NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE -

FOR AERONAUTICS

TECHNICAL NOTE .

No: 1293

.-

TESTS OF THE NACA f341A212 -Fo~ SECTION ~TH .

A SLAT, A DOUBLE SLOTTED FLAP, AND BOC!NDARY-

LAYER CONTROL BY SUCTION

~ John H. Quinn, Jr.

Langley Memorial AeronauticalLalmratory

~~gley Field,Va.

Washington -.\

May 1947

f
 .-’% .* .
.—, *

-. NATIONALAIfVISORY
COMMSTPEEFOR AEROIWTICS
\
.
-.
TECHNICALNom No. 1293
-.
msm or m NACA 641A212 mwo~ sic910N mm

A SLAT, A D)UBLESLOTIZDFLAP, AND BOUNMRY-

LAYER CONTROLBY SUCTION ~

By John H. Quinn,Jr.

An investigation
has been conductedof the I?ACA641A212
airfoilseetion equippedwith a leading-edgeslat,a double
slottedflap, and a boundary-layer-controlsuctionslot at
O .fi.o
chord t& determinethe maxiMuMlift coefficientsattainable
with thesehigh-liftdevicesalone and in conjunctionwith one “d
another. The testswere made over a range of Reynoldsnumber f
= ‘“
from 1.0 x 106 ‘to 6.0 x 106 and includedsurveysh fine/the
opti~ configuratiamfor the slat and flap. The effeclx!of .
boundary-layersuctionon the maximIMlift coefficientwere
determinedfor a range of flow coefficient CQ from O b O ● 03>
where the flow coefficientie definedas the ratio of the quantity
rate of air flow throughthe suctionslot to the productof the
wing area and free=streamvelocity. .
In gene”rd.,
the meximm sectionMft coefficient Czmx
incr&asedand the minimumsectiondrag coefficientdecreasedwith
ticreasingflow coefficients.Thesechanges were acco-mied.
by small Increasesin the angle of attackfor maximumlif.tand
by smalldecreasesin the angle of attack.for zero lift. The
resultsof the testsare summarizedin the followingtablefor a
Reynoldsnum”erof 3.o x 106:
r ,
=zmx”
Configuration Ac~mx
CQ = o’ CQ = 0.03
Plain airfoil 1.49 1 .?~ 0.28
Airfoiland s~t 1.85 2,46 .60
AtrPoiland flap 2.82 3,12 ●3O
Airfoil,slat,and flap 3●30 3.85 ●56
 . . .
*.
2 m m NO* M!93 .“

For all co?ibinatlons

of hi@-llft devicestested,the decrease .-
in maximum W* inefficient reducedby leading-ed$e‘roughnessat
a Reynoldsmmber of 6 x 18 and a flaw coefficientof Oz@5
was less than that oausedby roughnessoh the correspoxxling
configumtlonwithoutboun&&y-layewcontrol.

INTRODUWION

Previousinvestigations (refere%lms1 axki2) have been Canduotad

using boundary-layer controlby Emotioncm relatively thiok
NACA 6-seriesairfoilseotionsin an effortto bring about increases
In the maximumMf t coefftcient. Substantialinoremgntsin mazimum
lift appearedobtainableby the use of boq-lqyer suotlon,
althoughthe ultim3ta*u3 of the maximmnlift coefficientappeared
to be ltited by sepamtion from the airfoilleadinge*. Inclx3astng
the miber fbom zero to an amxant that *w3 a designMft owfficient
lift cmtt icientbut did not change
of O.k Imreased the IIELX3111WB
the na’tureof ‘theEYb!%ll
. It seemedreasonablethat if further
inox%msesin the maximxnlift were to be obtainedwith boundazy-
~er controlon these 6-seriesairfoilsections,eozm mxns of
preventingleadlng-e&p separationmzst * Incorporated.The
leading~d@ slat has becomerecognizedas one of the most effective
devioesfor dela@ng leading-ed~ separation.

Tests have been conducted,therefore., of the NACA 6klA21.2

airfoilsectionwith a leading-edgeslat,a double slottedflap,
ad a singleboundary-layer suotionslot at O.~ chord to deta-
the increaseIn maximumlift coefficientattainablewith this
ccmtd.nationof high-liftdevices. The optimumslat and flap
oonf@uratbns were @eterdned, and the &aractirieticsof the
airfoilwere masured for the high-liftdevicesoperatingindividually
sad in conjuncion with one ther over a Reynolds numberran@
from 1.5 x 10t *O 6.0 X 10 7? in the Lan@ey two-dinpnslonal
low-turbulence tunnel.and the Langley two-dimmslonal. low-tur’bulenoe
pressuretunnel. The suotionslot was plaoedat O.@ chord inasmuch
as this loos’tionwas believedto be near the optimumlocation
in con~unctlonwith the sUat,becauseths slat couldbe relied
upon to delw separationnear the leadingedge. A suction-slot
boation closerto the I.esiling ed~ M@ have a mre favorable
effecton the maximumUf t of the airfoilwithoutthe s tj th93A?OX’O,
a few testswere ?aa& at a Reyno2dsnumber of 1.0 X 10P in order
to find the effect,of suotkn-slot looationon the oharaoteristics
of the plain alzYoi2.

IT
 m m No. 3293

SYMBOLS

Cz secticmlift coefficient

cd seotiontiag coefficient
b airfoilspin,feet
c airfoilchord,feet

V. free-streamveloci~, feet p9r second

Q ;, quantityof air removedthroughsuotionslot, cubic feet

per second

CQ

Ho
flow coefficient
()
v=
free-streemtotal w==-,
Q

pounds per squarefoot

s
.
Hb total pressureinsi* wing duct, PO@is Fr sOuarefoot

-. % free-streamdynamicpreasum, poundsper squarefoot

.— ..—

0
~-H~
% pressurecoefficient
%)
x horizontaldistxmcep&allsl to chord lhe, feet

Y vertioaldistenoeperpendicularto chor~”line, feet

E =@.ar with respect to chord llne, de@ees
*f lJ3cti.on
a. sectionangle of at’tck,iiegrees

R Reynolh nmiber
()”
‘$

v kinemat?ccoefficientof ~iscostty

Slibscripts
:

s slat

v Vezle

f flap
4 NACA TN NO ● I-293
..

