution of the trail-
ing ed-ge to the angle for zero lift can be expressed as:

Au 6 0--0.964y 0 , 5 + O.0954(dyl/dr),

.....................-
i ..
 1.1.40-3

1f (f/c) f 2 (M/0) fs (XWo)

01
0.0125 2.9C1 8.774 113.150
0.0250 2.091 6.085 39.730
0.0500 1.337 ,..131 13.840
0.0750 1.306 3.226 7.403
01000 1.179 2.667 4.716
0.15 1.049 1.960 2.447
0.20 0.995 1.502 1.492
0.25 0.980 1.156 0.980
0.30 0.992 0.873 0.662
0.40 1.083 0.408 0.271
0.50 1.273 0 0
0.60 1.624 -0.406 -0.271
0.70 2.315 -0.873 -0.662
O.BSO 3.979 -1.502 -1.492
0.90 10.6.10 -2.667 -4.716
0.95 29.210 -4.131 -13.840
1.00 00 10 --

TABLE I VALUFS OF FUNCTIONS f , f 2 , ANDf

where Yo0 5 is the ordinate of the mean line at x1c 0.95 and
(dyl/dx) I is the slope of the mean line at w/o - 1.0. At the
leading edge, f, decreases so rapidly for x/o > 0 that a separate
estimate of Aa. for x/c -• 0 is u:nnecessary.
For the ideal angle of attack, substitute Eq (7) into Eq (3) and
integrate, to obtain

-Aai :0.46?yo. + 0.04?2(dyl/d:)o from x'c = 0 to 0.05,

and
Aai -0.467yo.os + 0.0472(dy/dx)1 , from x/c 0.96 to 1.0.

Since fz(x/c) grows to large values only when very close to

Sx/ - 0 and x/c a 1.0 (see Table I), a separate evaluation of
the leading edge and trailing edge contributions to U. is not
necessary.

References
1. Theodorsen, T., On the Theory of Wing Sectiona with PartiquZar
Reference to the Lift Distributions, NACA Report No. 383, 1931.

a
 1.1.40-4

2. Abbott, I.H., von Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing Section.p,

Dover Publicationt, Inc., N.Y., N.Y., 1958.
3. Glauert, H., The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory.
Cambridge University Press, London, 1926.
4. Jacobs, E.N., Ward, K.E., and Pinkerton, R.M., The Char-
aoteristice of 73 Related AirfoiZ Sections from Test. in
the VariabZe-Density Wind Tunnel, NACA Report No. 46C, 1932.

-i

A!

- 4•

k.i
 1.2.10 AIRFOIL RELATED PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

Knowledge of the sectional characteristics of airfoils employed

on helicopter rotors, together with an understanding of the flow
phenomena in the rotor environment, are essential for an evalua-
tion of helicopter performance and optimization of a helicopter
rotor for a particular mission.
The definition of airfoils resulting in an imp-oved helicopter
rotor is p&rt of an iterative cycle. One example of such a cycle
is illustrated below:

DESIG EXPERIMENTAL
DHOESICNA VERIFICATION:
NETHODE AIRFOIL TEST

-E•.D E P R M NA EXPERIIEK•AL
VERIFICATION VERIFTCATIONý,:
,1N

• All the steps in the cycle are obviously important to the success
• of a rotor optimization effort, but airfoil improvement is only
one of the available avenues. Concentration on airfoils alone
•i would probably yield quite small returns.

-- •._a o of the steps in the cycle described above are particularly

- ~important and they can make the ,iifference between a timely and
S~successful design and a slow and costly effort. These steps are:
1.2.10-2

(1) the definition o2 realistic airfoil design cbjectiv~s,

and
(2) the ability to predict, by theoretical and empirical
means, a number of key airfoil characteristics.
Of the two tasks, the definition of airfoil design objectives
is the more difficult one.
As challenging as it is, rotor airfoil design is not the only
reason to review and understand in detail the aerodynamics of
airfoil sections. Presented below is a summary of some typical
helicopter problems which could be solved through a study of
rotor airfoil sections.

PROBLEM SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS TOOLS AVAILABLE TO

AREA OF POSSIBLE INTEREST SOLVE THE PROBLEM

Hover Performance Drag penalty at moderate e Test data on contour

lift levels due to con- errors
tour errors. a Potential flow/boundary
layer interaction methods
for relatively smooth
contour deviations. The
effect of stimulated
transition can also be
verified.
Sectional pitching * Test data on trailing
moments not as expected, edge contour variations.
resulting in unfavorable * Thin airfoil theory can
effective twist, or be used to verify pitch-
pitch-link loading. ing moment levels.
Teat data to verify loca-
tion of aerodynamic cen-
ter with respect to shear
center or c.g.
Skin friction drag due * Limited data on roughness
to rough blade finish, effects on wings and air-
foils.
* Theoretical determination
of effect of stimulated
transition.
 1.2.10-3

PROBLEM SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS TOOLS AVAILABLE TO

AREA OF POSSIBLE INTEREST SOLVE THE PROBLEM

Rotor Blade Blade mismatch due to dif- • Standard solution: trim

Tracking ferences in local Cm (and/ tabs over a limited por-
or other blade character- tion of span.
istics such as mass dis- * Trailing edge devices
tribution, WJ, and small distributed along entire
twist differences). span for localized pitch-
ing moment correction, to
be quantified by contour
measurements and, if re-
quired, thiu airfoil
theory.
Although the angle for zero
lift can be shifted by
changing trailing edge tab
angles, this is ganerally
undesirable because of the
large changes in pitching
moments associated with
T.E. tab variations. Thus
T.E. tabs cannot generally
be used to compensate for
twist errors.

Local separation due to • Recontour locally on the

contour error. basis of test data on dis-
continuities.
Recontour locally on the
basis of flow visualiza-
¶i tion observations.
Forward Flight Separation effects on • Two- and three-dimensional
Vibratory Loads advancing blade at Mach test data on contour
Due to Inade- number ervironment not errors at supercritical
quate Tracking covered by whirl-tower flow conditions.
or other tracking pro- • Potential flow theory to
cedures. determine pressure dis-
tributions. This data
can be used to evaluate
SMrit, Mdd, and qualita-
tive differences between
pressure distributions of
actual and required con-
tours.
in:oard contour mismatch • Thin airfoil theory for
not determined on whirl overall camber errors.
tower because of low dy- . Thin airfoil theory and
•- • namic pressures.
nai pesue.test data on effect of
T.E. contour variations.

_ ! I
 1.2.10-4

PROBLEM SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS TOOLS AVAILABLE TO

AREA OF POSSIBLE INTEREST SOLVE THE PROBLEM
Forward Flight Maximum lift capability on * Loads prediction method-
Vibratory Loads retreating blade ology utilizing quasi-
Due to Premature (0.3 < M < 0.5) steady sectional data
Retreating Blade due to: and unsteady aerodynamic
Stall une:cpectad requirement corrections for dynamic
exceeding sectional stall delay.
capability * Potential flow/boundary
9 contour error resulting layer interaction
-'-'-a 1Wn in~ imaximum lift methods for airfoils
n;capability. with separation cri-
teria calibrated
against test data.
Experimental data on
quasi-steady maximum
lift capability and
empirical understanding
of contour variations.

Forward Flight Pitching moment break on • Two- and three-dimen-

Vibratory Loads advancing blade resulting sional test data on some
on Advancing in torsional deflections contours and contour
"Blade and pitch link loads of errors at supercritical
unexpected magnitude. flnw conditions.
Such condition is due to • Test data on the effect
operation beyond the of trailing edge varia-
critical Mach number tion on supercritical
boundary over the out- pitching moments.
board portion of the
blade because of: • Two-dimensional tran-
*•unexpected requirement sonic flow analysis pro-
e xced sectiona grams are available, but
S , exceeding sectional
Mach tuck correlation is
capability not yet complete.
*•contour errors. -Contour inspection and
review of surface wavi-
ness tolerances over
portions of surface over
which local flow is
supersonic.
SReview of three-dimen-
sional relief corrections
used in performance mnd
load-prediction methodol-
ogy.

•.!-. .... -,.

 1.2.10-5

PROBLEM SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS TOOLS AVAILABLE TO

AREA OF POSSIBLE INTEREST SOLVE THE PROBLEM

Forward Flight On "soft blades, drag • Contour inspection and

Vibratory Loads can result in an addi- review of surface dia-
on Advancing tioual torsional load continuities in areas
Blade (Cont'd) due to outboard flap over which local flow is
bending. supersonic.
• If contours are correct,
some drag reduction be-
yond drag divergence
might be possible by
local recontouring
guided by som- transonic
flow analysis.
Speed Stability Tilt of tip-path plane * Test data on the effect

due to pitzhing moment of trailing edge varia-

break on advancing blade. tions on pitching
moments at supercritical
conditions.
Same overall approach as
for Forward Flight Vibra-
tozy Loads.
Premature Power If fuselage drag and other
Limit in For- sources of power loss have
ward Flight been excluded:
Overall drag level is too If nonreflecting paint
high due to surface fin- is used, an alterna-
ish or paint. tive might be to de-
crease grain size.
In absence of test data,
potential flow/boundary
layer interaction methods
can be used to evaluate
effect of stimulated
transition.
Due to manufacturing Review blade contours
contour error consistent through systzmatic geem-
from blade to blade, and etry measurements.
as such, not detectable Verify camber effects
in tracking. through thin airfoil
theory or a thick air-
foil potential flow
method.
* Verify 4rag divergence
boundaries. A
"Cont....

++ A
S1. 2. 10-6

PROBLEM
AREA fFSECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Or POSSIBLE INTEREST
TOOLS AVAILABLE TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM
Premature Power • Verify effect of curvature
Limit in Forward changes by potential. flow/
Flight (Cont'd) boundary-layer interac-
tion techniques.
Two- and three-dimen-
sional test data on some
contours and contour
errors at supercritical
flow conditions.

Rotor Noise Due to operation beyond Determination of theo-

the drag divergence retical or experimental
boundary and the lift- drag divergence bounda-
break boundary. ries.
• Experimental determina-
tion of lift-break bound-
aries.
* Rotor performance evalua-
tion methods to establish
flow environment and
correlate noise with
local flow conditions.

Due to trailing edge Noise frequency correla-

bluntness. tion with Strouhal number
and thickness of sepa-
rated region.
• Trailing edge modiflca-
tions to decrease thick-
ness without changing the
effective mean line.

Tail Rotor Vibra- Blade mismatch due to con- • Review of blade contours
tion at High tour errors. through systematic geom-
Thrust Levels etry measurements.
- Verification of camber
effects through thin air-
foil theory.
0 Verify premature separa-
tion by means of poten-
tial flow/boundary Layer
interaction techniques.
 O

"1.2.10-7

PROBLEM SECTIONAL CLARACTERI1TICS TOOLS AVAILABLE TO

AREA OF POSSIBLE INTEREST SOLVE THE PROBLEM

Tail Rotor Camber or leading edge con- - Review of blade contours

Vibration at tour deviations affecting through systematic geom-
High Thrust mazinum lift capability of etry measurements.
Levels sections. - Correlation of camber and
leading edge contour data
with information on maxi-
uw lift and stall char-
acteristics.
* Potential flow/boundary
layer interaction methods
with separation criteria
calibrated against test
data.
Note:
The same airfoil section
used on both main and
tail rotors can have
radically different max-
iwum lift and stall char-
acteriutics because of
differences in chord
(Reynolds number).

1
....-
--- - -
1.2.20 THEORETICAL METHODS OF AIRFOIL ANALYSIS

The determination of the theoretical character-

istics of airfoils generally involves lengthy
and complex calculations, but such calculations
have become practical since the advent of high-
speed computers. However, while such calcula-
tions are now possible and practical, a consider-
able amount of experience is often necessary to
prepare the input to such methods and to correctly
interpret the results.

This portion of the airfoil DATCOM summarizes

the key features of various methods for the solu-
tion of the flow about an airfoil. Computer pro-
grams to carry out calculations by these methods
are available to qualified users through various
government agencies.
1.2.20-2

id

wO %

47 041 0I) 0- 4w .V 00 -100c 4

A *-w4.40 4J O 40~
&o : 0 u 4 0 0 X C. 0
V4 3 001-n1~4a k a@ -4O4 41 1Aj-
0
444 00y
CZ eo
0 k r4
4 30 0JJ
4
O 04) '-00~
44
(a0
v~d.i.4
4w >
o- V
a-
h ) 9
to J$a 1 u ;l
(
.4
o- *ldr4.4 V0 -,A to 4 co 40 >.I 4J1 0
2- 4.n 4 4U0
wS4 & cu 48
to~a. Aj0 ~0 c
U0 4 v 0. Q@ -r 0.#- . C W
1-4 V4 u4 -i0a
A4.1.0z L-M4 ( A
P4 4 V4
A. Q 4 UU d W-40u0
QoW4
2 "m
1-r.4) 1C.
W ul'~
-0 a 0
10 w r. ,-4 w
WO w
-4*400 V-4 r4 C* .0U 44 . " 0J 4-. L- cu 0 x f
to~ .0 0 41 0 G )u 40ic 0
V, r-4.4toGJ t
CO.4U.. .r s44 0 -4 P = H P%
~0I4 4.1 ) b $ir.U 0 440C 4 4.4. A ' jb
.0 wJ. ) 44 -_v
40 t- 4 W W0 44 -C .0I,4 -
0 600 4J - = -r4 .1 G4.W - 3 414 jw
a V w 4 41 m V.0 r 4CJ10 A4 @49
0O0w 01% > 0 U0
u0( 04J&J0
A W ) 10
ev im 41 .- I *1 ma vU .. 4JJ0CL W V-1 0 on
PC4 C 1 U o' 0U
14~ 49 75o20mw0 0U. V-4 0
4) 0 W as > v. 0 -f4 0 0)Oa) > -rd
.e..060 44 ~u 4)ialu.0 CL 1.-4 10 uC o.0.0 a

Ai 4r IP @10
to 00
0( c 1'4'4 V4 wW --I4J CO-m r4W

' w00j ~. iiA w toih.

w .0a.
V~
gn 4 w
044 A
m -4 0 ....
44
* 1 d U 4
r 9
i- 4r ad
44 -
.

41 0 A00U
AJ WJ . s a0-4 j4 U -t O 0 i 14.U
r4P40 . CC JM4.0 .0 .e"%00 E -4 41*a0C44
> 44-4-i I r l@100
3 0 to- 0
Q 4 .-4 F- >. cdah .4u 1 a
ccZ z0 41- 0cc 0 -a p~.~, o 4u .0.r WP, 0;0 4144
CA-4 4444 0) -4 -40-41 4J 0 L n"U4 0 V
z.-~ W .' F-44 w I4W C0 @
-H 4.1 .
001 10 ~ 0.O
i t ) a

4a 00 dji 0 Q4 4 41 4)A D
1-40 41 r. IAxHI 0P 44A 1J.4jj A4 0 !4 b M
=-H "04 W 8.W Cl
"0 AjpiC DI.,cc Q 0 " (D a 41-

t . A : w r46 14 Jl-4
0 go I&4b.. a4 r-04 -v .4 tw 0(A
4;
r I 4: -4 Z D CL, 04 9
W) 4U r. %o G60

0 o c u o44 -44 . g 44 -04 4.QVS 4

4 =~~0. 0014 r
0 W4 4 o -4m04 1 - 0 w4 6
r- ca 9 u 91. - 4 1 :1 c Q 0,
4. 00 . 00 00U1Ac0 w~ CI *H g V a
0 )000 S u ( 14 0& 14
0 1 w 0 1 4 41 0 0 g ,
09 hi Uu
-C.
w r .i 61 0 r 4J -44.0 w
41
-4 ý4 4J44 4.

01
. 0ý4-i0r w4 ) Ii w
1 4j i

___ ___ _
 1.2.20-3

100

0 "
So, o
0 0 'V4
c 10 w 0
w 4I
,4 •. 4•
oX 0-0 0 0.w
0 0t&.,,
8

0-Wt04, . I > %4 w
I 0 0 V4 > 0i "4 w
v-.- 04 w 4 m k a
to 0.40 81 r.4~ z0 40 0m
r-4 &Wa 0 "q0-0 4. )
II -L = ) ,i-I
w 0 /0 - 1 0 0 .

f- 4 co00
44 to 0 00 44 *ý
a
0 ;0.
I a to,,I-39 r,,4 to
w w, 0
1-10 0. 0 J,••
&4 -0

"I
IVI,
I ,4 ) -W
4•0i
,,,00
5 l
0-6A
.-
0 -
IU
-4 . 0 U 0 44 Io -
" 40000
i o4J >o =44 4 A,d Q 44
,-4,vAl q 4
C;004 4uO 000 o 44
w 044 0 a00o0 4.
,0 a > -4 -1 V44.1 o4 44

II i .4444 m •I l l •• 4.0 A&~l4u

I -4) UN0 a r r.6 a0 .1 w

-4 0 4W04V0 4 .. 4 .4 .4 4J
v4 . 4 ,0 9 0.

/-c 0 "-,-' 900

IIU I I
0 (U . -H.4- 40. 04-1400 4

0cc4I0 co
> •) 1 .- i ,,.0
i ".'ou
•k 0w 4 w. u i.0 "

I 0Io do ¢.d'04J1
wr4 o t.0 .404>000O 96
.4 4 "414 V **"-
0II (D rn ; 0 2. 0I o I'.
j a..
C 4--.4
I 4I j
" .- .:3
"nt &.j
0i u G,. 43 41 a) • ci Sd 40
1 u,0 r.4 0. 0lw
') ' o0,4,4 0-6
I t4i•r. C
a)0.-
-WOO 0 '4 • - .O0.0
v44m
0 ;N 0 1..
o a0- 0 0 p0C-r4."
w W CC 0I4.w . cc0
4 0n0 • 00 to 44 4
1 1 H 00 CA00w "0 0 Od 4 w
'-4 0C
/ - '04 0 0 4- m 0
0tv0 .OSccO' ".0 G) $44'0"4w 0.0
wu = S v4410 40ad 0 0= a. co 0440
,-- co wl a Aj o > : c 1 1& ..!p
PQC0- .40
U ~~ ~ 00.4 ,A 0
co Q0.0sw,.
~ ~ ~ 0. 4.qr4
3UU k 00
0 00.
>.4o .4z4
4
1 0
0~ P% 0)L~4
4..
014.j
00 4 0-14 0
04 1
04
45
I 0, Q >. a- P, -H H,-='.O~
a:= ca
$,aP4u c0m A two
W c 4)4 4 V-4 A4 444'0-
$4v. r.0 ,0i..- 44r &a0,-,14'i
"4000. 1 61 0.
>0 cc P. w -0 0.- V0 -44
I , 00•W M v440
.. 4•i- O"X00>I..,4>1
.. 00 -Hc04j . a
04 4. 4 44

(4t cw"w4 ° &A0U .4 4 -W 04 . * *

kO 41 0 1 04-

I 4> " 0.4

-4-4>.
0

4
G

-r Cc ,a

$4 u w
-0* 0 to
1.2.20-4

w 43 %W a r46 0
~4.441l 400 40 a-.4 0
02 0.4.0 C~46 . 044d0 %w
-A w 0 14
w w 41 A $ 40
a40 ?aIHO~
.4.4U tOj~ 4 u4 CO

mf *0 W4J
4400

o to 0cc0 V4 in 4 00Q ur. 41- 0V

0O 6 ON -I
-4 Q V .4.4
9 W-4W 0.
"0- .0H=
"4
0I-HU4 J
-r4~ I 4
4
OO..
. uS4
. 64 4)0-I
u .04£.
1 0
Cl .0.~ .4 41 0 r
"104I 0 "
14 ci~%4 A'* ox V 0 4 0 9.
06 %.W a~ A
0 0 414 0 1 4 i0.- 4
0.404~~~ .460UIiJ 0
0 aA 0 ' -r %W 04 W ; P l V $ 4 -4 w
44 P4 0 04 04 ' A v 6DI) ý
0000~r .1h44 P-4 4. a*~ $d ,.
ro .4 0~ 0 wA4 u4
CH U.Q
~~''o0
'
"~i'4
'IA aj
o

'44 .a. 0 4) 0WJ%4 U 0 " cUa

* 4 4'r4 9.4 U ~. 4) H

hi" 00 O4 Q4)
U W
P-4 4.1 1 1r4 s.11 ri f.
6) V-40.3- ý4 F-4 *w-
6)cecf 0 14
-. 4 0 *o. 6 0
5 0 410
0 -4~0 4J . 00
-H 0 w' 4
.4.0 w 0 0 4 a - ' 414h.0 u1C=4Jw
r,40.
hOO mOi410U4 0'. W 0%41 0P
~J0
-r S ihi*';U01-4N 6 -4. 2406-4 $6 a0 a 4..4
z 0-W-ý4-,
e % 6 4-0 2 0u W 41 >-4 V'
-4
r.IV fiw a*1 :
b-a0 r -41 01hP-4 P-4 0 0 ý4.
044 0 0
'4-4 r. V 4J
i
dU0 r 1
0
H0
6 be 00
4~~ ~0.4K
0
0 1
P%
.0 go.
0.fl4.440
I"
c
'4
ca 4WQ -W a 0 q k 1 $ 00- %- 0WI-I

Cc-~ Ip(a1.0 1 44.4 cch w 0104J.0

HG)
40 .a 0164001
0 41
co4. . e.4 QV to V4a P44vQ
00 c0 00 0 0 w 44t r s a

CO .-.- GS -rJ4 ,$d 4 .4I 4 H

-l4 M -
41 44. 0 t.4'D444a
00 ~ 40 cc I.44 J tol U -

61~~~~~ U ~~ 41 41 0- uaa 0 I
- rA 4V0$ r..4-a *A 41 41
c4 0 " P
Ia.'U$4
W 4 - HOWzc 1-0 CZ

0~~- .-. 0v4u ci4

~ 404 0 ~0W40

-C0-V
.44 &I

I
.44-r

100. 4v4 (A

-0

A 9-
 1.2.20-5

u V4 004
05 04 &W6o V
V. %W " T-4 0 05

-A 4 P40 %4-4W $4

m a is a
9-4 IV#d a.
,JJ C6 414 41p. 9
0.. t.00.40

0 1 960 0 Ic
041 a bJ 5.41 4j 4A *
0041 04 a 0
= w = 314 4-1 '~

A coo1.. Vp0.0 Ad
41. 0 4-4 W.454
410441. 40. -P r4

Q)4 410 -r4

.CU
a1 0 ' 4
.4 A Ui
0
S 464I t-.o W4
4- A Ale 44
V
-V 0 010 0.F4.0
5410%
V04 4
41 V Q. 4
S 4j 0 0'4 41 .M 0 44 ;0%0
""4 41' 41 0. p
0~.. 04W000 F414
1.3 7o p. 004 aa a v4 4 44 a"
S -'4 04. A*0.0.1 . 4j 0~ rA5.'4
CA Q. 4 0 41 1e p.044
P4 10 a a d
94 0 r - 0a V 11 0 a4 ý41
.- 4 0 .0 4 W * me
X1. ~
e a-A
41O GO 4J 041
v4 aU0 44C6
004 w~- .0 a0 4 60
,460
41O'4 .. 10 4 14l .'4s4 PC 0
41. 4 N4 .140 a o0.-4 .0 r. 0 0
41 di. 0 59: 4410044 adU 4
r. 144 -440r6 44105.4J 0411 m'4
0to
-H
a4 sIV.41 a00 41*4a .4 'I 410
0.0 04Aa4 0 0 "
.0 *" * 4441. * 0 r. 14 Id
-04 41Z4

0 0 a
cc- 10 1944A '441.

44.
93-

(A 105
 1.2.20-6

References

1. Abbott, I.H., and von Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing

Sections. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1959.
2. Glauert, H., The Elements of Aerofoile and Airserew Theory.
Cambridge University Press, London, 1926.
3. Milne-Thomson, L.M., Theoretical Hydrodynamics. MacMillan
Co., New York, 1960.
4. Theodorsen, T., Theory of Wing Sections of Arbitrary Shape.
NACA Report No. 411, 1931.
5. Theodorsen, T., Garrick, I.E., General FPoential Theory of
Arbitrary Wing Sections. NACA Report No. 452, 1933.
6. Rauscher, M., Introduction to Aironautical Dynamics.
New York, N.Y., 1953.
7. Bisplinghoff, R.L., Ashley, H., and Halfman, R.L., Aero-
elasticity. Cambridge, Mass., 1955.
8. Dvorak, P.A., Brune, G., Knutsen,, R,W., and Mahal, A.S.,
T
Viscous/Potential Flow Interaction Program. USAAMRDL,
1972.
9. Stevens, W.A. Goradia, S.H., and Braden, J.A., MathematicaZ
Model for Two-Dimenaional Multi-Component Airfoils in
Viscous Flow. NASA CR-1843, July 1971.
10. Nitzberg, G.E., A Concise Theoretical Method for Profile-
¶ Drag Calculation, 11NACA ACR No. 4B05, 1944.
11. Squire, H.B., and Young, A.D., The Calculation of the Pro-
file Drag of Aerofoile, R&M No. 1838, British ARC, 1938.
12. Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theort. McG'aw-Hill, New
York, N.Y., 6th Edition, 1968.
13. Murman, E.M., Cole, J.D., CaZouZation of Plane Steady
Tra;nsonic Flows. BSRL Doc. No. DI-82-0943, Jan. 1970.
14. Krupp, J.A., The Numerical CalcuZation of Plane Steady
Transonic Flows Past Thin Lifting Airfoils, BSRL Doc. No.
D180-12958-1. (Also published as a Ph.D. Thesis, Dept.
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Univ. of Washington,
June 1971).
15. Crimi, P., and Reeves, B.L., A Method for Analysing Dynamic
Stall of Helicopt-er Rotor Blades. NASA CR-2009, May 1972.
- i•
 1.2.20-7

16. Bauer, F., Garabedian, P., Korn, D., A Theory of Super-

criticaZ Wing Sectiona, with Computer Programs and
Eaqam'es. Springer-Verlog, Berlin, Heidelberg, N.Y.,
1972.

17. Kemp, L.D., An Analytical Study for the Design of Advanced

Rotor AirfoiZs. NASA CR-112297, March 1973.
18. Bauer, F., Garabedian, P., Korn, F., and Jameson, A.,
Superoritical Wing Sections II. Springer-Verlog, Berlin,
Heidelberg, N.Y., 1975.
19. McCroskey, W. J., The Invieoid Plowfield of an Unsteady
AirfoiZ. AIAA Paper No. 72-681, 1972.
20. McCroskey, W.J., Philippe, J.J., Unsteady Viscous FZow on
Oscillating AirfoiZs. AIAA Paper No. 74-182, 1974.,
 1.2.30 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS

An idei test setup allows quantitative measurements of a

phenomeno.n within the actual environment in which the phenomenon
ikes place. The tools employed to carry out such measurenents
uld have as little effect as possible on the environment.

To the extent that an ideal test setup cannot be achieved,

the comparison of data from different tests measuring the same
phenomenon can easily be misleading. This is quite true of
the flow environment around airfoil sections.
The objective of this portion of the DATCOM is to review the
oyerall significance of airfoil data acquired in two- and
three-dimensional testing.
Two-Dimensic nal Models

An airfoil model can be defined as two-dimensional when pro-

visions have been made to eliminate flow variations along the
entire span of the model, thus simulating an infinite aspect
ratio.
However, while two-dimensionality is possible when the flow
ovar a model is fully attached, this definition becomes arbitrary
when any degree of flow separation is present because of the in-
trinsic three-dimensional character of separated flows. Three-
dimensional effects within regions of separated flow are signifi-
cantly influenced by the actual length of a two-dimensional
model. For this reason, while data at lift levels below the
maximum lift are affected to a relatively small degree by model
characteristics and tesLing techniques; at lift levels approch-
ing tae maximum lift, the flow ceases to be truly two-dimensional
over an ever increasing portion of t.,e airfoil surface, and the
test setup conditions have a significant impact on maximum lift,
stall, and after-stall behavior.
¶Test Setup
The finer details concerning the equipment in each test are
rarely described in the test documentation. Therefore, it is
assumed that no problems were encountered when such details
are not covered in the reports. Some examples of this assump-
tioji would be
The balance system, when employed, always operated

I . Balance tarts and interactions were checked out and

applied to vhs data.
1.2.30-2

• The measuring equipment was always correctly sized to the

magnitude of the loads to be measured.
• Model motions and deflections were negligible.
• An adequate seal was provided between model and tunnel
walls.
* Wake probe data was obtained by surveying with an adequate
sampling rate over a sufficiently large wake area.

Since differences among test setups cannot be defined either

quantitatively or qualitatively with any accuracy, the value of
comparative test data on different airfoils can be judged only
on the basis of consistency. If the data is to be comparable
from the point of view of Mach and Reynolds number conditions,
such consistency can be achieved in two ways:

(1) By testing different airfoils in the same wind-tunnel

facility with the same kind of models.
(2) By assessing the compatibility of different sources
through the comparison of test data for at least one
reference airfoil.
A substantial portion of the data sheets have been devoted
to Boeing--Vertol airfoil sections because they were tested at
the same wind tunnel, with the same test section configuration,
and with models similar to each other in chord and span. Al-
though the absolute level of the data might be questionable,
the results are still valuable because they provide the basis
for assessiny the effect cf a nun:ber of geometry variations on
aerodynamic performance,
It would be impossible to discus- all wind-tunnel test var-
iables and test corrections; in most cases, a detailed descrip-
tion of the test variables is not available. Vhe following
tables (I thiough IV) describe some of the equipment and tech-
niques used in wii i-tunnel testing, and will provide the aser of
theDATCOM with guidance as to the value of a comparison of air-
foil data from ditterrnt; sources.

!I-
 1.2.30-3

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Closed Circuit Reynolds number and Mach number combinations

Atmospheric limited to values set by model chord. Since
the tunnel can run continuously, the amount
of data is limited only by the capabilities
of the d.ta acquisition system.

