NASA Technical Paper 1786

Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics

of a WPercent-Thick Medium-
Speed Airfoil Designed for
General Aviation Applications

Robert J. McGhee and William D. Beasley

Langley Research Center
Ha nzpto11, Virgiuia

NASA
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Scientific and Technical
Information Branch

1980
 SUMMARY

An investigation was conducted in the Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure

Tunnel to determine the low-speed two-dimensional aerodynamic characteristics
of a 17-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil designed for general aviation appli-
cations. The results are compared with data for the 17-percent-thick low-speed
airfoil and the 13-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil. Theoretical predictions
of the drag-rise characteristics for the medium-speed airfoil are also provided.
The tests were conducted over a Mach number range from 0.10 to 0.32, a chord
Reynolds number range from 2.0 x lo6 to 12.0 x lo6, and an angle-of-attack
range from about -8O to 20°.

The results of the investigation indicate that maximum section lift coef-
ficients at a Mach number of 0.15 increased from about 1.6 to 2.0 as the
Reynolds number increased from about 2.0 x lo6 to 12.0 x lo6. Stall charac-
teristics were of the trailing-edge type and were docile at all Reynolds num-
bers. The application of a roughness strip near the leading edge of the airfoil
decreased the maximum section lift coefficient as much as 0.04 over the test
Reynolds number range. Increasing the Mach number from 0.10 to 0.32 at a
constant Reynolds number of 6.0 x l o 6 decreased the maximum section lift coef-
ficient about 0.03. The magnitude of the quarter-chord pitching-moment coeffi-
cient was decreased about 25 percent, and the drag coefficient decreased at all
lift coefficients (fixed transition) for the 17-percent-thick medium-speed air-
foil compared with the 17-percent-thick low-speed airfoil. The predominant
effects of increasing airfoil thickness from 13 percent to 17 percent for the
medium-speed airfoils were to decrease the maximum section lift coefficient and
to increase the drag coefficient at all lift coefficients (fixed transition).

INTRODUCTION

Research on advanced-aerodynamics-technology airfoils for general aviation

applications has received considerable attention over the last several years at
the Langley Research Center. An initial family of low-speed airfoils was devel-
oped; this research is summarized in reference 1. Recently, the general avia-
tion industry indicated a requirement for airfoils which provide higher cruise
Mach numbers than the low-speed airfoils and which still retain good high-lift
low-speed characteristics. These medium-speed airfoils have been designed to
fill the gap between the low-speed airfoils and the supercritical airfoils for
application on light general aviation aircraft. Reference 2 reports the results
of a 13-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil designed for a lift coefficient of
0.30 and a Mach number of 0.72.

The present investigation was conducted to determine the low-speed aerody-

namic characteristics of a 17-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil designed for a
lift coefficient of 0.30, a Reynolds number of 14.0 x lo6, and a Mach number
of 0.68. This airfoil is designated as MS(1)-0317. In addition, the results
are compared with data for the 17-percent-thick low-speed airfoil (LS(1) -041 7)
and the 13-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil (MS(1 ) -031 3) Theoretical pre- .
dictions of the drag-rise characteristics for the medium-speed airfoil are
also provided.

The investigation was performed in the Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure

Tunnel over a Mach number range from 0.10 to 0.32. The Reynolds number, based
on the airfoil chord, varied from about 2.0 x lo6 to 12.0 x l o 6 , and the
geometric angle of attack varied from about -8O to 20°.

SYMBOLS

Values are given in both SI and U.S. Customary Units. The measurements and
calculations were made in U . S . Customary Units.

pressure coefficient,
Pk - pa7
cP qa7

C airfoil chord, cm (in.1

CC section chord-force coefficient,

Cd section profile-drag coefficient, :c d(2)

Wake

:c point-drag coefficient

Cl section lift coefficient, cn cos O! - cc sin ci

Cm section pitching-moment coefficient about quarter-chord point,

-($ Cp(: - 0.25) d(z) + ($ Cp ):(d

Cn section normal-force coefficient, -@ cP):(d

h vertical distance in wake profile, cm (in.)

M free-stream Mach number

P static pressure, Pa ( lb/ft2)

dynamic pressure, Pa ( lb/ft2)

R Reynolds number based on free-stream conditions and airfoil chord

X airfoil abscissa, cm (in.)

2
 z airfoil ordinate, cm (in.)

ZC mean camber line ordinate, cm (in.)

Zt mean thickness, cm (in.)

a geometric angle of attack, deg

" Subscripts:

II local point on airfoil

max maximum

W free-stream conditions

Abbreviations:

LS (1 1 low-speed, first series

MS(1) medium-speed, first series

AIRFOIL DESIGNATION

A sketch of the section shape for the 17-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil

is shown in figure 1. The airfoil is designated in the form MS(1)-0317. MS(1)
indicates medium speed (first series). The next two digits designate the air-
foil design lift coefficient in tenths (0.30), and the last two digits designate
the airfoil maximum thickness in percent chord (17).