MODELS
.-

The 2-foot-chordmodel~used in the presentinvestigation

were built to the ordinatesof the NACA 6hlA21.2airfoilsectionas
presentedin table 1. The A in the airfoildesignationindicates
that the cusp associatedwith the regular6-seriesairfoilhas been
removed. Modelsbuilt of leminatedmshogemywere used for the
preliminarytestsat the low Remolds numberand a cast-aluminum
model was used to extendthe tests to the higherReynol& numbers.
After the tests of the plain airfoilat low Reynoldsnumberswere
finished,the leadingand trailingedges of-the woodenmodel with
the 0.40c suctionslot were modifiedto acconmmdatethe leading-
edge slat and the double slottedflap. The cast-alumiaum model,
that also had the suctionslot locatedat O.@c, was fittedwith
interchangeable leadingedges to permittests of the airfoileither
with the trus leadingedge or with the leading-edgeslat. Ordinates
for the airfoilleadinged& modifiedto acco?mnodate the slat and
for the slat,vane, and flap are yreeented.intables2, 3, k,
and 5, respectively.A photographof the aluminummodelwith the
boundary-layer suctionslot,leading-ed@ slat,and doubleslotted r“
flap is presentedas fi@zre1, and sketchesof the model are
presentedas figure2.
.-

The testswere conductedin the Iangl.ey two-dimmsionallow-

turlmlencetunnel.(designated hereinas LTT) and in the Langley
two-dimensional low-turbulencepreesuretunnel (designated herein
as TDT). These tunnelshave test sections3 feet wide and
7* feet high ~dwere designedto test models completelyspanning
the 3-footjet in two-dimensional flow at a turbulencelevel
approximatelythe same as that of free air. The LTT operatesat
atmosphericpressure. In We TM’ the air may be compressedto a
maximumvalue of 150 poundeper squareinch absolute;therefore
tastsmay be conductedat high Reynoldsnumbersand low Mach numbers.
In both these tunnelsliftsare obtainedby integratingthe pressure
reactionsalong the floor and ceilingof the tunneltest section,
and drags are obtainedby the wake-surveymethod. The tunnelsand
methodsof measurement are completely describedin reference3.

The air removedfrom the boundarylayerwas led throughthe

suctionslot into a duct insidethe wing. The quantityof air -.
removedwas determinedby means of a Ventmi tube locatedin the
pipe line letweenthe airfoiland the blower used to force air flow
*.
 throu* the system. The totalpressureinsidethe wing duct was
obtainedby a flush pressureorifioein the wing dud on the end
oppositethat at which the air was rezwved. For the no-flowcondttion,
referredto as a flm mef ficiient of zero, the suctionslot w
filledand faired over with plasteklne.

Tests were made at a Reyno3ds number of 1.0 X 106 in the LTT

tO -f hd. the effect of Suctj.on.slot
lo~tion on me c~ac~r~stios
of’the plain airfoil. The wooden mcdd. with We suotionslot at
0.400was then IM3difi.edto permit surveysto find the optimum
locationsof the slat, ,- flap at Remolds numbersof
2.0 x 106 or 1.5 x 10Y . In maktng the slat surveysno intermediate
supportswere providedbetweenthe wi~ and slat, and fittingson
Q2e ends of the slat for changingthe slat posttionand deflection
were reoeme~ in the *1 end plates so that no disturbancesin
the flow were createiinear tie airfdl leadingedge.

Once the optimumconfigurations of the flap and slatwere

dekrmined, the testswere extendedto Reynoldsnmbers of
3.0 x ~06 ancI 6.o x 106 in the TDT with the alumimunmodel.
●
. For these tests the slat was attachedto the airfoilby four
struts,ons at each end of the mdel and one 8 inchesfrom each
.. side of the model centerMne. &O sma~ stmltswere dSO provided
. to %race the vane to the &l.ap. . .
. ..Sore testswere conductedwith O .Oll,
-inoh ce@orundum @sins
appliedto”the airfoilleadingedge to find the effect~ of~16a?lIng-
edge roughness on the aerodynamiccharacteristics of the airfoil.
The grainswere appliedwith shellacover an area of the airfoil
surfaoehavinga surfaoe lengthof O.(Mc from the leadingedge on
both surfacesso that 5 to 10 percentof this area was covered.
For roughnessappliedin the slat-exlxnxled conditiofithe entire
slat surfacewas roughen,eain additionto the z%ughnesson the
airfoilleadin~edge. .

RXSUL!E3
AND DISCUSSION
Effect of Suotion-SlotLcmationon

of Plain Airfoil
Characteristics
.
The effeet of motion-slot looationon the veriat%onof tie
a- mexhum lift coefficientand the mininnmtiag &x#ficient with
tM flow coefficientare presentedin fi e 3 for the plain”airfoil
T . It was found that
sectionat a Reynoldsnlmiberof 1.0 x 10
-u
6 NACA TN No. 1293
..

both the maximum lift coefficient and the minimumdrag coefficient

increasedas the suctionslotwas moved towardtie leadinged~t .
,
At a flow coefficientof 0,035, “the modelwith the suctionsl=t
at 0.20c gave a maximum llft coefficientof 1.72, or ayproximatd.y
0.16 greater than that for the slot at O.~c. Inasmuchas tuft
studiesindicatedthat the air flow first separatedat approxtitily
O.lc, it seemslogicalthat the suctionslot at 0.20cwould
producea greatereffecton the maximumlift than the suction slot
at O.kOcwould becausethe slot at 0.20c would be closerto the point
where separationfirst occurred. In addition,for a givenflow
rate, a Mrger part of the boundarylayer is removedwhen ths
suctionslot is closerto the leadinged~e where the boundarylayer
iS thin. This fact would also tend to bring about largerincreases
in the maxim Ml% as the suctionslotwas moved forward. !l!he
increasein minimumdrag coefficientwith forwardmovemnt of the
suctionslot is attributedto the increasingdistancebehind the
slot over which the boundarylayer can develop.

PlainAirfoilCharacteristics
●
✎

Lift ~d hag characteristics of the MCA 6hlA212airfoil

sectionwith the boundary-layer suctionslot at 0.40c operating
and with the slot sealedand f ired are presentedin figurek at ✎✍

a Reynoldsnumberof 1.0 x 108 for the model in both the smooth

and rough conditions,The maximumlift coefficients increased
steadilyas the flow coefficientincreased. This increasewae
accompaniedby small increasesIn the angle of attackfor maximum
lift and smalldecrea%”sin the angle of zero lif~ The deoreasein
angle of zero lift is attributedto thinnerboundarylayersover
the rear part of the airfoilwhich producean effect similarto
that of increasedairfoilcamber. Increasingthe flow coefficient
fromO to 0.03 inc’%eased the uaximuqlift coefficientfrom 1.09
to 1.X for the smoothairfoiland from 1.07 to 1.44 for the rough
airfoil. The maximumlift coefficientwas found from tuft observations
to be limitedby stallingat the leadingedge. For the smooth
oonditionat a flow coefficientof 0.02 ad at an angle of attack
of 10°, a smallregionof sepsdalmdflow was observedat approximately
O.lc althoughfrom the suctionslot to the trailingedge the flow
adheredto the surface, At an angle of attackof XL”, intermittent
separationoccurredbetweenthe leadingedge and the suctionslot
with unsteadyflew from the slot to the trailingedge. At 12°,
the angle of attackfor max@m lift, the flow was completely
separatedbetweenthe leu”edge and approximatelyO.lc,with
WUI%9ELM!flow to the trailingedge. Observationsof the wing with
leading-edgeroughness showedthat the stallprogressionwas
similarto that for the wing in the smoothcondition.
 .

. NACATN No. 2293 7

.

. The effeet of bound~ -layercontrolon the drag characteristics

was to decreasethe minimumprofile-dragcoefficientas the flow
coefficientincreasedand to maintainlow drag coefficientsto rather
large lift coefficients.