Cloued Circuit Reynolds number and Mach number combinations

Pressurzzed can be varied as a function of both model
chord and tunnel pressure . Tunnel pres-
sures can be selected to match full-scale
conditions, while employif reduced-scale
models, within the pressui capability of
the system.
Open Circuit Typically, in blowdown tunnebt, the pres-
Tunnels - sure in the test section Lan Le varied.
Blowdown Therefore, the Reynolcs number and Mach
number capability is the same as for pres-
surized tunnels. However, the amount of
data is limited by the relativel7 short
duration of each run.
Water Tunnels Small chords can be used to explore large
Reynolda number conditions, with the limita-
tion that the flow is Incompressible and
locally subject to cavitation.

TABLE I TYPE OF WIND TUNNEL

 1.2.30-4

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Wall Porosity To simulate, in a wind tunnel, the streamline pattern

occurring around an object in flight through free air,
the walls in the test section have to be porous to
allow come flow through them. If the model size is
negligible wmpared to the size of the test section,
this precaution is not necessary.

In two-dimensional testing, the sidewalls establishing

the two-dimensional character of the flow must be
solid (possibly with provisions to control the wall
boundary layer); but some porosity is necessary above
and below the airfoil to minimize wall influence on
the streamlines. Through its effect on the stream-
lines, wall porosity influences the effettive angle-
of-attack of a wing or airfoil model, and it will in-
fluence the lift-curve slope, dC,/da, and the pitching
moment slope, dCm/da.

1 Typically, a solid floor and ceiling will cause a low

value in the lift-zurve slope. With Increasing poros-
ity, such value will increase to about the theoretical
value; to decrease again if the flow through the
boundaries is excessive. Note, however, that since
wind-tunnel wall corrections are available to account
for wall effects, it is not always necessary, though
desirable, to employ wall porosity.
Wall Boundary- Wall boundary-layer control (BLC) is often necessary to
Layer Control minimize separation at the intersection between the
airfoil model and the walls of the test seccion. This
is particularly important at high-lift levels.
The main disadvantage in employing BLC is that it might
suppress some separation which is not due to wall in-
terference and thus cause misleading maximum lift and
stall patterns. Wall suction is probably better than
wall blowing from this standpoint, but suction is
difficult to achieve and it is seldom used.

Turbulence The flow in the test section of every wind tunnel is

Level turbulent to some degree. Some tunnels have a very low
turbulence level because of the use of turbulence re-
duction devices, such as honeycomb or screens ahead of
the test section inlet. Typically, turbulence levels
are ob~ained from drag measurements on a sphere. Turbu-
lence, as a velocity fluctuation referenced to the
freestream velocity, :P.r be muasured with hot wire or
hot film anemometers. Cont'd...

TABLE Ii - TEST-SECTZON CHARACTERISTICS

 1.2.30-5

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Turbulence A very turbulent flow environment will cause premature

Level (Cont'd) transition on airfoils which have a potential for ex-
tensive laminar boundary layers, thus reducing the
characteristic low drag "bucket" that such sections
display over some lift range above and below design
lift, and under some circumstances, a turbulent flow
environment might also affect the maximum lift capa-
bility of a section.

The combination of surface roughness on airfoil models

and turbulence level in the test section makes deter-
mination of minimum drag levels a very difficult task.

Velocity At some conditions, an uneven velocity distribution

Gradients across the test section is possible even in the absence
of a model. Of course, such a condition is accentuated
by the presence of a model, particularly at high-lift
levels or at high subsonic Mach numbers. Some testing
techniques provide a flow environment in which sub-
stantial velocity gradients are always present. An
example of this is the transonic "bump" technique.
Pre-existing velocity gradients can have a severe im-
pact on data, particularly when the data involves
velocity surveys, as in the case of momentum lors
_________ (drag) measurements.

Model Size vs In two-dimensional testing, the presence of a floor and

Test-Section ceiling prevents the normal curvature of the stream-
Size lines, and it causes an apparent increase in camber.
Although wall effects can be accounted for, it is de-
sirable to tc:t tirfoil models with a chord as small as
possible compared to tunnel height. In most tests, a
tunnel height-to-choTd ratio, h/c, of at least 4, has
been commonly employed. Wall effects can be further
reduced by wall porcsity.

TABLE II - TEST-SECTION CHARACTERISTICS (CCNT'D)

 1.2.30-6

DESCRIPTION j LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Two-Dimensional • Low span-to-chord ratio will result in excessive

Models sensitivity to sidewall separation effects.
- High span-to-chord ratio can limit the test range
because of model deflections.
SFor good two-dimensional characteristics, the model
be adequately sealed at the tunnel walls.
amut
"-
If thA model is equipped with end-plates to mini-
mize detrimental effects, such plates must be:
a) Flush with the walls of the test section
1' Properly sealed, to avoid leakage
c) F'ree to move (small excursions) along a plane
parallel to the walls of the test section when I
an external balance system is the source of
data
d) Properly calibratud to determine force and
pitching moment tares.

Three-Dimensional For fixed-wing applications, models of actual wing

Models configurations are tested either in conjunction with
a complete aircraft model or as half-span wing models
mounted on the floor, or a sidewall, of the test see-
tion. For helicopter applications, wings of rec-
tangular planform have been tested, although such
data is hard to relate to two-dimensional character-
istics and tests of this nature have value mostly on
a comparative basis.

End Places End plates will cause problems if they

1) Leak around their perimeter
2) Cause wall boundary-layer separation
3) Cause balance interfeaence.

When both airfoil model and end-plates are mounted on

a balance, an end-plate contribution to the drag and
the pitching moment must be accounted for.

End Seals Wings and airfoil models cannot be firmly attached to

the walls of the test section for a number of reasons,
including the fact that some means has to be available
1*
-
I : to change the angle of incidence.
]Cont'd...

TABLE III - MODEL CONFIGURATION

1*
 1.2.30-7

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

End Seals (Cont'd) Air leakage in the proximity of tunnel sidewalls can
occur in many places, often with significant impact
on the overall flow environment. Whenever leakage
can be foreseen, some method of restricting it has
to be provided withoo. interfering with the mechan-
ical functions of the model and instrumentation.

It is impossible to generalize on the sources of

possible air leaks. The following areas have shown
the greatest potential for problems:
"• Edge of end-platea, resulting in flow through
the sidewalls
"*Model mounting assembly, resulting in flow through
the sidewalls
"*Edges of airfoil model - flow from pressure to
suction side of airfoil.
The effect of leakage can be detx:,ined from force
and moment measurements and flow visualization
techniques. Only flow visualization, however, will
help in isolating the trouble areas.

Surface Roughness During the 1940's, NACA established a criterion for

and Stimulated "standard" roughness. In accordance with that cri-
Boundary-Layer terion, a level of roughness was applied systemat-
Transition ically to tany airfoils tested during that period.
The standard leading-edge roughness selected by
MACA foc 24-inch models consisted of 0.011-inch
carborundum grains applied to the surface of the
model at the leading edge over a surface length of
0.08c, measured from the leading edge on both sur-
faces. The grains were thinly applied to cover 5 to
10 percent of the area.
Such roughness is representative only of wing sur-
faces under the most extreme conditions. At stan-
4• dard operating conditions, the resulting conditions
would be considerably less severe. "Standard"
roughness is seldom used today.

Current practice calls for the application of narrow

"trip" strips over wing and airfoil surfaces. This
is done to verify the sensitivity of the drag to
various extents of laminar flow, and to stimulate
larger "effective" Reynolds numbers by precipitating
earlier transition. When employing this technique,
care should be qxercised to apply only the minimum
ACCOt'd...
i• [TABLE III -MODEL CONFIGURATION (CONT'D)
 J

1.2.30-8

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Surface Roughness grit size necessary to stimulate boundary-layer

and Stimulatcd transition. Excessive grit size vould cause an
boundary-Layer increase in drag beyond the amount due to a reduc-
Transition tioa in the extent of lazinar boundary layer.
(Cont'd)

TABLE HI - MODEL CONFI,&URATION (CONT'D)

!I

I
1.
 1.2.30-9

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Force and Moment Body axis measurements have to be resol'Ted along the
Measurements by wind axis. This can result in large errors in drag
Balance (see Sheet 1.1.30-15).
Wall interference will cause drag increments ant'
penalties in raximum lift which are proportional to
the amount of wall-induced separation.
Accurate balance tares and interactions are
necessary.

Pressure Measure- Pressure orifices have to be located at sufficient

ments and Integra- distance from the tunnel walls to avoid the effects
tion of Pressures of wall boundary-layer or wall-induced separation.
Differential pressures; i.e., the measurement of
the pressure difference between top and bottom sur-
face at the same chordwise position, will allow the
determination of normal forces and pitching moments
only. Since the determination of absolute pres-
sures would require twice as many pressure measure-
ments as differential pressures, absolute pressure
data is required only when differential data would
not provide meaningful information.
Insufficient instrumentation near the trailing edge
of an airfoil will result in erroneous pitching
moments.
The determination of detailed load distributions
"at transonic flow conditions requires a large num'er
of pressure orifices distributed along the entire
chord. This is necessary to determine the chordwise
location of the recompression boundary, since that
boundary shifts considerably as a function of inci-
dence and Mach number.
When time-varying pressure measurements are made,
the resonant frequency as well as the time-lag
effects introduced by the ducts have to be taken
into account. When it is anticipated that these
effects would be significant, the data must be
acquired by means of pressure transducers located
very close to each pressure port.
Wake Momentum The most accurate method for the determination of
Loss Measuruments drag involves the measurement of the m-ment- loss
in the wake of a wing or airfoil.
Three methods are commonly used:
1) Wake traversing probes
Cont'd...

TABLE IV. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

1.2.30-10

DESCRIPTION LIMITATIONS AND MAIN EFFECTS ON DATA

Wake Momentum 2) Wake rakes

Loss Mee~urements 3) Direct integration wake probes.
Wake traversing probes consist of
a total pressure
probe and a static pressure probe supported by a
mechanism which moves them through the wake of an
object. Records are made of probe position and
pressure values. The area traversed in a momentum
survey must include positions above and below the
airfoil for which the momentum loss is no longer
measureable.
A wake rake performs the same function as a tra-
versing wake probe, but instead of moving across
the wake, it is fixed in space and samples the
entire momentum loas region with a large number of
individual pressure probes. While wake rakes allow
rapid acquisition of data, the resolution capa-
bility of a rake can be severely impaired at low
drag levels by the size of the momentum loss region
compared to the distance between pressure measure-
ment locations.
Direct integration probes determine, with one
measurement, the total momentum loss in the wake.
Typically, direct integration techniques are used
on wake rakes modified to channel the ducts from
each individual tube to a common plenum chamber.
The pressure in the plenum is then measured and
referenced to the freestream total pressure.
The usefulness of momentum loss measurements is
limited to conditions resulting in relatively small
momentum loss regions. Stall or flow conditions
causing extensive shock systems will create wakes
which cannot be easily surveyed.

TAvLE IV. MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (CONT'D)

 1.2.40 TABULATION OF KEY THEORETICAL AND
EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

This data sheet summarizes the sectional characteristics most

often used in comparing helicopter rotor airfoils. The data
in the following table is for the airfoils presented in data
sheets 1.3.10 through 1.3.43.

The information for each airfoil includes:

1. Maximum lift coefficient values at Mach numbers
of interest in assessing the potential for de-
laying retreating blade stall 0.3 S M S_ 0.5).
2. Zero lift drag divergence Mach number as a
oýeasure of advancing blade performance.
3. Drag coefficient at M - 0.6 and C, - 0.6 as
a measure of hover performance potential.
4. Zero lift angle-of-attack and pitching moment
coefficient at low speeds (M < 0.4).
5. Reynolds number levels. For reference, the
table shows the test Reynolds number at M - 0.4.
6. Geometric characteristics: thickness, camber,
and leading-edge radius.
S7. Trailing-edge configuration, when different
from the standard NACA configuration (e.g.,
trailing-edge tab).
 "1.2.40-2
M....l 'UM T.E. TAB MOL4aL
DATA SHEET L.E.R. CAMER
AZ J• LUMER
AIFOL14UMhBER tic r/cCHR
/c x/c y/c ýtxb 6 tab (n
-"-c (dog)

NACA 0006 1.3.10 0.06 0.004 7.0

NACA 0012 11.3.20 0.12 0.0158 10.0

HMA 0012
* Reverse flow 1.3.30 0.12 0.0158 . ... 6.0
data

NACA 0012
with 1.3.40 0.117 0.0154 - - 0.04 0.0 16.4
00 T.E. Tab

NACA 0012
with 1.3.50 0.117 0.0154 - - 0.04 -3.0 16.4
-3* T.E. Tab

NACA 001S 1.3.g0 0.15 0.0248 - -- 6.0

NAC.A 23012 1.3.70 0.12 0.0158 0.15 0.01838 -- 5.0

'ACA 23012
with .043c 1.3.80 0.12 0.0158 0.15 0.01I038 0.043 0.0 5.0
T.E. Tab

NACA 23012
with .087c 1.3.90 0.12 0.0158 0.15 0.01838 0.087 0.0 S.0
T.E. Tab

NACA 23015 1.3.100 0.15 0.0248 0.15 0.01838 - - 6.0

NACA 63A009 1.3,110 0.09 0.00607 8.0

NACA 63A012
1* 1.3.120 0.12 0.01075 8.0

NACA 63A012
Reverse flow 1.3.130 0.12 0.0107 8.0
data

i t... .. I_...1_ - . I - I ' " " ... " ' ... i. . °-

 1.2-40-3
¢t, AX a__ Cd at (M-,,0.4) ReXl0-6
Pt .6 at REMAKS r.

M,-0.3 M-0.4 M-0.5 LIFT CL-0.6 Cgo ao (deg) M4-0.4

0.875 0.015 0.0 0.0 5.2 7

1.037 1.017

Tested with
"1.144 1.080 0.967 0.765 0.0122 0.0 0.0 2.2 leadin.g edge 2
roughness
1.8 Tested for
0.0 0.0 angles of 16
at low attack from 00
Speed to 1800

-nsuff. H-34
1.27 1.14 1.01 data 0.0077 0.0 0.0 2.6 main rotor
airfoil

H-34
1.205 1.08 0.96 no drag data 0.015 0.8 2.6 main rotor 3
airfoil

1.07 0.99 0.92 0.74 0.0132 0.0 0.0 1.3 20

1.38 1.22 0.795 0.029 -0.010 -1.2 2.5 12

- 1.42 1.28 0.78 0.029 -0.0075 -1.0 2.5 12

S1.42 1.28 0.78 0.029 -0.005 -0.95 2.5 12

1.24 1.30 1.08 0.72 0.0138 -0.01 -3.2 1.3 20

- 0.97 0.7 0.805 0.0137 0.0 0.0 4.0 17

0.98 0.85 0.78 0.770 0.011 0.0 0.0 4.0 17

ii 0.0 0.0 3.5

Tooted for
angles of 17
at M-o.3~attack from 0
to 160° i
.4
1,2.24O-4
NAX• T.E. TAIB HOW•'L
DATA S MEZT L.E.R. M CHOW
AIRY.OIL NUMBER i/c -ic - -- COIta
_______________ (deg)

NACA 63A015 1.3.140 0.15 0.0163 --- 8.0

NACA 63A018 1.3.150 0.18 0.0228 - 8.0

NACA 64A(4.5)08 1.3.140 0.08 0.00456 0.5 0.0293 6.38

MA 6t4608 1.3.170 0.03 0.00456 0.5 0.0399 6.38

MACA 64A312 1.3.180 0.12 0.01044 0.5 0.01995 6.38

MACA 64A(4.5)12 1.3.190 0.12 C.01044 0.5 0.02993 - 6.38

NACA 64AG12 1.3.200 0.12 0.01044 0.5 0.03991 6.38

MACA 64A!16 1.3.210 0.16 C.D1807 0.5 0.03326 6.38

MIAC. 8-8-012 1.3.220 0.117 0.01325 24.0

Vi130o6-0.7 1.3.230 0.06 0.007 7.70

V(1..9)3009 1.3.240 0.09 0.0125 6.0

1., 301 ::-5 173-20 0.102 0.0158 0.16 0.0175 0.04 0.0 6.38
0*T.Z. Tlb |

V23010-1.58 1.3.2EO 0.102 0.0158 0.16 0.0175 0.04 -3.0 6.38

3* T.E. Tab "}-

Tab' ' .. _I L.I_I I.I.I I.I I I."..--

 r at LOW SPEED
I M-0.3
-

IM-0,4 M-0.5
ZERO
LIFT
M-0.6
CL-0.6 C'o
M (do)g
at
M-0.4
REMARKS REF.

1.22 1..01 0.0 0.74 o.o11 0.0 0.0 4.0 17

approx.
1.11 1.0 0.725 0.015 0.0 0.0 4.0 17

- 1.23 1.1 . 0.752 0.007 -0.095 -3.2 7.5 i1

1
1.40 1.37 0.755 0.006 -0.13 -4.6 7.5 is

i,
- 1.29 1.21 0.758 0.0074 -0.065 -2.4 7.5 1'

I--.--... -.= .. ,- , ______ _____

-. 1.43 1.38 0.735 0.0085 -0.095 -3.35 7.5 19

1.45 1.5 0.69 0.008 -0.125 -A.5 7.5 19

. 1.47 Q.l685 0.009 -u.102 -3, 7.5 18

1.7

S.?. 2.6
MLow .. . . 0.005 -1.6 15
_•., M• 1,I at low

1.03 0.865 0.3075 -0.312 0.0 5.3 nOn-standard

1.1 1.04
(6.96) (0.97) (O.S7) reference line

1.315 1.125 1.12 0.813 0 0.2 5.3 non-s04nd0r. 7

fe (est.' zeferencw li.

I 1446 1.22 0.794 0.0103 -0.003 0.35 7.1 non-standard

-6-66 reference ýine i0

.. 4:, 1i j S 0.7
(est.) .8 , 0.311
"!.st.) C.006 U.9 7. nreference
n-stand asrd
line
_
97
io_ 1

_ _I
1.2.4O-6
T.E. TAB MODEL
DATA SHEET L.E.R., CP"=BER CHORD
AIRPOIL NUMBER t/C r/c / Ctb 6tab (in)
__....__ _ _ _,,_ _,_c (deg) .....

V23010-1. 58
Reverse flow 1.3.270 0.102 0.0159 0.16 0.0175 0.04 0.0 6.38
data

V23010-1. 58
Reverse flov 1.3.280 0.102 0.0158 0.16 0.0175 0.04 -3.0 6.38
data

V23010-1.58
Reverse flow 1.3.290 0.102 0.0158 0.16 0.0175 0.04 3.0 6.38
data

V43012-1.58 1.3.300 0.12 0.0158 0.16 0.035 0.1 0.0 7,018

0.1
V43012-1.58 1.3.310 0.15 0.0158 0.16 0.035 (0.05 -6.0 7.318
deflec-
ted)

SA 13109-1.58 1.3.320 0.118 0.0158 - - 8.27

NPL 9615 1.3.330 0.113 0.01883 - 0.0

1-

NPL 9626 1.3.340 - 1-0.0

NFL 9627 1.3.350 - 1-0.0

NFL 9660 1.3.360 0.113 0.0198 c.o35 o.u 10.0

NACA CaMbrd 1.3.370 0.118 - 8-.46

VR-7 1.3.380 0.12 0.0113 0.3 0.03138 0.0.1 0.0 6.3B

0O ,.w Tab

VR-7 1.3.390 0.12 0.0113 0.3 0.03138 0.05 -3.1 6.38

3* T.E. Tub
 1.2.40-7
CAMDD C at LOW SPEEID
'AXl Cat. A(M'0,4) RexlO-6
ZERO M-0.6 at RImuNS REF.
M-0.3 M-0.4 M-0.5 LIFT C1 -0.6 C% Cao(dog) M-0.4

0.82 0.90 approx. 5.0 no'--stancokrd 11

-0.76 -0.75 181 reference jine

0.80 0.86 --- _ approx. 5.0 non-standard 1.

-0.71 -0.72 181 refe.rence line
approx. 4

0.80 0.88 -- 5.0 non-staneard 11

-0.80 -0.80 181 reference line

T.E. Tab extends

1.89 1.665 1.21 0.65 - 0.001 -1.8 8.0 beyond basic 10
chord. Nondim.
by total chord

0.65 T.E. Tab exton.

1.81 1.55 1.145 0.022 -0.05 8.0 Loads nondim'd 10
(estim.) by total chord

1.2 1.05 0.96 0.825 0.0102 approx. -0.7 2.2 22

0.0

1.23 1.17 1.10 0.785 0.0116 -0.009 0.3 2.2 non-standard 2

reference line
S~insuff.

"1.2 1.1 0.97 data 0.0115

Ma -0.007 0.1 2.2 non-standard
reference line 19

insuff.
1.24 1.16 1.03 data
dat 0.011 -0.011 0.1 2.2 non-standard 19
reference line

1.3 1.18 1.15 0,792 0.0114 -0.006 0.1 2.2 refereuce line 13
'Joed on the
•i Lynx Helicopter

-approx. approx.
1.28 1.26 1.28
1.14 .79
0.79 0.011
0011 -0.012 0.2 2.0 noe-itanar
eference line

I.tJ3 1.50 J..9 0,742 0.0081 0._ •95 9 7,3 10

1.57 1.46
_ _
1.57
__
0.75
__
0.0084
(e ,_
-0.007
1 -1.1
_
7.3
_

__ __ _ ___-_
in
1.2,40-8
MAXIMUM T.E. TM MODEL
DATA SHEET L.ER. CAMBER T CHORD
AIRFOIL NUMBER t/c r/c T i c 6tab (in)
WU,
,, (dog) . . .

VR-7 1.3.400 0.12 0.0113 0.3 0,031j8 0.05 -5.9 6.38

60 T.E. Tab

VR-a 1.3.410 0.08 0.00585 0.3 0.0125 0.05 0.0 6.38

0" T.E. Tab

VR-7.1 1.3.420 0.12 0.0113 0.3 0.03138 0.05 -1.0 6.38

FX-69-H-098 1.3.430 0.098 0.0062 not

__ __available

__
__,___ _ _ _______. _ _ _ ___ _._ _ _ _ _

V - ___ ____L"
 1.2.•0-9
cI Xa M
DD Ca at LOWSPEED
ZERO ZEROat.O. (M<0.4)
1,0.6 a
OXO-6K N REF.
11-0.3 M40.4 m -0.5 LIFT CtLm0.6 C% c 0 (deg) X-0.4

1.53 1.41 1.51 0.757 0.009 0.009 -0.5 7.3 10

(eSt.) (est.)

1.06 1.04 1.235 0.611 0.007 -0.011 -0.9 7.3 10

1.63 1.5 1.53 - - -0.020 -1.7 7.3 10

4.0
1.4 1.33 0.79 0.0064 -0.01 -0.8 to 14
5.0

•I . -. ____ -...

ii4
__II
 1.2.40-10

References

1. Ladson, C.L., Description and Calibration of the Langley

6 by 19-inch Transonic Tunnel. NASA TN D-7182.
2. Gregory, N., Wilby, P.G., NPL 9615 and NACA 0012-A Compari-
son of Aerodynamic Data. ARC C.P. No. 1261, 1973.

3. Lizak, A.A., Two-Dimensional Wind-Tunnel Tests of an B-34

Main Rotor Airfoil Section. TREC TR 60-53, September 1960.

4. Chaddock, D.R., A Tunnel Spanning Airfoil Testing Technique.

AHS Meeting in Hartford, Conn., March 6, 1975.
5. Liiva, J., Davenport,. F.J., Gray, L., Walton, I.C., Two-
Dimensional Tests of Airfoils Osaillating Near Stall.
USAAVLABS

6. LaPrete, R. Storwick, E.M., Peterson, L.D., Boeing Wind-

Tunnel Test 927 - High-Speed Force Tests to Determine Sec-
tion Characteristics of VR-910M-1, Full-ScaZe Airfoil
Sections, for Product Improvement of Vertol Division CH-47.
Boeing Docuin-nt D2-24066-1, 1966.
7. Gabriel, E., Analysis of Two-Dimeneional Wind-Tunnel Tests
of Rotor Blade Airfoils of Varying Camber and Leading-Edge
Radius. Boeing Aero mnv. 111-288, 11 November 1965.
8. Gray, L., Liiva. J., Davenport, F.J., Wind-Tunnel Tests of
Thin Airfoils Oscillating Near Stall. USAAVLABS TR 68-89A,
1969.
9. Eierman, R.L., Nyholm, J.R., Schreiber, R.E., RAssell, J.H.,
Data Report BSWT 412, A Force Test on VR-890E-1, A 0.25-
Scale VertoZ 23010-1.58 Two-DimensionaZ Airfoil Model in the
BSWT Two-DimensionaZ Subsonic Ineert. Boeing Document No.
D6-20518, December 1967.
10. Dadone, L.U., McMullen, J., HLE/ATC Rotor System Two-
Dimensional Airfoil Test. Boeing Document No. D301-10071-1,
December 1971.

11. Gray, L. Dadone, L.U., Gross, D.W., Child, R.F., Wind-TunneZ

Investigation of Airfoils Oscillating in Reverse Flow.
USAAVLABS TR
12. Uhle, H., Windkanalmesaungan am Prof1 SACA 23012 mt
Oviginee-und modifrxierter Hinterkat. MBB TN D127-2/71,
November 1971.
 T

1.2.40-11

13. Wilby, P.G., Effect of Produotion Modification. to Rear of

Westland Lynx Rotor Blade on Sectional Aerodynamic Char-
acteristics. RAE 73043, February 1973.
14. Kemp, L.D., An Analytical Study for the Design of Advanced
Rotor Airfoiles. NASA CR-L12297, March 1973.
15. Stivers, L.S., Jr., Rice, F.J., Jr., Aerodynamic Character-
istice of Four NACA Airfoil Section. Designed for Helicopter
Rotor Blades. NACA WR L-29, 1946.

16. Critzos, Heyson, Boswinkle, Aerodynamic Characteristics of

NACA 0012 Airfoil Section at Angles of Attack from 0* to
180*. NACA TN 3361, January 1i55.
17. Sipe, O.E., Jr., and Gorenberg, N.B., Effect of Mach number,
Reynolds Number, and Thickness Ratio on the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of NACA 63A-Series Airfoil Sections. ML
TR 65-28, June 1965.

18. Dadone, L.U., Experimental Investigation of the Properties

of a FamiZy of MACA 64AXXX Airfoils. Boeing Document
D170-10021-1, November 1969.

19. Wilby, Gregory, and Quincey, Aerodynamic Characteristics

of NPL 9626 and NPL 9627, Further Airfoils Designed for
Helicopter Rotor Use. ARC CP 1262, '1973.

20. Graham, D.J., Nitzberg, G.E., and Qison, R.N., A Systematic

Investigation of Pressure Distributions rt High Speed Over
Five Representative NACA Low-Drag and Conventional Airfoil
Sections.

21. ONERA Note Technique D'Information No. 3 - 0e05 GY fascicule

1/2, Essais en courant plan a' $3SMA du profit NACA 0012 a'
extension cambret de bord d'attaque (resultate couriges des
effets de parois).

22. PV d'Essais ONERA No. 1 - 604 GY fasicule 1/4, Essais en

courant de Profits de Pale d'Heliooptere pour Sud-Aviation-
Pro,'-l SA 13109-1.58.

Ut
 1.2.50 COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS

As freestream velocity increases, the local velocities around

an airfoil section increase until sonic velocity is reached at
some point on the profile. With further increases in freestrepm
velocity, local regions of supersonic flow are established along
portions of an airfoil surface. The recompression occurring
downstream of such supersonic regions gives rise to the formation
of shock waves which continue to grow in size and intensity as
the speed of the flow increases. The major effect of recompres-
sion waves, besides establishing the transition from supersonic
back to subsonic flow, is the disruption of the boundary layer.
Initially, this results in slight increases in the profile drag
of the airfoil as the flow begins to separate; but ultimately,
this leads to large increases in profile drag and loss of lift
as the boundary layer flow completely separates from the airfoil.
Clearly, it is very important to understand the effect of com-
pressibility on airfoil characteristics in order to estimate the
airfoil performance limits associated with 1ach number, and to
apply whatever compressibility corrections are possible to extend
the value of available data. In this section, the most important
flow corrections are listed and explained, Mach number limits are
discussed, and a brief illustration of typical compressibility
effects on lift, drag, pitching moment, aerodynamic center, and
center-of-pressure is provided.
In order to estimate the effects of compressibility on the
flow arlound airfoils, various corrections have been derived.
They are:

(1) The Prandtl-Glauert Rule 4

(2) The Karman-Tsien Rule
(3) The Kaplan Rule
(4) Laitone's Modification to the P-G Rule.
A brief summary of these corrections and their ranges of
applicability is given in Table I, Data Sheet 1.2.50.1. It is
important to realize that all of these corrections were develope&
on the assumption of linearized flow with small perturbation
velocities. Thus, strictly speaking, they are most valid for
situations involving thin airfoils operating at low lift coeffi-
cients. It should also be noted that the various rvles are
applicable over different ranges of Mach number. For example,
the Prandtl-Glauert Rule is good for low I eestream Mach numbers,
but it decreases in accuracy at the higher Mach numbers, while
the Karman Tsien huie can be applied with very good results to
higher Mach numbers. In fact, it is still possible to utilize
the Karman-Tsien Rule with fairly good results if the local flow
exceeds the speed of sound without the formation of a strong shock

i
 1.2. 50-2

wave. Besides their obvious application in making compressibility

corrections to incompressible flow data, these rules can also be
applied to the approximate determination of various Mach number
related airfoil limits. These limits are discussed in Section
1.2.50.1.
Subsonic flow tables (sheet 1.2.50-3) are presented to assist
in the dettrmination of local flow conditions when the speed of
the flow and the fluid stagnation conditions are known. Note
that these tabulated functions can be used only to compensate for
compressible flow conditions, and cannot be used directly with
airfoil pressure and force coefficients. Also note that the
range of validity of the subsonic flow tables encompasses only
isentropic flow at velocities up to M - 1.
Finally, Sections 1.2.50.4 - .8 illustrate typical compressi-
bility effects on airfoil lift, drag, pitching moment, aerodynamic
center, and center-of-pressure.

