NASA Technical Memorandum 78709

. i |BASA-T_I-78709) NASA LOW-AND MEDIUM-SPEED

.aIRFOIL _EVELOP_ENT (NASA) 19 p CSCL 01C
HC A02/li_ A01 gnclas
G3/03 33612

NASA Low- and Medium-Speed

Airfoil Development

Robert J. McGhee, William D. Beasley,

and Richard T. Whitcomb

Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia

NIL IX
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical

Information Office

1979
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONALTECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service

N80=21294

NASA LOW- AND MEDICUM-SPEED AIRFOIL DEVELOPMENT

LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

HAMPTON, VA

1979

il
 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
1. Report No. _ 2. Government Accession No.
NASA TM-78709 1
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
March 1979
NASA LOW- AND MEDIUM-SPEED AIRFOIL DEVELOPMENT
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Robert J. McGhee, William D. Beasley, L-12264
and Richard T. Whitcomb
10. Work Unit No.

9. PerformingO_anizationNameand Addre= 505-O6-33-10

NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.

Hampton, VA 23665

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Addr_s Technical Memorandum

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, DC 20546

15. _pplementary Notes

This paper was presented at the NASA Conference on Advanced Technology Airfoil
Research held at Langley Research Center on March 7-9, 1978, and is published
in NASA CP-2046.

16. Abstract

The status of NASA low- and medium-speed airfoil research, which was initiated
in 1972 with the development of the GA(W)-I airfoil and which has now emerged
as a family of _irfoils, is discussed. Effects of airfoil thickness-chord
ratios varying from 9 percent to 21 percent on the section characteristics for
a design lift coefficient of 0.40 are presented for the initial low-speed fam-
ily of airfoils. Also, modifications to the 17-percent low-speed airfoil to
reduce the pitching-moment coefficient and to the 21-percent low-speed airfoil
to increase the lift-drag ratio are discussed. Representative wind-tunnel
results are shown for two new medium-speed airfoils with thickness ratios of
13 percent and 17 percent and design-lift coefficients of 0.30. These new
airfoils were developed to increase the cruise Mach number of the low-speed
airfoils while retaining good high-lift, low-speed characteristics. Applica-
tions of NASA-developed airfoils to general aviation aircraft are summarized.

17. Key Words(Suggested by Author(s))

Low-speed airfoils
Medium-speed airfoils
Thickness effects

Reynolds number effects

Mach number effects

19. Security _a_if.(ofthisreport) 20. Security Clasit. tot tins _ge) 22. Fhice

Unclassified Unclassified 16
21. No. of Pages

NASA-Langley, 1979

ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY
 SUMMARY

The status of NASA low- and medium-speed airfoil research, which was
initiated in 1972 with the development of the GA(W)-] airfoil and which has now
emerged as a family of airfoils, is discussed. Effects of airfoil thickness-
chord ratios varying from 9 percent to 21 percent on the section characteristics
for a design lift coefficient of 0.40 are presented for the initial low-speed
family of airfoils. Also, modifications to the 17-percent low-speed airfoil to
reduce the pitching-moment coefficient and to the 2]-percent low-speed airfoil
to increase the lift-drag ratio are discussed. Representative wind-tunnel
results are shown for two new medium-speed airfoils with thickness ratios of
13 percent and ]7 percent and design lift coefficients of 0.30. These new air-
foils were developed to increase the cruise Mach number of the low-speed air-
foils while retaining good high-lift, low-speed characteristics. Applications
of NASA-developed airfoils to general aviation aircraft are summarized.

INTRODUCTION

Research on advanced technology airfoils for low-speed general aviation

applications has received considerable attention at Langley since the develop-
ment of the GA(W)-] airfoil in ]972. This airfoil was analytically developed

using the subsonic viscous computer code of reference ] which provided a low-
cost analysis of the airfoil performance. References 2 and 3 report the
experimental results for this airfoil and others derived from it, and refer-
ences 4 to 6 report flap and control-surface results for several of these
airfoils. Flight test results for the GA(W)-2 airfoil are reported in
reference 7.