AIRFOIL DEVELOPMENT

The intention of medium-speed airfoil development was to combine the best

features of low-speed and supercritical airfoil technology; this airfoil devel-
opment is discussed in detail in reference 2. The design objective of the
medium-speed airfoils was to increase the cruise Mach number of the low-speed
airfoils while retaining their good high-lift, low-speed characteristics. This
17-percent-thick medium-speed airfoil was designed for a lift coefficient of
0.30, a Reynolds number of 1 4 . 0 x lo6, and a Mach number of 0.68. The airfoil
shape was changed iteratively until the design pressure distribution was
obtained. (See fig. 2 . ) The computer program of reference 3 was used to pre-
dict the results of various airfoil modifications.

The design pressure distributions for the 13-percent and 17-percent medium-
speed airfoils are compared in figure 2. Note that for the 17-percent-thick
airfoil, which has higher induced velocities, the start of the aft upper-surface
pressure recovery is located at about 0 . 5 0 ~compared
~ with about 0.60~ for the
13-percent airfoil. This is required in order to keep the aft pressure gradient
gradual enough to avoid separation for the thicker airfoil. The thickness dis-
t r i b u t i o n and camber l i n e for t h e 1 7 - p e r c e n t medium-speed a i r f o i l a r e shown i n
f i g u r e 3 , and t h e a i r f o i l d e s i g n c o o r d i n a t e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e I.

MODEL, APPARATUS, AND PROCEDURe

Model

The a i r f o i l model was c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h a metal core around which p l a s t i c

f i l l and t w o t h i n l a y e r s of f i b e r g l a s s were used t o form t h e c o n t o u r of t h e a i r -
f o i l . The model had a c h o r d of 61 cm (24 i n . ) and a s p a n o f 91 c m (36 i n . ) and
was equipped w i t h b o t h upper- and l o w e r - s u r f a c e o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d 5 cm (2 i n . )
off t h e midspan. The a i r f o i l s u r f a c e was sanded i n t h e c h o r d w i s e d i r e c t i o n w i t h
N o . 400 d r y s i l i c o n c a r b i d e paper t o p r o v i d e a smooth aerodynamic f i n i s h . The
model c o n t o u r a c c u r a c y was g e n e r a l l y w i t h i n kO.10 mm (0.004 i n . ) .

Wind Tunnel

The Langley Low-Turbulence P r e s s u r e Tunnel ( r e f . 4 ) is a c l o s e d - t h r o a t ,

s i n g l e - r e t u r n t u n n e l which c a n be operated a t s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e s from 1.0
t o 10.0 atm (1 atm = 101.3 k P a ) w i t h tunnel-empty t e s t - s e c t i o n Mach numbers up
t o 0.42 and 0.22, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The maximum Reynolds number is a b o u t 49.0 x 106
per meter (15.0 x l o 6 per foot) a t a free-stream Mach number of about 0.22. The
t u n n e l t e s t s e c t i o n is 91 cm ( 3 f t ) wide and 229 cm (7.5 f t ) h i g h .

H y d r a u l i c a l l y a c t u a t e d c i r c u l a r plates provided p o s i t i o n i n g and a t t a c h m e n t

f o r t h e two-dimensional model. The p l a t e s a r e 102 cm (40 i n . ) i n d i a m e t e r ,
rotate w i t h t h e a i r f o i l , and a r e f l u s h w i t h t h e t u n n e l w a l l . The a i r f o i l e n d s
were a t t a c h e d t o r e c t a n g u l a r model-attachment p l a t e s ( f i g . 41, and t h e a i r f o i l
was mounted so t h a t t h e c e n t e r of r o t a t i o n f o r t h e c i r c u l a r p l a t e s was a t 0 . 2 5 ~
on t h e model r e f e r e n c e l i n e . The a i r g a p s i n t h e t u n n e l w a l l s between t h e rect-
a n g u l a r p l a t e s and t h e c i r c u l a r p l a t e s were sealed w i t h metal seals.

Wake Survey R a k e

A f i x e d wake s u r v e y rake ( f i g . 5 ) a t t h e model midspan was mounted from

t h e t u n n e l s i d e w a l l and l o c a t e d 1 c h o r d l e n g t h b e h i n d t h e t r a i l i n g e d g e of t h e
a i r f o i l . The w a k e rake used 0.15-cm (0.06-in.) d i a m e t e r t o t a l - p r e s s u r e t u b e s
and 0.32-cm (0.125-in.) d i a m e t e r s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e t u b e s . The t o t a l - p r e s s u r e
t u b e s were f l a t t e n e d t o 0.10 c m (0.04 i n . ) f o r 0.61 c m (0.24 i n . ) from t h e t i p
of t h e t u b e . Each s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e t u b e had f o u r f l u s h o r i f i c e s d r i l l e d 90°
a p a r t ; t h e s e orifices were located 8 tube d i a m e t e r s from t h e t i p of t h e t u b e
and i n t h e p l a n e o f measurement f o r t h e t o t a l - p r e s s u r e t u b e s .

Instrumentation

Measurements of t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e s on t h e a i r f o i l s u r f a c e s and t h e wake-

rake p r e s s u r e s were made by a n a u t o m a t i c p r e s s u r e - s c a n n i n g s y s t e m u s i n g v a r i a b l e -
c a p a c i t a n c e p r e c i s i o n t r a n s d u c e r s . Basic t u n n e l p r e s s u r e s were measured w i t h

4
 precision quartz manometers. Angle of attack was measured with a calibrated
digital shaft encoder operated by a pinion gear and rack attached to the cir-
cular model-attachment plates. Data were obtained by a high-speed acquisition
system and recorded on magnetic tape.

