REPORT No.

530

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL FROM TESTS IN THE

FULL-SCALE AND VARIABLE-DENSITY TUNNELS
By EASTMAN N. JACOBS and WILLIAM C. CLAY

SUMM ARY of lesser interest, owing to adverse effects on the

pitching-moment coefficients, and the forward positions
This report gives the results oj tests in the N. A. O. A.
could not be satisfactorily investigated with the mean
full-scale and ~'a1'iable-density tunnels oj a new wing
lines available in the original family.
section, the N. A. C. A. 23012, which is one oj the more
One series of the new airfoils having the forward
promising oj an extendl3d series oj related airjoils re-
camber position appears to be of particular interest.
cently developed. The tests were made at several values
The mean-line shapes for this series are de ignated by
oj the Reynolds umber between 1,000 ,000 and 8,000 ,000.
numbers thus: 10,20,30,40, and 50, where the second
The new airjoil develops a reasonably high maximum
digit (0) represents the numerical de ignation for the
lift and a low profile drag, which results in an unusually
entire serie and the first refers to the position of the
high value oj the speed-range index. I n addition, the
maximum camber. These po itions behind the lead-
pitching-moment coefficient is very small. The superi-
ing edge are 0.05c, 0.10c, 0.15c, 0.20c, and 0.25c,
ority oj the new section over well-known and commonly
re pectively.
used sections oj small camber and moderate thiclcness is
The mean line having the shape de ignation 30 and
indicated by making a direct comparison with variable-
a camber of approximately 0.02c (designated 230)
density tests oj the N. A . O. A. 2212, the well-known
when combined with the usual family thickne s di -
N. A. O. A. jamily airjoil that most nearly resembles it.
tribution of 0.12c maximum trucknes produces the
The superiority is jurther indicated by comparing the
. A. C. A. 23012 section. This airfoil section ap-
characteristics with those obtained jrom jull-scale-tunnel
peared to be one of the most promising investigated in
tests of the OZark Y airfoil.
the variable-density tunnel. A preliminary announce-
A comparison is made between the results jor the newly
ment of this section, then referred to as the" . A.
developed airfoil from tests in the N. A. O. A. variable-
C. A. A-312", was made at the inth Annual Aircraft
density and jull-scale wind tunnels. When the results
Engineering R esearch Conference in May 1934.
from the two tests are interpreted on the basis oj an
At the subsequent request of the Bureau of Aero-
"eiJective Reynolds Number" to allow jor the e.ffects oj
nautics, avy D epartment, a 6- by 36-foot model of
turbulence, reasonably satisfactory agreement is obtained.
the . A. C. A. 23012 airfoil was tested in the . A.
I T ROD TIO
C. A. full-scale tunnel to verify the aerodynamic
ch aracteristics found for this airfoil in the variable-
As a continuation of the investigation recently com- density tunnel. This te t was made po sible through
pleted of a large family of related airfoils (reference 1), the cooperation of the Chance Vought Corporation,
two new series of related airfoils have been built and who constructed the wing and supplied it to the Com-
tested in the variable-den ity tunnel. The original mittee for the purpose. The present report has been
investigation indicated that the effects of camber in prepared to present and compare the results of the
relation to maximum lift coefficients are more pro- tests of the . A. C. A. 23012 section made in the
nOlllced when the maximum camber of the mean lin e N. A. C. A. variable-density and full-scale tunnels and
of an airfoil section occurs either forward or aft of the to compare the results with tho e for well-known
usual positions. The after positions, however, are sections.
435
 - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - --
I
I

436 REPOR1' NATIO TAL ADVISO RY COMi\lITTEE FOR AEROI AUTI CS

510.' Up'r. L'w;" i

1o - 0 48
,125 2.67 - 1.2.3
Z.S .3.61 - 1.71
SO; 4.91 -226 44
7.55.80 -261
10 6.43 -2.82
1
IS, 7.18 3.50 I-l--HH-I-I-t-t-+-I-·--"--t- + 40.
~~ ;~g =~~~ f-r-,,---'---'---'-r-r-r-r~~
:-J
- - ----+--; (;)
30 755
40 . 714
- 4.46 f-I-I--l---l-+-+--l---l--r-r-,
- 4.48
.44 . 0.9 f------~ f-;--f-+--l--j--+--l-L....JY- +-- 36 ~
~ 50 6.41 -4./7
l
o
60 547
70 4.36
-3.67
-3.00
.- +Z.O .40.
---
- 3?~
l

-e:v 80 3.08 -2.16

90 1/. 68 - 1.23
- - "'-
"- / 95 .92 - .70 1.8 .36
o 100 (.13) 1 (-.13)