This research effort was initially generated to develop advanced airfoils

for low-speed applications. Emphasis was placed on designing airfoils with
largely turbulent boundary layers which had the following performance require-
ments: low cruise drag, high climb lift-drag ratios, high maximum lift, and
predictable, docile stall behavior. However, in 1976 the need developed for
airfoils with higher cruise Mach numbers than the low-speed airfoils provided,
while retaining good high-lift, low-speed characteristics. Thus, two medium-
speed airfoils were developed. These medium-speed airfoils are intended to
fill the gap between the low-speed airfoils and the supercritical airfoils
for application on light executive-type aircraft. In this paper the status
of low- and medium-speed airfoil research is discussed and the applications
of NASA-developed airfoils to general aviation aircraft are summarized.
 SYMBOLS

Cp pressure coefficient

c airfoil chord

Cd section drag coefficient

cz section lift coefficient

Cm section quarter-chord pitching-moment coefficient

Z/d section lift-drag ratio

M Mach number

R Reynolds number

t airfoil thickness

x airfoil abscissa

angle of attack

Subscripts:

d design

max maximum

SEP separation

T transition

AIRFOIL DESIGNATION

Sketches of the section shapes and airfoil designations for the low-
and medium-speed airfoils are shown in figure I. The airfoils are desig-
nated in the form LS(1)- or MS(])-xxxx. LS(1) indicates low speed (first
series) and MS(l) indicates medium speed (first series); the next two digits
designate the airfoil design lift coefficient in tenths, and the last two digits
are the airfoil thickness in percent chord. Thus, the GA(W)-I airfoil becomes
LS(1)-0417 and the GA(W)-2 airfoil becomes LS(I)-0413.

LOW-SPEED AIRFOILS

Initial Family

This initial family of low-speed airfoils was obtained by linearly

scaling the mean thickness distribution of the 17-percent airfoil (LS(I)-0417).
Thus, all four airfoils have the same camber distribution and the design lift
coefficient is 0.40. The effects of varying thickness-chord ratio from 9 to
21 percent on maximum lift coefficient and lift-drag ratio are shown in fig-
ure 2 for a Reynolds number of 4 × ]06 with transition fixed near the leading
edge of the airfoils. The maximum lift coefficient increases with thickness
ratio up to a thickness ratio of about 13 percent; further increase in thickness
ratio results in a decrease in maximum lift coefficient. For the 13-percent
airfoil a value of maximum lift coefficient of about 1.9 is indicated. The
lift-drag ratio decreases almost linearly with increasing thickness ratio over
the entire thickness-ratio range at the design lift coefficient of 0.40. This
decrease in lift-drag ratio is essentially a result of increased skin-friction
drag because of the higher induced velocities for the thicker airfoils. How-
ever, at a typical climb lift coefficient of ].0, this linear variation is indi-
cated only up to a thickness ratio of about ]7 percent. The large decrease in
lift-drag ratio for the 21-percent airfoil is indicative of excessive turbulent
boundary-layer separation. This effect has been reduced by redesign of the air-
foil and is discussed later.

The scale effects on maximum lift coefficient for the low-speed airfoils
for Reynolds numbers from about 2 x ]06 to 9 x ]06 are shown in figure 3.
Increases in Reynolds number have a favorable effect on maximum lift coeffi-
cient for all thickness ratios shown. The increment in maximum lift coeffi-

cient with Reynolds number generally increases with increasing thickness ratio;
however, note the differences in variation with Reynolds number. Application
of a roughness strip just sufficient to trip the boundary layer resulted in
only small effects on maximum lift coefficient for the 9- and ]3-percent air-
foils; however, large decreases occurred for the thicker airfoils.

Comparison of the maximum lift coefficients for this low-speed family

with the older NACA airfoils is shown in figure 4 at a Reynolds number of
6 x ]06 for the airfoils smooth. The comparison is made with the airfoils
smooth because of the excessive roughness employed on the NACA airfoils. The
largest value of CZ,max, 1.75, for the NACA airfoils was obtained for the
forward-camber 230 airfoil series for a thickness ratio of ]2 percent, which

is probably the optimum thickness ratio. By contrast a value of CZ,ma x

greater than 2 is shown for the NASA low-speed series for a thickness ratio
of ]3 percent. Large improvements in CZ,ma x performance for thickness ratios
varying from 9 percent to 21 percent are shown for the NASA low-speed airfoils
compared with the older NACA airfoils.