TESTS AND METHODS

The airfoil was tested at free-stream Mach numbers from 0 . 1 0 to 0 . 3 2 over

an angle-of-attack range from about -8O to 20°. Reynolds number based on the
airfoil chord was varied from about 2 . 0 x l o 6 to 1 2 . 0 x 1 0 6 . The airfoil was
tested both in the smooth condition (natural transition) and with roughness
located on both upper and lower surfaces at 0 . 0 7 5 ~ . The roughness was sized
for each Reynolds number according to the technique described in reference 5 .
The roughness was sparsely distributed and consisted of granular-type strips
0 . 1 3 cm (0.05 in.) wide which were attached to the surfaces with clear lacquer.

The static-pressure measurements at the airfoil surface were reduced to

standard pressure coefficients and machine integrated to obtain section normal-
force and chord-force coefficients as well as section pitching-moment coeffi-
cients about the quarter-chord point. Section profile-drag coefficients were
computed from the wake-rake total and static pressures by the method reported
in reference 6 .

An estimate of the standard low-speed wind-tunnel boundary corrections

(ref. 7 ) amounted to a maximum of about 2 percent of the measured coefficients;
these corrections have not been applied to the data. An estimate of the dis-
placement of the effective center of a total-pressure tube in a velocity gra-
dient on the values of Cd showed these effects to be negligible (ref. 6 ) .

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The test conditions are summarized in table 11. The results of this
investigation have been reduced to coefficient form and are presented in the
following figures:

Figure

.............
Section characteristics for MS(1)-0317 airfoil 6, 7
I .............
Effect of roughness on section characteristics 8
Effect of Reynolds number on section characteristics;
modelsmooth; M = 0 . 1 5 ....................... 9
Effect of Reynolds number on section characteristics;
roughness on; M = 0 . 1 5 ....................... 10
Effect of Mach number on section characteristics;
.....................
roughness on; R = 6 . 0 x l o 6 11
Comparison of section characteristics for LS(1)-0417
...........
and MS(1)-0317 airfoils; roughness on; M = 0 . 1 5 12
Comparison of section characteristics for MS(1)-0313
...........
and MS(1)-0317 airfoils; roughness on; M = 0 . 1 5 13

5
 Figure

Effect of angle of attack and Reynolds number on

chordwise pressure distributions for MS ( 1 ) -031 7
airfoil; roughness on; M = 0.15 .................. 14
Effect of Mach number on chordwise pressure
distributions for MS(1)-0317 airfoil; roughness
on; R = 6 . 0 x l o 6 .......................... 15
Comparison of chordwise pressure distributions for
LS(1)-0417 and MS(1)-0317 airfoils; roughness on;
M = 0.15; R = 4 . 0 x l o 6 ...................... 16
Camparison of chordwise pressure distributions for
MS ( 1 ) -031 3 and MS ( 1 1-031 7 airfoils; roughness on;
I M = 0.15; R = 4 . 0 x I O 6 ...................... 17
Variation of maximum lift coefficient with Reynolds
number for LS(1)-0417 and MS(1)-0317 airfoils;
M=0.15...................... ......... 18
Variation of maximum lift coefficient with Reynolds
number for MS(1)-0313 and MS(1)-0317 airfoils;
M = 0 . 1 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 19
Variation of maximum lift coefficient with Mach
number for MS ( 1 ) -031 3 and MS ( 1 ) -031 7 airfoils;
roughness on; R = 6 . 0 x 106 ..................... 20
Variation of drag coefficient with Reynolds number for
MS ( 1 ) - 0 3 1 7 airfoil; M = 0 . 1 5 ; ..............
c2 = 0 . 3 0 21
Calculated drag-rise characteristics for medium-speed
................
airfoils; R = 1 4 . 0 x l o 6 ; c2 = 0 . 3 0 22

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Section Characteristics

Lift.- Figure 9(a) shows that the lift-curve slope for the 17-percent
, medium-speed airfoil in a smooth condition (natural boundary-layer transi-
tion) varied from about 0.11 to 0 . 1 2 per degree for the Reynolds numbers
investigated (M = 0 . 1 5 ) . The angle of attack for zero lift coefficient was
about -3O. Maximum lift coefficients increased from about 1 . 6 0 to 2 . 0 as
the Reynolds number was increased from 2 . 0 x l o 6 to 1 2 . 0 x l o 6 . The largest
effect of Reynolds number on maximum lift coefficient occurred for Reynolds
numbers below 6 . 0 x l o 6 . The stall characteristics of the airfoil are of the
trailing-edge type, as shown by the lift data of figure 9(a) and the pressure
data of figure 1 4 . The nature of the stall is docile for all Reynolds numbers
tested.