Af
 1.2.50.1 COMPRESSIBILITY CORRECTIONS

0 1

0 2 .48 .4
.04
IV4 m0 14 )00

~ .0 00v .00 0 0 41410 V

r40.~J. 0 1 1 . Q040 *41r P

0.. w. k w. 0 U3 "44 41 I4 0 V4 94
0J w C6 -M ,0 09Z 0

000w31V 0 C~~ " ci-4

Wm 0k
.14
0$ . w00"w0 94 "d 0.0-A w T4 0

>0- -4''~ fUc C

Ai0 0~0 0)0 di 0. 00..
z 0.40 * -49.,41
>3 .H -r -
0 00
fw0 c ' 4j O 0 0.0.9140 10O lC'g
0 cc9
0-0.@ c3. 0 0.-40
-r4-0 >10 l-940 4 0 W.-4
Za 000
co Aw w. 0.-O E4

(a
g -.4 M.1-4
-W 40.0 ~.0 .1
P4 w ~U .0
4
Z0.-2 094
U4.
-H
I ca494
41
1.44 4- 0
mP uJ0
c%4co 0 0( 10 %. 10 r- 0 4-.

w.-
4.4..9. u z tj0 96r.6 6.

=100 0 4-c.4A CL q3 -
& 4.4 r. r404.4 0. -40.9400 4-' 00.-0I
.00 - 0 ; o00 T - @3
ao u &W
V4.a U 01,
w W ~ U 0 rd~ 0
41 003t )d W w 0 00140 (a 'Li 4 9'4 Q)

0W
v41 194 4 t64 A3-a) F.4.hIn 0w- 0.0 0 Z
-900 -9.0.0- 0 W J65:9.. 44 4 * V00

@3 *00 0 0 08 Wr 0 to 146-. .41 Go w =-W

0 @30GIZ.0 0 . 50 WIa.4r -P4l 00i .0
:3 " .1- .0 44 0.4m 0.00 140
r4 -A 4W Q

1 0 C0 04. " r 09 o .4 0 1u
00 00 .6 : 1 0) 0 w 2
Q CC.. -944 r( Q *. :r 4 .4 92 444 4
-4)r4V4 0 V >0aW. -

1'001 0)0 1- d00c c( 004 " -

4AA 4 A U o
>.Aa90
00.

w w -r 0 CV4 :0-

-1. p a)~ 1-d.5.*10 Ha0.

44.
a: 4 0--=.. w4 0-- 4)-
V
04(

445 4-4 .
00 0 0 '-4
0 C

0c 0 0s 0 cc@g
0)-9 "
C6 4 4 I -40 44-
41.0 .04 . 0 0
uV4 r.04 C0.-) 4
4) 00Go0 00
..
1 ce,.J
0.1
 1.2.50.1-2

Prandtl-Glauert Correction

The Prandtl-Glauert correction is expressed as:

CPO CPino/
'omp. -2

where

CPCoMP - the pressure coefficient at a given point for

compressible flow past a profile
CPinc - th-; pressure coefficient at the same point for
incompressible flow past the same profile
M. - freestream Mach number.

The Prandtl-Glauert correction is derived for the case of

small perturbation velocities and low freestream Mach numbers.
These assumptions limit the applicability of the rule to thin air-
foil sections with small amounts of camber at low C1 and Mach
numbers. The further assumption that these perturbation veloc-
ities are applied uniformly over the entire profile allows
application of this rule to force and moment coefficients;
namely, Ct/da, C1, and Cm. For example,

atconstantanCglomp
f- Caino/
I at constant angle-of-attack.
 "1.2.50.1-3

Prandtl-Glauert Correction (Laitone's Modification)

The Prandtl-Glauert rule, as originally derived, is based
"on the assumption that the linearized flow equations (and the
small perturbation velocity) can be applied uniformly to the
entire field or flow of the profile. Laitone's modification
to the Prandtl-Glauert rule consists of assuming that the com-
pressibility correction to the incompressible pressure coeffi-
cient at a given point on a profile can be performed using the
* local Mach number at that point rather than the freestream
Mach number; i.e.,

CCPcOmp Cpinc

where Mf is the local Mach number.

Combining the pressure coefficient and isentropic
relations,

S+ [(Y -)
C (PZ/P.) - 1 t 1 + (V 1)12]M.
1
1/

Solving for Mf2 and substituting the solution with the equations
for Cpcomp results in

tPin

CPcamp 21mw
+
M[f N2
V CPtnc

where
Y = the ratio of specific, ht (V - 1.4 for air).

"Since this correction is based on local flow conditions,

the effect on C is different at each 'nint on the profile.
Thus, this correction cannot be applied to forces and moments
directly. However, if the complete incompressible pressure
distribution for an airfoil is known, this correctiun ca,.-. be
applied to obtain the compressible pressure distribution, which
may then be integrated to give the total lift force and moment.
 1.2.50.1-4

Kaplan'Is Rule,
The Prandtl-Glauert rule was derived for the case of a
very thin profile (in fact, a profile of zero thickness). In
an attewpt to account for the effects of compressibility on
the lift of airfoil profiles of finite thickness, Kaplan
derived a relationship based on his study of the compressible
flow past elliptic cylinders at various angles of attack.
The equation is as follows:

Com
t/
1 e1. 0) + y+1 0 t 1.)
C -tine *0)+0
+..0÷ *WC)

where

t/c - section thickness/chord ratio

Y w ratio of specific heats. (y - 1.4 for air).

Nr.te that for the case of zero thickness/chord ratio, the

above equation reduces to the Prandtl-Glauert rule.
Fig 2 illustrates the comparison between lift coefficients
calculated using this relation and the Prandtl-Glauert rule.
These curves are in fairly good agreement with experimental
results for airfoil profiles having the same thickness/chord
ratios as the elliptical profiles.

The Kaplan rule can be used to estimate compressibility

corrections for the same coefficients as the Prandtl-
Glauert rule; iamely, Cp, dC1 /da Cz , and Cm.

721•
:4 •
 1.2.50.1-5

2 ...- iKAiAEi i
2.5-0.20

Ct inu - - - - L5
A1li I
12.0L ffI

1.wl

AA/It
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8 1.0
K..

$.1... g

* ~~Figure 2. Ratio of lif"fProspesibZe anid

incompreesibLe flui.dJJ as a function
of stream Mach number
 1.2.50.1-6

Karman-Tsien Rule
The relationship for the Karman-Tsien rule is expressed as:

CPCOMP •i M 1z+ PPinmM92- CPinc'"

ri -M I+ r11_Mr 2

As in the case of the Prandtl-Glauert rule, the Karman-

Tsien rule derivation is based on the assumption of small per-
turbation velocities and, therefore, can be expected to be
reasonably accurate only for thin profiles at small angles of
attack. Unlike the Prandtl-Glauert, rule, however, the Karman-
Tsien rule is related to local velocity perturbations. This
results in better accuracy than the Prandtl-Glauert rule (see
Fig 1), but also limits the direct application of the rule to
pressure coefficients.
However, if the complete incompressible pressure distribu-
tion for a profile is known, the Karman-Tsien rule can be applied
to obtain the compressible pressure distribution which may then
be integrated to give the total lift force and moment.

-L.3

-0. wm]l• 4' IIalx

-•.b~ARM kl TCAl
MA+ 4412

. \W

MCI=a LZMI

Figure 2. Comparison of Karman-Tsien

-- -"peri

_A
1.2.50.2 LOCAL MACH NUMBER LIMITS
The freestream Mach number (M,,) at which the Local velocity
becomes sonic (MZ - 1) at some point on the ai ,il profile is
known as the lower critical Mach number. As freestream Mach
number continues to increase, shock waves appear and grow
stronger, causing an increase in profile drag and ultimately,
a shock-induced aeparation of the boundary layer. This results
in a sudden increase in profile drag and a sudden loss of lift.
The Mach numbers at which these latter effects occur are known
as the drag divergenz-e and lift divergence Mach numbers, and
are defined as the values of M. where dCd/dMca = 0.1, and
dC£/dM,. = 0,and dzCl/dMMP2 < 0, respectively. Generally, drag
divergence Mach number occurs before lift divergence Mach
number, and both can occur at considerably higher values of
Mach number than the lower critical Mach number. Fig I is a
typical plot of these Mach number limits as a function of C£.

0.9 , .
LIFT DI .ZRGENCE
0.8 -~DRAG DIVERGENCE

0.7-
0.6
0.5, -- 7--c--E
5\ MACH iUMBER

-. 4 0 .4 .8
C£

Figure 1. Fcoce-divergence Mach numbers for NACA 66-210

profile

As noted previously, the value of the lower critical Mach

number can be considerably below that of either the lift or
drag divergence Mach numbers. However, it is useful as an in-
dicator of the lower bounds of major compressibility effects
on lift and drag. Thus, it is of interest to note that the
lower critical Mach number can be approximately estimated by
use of a simple analytical technique.

The isentropic relation between Mach number and pressure

ratio is:

C 2 1 + [(y - 1)/2]M "-

)Y(Y -1I
P Ymc--- I + ((y - 1)/]M2 J
1.2.50.2 -2

where M is the local Mach number at the crest line and it is

ass'amed to be M - 1.
By the iterative process of assuming successive values of
.M,a value of the pressure coefficient can be obtained which
equals the value of C1 known,through experiment, to exist at
the crest line. The % at which this occurs corresponds to
the lower critical Mach number. This type of approximation
has been used widely in the past, and a plot of critical Mach
number CP is shown in Figure 2.
 r4
-- ~1.2.50.2-3

,I .

- c- - m

t)I
r4 I
qa 14 Fi rL

-- ,-- . . " -. ,,

94

94C

_.14

M C .0
el'N, -O 14•
C., '.~d Z-'NII~DafS3I
 1 0

• 1.2. 50. 2-4

- I

__ _ _
 1.2.50.3 SUBSONIC FLOW TABLES

Table I lists the equations relating local

and stagnation values of pressure, tempera-
ture, and density for the isentropic flow
of a perfect gas. Table II lists values of
these parameters as a function of Mach number.
Given the reference stagnation conditions
(V - 0) of a gas, this table is utilized for
determining local flow conditions at a given
Mach number.

I'~j
 1.2.50.3-2

ii
0 0 (P =0 40 )I
410 i'-I 010

;i j
000
4J0 mm
-P * 9 0 D

,"U
0 96

to e mco V 0 4 -
to 00rl- -4 00 "4~ = 0 wV4
Q~41 00 04 fa 0 03
4.0 0 - v-4 0UM
00 00 0a
0 (Ac 0 0 00
-W1..5 44 4.1 ILA 0 044
0
ý4 qi 1.
w1 00
V.44
0 0
9.44
00 a
-f-44
~ .4 0
- 0
V.4V4
M.'-
41 so . 414 4jl -W 441 .0
toa00 m0 0 0 to 44 01a. 0 C

4 44

0..
-HI
INQ -- H44
0141

E-4 C4 14 $4 bo

"4U 0. 410
4V 444 o

C~l ba ý4
 1.2.50.3-3
,j II1ii U11H Hillll HIii 1 AM 1u,2" H .111
W13
..a . 1IU.
. .. .. . . ......... . !.
.!.!

p-5-i gI!f !IJiB fiin ==i1111

4 .4 A

1 "
. n.-.at
. 22 a;~ im a.~ 3; 391i I
". 1: .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . In
'-iii~~
~ .~L -3f; ;t,~
~iis i lti
-*.~-j .. .... ...4 . .e .q.4 ... .. . .. . . . ... .. .

___ __ __ __ __ ___ ___2__ 2 2363 St g 0:2

SIT1?? •?T?• i7Ti- ;TtTT TTTTT TTTTT 1TTTT TTTT

- iy-!! !UIM !!!!! !!!!! AP!!fr- ! !!!!VI;i1
11 1g giI !!!!! J!I!3 1$I -4
. . . .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . 7. .. . . . .. . . . . .

:bn ON1 1S 11LMRIiAII[1 01 11

I ' '~~P ut 3I~333 :~n 3h

 1.2.50.4 COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON THE LIFT COEFFICIENT

Three flow conditions are possible over an airfcil as a func-

tion of the viscous effects present at a particular lAft and
Mach number level. Such conditions are:
(1) Fully attached flow (at least, to the extent that
regions of separated flow are negligible).
(2) Flow separation over significan•t portions of the
airfoil surface, induced by velocity gradients
and not primarily connected with compressibility
effects.
(3) Shock-induced separation due to recompression
downstream of significant supersonic regions.
The effect of compressibility on the maximum lift boundary
of an airfoil is of primary interest in the selection of air-
foils for helicopter rotor applications. The maximum lift co-
efficients at M - 0.4 and M - 0.5 are particularly significant,
as they have been correlated with the occurrence of retreating
blade stall on rotors in forward flight. The prediction of the
maximum lift at these Mach numbers presents unusual difficulties
because of the possibility of favorable shock-boundary layer
interacticn affects.
To illustrate the variety of maximum lift boundaries encountered
in helicopter rotor airfoils, a number of such boundaries for
several airfoil sections is presented in Figure 1. It is
evident from inspection of the trends that the airfoils can be
divided into two groups:
(1) Airfoils which do not benefit from any favorable
shock/boundary layer interaction. Sections such
as the V0012 (NACA 0012), V43012-1.58, and V23010-
1.58 have maximum lift boundaries which degenerate
with increasing Mach number without any levelinq
off or secondary peaks in the maximum lift trend.
(2) Airfoils displaying an increase in maximum lift
capability at higher Mach numbers, after having
shown a normal trend in maximum lift reduction
at low Mach numbers. The VR-I, VR-7, and VR-8
in Figure 1 display such secondary peaks. It
should be noted that the VR-l is a "peaky" tran-
sonic section, while the VR-7 and VR-8 are "roof-
top" airfoils. All of these sections deviate
from the NACA four- and five-digit geomecries of
the sections in the first group above.

Iii
 1.2.50.4-2

2.0
REYNOLDS NUMBER BASED ON A 25-IN. CHORD

"1.8"

E-4

U1.0

0.8 -
___

• ~08

23
20 .4 .5 .6 .7
HACH iNUMBER, M,

FFigure 1. An Exanple of CompreseibiZity

Effeoce on Typicaa
Maximum Lift Boundaries
 1.2.50.5 COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON DRAG

Airfoils employed on helicopter rotors have to operate over

a range of Mach numbers and lift levels which encompaases almost
the entire spectrum of subsonic flow conditions. Under such
circumstances, the selection of airfoil sections is not as
straightforward, relatively speaking, as it is for fixed-wing
aircraft. A detailed performance evaluation of the benefits
derived by replacing one rotor section with another must be
based on a complete set of airfoil data.
The effects of compressibility on drag are hard to summarize
in a manner that would meaningfully assist the DATCOM user.
However, the drag at some typical flow conditions has often.
been used for preliminary performance evaluation. Such "typical"
conditions are representative of hover and forward-flight re-
quirements.
For hover, the key drag requirement is at Mach numbers
0.5S_ M
HSc 0.6, at lift levels of approximately CZ - 0.6. Drag
values for CE - 0.6 and M = 0.6 aLre tabulated in Section 1.2.40.

In fc.-ward flight, two sources of high profile drag are

possible. The first is associated with retreating blade stall
and, as such, is primarily a function of maximum lift capability.
The second source of drag is the tip of the blade as it flies
through the region of supercritical flow on the advancing side.
The best airfoil for this situation would be the one having the
most productive supercritical performance at very low lift
levels -a thin symmetrical section. Thin symmetrical sections,
however, cause premature retreating blade stall because of
their low maximum lift capability. If thicker and cambered
sections are used, a penalty in advancing blade drag must be
paid. Figure 1 illustrates how lift capability and advancing
blade drag can be approximately evaluated. The Mach number, at
which Cdo - 0.018, can be used as a measure of the growth in
drag after drag divergence. The airfoil with the slowest rate
of growth in drag; i.e., the highest Mach number for Cdo a 0.018,
and the highest maximum lift capability would be the best choice
fcr a high performance rotor blade.
1.2.50.5-2

I- X" Ii LIFT AT N6-0.4

1.6

.4

M
8 1.0 L20

S. .8o .85 .9o

0 1
EACH NW6BZR FOR Cd 0 ,. 8, K

i uXIKtD LIFT AT K-0.5S

U 1- YR"i / 3), u1*-_lU

E-OVO

g1.4 tHI
V23010-1.55

"1.2 - vo6l0

N w-I (Lom•=.)

KUACM NW4IBER FOR Cdo0 .018, H

Figure 1. Comparison of Maximum Lift CapabiZity and Drag

Rise Characteristics of Sieveral HeLioopter
Rotor Airfoil Sections
 1.2.50.6 COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON PITCHING MOMENTS

The flow about an airfcil operating beyond the critical Mach

number boundary is characterized by a supersonic region over
some portion of the airfoil surface. The extent of this super-
sonic region depends on how far the airfoil is operating from
the critical Mach number. Downstream of the supersonic flow
region, a shock ware system marks the deceleration of the flow
to subsonic conditions. The velocity distributions over air-
foils in supercritical flow are characterized by the rapid
changes in local velocity occurring across the shock-wave
boundary; and such distributions differ very significantly from
their subcritical counterparts. The qualitative changes in
velocity and therefore, pressure distributions, are illustrated
in Figure 1.

M-O.60
M=0.19 -1.6

Cp0. -- p 0 41
0.80
0 .5 1.0 0 .5 1. 0
x/c x/c
M-0.66 -1 M-0.73
-1.6 1 6 1
1.•1 - "_-_
-0.8 1 \1 -0.8
C1) 0. C-p0

0.8 0.8
0 5 Y/c i.0 0 .5 X/c 1.0

Legend. UPPER SURFACE

LOWER SURFACE
Mlocal = 1.0

Figure 1. Compressibility Effeats .'n the Pressure

1r.87b- Ona L' er the ! A1A ..- Pro
S. 87*
 1.2.50.6-2

Note that as the Mach number is increased, the recompression

boundary moves toward the trailing edge. This shifts the center-
of pressure aft, thus increasing pitching moments.
The growth in pitching moments with increasing Mach number
beyond the critical Mach number is often referred to as "Mach
tuck" from the nose-down, "tucking" under, motion induced on
airplane wings at high speeds. Two-dimensional pitching moments
at the zero lift level for a number of sections are illustrated
in Figure 2.

I
 1.2.50.6-3

.02
VR - 7 ( 6 T AB )
V2 3 1 - .
0 o... ". - ° A)
E [V23010-I. 58 (0=
z^•~ ~VR 8z(ooa TAB)--• \
z S-.0-2..