The lift and drag characteristics

for the airfoilwith boundary-
layer controlat Reynoldsnumbersof both 3.0 x 10~ and 6.0 x 1o$
are presentedin figmes 5 end 6, respectively.The effectsof
boundary-layercontrolare similarto thosedescribedfor a Reynolds
number of 1.0 x 10~. !l!fie
pfiessurs
coefficient Cp is presented
as a functionof sectionangle of attack. The drag coefficient
equivalentto the p~r reqtiredto dischar~ the air removedfrom
the %oundaryl.qverat free-streamtotal pressuremay be obtained
as the productof the prssmme coefficientand the flow coetficient
at any lift coefficient.This drag coefficientadded.to the
correspondin@profil.e-@ag coeff$cientis the total drag of the
airfoilwith boundary-layercontrol. The horsepowerrequiredfor
boundary-layercontrolmy be calculatedfor any @van condition
from the emre ssion

Q(% - 5)) —
Horsepower=
. m. .

The valuesfor Q and (~ ?.Hb) may be obtainedby multiplying

~Q and by the applicablevalues of wing azea, airplane
Cp
vplocity,and dynamicpressure.
.. .
The effectsof Reynoldsnumberand leading-edgeroughnesson
the va-iationof maximumlift coefficientand minimumtig coefficient
with flow c~fficient for the plain airfoilare presentedin figure 7.
For the scmothcondition,large i.ncreasea in maximumlift throughout
the range of flow coefficientwere obtainedby increasingthe Reynolds
nuniberfrom 1.0 x 106 to 3.0 x 106. TIIiSfavorablescale effect
my be due b improvedflaw conditionsabout the airfoilleading
edge at the higherReynoldsnumber. Almost no furtherincreasein
maximum ift was obtainedby increasingthe Reynoldsnumberfrom
3.0 x 10t IX) 6.0 X 106, The greatestmaximumlift coefficient
measuredwas 1.77 at a flow coefficientof 0.03 and a Reynolds
nwiber of 3.o x 106. This lift coefficientwas 0.28 @ate% than
that of the airfoilwith no boundary-layercontrolat the sam
Reynoldsrumiber.Leading-edgeroughnesshad almostno effecton
the maximum&t coefficientof the airfoilat a Reynoldsnumber
.- of 1.0 x lo~, hut at a Reynoldsnumler of 6.0 x 1.06 it Ucreased
the maximumlift coefficientfrom 1.50 to 1.13 at a flow coefficient
of O end from 1.75 to 1.44 at a flow coefficientof 0.025. For the
.. rou@ conditionlittlescale effect as found betweenReynolds
numbersof 1.0 x 106 and 6.0 x 108 .
 8 NACA TN No. 1293 .
.

An appreciabledecreaseIn the mintiumdrag coeff’iotent was .

obtained. by increasingthe Reynoldsmuibgrfrom 1.0 x 106 to
3.0 X 106, and littlef ther decreasewas o%tahed between
3.ox1o6 and 6.OX1O Y . Leading-edgerou@ness producedle.r@
increasesin the minimumdrag coefficientwithoutboundary-laer
controlat Reynoldsnumbersof both 1.c)x 106 and 6.o x 10t ,
At a flow coefficientof 0.03 and a Reynoldsnumber of 1.0 x 106,
the drag coefficients were approximatelyequal for the smoothand
the rough conditions.At aReynol~s number of 6,0 x 106, the
minimumdrag coefficientwas greaterfor the rough conditionthan
for the smoothconditionfor all flow ooefflcienteinvestigated.

Effeot of Irregularities
Caused. WJ Slat Installation
A slat havinga roundedleadlngedge would produoesomwhat
greatarmaximumlift incrementsthan one with the sharpedge necessary
to make the slat fair smoothlyinto the airfoilcontour. (See
reference4.) A round leading-edgeslat was accordinglyselected
for presenttestsand the effect on the lift E@ drag characteristics ✎
●

of the discontinuity at the lower surfaceof the airfoilwith e

slat retractedwas evaluatedat a Reynoldsnumber of 1.5 X 10P .
TM results are presentedfinfigure 8. TIM sole effectof–the
discontinuityon the lift characteristics compriseda reductionin
msximvmlift coefficientfrgm 1.21 to 1.16. Som&whatlargereffects
were found on the variationof drag coefficientwith lift coefficient.
The discontinuity generallyproducedratherlargedrag incrementsat
low lift coefficients by increasl.ng the drag coefficient-fromO.0060
to 0.0105at a lift coefficientof 0.2. As the lift coefficient .-
increased,however,the effectof the discontinuity became smaller
and at a lift coefficientof 0.6 It increasedthe drag coefficient
by only 0.0015. Inprac,tice,therefore,SOM provisi6nshouldbe
made to fair over the discontinuity.

Characteristics
of Airfoilwith Slat Extended
The resultsof the mzrveysto find the optimumpositionof the
‘ leading-edgeslat with res~?ctto the airfoilleadinge are
presentedin figure 9 for a Reynoldsnunherof 1.0 X 10 Y and 8
flow coefficientof approxiztmbly 0.03. LittledifferenceIn the
meximumlift coefficientattainablewith the slat and bouMary-
layer controlwas foundwithin the range of slat deflection
between18.20and 28.30. A slat defl~itionof 22.0° gave a value
of the maximumlift coefficientof approximately2.-78as compared
with valuesof 2.70 and 2.74 for the 18.20and 28.3° deflections
res~ctively. The maximum-liftcontourspresentedin figure9(b~
show that maximw lift coefficientincreasedrather slowlyas the
 . —
. 9

slat was moved forward of the airfoil leading edge untj.1 a m,ximum
v&lUewas reaohed,at which point the lift droppedrapidlyfor
furtherforwardmovemsntof the slat. As the slat angle was increasea
the optimumlocationof the slat with respectto the airfoilch.an~d
in such a way that the Mailing e@ of the slat moved do%? toward
the airfoilchord.

Observationsof the stallprogressionby mans of tufts inaicated

that the stallingcwacteristfcs of the airfoilvaried.considerably
with slat deflection. At a cteflecticmof 18.20, the maximumlif%
C~ffiGient was l~ted ‘Dys~ling on the slat followedby SeparatiCUl
from tie airfoilleadinged~. At a slat deflectionof 22.00, the
slat and airfoilappeeredto stall simultaneously, althoughthe flow
on the slat at high angles of attackwas tire unsteadythan that on
the wing. At a deflectionof 23.3°, tie slat was not observedto
stall,%ut separationagain occurredat the airfoilleadingedge.