Refinements

21-percent-thick airfoil.- As previously discussed, the 21-percent

airfoil displayed significantly lower values of lift-drag ratio compared to
the thinner airfoils of the family because of turbulent boundary-layer sepa-
ration at typical climb lift coefficients. Therefore, this thick airfoil has
been reshaped to substantially decrease the upper-surface adverse pressure
gradient and reduce the amount of separation on the airfoil. The changes in
airfoil contour and pressure distribution are illustrated in figure 5. A
theoretical analysis code with improved turbulent boundary-layer separation
predictions (ref. 8) was used for the redesign of the airfoil. Note that the
start of the upper-surface pressure recovery was moved forward about 0.30c for
the modified airfoil. At a lift coefficient of 0.40 the theory indicates a
decrease in the extent of upper-surface separation of about 0.05c for the
modified airfoil. Comparison of calculated and experimental pressure data
indicate good agreement between experiment and theory for the modified airfoil.
The experimental results were obtained in the Langley low-turbulence pressure
tunneI.

Figure 6 compares lift-drag-ratio performance for the two airfoils for

Reynolds numbers from 2 x ]06 to 9 × ]06 . At the design lift coefficient of
0.40 some improvement in lift-drag ratio is shown for the modified airfoil at
a Reynolds number of 2 x ]06 even though there was no serious problem at this
lift coefficient. However, at a typical climb lift coefficient of ].0 large
increases in lift-drag ratio are shown at all Reynolds numbers for the refined
airfoil. The wind-tunnel results also indicated that the pitching-moment coef-
ficient at design lift was reduced for the modified airfoil.

]7-percent-thick airfoil.- Based on the significant increase in lift-

drag ratio obtained for the redesigned 2]-percent airfoil at typical climb
lift coefficients, a redesign of the ]7-percent airfoil was initiated. The
objective of the redesign was twofold; to reduce thepitching-moment coeffi-
cient by increasing the forward loading and increase the climb lift-drag ratio
by decreasing the aft upper-surface pressure gradient. The changes in airfoil
contour and pressure distribution are illustrated in figure 7. A reduction in
pitching-moment coefficient of about 28 percent is indicated by the theoretical
calculations. Note that prior to the start of the aft upper-surface pressure
recovery for the modified airfoil a flat pressure distribution or reduced pres-
sure gradient region extends for about 0.20c. This reduced pressure gradient
region with the "corner" located at x/c = 0.60 is considered to be an impor-
tant feature of the airfoil design. Research reported in reference 9 for a
modified 13-percent airfoil clearly indicated that this reduced pressure gra-
dient region retards the rapid forward movement of upper-surface separation
at the onset of stall and promotes docile stall behavior for airfoils which
stall from the trailing edge. The chordwise location of the corner is deter-
mined by the aft pressure gradient which must be gradual enough to avoid sepa-
ration at climb lift coefficients (c_ = ].0). Thus, the chordwise location of
the corner is dependent on airfoil thickness ratio and design lift coefficient.
The chordwise extent of the reduced pressure gradient region must be determined
from experimental tests, since we are concerned with stall behavior. The theo-
retical separation points and pressure distributions for both ]7-percent air-
foils are shown in figure 8 at a climb lift coefficient of ] .0. A reduction in
the extent of separation of about 0.05c is indicated for the modified airfoil.
Based on these theoretical predictions some improvement in lift-drag ratio at
cz = 1.0 would also be expected.

MEDIUM-SPEED AIRFOILS

Development

The design objective of the medium-speed airfoils was to increase the

cruise Mach number of the low-speed airfoils but retain the good high-lift,
low-speed characteristics. Such new airfoils are intended to fill the gap
between the low-speed airfoils and supercritical airfoils for application on
light executive-type aircraft. Two medium-speed airfoils having thickness-
chord ratios of 13 and 17 percent have been developed. The airfoils were
designed for a lift coefficient of 0.30 and a Reynolds number of 14 x 106 ,
and the design Mach numbers for the 13 and 17 percent airfoils were 0.72
and 0.68, respectively. The ]3-percent medium-speed airfoil was obtained by
reshaping the 13-percent low-speed airfoil as indicated in figure 9. The
calculated pressure distribution shows that increasing the Mach number to 0.72
for the low-speed airfoil results in a region of high induced velocities near
the midchord on the upper surface of the airfoil. Further increases in Mach
number or lift coefficient would result in a shock wave developing on the air-
foil. The airfoil has been reshaped to decrease the induced velocities near
the midchord and increase the induced velocities in the forward region of the
airfoil upper surface. The design criteria employed consisted of combining
the best features of low-speed and supercritical airfoil technology for this

application.