The addition of a narrow roughness strip at 0 . 0 7 5 ~ (fig. 8 ) resulted in

the expected decambering effect because of the increase in boundary-layer thick-
ness. The lift coefficient at c1 = Oo decreased about 0 . 0 4 at the lower
Reynolds numbers, but only small changes occurred at the higher Reynolds numbers.
The roughness strip decreased the c2,max performance of the airfoil as much as
0 . 0 4 for the test Reynolds number range (fig. 19).
 The effects of Mach number on the airfoil lift characteristics at a
Reynolds number of 6 . 0 x 706 with roughness located at 0.075~are shown in fig-
ure ll(a). Increasing the Mach number from 0.10 to 0.32 resulted in the
expected Prandtl-Glauert increase in lift-curve slope, a decrease in the angle
of attack for a stall of about 2.S0, and a decrease in c2,max of about 0.03.

The lift data for the 17-percent-thick low- and medium-speed airfoils are
compared in figure 12 for Reynolds numbers from 2.0 x lo6 to 6 . 0 x lo6 and
are summarized in figure 18. The design lift coefficients for the low-speed
and medium-speed airfoils were 0 . 4 0 and 0.30, respectively. The data indicate
that the linearity of the lift curve is extended to higher angles of attack for
the medium-speed airfoil and that both airfoils develop about the same czImaX
at the lower Reynolds numbers. This result is attributed to reduced upper-
surface boundary-layer separation for the medium-speed airfoil, as illustrated
by the pressure-data comparison of figure 16(b). At the higher Reynolds num-
bers (fig. 18), a decrease in CZ,max of about 0.06 is shown for the medium-
speed airfoil compared with the low-speed airfoil for airfoils without
roughness. Figure 18 also illustrates two interesting features of the Reynolds
number effect on czfmax for the 17-percent low- and mediumspeed airfoils.
The irregular variation of ~2,max with Reynolds number at the lower Reynolds
numbers and the sensitivity of climax to roughness for the low-speed airfoil
have been improved for the medium-speed airfoil design.

The lift data for the 13-percent-thick and 17-percent-thick medium-speed

airfoils are compared in figure 13 for Reynolds numbers from 2.0 x l o 6 to
12.0 x lo6 and are summarized in figures 19 and 20. The predominant effect
of increasing the airfoil thickness is to decrease c2,max about 0.10 at
Reynolds numbers from 2.0 x lo6 to 6 . 0 x I O 6 . At the higher Reynolds numbers,
only small effects of airfoil thickness on ~2,max performance are shown.
Figure 19 also indicates that the sensitivity of CZ,max to roughness is some-
what greater for the thicker airfoil. The effects of Mach number on c~,max
for both airfoils are shown in figure 20 for a Reynolds number of 6 . 0 x 106.
Increasing the Mach number results in similar decreases in C Z , , , ~ €or
~ both
airfoils up to about M = 0.28. However, above M = 0.28, the 13-percent air-
foil indicates a larger decrease in clImax, compared with the 17-percent
airfoil.

Pitching moment.- The pitching-moment-coefficient data of figures 8, 9 ,

and 10 illustrate the expected positive increments in Cm due to decreasing
the Reynolds number or adding roughness at a constant Reynolds number. This
result is typical of the decambering effect associated with boundary-layer
thickening for aft-loaded airfoils. At a Reynolds number of 6 . 0 x lo6,
increasing the Mach number from 0.10 to 0.32 (fig. ll(c)) shows small effects
on the pitching-moment data to about a = 8O. At the higher angles of attack,
a positive increment in q,, is shown.

The pitching-moment data for the 17-percent-thick low- and medium-speed

airfoils are compared in figure 12. A reduction in the magnitude of Cm of
about 25 percent throughout the c2 range is indicated for the medium-speed
airfoil. This result is important because of the expected reduced trim
penalties for the medium-speed airfoil at cruise conditions. Comparison of

7
 the data for the 13-percent-thick and 17-percent-thick medium-speed airfoils
in figure 13 shows essentially no effect of thickness on the pitching-moment
characteristics.

Draq.- The design pressure distribution for the mediuwspeed airfoil

(fig. 2) shows that a favorable pressure gradient exists only back to about
0.10~on the upper and lower surfaces at a Mach number of 0 . 6 8 . The low-speed
(M = 0.15) pressure data (fig. 14) show that a pressure peak develops at about
0.06~on the upper surface of the airfoil at a lift coefficient of about 0.30.
Thus, the pressure distributions are not conducive to long runs of laminar flow.
Since natural transition usually occurs near the leading edge of airfoils for
general aviation aircraft due to roughness of construction or insect remains
gathered in flight, the discussion of the drag data is limited to data obtained
with fixed transition at 0.075~.

The profile-drag coefficient at design lift (ci = 0.30) decreased from

about 0.0116 at R = 2.0 x lo6 to about 0.0090 at R = 12.0 x lo6. (See
fig. 10(b) and fig. 21.) This drag reduction is associated with the related
decrease in boundary-layer thickness and the accompanying reduction in skin-
f r i c t i o n drag. There a r e o n l y small e f f e c t s of Mach number o n Cd ( f i g . 11(b))
over a Mach number range from 0.10 to 0.32.