Because the slat at a deflectionof 22.00 and a locationof

.
Xs = 0.046C,Ys = O .037cgave the highestvalue of the maxim.mlift
. coefficient,the lift and drag,characteristics of this configuration
were determinedat a Reynoldsnuriberof 1.5 x 106 and the results
. are pressn%d in figure10. The msximumlift coefficiemtwithout
. boundery-layercontrolwas only 0.93,“ok lss’ti than ‘that of the plain
airfoilsection. At a flow coefficientof 0.01, two entirely
differentlift curvescouldbe obtained,dependingupon the testing
sequenceused in obtainingthe data. A hysteresiseffeet on Mft
due to changein the floti” coefficientexistedsuch that if the flow
Coefficient was raised trom O to O.G1 in stsrtfngtk lift c~e,
the maximumlift coefficientwas 1.15 emd occurredat an an@e of
attack of 13°. If tileflow coefficientwas first increasedto an
approximatevalua of 0.02 and then reducedto 0.01 beforeleginning
the cmve, a maximumlift coefficientof 2.57 was obbaineaat an
angle of attack of 26°. No such hysteresiswas found at a flow
coefficientof 0.02. The dra& characteristics in figure 10(b) show
that %eginningat a lift coefficientof 0,3, the drag coefficient
increasedrapidlywith the Mft coefficientup to a lift coefficient
of approximately1.3, at which point the hag coefficientdecreased
very rapidly. Between lift coefficientsof 0.3 and 1.3 the flow
betweenthe slat and the leadingedge was thoughtto be very poor
becauseof blanketingaction of the leading-edgeslat. At a lift
coefficientof 1.3 the flow probablybecm? smoothat the leading
edge and, therefore,broughtabout largereductionsin drag. The
inconsistencyof the lift resultsat a flow coefficientof 0.01
.- and the low maximumlift coefficientof the airfoilwithoutboundary-
layer controlprobablyresultfrom paor flow throughthe gap between
the slat and the leadingedge. Figure 9(b) shows that at a valm
. . of X8 = O.Ok& the slat was extremly close to the point where lift
decreasedrapidlywith forwardmovemmts of the slat. Because of this
10 NACA ~ No. 2.293
.

fact, @ the uncertainlift characteristics at low flow coefficients,

it was decidedto fix the slat closerto.the airfoilleadinged~ .
for furthertests. me d-at, thezwfore, was fixed at xs = 0.036c,
Ys = 0.0370 for a deflectionof 22.Oo. Resultsof tests of the slat
in lihispositionare yrese@ed in fig&e I.1for Reynoldsnumbers
of 1.5 x 106, 3.0 x 106, a 6.0 x 106. A comparisonof the .●

resultspresented. in figuren(a) and thosefor the slat farther

forwardin figure10(a) shows that moving the slat back towardthe
airfoilleadinged~ e~imi~ted the uncer~inties in the variation
of the lift coefficientwith the angle of attackat low flow
coefficients, Increasedthe maximumlift coefficientwithoutboundary-
layer controlfrom 0.93 to 1.6, and cau~”dslightdecreasesin the
maximumlift coefficientwith boundary;layer control. esultsof
testsat Remolds numbersof 3.0 x 10~ and 6.o x 102 for the
slat in its opti.mum positionare presentedIn figuresn(b) and 11(c)
for the model in the smoothconditionand in figuren(d) for the
model with leading-edgeroughnessat a Reynoldsnuaiberof 6“.0X 106.
w maximumltit coefficientsof 2.62, 2.46, and 2.26 were obtaine&
in the smoothcontitionat flow coefficientsof 0.030, 0.030,
and 0.024 at Reynolds numbersof 1,5 x106, 3.ox1o6, and .
6.o x 106, respective=. These data are summarizedin figure12 “ -
in which the effectof Reynoldsnumberon the varia~lonof the
meximumsectionlift coefficientwith the flow coefficientis .
presentedfor the airfoilwith the leadtng-edgeslat. Without
boundary-layer controlthe mximum lift coefficientwas found to
increaseas the Reynold8numberIncreased,althoughat flow coefficients
above0.01 the maximumlift coefficientwas found ta decreaseas the
Reynoldsnwiberincreased. Inasmuchas the opt@mm positionof the
leading-edgeslatwas determinedat a Reynoldsnumberof 1.5 X106,
it is likelythat the adverseeffectsof Remolds numberare due to -
changesin the natureof the flow that would alter the oytimum
slat position. For this reason,it would seem desirableto obtain
optimumslat yositlonsat Reynoldsnumbersas dose as ~ossitleto
thosecontemplatedunderflightconditions,althoughlimitationof
the test equipmentpreventedslat surveysat hi@er Reynoldsnumber
for the presentseriesof tests. At a Reynoldsnumberof 6.o x 10z
and at a flow coefficientof O, rou@nese reducedthe mximum lift ‘
,coefficie~t from 1.94 to 1.420 At a flow coefficientof 0.025,.
however,boundary-layer controlhad offsetthe rxlverse effect~of
roughnessand a maxfmwnlift coefficientof 2.27 was obtainedfor
the model%oth smoothand rough.

Characteristics
of AirfoilwitihDoubleSlottedFlap
. .
The resultsof “the%urveysta detezminethe optimumdouKle-
slotted-flapconfigurationare presentedin fi~ 13 for a Reynolds
nuniberof ,1.5X 106. These surveyswere made with the leading-edge . .
 . NACA TN No. =93 11
.

slat fixed in its o@dmum positionand at a flow coefficientof 0.02.

.
It was considereddesirableto determinethe optimumflap configurations
in conjunctionwith the leading-edgeslat inas~ch as pz%liminary
measurem?3ntsindicatidthat,withoutthe”slat,a largeregion of’
separatedflow near the leadingedge caused, the ma@mum lift coefficient
to be very insensitiveto variationsin the flap position. Little
differencein the maximumlift coefficientattainablewas found.for
the flap deflections.of k9.70 and ~5..Oo,as shown in figures13(a)
and 13(b),respectively.A maximumlift coefficientof approximately
3.8was obtainedfor a flap deflectionof 55.0°.“The-imxbm.mlift
coefficientwas found to be relativelyinsensitiveto horizontal
movementsof the flap with _~s_pectto we vane,hut was somswhat
more sensitiveta verticalmovemnts. With the fla~ fixedwfth ~
respectto the vane at.thebest locationsfound for a deflection
of 55.0°,tie vane and flap were moved as a unit to find the optimum
positto~r the flap as a whole with respectto the airfoilsection.
The mximumlift cont~urs.forthese surveysare shown in figure13(c).
It appearedthat littlefurtherincreasesin the niiimumlift could
be obtainedby moving the vane from ite griginelposition and that -.
. the maximumlift coefficientwas quite sensitiveto movementsof the
.
flap as a whole with respectto the wing. With the flap in tho
optimumposition,random pointswere checlmdto determinewhether
.
the additionof the flap he$eltared the optimumpositianof the
slat. The additionof the flap was found to producelitt18or —no
changein the optimumslat position. —
The lift characteristics for the airfoilwith the doub18
slottedflap in its optimumpositionand th slat retractedat
Reynoldsnumi%ers of 1.5 x 106, 3.OX1O P ; X“ 6.0XI06 are
presentedin figurelk. Figure 14(a) shows that Mttb ficreasein
the maximumlift coefficientwas obtainedwith %oundsry-layercontrol
at a Reynoldsnvmber of 1.5 x 106. The maximumlift coefficient
for a flow coefficientof O was 2.k8,anda flow coefficientof 0.02
broughtabout an increasein the m.ximwnlift coefficientof only 0.14,
which resultedin amximwa lift coefficientof 2.62. The relatively
low maximum lift for a flow coefficientof O and the poor effectiveness
of boundary-layercontrolare attribu%d to the lsxgebubble of
laminarseparationoccurringclose to the airfoilleadinGedge. At
Reynoldsnumbersof 3.o x 106 and 6.o x 10~, howevw, as sh~
in figures14(b) and 14(c),considerablyhi~er mximm lift coefficients
and greaterincreaseswith boundary-layercontrolwere obtiined. At
a Reynoldsnumber of 3.0 x 106 and a flow coefficientof 0.03, a
meximumlift coefficientof 3.16 was obtained,as cmpared with a
value of 2.82 with no sugtion. The $mprovedcharacteristics of the
.- airfoil at the higherReynoldsnunibers are attributedto a decrease
in the size of the separated-flow regionnear the leadingedge.
The effectsof this bubble of separationarq~re fully-discussed.
. .
in reference. Data are presentidin fi@re 14(d) for the model
12 WA TN NO. 1293

with leading-e- mughne ss. The maximum lift coefficientswere “ .