rL4

1
~~~~
u)
0
-. 04
~ (
__.
TAB)__________
.____

-. 06
H

S-08

-4 06 .3 ' .. ! .

FREE STREAM MACH NUMBER, M

Figure 2. An Example of 7mpressibilty Effects on the

Zero-Lift Pitching Moment Coefficient
 ri

1.2.50.6-4

.;

..
 i'U

1.2.50.7 COMPRZSSIBILITY EFFECTS ON THE LOCATION

OF THE AEROLYNAMIC CENTER

As defined in Section 1.1.30.1, the aerodynamic center

is the point aboat which the section pitching moment is
independent of lift, or angle-cf-attack. By potential flow
theory, this point should alwo"'s occur one-quarter-chord aft
of the leading edge. However, due to viscosity and compressi-
bility effects, the aerodynamic center seldom occurs at the
quarter-chord.
Figure 1 shows the variation in aerodynamic center with
Mach number for several airfoil sections. The excursion of
the aerodynamic center from the quarter-chord toward the mid-
chord above the critical Mach number is due to the change in
pressure distributions over an airfoil in the presence of
local supersonic flow, as discussed in Section 1.2.50.6.
Generally, values of the aerodynamic center for a section,
as quoted in the literature, are for low speeds only.

9
 1.2.50.7-2

.36 o V23010-1.58 (0' T.E. TAB)

o VR-7 (00 T.E. TAB)

A VR-8 (0" T.E. TAB)
* V13006-0.7
.U 34 V NACA 64A(4.5)12
_- V43012-1.58 (0* T.E. TAB)

32 S.

C .280 "
.. 2
.26
4 2z

S~.24

.20 -- ----------
•2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
FREE STREAM MACH NUMBER, M.

F-.ure 1. Effect of Comrpressibi7 tity on the Location of the

Aerodynamic Center

- .- - - - t"* I -I I___i i i
 1.2.50.8 COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON
THE CENTER-OF-PRESSURE

The effect of compressibility on the, center-of-pressure

location of a typical airfoil (VR-7) with a trailing edge tab
deflected 3* above the reference line ,is shown in Figure 1.
The center-of-pressure, like the aerodynamic center, moves
aft when the Mach number is increased beyond the critical
value.
The effect of trailing edge tab deflection is discussed in
Section 1.2.90.
 1.2.50.8-2

1 .50 iAIRFOIL: __ , vR-7

__
SWITH -30 T.E. TAB

MACH NO.
•- .4s :'•,0.4
0.5
I' 0.56
- 0.68
0.75
rn .40 , - -

*. _ - -"-"_ _ _ _

0n h

U "\. .-

S.30

"w).25

. 2.
;..20 ,___
__._ _ ___ _ .....
__ _ _ _ __ _

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4

LIFT COEFFICIENT, CL

II
F'igure 1. Effect of CompreaaibiZity on the Location of the
':1 Center of Preesure of the VR-? Airfoil

SMI
 1.2.60 REYNOLDS NUMBER EFFECTS ON AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS

A reduction in chord and therefore, in Reynolds number, is

generally associated with undesirable changes in section
characteristics. The phenomena associated with substantial re-
ductions in chord are particularly significant in conjunction
with model rotor tests. There is practically no data corre-
sponding to model-scale rotor airfoil sections at Reynolds and
Mach numbers; however, some appriximate values can be obtained
by correcting the full scale data with the methods described in
the numerical examples (1.4.10).
The majority of the data shown in the figures in this sec-
"tion was obtained in NACA wind-tunnel tests and published in
NACA reports. However, the figures have been taken from Refer-
ence 1, except for Figure 5, from Reference 2.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the various types of stall possible
and the Reynolds number regimes over which different stall
patterns are likely to occur. The correlation of Figure 1 is
not valid for NACA 230-series sections and related airfoils
such as the V23010-1.58, because, by this correlation, all
moderately thick profiles of the 230 family should display
trailing--edge stall (i.e., gradual stall) and not leading-edge
stall (abrupt), as the test data demonstrate.
Figures 3 and 4 summarize the effect of Reynolds number varia-
tion on the maximum lift capability at low speeds for a number of
airfoils of interest, if not directly applicable, to helicopter
rotors.
Figure 5 summarizes data trends for drag used to estimate
hover power corrections between full-scale and model-scale
rotors in Reference 2.
Figure 6, again from Reference 1, shows the combined effect
of Mach and Reynolds number variations on three airfoils.

References:
1. van den Berg, B., Reynolds Number and Mach Number Effects on
the Maximum Lift and Stalling Characteristics of Wings at
*' Low Speeds. NLR TR 69025U, March 1969.
2. ,lormont, R.E., A Mathematical Model of Unsteady Aerodynamics
Sand Radial Flow for Application to Helicopter Rotors.
USAAMRDL TR 72-67, May 1973.
3. Gault, D.E., A Correlation of Low-Speed, Airfoil -Section
Stalling Characteristics with Reynolds Number and Airfoil
Geometry. NACA TN ?963, March 1957.
 1.2.60-2

.028 - 1 1 1
TRAILING EDG STALL i
COMBINED LEADING EDC-
2 - -AND TRAILING EDGE S"&1,ALL

.020 \ t-t -.. ".

.'II

LEADI NG "
U .0 2
4j EDGE STALL
- - - - - .....

.00 A[,-r -- ,

S~THIN AIRFOIL STALL

i..oN 6106 2 3 4 6 8 10

,J

ci
i N .. 0......
Q. 8.......... ~REYNOT.DS NUMBER,•
• "'l] • l. .
Re : •i i l +l i
IFigure 1 Dependence of the Ai-rfoil Section StaZZing

Crar •.c-p-ri • t " he . se Sha-pe Parameter

Y1.2I/ and the Reynolds Number According to
S~Gauli (Reference 3)
 1-.2.60- 3

1.6--y
.6 NACA 64,-012
9.0 X 10 6 3.0 x 106
1.4-

/EDGE STALL
LD.
1.2 Re

1.5 X 106

94 LEADING
'- / EDGE STALL .

.6 __ _ __ _ _

-THIN AIRFOIL STALL

"• .4 •~'-0.7 X 106' i

.2

" 20 5. 10. 15. 20. 25.

S~ANGLE OP ATTACK - DEG

iFigure 2 Typical LiftCurves at Various

for a Moderately Thiok Airfoil Reno~dt Numbers

0..
 S- 1.2.60-4

N(4 N
4
41

-i 00q*
044

00

020

I Vi

* 1-4 1-44

, 0

r.))
* x

-g
- A
 1.2.60-5

N C14
N~ NNC44N

40,1 4 rN' I
Wr4 .14 orc)OJ
6 c9 *
Uo C) 4444

100

ti

ar

- -~~~V - ' 4--

-PA toN
X.X- C4 I

ZAc

%S

L........... ' N

0D
w
 1.2.60-6

U r4 dVo-4
... . . 04
#-4 -- w0

>w W

4r4
.- u
!,.1- 4-4
02 2

C
, I R, N4
0-4 1s
o 440M 23

&olEi .. vr.I '•

~~Cl44
Cl q

0*4 Z

:-,,, om•'

-4-

00

i i 1 1 I I 1 I I *

0 %C I 4 O QW C Ccf l
%a v-4

PD 'T.N3IDIaaNOD DVE1G

- A
 1.2.60-7
1.6
NACA 64 - 215

1.4

IC 1.0X ______ ____

0• Re = :1. 5 X :106
1.0
S Re OD 3.0 X 106
1.2 A Re = 6.0 X 106

i CXM.AX

-210
2NACA 64

000_

0. 8
1 .0 " ... .
H SECND LIFT CURVE PEAKM

z* "-
S~~~~~~0.8 - " -
! NACA 65 -006
S~0.61
0 0.1 0.2 0. 3 0.4 0.5 0.6
i MACH NUMB.ER, N

Figure 6 Effect of Mach Number at Constant ReynoZds

Number on the Maximum Lift of Various
AirfoiZe
 1.2.70 REVIEW OF UNSTEADY AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS
The blade motions associated with forward flight in conjunction
with the non-uniform downwash field ip which the helicopter
rotor operates give rise to unsteady flow phenomena which sig-
nificantly alter the aerodynamic characteristics obtained for
airfoils at quasi-steady conditions.
The unsteady aerodynamic effects over
of flow separation were analyzed by T. airfoils in 1 the
Theodorsen withabsence
a
mathematical model in which the sned wake elements which give
rise to the unsteady effects are trailed downstream from the
airfoil. For rotor (with helical wakes) the shed wake is
embedded under the rotor. Loewy2 has shown that for this case
a modified Theodorsen function can be used. In either in-
stance, the unsteady effects have been applied to helicopter
rotor performance methodology as shown by Harris, et al3.
Apart from these effects, rotor tests have shown that rotor
stall does not follow the trends which would be indicated by
quasi-steady airfoil data. Oscillating airfoil tests conduc-
ted by Carta" and by Liiva, et als demonstrated that dynamic
stall is considerably different from static or quasi-steady
stall, and that in the presence of airfoil motions the stall
could be delayed to higher angles of attack resulting in con-
siderably extended maximum lift capability.
Recovery from stall was found to be dependent on the nature of
the stall, i.e. leading edge or trailing edge, etc. This was
found to influence the aerodynamic damping coefficient, where
negative damping values can lead to self-sustained oscillations.

;!4
 1.2.70.1 DYNAMIC STALL DELAY

By far, the most important effect evident from oscillating

airfoil tests is the delay in the onset of stall. A typical
set of CN and CM response curves is compared with the steady
data in Figure 1 for oscillations with a constant value of
excursions in angle of attack, Aa. Whrn the mean angle (a.
7.330) is such that '.he total excursion is below stall, the
elliptical loops predicted by unsteady airfoil theory, i.e.,
Theodorsen, follow the steady data. When the mean angle is
increased to 14.920 and the excursion extends beyond the static
stall angle, the maximum normal force is found to exceed the
steady state value. The angle for pitching moment stall also
exceeds the steady data in this regime. When the mean angle
is increased so that the flow is fully separated, the loops
again follow the st'.ady data, as shown in Figure 1.
The dynamic effects are significantly altered with changes in
the pitch frequency and Mach number
". "The airfoil is partially
stalled during the de-
creasing portion of the IL I - ooa* T&TIC
cycle for the higher fre- Balk
quency case, even though .
the CN trace shows a
superficial resembl&nce
to the elliptical shape
characteristic of un-
stalled flow." (Ref. 6)
The sudden stalling 7.
apparent a: the low fte- ,.
quency does not occur at
the high frequency.
(Ref. 7)
The available test data
show that at M = 0.6
the dynamic CN and CM 7.,,.
loops follow closely
the static lines. The
A cycle danping is always _
positive and there are ,,.-
no sharp breaks in the -
CN and CM curves for
either steady or oscil- -.
latory" data. (Ref. 7) , L,
OF
m,
• "TA
MIa
i.
(4) -9
a

Dynamic stall data are used Avm cI WMwn' INis a

in rotor performance calcu- -Oc.•. ,oa ,,MING O:LLO

lations either directly in
a table lookup format, or PiqLr. I Typical Pitch Oscillation Cata
indirectly by empirical
1.2.70.1-2

methods which synthesize dynamic data from the available static

data. The key parameters to the latter method are deduced
from test data. One of the current empirical methods developed
by Gross and Harris6 , and also presented by Gormont', uses a
so-called "gamma" function, as described in Section 1.2.0070.03.

The "gamma" function used to calculate the increment in stall

angle between quasi-steady and dynamic data is defined as:

"AcDynamic = Kyc£,C IC12

where K = +1.0 for positive de/dt,

K = -0.5 for negative d(/dt,

and the y corresponding to lift or pitching moment is obtained

from oscillating airfoil test data. (See Section 1.2.70.3)
The delayed stall angle due to dynamic stall can be evaluated
as,

cdynamic = astatic + A"dynamic

stall stall
To synthesize from quasi-steady data the dynamic force coeffi-
cients acting on a blade element at angle of attack *BR, angle
of attack rate &BE and Mach number, M, a reference angle of
attack tREF is calculated as aREF = aBE - "edynamic-

The lift coefficient values corrected for dynamic effects are

based on a linear lift curve determined uy the angle for zero
lift and the lift at aREF, Figure 2. The lift coefficient is
given by:

Ct REF
C•= REF - CL, aBE

When uR9F is below the static stall angle, the dynamic lift
coefficient is estimated along an extended linear lift curve
as shown in Figure 2a. When aBE is greater than the angle of
attack for static stall, lift coefficients considerably greater
than the static C0 can be attained, Figure 2b. When apt
is greater than tflingle for static stall the linear lift
curve constructed from a. and aa., is greatly reduced in size
and the dynamic lift extension is decreased pruportionally, as
illustrated in Figure 2c.
The inclusion of the unsteady effects due to pitching and heav-
ing motions of the rotor blade accounting for the non-circulatory
contribution to the lift, and including the Theodorsen functions
for attenuation and phase shift, are discussed by Gormont9.

a
 1.2.70.1-3
2.0 - -..

I.S (a)
zCn- - --

1 _--IR static
S .0 CE : -tall
08)
zU 0.5

.".B_
.•,R-E--
0.0.0

2.0..0
(b)
_Cn..........
CnuRE .. - OBE "' *static
zt~il
, , REF <asiatic
z°08 0.5
0 •I ; stall
GREF OaBE

aCL 0.0

2.0

S(c)
rI __-CRE COMPLETELY
1-0 nSTALLED
Ike
00
U

QREF SBE

0 10. 20. 30.

- 0.0
ANGLE OF ATTACK - DEG

Figure 2 Approximation of Dynamic StaZZ Conditions from

Quasi-Steady Data
 1.2.70.2 DYNAMIC PITCHING MOMENT COEFFIC.ENT, DRAG
COEFFICIENT AND AERODYNAMIC DAMPING

The synthesis of the dynamic pitching moment and drag coeffi-

cients given in Reference 9 requires the computation of aREF
using the y function derived from the moment stall data. How-
ever, the dynamic coefficient is obtained from a simple table
look-up at aREp and at the Mach number of the blade element.
This technique limits the maximum values of CM and Cd to the
values obtained during static tests while a significant over-
shoot in the nose-down (negative) pitching moments have been
observed in the dynamic data.

"The area enclosed by the Cm loop indicates the work per cycle.
-- When the circuit is counter-clockwise, the airfoil is trans-
ferring energy to the airstream. When the circuit is clockwise,
the airfoil extracts energy from the airstream. This implies
that the aerodynamic damping is negative and can lead to self-
excited oscillation, i.e., flutter.

j:1

:1
 1.2.70.3 GAMMA FUNCTION
The ability to evaluate dynamic airfoil data from the static
data with a good degree of accuracy simplifies rotor perform-
ance calculations. One of the empirical methods available for
such evaluation is the so-callid "gamma" function technique
originated by Gross and Harris 9. A description of the metho-
dology is also given by Gormont .
The "gamma" functions for the lift and pitching moment coeffi-
cients are constructed from dynamic tese. data by making records
of the angle of attack a and the rate & (for 2700 only) at
* wh;.ch lift stall and moment stall occur at each Mach number.
The variation of a with V/E V is plotted as illuntrated in
Figure 3.
Fron a linear curve fit, the slope of c vs. /E&72 is defined
as the 'gamma" function.
The Y futction has to be estimated over a range of Mach numbers
to at least M - 0.6 because it is very sensitive to compressi-
bility effects. With increasing Mach number the effect of
dynamic stall delay is reduced, and y functiot.s are generally
very small or iderti,-ally zero at M > 0.6.

•K1
 1.2.70.3-2

V23010-1.58 AIRFOIL
MACH NL. - 0.4

LIFT STALL 0

20.

16. w

12. "_ _

S.

20. S~MOMENT STALL

16.

12.

2V

Figure 3 Definition of StaLL DeLay Fun-tion

("Gamma" Functions)

"*•1
 1.2.70.3-3
REFERENCES

1. Theodorsen, T. "General Theory of Aerodynamic Instability

and the Mechanism of Flutter", NACA Report 496, 1935.
2. Loewy, R.G., OA Two Dimensional Approach to the t'nsteady
Aerodynamics of Rotary Wings", JAS, February 1957, Vol 24,
No. 2.
3. Harris, F.D., Tarzanin., F., and Fisher, R.K., "Rotor High
Speed Performance, Test Vs. Theory", Journal AHS, July 1970.
4. Carta, F.O., "Unsteady Normal Force on an Airfoil in a
Periodically Stalled Inlet Flow", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 4,
No. 5, Sept-Oct 1967.
5. Liiva, J., Davenport, F.J., Gray, L., and Walton, I.C.
"Two Dimensional Tests of Airfoils Oscillating Near Stall",
U.S. Army AVLABS TR 68-13. So
6. Liiva, J., a.Ld Davenport, F.J., "Dy amic Stall of Airfoil
Sections for High
the American Speed Rotors",
Helicopter 24Annual
Society, May 1968. National Forum of

7. Liiva, J., "Unsteady Aerodynaunic and Stall Effects on Helicopter

Rotor Blade Airfoil SectioL1:3", 6th.Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, January 1968.
S. G%:oss, D.W., and Harris, F.D., "Prediction of Inflight Stalled
Airloads From Oscillating Airfoil Data", 25th Annual National
Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 1969.
9. Gormont, R.E., "A Mathematical Model of Unstuady Aerodynamics
and Radial Flow for Application to Helicopter Rotors", USAAMRDL
Technical Report 72-67, May 1973.

2i

L€
 1.2.80 EFFECT OF GEOMETRY - MEAN LINE AND THICKNESS EFFECTS

An airfoil section consists of a mean (or canmber) line combin-

ed with a thickness distribution. Airfoil theory states that
the mean line can be replaced by a distribution of vortices and
the airfoil contour (thickness) by a distribution of sources.
The mean line determines the overall chordwise distribution of
pressures and therefore the airfoil characteristics associated
with it. The thickness shape affects the chordwine loading
less significantly than the mean line, but it has a strong in-
flueince on the local velocity gradients, particularly in the
vicinity of the leading edge, and therefore it influences the
development of the boundary layer and other parameters, as
summarized in Table I.

TABLE I

Al RFOIL GEOMETRY SECTION AERODYNAMIC

COMPONENT CHA. ACTERIS TIC AFFE'TED

Mean Line Distribution Chordwise Load Distribu-

tion
, ,,Aqngle of Zero Lift
Cm
Cdmin I weakly

Thickness Distribution Cra

Critical Mach Nuwber
dCt/d t
C ~max

Sections 1.2.80.1 and 1.2.80.2 discuss the effects of-mean line

distributions and thickness shapes on airfoil characteristics.

Kt

L.. , .. .
1.2.80.1 MEAN LINE DISTRIBUTION
A mean line can be designed to give a desired chordwise.load
distribution. Typical are the mean lines used with the NACA
6-series airfoil sections. They were designed for a design
lift coefficient Cl of 1.0 and have uniform loading up to
some specified chorAwise location from the leading edge, beyond
that location the loading decreases linearly to zero at the
trailing edge. Figure 1 shows the mean line and the associated
chordwise loading for the case with the uniform loading extend-
ing to x/c = 0.4, i.e., a - 0.4. For Any other desired value
of the design lift coefficient, e.g. Cti m 0.5 and the same
load distribution, the mean line ordinates for Cxi - 1.0 are
multiplied by the desired v-lue of Cji as illustrated.
As the point of maximum camber is moved rearward and the load
distribution is moved aft, the pitching moment about the
quarter chord (Cmc/4, nose down) is increased. Increasing the
camber (or CZ.) at a given maximum camber position will also
increase the Aiegative pitching moment coefficient.
When the camber is increased, i.e. as CZ is increased, the
result is an increase in the angle for lero lift, aO, this
means that the camber line (the airfoil) will have to be pitch-
ed further nose-down to achieve zero lift.
Because the camber is rele.tively small, pressure drag changes
with camber changes are small. Boundary layer effects which
determine frictional effects and stall are weak functions of
the mean line distribution.

NACA a=0.4
Mean Line

Acp 1.0 1 .-. 0,C5

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
X/c

Figure 1. Typioal mean Zines and

ahordwise presaures.
 1.2.80.2 THICKNESS EFFECTS
The type of thickness distribution added to the mean line
(camber) determines the overall pressure distribution. The
geometry of the leading edge determines the magnitude of lead-
ing edge velocities and the location of the stagnation point.
Euler's equation in natural coordinates states that the pressure
gradient normal to curved streamlines is inversely proportional
to the radius of curvature and that it decreases approaching
the center of curvature. Thus, the thickness distribution
determines the location of the minimum pressure (i.e., maximum
velocity) and the pressure recovery (deceleration of the flow)
approaching the trailing edge, which has a destabilizing effect
on the bowuidary layer.
Typical examples of pressure coefficients, Cp, for the NACA
0012 and NACA 63A012 thickness forms are presented in Figure
1. The NACA 0012 airfoil achieves its minimum pressure near
the leading edge. The NACA 63A012 airfoil is typical of air-
foils developed for low-drag and high Mach number operation.
Zor the same li.ft level the minimum pressure of the NACA 63A012
is lower and it is attained further back on the chord than for
the NACA 3012,, so that a favorable pressure gradient is main-
tained further aft on the chord.
The decreased suction pressure on the 6-A012 airfoil also aids
in delaying of the onset of compressibility effects. By mov-
ing the minimum pressure position away from the leading edge,
the Arag coefficient is reduced as a result of the lowered
velocities over the leading edge, the extended favorable veloc-
ity gradients, and the delay in transition from laminar to
turbulent boundary layer.
Thick airfoil theory states that dCL /da should increase (in
" Ithe absence of viscous effects) with airfoil thickness. Air-
- 'foils having relatively poor boundary layer characteristics,
such as the 0012, do not exhibit this trend. However, airfoils
such as the 63A012 , designed to sustain extensive laminar
flow, do follow the expected trends.

Soo012 -
-- i-. 4 -• _ 63A012

-.4 x/

.8

1.2

Figure 2. Variation of chordwise pressure

distribution with thicknese forms.
 i . 2.^^
S'CT"== 0&ý- ;ýRWVIL
.... ftuijj-L EDGE moDiFTCATIONS r

The following
trailing paragraphs illustrate the most common airfoil
edge modifications.

1. Trailing Edge Angle

The angle between the upper and lower surfaces at the trailig
edge of an airfoil affects both the location of the aerodynamic
center and the lift curve slope. Increasing the trailing edge
angle will:
* Decrease the lift curve slope (as illustrated
in Figure 1)

e Move the aerodynamic center forward, i.e.,

closer to the leading edge (Reference 1,
p. 182).

i' I-viscous
inviscid T1

L ~~~for
me>10 lh aw-we M well loIe~ee by" LhMeqe

g..

-0-
OHe

0 0.0 0-04 0-. 006 0-90 0112 0-14 0-16 0.36 0.30
. .8

LIFl-CUJIWU "oAft POR MTl-DlISINIO AL FLOW

, II
91131 A ITION AT 'R1
LSADINI WIW$
(IUPODUM FROM OIYAL IMOUNAUT'iAL SOC18Tr AUROOINAMZCI DATA
m • WIHOUOB
01.01.06 - I&SURD JINUARI Irss)
 1.2.90-2

2. Trailing Edge Tabs

Helicopter airfoils are often mcdified so that the aft 5% to
10% of the chord has parallel surfaces with sufficient thick-
ness to satisfy rctor blade structural requirem-nts. The por-
tion of trailing qdge with parallel surfaces is referred to as
a trailing edge tab, and it is often deflected ("reflexed') to
change the section pitching moment characteristics. Two kinds
of T.E. tabs are cocon in rotor applications:
a) Trailing edge tabs appl.4ed along the entire
span of a rotor blade.
b) Trim tabs, i.e., bendable tabs applied over
a short portion of the blade span and used to
"track" or match one blade to other blades
on the same rotor.
Data qheets 1.3.250 and 1.3.260 for the V23010-1,53; 1.3.380,
1.3.390, 1.3.40 for the VR--7 airfoil and 1.3.30, 1.3.31 for
the V43012-1.58 3how the following trends:
0 Deflecting the trailing edge tab will shift
pitching moments at the zerro lift level at
the rates -

dCm/dCtab= - 0.0062/Deg for a O.05c Tab

dCm/dttab= - 0.005/Deg for a 0.05c Tab

The sensitivity of this effect to Mach number

is illustrated in Figure 2.
0 Since the pitching moment corrections rzquired
of a trailing edge tab (not a triL tab) are
generally in the nose up directicn, such cot-
rections decrease the net camber of the airfoil
and cause some penalty in its maximum lift
capability. This trend is illustiated in
Figure 3.
•
a The angle for zero lift is affected by the
trailing edge tab angle. A 0.05c tab will shift
the angle for zero lift hby 0.23 degrees per
degree of tab deflection.

'I
 12
a Deflecting a trailing edge tab in the direc-
tion to generate nose-up pitchinV moments will
cause the aerodynamic canter to move aft. On
the VR-7 airfoil tthis Philt amounts to 0.005c
for a tab angle change from 0" to -30 at M-0.4,
with no further shift when the tab angle is
increased to -60,

* Tab deflection will also cause a radical change

in the location of the center of pressure, as
shown in Figure 4.
* For small tab deflections(66TAB < 30) drag
changes are negligible.
3. Trailing Edge Wedges
In some instances it is desirable to make small pitch-.ag moment
adjustments without changing the trailing edge tab angle.
Trailing edge wedges such as shown in Figure 5 have proven to
be quite effective, although not as effective as changes in
trailing edge tab angle.
4. Trailing Edge Bluntness

Generally, trailing edge bluntness Ls issociated with an in--

crease in drag level. Approximate values for such an increase
can be evaluated by the expressiun tPeference 2) -
ACd = k(A)-1/3 (h/c)

where A is the drag coefficient of the unmodified airfoil,

i.e., with a sharp trailing edge, h/c is the thickness o'! the
thickened trailing edge in fraction of chord. k is a constant
which takes into account the character .f the shed wake; name-
ly,

k = 0.1 for a wak3 without a vortex street

k = 0.14 for wake with organizad vorticity
(vortex street)
Hoerner, Refetence 2, suggests that a regular vortex street
(requiring k=0.14) will not occur if:
0• h -has a small value, roughly thinner than
half of the boundary layer thickness at
the T.AE. as is often the case at transonic
flow conditions because of early transition.

. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . -..
1.2.90-4
0 The overall lf-ou is unsymmetrical, i.e.,
JCX >0.1 f*-:r. symme c-cal section

For example, if an airfoil with a sharp trailing edge has a

drag coefficient (Cd) of 0.01 and the trailing edge thickness
is inoreased to 3%.

&Cd - 0.00433 without vortex street (k - 0.1)

ACd= 0.00605 with vortex street (k = 0.14)

1. Abbott, I.H., and 7un Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing

Sections. Dove- Publications, Inc., New York, N.Y. 1953
2. Hoerner, S.F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, Published by the
Author, 1965.

-•.9
 1.2.90-5

.04

.V420 .- ,1.58
6 VR-7
&.02 _ &TABW-: .0o

,TABQ0 6TA--. 90
a E4
EuU 0. . . ,-.

H
E-4O0
E-4 -. 02
z
, ' •6TAB -0 0

-. 04

" .3 .4 .5 .6.7 .8

MACH NUMBER, •

Figure 2. Effeot of Tab DefZeotior Angle on the Zero-Lift

Pitching Momente of the 'R-? and V43012-2.58
Ai rfoi Zs
1.2.90-6

0 a TAB 0
rto 1. ,, "--E TA - 3. 1°
Sd 6TAB"- 5.9 *

u 1.2
f6 V43012-1.58

0. 6TAB
H

E- .8

0I
•3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .2
MACH NUMBER, M

Figure 3. Effect of Tab VefZection AngZe on the Mazimum

Lift of the VR-7 and 1"43012-I.58 Airfoils
 1.2.90-7

V23010-1. 58 VR-7

in3 N -TAB - .3.2--

10 • •,• '-'• .. ...

0 . - - - . 1,,,,"- 1.1
E .
0
- --

SLIFT COEFFICIENT, Cl LIFT COEFFICIENT, C,

FPigure 4. Effeot of Tru-wZing Edgo Tab Angle on the

Looation of the Center of Preoeure

II'I.
1.2.90-8

L_0.04c I

6 WEDGE

,02 UPPER
SURFPACE

• .01

-4 -2 0 2 4
WEDGE ANGLE, 6 WEDGE

Figure 5. pff•ct of the TraiZing Edge Wedge AppZied

to the V23O1C-2.-8 AirfoiZ
1.2.100 EFFECT OF AIRFCIL LEADING EDGE CONTOURS
The flow about the leading edge plays a dominant role in the
performance of airfoil sections because it influences the
early growth and, therefore, the favorable or unfavorable
development of the boundary layer.
Premature boundary layer transition and/or separation can be
precipitated by:
* Surface roughness
* Surface discontinuities
* An excessive rate of deceleration in the flow
e. Recompression shocks
Leaving aside surface roughness and discontinuities, the ob-
jective of this data sheet is to illustrate sore of the effects
of leading edge geometry on airfoil performance.

1. Leading Edge Curvature

The shape of the leading edge is generally closely related tc
the overall shape of airfoils. In the case of NACA profiles,
the shape of an airfoil, including the shape of its leading
edge, is uniquely defined by prescribing the symetrical thick-
ness form and the mean line (1.1.20). The leading edge radius
of NACA airfoils is not strictly a function of the thickness
form, but the values recommended represent the result of an ex-
tensive optimiztion effort.
The leading edge curvature of some airfoils has bee. -modified
to optimize the lift and drag characteristics at speci.ic
trane onic flow conditions. Such airfoils have blunt leading
edges which deviate from the standard NACA definitions.
References I and 2 discuss criteria for high speed airfoil
design.
2. Effect on Airfoil Characteristics
Excluding roughness effects, leading edge contours generally
have:
a strong effect on a weak effect on
* type of stall * pitching moments
* maximum lift * angle for zero lift
e drag le-vel at K < 1•DD lift curve slope
e onset of significant com- e center of pressure
pressibility effects a aerodynamic center
9 appearance of laminar
separation "bubbles"
 1.2.100-2

where "leading edge contour" refers to the porti- of airfoil

surface extending from the leading edge to approximately 15%
of chord on both upper and lower surfaces.
It is important to keep in mind that good leading edge charac-
teristics are a necessary but not sufficient condition- for good
airfoil performance.
A typical illustration of leadinV edge contour effects is the
correlation between the thickners of airfoils at 1.25% of chord
and the character of stall, suggested by Gault (1.2.60).
Figure 1, from Refererce 3, relates the maximum lift capability
of several families of symmetrical NACA profiles to the lead-
ing edge radius and to the location of the maximum thickness.
Figure 2, also from Reference 3, shows the effect of variations
in leading edge radius on the maximum lift coefficient.
Figure 3 illustrates the effect of an upper surface leading
edge modification of -he VR-7 airfoil. For referenc-i see data
sheets 1.3.380 and 1.3.420. At a Mach number of 0.5, the con-
tour modification caused a loss in maximum lift Cmax = -0.15.
The only beneficial effect was a change in the character of the
stall from leading edge stall for the VR-7 (1.3.380) to a les.
a.brupt form of stall for the VR-7.1 (1.3.420).
ligure 4 shows the rationale for the selection of the V13005-
0.7 airfoil over cther versions of the same section with 0.4%