The drag data for the 17-percent-thick low- and mediuwspeed airfoils are
compared in figure 12 for Reynolds numbers from 2.0 x lo6 to 6 . 0 x lo6 with
fixed transition at 0.075~. A decrease in drag coefficient at all lift coeffi-
cients is shown for the medium-speed airfoil. The small decrease in drag coef-
ficients for the medium-speed airfoil at low lift coefficients is associated
with the reduced aft upper-surface pressure gradient (fig. 16(a)) and resulting
boundary-layer development. The large decrease in drag coefficients at the
higher lift coefficients for the medium-speed airfoil is a result of less sepa-
ration on the airfoil, as illustrated in figure 16(b).
,
The drag data for the 13-percent-thick and 17-percent-thick medium-speed
I airfoils are compared in figure 13 for Reynolds numbers from 2.0 x lo6 to
12.0 x lo6 with fixed transition at 0.075~. Increasing the airfoil thickness
results in the expected increase in drag coefficient throughout the lift coef-
ficient range. At the design lift coefficient of 0.30, increases in Cd of
about 0.0015 (R = 2.0 x lo6) and 0.0008 (R = 12.0 x lo6) are indicated by
increasing the airfoil thickness from 13 to 17 percent.

Theoretically calculated drag-rise characteristics (ref. 3) for the 13-

and 17-percent-thick medium-speed airfoils at design conditions are shown in
figure 22. Boundary-layer transition was specified at x/c = 0.04 for the
calculations to ensure a turbulent boundary-layer development on the airfoils.
The estimated drag-rise Mach numbers are about 0.76 and 0.72 for the 13- and
17-percent airfoils, respectively.

Pressure Distributions

The chordwise pressure data of figure 14 illustrate the effects of angle

of attack for several Reynolds numbers. As the angle of attack is increased,

8
upper-surface trailing-edge separation is first indicated by the approximate
constant-pressure region on the airfoil. Additional increases in angle of
attack result in this constant-pressure region moving forward along the air-
foil. At maximum lift, trailing-edge separation is present over approximately
20 to 30 percent of the airfoil chord, depending on the Reynolds number. The
airfoil stall is of the trailing-edge type, and the stall characteristics are
docile at all Reynolds numbers.

The effects of Mach number on the chordwise pressure data at a Reynolds

number of 6.0 x lo6 for angles of attack of 8O and 14O are illustrated in
figure 15. Increasing the Mach number from 0.10 to 0.32 results in the
expected Prandtl-Glauert increase in the value of Cp at CY = 8 O (fig. 15 (a)) .
However, at CY = 14O (fig. 15(b)), this same Mach number increase results in
an increase in the extent of upper-surface trailing-edge separation of about
0.05~. This result is attributed to the increased upper-surface pressure gra-
dient, which has an adverse effect on the resulting boundary-layer development.

Comparisons of the pressure data for the 17-percent-thick low- and medium-
speed airfoils at a Mach number of 0.15 and a Reynolds number of 4.0 x lo6
are shown in figure 16. Note the substantial decrease in the aft upper-surface
pressure gradient for the medium-speed airfoil (fig. 16(a)). This reduced pres-
sure gradient has a favorable effect on the airfoil boundary-layer development
(reduced thickness) and results in a small decrease in drag coefficient at low
lift coefficients (see fig. 12). At the higher lift coefficients, this reduced
pressure gradient decreases the amount of upper-surface trailing-edge separation
for the medium-speed airfoil. For example, at a lift coefficient of 1.60
(fig. 16(b)), the medium-speed airfoil exhibits about 0.10~ less separation than
the low-speed airfoil.

The pressure data for the 13-percent-thick and 17-percent-thick medium-

speed airfoils at a Mach number of 0.15 and a Reynolds number of 4 . 0 x lo6
are compared in figure 17. The pressure data at CC = Oo (fig. 17(a)) illus-
trate the increase in upper- and lower-surface velocities due to increased air-
foil thickness. Note that the aft upper-surface pressure gradient is about the
same for the two airfoils. The effect of thickness on the extent of upper-
surface trailing-edge separation is illustrated at CY = 16O in figure 17(c).
The 13-percent medium-speed airfoil exhibits about 0.15~less separation com-
pared with the 17-percent airfoil.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Wind-tunnel tests have been conducted to determine the low-speed two-

dimensional aerodynamic characteristics of a 17-percent-thick medium-speed air-
foil designed for general aviation applications. The results were compared
with those for the 17-percent-thick low-speed airfoil and the 13-percent-thick
medium-speed airfoil. Theoretical predictions of the drag-rise characteristics
for this airfoil are also provided. The tests were conducted in the Langley
Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel over a Mach number range from 0.10 to 0.32. The
chord Reynolds number was varied from about 2 . 0 x lo6 to 12.0 x lo6. The
following results were determined from this investigation:

9
 1. Maximum section lift coefficients at a Mach number of 0.15 increased
from about 1.6 to 2.0 as the Reynolds number was increased from about 2.0 x lo6
to 12.0 x 106.

2. Stall characteristics were of the trailing-edge type and were docile at

all Reynolds numbers.

3 . The application of a roughness strip near the leading edge of the air-
foil decreased the maximum section lift coefficient as much as 0.04 over the
test Reynolds number range.