.
lower than the oorrespondir@valuesfor the smoothcondition
presentedin fi~ 14(c), althoughrather I.ar@ increasesin maximum
lift coefficientwere obtainedwith increasingamount of boundary-
layer oontrol.

The data presentedin figure14 axe summarizedin fLgure15 in

which the effectof Reynoldsnumberon the vwriationof maximum
lift coefficientwith flow coefficientis shownfor the airfoil
with the doubleslottedflap, Favorablescaleeffectwas Qbtained
throughoutthe rangesof flow coefficient and eynol.ds nuriber
investigated.At a Reynoldsnumber~f 6,0 x 102 rZn@ne 88 reduced
the maximumlit% coefficientfrom 2.85 to 2.45 at)a flow coefficient
of .0,and from 3:23 to 2.86 at a flow coefficientof 0.025.

Characteristics
of Airfoilwith Leading-EdgeSlat
and DoubleSlottidFlap
Lift characteristicsat Reynoldsnumbersof 1.5 x 106,
3.0 x 106, and 6.o x 10~ are presentedin f’igure 16 for the model
with the leading-edgeslat and the doubleslottedflap with and with-
out boundary-layer control. The characteristicsof’the airfoilwith
two high-liftdevices(leading-ed&slat and doubleslottedflap)
in con$mction with boundary-layer aontrolare similarto those of the
airfoilalone or with only one otherhigh-lift@vice with bo-ry -
layer control..The greatestmaximumlift coefficientobtiined,3.86,
was found at a Reynoldsnumberof 3,0 x 106 at a flow c~fficient
of 0.031 (fig.16(b)).

The maximum lift characteristicsfor this configuration sxa

suma,rizedin figure17. The maximumlift coefficientsincreased
..
as the Reynoldsnumber increased withoutboundary-layer motion.
At flow coefficientsabove approximately 0.01, however,the
maximum ift increasedbetweenRe~olds numbersof 1.5 x 06 and
3.0 x 10i anti decreasedbetween 3.o x 106 and 6.o x 10i! .
Comparedwith the scaleeffect on the maximumlift characteristics
of the airfoilwith either the slat or flap alone (figs.1.2and 15),
the effectsof Reynoldsnumberon the characteristics of this
confi~ation were smll. In the previousdiscussionof figures12
and 15 it was observedthat largefavora%leand unfamra%le scale
effectswere encounteredfor the airfoilwith boundary-~er control
in oon~unctionwith the double slottedflap and the leading-ed~
slat,respectively.When the two high-liftdeviceswere coabined,those “-
diversescaleeifec s almostce.nceleti each other. At a Reynolds s
numberof 6.o x 10t,’ roughnessdecreasedthe maximumlift coefficient
from 3.38 to 2.84 withoutboundsry-layer controland from 3.72 ..
 . NACA TN No. 3293 13

. ti 3.40 at a flow coefficientof’0.025. As for the double slotted ““

flap, a flow oc@ffcient of 0.025 increasedthe maximumlift coefficient
by an amounteqwd to the decreasecausedby roughnesswithout
boundary-layercontrol.

Comparisonof MsximumLift CoefficientsObtained

with ~ariousHigh-LiftDevices

The mxinnnnlift coefficientsobtainedwi and withoutboundary-

% are srmmE@.2edfor
lqyer control at a Re~lds number of 3.0 x 10
variouscombinationsof high-liftdevicesin tie folluwingtable:

I
c2~
Configuration, %-
CQ=O CQ = 0.03
.
. Airfoil 1.49 1.77 0:::
Airfoilsmd slat 1.86 !2.4-6
. Airfoiland flap 2.82 3.12 .30
. Airfoil,slat,and flap 3.30 3.%6 .$”
J L

The addition of the leading-edgeslat apprwimately doubledthe

increasein mximum lift coefficientobtaina”olewith boundary-1.qyer
control.

The effectsof leading-edgeroughnesson maximumlift coefficient

., for the airfoilwith the variauscombinationsof high-liftdevices “
with and withoutboundsxy-layercontrolare summarzed in the
nuniberof 6.0 x 10‘2:
followingtable for a Reynoltis

I Configwation
I C(J = 0.025 I

A&foil 1.50 1.13 -0.37 1.75 104.41 -0.31

Airfoiland slat 1*94 1.4.2 -.52 2.27 2.27 0
. .

-s
Airfoiland flap
Airfoil,flap, and slat
n.
2.85
3.38
2.45
2.84
-.4-0 3.23
-.54 3.72
2*86
3.43 I -*37
-.32
14 NACA TN NO. 3.293

The largestdeczwasein maximumlift coefficientdue to roughness .

with boundary-layercontrolwas no greaterthan the decreaseproduced
by roughneeson the plain airfoilsection. For all combinationsOf
high-liftdevicestestedthe decreaseIn the maximumlift c~fficlent
causedby roughnesswas less for the airfoilwith boundary-layer
controlthan for the corresponding configuration withoutbOUndarY-
lsyer control. For all combinations, a flow coefficientof 0.025
was sufficientto producemaximumlift coefficientson the roughened
wing approximatelyequal ta those obtainedwithoutboundary-layer
controlon the smooth wing.

SUMMARYOF RESULTS :

The followingstatementssummarizethe resultsof the tivestl- _

gationof the NACA 641A212airfoilsectionwith a leading-edge . .
slat,a double slottedflap, and boundary-layercontrolby suction”
to detetine the maximumlift coefficient
s attainableover a Reynolds , .
numberrange of 1.o x 1.06 to 6.o X1O t :
1. In general,the maximumsectionlift coefficientwas increased .
end the minimumsectiondrag coefficientdecreasedby applying
boundary-layersuction. These changaswere accompaniedby small
increasesin the angle of attackfor maximmlift and ‘bysmall
decreasesin the angle of attackfor zero lift.

2. At a Reynoldsnumber of 1.0 x 106, the uaximumlift

coefficientof the plain airfoilwith boundary-layer oontrol was
limited by leading-edge separation. Increasingthe Reynoldsnuriber
to 3.0 x 106 prcd.uced ratherlarge increasesinmsximumlif%
coefficientthroughoutthe r- of flow coefficientinve~tigated.
A maximumsectionlift coeff cient of 1.U was obtilnedat a
Reynoldsnumberof 3.0 x 10t and a flow coefficientof 0.03,
which representedan increasein maximumlift coefficientof 0!28
over that of the airfoilwithoutboundary-layer control.