and 1.0% leading edge radii. The V13006-0.7, with an 0.7%
raCius, offers the best compromise in maximum lift capability
and low drag rise at high Mach numbers.

I-
 1.2.100-3
REFERENCES
1. PearceyA H.H., The Aerodynamic Design of Section Shapes
for Swept Wings, Advances in Aeronautical Sciences,
Volume 3, Proceedings of 2nd International Congress in
the Aeronautical Scienccis, 1960.
2. Wortmann, T X., Drees, J.M., Design of Airfoils for
Rotors, lp*ar presented at CAL/AVLAES 1969 Symposium on
Aerodynamics of Rotary Wing and VTOL Aircraft.
3. Schwartzberg, M.A., Burch, J.L., Lifting Capabilities of
Wings with and without High-Lift Devices," G. L. Martin
Company Engineering Report No. 8055, April 1956.

r-
I.

;I
 1.2.100-4
AIRFOIL TYPE
0 63 - Series V 4 - Digit q 65,3-018
0 64 - Series > OOXX-X4 1 Modified t 66(215)-016
S65 - Series 00XX-X5 4-Digit
A 66 - Series N X-006

Maxim
•u .. .......
Thickness
(%Chord!i

1.6

1.4

to)t
81.2
11. •.4

'.4

ok 4." 1 . 2.4 3.-.

ii 6 .. ... .

IWý II I

•' AIRFOIL LEADING EDGE RADIUS (% Chord)

SFigurc 1 Variation of Airfoil Mfaximurn Lift Coeffic.ient

SwithLeading Edge Radiate fQr Several Families
S~of Unoambered Airfoils at a Reynotds Number
i ~ofr 6 0
 1.2.100-5

AIRFOIL THICKEISS (% CHORD)

0 6
0012 12 r4-Digit
Modified
(Re - 3.2 x 106)
0 18 . Series
1.2 63-Series (Re = 4.92 x 106)

,, 4
A

S1.2

1.0

0.6,

0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8

AIRFOIL LEADING EDGE RADIUS, (% Chord)

Figure 2 Effect of L,,ading Edge Radius on AirfoiZ

Maximum Lift Coefficient
 1.2.100-6

S1.6

54 O° - , ....

•--7 IR

C)/

m,. 8
H i

0o. 1.04 .08 .12

"!F igure 3 Effect of Leading 7dge Modi fication on t;he

! :,Maximum Lift of the VR-? AirfoiZ
 1.2.100-7

0.03

0:.I02
0.02
V13006-1.0
V13006-0. "
V13006-O.4
oo 0 . 0 1-

0.

0 - 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

t
MACH NUMBER, M

1.6 -

/ -I

l r' -V1300'G-0,
CJ 1.2 - •

S• 0.8

01

MACH NUMBER, M

Figure 4 Effeot of Leading Edge Radius Variation on

Drag and Mazimurm Lif-.
½.

I;/ j
 AIRFOIL: NACA 0006 1. i0

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

* Thickness, t/c - 0.06
X/c Y/c * Leading Edge Radius, r/c - 0.004
0.0 0.0 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD . TEST
0.0125 0.00947
0.025 0.01307 Two-dimensional tests in the
0.05 0.01777 Subsonic Insert of the Boeing Super-
0.075 0.021 sonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
0.1 0.02341
0.15 0.02673 Lift and pitching moments were
0.2 0.0286D determined by integration of surface
0.25 0.02971 static pressures.
0.3 0.03001
0.4 0.02,02 Drag was determined by a travers-
0.5 0.02047 ing wake probe survey.
10.6 0.02262
0.7 0.01832 Model Chord - 7.0 in
0.01312 Span - 12.0 in
0.9 000724
0.95 0.00403 SOURCES
S1.0 G o00063
-I• 1) Gabriel, E., Analysis of Two-
Dimensional Wind Tunnel Tests of
Rotor BJade Airfoils of Varying
Camber and Leading Edge Radius,
Boeing Doc. No. AEA0 INV. 111-208,
November 1M65.
2) Gray, L., Liiva, J., Davenport.,
P., Wind Tunnel Tests of Thin
%irfoilsOacil.lating Near Stall,
SSAAVLABS TR 68-89A, 1969.

A
I 1.3,10-2
NACA 000

.t7-
- ~*Yr 4&0 t 2 3

L; * ii.i!:H1,
h09
; ' 2 .9t

. It,..5 a

IM
I-It
 1.3.10-3

MACA 0006

*2091o

Im .40

70 . O .

tot I
T'jjit tP 4. .
.20 0 5.

.0 L O75T E
.4 08

9 n_ nz. .R5 I
.75 .. .. ... IIn

tXt n
It--:

ULziti|-n-=
tut.t

..9m RalI
 AIRFOIL: NACA 0012 1.3.20

AVTRFUIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

K/C TI/C . Thickness, t/c - 0.12
0.0 0.1 a Leading Edge Radius, r/c 0.0158
0.0005 0.0040
0.0010
0.0025
0.0056
0.0067
TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TESTS
0.0050 0.0122
0.0075 0.0149 The wind tunnel tests were carried
0.0100
O. 015E 0.0170
0.0189 out in the National Physical Labora-
0.015 0.0206 tory, NPL, 36 in. x 14 in. (0.92 m
0.02 0.3236 x 0.36 M) transonic tunnel, at
0.03 O.Q 0.0234
0.0323 Teddington, Middlesex, England.
o.05 o.0355 Lift and pitching moments were
0.06 0.0oi3 found by integration of surface
0.10 0.0430 static pressures. Profile drag was
0.12 0.0499 determined by wake measurements.
0.14 0.0524 All measurements were obtained
0.16 0.0544 with a roughness band of 230-270 mesh
0.18 0.0560 carbnrin~um between 0 and 2% chord
"0.20 0.0574 .. ..... .. .
0.225 0.0386 on both surfaces. The floor and the
0.25 0.0594 ceiling of the test section were
0.275 0.0599
0.3 0.0600 slotted. No corrections for wall
0 325 0.0599 constraints have been applied to the
0.35 0.0595 data.
0.375 0.0588
0.4 0.0580
0.425 0.0569 Model Chord - 10 in (25.4 cm)
0.475 0.054 Span - 14 in (35.6 cm)
0.475 0.0544
0.S 0.0529
0.55 0.0495 SOURCE
0.6,
0.65 0.0041
0*0413 Gregory, N., Wilby, P.G., NPL
0.7 0.0366 9615 and NACA 0012. A Comparison
0.75 0.0315 of Aerodynamic Data, ARC C.P. No.
0.9 0.0262 1261, 1973.
S0.9 0.85 0.0205
0.0145
0.95 0.0080
1.00 0.0013
S~1.3.20-2
t ~NAr.A 0012

... .. .30 1.7

1.95
.0 2.19
.5 2.41
.0 2.62
.5 2.82
.0 3.0
6 3.17

.5 3.75

m!44

2..6

AGEOF ATTACK -DEG

.30 .4 ,560 .70 .80 ji MA•CH- NUMBER, M

S.35 .45 .55 .65 .75 ,s5
..
.....
..
.

.0 1.7
.0 2.19
.45 i 2.41
.50 2.62
,55 2 :2,B2
60O 30
:0 3.33
75 .1, 4:

".8 3.7S

U a • 4 6.om.o q •c ur,
4 5• 6 7 ~~~~~HI
8 T:
•~~i .. t••.1
 1.3.20-3

NACA 0012

LI

.30
MOEA OF ATTACK - DUO

.40 -- 4

.45 0---

.50

.60

.65

.'5

.80 0--,

.85 3

3:1:9

I.4.
 "AIRFOIL: NACA 0012 (Including Reverse Flow) 1.3.30

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

e Thickness, t/c - 0.12
x/c y/c e Leading Edge Radius, r/c - 0.0158
0.0 0 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.0125 3.01894
0.025 0.02615 The tat was run in the Langley low-
0.05 0.03555 tu~ulence pressure tumal. The tuumel, as
0.075 n . 042 Used in the present test, has a darneda,
0.1 0.%4683 rectangular test section 7.5 ft high and
0.15 0.0E345 3 ft wide.
0.2 0.05737 Lift, drag and pitdhn mmnts were
0.25 0.05941 zmamuced with a multiLcouporst strain-
0.3 0.06002 gage balamne.
0.4 0.05803
0.5 0.05294 Model Chord - 6.0 in
0.6 0.04S63Span - 36.0 in
0.7 0.03664
0.8 0.02623
0.9 0.01448
0.95 0.00807
1.0 0.00126 SOURCE
Critzo, ' Heynon, and Boswinkle,
Aerodynamic Chaiacteristics of
NACA 0012 Airfoil Section at Angles
of Attaak from 00 to 1806, NACA
TN 3361, January 1955.

F,............. ..............
1 __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
•j 1.3.30-2
SNACA 0012 INCLUDING REVERSE FLOW

Lf FT COZ¥M'CIENT .:-.

•'.E

-- • Re ", x 106

-0..

220

-... ----- ..
---- ..--- -
---
 1.3.,30-3

NACA 0012 INCLUtIN6 REVERSE FLOW

I p•'r• IONUHT COMIFCINT

-0.

• ' •Re,, ,II x 1,0

 AIRFOIL: NACA 0012 with 00 T.E. Tab (H-34) 1.3.40

X/C
AIRFOIL COORDP NATES

Y/CU y/*L
I CHARACTERISTICS
Thiekness,
9 Lea6ing Ed
t/c

r/o - 0.0154
- 0.117
Radius,
o Trail.ing Edge Tab
from x/c - 0.963
0.0 0.0 0.0 to ./c - 1.0
0.0122 0.01854 -0.01848 0 Trailing Edge Tab Thickness,
ttab/c - 0-00586
0.0244 0.02683 -0.02551 0 Wratling Edge Tab Angle,
a.04878 0.03561 -0.03468 dtab - 06
0.0732 0.04176 -0.04097
0.09756 0.04595 -0.0A507 T~ P or DATA AND IToD 01 Tzsi
0.314634 0.05215 -0.05171 Two-dimnsional test conducted in
0.319512 0.05597 -0.05532 a special ir',ert in the United Air-
craft Corporation (UAC) large subsonic
0.2439 0.05796 -0.05737 wind tunnel.
0.29268 0.05855 -0.05805 I mechanical %alance masured lift
0.39024 0.05661 -0.0561 and drag 4irectly.

I' 0.4878
0.58536
0.05165
0.04452
-0.05165
-0.04452
A Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton
equipped
bending beam
with strain gages was unsed to
obtain pitching moment.
0.68293 0.03575 -0.03575 The •irfr.il model was equipped with
0.78049 0.02559 -0.02559 Drag was measured with a wake probe.
0.87805 0.01413 -0.01413
0.92683 0.00787 -0.00787 The oda was made from an untwisted
"0.963 portion of a production Sikorsky B-34
0.00293 0.0293 main rotor blade.
1.0 0.00293 -0.002931 The B-34 airfoil differs. from the
______--hArA 0012 by a clight inorease in
upper surface bluntnoss free the i.E.
t4 0.lS.o, a reduction in lower our-
face maxium thickness Csee oordinates
at 0.3,c), and the addition of a
0.037.c trailing edge tab.

MoIdel Chord - 16.4 in

gaivn - 32.7 in

SOU•CE
Lizak, A~.A.. Tw~o-Dimmnional wind
Tunnel Tests of an H-34 ia4na Motor
Airfoil Section, TRBC TJ1 46-53.
Septeber 1960.
1.3.40-2
NACA 0012 (MODIFIED) WITH 1O TE, TAB

30 2.05

.0 . .2.6
.so 3.00
.60 3.4
.65 3.56
.70 3.7
.-75 3.8
.80 3:.

F •ATJK
IGZ - nEG

3 M .65M 6 75 MACH tlBER, M

.4 .6 .7

.30 2.05
• 40 2.6

.60 3.4

..................
......

.4 .6
 1.3.4•0-3

mACA 0012 (MODIFIED) WITH 0' TE, TAB

.4 ,--

.. 6

.7.

.75 3.

a. i
AIRFOIL: NACA 0012 with -30 T.E. Tab (H-34) 1.3.50

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHAAC'TERISTICS

x/c .//u ./cy a Thickre, t/o - 0.117

lo~ading 34ga Radius,
t/c - 0.00154
failing Edge Tab
tr
0.0 0.0 0.0 from
t~o X,/c o0.3
/c -- 1.0
0.0122 0.01854 -0,01848 a Trilinag ge Tab "ncnes,
0.0244 0.02683 -0.02551 tt•*,/a- 0.005, '
0.04878 0.03561 -0.03468 0 Tv iung dgeTabMge,
0.0732 0.04176 -0.04097 6tab -- 3"
0.09756 0.04595 -0.04507 TYP or DATA JM IU or TEST
0.14634 0.05215 -0.05171 test conducted in
0.19512 0.05597 -0.05532 a special insert in te fted Air-
0.2439 0.05796 -0.05737 craft Corporation (•C) large sbsonic
0.29268 0.05855 -0'05805 wind tunnel.
A mechanical. balance veasured lift
0.39024 0.05661 -0:0561 and draq directly.
0.4878 0.05165 -0.05165 A ualdwin-Lima-Hamilton bending bea
0.58536 0.04452 -0.04452 equipped with strain gages was used to
0.68293 0.03575 -00375 obtn pitching mimhnt.
The airfoil model was equipped with
0.78049 0.02559 -0.02559 29 stktic pressure taps.
0.87805
0.92683 0.01413
0.00787 -0.01413
-0.00717 The model was made from an ur.twisted
•0.92683 0.00787 -0.00787 portion of a production Sikorsky H-34
0.963 0.00293 -0.00293 zzin rotor blade.
1.0 0.00487 -0.00099 The H-3S airfoil differs froa the
/_____. _ MACA 0012 by a slight increase in upper
surface bluntness f-aom the L.E. to
0.15.c, a reduction in lower surface
maximum thickmess (see coordinate* at
0.3.0), and the addition of a 0.037.c
trailing edge tab.
Vodsl ChOad - 16.4 in
Span a 32.7 in
sou~c
Lisak, A.A., Two-Dimensional Wind Tunnel
Tests of an U-34 4tain Rlotor Airfoil
Section, TPC TA dO-S3. Gptember 1960.

-----..... .
1.3.50-2
NACA 0012 (MODIFIED) WITH -3" T.E. TAB

.0 A7.4
.0
.3 .7
3.8

4"4 .4 .63.8

."•3 .5 .1 MACH NUMBER,M

.4 .6 .8

JL
 1.3.50-3

II NACA 0012 (MODIFIED) WITH -3° TE. TAB

....
......

.53 -8.

.77-

•;.9

2..

.3.8

al
AIPFOIL: NACA 0015 1.3.60

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

a Thickness, t/c0 0.15
xic y/c a Leading Edge Radius, r/c = 0.0248

0.0 0.0 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST

0.0125 0.02361
0.025 0.03268 Tho tests were conducted in the
0.05 0.04443 Ames 1-by 3½-foot high speed wind
0.075 0.0525 tunnel, a low-turbulence, two-
0.1 0.05853 dimensional, continuous flow facil-
0.15 0.06682 ity.
0.2 0.07172 The airfoil models were equipped
0.25 0.07427 with 30 pressure orifices of 0.008
0.3 0.07502 in. diameter, and were equipped with
0.4 0.07254 tightly fitting end plates flush
0.5 0.06617 with the tunnel walls.
0.6 0.05704 Lift and quarter chord pitching
0.7 0.0458 moments were determined from measure-
0.8 0.03279 ments of the reactions on the tunnel
0.9 0.0181 walls of the forces experienced by
0.95 0.01008 the airtoil. Wake surveys were
1.0 0.00158 carried out with a movable rake of
total-head
tubes.
Broken lines in the data indicate
that stream velocities were within
0.025M.
Model Chord = 6.0 in
Span = 12.0 in
SOURCE
Graham, D.J., Nitzberg, G.E., and
Olson, R.N., A Systematic investiga-
tion of Pressure Distributions at
High Speeds Over Five Repre3entative
NACA Low-Drag and Conventional Airfoil
Sections: NACA Report A12, 1945.
~~1 NACA 0015

..........

i'
EELPWs =
w0 ... ....
..... ...
. 67 M C U~iR

L
i

-- ¾~
u 0 r .....
... t.., .q..
DRAGCOEFICINT,,1 i fH
to .. Li ~ ~ 14w 'i

--
± ~4= a4
.......
.. -- -

60. WI0 MIM :16,"

Tn H JIMF

40~~~m TE62EbS
 1.3,60-3

NACA 0015

I@ • 30-

.40 -- -I ANGL
OF TTAC DEG

.655

.675 • .

.725 ..

+ .77.5

4
IT at-i

.82aI5 Ii
AIRFOIL: NACA 23012 1.3.70

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

......... 0* Thickness, t/c - 0.12
X/c Leading ad radius,
S..... .. r / c - 0 . 0 1 98
0.0
.0125 0.0 0.0
.0267 -. 0123 * Slope of radius
.025 .0361 -. 0171 through L.E. - 0.305
.05C .0491 -. 0226
.075 .580 -. 0261 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.075 .0643 -. 0292
.15 .0719 -. 0350 Two-dimensional test in 8 in. by
.20 .0750 -. 0397 18 in. blowdown tunnel at Air-
.25 .0760 -. 0428 craft Research Association (ARA)
S.30 .0755 -. 0446 in Bedford, England.
.40 .0714 -. 0448
S.50 .0641 -. 0417 Lift and pitching moments were cal-
.60
.70 .U547
.0436 -.
-. 0367
0300 culated by integration of 43
surface static pressures distri-
.80 .0308 -. 0216 buted over the airfoil model. The
.90 .0168 -. 0123 drag was determined by wake rake
.95 °0092 -. 0070 measurements.
1.0 .0013 -. 0013 - Model Chord - 12.7 cm (5.0 in
Span - 20.3 cm (8.0 in

SOURCE

Uhle, H., Windkanalmessungen am

Profile NACA 23012 mit Original -
und modifizierter Hinterkante,
MBB TN D127-2/71, Ncv. 3, 1971.
1.3.70-2
NACA 23012

ui.|

5.20
60 .20

6 s

•.70 4.so
.75 5.20
5 60 -.
'o 0

.40
o ~T0 ~ 8 ~ US•ANL
.60AC Or 9HC

-. 50 .65 .75 .85

,Wit
 1.3.70-3

NACA 23012

-. 4
 AIRFOIL: NACA 23012 with 0.043c T.E. Tab 1.3.80

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

Thickness, t/c = 0.12

•C Y
e Leading edge circle,
0.0 /c - 0.0158
00.0
.0125 .0267 -. 0123 o Slope of radius through
.025 .0361 -. 0171 L.E. - 0.305
.050 .0491 -. 0226
.075 .0580 -. 0261 e Trailing edge tab
.10 .0643 -. 0292 from x/c = 0.957 with abrupt
.15 .0719 -. 0350 to x/c = 1.00 transition from
.20 .0750 -. 0397 airfoil to tab
.25 .0760 -. 0428
.30 .0755 -. 0446 TYPE OF DATA AND M4ETHIOD OF TEST
.40 .0714 -. 0448
.50 .0641 -. 0417 Two-dimensional test in 8 in.
.60 .0547 -. 0367 x 18 in. blowdown tunnel at Air-
.70 .0436 -. 0300 craft Research Association (ARA)
.80 .0308 -. 0216 in Bedford, England.
.90 .•1168 -. 0123
.95 .0092 -. 0070 Lift and pitching moments were cal-
11.0 .0043 - .0043 culated by integration of 43
surface static pressures distribut-
ed over the airfoil model. The
drag was determined by wake rake
measurements.
Model Chord 12.7 cm
Span -- 20.3 (5.0 in
c (8.0 in )

SOURCE

Uhle, H., Windkanalmsesungo.n am

Profile NACA 23012 mit Original -
und modifizierter Hinterkante,
MBB TN D127-2/71, Nov. 3, 1971.

* Ij
* 0
1.3,80-2
-ACA 23012 WITH 0.043 C T.E. TAB AT 0'

.4 2.70
M '50 3.45

54.50
6.2o 050 A

5.60 Fn
1.2 5 5

.60 ~ ~ ~ MC ~~tE,
.64.720 6

AGEOFATTACK - OZG-'-!

• 40 ,-50 0 .70 6 .130 0 MA•CH NUMBER, M

• 5o 65 •7. . 65

.40 2.70

.60 4.20
.65 "5
.70 4.80
so8 5.60

.. 8

0 I
 S~ 1.3.80-3

NACA 23012 WITH 0.043 C T.E. T: AT 0'

.60-0 .

.40,a°

.650o-
.70 -.-
08

.75 b

Iu .84

-. 228

k L 4.20
.6 4 50
2L.'70 4 80
.75 5 206
'7 AIRFOIL: NACA 23012 with 0.087c T.E. Tab 1.3.90
1
AI RFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

* Thickness, t/c - 0.12 4

X/c Y/Cu y/cz
a Leading edge circle,
r/C - 0.0158
0.0 0.0 0.0
.0125 .0267 -. 0123 * Slope of radius through
.025 .0361 -. 0171 L.E. - 0.305
.050 .0491 -. 0226
.075 .0580 -. 0261 * Trailing edge tab
.10 .0643 -. 0292 from x/c = 0.913 with abrupt
.15 .0719 -. 0350 to x/c - 1.00 transition from
.20 .0750 -. 0397 airfoil to tab
.25 .0760 -. 0428
.30 .0755 -. 0446 00 T.E. tab angle, measured
.40 .0714 -. 0448 from chord line
.50 .0641 -. 0417
.60 .0547 -. 0367 TYPE OF DATA AND ME.THOD OF TEST
.70 .0436 -. 0300
.80 .0308 -. 0216 Two-dimensional test in 8 in. by
.90 .0163 -. 0123 18 in. blowdown tunnel at Air-
.913 .0043 -. 0043 craft Research Association (ARA)
11.0 .0043 -. 0043 in Bedford, England.

Lift and pitching moments were cal-

culated by integration of 43
surface static pressures distri-
buted over the airfoil model. The
drag was determined by wake rake
measurements.

Model Chord - 12.7 cm (5.0 in )

Span - 20.3 cm (8.0 in )

SOURCE

Uhle, H., Windkanalmessungen am

Profile NACA 23012 mit Criginal -
und .odifizierter Hinterkante,
MBB rT, Til27-2/71, Nov. 3, 1971.

II I I i ii......TI• I
1.3.90-2
NACA 23012 WITH 0.087 C T.E, TAB AT Q"

...-
.........
.. Re x 10"

~S 3.4
AS -:'
S~4.20
5 4.50
l:-.70 4. g0
7-5 S.20
z 5.85

4 0, .60 . 70O 6 .80 6 MAC NUMBER, 9

so0 .65 ,75 -95

50 0.4

:61 4.20
65 . 4.5a
•70 j 4.8O0

1.22

-. 4£

M.80

S•" 04 .:" -. ,09•0

7 ". 8 -• " "

••-;i-. .... . ..... .

..... .. LEI.... L• :

0• .60 .70 S.40.8k0 O NA NUMBER., M

•so .65 .75 .85
 1.3.90-3

NAXA 23012 WITH 0.087 C TI-. TAB AT O"

.40

.80 or---A

.707

.4.0

.202

24.6

......
-----
AIRFOIL: NACA 23015 1.3.100

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

& Thickness, t/c - 0.15
X/c y/cu y/cj 0 Leading Edge Radius,
r/c - 0.0248
C.0 0.0 0.0 * Slope of Radius Through Leading
0.0125 0.0334 -0.0154 Edge - 0.305
0.025 0.0444 -0.0225
0.05 0.0589 -0.0304 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.075 0.069 -0.0361
0.1 0.0764 -0.0409 The tests were conducted in the
0.15 0.0852 -0.0484 Ames 1-by *-foot high-speed wind
0.2 0.0892 -0.0541 tunnel, a low-turbulence, two-
0.25 0.0901 -0.0578 dimensional, continuous flow
0.3 0.0905 -0.0596 facility.
0.4 0.0859 -0.0592 The airfoil models were equipped
0.5 0.0774 -0.0550 with 30 pressure orifices of 0.008
0.6 0.0661 -0.0481 in. diameter, and were equipped
0.7 0.0525 -0.0391 with tightly fitting end plates
0.8 0.0373 -0.0283 flush with the tunnel walls.
0.9 0.0204 -0.0159 Lift and pitching moments were
0.95 0.0112 -0.0090 obtained by integration of the
1.0 0.0016 -0.0016 measured surface pressures. Wake
surveys were carried out with a
movable rake of total-head tubes.
Broken lines in the data indi-
cate that stream velocities were
within 0.025M.
Model Chord - 6.0 in
Span - 12.0 in

SOURCE
Graham, D.J., Nitzberg, G.E.,
and Olson, R.N., A Systematic In-
vestigation of Pressure Distribu-
tions at High Speeds Over Five
Representative NACA Low-Drag and
Conventional Airfoil Sections,
NACA Report 832, 1945.
 1.3,100-2

NACA 23015

&N

-8 ~ . 0 4. - . 12. 16. ~0. 24 5 2

INNLE OF ATTACK -DEG i

so .060 .6 70 . 75 . 80
t4 .25
C5 .675 .725 .775 .925
MACII NUMBER, M

iA .06 us6 c 9mI2

.30 1 .• .60 .65 .7870s

40 .55 .725 .675 .725 .775 MACH NUM•£R,1

 NACA 23015

.6t.

.620

.;- I r Fi

56I T ... ..IZ..

I- ir
L- !I. 7
;; - = . :1 0N

77;

.16.
j4. l L 4 t
.2

V .V :
F IF,
AIRFOIL: NACA 63A009 1.3.110

AIRFOIL COC'RDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

X/c y/c
** Thickness, t/c/ = 0.09
Leading Edge Radius, r/c = 0.006075
a Trailing Edge Radius,
0.0 0.0 r/c - 0.000225
0.005 0.0073475
0.0075 0.008875 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.0125 0.011262
0.025 0.015637 The tests were conducted in the
0.05 0.021712 Lockheed-California Company Fluid
0.075 0.02625 Dynamics Laboratory 4-by-4 foot
0.1 0.0299 supersonic wind tunnel, equipped
0.15 0.035525 with a two-dimensional subsonic test
0.2 0.039575 section. The tunnel is of the blow-
0.25 0.0424 down type. The floor and ceiling of
0.3 0.04419 the test section were perforated
0.35 0.04495 (porous).
0.4 0.044"t25 Model forces were measured with
0.45 0.043575 two six-component strain gage
0.5 0.04159 balances. Drag was measured with a
0.55 0.0389 40-tube pressure rake installed 14
0.6 0.03559 inches downstream of the trailing
0.65 0.031775 edge of the model.
0.7 0.0275
0.75 0.023 Modal Chord = 8.0 in
0.8 0.01844 Span- 48 .0 in
0.85 0.013875
0.9 0.009312 SOURCE
0.95 0.00475 Sipe, O.E., Jr., and Gorenberg,
1.0 0.0002 N.B., Effect of Mach Number, Reynolds
Number, and Thickness Ratio on the
1Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA
63A-'Ieries Airfcil Sections, U.S.
Army A.M.L. TR 65-28, June 1965.

!I
•!i 1 3, UlO-2
-+. NACA 63A009

:• I.38 3.9

H .74 6,0 m :in .-

.2I 6.3 "

'tE
• : : :..........

Or ATTAWcK -
ANGLE•

o.38 -74 6 .89 MACH NUHBER, M

.49 .69 .79 .94

i .30 3.0
•'i 39 3. 8
'• i .49 4.,6
S.69 5. 7
1.27 5.7
.•+ .7B 5:7
7'. .89 6.3
.•.94 6.5

..
 1.3.110-3

NACA 63A009

.38 .,

.49 -Ev GL• OF ATTACK( "DG

.74 6

.896-"

.9 46b--

,__._ 38 3.9
wo :49 4.7

LLI
560
.69 5.9
.8.74 6:.0
.79 6.0
,89 6.3 =
.94 6.5 ':= •-
 •-3

AIRFOIL: NACA 63A012 3.3.120

AI RFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

"* Thickness, t/c - 0.12

x/c y/C * Leading Edge Radius, ric = 0.01075
"" Trailing Edge Radius,
0.0 0.0 r/c - 0.000275
0.005 0.009725
0.0075 0.011725 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.0125 0.014925
0.025 0.020775 The tests were conducted in the
0.05 0.0.895 Lockheed-California Company Fluid
0.075 0.0a504 Dynamics Laboratory 4-by-4 foot super-
0.1 0.03994 sonic wind tunnel, equipped with a
0.15 0.047475 two-dimensional subsonic test section.
0.2 0.052875 The tunnel is of the blow-down type.
0.25 0.05664 The floor and ceiling of the test
0.3 0.05901 section were pertorated (porous).
0.35 0.05995 Model forces were measured with
0.4 0.059575 two six-component strain gage bal-
0.45 0.057925 ances. Drag was measured with a
0.5 C.05517 40-tube prassure rake installed 14
0.55 0.051475 inches downstream of the trailing
0.6 0.047 edge of the model.
0.65 0.04186
0.7 0,03621 Model Chord 8.0 in
0.75 0.03026 Span = 48 in
0.8 0.02426
0.85 0.01826 SOURCE
0.9 0.01225 Sipe, O.E., Jr., and Gorenberg,
0.95 0.00625 N.B., Effect of Mach Number, Reynolds
1.0 0.00025 Number, and Thickness Ratio on the
Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA
63A-Series Airfoil Sections, U.S.
Army A.M.L. TR 65-28, June 1965.
 MACA 63AO1-2

3
.49 4::
5.7.
:69 5 7
.74 5:7
79 6.1
:99
.94

0
30 49
39 .69 78
so 74 -94 WIMElt,
89

2.0
m

30
2.6 :39 3.8
.49
.58
.69 5.2
.74 5:7
1.2 :9798 6
6. 3
.94 S.

.30
.39 .59 6 -94 MCH HUMEMit,
.74 .89
 1,3.120-3

NACA 63A012

- E
O r ATT AkCK
M GLE
. 3s•

.49 -.0

.69 v '.
.74 6

I.

.19 3.8 ý .
.49 4.
so• 5 -2
.74 5,7
.78 6.
S89 6.3
AIRFOIL: NACA 63A012 (Including Reverse Flow) 1.3.130

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERIS TICS

e Thickness, t/c = 0.12
x/c y/c 0 Leading Edge Radius, r/c 0.01075
-- ____ _ - * Trailing Edge Radius,
0.0 0.0 r/c = 0.000275
0.005 0.009725
0.0075 0.011725 TYPE OF DATA AND'METHOD OF TEST
0.0125 0.014925
"0.025 0.020775 The tests were conducted in the
0.05 0.02895 Lockheed-California Company Fluid
0.075 0.03504 Dynamics Laboratory 4-by--4 foot
0.1 0.03994 supersonic wind tunnel, equipped
0.15 0..•47475 with a two-dimensional subsonic test
0.2 0.052875 section. The tunnel is of the blow-
0.25 0.05664 down type. The floor and ceiling
0.3 0.05901 of the test section were perforated
0.35 0.05995 (porous).
0.4 0.059575 Model forces were measured witn
0.45 0.057925 two six-component strain gage
0.5 0.05517 balences. Drag was measured with a
-0.55 0.051475 40-tube pressure rake installed 14
0.6 0.047 inches downstream of the trailing
0.65 0.04186 edge of the model.
0.7 0.03621
0.75 0.03026 Model Chord = 8.0 in
0.8 0.02426 Span - 48 in
0.85 0.01826
0.9 0.01225 SOURCE
0.95 0.00625 Sipe, O.E., J ., and Gorenbergv
1.0 0.0C025 N .. , Effect of kach Number, Reynolds
___- Number, and Thichness Ratio an the
Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA
63A-Series Airfoil Sections, U.S.
Army A.M.L. TR 65-28, June 1965.
 i. 3.130-2
NACA 63A012 INCLUDING REVERSE FLOW

H~r 14UB. 0.

I0t 1.2 R.e -3. 5 X 106!

Re 3..5 X 10

...................
......... I II EN?

. ~.
..
.'
. ..
-
--,--- . . . . . . . . . . • ' .-,

* P-h ..

LIm
 1.3.130-3

NACA 63A012 INCLUDING REVERSE FLOW

0.0•10

-7
---------

iz
0. I I I I I
 AIRFOIL: NACA 63A015 1.3.140

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

* Thickness, t/c = 0.15
x/c y/c e Leading Edge Radius, r/c = 0.0163
& Trailing Edge Radius,
0.0 0.0 r/c = 0.000375
0.005 0.012025
0.0075 0.014475 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.0125 0.018437
0.025 0.02579 The tests were conducted in the
0.05 0.036175 Lockheed-California Company Fluid
0.075 0.04382 Dynamics Laboratory 4-by-4 foot
0.1 0.049975 supersonic wind tunnel, equipped
0.15 0.059425 with a two-dimensional subsonic test
0.2 0.06619 section. The tunnel is of the blow-
0.25 0.07091 down type. The floor and ceiling of
0.3 0.07384 the test section were perforated
0.35 0.07496 (porous).
0.4 0.07435 Model forces were measured with
0.45 0.07215 two six-component strain gage
0.i 0.068575 balances. Drag was measured with a
0.55 0.063875 40-tube pressure rake installed 14
0.6 0.0582 inches downstream of the trailing
0.65 0.051725 edge of the model.
0.7 0.04467
0.75 0.03731 Model Chord = 8.0 in
0.8 0.02991 Span = 48 in
0.85 0.02255
0.9 0.015125 SOURCE
0.95 0.J095 Sipe, O.E., Jr., and Gorenberg,
1.0 0.000325 N.B., Effect of Mach Number, Reynolds
Number, and Thickness Ratio on the
Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA
63A-Series Airfoil Sections, U.S.
Army A.M.L. TR 65-28, Junie 1965.

-Ii __
 NA..A 63A015

•z-.•-•.2 2.9 ::,_.

69 5.9 •''

.4 6.4

.29 , 49 o.69 .79 •,.94 MAC NU"'ZI•t, f4

.38 .59 .74 68'

29 2.9
:3 3. 8
.6... ... 4 4 .5 . .

•"~6 5.9 -_-,

74 5.8

- .2

~~ ..........

- &SR

.9 " z, 9 .69 6 .79 MACHNUM4.J4BE1R,

M
•i•3a .59 .74
S~1.3.1"10-3

NACA 63A015

,MGT•OF,A1"TAC1•- E

.90

.69 ---

-74

.2 2.9
38 3.8
.5 451
S.69 5:S9
= .74 5 .8
S.79 5.9
94 6.4
 AIRFOIL: NACA 63A01.8 1.3.150

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

o Thickness, t/c = 0.18
x/c y/c o Leading Edge Radius, r/: 0.0228
o - * Trailing Edge Radius,
0.0 6.0 r/c = 0.000475
0.0)5 0.014225
0.0)75 0.017112 TYPE OF DT-2A AND METHOr OF TEST
0.0125 0.021737
0.025 0.030625 The test'i were conducted in the
0.05 0.043412 Lockheed-Cdlifor: ia Company Fluid
0.075 0.0526 Dynamics Laboracory 4-by-4 foot
0.1 0.06 supersonic wizd tunnel, equipped
0.15 0.7139 with a two-dimensional subsonic teuJt
0.2 0.079625 s*ction. The tunne. is of the blow-
-!0.2!5 0.08522 dawi type. The floor and ceiling
0.3 0.08866 of the test section were perforated
0.35 0.089975 (porous).
0.4 0.06909 Model forces were measured with
0.45 0.0863 two six-component strain gage
0.5 0.081812 balances. Drag was measured with a
0.55 0.076262 40-tube pressure rake installed 14
0.6 0.06954 inches downstream of the trailing
0.65 0.061375 edge of the model.
0.7 0.05296
0.75 0.04422 Model Chord = 8.0 in
0.8 0.03546 Span = 48 in
0.85 0.0267
0.9 0.017925 SOURCE
0.95 0.009175 Sipe, O.E., Jr.. and Gorenberg,
1.0 0.0004 N.B., Effect of Mach Number, Reynolds
Number, and Thickness Ratio on the
Aezadynamic Characteristics ot NAcA
63A-Series Airfoil Sectics, U.S.
Army A.M.L. TR 65-28, June 1965.
'ii
1.3,150-2
INACA
63,-i8

. ..
.. .. . ....

a .59 5.2
m.74 5.9

.78. 6.0

z .89 6.9

w 12.69 6.4
7.Z •t 5.W)

' , . .- ........ ....

i•'•'.: •. •• i•i'0

•.29 .49 .69 MACH NUMBER,

.7 9 H
.3 .59 .7 99.7

M e 1-
 1.3.150-3

NP.A 93AQ18

rN
tt 594

,944

.89

6 u::• 49• 5

.74

Iz .29

69
2.9

5.9
!: :

H~~
lr4 6F E.9 M;i 61, VAR,;
m 94 6.4 T

tR
AIRFOIL: NACA 64A(4.5)08 1.3.160

AIRFOIL,coOuIWiLTZS CHARACTERISTICS

x/•• yc,,
-z

X/C t y/€ L
-i a Thickness ratio, t/c = 0.080

j . . ... . S Leading edge radius,

010 0.0 0.0 0.0 r/c - 0-00456
0.00362 0.00710 0.00638 -0.00517 ;etnter of L.E. circle
0.O.*96 0.00957 0.00904 -0.00601 x/c - 0.00446, y/c = n.00095
0.01074 0.01261 0.01426 -0.00718
0.02297 0.01825 o oO:,3 -0.0oa05
0.04773 0.02673 0.0S227 -0.01050 * -
Trailing dge r0d0us,
0.07264 0.03341 0.07736 -0.0115o n/ - 0.001568
0.09762 0.03904 0.1C238 -0.01222
0.14772 0.04817 0.15228 -0.01304 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19792 0.05514 0.20208 -0.01338
0.24819 0.06065 0.2:181 -0.0133%.
0.29850 0.06465 0.30150 -0.01297 Two-dimensional test in the
.34884 0.06731 0.35116 -0.01223 subsonic insert of the Boeing
0.39919 0.06868 0.40081 -0.01114 Supersonic Wind Tunnel in
0.44955 0.06840 0.45045 -0.00926 Seattl-i, Wash.
0.49950 0.06677
0.55022 0.06395 0.500i0 -0.00691
0,54978 -0.00427
0.60049 0.06009 0.59951 -0.00152 Lift and pitching moments were
0.65072 0.05536 0.64928 0.00110 measured on a balance.
0.05006 0.69909 0.003:6 S70091
0.75107 0.04408 ).74893 0.00453
0.90130 0.03711 0.79870 0.00495 Drag was determined with a wake
0.85131 0.02862 0.84869 0.00394 rake survey.
0.90046 0.01977 0.89904 0.00230
0.95056 0.01061 0.94944 0.00043
1.0 .0
10.0 0.0 End plate tares have been applied
to the pitching moment measure-
ments.

Model Chord - 6.38 in

Span - 12.0 in

SOURCE

Dadone, L., Experimental Investi-

gation of the Properties of a
Family of NACA 64AXXX Airfoils,
Boeing Document D170-10021-1,
October 1969.
 SI~.3•,160-2
•I NACA 64A(4.5)08

@ - i
.59 8.80

o.395
a 703
A .58
. .80 • .7303
.498 ~~ ~ .5 ~ ~
.72.53 ~ .5 .30MAHNMBR

06 6 . 85

-956 6.80

_.2

S. 395 .598 .703

9 .806.96 3 0
.9 2 .63•.G
.753.53 MACH .NUMBER,
6 M
 •] ~~~NACA 61!A(4.5)081.10-

• 395 o

4. 1 ANGLE OF ATTACK"
j;

.632 "M-9 E

.703 V

.753 6

S~.853
.•903 • '-16

.956 it t

.. 32

H:a,395 7.5
• •.5'98 8.85
.r57 8.2S
• 703 7.70

•. " .806 6.85

!i 1.956 ! 5.800 'i

 AIRFOIL: VACA 64A608 1.3. 170

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

a Thickness ratio, t/c - 0.080

X/au Y/cu X/CL Y/CL
- a Leading edge radius,
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r/c - 0.00456
0.0032(1 0.00801 0.00680 -0.00464 Center of L.E. circle
0.00547 0.01005 0.00953 -0.00530 x/c - 0.00438, y/c - 0.00125
0.01018 0.01340 0.01482 -0.00616
0.02232 0.0L971 0.027681-0.00705
0.04699 0.02932 0.05301 -0.00769 * Trailing edge radius,
0.07186 0.03696 0.07814 -0.00778 r/c - 0.001568
0.09684 0.04343 0.10316 -0.00766
0.14697 0.05396 0.15303 -0.00712 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19723 0.06216 0.20277 -0.00635
0.24759 0.06850 0.25241 -0.00542
0.29800 0.07324 0.30200 -0.00434 Two-dimensional test in the sub-
0.34845 0.07648 0.35133 -0.00304 sonic insert of the Soeing Super-