The design pressure distributions for both medium-speed airfoils are

shown in figure 10. Note that the start of the aft upper-surface pressure
recovery is located at about 0.50c for the ]7-percent airfoil, compared with
about 0.60c for the ]3-percent airfoil. This is required in order to keep
the aft pressure gradient gradual enough to avoid separation for the thicker
airfoil. In order to retain good high-lift, low-speed characteristics for
the new airfoils, the camber distribution was kept similar but not identical
to the low-speed airfoil family.

Section Data

Low-speed section characteristics for the medium-speed airfoils are

presented in figures 11 and 12 for a Reynolds number of 4 x 106 . Comparison
of the section data for the ]3-percent low- and medium-speed airfoils (fig. 11)
show that the stall characteristics for both airfoils are similar and that

Dnly a small decrease in CZ,ma x occurred for the medium-speed airfoil.

Also, the pitching-moment coefficient has been decreased through the lift-
coefficient range for the medium-speed airfoil. The drag polars for both
airfoils are essentially the same. A similar comparison for the ]7-percent
low- and medium-speed airfoils (fig. 12) show no decrease in CZ,ma x and a
decrease in drag coefficient at all lift coefficients for the medium-speed
airfoil. Thus, the overall performance of the ]7-percent medium-speed air-
foil exceeds that for the earlier 17-percent low-speed airfoil. The small
decrease in drag coefficient for the medium-speed airfoil at low lift coef-
ficients is associated with the reduced aft upper-surface pressure gradient
(fig. 13) and resulting boundary-layer development. The large decrease in
drag coefficient at the higher lift coefficients for the medium-speed air-
foil is a result of improved ability to design for and achieve less sepa-
ration on the airfoil, as illustrated in figure 14 for a lift coefficient
of 1.6. Turbulent trailing-edge separation is indicated by a region of
nearly constant pressure upstream of the airfoil trailing edge.
 The scale effects on maximum lift coefficient for the medium-speed air-
foils for Reynolds numbers from about 2 x 106 to 9 x 106 are shown in fig-
ure 15. Increases in Reynolds number have a favorable effect on maximum lift
coefficient for both airfoils. Application of roughness resulted in only a
small decrease in CZ,max for both the 13- and 17-percent airfoils. Com-
parison of figures 3 and 15 for the ]7-percent low- and medium-speed airfoils
illustrate two interesting features. The irregular variation of CZ,max with
Reynolds number at the lower Reynolds numbers and the sensitivity of CZ,ma x
to roughness for the low-speed airfoil have been improved for the newer medium-
speed airfoil design.

The effects of Mach number on maximum lift coefficient for the 13- and
17-percent low- and medium-speed airfoils are summarized in figure 16. The
medium-speed airfoils generally show smaller decreases in CZ,max at the
higher Mach number compared to the low-speed airfoils.

Theoretical calculated drag-rise characteristics (ref. 8) for the medium-

speed airfoils at design conditions are shown in figure 17. Both airfoils
indicate essentially no drag creep up to the design Mach numbers. The estimated
drag-rise Mach numbers are about 0.76 and 0.72 for the 13- and 17-percent air-
foils, respectively, which provide a margin of about 0.04 in Mach number above
the design Mach numbers.

APPLICATIONS

Recently a number of United States general aviation manufacturers have

announced the use of the NASA-developed low-speed airfoils on new aircraft;
these are summarized as follows:

Aircraft Airfoil

Hustler (American Jet) Modified LS (1)-041 3, formerly GA(W)-2

Model 77 (Beech) LS(I)-0417, formerly GA(W)-I
Model 303 (Cessna) LS (I)-0413
PA-38 Tomahawk (Piper) LS (I)-0417

CONCLUDING REMARKS

An initial family of low-speed airfoils for general aviation applications

has been investigated. These airfoils provide significant improvements in maxi-
mum lift coefficients compared to the older NACA airfoils. Refinements to the
17-percent low-speed airfoil to reduce the pitching-moment coefficient and to
the 21-percent low-speed airfoil to increase the lift-drag ratio have been com-
pleted. Two medium-speed airfoils with thickness ratios of 13 and 17 percent
have been developed. These new airfoils provide increased cruise Mach numbers

6
over the low-speed airfoils, while retaining good high-lift, low-speed charac-
teristics. The NASA-developed low-speed airfoils are now being used by several
United States general aviation manufacturers.