~
100 - 0
1.6 .32
~

281:
~ -- r r
241... 2D ~'
<l2 c--.
~ 20
'-l
g4 0 f-r-
I...
.
--l-.~
+

cj, ~
() 16 "tJ 60. L D
I... I... -- - II----,.-i-
'tl 12~ 80. - - -
~ v
"-
:.::: 8 0 /0.0. - - .4-....J .0.8
"- 1: I I
o 4 ~ 2 0.4 c.l-. I . .. /
o l ~ 1 _~ ~
~ ~ 'i -.2
4

0. (l a ~ -' -8 0>
Alrfot!. NA.C A. 230.12 R.N. See * S 1 , , - ~
Size. 5"x3D" Vel.(ft./see.): 70.0. _ ? '" -.3 Airf":.t!: NAC.A. 230.12 .• -12
Pres.(sf'ndafm.).20.3 oale:9-7-34~ . L ~ R.N:3,D9a,Oaa (Eff R.N:8,16a,aaa)
-8
Where lesfed:L.MAL Test: V.O.T.//67·8
Corree fed for funnel-wall effect. -.4 g -.4 + T~ Dote: 9- 7 -.34 Test: 1167-8 - -16
~-'--~--- . ~ ~ ~-L..L ~~LC_o_r~rect~d f~ infinite aspect rotio i
0.
4 8 12 16 ZD 24 28 32 :-6 74 72 a
.2 .4 .6 .8 /.0 /.2 1.4 /.6
Angle of atlack, a (degrees) Lift coefficient, c..
FIGURE I.-The N A. C. A. 23012 airfoil. Vnriacle-density wind tunnol: standard tcst.

510 Up'r
o
L'wi-
a
_ 'tl
c,-
~~D :
;
.,+;c l :
.-
II I: ,. Chord
as 2.67 -/.23 ~.l! 0 "-...::::::: • ., ' ~-'
2.S 3.61 - 1.7 I
S.O 4.91 - 2.26
~.:: -10
CC Q
-lp _ -y .,.-. ~ 1/ i-t--'-++-~----- 44
7.5 S.80 - 2.61 ;:;"-20 40 60 80 -/00 -1- I

~
10 643 -2.92
~~ ~:~Z
25 7.60 -4.28 '
30 7.55 -446
40 7.14 -4.48
1
=U9 Percent are ord
h

.,...,...,....-
2.2 44
Q"
10.

.a9
:t±' T

!
j' -

f Ii lI lI
-
I
I , , ' I, ,
-l-+-+-+-+-+-I--f-..Ih---l-+-+-+-l.~-':"'-'---i
~ I i
V]

I 36 &
I...
'I 4 0.
--
I...
~
50 6.41 -4.17
~g ~jl ::::?g~
803.08 -2.16
.40 ",- . 0.8,
.~
H- ~, il~-l-_+-+++++-+-+-H---;.----...J
I
..j-.L...j-+-+-l-l-I-il-l-l--r-t-t---- - l 32 g-
I ~
.... 90 1.68 -1.23 36 0.7 28 ~o
~ 1~6 d~ (-:iJ; ~. -.-1f--1---t-+-+_+_+-I--+++-i-+-i\\-t---+-,.--i-',,- - .
~ 100 0 /.6 32 ~ .06 H 1-l--+--'ri-l-+++--r-H-+- I -1--j-'\~~-'~:--' 24 ~
S cju l+-I I • l
281: -;-t-!---l--l /.4 28t if.os -l-j - +I-+-+-+-+-+-· J f.-~ --t---i2au
Cl .Il! {j r L-1 rt-f-t-+--+-+- I-++-"'\:
I ..,....\ "l~f--- ~
24 ( 20. ~~~=t=¥±~Ej~~~":;~;=-~_....J 12 ->.24-!l. ~ . 04 Iii I I 1 ;' 1 16 ~
~ L....-.+:'" -,.: ~~ , I I ~ T 1 -:::1
~ 20~ 40 I.O~ .2as ~.03 1 I I 0'0 ./1/ 12~
'" 2 7n It-++-l-~---r~-j :g 0> 0.. : 1 : ./ /I" I ~
r--+-'c
if /6 ~ 6a~ /.l!·: "+-+-t-+-h.. 8 ~ /6 e 0.2 HY--r-IIH-l--+++-+-H-+-+v~4-+4 -:.V-I-+-
1 -1 8 '~
1

:... 1: 0 Cl ~ .J. J J L.- .·CDJ <l2

'l:i /2 0 8Dr- .6 v .12 .0.1 t- r= -o- ~ -+ - - yo' 'I : 1 4.;;:
~ -;:, <:;: 1 j '.d' Corrected fo err R.N.- v
;;"'.bJ.='i'=\='='b-,A'=ll~' =f'""""""l'~- 0 g
i-~i""=.=~_""'.-"
,...
~ 8 ,...0 10.0.
'-- .4 -...J .0.8 a
V t~ .1<"eJ...-..... Cl