0.39892 0.07827 0.40108 -0.00154 sonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
0.44940 0.07825 0.45060 0.00060
0.49987 0.07675 0.50013 0.00307
0.55029 0.07389 0.54971 0.00568 Lift and pitching moments were
0.60065 0.06985 0.59935 0.00824
0.65096 0.06477 0.64904 0.01052 measured on a balance.
0.70121 0.05892 0.69879 0.01204
0.75143 0.05215 0.74857 0.01266 Drag was determined with a wake
0 80174 0.04407 0.79826 0.01200 rake survey.
0.95173 0.03398 0.84827 0.00930
0.90128 0.02341 0.89872 0.00602
0.95975 0.01242 0.94925 0.00229 End plate tares have been applied
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 to pitching moment measurements.

Model Chord - 6.38 in

Span-- 12.0 in

SOURCE
Dadone L., Experimental Investi-
gation of the Properties of a
Family of NACA 64AXXX Airfoils,
Boeing Document D170-10021-1,
October 1969.

r•L
 2.01

:4 7.59

* 1.2 .805 6AENNE

 1.3.170-3

NACA 64A608

~7

......
.....

F0

M:M
AIRFOIL: NACA 64A312 1.3.180

AIZF0IL CO•_INATUS CHARACTERISTICS

* Thickness ratio. t/c - 0.120

X/cu y/cu /c€t y/C1
o* Leading edge radius,
Sr/c - 0.01044
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Center of L.E. circle
0.00362 0.019S3 0.00636 -0.00084
0.00596 0.o1288 0.00904 -0.01050 x/c - 0.01034, y/c - 0.00147
0.01075 0.01661 0.01425 -0.01299
0.02297 0.02341 0.02703 -0.01708 a Trailing edge radius,
0.04772 0.03342 0.05228 -0.02260 r/c - 0.00156G
0.07263 0.04115 0.07737 -0.02656
0.09761 0.04758 0.10239 -0.02969
0.14771 0.05785 0.15229 -0.03443 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19791 0.06564 0.20209 -0.03773
0.24818 0.07150 0.25182 -0.03996
M.29949 r.0,;565 0.30151 -0.04119 Two-dimensional test in the sub-
0.34883 0.07813 0.35117 -0.04141 sonic insert of the Lobing Super-
0.39919 0.07899 0.40091 -0.04062 sonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
0.44955 0.07769 0.45045 --. 03827
0.49990 007475 0.50010 -0.03485
0.55021 0.07045 0.54979 -0.03067 Lift and pitching moments were
0.60048 0.06500 0.59952 -0.02595 maasured on a balance.
0.65071 0.05879 0.64929 -0.02114
0.70089 0.05219 0.69911 -0.01671 Drag was determined with awake
0.75105 0.04513 0.74895 -0.01273
0.80127 0.03742 0.79873 -0.00939 rake survey.
0.85126 0.02871 0.84874 -0.00706
0.90091 0.01974 0.89909 -0.00503 End plate tares have been applied
0.95051 0.01057 0.94949 -0.00321 to the pitching moment measurements.
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
Model Chord - 6.38 in
Span - 12.0 in

SOURCE
Dadone, L., Experimental Investi-
gation of tpie Properties of a
Family, of NACA 64AXXX Airfoils,
Boeing Document D170-10021-1,
October 1969.
3. 1&O-2

.7S
6.15
~~395~90
70 .O

or~ AMDE

.8029)
70 MC N M jt
.39 .599

.S~5J7 650
 10-

NACA 64IA3121.

.701

82A

I.2

L35 .
v5 ae
I~~~
U6 ~~~-
~ ~
7Ei. ~ 59

92
9.85--
 AIRFOIL: NACA 64A(4.5)12 1.3.190

AIMF0IL COOJWLTUs CHARACTERISTICS

- Thickness ratio, t/c- 0.120

Xj1C1 Y/CU 1/Ce - Y/cy
,- . Leading edge radius,
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r/c - 0.01044
C.o00295 0.01083 0.00705 -0.00830 Center of L.E. circle
0.00521 0.01335 0.0097 -0.00978 x/c - 0.01021, y/c - 0.00218
0.00989 0.01738 0.01511 0.01196
0.02198 0.02487 0.02002 -0.01538
0.04659 0.03601 0.05341 -0.01978 Trailing edge radius,
0.07145 0.04470 0.07355 -0.02281 r/c - 0.001568
0.09642 0.05196 0.10358 -0.02513
0.14657 0.06364 0.13343 -0.02851 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD GF TEST
0.19687 0.07256 0.20313 -0.03071
0.24727 0.07935 0.25272 -0.03204
0.29774 0.06424 0.30226 -0.03256 Two-dimensional test in te sub-
0.34825 0.08729 0.35175 -0.03221 sonic insert of the Boeing Super-
0.39879 0.OS87 0.40121 -0.03102 sonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
0.44933 0.08755 0.45067 -0.0284:
0.49985 0.09473 0.50015 -0.02487
0.55032 0.08040 0.54968 -0.02072 Lift and pitching moments were
0.60072 0.07476 0.59923 -0.01619 measured on a balance.
0.65106 0.06819 0.64094 -0.01172
0.70133 0.06104 0.69067 -0.00783
0.75157 0.05321 0.74843 -0.00460 Drag was determined with a wake
0-80190 0.04439 0.79010 - q.00233 rake survey.
0.85188 0.03406 0.84812 -0.10160
0.9036 0.02238
0.01239 0.89864
0.9894 -0.,; S0.90136
%31
0.00,35 End plate tares have been applied
:• 0.95076 0.01239 0.94924 -0.00 .Z5
1.0 0.0 1.o 0.0 to the pitching moment measurements.
Model Chord - 6.38 in
Span - 12.0 in

SOulE

Dadone, L., Experinmental Investi-

gation of the Properties of a
Family of NACA 64AXXX Airfoils,
Boeing Document D170-10021-1,
October 1969.

I-
 1.3.190-2
NACA 64A(4.5)I12

I w
43 ,----
1..259.7
.901
.702
.7"52
.955
I
8.8
76.15
.7
7. 3
75
-
3

.8s3
4.803 6.5
6.85
.2.901 6'.15
•.955 5.80

a. 32.18,•1

r7.3

.46 8.85

85

'4fw=p4I-

.395 .597 .752 6 .853

.496 .702 .803 MACH NUMBER, M
H
. 190 -3 S

NACA 64A(4.5)12

.395

.496 -'
KNG.L., OF ATTA=C]
.S97 0..

.702 o-

.752
M-'

.803 b-.-j

.901

• 955 6.

S, 'i2 7.T

,.35 T t.5

.2,rt% Z2 . Kt

.59 a
i:"
''
7:7
AIRFOIL: NACA 64A612 1.3.200

AIRFPOIL COORDINATKS CHARACTERISTICS

* Thickness ratio, t/c - 0.120
X/Cu Y/CU X Y * Leading edge radius,
"" r/c - 0.01044
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Center of L.E. circle - 0.00286
0.00232 0.o01109 0.00768:-o'oo072 x/c - 0.01004, y/c
0.00449 0.01378 0.01051 -0.00902
0.00906 0.01812 0.01594 -0,01088
0.02100 0.02628 0.02900 -0.01362 e Trailing edge radius,
0.04548 0.03855 0.05402 -0.01692 r/c - 0.001568
0.07029 0.04820 0.07971 -0.01902
0.09525 o.o5630 0.10475 -0.02053 T
0.14544 0.06939 0.15456 -0.02256 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19504 0.07947 0.20416 -0.02366
0.24637 0.08718 0.25363 -0.02510 Two-dimensional te3t in the sub-
0.29699 0.09281 0.30301 -0.02391" sonic insert of the Boeing Super-
0.34767 0.09645 0.35233 -0.0230'
0.39838 0.09815 0.40162 -0.02i.4 sonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
0.44911 0.09740 0.45089 -0.01855
0.49980 0.09471 0.5002) -0.01489 Lift and pitching moments were
0.550*3 0.09034 0.54957 -0.01077 measured on a balance.
0.60096 0.08452 0.59904 -0.00642
0.65141 0.0'175n 0.64859 -0.00230
0.70178 0.06Q4 9 0.59822 0.00106 Drag was determined with a wake
0.75209 0.C0126 0.74791 0.00353 rake survey.
0.80252 0.05134 0.79748 0.00473
0.85250 0.03940 0.84750 0.00389
0.90181 0.02700 0.899819 0.00242 End plate tares have been applied
0.95101 0.01419 0.94899 0.00052 to the pitching moment measurements.
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
___Model Chord - 6.38 in
Span - 12.0 in

SOURCE
Dadone, L., Experimental Invesoi-
gation of the Properties of a
Family of NACA 64AXXX Airfoils,
Boeing Document D170-10021-1,
October 1969.

- +*+
 1. 3.200--?
NACA 64A612

m RoxIO-Ii

40 7 5
:495 8:85
.60 a 95
.702 7 7
.755 7:3
5
66: 58
6.15

----------

32.

ý7.

.400 -600 0 .755 6 .853

.495 .702 .803 .901 MACH MU"BR, N

2.0

..
.

7 3
6 85
.:03
53 6 5
1.2 -

.4

.02 osi .07 09

............
........
..... ... .. ... .
Cd

ill PI soT
tf!

-400 .600 .755 6 .853

.495 .702 .803 MACH NUNBZR, M
 1.,3200)-3

NACA 64A612

,495 A,-
&RL OF ATT•ACK 0I
• 600 o--4

.755

.803 04

• ..........

I-..2
 AIRFOIL: NACA 64A516 1.3.210

AxRO!L COORINATZS CHARACTERISTICS

- ___ $ Thickness ratio, t/c - 0.160
X/Cu Y/Cu V/al Y/@t * Leading edge radius,
r/c - 0.01807
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c - 0.01807
0.00204 0.01387 0.00796 -0.01106 Center of L.E. circle
0.00418 0.01706 0.01082 -0.01310 X/c - 0.01758, y/a - 0.00418
0.00871 0.02218 0.01629 -0.01615
0.02057 0.03178 0.02943 -0.02123 * Tr&iling edge radius,
0.04498 0.04599 0.05502 -0.02796 r/o " 0.001568
0.06975 0.05704 0.08025 -0.0*272
0.09471 0.06625 0.10529 -0.03644
0.14491 0.08101 0.15509 -0.04198 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19536 0.09224 0.20464 -0.04573
0.24595 0.10072 0.25405 -0.04815 Two-dimensional test in the sub-
0.29665 0.10673 0.30335 -0.04931 sonic insert of the Boeing Super-
0.34741 0.11037 0.35259 -0.04917
0.39821 0.11161 0.40179 -0.04767 sonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
0.44902 0.10978 0.45098 -C.04407
0.49979 0.10570 0.50022 -0.03919 Lift and pitching moMents were
0.55047 0.09974 0.54953 -0.03343
0.60105 0.09219 0.59895 -0.02711 measured on a balance.
0.65154 0.08372 0.64846 -0.02098
0.70194 0.07460 0.69806 -0.01547 Drag was determined with a wake
0.75227 0.06.73 0.74773 -0.01072 rake survey.
0.80274 0.05:74 0.79726 -0.00701
0.35270 0.04101 0.84730 -0.00502
S0.95105 0.90194 0.02806 0.89806 -0.00354 End plate tares have been applied
0.01470 0.94895 -0.00244
1.0:010 0 0.0 to the pitching moment measurements.
Mlodel Chord - 6.38 in
Span - 12.0 in

SOURCE

Dadone, L., Experimental Investi-

gation of the Properties of a
Family of NACA 64AXXX Airfoils,
Boeing Document D170-10021-1,
October 1969,

I- '.
 1.3-210-2

NACA 64A516

L
14

395
498

:70 7 7
.7S4 7-3
1.2 .802 6.ý.3

.4
cl;

.395 599 704 6

.498 .650 MACH NUMBER, N

Rgxlo-6

395 7 5
:498 8:05
599 8.85
.65
.704 7.7
.754

.2 q.. ..4

............

.8

.02 .03

MADRAG COSM

.393 .599 0 704

.498 650 .7S4 KACH NU"ER. M
 NACA 64A516

...-...
.

"IIG

.74

* ¶

--- -- ---- -

X1-
 AIRFOIL: NACA 8-H-12 1.3.220

CHARACTERISTICS
* Thickness, t/c - 0.12
a Leading Edge Radius,
AIRFOIL COORDINATZs r/c - 0.01325
* Slope of Radius Through
X/Cu Y/Cu x/ct Y/c& Leading Edge - 0. 344
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00147 0.01229 0.00853 -o.ooa19 TYPE OF DATA AND
0.00358 0.0152 0.01142 -0.00946 METHOD OF TEST
o0.00804 0.02006 0.01696 -0.01128 Two-dimensiinal test
0.0198 0.02941 0.0302 -0.01415
0.04424 0.04312 0.05576 -0.01736 in the Langley low-
0.06914 0.0538 0.08086 -0.0192 turbulence wind tunnel.
0.09427 0.06263 0.10573 -0.02059 The dimensions of the
0.14497 0.07626 0.15503 -0.02242
0.19607 0.08605 0.20393 -0.02351
0.24754 0.09243 0.25246 -0.02417 3' x 7.5'. In prepara-
0.29969 0.09533 0.30031 -0.02455 tion for ;he test, the
0.35174 0.09432 0.34826 -0.0249 mode was sanded down
0.40292 0.0903 0.39709 -0.02494 in a chordwise direc-
0.4536 0.0842 0.4464 -0.02476
0.5039 0.07666 0.4961 -0.02436 tion with No. 400 carb-
0.55387 0.06795 0.54613 -0.02377 orundum paper.
0.60358
0.65311
0.05846
0.0465
0.59642
0.64689 -0.02290
-0.02178 Lift and pitching
0.7025 0.03838 0.6975 -0.02034 moments were obtained
0.75184 0.02838 0.74816 -0.0186 from balance readings,
0.80118 0.01895 0.79892 -0.01645 the drag was obtained
0.8506 0.01046 0.8494 -0.01384 from
fr
wake
surfakemeasurerints.
pressu
0.90016 0.00343 0.89984 -0.01051
0.94995 -0.0011) 0.95005 -0.00629 Some surface pressure
1.0 0.0 0.o 0.0 measurements were also
..mde.
All tests were run
at low speeds.
The data presented
was acquired at
Re - 2.6 x 106:
Model Chord - 24.0 in
Span - 35.5 in
SOURCE
Stivers, LS., Jr.,
Rice, F.J., Jr., Aero-.
dynamic Char •cteristics
of Four NA('A Airfoil
+ Sections D,39igned for
i Helicopter Rotor Blades,
NACA WR L-29, 1946.

I
'".
1.3.220-2
NACA 8-H-012

41 wtý%
2.0: -ý':!;.'LUW SPEED ;)ATA

Re 2.6 X 10

. .. -- - -

2
.......
......
....

04

... . .......

12 24.

OF ATTACK ORG

..........
------

t-4

--------
------
. ..... ....

. ......
.....

06 .09

..........
------ CQEFF CIENT, C,

....... ..
 1.3.•20-3

NACA 8-H-012

,2.6

AGEor ATTjkcx -

-. 0

•-.3
 AIRFOIL: V13006-0.7 1.3.230

AIRFOIL COORDINATES (*) CHARACTERISTICS

X* Thickness, t/c - 0.06

-0.002 -0.0117 -0.0117 . Leading Edge Radius:

0.0 -0.0064 -0.0171 r/c - 0.007
0.0025 -0.004 -0.019 * Center of Leading Edge
0.0075 -0.0013 -0.0208 Circle at x/c = 0.005
0.0125 0.0012 -0.0219 y/c = -0.0117
0.025 0.0057 -0.0235
0.05 0.0127 -0.0255 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.075 0.0177 -0.0268
0.1 0.0216 -0.0275 Two-dimensional tests in the
0.i5 0.026 -0.0286 subsonic insert of the Boeing
0.2 0.0285 -0.0294 supersonic wind tunnel in
0.25 0.0295 -0.0299 Seattle, Washington.
0.3 0.0299 -0.03 Lift and pitching moments
0.4
0.5 0.029 -0.029
0.0265 -0.0265 were determined by integra-
0.6 0.0228 -0.0228 tion of surface static
0.7 0.0185 -0.0183 pressures.
0.8 0.0131 -0.0131 Drag was determined by a
0.9 0.0072 -0.0072 traversing wake probe survey.
0.95 0.004 -0.004 o
1.0 0.0006 1-0.0006 Model Chord - 7.0 in
Span
__ -- 12.0 in
SOURCIE
1) Gabriel, E.,"Analy'sis
(*)Coordinates defined itwo-dimensional Wind Tunnel
the Vertol reference Tests of Rotor Blade Airfoils
system, where the reference of Varying Ct.Jber and Leading
line approximately bisects iEdge Radius", Boeing Document
the aft 50% of an airfoil. AERO INV.IIt-288, November,1965.
2) Gray, L., Liiva, JDavenport,
F., "Wind Tunnel Tests of Thin
Airfoils Oscillating Near Stall,
USAAVLABS TR 68-89A, 1969.
-I
I" -"I.....
".. I.I
.... "...I.I+
"I....
.........+....I
II...I++"I
I... ..•-°
'•..
 1.3.23O2

V13006-O.7

I.
.206 -40 0 .60 .75 .85 4 MACH NUH3ER, 14
I .308 .02 .694 .80 .90

1'
I 1 jKLI.

.40 .60 *94 . A .50 *g5

6 .90 MACH NUMflft.
 1.3.230-7

V13006-0.7

Ol

0 F ATTACK DET1
.40

.502

.75 12

.80 6

K Roxia-6
0.206, 2.9
o. 3or, 4.2
0 40 5
0*.5021 6:2
0.6 i 6.9
0.6941 7.2
0. 75 S.A
0. SO 8.75
0. 65 9.0
ou 9.25
AIRFOIL: V(1.9)3009-1.25 1.3.240

-K--__-Ii _

AIRFOIL COORDINATES (*) CHARACTERISTICS

X/c X/Cupp y/Clow Thickness, t/c - 0.09
0.0 -0.01763 7 Leading Edge Radius,

0.005 -0.00585 -0.02767 r/c - 0.0125

0.0125 +0.00199 -0.03211 isCenter of Leading Edge
0.025 0.01022 -0.03608 Circle at x/c - 0.0125
0 05 1.02078 -0.03979 y/c - -0.01763
i0.075 0.02778 -0.04149
0C.1 0.03295 -0.0427 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.15 0.0387 -0.04395
0.2 0.0424 -0.0446 Two-dimensional tests in the
0.25 n.04425 -0.04505 subsonic insert of the Boeing
0.3 0.04495 -0.04505 supersonic wind tunnel in Seattle,
0.35 0.04468 -0.04468 Washington.
0.4 0.04379 -0.04379 Lift and pitching moment were
0.5 0.0398S -0.03985 determined by integration of
0.6 0.03415 -0.03415 dtrmine byit egrai o
0.7 0.02686 -0.02686 surface static pressures.
0.8 0.01863 -0.01863 Drag was determined by a travers-
0.9 0.01014 -0.01014 ing wake probe survy.
0.95 0.0056 -0.0056 The tests were conducted at total
1.0 0.00055 -0.00055 pressures of about 50 psia to
simulate full-scale Reynolds
(*)Coordinates defined in Numbers.
the Vertol reference
system, where the reference model Chord - 6.0 in
line approximately bisects Span - 12.0 in
the aft 50% of an airfoil. SOUCE
Gabriel, E., "Analysis of two-
dimensional Wind Tunnel Tests of
Rotor Blade Airfoils of Varying
Camber and Leading Edge Radius",
Boeing Aero. Inv. III--288, 11
November, 1965.
i!- 1. 3.240-2 FII
V(1 .9)3009-1.25

4. 5
6, .2
6~r

- ..
....
.2..
.. 0

U2.

HiW

-4. 9. 12

.2 .9 .6 .85 ACH6 NUMBER, M

. .l8; 4

.2 60 6

A 0
 1.3.240-3

V(1,9)3009-1,25

.8

-. 06 p
Wi .90 - A

LI
AIRFOIL: V23010-1.58 With 0* T.E. Tab 1.3.250

AZVOZL CO0•Z•MUS CHARACTERISTIC3

X/a y/cu y/OL * Thickness, t/c w 0.102

-... = . * Leading Edge Radius,
0.0 -0.0225 -0.0225 r/c - 0.0158
0.005 -0.0078 -0.0329 * Center of Leading Edge
0.01 -0.0024 -0.0362 Circle at x/c - 0.0158
0.0l5 0.0019 -0.0370
0.025 0.0096 -0.0394 y/c - -0.0225
0.035 0.0155 -0.0404 e Trailing Edge Tab
0.047 0.0214 -0.0412 from x/c - 0.96
0.06 0.0265 -0.042 to X/c
0.08 0.0327 -0.0434 -/ .
0.11 0.0396 -0.0449
0.15 0.0455 -0.0471 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19 0.0439 -0.0494
%;23 0.0499 -0.0513
1_17 0.0499 -0.0522 Two-dimensional tests in
0.31 0.0497 -0.05215 the Subsonic Insert of the
0.35 0.049 -0.0517 Boeing Supersonic Wind Tunnel
0.39 0.048 -0.0505
0.43 0.0465 -0.0487 in Seattle, Wash.
0.47 0.0446 -0.0468 Lift and pitching moments
0.51 0.0424 -0.144 were determined with a balance.
0.55 0.0397 -0.0412
0.59 0.0369 -0.030 Drag was determined by a
0.63 0.0336 -0.0346 traversing wake probe survey.
0.67 '.0301 -0.0301
0.71 0.0263 -0.0269
0.75 0.0223 -0.0226 Model Chord - 6.38 in
0.79 0.0181 -0.0102 Span - 12.0 in
0.83 0.0137 -0.0136
0.97 0.0093 -0.0093
0.91 0.0056 -0.0057 SOURCES
0.945 0.0028 -0.0031 1) LaPrete, R., Storwick,
0.96 v,00235 -0.00235 E.M., Peterson, L.D., Boeing
11.0 0.00235 -0.00235 Wind Tunnel Test 927, Boeing
Doc.
(*)Coordinates defined in 2) No. D2-24066-1, 1966.
Eierman, R.L.# Nyholm,
J.R., Schreiber, R.E.,
the Vertol reference Russell, J.H., Data Report
system, where the reference BSWT 412, Boeing Doc. No.
line approximately bisects D6-20518, Dec. 1967.
the aft 50% cf an airfoil. M)Dadone, L.U., & McMullen,
J., HLH/ATC Rotor System Two-
Dimensional Airfoil Test,
D301-10071-l, Dec. 1971.
: 1.3.250-2

:• ~~V23010-1.58 WITH 0" TE. TAB ..-

F. 0.3 5.7
0.G 98.7 •
0.6 10.0
}•,0 .72 11.2
11• ~0.77 1.
6 12:3

-9 4 . 0 12. 24

S~~ARGLE Or ATTACK. -0

.30 .0 .9 .7 .86 MACH NUMBER, m

.40 .60 .72 .02

M• Re X 10-6

0.3 .7
-- • .S 8.7

07 11.0

0.6 12.3

It' wmnif}. i
"" i RAGCOEFICENT Cd

S.30.86 ACN UIM• R,

S i~~~l . ,o .°
 1.3.250-3

V23010-1,58 WITH o" T.E, TAB

.30-,

.40 * 0(
ANG[,Z Or A2"JLACI[
,

50..
.69 i

.72-.
.7.72

Rex 10-4
Z

S5,7

a,762 21.2
- . 80 . 77 1 1 .8
0 ,02 12 .1
... 0 8
....... 2.3

Ž1,
 AIRFOIL: V23010-1.58 with -30 T.E. Tab 1.3.260

AZ--ILO(*Z)A.
C CHARACTERISTICS
. X/6 y/% y/at 0 Thicknes*, t/c - 0.102
-
0.0 - -0.022- -0.0223 Leading Edge Radius,
o.o05 -0.0073 -0.0329 r/c - 0.0158
0.01 -0.0024 -0.0362 a Center of Leading Edge
0.015 0.0019 -0.0370 Circle at x/c - 0.0158
0.025 610096 -0.0394 /--025
0.0V5 0.0155 -0.0404 "
0.047 0.0214 -0.0412 e Trailing Edge Tab
0.06 0.0oi -4.042 from x/c - 0.96
0.06 0.0~27 -0.0434
0.11 0.0396 -0.0449 to x/c - 1.0
0.15 0.0455 -0.0471
0.19 0.04904 -0.0494 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.23 0.0499 -0.0513
.0.27 0.o499 -0.0522
0.31 0.0497 -0.05215 Two-dimensional tests in
0.35 0.049 -0.0517 the Subsonic Insert of the
0.39 0.048 -0.0505 Boeing Supersonic Wind Tunnel
0.43 0.0465 -.0.0487
0.47 0.0446 -#.0468 in Seattle, Wash.
0.51 0.0424 -0.044 Lift and pitching moments
0.35 0.0397 -0.0412 were determined with & balance.
0.59 0.0369 -0.039
.0.63 0.0336 -0.0346 frag was determined by a
0.67 0.301 -0.0oo0 traversing wake probe survey.
0.71 0.0261 -0.0269
0.75 0.0223 -0.0226
0.79 0.0161 -0.0182 Model Chord - 6.38 in
0.33 0.0137 -0.0136 Span - 12.0 in
•*' 0.17 0.0093 -0.0093
0.91 0.0059 -0.0067
0.945 0.0026 -0.0031 SOURCES
1 0.00235 -0.00305 1) LaPrete, R., Storwick,
1.0 0.00445 -0.OO05 3.M., Peterson, L.D., Boeing
Wind Tunnel Test 927, Boeing
Doc. No. D2-24066-1, 1966.
defined in
(*)Coordinates eefinced 2) Zierman, R.L., Nyhoim,
J.R., Schreiber, R.E.,
tem,V wrhoreferener enRussell, J.H., Data Report
system, where the reference BSWT 412, Boeing Doc. No.
line approximately bisects D6-20518, Dec. 1967.
the aft 50% of an airfoil. 3)
3) Dadone, L.U., & McMullen,
De, L.U.
J., HLH/ATC Rotor System Two-
Dimensional Airfoil Test,
Boeing Doc. No. D301-10071-1,
Dec. 1971.

-i
-. • 1.3.260-2

• ~V23010-1.58 WITH 3" TE. TAL,

; Re x i0-6ý1

5.75

100

0 4 11.3
0.@1 1 A.9
0 .06 12: 3

----.- ,,NGLE :)F XTTACX -DEG

.30 .0 .0 .1 .90 P:.ACH NUMBER, M

S.40 .60 .74 .86

- 0. I0.0

0
"0.8 12.0
8.5

• .4

Ao .!o .7 ,90 MACH NUMBER, m

-- !.40 .60 .11
 1.3.260-3

V23010-1,58 WITH 3" T.E. TAB

.301

.40

.50 -.0 t
.60

.70

.74

1 Re x la
.90

.090

O. 0.7
-.00.6 1I0 0
S0 .7 11: 0O
).4 11.3
o~lI12.0
•- 0.$6 12.3
0.9 8.5

i.

i:
 1.3.270
Flow)
AIRFOIL: V23010-1.58 With 00 T.E. Tab (Reverse

(*)
SaP.IL COOIDI&UAT CHARACTERISTICS
x/C Y/Oc Y/CL a Thickness, t/c - 0.1C2
a Leading Edge Radius,
0.0 -0.0225 -0.0225 ric 0.0158
0.005 -0.007? -0.0329
0.01' -0.0024 -0.0362 e Center of Leading Edge
0.015 0.0019 -0.0378 Circle at x/c - 0.0158
0.025 0.0(96 -0.0394 y/c - -0.0225
0.035 0.015s -0.0404
0.047 0.0214 -0.0412 * Trailing F dge Tab
0.06 0.0265 -0.042 from x/c - 0.96
0.08 0.0327 -0.0434 to X/c - 1.0
0.11 0.0396 -0.0449
0.15 0.0455 -0.0471
0.19 0.0489 -0.0494 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.27 0.0499 -0.0513 Two-dimensional test in the
0.31 0.0497 -0.0522 Subsonic Insert of the Boeing
0.35 0.049 -0.0517 Supersonic Wind Tunnel in
o0.39 0.049 -0.0505 Seattle, Wash.
0.43 0.0465 -0.0487 Lift and pitching roments
0.43 0.0446 -0.0465
0.51 0.0424 -0.044 were nbtained by integration
0.55 0.0397 -0.0412 of surface differential static
0.59 0.0369 -0.038 pressures
0.43 0.0336 -0.0346
0.67 0.0301 -o0o.o0 A limited amcunt of drag
0.71 0.0263 -0.0269 data was acquired by a trav-
0.75 0.0223 -0.0226 ersing wake probe survey.
0.79 0.0181 -3.0182
0.33 0.0137 -0.0136 The data was obtained over
0.37 0.0093 -1.0093 a range of angles of attack
0.91 0.0056 -0.0057 from 1600 to 2000
0.945 0.0023 -0.0031
0.95 0.00235 -0.00235
1.0 0.00235 -0.00235 Model Ch+ord - 6.38 in
- Span - 12.0 in

(*Crinates
the defined inOURCE
Verdtol reference Gray, L., Dadone, L.U.,
system, where the reference Gross, D.W., Child, R.F.,
sline approximately bisects Wind Tunnel Investigation of
ithe aft 50% of an airfoil. Airfoils Oscillating in
Reverse Flow, USAAVLABS TR
 1.3,270-2
V23010-1,58 WITH 0' TE. TAB IN REVERSE FLOW

.403 4.7 a

AGEOr ATTrA-K "- DE

.209 .403 MACH NUMhER, M

.31

_2'1.
I.M
IN .20 .U.
.
. ..... 40 ~t B R M -

!:Tn | .. i-. . .!
! b1 | |.........ii •
 1.3,270-3

*V23010-1,58 WITH 0' T.E. TAB IN REVERSE FLN

M X10 "6i'
.209 .f'
.31 3.?
.402 4 7

-.41

0.20 AN DE

i~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ". ..

........... ......... ....... .....i............ ...
 1.3.280
AIRFOIL: V23010-1.58 With -3e T.E. Tab (Reverse Flow)

S, - AZWo:L commm1.1
(CHARACTERISTICS
_____ _ _u_ y*__ S Thickness, t/c - 0.102
- 0.0 -0.0225 -0.0225 e Leading Edge Radius,
0.00b -0.0078 -0.0329 r/c - 0.0158
0.01 -0.0024 -0.0362 * Center of Leading Edge
0.015 o~o~0.00oo9
o.• -0.037
-o.394C-ircle 05
at --/c - 0.1015W
0.025 0.0096 -O.n394 rleax/
0.035 0.015s -0.0404 y/c - -0.0225
0.047 0.0214 -0.0412 e Trailing Edge .Tab
0.06 0.0265 -0.042
0.06 0.0327 -0.0434 from x/c - 0.96
0.11 0.0396 -0.0449 tO 3f/C - 1.0
0.15 0.043S -0.0471
0.19
C. 23 0.0489
0.0499 -0.0os13
-0.0494 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.27 0.0499 -0.0522 Two-dimensional test in
0.31 0.0497 -0.05215 the Subsonic Insert of the
0.35 0.049 -0.0517 Boeing Supe.rsonic Wind Tunnel
0.39 0.048 -0.0305
0.43 0.0465 -0.0487 in Seattle, Wash.
0.47 0.0446 -0.0468 Lift and pitching moments
0.51 0.0424 -0.044 were obtained by inteiation
0.55 0.0397 -0.0412
0.59 0.0369 -0.038 of surface differential static
0.63 0.0336 -0.0V46 pressures.
0.67 0.0301 -0.0308 The data was obtained over
0.71 0.0263 -0.0269
0.75 0.0223 -0.0226 a range of angles of attack
0.79 0.0181 -0.0182 from 1600 to 2000.
0.33 0.0137 -0.0136
0.07 0.0093 -0.0093 Model Chord - 6.38 in
0.91 0.0056 -0.0U57 •
0.945 0.0028 -0.00 31 Span - 12.0 in
0.96 0.00235 -0.00235
11.0 0.00445 -0.00025 SOURCE
Gray, L., Dadone, L.U.,
Gross, D.W., Child, R.F.,
(*)Coordinates defined in Wind Tunnel Inveatigation of
the Vertol reference Airfoils Oscillating in
system, where the reference Reverse Flow, USAAVLABS TR
line approximately bisects
the aft 50% of an airfoil.
 1.3.280-2
V23010-1.58 WITH -3" TE. TAB IN REVERSE FLOW

.31.3 3
,•3 6 4.7

170 00 210.

g..

.31
 1.3.230-3

V23010-1,58 WITH -3.T.E. TAB IN REVERSE FLOW

.396 6 4. 4.

OF ATTAC E

.1 .3 6 icm:P13R

L5
 1.3.290
AIRFOIL. V2301ý-l ;3 wii.% +3o T.E. Tab ýRe;erse Flow)

AIMoZL COORDINATES (*) CHARACTERISTICS

x/I Y/cu Y/ot e Thickness, t/c - 0.102

0* - Leading Edge Radius,
-0.0225 -u,0225 0 a i g E e
t rC o
0.0 Edge
0.003 -0.0076 -J.0329 * Center of Leading
0.01 -0.00241 -0.0362 Circle at x/c : 0.0158
0.015 0.0019 -0.3
-0.0394 * i y/
Ed.e2T5-0.0225
W0.025 0.0096
.035 0.0155 -0.0404 * Trailing Edge Tab
0.047 0.0214 -0.0412 from x/c 0.96
0.06 0.0265 -0.042 to x/c 1.0
0.09 0.0327 -0T0434
0. 11 0.0396 -0.0449
0.15 0.0455 -0.0471 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.19 0.04119 -0.0494 Two-dimensional test in the
0.23
0.27 0.0499
0.049 -0.0s13
-o.0511 Subsonic Insert of the Boeing
0.39 0.045 -o.oso0 Supersonic Wind Tunnel in
0.43 0.0465 -0.0487 Seattle, Wash.
0.47 0.0446 -0.0461 Lift and pttching moments
0.51 0.0424 -0.044
0.55 0.0397 -0.0412 were obtained by integration
0.39 0.0369 -0.038 of surface diffeý'ential static
0.63 0.0336 -0.0346
o0.67 0.0301 -0.0308 pressures.
0.71 0.0263 -0.0269 The data was obtained over
0.75 0.0223 -0.0226 a range of angles of attack
0.79 0.0101 -0.0182 from 1600 to 200.
0.93 0.0137 -0,0136
0.87 0.0093 -0.00W3
0.91 0.0056 -0.0057 Model Chord - 6.38 in
0.I45 0.00215 -!.0Cq31 Span - 12.0 in
0.94 0.00235 -0.0023S
1.0 0.00025 -0.00",1
S.. . SOURCE
Gray, L., Dadone, L.U.,
Gross, G.W., Child, R.F.,
(*)Coordinates defined in Wind Tunnel Investigation of
ths Vertol reference Airfoils Oscillating in
system, where the reference Reverse Flow, USAAVLABS TR
line approximately bisects
the afc 50% of an airfoil.

I I I
1.3,290-2
V23010 1.58 WITH +3*TE. TAB IN REVERSE FLOW

4 .
--- . ..
. '.

.409 4 7

.2014 ".409 MACH1

NUMBERi, 14
.31
 1.3.290-3

V23010-1,58 WITH 3' T.E, TAB IN REVERSE FLOW

410 0 4.7

ATTACK
rEO DE

.204 .409 MACH NUMDER, M

.31

v!
 AIRFOIL: V43012-1.58 With
0a T.E. Tab
1.3.300

AI RFOIL COORDINATES
"X-c CHARACTERIS TI CS
Y-c- YCt * Thickness, t/c
- 0.12
0.001 - --0.03- - 0 0 Leading Edge Circle,
.0321 -. :0.0
0077 r/c - 0.0158
Center
.0423 -. 0090 at x/c 0.0136
.-0503 -. 0100 Yc = 0.0077
•04 .0571 Trailing Edge Tab
.05 .0631 -. 0108 from x/c - 1.00
.075 -. 0108 to x/o - 1.10
.09 .0745
.0791 -. 0115
-. 0110
.11 .0840 TYPE OF DATA AND
.125 .0869
-. 0130 TWo-dimensionaj METHOD OF TEST
•15 -. 0142 Subsonic Insert test in the
.0901 -. 0167 of the Boeing
.18 .0920 Supersonic Wind
.221 -. 0200 Tunnel in
.0929 -. 0231 Seattle, Wash.
.245 .0926 Lift and Pitching
.28 -. 0260 Were measured with Moments
.0920 -. 0281
.32 .0905 Pitching moments a balance
.436 -. 0299 about 0.25.c of were reduced
.0880 -. 03 the
.40 chord without the nominal
.44 .0850 -. 0315 T.E. exten-
.0820 sion. Drag
•.48
.0780
-. 0314 a traversing was determined by.
wake probe vurvey.
.52 -. 0310
.0733 -. 0304
.56 Model Chord
.0685 7.018 in
.60(including -. 0293
64 10%
.0582 -. 0263
.68 .0527 -. 0244 T.E. extension)
.72 •.0469 S '
.76 .0410 -. 0222 SOURE
.80 -. 0198 Dadone, L., & Mcfu11en,
-0350 -. 0172 7.,
.83 .0301 NLHiATC Rotor System
.86 -. 0149 Dimensional Airfoil Two-
.0253 -. 0125
.89 BOeing Document Test,
.0203 -. 0100 D301-10 0 7 1 -1,
.91 .0167 Decembur 1971.
.925 .0140 -. 0084
.94 -0113 -. 0070 NOTE:
-. 0057 1) The V43012-1.
58 non-

j (
1.0
.95
-• .98
1.10
.dimensional
.0038
.00235
.00235 -.-. 0020
00235
-. 00235ord.
.0023
coefficients
were determined by Using
the total 7.018
ox.n.
 V4"3012-I.58 WITH 0° T.E. TAB
1.3.300-2
SH Re X 1 0 - 6

.21f

S~.51.
30+
6.3.-,
"F t

97

71
7 12, 3

J.6 1 • . 1.1.2R

.230
£l
01.
a NUMER, K
.30 .51 .71

.10

g--

. ... ......

., CO F.01 C
 1.3.300-3

V43012-1.58 WITH 0* TE. TAB

41 8.2

.210
. 30 ----- AG, OF &''ATTAX, ca - 0E

.410o--0

.6I

.5.71

-.

Cz

w -.
2
}a
AIRFOIL: V43012-1.58 With -60 T.E. Tab 1.3.310

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

X/C y/Cu / Thickness, t/c - 0.12

. Leading Edge Circle,
0.0 0.0 0.0 r/c - 0.0158
.01 .0321 -. 0077 Center at x/c - 0.0138
.02 .0423 -. 0090 y/c - 0.0077
:03 .0503 -. 0100 * Trailing Edge Tab Extension
.04 .0571 -. 0108 from x/c - 1.00
.05 .0631 -. 0108 to X/C - 1.10
.075 .0745 -. 0110 Tab Deflected at x/c - 1.05
.09 .0791 -. 0115
.11 .0840 -. 0130 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.125 .0869 -. 0142 Two-dimensional test in the
.15 .0901 -. 0167 Subsonic Insert of the Boeing
.18 .0920 -. 0200 Supersonic Wind Tunnel in
.21, .0929 -. 0231 Seattle, Wash.
.245 .0926 -. 0260 Lift and pitching moments
.28 .0920 -. 0281 were measured with a balance.
.32 .0905 -. 0299 Pitching moments were resolved
.36 .0880 -. 0310 about 0.25.c of the nominal
.40 .0850 -. 0315 chord without the T.E. exten-
.44 .0820 -. 0314 sion.
.48 .0780 -. 0310
.52 .0733 -. 0304 Model Chord = 7.018 in
.56 .0685 -. 0293 (intiluding 10%
.60 .0635 -,0279 T.E. extension)
.64 .0582 -. 0263 Span = 12.0 in
.68 .0527 -. 0244
.72 .0469 -. 0222 SOURCE
•76 .0410 -. 0198 Dadone, L., '. McMullan, J.,
-eO .0350 -. 0172 KLH/ATC Rotor Systeim Two-
.83 .0301 -. 0149 Dimensional Airfoil Test,
.86 .0253 -. 0125 Boeing Docmuent D301-10071-I,
.89 .0203 -. 100 December 1971.
.91 .0167 -. C084
.925 .0140 -. 0070 NOTE:
.94 .0113 -. 0057 1) The V43012-1.58 non-
.955 .0084 -. 0043 dimensional coefficients
.98 .0038 -. 0020 were determined by using
1.0 .00235 -. 00235 the total 7.018 in. chord.
1.05 .00235 -. 00235
1.10 .00760 +.00290
 1.3.310-2 II
V33012-1.58 WITH -6" T.E. TAB

m Re X 1.0-6

•1 6.7,0
.50 9:6
GL 11 . 2

I4 .01 a4

o ..
..
..
..
1 1

I-.
• ACI
;0 Num , m

.4i6
 1.3.310-3

V43012-1.58 WITH -6" TI TAB

M RE x lo-G

1 1.2

ANGLE fr TTW.X D

4:
.5. . ...

GI

I12

i-

I,
AIRFOIL: SA 13109-1.58 1.3.320

-cl __

AIRFOIL COORDINATES
-... CHARACTERISTICS
X/Uu Y/Cu~ X/CL M'o
___._. _
.... -- *NACA 13109 Modified
0.0 0. 0. 0.
.0100 .0192 .0150 -. 0153 Leading Edge Radiuw, 0.0158c
.0221 .0268 .0280 -. 0194
.0472 .0365 .0528 -. 0237 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.0729 .0429 .0771 -. 0262 Two-dimensional test in
.0986 .0472 .1014 -. 0280 the S3 MA Subsonic-Transonic
.1500 .0519 .1500 -. 0311 Qera Wind Tunnel in Modane.
.2007 .0535 .1993 -. 0337 Lift, drag and pitching
.2508 .0537 .2492 -. 0357 moments were calculated by
.3008 .0531 .2992 -. 0369 pressure distribution en-
.4007 .0503 .3993 -. 037d
.5006 .0454 .4994 -. 035 tegration.
.6005 .0387 .5995 -. 032 Uncorrected results.
.7003 .0306 .6997 -. 026
.8002 .0214 .7998 -. 019 Model Chord - 0.21 m
.9001 .0114 .8999 -. 010 Span - 0.56 m
.9500 .0062 .9500 -. 006
1. .0009 1. -. 000
•" - SOURCE
";eV d'Essais Onera No. 1 -
604 GY fascicule 1/4
Essais En Courant De Profile
Do Pale D'Helicoptere
Pour Sud-Avaiation - Profil
SA 131 09 1.58
1.3.320--2
SA1310q-I,58

'448 3.w

-4 0.8 .2 .- 0 4. 2. 2

I1. .7 3.0

• S O
70
" = .84 MACH
0 IUNBEI34, 7
.. .. 0 .. 7 90 4

.30
.. 7
.. 8

5 7
.408
$ AHNME• ~~~~~~:7 33 4
3.7,9

...............
~~~~~
. ..... . . . . ... . 6 .9. . .. P M ... . . .... iA iUB
 1.3-320-3