4. Increasing the Mach number from 0.10 to 0.32 at a constant Reynolds num-
ber of about 6.0 x lo6 decreased the maximum section lift coefficient about
0.03.

decreased about 25 percent, and the drag coefficient decreased at all lift coef-
ficients (fixed transition) for the 17-percent-thick mediuwspeed airfoil com-
pared with the 17-percent-thick low-speed airfoil.

6. The predominant effects of increasing airfoil thickness from 1 3 percent

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, VA 23665
November 25, 1980

10
 I REFERENCES
I
1. McGhee, Robert J.; Beasley, William D.; and Whitcomb, Richard T.: NASA Low-

! I
and Medium-Speed Airfoil Development. NASA TM-78709, 1979.

2. McGhee, Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Low-Speed Aerodynamic Character-
1 istics of a 13-Percent-Thick Medium-Speed Airfoil Designed for General
1
I
Aviation Applications. NASA TP-1498, 1979.

3. Bauer , Frances; Garabedian, Paul; Korn, David; and Jameson, Antony: Super-
critical Wing Sections 11. Volume 108 of Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems, Springer-Verlag, 1975.

4 . Von Doenhoff, AlbertE.; and Abbott, Frank T., Jr.: The Langley Two-
Dimensional Law-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel. NACA TN 1283, 1947.

1 5 . Braslow, Albert L.; and Knox, Eugene C.: Simplified Method for Determination
of Critical Height of Distributed Roughness Particles for Boundary-Layer
i Transition at Mach Numbers From 0 to 5 . NACA TN 4363, 1958.

'
6. Pankhurst, R. C.; and Holder, D. W.: Wind-Tunnel Technique, Sir Isaac
I Pitman & Sons, Ltd. (London), 1965.

7. Pope, Alan; and Harper, John J.: Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., c.1966.

11
 TABLE I .- MS (1 -031 7 AIRFOIL COORDINATES
)

z/c I
lower

0.00000 0.00099 0.00099

.00200 .01248 -.00857
.00500 .01950 -.01 366
.01250 .03099 -.02105
.02500 .04322 -.02866
.03750 .05210 -.03423
.05000 .05893 -.03865
.07500 .06840 -.04541
.10000 .07511 -.05058
.12500 .08033 -.05477
.15000 .08454 - .05817
.17500 .08805 -.06099
.20000 .09096 -.06330
.22500 .09339 -.06527
.25000
.27500
.09536
.09694
-. 06685
-.0681 2
.30000 .09815 -.06909
.32500
.35000
.09901 -.06978
.09952 -.07021
.37500 .09972 -. 07036
.40000 .09956 -. 0701 9
.42500 .09909 -. 06967
.45000 .09826 -. 06880
.47500 .09700 -. 06755
.50000 .09535 -. 06591
.52500 .09323 -. 06389
.55000 .09073 -. 061 38
.57500 .08777 -. 05845
.60000 .08448 -.05501
.62500 .08079 -. 051 06
,65000 .07672 -.04674
.67500
.70000
.07232 -.0421 4
.06763 -.03735
.72500 .06269 -.03255
.75000 .05755 -.02780
.77500 .05225 -.02309
.80000 .04687 -.0 1857
.82500 .04132 -.01 433
.85000 .03576 -.01049
,87500 .03013 -.0071 9
.90000 .02444 -.00460
.92500 .01873 -.00289
.95000 .01302 -.00232
.97500 .00720 -.00324
1 .ooooo .00125 -.00597

12
 TABLE 11.- TEST CONDITIONS

1 I 1
I R I
M Configuration
2 x 106 4 x 106 6 x 106 9 x lo6 12 x lo6

0.15 X X X X X Smooth
.10 X Roughness on
.15 X X X X X Roughness on
.20 X Roughness on
.28 X Roughness on
.32 X Roughness on

13
 0
4

00

CD

0
N + 0 w
a a

<
N
I I

14
I -1

Ai rfoi I M
I 1 - MS( I1-03I3
-- MS( I1-03I7
0.72
i 0.68

Figure 2.- Calculated pressure distributions for medium-speed airfoils.

R = 1 4 . 0 x l o 6 ; c1 = 0.30.

15
 .OE

-06
zt/c
.04

.02

-.o':, I I
.5 I .o
x /C
Figure 3.- Thickness distribution and camber line for MS(1)-0317 airfoil.

16
 Tunnel sidewalls

/-t+-- Diam,= 1.67~-

'r
1.
d t-
Airflow A

-Circular plate - r - - - -. -- - - - - -TT- - \\\ \ \

Airfoil positioning
attachment

Top view /_Model attachment

plate
Seal detail "z"
Zero incidence
reference
Tunnel center line

End view .section A-A

F i g u r e 4.- T y p i c a l a i r f o i l model mounted i n wind t u n n e l . c = 61 c m ( 2 4 i n . ) .

17
 .126c .042c
Static- pressure probe
Rad.=0.021c
- -
lu/

3.A
Static - pressure probes -
., I
-4

Airflow - Tunnel $ --
(typ.1
1.17c

.0052c

Total- pressure probes

(tubes flattened)

F i g u r e 5.- Wake s u r v e y r a k e . c = 61 cm ( 2 4 in.).