3. With the leading-edgeslat in its optimumposition,incresaing,

the flow coefficientfromO to 0.030 increasedthe maximumMft
coefficientfrom 1.86 to 2.46 at a Reynoldsnumberof 3.0 X 106.
Increasingthe Reynoldsnwnberdecreasedthe naximumlift coefficient
attainablewith the leading-ed~ slat. For this reason,It w%
thoughtthat optimumslat positionsfor a given installationshoulhl
be found at Reynoldsnumbersclose to those at which the actual . .
airplanewould operate.
4. Increasingthe flow co&fic@ntfromO to 0.030with ..
the double slottedflap increasedthe maximumlift coefficient

c
 . NN2A TN NO. 1293 15
. —

from 2.82 to 3.12 at a Reynoldsnum%er of 3.0 x 106. Increasing

Reynoldsnum%erproducedappreciable~creases in maximm lift
ccefficientover the range of Remolds number investigated..

50 The leading-edgeslat and double slottedflap combined

produceda maximumlift coefficientof 3.86 at a flow coefficient
of 0.03 and a Reynoldsnumber of 3.o x 106 comperedwith a value
of 3.30 at a flow coefficientof O. Little scaleeffectwas
obtainedwith this combination.
6. For all coaibinations
of high-liftdevicestested,the decrease
in maximumlift coe icientproducedby roughnessat a Reynolds
number of 6.o x 10F and a flow coefficientof 0.025was less than
that causedby roughnesson the correspondingconfigurationwithout
boundary-layercontrol.

LangleyMemorialAeronauticalLaboratory
NationalAdvisoryCowittee for Aeronautics
. LangleyField,Vs., March 19, 1947
.

--
EWFEREWES

1. Quinn,JohnH., Jr.: Tests of the NACA 653-018~rfoil Section

with Boundary-LayerControlby Suction. MICA CB No. LllHIO,
1944.

2. Quinll,
JohnH., Jr.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Boundary-
Layer Controlby Suctionon the NACA 653-418,a = 1.0
AirfoilSectionwith a 0.29-Airfoil-Chord DoubleSlotted
Flap. NACA TN No. 1071, 1946.
,
3. von Doenhoff,AlbertE., and A%lott,Frank T., Jr.: The Langley
●
Two-Dimensional
Low-Turbulence
PressureTunnel. NACA
TNNo. 1283, 19k7.
~. Weick,FredE., and Platt,Robert C.: llhxl+unnelTests on
Mcdel Wing with FowlerFlap and SpeciallyIkvelopedLeading-
Ed@ Slot. NACA TN NO. 459, 3.933.
,
5. Quinn,JohnH., Jr., and Tucker,Warren A.: Scale and Turbulence
.- Effectson the Lift and Drag Characteristicsof the
NACA 653-418, a = l.OAirfoi.lSectf.on.NACAACR No. ~~Hll,
1944.
-..
 NACA TN No. 1293 16
.
.
TABLE 1
. NACA 641A212 AmFoIL SEOTION

(5tations and ordinates in peroent airfoil chord)

Upper surface kwer surface

Station Ordinate Station Ordinate

o o o o
.0 91 -.901
243
1.135
●

1.365
●

. 3 52 -1 07●

-1* 33
2.635 -1. i?03
pi 5.151 -2.
7.65 -2* Ifi7
3
:4.2 10.15z -3.240
1.89
Et 15.151 : y:
1.82 20.138 t
2 I .880 25.120 $~fg
.
2 .900 30.100
. 3i .922 5.078 :f$g
.9~6 0.05
g5 *$
‘R 970● -4:549
$5*!g~3 50:007 - .27
;4.;;~ $3
60:03 z :3: E;
65.050 $;;: -3 03i
●

7;. ::; -2*537

7? :925 -2 037
●

i!0:0 0 .910 -1.563

85.0 38 g .912 -1.159
90.062 ; .~~g -.771
9S.052 I -.398
100.000 .025 99:999 -.025
L.E.,radius$ O. gyk
Slope of radius through L.E-z o.095
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FORAERONAUTICS

● ✎

✍☛
 —

NACA TN No. 1293

.“
.,

TABLE 2
MODIFIED LEADING EDGB OF NMA 641H2 AIRFOIL I

SEOTION

(Stationsand ordinates in ~ercent airfotl

md) “
II@persurface Lower surface
Station Ordinate Station Ordinate
2.158 -0.833 2.167 -10083
2.292 -.271 2.292 -1. 17
2.500 .11 2.500 d. t 25
2.917 .60i 2.708 -1. 67
67 ; y$●
z
i :?23 1:z71 ● :3; Oxt
a 1. 92
2 ::50 2.138
8. 33 .229
L z .000
4.700 .
& ~ NX,IONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
F(M AERONAUTICS

TABItl3
T.EADINGEDGE SLAT FOR NACA 64#212 AIRFOIL
SECI
TION
(Stationsand ordinates in pereent airfoil
ohord)
Upper surface Lower surfaoe
Station Ordinate Station Ordinate
o 0 I..58 -.Jg
1.02 1.8 5 ‘m

27
:4 1.2 ? d -.292
1.132 1.5 i?2 ;:7 Oil ● 2J
2.228 2.917 P
M? 3.33 :967
p$ f:& $:?~ ;:%J
● ● 5.20 ●

::[$; pj$ ● ✎

12.5oo yg
14.000 ●
‘-

L.E. radiuss o 994 ●

Slope of radius through L.E.s 0.097

—

E
 18
.
.

.
TABLE4
.
VANE FOR NACA 641A212AIRFOILSW TION

(Stationsand ordinatesin percent

airfoilchord)
Uimer surf%oe Lower surfaoe
a Ordinate Or&inate
o 1.188 1.188
.100 1.58 .813
.200 1.76 .655
.59: 2.19i .317
2. 60 .150
1: tik ~.kJ .029
I.. 81 0-
2=t 77 2:8$
3 .058
2. 73 2.802 .179
3. t 65 2.7& .296
. 62 2.614 .438
. 2.435 .5 6
ii
2.235 &
$:$ 2.000 :1
z
. 1. 60 :83!
6 :~38 1.l+
6. 35 I;~6 1?
7 :92;
L :47$
Jk .200
8 .240 :21 0-
8.340 .131 IONAL ADVISC W

TABIE 5

FLAP FOR NACA”64#12 AIRFOIL SECTION

(Stationsand ordinates in percent

airfoil chord)

Upper surface Iower surface

Station Ordinate Station Ordinate
.:%J -1.ol@
-1.208
.833 -1.48
1.250 -1.5L
-1.546
, . -1.129
-.760
-.393
“.
- 025●

.025
 I

*,*

. .

.
.
s *

o
 . .
< . , .
. . ,’

,.

,. Modlfitilading ed&e
\
\
\\ o .83X
\
\ 0. JJ0.35~
\ O.O1OO radiu,
\
\
\--
\
+ 0.0220 j“ j o.o1oo’- !+ 0.0210 redilm
\ ;?
\
i /
( A
@.w 4 “/ ; .’”--
.— . .— -

0,1670
V; g- “
‘ ::2

MATONAL ADVISORY
Cown-m FM AERwM1’nc5

(a) model IMmenslom .

mgura .?.- HACA d@Z1..?airfoil neotion with boundaq-lagwr motion slot, leadln&edga slat, and dmhle #lotted flap.

IN
P
.-

wrlmml ADVISORY \
CCMITTEE tW ESONAVTKS

(b) Hot ntion wed to lndioate PMltik.m

of slat, me, and flap.

FLWN 2.- Conolu&d.