F.0

4'0-

.94

.99
Vm
z0

I,8 40
.5
:6 :
.

Ia 3.

I8 .
 AIRFOIL: NPL 9615 1.3.330

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHURACTSRISTICS

* Thicknesso t/c - 0.113
X/c y/cU e Leading edge radius:
- - r/i 0.01863, with center *.:
0.0 -0.01366 x/c - 0.01883, Y/c - -0.0137
0.00443 -0.00155 e Profile is circular for 400 of
0.00586 ÷0.C0001 arc on upper surface
0.00857 0.00268 e Profile joins sumoothly with NACA
0.0:359 0.00649 0012 shape at xic - 0.28333 on
0.01726 0.00893 the upper surface and at
0.02172 0.01163 x/c - 0.3409 on the lower surface
0.02589 0.01392
0.03065 0.01633 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TESTS
0.03602 0.01883 The wind tunnel tests were carri-
0.04209 0.02140 ed out in the National Physical
0.04905 0.02407 Laborator-l, NPL, 36 in. x 14 in.
0.05297 0.02545 (0.92 m x 0.36 m) transonic tunnel:
0.05723 0.02687 at Teddington, Middlesex, England.
0.06183 0.02832 Lift and pitching moments were
0-06682 0.02.80 found by integration of surface
0.0 7227 04031-31 static pressures. Profile drag was
0.07828 0.33116 determined b., wake measurements.
0.08152 0.03365 All measureuents were obtained
0.C7495 0.03476 with a roug.hne*a band of 230-270
0.08858 0.03528 mesh carborundum between 0 and 2%
0.09244 0.03612 chord on both surfaces. The floor
0.09656 0.03698 and the ceiling of the test section
0.10098 0.037861 were slotted. No corrections for
0.10574 0.03876 wall constraints have been applied
0.11076 0.03969 w the data.
0.1162Z 0.04065 Model Chord - 10 in (25.4 cm)
0.12239 0.04165 Span - 14 in (35.6 cm)
0.12928
0. 13688 0.042711
0.0439" SOURCE
•Gregory, N., Wilbyr, P.G., NPL
9615 and NACA 0012. A Comparison of
Coordinates Xont~nued Aerodynamic Data, ALRC C.P. No. 1261,
on page 1.3.330-4 1973.

IEn
F' ,.3,330-2

NPL 9615

.. 1.9
4040 2.19.
5 2.41
'50 2.52 --
.55 2.82
- ~.6,
S.65
.
'3:1l7
IQI
.70 3.33'
75 3.40 •

55
.35~~~ .5.7 .4 ~~

II 72,19

4, .40 503.0
i4 IN

3lS4 . "
54U 55 .6 .75 .85u

6
40~~~~MC 7
.50ER o AHN~R
~2,6
M

9'
.%.~~~3 • 7 1.954
 1.3.330-3

NPL 9615

.300•

. 35 Ma--u oriIJ kT'TACX, a

.40

.65

i.iS . 750#---

.80

:40 2.1 9
45 2.41

.55 2. 112
.6 3.0
65 .17

I .70
7e5
3334
3: 4

3.7
1.3.330-4

X/Cj y/c,

0.0 -0.01366
0.0002 -0.01600
0.0008 -0.01810
0.0019 -0.02080
X/Cu Y/Cu 0.0033 -0.02300
0.0055 -0.02540
0.14520 0.04494 0.0089 -0.02730
0.15403 0.04609 0.0130 -0.03010
0.16378 0.04724 0.0184 -0.03245
0.17425 0.04838 0.0236 -0.03415
0.18544 0.04950 0.0290 -0.03540
0.19734 0.05059 0.03535 -0.03652
0.20995 0.05164 0.04330 -C.03731
0.22358 0.05254 0.04985 -0.04870
0.23700 0.05339 0.05900 -0.03986
0.25094 0.05424 0.07232 -0.04143
0.26450 0.05499 0.09030 -0.04340
0.28333 0.05565 0.10055 -0.04446
0.3175 0.0564 0.11098 -0.04547
0.3409 0.0565 0.13182 -0.04736
0.3642 0.0564 0.15269 -0.04911
0.4115 0.0554 0.17355 -0,05065
0.4351 0.0546 0.19444 -0.05202
0.4821 0.0525 0.23532 -0.05321
0.5292 0.0498 0.23624 -0.05422
0.5763 0.0466 0.25715 -0.05504
0.6234 0.0430 0.27806 -0.05568
0.6704 0.0389 0.29890 -0.05615
0.7176 0.0345 0.31990 -0.05640
0.7646 0.0297 0.34090 -0.05650
0.8177 0.0247 0.3642 -0.0564
0,858t1 0.0193 0.4115 -0.0554
0.9059 0.0136 0.4351 -0.0545
0.9529 0.0076 0.4821 -0.0525
0.9765 0.0045 0.5292 -0.0498
-1.0000 0.0013 0.5763 -0.0466
0.6234 -0.0430
0.6704 -0.03a9
0.7176 -0.0345
0.7646 -0.0297
0.8117 1-0.0247
0.8588 1-0.0193

I1-0 0.9059
0.9529
L1.0000
0.9765
00136
.-
j-0.0076
-0.0013
1-0.0045
"AIRFOIL: NPF.T 9626 1.3.340

AI RFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTrICS

a Thickness, t/c - 0.12066
x/_ ___ _ Y/09 0 Designed for optimum
0.0 -0.01100 -0.011o0 peaky. pressure distribu-
0.00020 -0.00791 -0.01342 tions at 0.6 - M < 0.7
0.00050 -0.00613 -0.01482 @ Rear half is symmetrical
0.00100 -0.00415 -0.01437 and identical to NACA 0012
0.00160 -0.00231 -0.01772
0.00241 -0.00054 -0.01912
0.00350 +0.00159 -0.02047 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.00o00 0,00356 -o.03192 The wind tunnel tests were
0.00o50 0.00522, -0.02337
0.00o00 0.00467 -0.02457 carried out in the National
0.00961 0.00816 -0.02557 Physical Laboratory, NPL,
0.01o00 0.01202 -0.02878 36 in. x 14 in. (0.92 m x
0.02153 0.01574 -0.03155
0.03306 0.02237 -0.03703 0.36 m) transonic tunnel, at
0.05904 0.02919 -0.04199 Teddington, Middlesex,
0.03427 0.03572 -0.04670 England.
0.11349 0.04202 -0.05106
0.14645 0.04775 -0.05494 Lift and pitching moments
0..13230 0.05267 -0.05787 were found by integration of
0.22221 0.05644 -0.05979 surface static pressures.
0.26430 0.05891 -0.06074
0.30166 0.05999 -0.06067 Profile drag was determined
0.35436 0.05938 -0.05971 by wake measurements.
0.40245 0.05•794 , -0.05794 All measurements were ob-
0.45099 0.05576 -0.05576
o.5 0.05294 -0.05294 tained with a roughness band
0.54901 0.04960 -0.04960 of 230-270 mesh carborundum
0.59755 0.04503 -0.04533 between 0 and 2% chord on both
0.64514 0.04176 -0.04176
0.69134 0.03747 -0.03747 surfaces.
0.73570 0.03308 -0.03308
0.77779 0.02966 -0-02866 Model Chord - 10 in (25.4 cm)
.0.11720 0.02430 -0.02430 Span - 14 in (35.6 cm)
0.15355 0102011 -0.02011 S
0.836S5 0.016+.4 -0.01414
0.91573 0.01250 -0.01250 SOURCE
0.40914
0O.96194 0.00o25
0.0064l -0.00935
-0.00141 Wi ly, P.G., Gregory, N.,
0.07347 0.00424 -i0.00434 and Quincey, V.G., Aerodynamic
0.99039 0.00260 -0.00260 Characteristics of NPL 9629
0.99759 0.00160 and NPL 9627, Further Aero-
1.0 _0.00126 foils Designed for Helicopter
Rotor Use, A.R.C. C.P. No.
1262, November 1969.
 1.3.340-2

NPL 9626

0.3 .7
1.. 0.4 2 .19
0.5 2.62
0 . ,5 3.0
0 .:55 3.17
7. 3.,13
1.2 0.7 5 3.4a

. 0
,3.4 4 120 , 24 8. 2

.30 .40 .60 7 70 75 M CNf NUER,

.. x.0-G!

1.6 0.4 .-L

1.25

.1 ..
0

• 3-.4

.40 .$5 . so .70 PACH NEMER, m

 1.3.340-3

NPL 9626

.30 -',
1--.
.40

• 55 o-.,4

.60

.65
•~"/ L.7--

r24
2,L9
0.5 2 .62
.15 2.62
06 3. 0
,0.75 3.33
0.75 3.48
 AIRFOIL: NPL 9627 1.3.350

SAIMIL C0OMWA222 CHARACTERISTICS

X/C y/Gu Y/*A 0 Thickness, t/c - 0',12265

1 ,, Designed to improve the per-
0.0 -0.01600 -o.01600 formance of the NPL 9629 at
0.00020 -0.01301 -0.01842
0.00050 -0.01127 -0.01912 M - 0.5
0.00100 -0.00935 -0.02137 e Rear half is symmetrical ?nd
0.00160 -0.00764 -0.02272 identical to NACA 0012
0.00241 -0.00583 -0.02412
0.00350 -0.00389 -0.02547
0.00500 -0.00132 -0.02692 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
0.00650 +0.00000 -0.02837
0.00800 0.00243 -0.02957
0.00941 0.00415 -0.03057 The wind tunnel tests were
0.01500 0.0006 -0.03378 carried out in the National
0.02153 0.01336 -0.03655 Physical Laboratory, NPL,
0.03806 0.02183 -0.04203
0.05904 0.02872 -0.04762 36 in x 14 in (0.92 m. x 0.36 m)
0.08427 0.U3540 -0.05279 transonic tunnel, at Teddington,
0.11349 0.04112 -0.05707 Middlesex, England.
0.14645 0.04725 -0.06035
0.15280 0.05173 -0.06261 Lift and pitching moments were
0.22221 0.05502 -0.06382 found by integration of surface
0.26430 0.05730 -0.06399 static pressures. Profile drag
0.30866 0.05849 -0.06313
0.35486 0.05866 -0.06134 was determined by wake measure-
0.40245 0.05754 -0.05875 mleltn".
0.45099 0.05574 -0.05600 All measurements were obtained
0.5 0.05294 -0.05294
0.54901 0.04960 -0.04960 with a roughness band of 230-270
0.59755 0.04563 -0.04513 mesh carborundum between 0 and
* 0.64514 0.04176 -0.04176 2% chord on both surfaces.
0.69134 0.03747 -0.03747
0.73570 0.03301 -0.03308
0.77779 0.02866 -0.02166 Model Chord - 10 in (25.4 cm)
0.11720 0.02430 -0.62430 Span - 14 in (36.0 cm)
0.85355 0.02011 -0.02011
0.88651 0.01614 -0.01614
0.91573 0.01250 -0.01250 SOURCE
0.94096 0.00925 -0.00925 Wilby, P.G., Gregory, N., and
0.96194 0.00641 -0.00641
0.97847 0.00424 -0.00424 Quincey, V.G., Aerodynamic Charac-
0.99439 0.00260 -0.0026C teristics of NPL 9629 and NPL
0.99759 0.00160 -0.00160 9627, Further Aerofoils Designed
1.0 0.00126 -0.00126 for Helicopter Rotor Use, A.R.C.
C.P. No. 1262, November 1969.
 NPL 9527

m R x 0 !...

0.4 ! 2.19 -
u0.5'5 2.82
0 .6 3.0
0 65; 3.17 •

0. 75 3.48

S•C ATTACK - Z

•0 .4 5 60.5 .5 I
MCH NUM.BER,r N

7..5 ...
.4.5
........

1- i
S0.6 .
1.2 0.65 1 .3

0 7 3. 4 i

:' 3..4

.40 .55 .60 .70

 1.3.350-3

NPL 9627

LL

I.6
S.---------.-70--&
.t
AIRFOIL: NPL 9660 1.3.360

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

e Thickness, t/c - 0.113
x/c y/cu e Leading edge radius:
r/C " 0.01883, with center at
0.0 -0.01366 x/c - 0.01883, y/c - -0.0137
0.00443 -0.00155 * Profile is circular for 406 of
0.O05ibc +0.00001 arc on upper surface
0.00857 0.00268 * 14PL 9615 contour modified to
0.01359 0.00649 include a 0.035c trailing edge
0.01726 0.00893 tab in the neutral position.
0.02172 0.01163
0.02589 0.01392
0.03065 0.01633 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TESTS
0.03602 0.01883 The wind tunnel tests were carri-
0.04209 0.02140 ad out in the National Physical
0.04905 0.02407 Laboratory, NPL, 36 in. x 14 in.
0.05297 0.02545 (0.92 m x 0.36 m) transonic tunnel,
0.05723 0.02687 at Teddington, Middlesex, England.
0.06183 0.02832 Lift and pitching moments were
0.06692 0,02980 found by integration of surface
0.07227 0.03131 static pressures. Profile drag was
0.07828 0.03306 determined by wake measurements.
0.08152 0.03365 All measurements were obtained
0.08495 0.03476 with a roughness band of 230-270
0.08858 0.03528 mash carborundum between 0 and 2%
0.09244 0.03612 chord on both surfaces. The floor
0.09656 0.03698 and the ceiling of tne test aection
0.10098 0.03786 were slotted. No corrections for
0.10574
0 0.03876 wall constraints have been applied
0.11076 0.03969 to the data.
0.11622 0.04065 Model Chord - 10 in (25.4 cm)
0.12239 0.04165 Span - 14 in (35.6 cm)
0.12928 0.04271
0.13688 0.04361 SOURCE
Wilby, P.G., Effect of Production
Modifications to the Rear of Westland
i
Co prin 1ts.onine Lynx Rotor Blade on Sectional Aero-
dynamic Characteristics, RAE TR 73043,
on page 1.3. 360-4 February 1973.
 NPL 9660
----------
. ..
I

-Gilý-ý .30 1.7

40 2 19
:50 2:62
.60 3.0
.65 3 '17
.70 3.33
.75 3 . 46
775 3 55
0 3.6
25 3.68
.45 3.75

........
......

or...ATTACK
. ......

.30 so .75 0 go ds MACH NUMBER, M

.40 fic .70 .775 .825

3 33
:7 0 3 48
.775
5
0
:4825

.4

5 .06 .0 .'oe
...........
DRAG CORFFICIENT, d
- ------
- ---

S .65 .1 .75 6 .80 MACH NUMBER, M

.4 .6 .7 .775 .825
 1,3,360-3

NPL 9660

.3 o---,,

•.4 ..-.
A

•5 0 -0-"
.754

.7 6•,.-

.775

• 25 •--

.85

I1 7

S•65 3.17
.7 0
.-
75
.775
.i,25 3i
6
3.33
3.48
3 55
3.68
.