18
 In
r

0
II
E

‘0
u

-4

8
U
m
c
u
u

in. 0. Iil
. .
cucu - - I -
1 I I I I I

V
” E
u

19
 TJ
Q,
3
c
-4
4J
c
0
U
I
W
a,
Y
m
-4
E

. . . . in lil lil Ln’l

- -
0 el 0
curu I -
0 0 - - r u r u
I I I I I I

u” E
u

20
 W
.- 0
0 0 0 0 c

X
-0
u 0
W
I II
p:

Y
u

1 0’ I

I -
I I I I I I

E
u

21
22
 II
a
al
Y

8:
U

23
 u
In
F
0
0
JJ
4
ro
aJ
JJ
([I

0"
rl
m
m
aJ
c
c
P
3
2
W
0 rl
P -4
0
X W
L4
0 -4
4
r*1
I-
II ?

um el
p: 0
I
.
In
n
7
v

0 7 v1
ru 0
E
II 8
W
-
in E m
0
n -4
m JJ
Y m
0 -4
L!
a,
L,
u
Lo D
x: 4
L!
m
a' c
u
c
0 0
-4
JJ
u
aJ
in v1
I
I
F
0 aJ
..-. L4

N a
LQ
-..
0

.-
Li, 0 L i , d l
I
. -
. 'in
0
0 Li,
0
0
- -
Li, cj
nr-
m'r
ni
-
3
tn
.d
I I I I I I E
u
" E
u

24
 X

. .
U
V

0
cu
Ll
II 5
P
-
m f: -4
F

-
0

m m
I I

m. o. m li,
-
0

m o m o m m l
-
0

0
.
li-l 0 ’ 1
.
- -
(

c u m I -
0 0 - - ; cu
I I I I I t
u- E
c
V

25
 u-

W
0

. .r l h o l i , I li,
. d. l
C U C U - - I -
I I I I l l

u” E
u

26
 X
a,
O a
* 7
. . C
.r(

uU

u-

27
 W
0
P

in. .
0 li3 0 Li, 0
.
Lo d l
.
r u m - - I -
I

28
 u-

uU

I 0 1

ruru - - I
I

-
.

I I I I I I

u” E
u

29
 w
0

. .
U
V

k-
c

t
lil 0 lil 0 Ln'l
o - - c u c u
I I I I I

E
V

30
 W
0
7

X
0
OI

It
U
V a
.
v)
0 c
cu 0
It
Lo c
d

-
5
0

m
I

0
&

‘ .m 0. h 0 I I 0 h
. .l
d
Iuru I -
I
V
”

31
 X

0 %
. a
. .
U II c
V 0
a u

‘ a ,
4 O L C

. . . .
ruru - - 0 0

I
-

I
-

I
1

I I

3” E
V

32
33
 0
d

0 0
. .

34
 a
Q)
3
C
-4
JJ
C
0
V
I.
03
Q,
&
3
m
-4
E

1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I

E
V

35
 5
W al
0 3
F c
X
0

w
II
a

36
 rm

a
e,
3
d
.r(
U a
e,
8
u
3
C
-4
U
C
W 0
e r 0
r
u
00 I.
X
0 0 0
03
e,
w LI
3
II P
-4
a ti4

-Q,

t
. .
I-
3
3
3

t
I

37 I
 \D
0
7

X
0
cjr

It
a

38
 0
A

m W
0
F

CD

cu

cu
I

f
I

CD
I

m
I

-
0

I I I

39
 rm Tm rm

li
-
I

I ~

1
c

u
I
I
-Lu
c
r -
i- -
C
LLLL

(
1

0 1 I c c 1 0 (

40
 .A

W
0
F
I
X
03
0
0)
W LI
5
II P
.A
a

41
 I h 0 h 0 h 0 Li'l
- ru m r -
r u r u r u - - - - I I 1

42
43
 W
0
r

X
0
m
II
a

44
cucu (U - - - - I I I

45
 rm rm

I-

tE Z C

I
0 0

I
I
l
l
l
l

-LLLLJu
o m
oor
. 0.
0 0 0 0

uU

46
m o Lo 0 m 0 m 0 Lo 0 Lo 01
cu
0
cu
0
Lo
0
r
0
0
d -
cu -
m r
w
0
Tu
c u m
c u m
I I I I I I I I I I

E
u

47
 II
E

c
.
4J

4J
- u
m a ,
00000 - m

m
5
4
0
c
h
(u
a
U-l
0

m r u o r m r u o r t n r u r u m r
r u r u r u - - - - I I 1

u-

48
o m
o r
. .
0 0
(
i
0
i
ui
CD
0 o
U
r
c
-
O
- <
O (

49
 0 0 0 - d I 4 cu
I I 1 I I I I I 1 I

E
u

50
 0
U
m
TY
a,
U

mO

I
0
r

a,

51
 'r I;
fu
aJ
5
c
-4
c,
c
0
u
I
0
P

aJ
LI
5
07
-4
GI

I
- - 0
. . 0 0 0

52
 .
u
ln
I-
O

0
JJ
lu

rn
u

JJW
u o
8 : w;
'D
l u r
Lc
lux
c
ti -4
J u o

Lc

4
c

54
 mr

0
ru -
0
e
Ln
o
0' ;
. . 0 0 0 0

55
 E
u

56
E
0
m
d

5
c
m

W
0
7
go
u-l II
X

0
hl m c
-rl 0
II
P;