. ● ✎

i~d:l’:i’,l -.
,,
1’
,, ,.
 NACA TN No. 1293 Fig. 3
.
.

.
.

..
a
2

2.0

1.6

1.2
i

.8

~
J)
i NATIONAL ADVISORY
53
COMMITTEE FORAEROMAUTICS—

0
0 .01 .02 .03 .04
Flow coefficient,
-. CQ
Figure 3.- VarLatLon of msximum sectton llft
ooeffioient and minimum seotion drag
.- coefficient withflow coefficient for
NACA 6&1A212 airfoil section with various
boundary-la er suction-slotlocations.
R, 1.0 X 10 z .
 %

(a) Model lo ~tb OoULltlon.

. . . .
● . “, “.
1, 1
,.. .
 I
.
. . r ;
,
, ,’

2!
z
?
P
N
w
w

-16 4 0 8 16 24 -. 8 -.4 0 .4 .8 1.2 x.6

Sootlon m@E e nttuk, .aO, d~~ aootlwl I.Mt Oodfioimt, o,.

.,
 s’

1.6

1.2

.8

.4

-.4 -

-“% ~-a o 8 16 a

1-
(a) R = 3.0 X 106; MOdOl b moth .lcnditial.
N)
M@w 5:- Litt Ob.a)?aoteriablaaof E% t@2K airfoil motion with bomd8ry-Mym Oontml. ?a*ta, m 953, 9Q&
%

. . . ‘t
. ,1
l“”””
 , . .
. . , *

00
.015
: .Ce5

d -a o 8 1.6 .4 .i6 -a 0“8 11$

-.
 %
CQ K.
ao en
.015 (-a
: .024

1.~

\
1.2

-! -

-.

8
=16 -0 0 8 16

seation an~e of attaok ao, de6

MATIc#AL A~
axwrra m UMAWKS

(o) R = 6.o x lC$; model tith ntandard rmglmaa.

Fl&m 5.- Conaltied.

. . ,
.
,’ 1 .1
 -.,

Seotlon drag ooe~rloien%, cd

. . . .
“.

m
.
1

Ed
II

.. o

.
.
E
.
.

i
e
i$
!3
P

“N

N
● .
0

.
.,

Ex3ZT .ON NL VOVN

—
 %1
CQ ~
m
3 0 0-
❑ .015
0 .025

● 012,

.008

. Oci+

o-
-1.2 -* 8 -e 4 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6
*
Section lift coefficient, CL NATIONAL ADVISORY
e
CONMITTEE F(M AERONAUTICS z

(b) R = 6.0 X 106; model in smooth condition. w

N
Figure 6 .- Contlnued. %

● ✎
, . ● ,
✎
✌ * ✎ ,
.
 NACA TN No. 1293 ~g. 6C
●

. .032+
●

.028
.

● 021+

● 020

.
.

. .016
.

● o12

● 008

. oo&

COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

o
-. -e 8 -0 4 0 ●4 .8 1.2
Section lift coefficient, Uz
.

(c) R= 6.0 X 106; model with standard roughness.

Figure 6.- Concluded.

‘)
Fig. ‘7 NACA TN No. 1293
. .
.,

.
.

R
.012
a 1.0 x 106
u 3.0
“o 6.0
9 <
.008‘ \
d

.
%%0 oth-- .-

0
.
.

2. .
.

.6
f

.2

.8
I-H –
I
t
I I
I
{

‘NATIOkAL ACklSOR+
COMtil’tTEE FORAEROMA~lCS

o-
.“
0 .01 .02 .03 .04
F1OW coefficient, O.Q
Figure 7.- Effectof Reynolds
numbeqandleadtig-
edge mughneae on variation of maximum aectlon
lift coeffiolent and minimun seution drag
coeffic~ent–withflow coefficient for .-
NAGA 61j1A212 airfoil section.

,
 I
●
✌ #
✃ . ,’

0 81nt WP fmimd
o LUat m Unf+wd —

1.6

1.2

.8

.4 - I

--4

m’

- “~16 4 0 8 16 24

Motion angle of nttmk, ao, deg Saotion lW* ooeff~~~ ~ ‘t

NkTtONMAOWSWIY
a#m-r2E m ~Ks

Fl@Iro 8.- Erraat nr rouudlng slat laallng edga ou ltit md drag ohm%otorimtlom or HAOA 6hIA212 @Kill motion tith nl~t
mtr~otod. C% O; R, 1.5 X 10$; best, MT )/37.
03
 --

t
o~

X2. 70
Y
J // > “
/v
)
%“ &

//// ‘

t /

NATIONAL ADVISORY -
CMMITTEE F~ AERONAUTICS
—.— . -—
6 4 2 1

(a) 6a = 18.2°.
.
Figure 9 .- L8adlng-edge-slat maxhmxu-llft contours for various slat defleotione on ~
NACA 6~lA2K airfoil Eeotion. R, I. .O x 10L; CQ, 0.03 (apprax. ); flap retraoted;
test, L’IT. 437. %

I
[,
. ,,
.
1’
 I
. ,
, . *

I
2

6 4
~ percmt

v NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AEKIUAUTICS

(b) b~ = 22.0°.

F@tUIY 9.- continued.

 -.

co
(a
cl

2.74

4
pement chord

NATIONAL ADVISORY

(c) 8~ = 28.30. COMIITTEE FOR AERONAUTS

w
Figure 9.- Conoluded. NJ
co
cd

. . .
1’
 I
i . . .
. . , , .’#

2.8 *
%
}
00

.010
II
: .020 ) J
2.4

II

II

2.0 +
II N
I I m
w
II
I
1.6 ,
C_?’
I

,
/.
I
) ‘ >
1.2
b

/ %

)
8

/
c

Y
e *
I ,. “-

- %6 -a o 8 M a w -IA 4 0 8 16 24 52
20ati0n mngle of attmk, ao, dq &OtiOn Mlae or ●tmok, Co, *E

(,) Lift dmrklte*i.sJ R. 1.5 xlti,

M2.nra 1o.- A~10 OtiMtnfimtioS of IIAOA 6hI1212 alrroll mouon with lmdlng-edga nl~t md bomduy-lqW oontrol.
6~, 22.0°; + O. C@; y,, 0.W70; rl,pt.obrA.tad; twt, LTT 437.

1
-.
 .

Fig. 10b NACA TN No. 1293

.
. r

c ,
.
.

.08
/
/ 1 CQ
0.010
; .020
1

I
●W -

.0.5

a i
o
,05 i
*“
c .
2 I
\
.s
%
Q .
o .* ~ .
~
%’ \
:
a L I
: .03
* -.
o
8 \ I

\\
.02

\ F

4 -
.01
r
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

o
0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 z-4 2 .8
Section lift ooefficienk, CL
.

(b) Drag characteristics; R = 1.5 x 106.

*-
Figure10.- Concluded. —

m
 , I
. . 4
1 < . .

2.8-

2.4

2.0 .

1.6

1.2

.a

-.k
-16 -a 0 8 16 z~ 32 :16 -E o 8 ti 24 52
@Men angle ti mttaak, ao, dog Zmtlon uwla Of nttmk, ao, dw

I
(m) R = 1.5x 106, del in ,MOth .mYxUtion.
Pigllm !.l.- Lift okmmtmlot 10* or WA 61J A212 ●lrfofl moth tith lmding-mde ~lnt omd boundary-lmyar ocmtral.
% # 22.0°; +, 0.0d 01 7*, 0.0370; flag rotruted; tent, ftlT wO,
0-

motion mgle or mttti, Co, &g

(b) II = 3 X 106; -l b a-m mditti.