-. 5 3,7
1.3.360-4
x/CL Y/Ce

0.0 -0.01366
0.0002 -0.01500
0.0008 -0.01810
_0.0019 -0.02C00
0.0033 -0.02300
X/Cu Y/Cu 0.0056 -0.02540
m- 0.0089 -0.02730
0.14520 0.04494 0.0130 -0.03010
0.15403 0.04609 0.0184 -0.03245
0.16378 0.04724 0.0236 -0.03415
0.17425 0.04838 6.0290 -0.03540
0.18544 0.04950 0.03535 -0.03652
0.19734 0.05059 0.04330 -0.03781
0.20995 0.05164 0.04985 -0.03870
0.22358 0.05264 0.05900 -0.03986
0.23700 0.05339 0.07232 -0.04143
0.25094 0.05424 0.09030 -0.04340
0.26450 0.05499 0.10055 -0.04446
0.26333 0.05565 0.11098 -0.04547
0.3175 0.0564 0.13182 -0.04736
0.3409 0.0565 0.15260 -0.04911
0.3642 0.0564 0.17%55 -0.05065
0.4115 0.0554 0.19444 -0.05202
0.4351 0.0546 0.21532 -0.05321
0.4821 0.0525 0.23624 -0.05422
0.5292 0.0498 0.25715 -0.05504
0.5763 0.0466 0.27806 -0.05568
0.6234 0,0430 0.29899 -0.05615
0.6704 0.0389 0.31990 -0.05640
0.7176 0.0345 10.34090 -0.05650
0.77779 0.02838 0.3642 -0.0564
0.8152 0.02395 0.4115 -0.0554
0.85355 0.01915 0.4351 -0.0546
0.88651 0.01450 0.4821 -0.0525
0.91573 0.01020 0.5292 -0.0498
0.94096 0.00625 0.5763 -0.0466
0.96194 0.00280 0.6234 -0.0430
0.97847 0.00190 0.6704 -0.0389
0.99039 0.00190 0.7176 -0.0345
0.99759 0.00173 0,77779 -0.02838
1.0 0.00130 0.8152 -0.02395
S0.8355 -0.01915
0.88651 -0.01450
0.91573 -0.01020
0.94096 -0.00625
0.96194 -3.00280
0.97847 -0.00190
10.99039 -0.00190
0:99759 -0.00173
1.0 -C.00130
I.
 AIRFOIL: NACA - AMBP 1.3.370

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHAIAUCTERISTICS

,C-- / NACA 0011,8 profile with a
IC____/__ /cambered leading edge extension.
,-.017 T'1PE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.i'$ -.0030 -. 0276
.0164 .00235 -.0307
.019s .00975 -. 0331 Two-dimensional test in the S3NA
AM0293 .AM61 -. 0360
.0402 .0220 -. 0379 subsonic-transonic onera wind
.00 .0263 -. 039S tunnel in Kodane. Lift and
.0597 .0299 -. 0406 pitching moments were calculated
.0707 .0334 -. 0425
.354 .0374 -. 0440 by pressure distribution inte-
.10 .0445 -. 0456 gration. Drag was determined by
.1195
.140 .0445
.0477 -.
-. 0475
0493 a transvering wake probe survey.
.153 .050 -. OS07
.177 .0519 -. 0521 Model Chord - 0.215 m
.196 .0934 -. 0535 Span - 0.56C m
226
..2516 .0534
.0566
-.-. 0554
0566
.287 .05733 -. 05735
.311 .576 -.0573
.330 .0575 -.0575
.366 .0571 -. 0571 SOURE
.415 .0557 -.0557
.450 .0541 -. 0541 Onera Note Technique D'Informa-
.50 .0515 -.0515
.537 .0492 -.0492 tion No. 3 - 0805 GY fascicule
.573 .0466 -.0464 1/2 "Essais en courant plan a
S.646 .610 .0430
.0,407 -.0437
-.0407 S3MA du profil NACA 0012 a
.603 .0374 -. 0374 extension cazbree de bord d' attaque
.732 .03Z2 -. 0320 (resultats couriges des effets
.764 .0291 -. 0291 de patois)."
.6817 .0238 -. 0235i
.854 .0197 -. 0197
.873 .0160 -. 0166
L.93
.91S

.97$
.0124
.3
.00415
-. 0124
-.0093
-.0645
.0 . .0012 -. 0012

I,]
1.3.370-2
ftt

NACA-CAMBRE

iii.....t....:
........ .....

S.30 3.3 e

, '2. 4 . 23 2
.. ......
.40 2.0
AD, -

.70 3.3

.30 a .50 o
.70 - . 85 .90 MACH NUMBER, M
• 40 60 75 .82 7

!:•~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
~ ..-!.~ •,!,.
.. •:•. L:•i: im•i:•!:[ii~ i
.:•
.::
.. ,- FOR PTIELrCATICN, '4PL 9615•

p. 0 4 APPhbOXn¶ATION.

_iv-7

"i:' 91 rn

IO _, .4'i
.hi) 65 .60 . . 6 €5 .80 MACli NUMBER,
. .4 .5
 1.3.370-5

NACA-CAMERE'

.30

.40

.500 AN= or ^TrAcx 5jeG

04
Cl
.60 a

.707 hH -. 09

.775

.82

.95

.?0 6

.34

M
40
:so 22
60 2.9
70 3.3
:75 3.35
.77 3.4
82
:85 3.5 5
3.
7
1
:9
-. 36
 AIRFOIL: VR-7 WITH 0* T.E. TAB 1.3.380

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

- . Thickness, t/c - 0.12
SX/G Y/cu y/c, • Leading Edge Circle
____
_____ _____ r/c - .0113
0..0 . 0.
.005 .0165 -. 00575 Center at x/c - .01055
.01 .0218 -. 0081 y/c - .004
.02 .0298 -.. 0109
.03 .03615 -. 0129
.04 .0415 -. 01445 * Trailing Edge Tab
.05 .04605 -. 01505 from X/c - .96
.06 .05025 -. 01710 to x/c - 1.01
.07 .0541 -. 01805
.085 .0593 -. 01965 T.E. Tab Thickness,
.102 .0645 -. 02145 t/c - 0.005
.12 .0691 -. 02265
.16
.14 .0775
.0737 -. 0251
-. 0241 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.16 .0103 -. 0260
- .20
.225 .0838
.0847 -. 0266 Two-dimensional test in the sub-
.2S5 .0492 -.
-.0273
0270 sonic insert of the Boeing
.29 .09o9 -. 0205 Supersonic Wind Tunnel in Seattle,
.33 .0914 -. 0269 Wash.
.37 .0905 -. 0290
.41 .0887 -.0205
.45 .0156 -. 027S Lift and pitching moments were
.49 .0116 -. 0260 meaured with a balance.
.53 .0767 -. 0240
.57 .0710 -. 6220
.631 .0646 -. 0199 Drag was determined by a tra-
.65 .0530 -. 0179 versing wake probe survey.
.69 .0514 -. 0198
.73 .0447 -.01.38
.77 .0374 -.01375 Model Chord - 6.38 in
.131 .0301 -.00845 Span - 12 in
.845 .0235 -. 0064
.33 .0167 -. 00425
.93. .0105 -. 00235 SOURCE
-.935 .'0065 0°°0.0 j Dadone, L.•, and McMullen, J.,
,• 1.09
1.01 .005O 0 0.0
. "HLH/ATC Rotor System Two-
] Dimensional Airfoil Test",
Boeing Document D301-10071-1,
December 1971.
1.3.380-2

VR-7 WITH 0' TE. TAB

40 7 3 ,02 0.

.... .559. ,0,2. ý=92

9 12.7

le i
5
.30 • .465 .55 6 .68 6 H
.A2 9 • UMBER,
' .Q4 .92

.304 S.S
.404 7,-S
.505 8.8
.610 10.2
.661. 10.7

.111.2

6
• Ob .505 .661 6 .161 MACH NUTMBER,
M

-404 .6• .712

 1.3.380-3

Vi

VR-7 WITH 0' T.E. TAB

ri
",0
20.

. 40 ir ATT-kc-
OFa

I04.55 -.--
0-

I .82B 6

! .~.92 '

I W

.4

5i
0 .92

1-9
12.

.. i i
 AIRFOIL: VR-7 WZTH -3.1* T.E. TAB 1.3.390

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

x /Y/C
u * Thickness, t/c m0.12
-0 . 0. * Leading Edge Circle:

.005 .0165 -. 00575 r/c - .0113

.01 .0218 -. 0081 Center at x/c = .01055
.02 .0298 -. 0109 Y/c - .004
.03 .03615 -. 0129
.04 .0415 -. 01445 * Trailig edge tab
.05 .04605 -. 01585 from x/c -
.06 .96
.05025 -. 01710 to x/c - 1.01
.07 .0541 -. 01805 Tab thickness, tic - 0.005
.05 .0593 -. 01985
.102 .0645 -. 02145 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TZST
.12 .0691 -. 02285
.14 .0737 -. 0241 Two-dimensional test in the
.16 .0775 -. 0251 subsonic insert of the Boeing
.18 .0808 -. 0260 supersonic wind tunnel in Seattle,
.20 .0858 -. 0266 Washington.
.225 .0867 -. 0273 Lift and pitching moments were
.255 .0892 -- 0280 meaaured with a balance.
.33 .0914 -. 0289 Model Chord - 6.38 in
.37 .0905 -. 0290 Span - 12
.41 in
.0887 -. 0285
.45 .0856 -. 0275 SOURCF
.53
.53 .0767
.0717 -. 0240
0240
-. Dadone, L., & McMullen J.,
.57 .0710 -.0220 wRLH/ATC Rotor System Two-
.65 .0580 -. 0179 Dimensional Airfoil Test", Boeing
.69 .0514 -. 0158 Document D301-10071-I, Dec. 1971
.73 .0447 -. 0138
.77 .0374 -. 01075
.81 .0301 -. 00845
.845 .0235 -. 0064
.88 .0167 -ý0M425
.91 .0105 -. 00235
.935 .0062 -. 0006
R .96 .0050 0.0
1.01 .00771 .00271

U}
1.3.390-2

VR-7 WITH -3.1, T.E. TAB

2. 0 4 7.3
.55 :o 8.7
9.4
.68
1.0.9
.71 11.4

0.4,

S.30 .0 .61 .74 MACH NUMBER, M

.40 .55 .69
 13.,390-3

VR-7 WITH -3,1* TE. TAB

.40o-- AIEor ATTACR, - G

.50 •-"

.7 61•--•

-. 2.30 1 5.7
S.40 7.3
-- •. 1 8.7

• .e 1o.8
 AIRFOIL: VR-7 With -5.9o T.E.TAB 1.3.400

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

FX/C -Y/cu y/c ..]
Eý_ e Thickness, t/x - 0.12
o. 0o. o
.005 .0165 -. 00575 e Leading Edge Circle:
.01 .0218 -. 0081 r/c - .0113
.02 .0298 -. 0109 Center at x/c - .01055
.03 .03615 -. 0129 y/c - .004
.04 .0415 -. 01445
.05 .04605 -. 01585 e Trailing edge tab:
.06 .05025 -. 01710 From x/c - .96
.07 .0541 -. 01805 to X/c - 1.01
.085 .0593 -. 01985
.102 .0645 -. 02145 T.E. Tab Thickness, t/c - 0.005
.12 .0691 -. 02285
.14 .0737 -. 0241 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.16 .0775 -. 0251 Two-dimensional test in the
.18 .0808 -. 0260 subsonic insert of the Boeing super-
.20 .0838 -. 0266 sonic wind tunnel in Seattle,
.225 .0867 -. 0273 Washington.
.255 .0892 -. 0280
.29 .0909 -. 0285 Lift and pitching moments were
.33 .0914 -. 0289 measured with a balance.
.37 .0905 -. 0290
.41 .0887 -. 0285 Model Chord a 6.38 in
.45 .0856 -. 0275 Span = 12. in
.49 .0816 -. 0260
.53 .0767 -. 0240 SOURCE
.57 .0710 -. 0220
.61 .0646 -. 0199 Dadone, L., & McMullen, J.,
.65 .0580 -. 0179 "HLB/ATC Rotor System Two-dimension-
.69
.73 .0514
.0447 -.
-. 0158
06eing
0138 al Airfoil Test",
D301-10071-1, Document
December, 1971
.77 .0374 -. 01075
.81 .0301 -. 00845
.845 .0235 -. 0064
.88 .0167 -. n0425
.91 .G105 -. 00235
.935 .0062 -. 0006
.96 .0050 0.0
1.01 .01017 .00517

-. I,
 1.3,400-2

r) VR-7 WITH -5.9' T.E. TAB

ANGL9 O1r ATTACK, - G Rx O6

I"
i~.
.50
7 •? -ý

.1 10.2

,.30 •0
.5 .74 KACR NUMBER, m
.40 .61

I
 1,3,400-3

VR-7 WITH -5.9, T.E, TAB

.30 -. 0 12.

ii . d.50

.61

.112

f -.

. IN.

§ji"faM1ý"154M

-.2

... ..
 AIRFOIL: VR-8 With 0* T.E. TAB 1.3.410

AIRFOIL COORDINATES CHARACTERISTICS

X/C. I Y/Cu... * Thickness, t/x = 0.08
0. 0. 0.
.005 .00850 -. 00535 e Leading Edge Circle:
.01 .01175 -. 0737
.015 .01425 -. 00880 rc = 0.00585
.025 .0183 -. 01090 Center at x/c = 0.0058
.035 .0217 -. 01255 y/c = 0.00088
.05 .0261 -. 01465
.07 .0309 -. 01685 * Trailing Edge Tab:
.095 .0357 -. 0190 from x/c = 0.96
.125 .0402 -. 0212 to x/c = 1.01
.16 .0444 -. 0232
.20 .0480 -.0250 T.E. Tab Thickness, t/c = 0.005
.25 .0510 -. 0266 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
! ~~~.35
.30 .0535
.0530 -. 0280TP
0277 FDT NDMTO FTS
.35 .0535 -. 0280 Two-dimensional test in the sub-
sonic insert of the Boeing super-
.45 .0502 -. 0265
sonic wind tunnel in Seattle,
.50 .0467 -. 0247 Washington.
.55 .0426 -. 0225
.60
.65 .0380 -. 0200
.0333 -. 0175 Lift and Pitching moments were
.70 .0285 -.0150 measured with a balance.
.70 .0285 -. 0150
.75 .0237 -. 0125 Drag was determined by a traversing
.80 .0190 -.0100 wake probe survey.
.85 .01428 -. 0075
•".89 .01C48 -. 0055
.92 .00761 -. 0040 Model Chord = 6.38 in
.925 .0076 -. 0045 Span = 12. in
.945 .00524 -.00275
.96 .003404 -. 001596
1.01 .003404 -. 001596 SOtiCE
Dadone, L., & McMullen, J., "HLH/
ATC Rotor System Two-dimensional
Airfoil Test", Boeing Document,
D301-10071-1, December, 1971

K.
 1.3.410-2

.VR-8 WITH 0" T.E. TAB

.2 0 1 4.0 . .7 1 .
• 30 5.71-:
-40 "7.3 86 - .
.30i,7 .5 1 .
-S 9.7 .0 1 .
10.2 .5 1.

10.7

!2
-.284..5.09 04 .4 0 S .61 .66 71 .767,.82 .85 90 .

"} ~2.0
SM R.xjO-6

1.6 .304 I 8.7

.69 10.2
.70 11.2

].2.
0 a MAHNUBR

.........
..

4-.

.404 .504 .609 .710 .81.3 NIE ,

 1.3.'JO<-•

VR-8 WITH 0* T.E. TAB

.200

II.40*--,
.3)u a WAE, (gý

H .500
•.616--

.714

.766

Aso'
.965

.954

LI0 4. 41.
 A:RFOIL: VR-7.1 With -10 T.E. TAB 1.3.420

AIRFOIL COORDIN1.TES CHARACTERISTICS

S/C y/c,1 I ! Thickness, tic = 0.12
u, ... . 0 o Leading Edge Circle:
j .005 -:00575 r/c -. 0113
.C1 -. 008 Center at x/c - .01055
.02 -. 0109 y/c - .004
.03 C -. 0129
.04 z -. 01445 * Trailing Edge Tab
.05 -. 01585 from x/c = .96
.06 -. 01710 to X/C - 1.01
.07 --. 01805 T.E. Tab Thickness. t/c 0.005
"085 -. 01985
.302 .0645 -. 02145 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.112 .0651 -. 02285 Two-dimensional test in the sub-
.i *.0717 -. 0241 sonic insert of the Boeing super-
".16 .0775 -. 0253 sonic wind tunnel in Seattle, Wash.
.12 .080a *-.0260
.20 .0'A8 -. 0266 Lift and Pitching moments were
.225 .0867 -. 0273 measured with a balance.
.255 .0692 -. 0280 Model Chord - 6.3. in
.29 .0909 -. 0285 Span - 12. in
.32 .392.4 -. 028?
-37 .0965 -. 0290 SOURCE
.41
45 .080-
.0856 -.-. 0285 Dadorie, L., & McMullen, J.,"HLH/ATC
0275 Rotor System Two-dimensional Airfoil
S.49 .0Q16 -. 0260 Test", Boeing Document D301-10071-1,
.53 .0767 -. 0240 December, 1971
.57 .0710 -. 0220
.6] .0646 -. 0199 NOTE: Same ccntcur as the VR-7 air-
.65 .0580 -. 0179 foil except f..: the following coor-
.60 .0•14 -. 0158 dinates:
.73 0447 -. 0138 X/c Y/c
1
1Vc YCu
31 5 t 0T 1
S.77 .037 4 - .0 10 7 5 ..
9ý 0302
.. -. 00845 .00180 .01275 .04430 .04510
-.845 .0(235 -. 0064 .0C390 .01615 .05370 .04890
.0167 -. 00425 V0C670 .02000 .0600 .05260
.9i -~0:0 (i()2-^- .01050 .02430 .07550 .5640
93• .0062 -. 000C .01550 .02890 .08800 .060300
.96 .0050 0.0 .02120 .03310 .102u0 .0 4 5 0
SL. '.L. - 0507 .00087 0280C _03730
______ " _ _ _

i-
 rF . .... .,-...•...• " , •• '. ;;•" / .::, ... . :_ - ---- -=•..Lai
ca

1,3.4A20-2
VR-7,1 WITH -1"TE, TAB

44

,20

.40 1.7
i so 8.7
.61 10.2 L

k MACHl NUtWER, M4

L 2 0 .4 0 .6 ;

Ia

i3t0 7
 1.3,420-3

VR-7,1 WITH -1*T.E. TAB

.20 o

.30
.40 -,

".5 o
i".61 .08

.71 6

t7
._ Re ._o-6
.40 •.3
7
,01 10.2

I,•: -...t
'...
AIRFOIL: FX 69-H-098 (Wortmann) 1.3.430

AIRFOIL COORDINATES: CHMAACTERISTICS

0. .xc 0. 0. Thickness, t/x 0.098

.0043 .0096 -. 0069 e Leading Edge Radius,
.0096 .0148 -. 0096 r/c - 0.006
.0172 .0204 -. 0122
.0384 .0320 -. 0171
.0520 .0377 -. 0192 TYPE OF DATA AND METHOD OF TEST
.0851 .0486 -. 0231 Wind tunnel tests conducted
.1253 .0573 -. 0264 at the United Aircraft Research
.1721 .0630 -. 0292 laboratories.
.2245 .0661 -. 0313
.2818 .0666 -. 0323
.3429 .0654 -. 0324
.4070 .0631 -. 0317
.4710 .0598 -. 0305
.5380 .0553 -. 0288
.6035 .0501 -. 0267
.6673 .0442 -. 0242
.7283 .0377 -. 0215 SOURCE
.7856 .0312 -. 0106
.8379 .0248 -. 0156 Kcmp, L.K., "An Analytical Study
.8847 .0185 -. 0126 for the Design of Advanced Rotor
.9579 .0072 -. 0064 Airfol.Is, NASA CR-112297,
1.0000 .0009 -. 0013 TMarch 23, 1973

N
1.3.430-2
FX 69-H-098
]

30 .79 1 .0 MACH NUMBER, K

FX69-9-099 JaRVOIL

4.0600 AR
 1.3.430-!

FX 69-H-098

.. 08

.6.0

I ITO

r•
-.3
H'_-.2
1.4.10 EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATE LIFT/DRAG POLARS

As long as the character of the stall does not change dras-

tically with varying airfoil gecmetry or flow conditions, the
lift/crag polare of a known section can be altered to reflect
changes in:
* Overall camber
o Trailing edge reflex angle
* Mach Number
- Reynolds Nuimber
The evaluation of the new drag polars is a function of the
accuracy in specifying the effect of the variations being con-
sidered on:
* The maximum lift coefficient
o The design lift coefficient, or the lift for minimum
drag
o The minimum drag level
Table I illustrates, step by step, the evaluation of the
drag polar for the NACA 64A312 airfoil (data sheet 1.3.180)
utilizing the polar of the QCA 64A(4.5)12 of !ata sheet
1.3.190. Columns 0 and .2( show a tabulation of lift and
drag coefficieits, respectively, for the NACA 64A(4.5)12. The
design lift, maximum lift and minimum drag coefficients of
this section are
CLti - 0.45

CtMA - 1.43

Cdmi = .0378

Columns ( and q4 of Table I list the values for the

lift/drag polar normalized by use of the expressions:

Normalized Lift C'tMAX-C2 (a)

Normalized Drag Cd - Cdmin (b)

1.4.10-2
The NACA 64A312 has the following characteristics:
3
CLi 0.

cjýA - 1.29

Cdmin - 0.0065

The maximum lift and minimum drag values at K - 0.4 were

obtained from data sheet 1.3.180 in order to illustrato the
accuracy of this method. Columns and ( of Tale h
the lift and drag coefficient values obtained by utilizinqn
expresions (a) and (b• the normalized values of columns 3(
and Q) together with the C•, CLMaX and Cdmir values for
the new section.

Figure 1 compares the approximate lift drag polar with

values from data sheet 1.3.180. The original NACA 64A(4.5)12
is also shown.

I I
 1.4.10-3
ESTIMATED
VALUES FOR
KNOWN SECTION NORMALIZED VALUES RELATED SECTION

NACA 64A(4.5)i2 Cl - Cti NACA 64A312

Ct Cd Cj,,X - Cli (Cd - Cmin) CL Cd

0. 0.008 -. 4592 0.0002 -. 1546 .0067

.2 0.008 -. 2551 0.0002 .0474 .0067

.4 0.0079 -. 0510 0.0001 .2495 .0066

.6 0.0079 .1531 0.0001 .4516 .0066

I8 0.0084 .3571 0.0006 .6535 .0071

1.0 0.0094 .5612 0.0016 .8556 .0081

1.1 0.01 .6633 0.0022 .9567 .0087

1.2 0.0109 .7653 0.0031 1.0576 .0096

1.3 0.0123 .8673 0.0045 1.1586 .0.10

1.4 0.0152 .9694 0.0074 1.2597 .0139

1.42 0.0185 .9900 0.0107 1.2810 .0172

1.43 0,G23 1.0 0.0202 1.29 .0267

NACA 64A(4.5)12 NACA 64A312

Cj. - 0.45 Cti - 0.30

C XMAX - 1.43 Ct,4Ax - 1.29

Cdmi - 0.0078 Cd-i - 0.0065

TABLE I. Evaluation of the lift drag polar of the NACA 64A37,2

airfoil at M 0.4 from data on a related airfoil.

Li l
 1.4.10-4

1.6 -

0
1.2

f
NACA 64A312 POLAR
iiS,'% •OBTAINED BY SCALTNG
I NACA 64A(4.5)12 DATA
0.

- /TEST DATA

JIA A NACA 64A(4.5)12

1-4Uo 0NACA 64A312
.4 ATM 0.4

E-4

-. 4 - -

0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05

DRAG COEFFICIFNT, Cd

Figure I Comparison between Estimated and Measured

Drag PoZars for the NACA 64A322 Airfoil.
 1.4.20 LIFT, DRAG AND PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENTS AT LARGE
ANGLES OF ATTACK
Data Sheets 1.3.30 and 1.3.130 show data for the NACA 0012
and NACA 63A012 airfoils at angles of attack from a = 00 to
a - 180*. The main difference between the two sets of data,
besides the airfoil section, is the fact that the NACA 0012
was obtained at low speed, M a 0.1, while the NACA 63A012 was
tested at M - 0.3. However, except for small differences in
the maximum values of the lift, drag, and pitching moment co-
efficients, the curves for the two airfoils axe quite similar
tt angles above 200. At angles from 00 to +200, i.e., within
t:e normal operating range of the airfoils,-the sectional
chairacteristics are quite sensitive to flow and contour vari-
ations.
Portions of a helicopter rotor blade encounter very large
angles of attack within the reverse flow region as a reault
of rotor operation in forward flight. Even though the veloc-
ities near and inside the reverse flow circle are small, an
estimate is often required of the airloads the blade has to
sustain within such a region.
Recent data is limited-to the NACA 0012 and NACA 63A012,
presented in data sheets 1.3.30 and 1.3.130. Additional data
from Riegels(*) on the G8420 and G6623 airfoils (both cam-
bered) is shown in Figures l(a) and l(b).

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show how the NACA 0012 data and the
trends from Figures l(a) and l(b) can be utilized to egtimate
the sectional characteristics of the VR-7 airfoil for the
complete range in angles of attack from 00 to 3600.
The approximate characteristics of Figures 2, 3, and 4 are
subject to the following assumptions and limitations:
1. At angles of attack near 900 and 2700, it has been
ansumed that the lift is zero independently of airfoil
shape, as at such conditions any section will behave
near.ly as a flat plate. Similarly, it has been assumed
that the airfoil shape has a negligible effect on the
2 drag at a - 901 and 2700.
2. The pitching moment about the quarter chord reaches its
maximum -alue at t - 1200 (and therefore at a - 2400)
for both the NACA 0012 and the NACA 63A012. As shown
in Figure l(a) this holds true for cambered airfoils as
wel!.

(*) Riegels, F.W., Aerotoil Sections, BUTTERWORTHS SCIENTIFIC

PUBLICATIONS, London, 1961.
1.4.20-2
3. Camer influence the angles for zero lift and
zero pi-. :g moment in the vicinity of a = 1800. Data
sheets 1..3. ?0" 1.3.280 and 1.3.290 show datzk f;ir the
V23010-1.58 airfvil with various trailing edge configu-
rations, at aangls of attack from 1600 to 2000. Unless
test data is available, the determination of the sec-
tional characteristics at low lift levels in reverse
flow is extremely difficult, since the reversed airfoil
has a sharp "leading edge" and a blunt "trailing edgen,
the first of which will cause laminar separation (with
some reattachment bubble) and the second will prevent '
the establishment of the "Kutta-Joukowski" condition.
Since the flow environment in the reverse flow region
can be approximated only very roughly with present rotor
performance prediction methods, under normal circum-
stances there is little to be gained from an accurate
definition of the sectional characteristics at 1601 <
c< 2000, and unless directly applicable test data is
available (e.g., the V23010-1.58) it should be suffi-
ciwnt to ignore camber and use the data for the
NACA 0012 on NACA A 12.

4. The only condition for which it is normally necessary

to define the sectional characteristics at high angles
of attack is for 100 < a < at Mach Numbers up to
4 - 0.5, as the quasi-stiady force and moment coeffi-
cients for such flow conditions are the basis for the
approximate evaluation of dynamic stall delay effects.
5. The lift coefficient of a symmetrical sectlon attai:..s
secondary maximum values at a - 40* - 450 and again at
ci - 1350 - 1400. It can be assumed that camber has
negligible influence on the angle of attack for such
secondary maximum lift values; however, some level ad-
justment should be made, since there is evide:ice that
cambered sections, such as the ones shown in Figures
l(a) and l(b), have different secondary peaks in maxi-
mum lift for anc',e of attack regions 200 < a < 180*
and 190* < a < 340°.

6. Some level adjustments in the character.istics at hiyh

angles of attack will generally be necessary to extend
post stall data at dtfferent Mach Numbers.

5 1.
 1. 4. 20-3

GO 420

Cd

O080916 032

o 80160 2440 320

ANGLE OF ATTACK, c

1(a)

Figu
Sec eion
1 L C arac eri tic of theG-62 623
a d G

'II
 1.4.20-4

2.0 •
NC
VR-7 DATA-
11.3.3801 NAA01
1.6

.a8
E4 t

.4

30 40 50 60
0 10 20
ANGLE OF ATTACK, a (DEG)

S1 Figure 2(a) Extension of VR-7 A 'oil Lift V~a tv High

p , Positive AngZes of Atcaok
K'
 1.4.20-5

o ANGLE OF ATTACK, c (DEG)

SNACA 0012....... .........

S- 4S CALED BY .
.. . .. .......-
U GO 420 DlATA
S(FIG l Ca) )

SM =0 . 3

¶.-1.2
SN A A 0 0 12 . .. ..............

-1.6

Figure 2(b) Extension of VR-7 Airfoil Lift Data to

High AngZes of Attack
1 1.4.20-6

E-4-

1..t .:4~
... ..

.. .. ..
.

4Az

_ _ _ .....
..__
. ...

z ::0

L
h ISDulZJAr
 1.4.20-7

.4

•: .3

-JNACA0012- -
S~DATA "
S~11.3.30)

.07
o. ... ..
:•-ro.0 6 AVAXLABLE
Fure 3VR-7 DATA
i ot An of5 FAIRED0012
INTO
S.04NACA
LIN E
L

II
• ~.02

2.02

:•": .01

.008 AT M - 0.3
,• • 007 (11.3.380)
.00, 0 5 10 15 20 25
SANGLE OF ATTACK, - DEG

Figure 3(a) E'xtension of VR-? Ai.rfoiZ Drag Data to

(:• High Positive Angles of Attack
1.4.20-8

....
... ..
..
. .....
......
.... - . .... . ... ..
.. .. .. ..........
..........
. . ..
. ..... ...
. ...... ...
. .. .. ....

.. .. I ..-

- ----- -

. . .q ...
... .......
 1.4.20-9

0 •R-7 DT
AT Mm0

-. 2

0 DT SHIFTED
TO VR-7LEE
S-.:3
H a4-.2
z

1 0

0I0 20 30 40 50 60
ANGLE OF ATTACK, - DEG

Figure 4(a) Extension of VR-? Airfoi.Z Pitching Moment

Data to Righ Positive AngZee of Attack
 1.4.20-10

0.5

0.4 AA01
.7 1 E
.........
.R

ZO0.3

... ... .'-. _ ...

.....
....
I'llK
.....

C-)

M~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
ACA ~~N7-
00123LN-OMTHTE
FE-TL

0.2 FIGURENOTE).

E- A ANGLE OF AACK
INCORTDTA FOR
..T - DEC
420...I...
SECTION SU

00GU T EI
..a

Figure 4(b) Extension of YR-? ,Ai~foiZ Fitchino .Moment

Data to High Negative Ang~es of Attack

V
 1. 4. 23-11

.4. . . .. . .C

...... .....
.... ... ... ...... ...........
. ......

-----
. ... ... ...
-----
. .. .
-----

.....
.. .. . . .....
...
--- ---
. . . ... .. . ... . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
.........
.. .. .. . .

. ... ... .
... ....
.....
......... .. .
... '.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . . .. . .
.~~~ . ... -
- .....
.... . .. ... .. ....-.
..
... .. . .. . ..
...... . - .--...
.. ..... - ....
. .. . ..i

..... .. ... W4
0. -

* 14A