'-
0
4~ 2 .04 d-·I V ~-- hi rU I~ J7 mo< -4'0
.'2
~ OiiJQ
\'

I--ic-+-AI- Airfoil: NA.C.A. 230.12 R.N.: See *

o o 't -.2
o
I
I i-LL'.,
r
I
I I I
I ,i
T -8 f
'"
.~
- 4 Q, L...JY'-1--I Size : S"x30 " Vel.(fI./sec.): 68.8 -.2 ~ -.3 I Airfoi!- NA.C.A. 23012. 1-12
Pres.(st'nd. afm.):8.2 Oafe : 9-6-34 ~ .i R.N..* /,286,Qaa (ur R. N.:" J.400, 0.0.0.)
; --/_l-I-I Where tested:L.M.A.L. Test: V.D.T.1167·6 ~ I I Dole' 9-6-34 Tesf: Vo..T. //67-6
-8 f-!t-,......,.-! Correcfed (or funnel-wall effect . - . 4 0-.
4
I 1 1 Corrected to infinite aspect ratio
l6
r
-8 -4 a 4 8 12 16 20. 24 28 32 ~ -:6 -:4 ., 2 a .2 4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Anqle of of lock, Cl (degrees) L ifl cae (ficie n/. CL
FIGURE 2.-Tbe N. _-\ . C. A. 23012 airfoil. Variable·density wind tunnel : reduced Reynolds Number.
 CHARACTERI TIC OF THE N. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 437
DESCRIPTIO OF TH E AIRFOIL E TIO D escriptions of the variable-den ity tunnel, methods
The mean-line shape for the erie to which the of testing, standard airfoil models, and the accuracy of
J. A. C. A. 23012 belong wa derived empirically to the te ts are given in references 1 and 2. The sys-
have a pI' ogres ively decreasing curvature from the tematic errors mentioned in reference 1 have since been
leading edge aft. omewhat behind the muxjmum- largely eliminated by allowing for the deflect,ion of the
camber position, the emvature of the mean line de- model supports and correcting for the errors involved
crea es to zero and remain zero from thi point aft; in the measurement of the air velocity. As an aid in
that is, the mean line i ·traight from this point to the evaluating differences between results from the two
trailing edge. The 230 mean line ha its maximum tunnels, the estullated errors from reference 1 are
camber at a position 0.15e behind the leading edge. reproduced ns follows:
The camber i not exactly 2 percent but was deter-
E rrors due
mined by the condition that the ideal angle of attack Quantity measured Accide ntal to suppor t
errors interfer-
for the mean line should correspond to a lift coefficient ence
of 0.3, a value corre ponding approximately to the a _. ____________ . __ .___ _ ______ __ ±0.1 5° ±0.05°
usual condition of high- peed or cruising flight. The . 01 I .00
{ - . 03 - . 02
N. . C. A. 23012 au' foil re ults from the combination
of the 230 mean line with the u ual . A. C. A. thick-
c .. a.c:.------~------- - ---------
C".(C =0) _____ • ___ " ____ •
L
±.003
. 0006
{ -.0002
±::z
. 0000
ne distribution of 0.12e maxirnum thickness by the
method de cribed in reference 1. The airfoil profile and
C".(C
L
= 0 .. _. ____ . ___________ _ { . 0015
-.0008 I
}
I
±.OOIO

a table of ordinate at tandard tation are presented

in figure 1. In order to giye a ba i for the deyelop- F LL- SCALE-TU EL TE TAD RES LT
ment of related au-foil of different thicknesses, the
A description of the full- cale ,0nd tunnel and equip-
ordinate y of the . A. C. A. 230 mean line are given
ment is given in reference 3. The . A. C. A. 23012
a follow:
nU'foil was mounted in the tunnel on two npports
I 0 e, from x= O to x= m

v=i k[r - 3m.r 2 + m 2 (3 - m )J·]

Tail, from x= m to x= l
1
Y=- k m 3(1 -1')
6
where, for the 230 mean line, m = 0.2025 and lc = 15.957.
VA RIABLE-DE ITY-T EL TE TA D RE UL T