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, VA 23665
February 8, 1979

REFERENCES

1. Stevens, W. A.; Goradia, S. H.; and Braden, J. A.: Mathematical Model for
Two-Dimensional Multi-Component Airfoils in Viscous Flow. NASA CR-1843,
]97].

2. McGhee, Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Low-Speed Aerodynamic Charac-
teristics of a ]7-Percent-Thick Airfoil Section Designed for General
Aviation Applications. NASA TN D-7428, 1973.

3. McGhee, Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Effects of Thickness on the
Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Initial Low-Speed Family of Airfoils
for General Aviation Applications. NASA TM X-72843, ]976.

4. Wentz, W. H., Jr.; and Seetharam, H. C.: Development of a Fowler Flap Sys-
tem for a High Performance General Aviation Airfoil. NASA CR-2443, 1974.

5. Wentz, W. H., Jr.: Effectiveness of Spoilers on the GA(W)-] Airfoil With

a High Performance Fowler Flap. NASA CR-2538, ]975.

6. Wentz, W. H., Jr.: Wind Tunnel Tests of the GA(W)-2 Airfoil With 20% Aile-
ron, 25% Slotted Flap, 30% Fowler Flap, and 10% Slot-Lip Spoiler.
NASA CR-145139, ]977.

7. Gregorek, G. M.; Hoffmann, M. J.; Weislogel, G. S.; and Vogel, G. M.:

In-Flight Measurements of the GA(W)-2 Aerodynamic Characteristics.
[Preprint] 77046], Soc. Automot. Eng., Mar.-Apr. ]977.

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

9. McGhee, Robert J.; and Beasley, William D.: Low-Speed Wind-Tunnel Results
for a Modified ]3-Percent-Thick Airfoil. NASA TM X-74018, 1977.
 LOW SPEED MEDIUM SPEED

LS(I)-0409

GA(W)-2 _-----'_ _-- _-----M - 0.72 _

LS(I)-0413 MS11)-0313

GA(W)-I --0417 Moo _---_M = 0.68 _-

LS(I)-0417 REDUCED MOMENT MS(I)-0317

LS(I)-0421 INCREASED LIFT/DRAG

Figure i.- Section shapes and airfoil designations for NASA low- and medium-
speed airfoils.

2.4 --

2.0

C[,max
1.6

1.2

120 -

[/d 80 - _ c[= 1.0

40-
c[= 0.40

0 _ I 1 I I I
.08 .12 .16 .20 .24
tlc

Figure 2.- Effect of airfoil thickness ratio on CZ,ma x and lift-drag-ratio

performance for low-speed airfoils. M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106;

(x/c) T = 0.075.

8
 O LS(I)-0409
2.4 -- [] LS(I)-0413
LS(I)-0417
A LS(I)-0421
2,2 --

FLAGGED SYM. ROUGHNESS ON

2.0-

C[,max 1.8 -

1.6-

1.4-

1.2 I I I i I
2 3 4 5 10 x 106
R

Figure 3.- Effect of Reynolds number on CZ,ma x for low-speed airfoils.

M = 0.15.

2.4 --
O NASA LS(1)-SERIES(c/.,d=
0.40)
[] NACA 230-SERIES
NACA 44-SERIES
2. 2 --
A NACA 24-SERIES
I_ NACA 65-SERIES (C(,d=0.40)

2.0-

C[,max 1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2- I I 1 I I I I
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28
t/C

of NASA low-speed airfoils and NACA airfoils.

Figure 4 •- Comparison of
cz ,max
M = 0.15; R = 6 x 106; airfoils smooth.

9
 -i- - --0--
. Z'-LS(I)-0421
MOD

CALCULATED
(x/C)sE P
--0.94
-- 0.99
C 0 EXPERIMENT
P B

I I I I I
I- 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 I.o
x/c

Figure 5.- Pressure distributions for 21-percent low-speed airfoils.