FiglUw 11. - C.altimmd.

. .
.
 I
.
,
.
● ,
.
. *.

2.4

2,0
1-
NJ
al
w
1.6

1.2

.8
ii ‘%

.4

4‘
- ‘ -16 -8 0“8 16 &“32 :16 -a 0 8 16 24
IMtlon angla nf attm.k, an, da~ 8aoti0n U* of nttaok, ao, dog

(0) R=6 x 106; model in amotb omditlm.

Fi@M 11. - &mtinUd.

II
I
.- .

.—
0?’

:16 -a o a 16 a
9mt&n angle of attack, ao, dog

(d] R = 6 x 106; model mtth standard rou@meaa.

Fl@mm 11. - Omoluded .

 I
I

NACA TN NO. 1293 i mg. 12

.
.

.
.
2.8C

.
.
2=4”

I
A Rou@
2.0

R
1.2
El 1.5 x 106
3.0
; 6.0

.8

●4
. i
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

o
I I
o *:. .01 “ .02 .03 .04

. . Flow coefficient, CQ

Figure 12. - Effect of Reynolds number =d leading-edge roughness

-. on variation of maximum section lift coefficient with flow
coefficient for NACA 641AZIZ airfoil section wtth leading-
edge slat. Gs, 22.0°; %8, 09036c; Ysj 00037c; ,
test, TDT 990.
 . .

.1

z
‘8 6 4\z o -.2 \

(a) Ponltiom of f UP with Mspnc$ $0 me; af, 49.P; xv 0.W90; Yv, o.-.

F- 13. - m.tin-adttd-fhp ~ urt OMbn on NAOA 641A2U drroil meetlon. %, 0.036: 7a, o.037~; am, ~.o”;
a ~, 16.50; R, 1.5 X 106; CQ, 0.02 (approx. ); test, IJ?Th37.

. .
.
I
 .,
NACA TN No. 1293
.
.

.
.

.
.

(b) Poaitlonsof flw with reapeot to vane. ef, ‘55. ~O; ~, O.oqc; yv , 0.020C.
. “
F@’ure ls. - contirme~.

. .
 01=

NATKtW MWSORY
mnlrm m &cmuurKs

. . ,* .
.
, ‘:1’
 . * . .
I
s , ,“ , ,’

NATICWJ. AOW24RY
mHTmEF24MmRuJTM
n
:16 -8 0 8 16

&otlm M62. M ~ttank, ao, d.s

(.) R = 1.5 x IL+; tiel in uwth .mdltim! teat, Lm 107.

Fimrb lb. - Wt & llAiA 6blA2E

.3hamot+riatia. m.h-r.il s.ation rltk tbual.. dotted flap ~ beumdwy-layar emtrol.
4 rlT, 16. Y’; +, U.ccw YV, Q.ubl of, 99.0”1 +, Q.w; 7f, o.~%.
 -. ..

,.,.

Math angle or attiak, ~, &g

(b) R = j.O X llf$ mdsl in cmati 0c9dfUm; teah, Z91 9f&

rigm U.. QOntfJnmL

<
,. , , . ‘.

. “1
 . I
. .

I —n—G—i I I 1 1

12ttttHtH
Iiiiiiiil
9e0ti0n zngle of Et-, %, dw

toot, m 94-

—
 .

0
.o15
.=3

IIATIOIML ADv!5mY
—Rm~

SOowor! Cm#lo ‘d ●ttmk, ~, &.g

.>

[d) R = 6.o x 10% -dol titi stMIIMW roybum; *nob, lDl 9~.

Figure lb.- Cwmladaa.

,. .

.,
* ‘,
●
. . .
.
 NACA TN No. 1293 IjSg. 15
.
.
3.6 -- --
●
☞

3.2 A ~

— Smooth N

ij

2.0
.
● R
o 1.5 x 106
1
. $ 1.6
: ::;

1.2‘

.8

.4
.
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FORAERONAUTICS

1 I 1
o-
0 .01 .02 .03 .04
Flow ooeff Icient, CQ

● ✎
Figure 15. - Effect of Reynolds number and leading-edge roughness
on variation of msxlmun section lift coefficient with flow
coefficic.nt for NACA 641A2M alrfoll section with double
✎✎
slotted flap. 6V, 16.50:
0.004C; Yv, 0.014C;
xv,
%, 55000; Xfj o.o~c; yf, 0.005C; test, TDT 990.
 -2 0 8 16 24
Seotlon m@.e of ●ttaq ao, bg
(a) R = 1.5 x 106; *I in sm-ati eotition.

Figura 16.. LU~ aharacterlatlon of NAOA 641AZ12 alrfoll aeoticm tith lo@diu&dge dht, double dotted rlap, M Wmdmy-1.ayor
c.antrol. .s8, 22.00; ~, 0.0360; Ya, 0.0370; 8V, 16.5°; ~, O.ti; Y,, “.oti; 6r, 55.@; q, O.wk; yf, OJWJ;
tarot, m 990.

. . ., -,
. . . .
 ● ✌
✎ ✎

lJ.o-
1

I
1
1
3.6 ,1.
I
, II
b
3.2

I
I
\
2.8

1 I
1:
2.4

2.0

d
~.6 .;
(!Q

00
.015
: .031
1.2

@ b
I I I
“-0 o 8 16 24 4 0 El 16 ’24
Motion angle of attaok, ~, *8 Seotlon angle .S nttmk, ao, des

(b) K = 3 X106J til h ,motb omdition.

Fi@m 16. - Gon tloued.

,,,

i 1
 —

‘.015
.025

-8 0 a 16 24
2eotiQn angle or attmk, 8., %

(a) R = 6.0 X 106; mdol in smooth COtii

Figure 16.. Conbinmd.

#p. . * ,*
., . . ● .
1 I 1,.’ ,.. 1: . .
 9.
<*
“
*“
I

3.6

3.2 “— — —

2.8

2.4

2.0

~.6 CQ

00
.01
; .02 i
1.2 ~

.8
-a o 8 16 24
seotion angle of attaok, ao, deg
I
(cl) R = 6.0 x ld; Modal with st,mlard rOUghK45SS.

P@ma 16. - CauolwIed .

Fig. 17 NACA TN No. 1293

4.(

Smooth
.

( /
Rough
/ /
3.C

—.
a
●

R
o 2.5 x 106
3.0
: G.o

.—

i3.5

NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FORAERONAUTICS

o
0 .01 .02 .03 .04
Flow coefficient, CQ
Figure 17. - Effect of Reynolds number and leading-edge roughness
on var3.ationof maximum sectionlift coefficientwith flow {*
coefficientfor NACA 641A212airfoj.1 section with leading-
edge slat and double slottedflap. 5s, 22.0°; X8, 0.036c;
%4
Y~, 0.037C; &iv,16.5°; xv, 000040; Yv, 0.014c; Gf, ~5.0°;
Xr, 0.01}4C;yf, o.oo~c; test, TDT 990.