..
.i
U
u
a,
m
W
0

57
 0

- E
u
I'

rr)
9

cu
4

-
9

d
cu

...............
I__ - ..........
L - ..!.. ... I . . ..frrrrt..
. . . . .rrt.??b.. .,....-f._...r r : r r t z :k:
-. ...... I::
:::!::. .
a,

d-

.-. .
I...

d
I

a,
I

58
E
0

a
Q)
a
3
 1-r
I l l P . L l l ' l i l l l l l l l l l
1 - E
I U

N
I

W
0

Ln
0

d
0

W
0
P

0
CJ
I1
&

tu
Y

60
W
0
r

X
0

II
cz

e
h

61
 E
0

U
cu

(D

62
E
u

63
 E
0

73
0

W
a0)
0 a
r 1
rl
X u
C
0 0
CJ
u
r I
II m
7
p:
al
LI
1
Y
m
-I+

64
L
I

L
' o h 0 I

65
66
 W
0
U f -
1
x x
0
 u)
0
F I
X *
r-
0
*
II
a

68
--
t I

0
u l m m f f M M m n l - - I
I I I I I I I I I I I

69
70
I W - - I
. .
I I I
72
13
14
 o?
I O 0
00

(4

m
m
0
It
ru
o

m
Y

N 00
I
I I
 x /c
(b) c z = 1.60.

F i g u r e 16.- Concluded.

76
 5,
I

O n I- 09

co

cc! T 0
I I 0Q
I
 -2.8

-2.4

-2.0

- 1.6

- I .2

‘P -.8

-.4

.4

.8

1.2
0
x/c
(b) c1 = 6O.

F i g u r e 17.- Continued.

78
C

(c) CC = 16O.

F i g u r e 17.- Concluded.

79
 2.4

MS(11-0317
2.2 PI ain sym., roughness off
FI agged sym., roughness on

2.o

I .8
CZ,max
I .6

I .4

1.2

I .oI 2 4 6 8 IO IxIO6
R
Figure 18.- Variation of maximum lift coefficient with Reynolds number for
LS(1)-0417 and MS(1)-0317 airfoils. M = 0.15.

80
 2.4

2.2

2.o

I.8
CI,max
1.6

I .4

1.2

I.
OI 2 4 6 8 10 20x 106
R
Figure 1 9 .- Variation of max imum lift coefficient with Reynolds number for
MS (1 ) -031 3 and m5(1 ) -0317 airfoils. M = 0.15.

81
 N 0

82
.040
Roughness
-- Off
On
,020

. 010
.om
.OM

.OM

.002

. 001 1 I I
I 2 4 6 8 IO :ox IO6

R
Figure 21.- Variation of drag coefficient with Reynolds number for
MS(1)-0317 airfoil. M = 0.15; cl = 0.30.

a3
 M
4
M
7
h

4
\
8
A
4 \
Y

v, I
E
l

1 1 I 1 I 1
a
2
a 8
0
8
0

D
u

a4
 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession NO. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA TP-1786
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Repon Date
LOW-SPEED AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A 17-PERCENT- December 1980
THICK MEDIUM-SPEED AIRFOIL DESIGNED FOR GENERAL 6. Performing Organization Code
AVIATION APPLICATIONS 505-31 -33-05
7. Author(s1 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Robert J. McGhee and W i l l i a m D. B e a s l e y - 0

, 10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
NASA Langley R e s e a r c h Center
Hampton, VA 23665
I L
1 1 , Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agmcy Name and Address T e c h n i c a l Paper
N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, DC 20546

-
16. Abstract
Wind-tunnel tests have been conducted t o d e t e r m i n e t h e low-speed two-dimensional
aerodynamic c h a r a c t e r istics of a 1 7 - p e r c e n t - t h i c k medium-speed a i r f o i l (MS(1 ) -031 7)
d e s i g n e d f o r g e n e r a l a v i a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s were compared w i t h d a t a
for t h e 1 7 - p e r c e n t - t h i c k low-speed a i r f o i l (LS(1)-041 7) and t h e 1 3 - p e r c e n t - t h i c k
medium-speed a i r f o i l (MS(1)-031 3 ) . T h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s of t h e d r a g - r i s e c h a r -
acteristics of t h i s a i r f o i l are also p r o v i d e d . The t e s t s were conducted i n t h e
Langley Low-Turbulence P r e s s u r e Tunnel over a Mach number r a n g e from 0.10 to 0.32,
a c h o r d Reynolds number r a n g e from 2.0 x IO6 t o 12.0 x IO6, and an a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k
r a n g e from a b o u t -8O t o 20°.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author($)) 18. Distribution Statement

Low-speed c h a r a c t e r istics FEDD D i s t r i b u t i o n

Medium-speed a i r f o i l
Reynolds number e f f e c t s
Mach number e f f e c t s
General aviation a i r c r a f t S u b j e c t Cateqory 02
19. Security Clauif. (of this report) 20. Security Clauif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

. . 84

Available: NASA's I n d u s t r i a l A p p l i c a t i o n s C e n t e r s
NASA-Langley, 1980

~ ~~