M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106; cz = 0.40.

-- LS(I)-0421
--- LS(I)-0421
MOD
120 F -
f

Ud l

40 I-_#__ 4 × 106
OV I I I I I I

120I-

80 '-'-

Ud

x 106 6
I I I I I
0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.O
c{ c{

Figure 6.- Comparison of experimental lift-drag-ratio performance for 21-

percent low-speed airfoils. M = 0.15; (x/c) T = 0.075.

10
 -I / F-.`. "_ <,-- LS(1)-0417 MOD

/ \ __$111-0417
= 28 PERCENT

C
-_m

_ I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
x/c

Figure 7.- Calculated pressure distributions for 17-percent low-speed airfoils.

M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106; c z = 0.40.

-2-
(xlc)sE
P
#--
O.92
O.97
_L" LS(I)-0417MOD S(D-0417 - --''_

C
P

I I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
x/c

Figure 8.- Calculated pressure distributions and separation points for 17-
percent low-speed airfoils. M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106; cZ = 1.0.

II
 MS(I)-0313

C 0-
P

_ I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
x/c

Figure 9.- Calculated pressure distributions for 13-percent low- and medium-
speed airfoils. M = 0.72; R = 14 x 106; c Z = 0.30.

C
P
M =0.72 M=O._

MS(I)-0313 MS( I)-03

II

Figure I0.- Calculated design pressure distributions for 13- and 17-percent
medium-speed airfoils. R = 14 × 106; cz = 0.30.

12
 0 LS(I)-0413
[] MS(1)-0313

1.6
2.0 1

1.2 ( i

c_ .8 ((
.4

0
)

I Fl I I I
8 I
0 -.1 -.2 -8 0 8 16 24 0 .01 .02 .03 .04
cm a, deg cd

Figure ii.- Section data for 13-percent low- and medium-speed airfoils.
M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106; (x/c)T = 0.075.

0 LS(1)-0417
[] MS(I)-0317
2.0

1.6

1.2 C
[
?
(
cl .8 ( [
I

i E
[
(

-.4

-,8 I I I I I I
0 -.I -.2 -8 0 8 16 24 0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05
c a, deg Cd
m

Figure 12.- Section data for 17-percent low- and medium-speed airfoils.
M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106; (x/c)T = 0.075.

13
 -I
/'",,,jr
MS(I)-0317
,,,,,,

.... _ _ _ _._17

Cp 0

- I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
xlc

Figure 13.- Calculated pressure distributions for 17-percent low- and medium-
speed airfoils• M = 0.15; R = 4 x 106; cz = 0.40.

-5-
O

-4-
% 0 LS(I)-0417
F1 MS(I)-0317
0
D
-3 --
0

C -2 --
o 1_
P O
O

[]
0-
0 0 0 [] 0 o

I
I I I I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
XIc

Figure 14.- Experimental pressure distributions for 17-percent low- and medium-
speed airfoils. M = 0.15; R = 4 x 10 6. cz = 1.6

14
 2.4--

0 MS(I)-0313
[] MS(1)-0317
2.2-
FLAGGED SYM. ROUGHNESS ON

2.0

C_,max 1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

1.2 I I I I I
2 3 4 5 10 x 106
R

Figure 15.- Effect of Reynolds number on Cl,ma x for medium-speed airfoils.

M = 0.15.

2.2 --

0 C')
2.0
O LS(1)-04_
C[,max
[] LS(I)-0417 N
1.8
OA MS(I)-0317
MS(I)-0313 tic = 0.13 '_

1.6

2.2

2.0 --

C[,max

1.8-
t/c = O.17

1.6 I I I I
0 .1 .2 .3 .4
M

Figure 16.- Effect of Mach number on CZ,ma x for low- and medium-speed

airfoils. R = 6 x 106; (x/c)T = 0.075.

15
 •020 -

•016

• 012 - MS(I)-0317 /I

cd
-- -- _ "" S(I)-0313
• 008 -

• 004 -

0 - I I I I I I
.60 .64 .68 .72 .76 .80
M

Figure 17.- Calculated drag-rise characteristics for medium-speed airfoils.

R = 14 x 106; c Z = 0.30.

16