Routine mea mement of lift, drag, and pitching

moment were originally made at a Reynold Number
of approxunately 3,000,000 to compare the various
airfoil of the forward-camber erie under the con-
ditions of a tandard 20-atmo phere te t in the
variable-density tUllllC'l. Later the N. A. C. A. 23012
airfoil wa retested as a part of a general inyestigation
of cale effect. The data pre en ted in till report were
taken from the latter te t which were made at eycral
value of the Reynold Number between 42,400 and
3,090,000.
The te t re uIts obtained in connection with the
forward-camber air-foil investigation, a well a the that attached to the one-quarter-chord point (fig. 3).
complete re ult of the scale-effect inve tigation, are The general arrangement was similar to that u ed in
omitted from this report but both et of re ult will testing a series of lark Yairfoil (reference 4).
appear ub equently in report on the respectiYe sub- T he airfoil had a chord of 6 feet and a span of 36
jects. Complete re ults are given, however, from tests feet. The frame wa con tructed of wood and cov-
at two values of the Reynold Jumber (figs. 1 and 2). ered wi th sheet aluminum. The surface \Va smooth
orne additional data taken from the available te t at and the ection throughout wa not in error by more
other values of the R ynold umber are al 0 pre- than ± 0.06 of an in h from the pecified ordinates.
sented with the di cu sion to indicate the scale efl'ect for T he lift, drag, and pitching moment were mea ured
some of tIle important characteristic . throughou t a range of angles of attack from - 8°
 - - - - - - --

43 REPORT rATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONA 1' I CS

to 25° . These test were made at 5 different air are given for the airfoil of infinite aspect ratio . Values
peed between 30 and 75 nriles per hour corresponding of the pitching-moment coefficient about the aero-
to value of the Reynolds Iumber between 1,600,000 dynamic center, Om".c., are considered independent of
and 4,500,000. The maximum lift was not measured a pect ratio and are tabulated again t CL • The loca-
at speeds above 75 miles per hour as the wing was not tion of the aerodynamic center (x, y) is given as a
designed for the loads under these conditions. Addi- fraction of the chord ahead and above the quarter-
tional te ts to determine the scale effect on minimum chord point. A typical plot of the dn,ta from table VI
drag were made at several speeds up to 120 mile is given in figure 4.
per hour corresponding to a R eynold N umber of Curves ummarizing variation of these principal
6,600,000. ch aracteristics that ch ange with R eynolds umber are
The interferencc of the airfoil supports upon the air- giycn in figures 5 to 9. Curves obtained from imilar
foil was determined by adding a dupli ate supporting full- cale-tunnel tests on the Clark Y airfoil are
r=-.,.,.-,-,- , - , - - , - - - 20 ' I T T1Tl
:-u -I- 52
~I~b ~~; =H~
~~'r: ~W; C~ 1~ ~
~'bA:;::'=l11f:
l-' Itf:;X::±I==i==rLt=I-rn ( Chord ,13 - -I- -r-llTII- j- - '.
~.g j--t- ~ H-r-
1.25 267 - 1.23
~~-IO ~hiY
0 '
1.1 W IZ r- -
r-I-I-
r-r-
r-
t r-r-1--'----'----++-.-H!tc-t--'--~-I-j 48
~g ~~g :~~~
157 19 -350
0 20 40 60 80
Percenlofchord
100 --+- .'-+-~-+-_+-+i-'-'--t+'"++'--r-+-i
,II H-t-_++--I,
'
I
44

$~ 755
30
40
j~ -446
=~~~ ~Ir---:+----:-
7 14 -448
I I
A Aerodynamic
I 1+ j 2.4 48 .10 t- H r-r- r-
I • , I '\. I -;-1-
---r--+-~-r-!-IT
I ~. !
\~ I- 40 .I

~g ~~j =jg I
70 4 36 -300 r--t-I
center
. f~ 2.2 44 I
-h- 11 -tt(n+-' I- 36 ~
I ' t
1) ~g 7fJ =7 ~~ 0=::
P, ;;4 chord
position <l'
.09
,
J
i ~-=:= __ -- 1 ~rT'-( \1 I-
IIJ
~
l
~
'0
o
~
95

chord 0305
92 -
I~OE R~d ~8 P2=~ 1
70 - - - - x = 0 0 I 9 c

'd= 0, °t ~. I .
f~~':,~;:~~C:;~s,
i
I
t
-c
Me

~-~:
~ t
•

T
2 0

1.8
16
.36
32
40 -..; .08
<
~.07
~ . 06
,_ I . 1
,.
i
_~ r
J
L '
I
-
,-~
1 J- ~
l,
nII -\\
I ' \' 'j -~f- 28 ~
f-I-I-
L J,_I-I- 24 ~
~I-I-
32 f5
.'2

28 0
24 ~
0
~ 20 '~L.L
T- -I
I I
I U D
I; Icpt
. tAl JJ-l-
/: I \ 1-, L +-_
. -
~-
- , I .

14
1.2
.

t g- 05
,28
,~ i3
~.24~ ~ , 04 r-
"() r-I-
E1.,- III1I

- - '-t
r-
I
I
r
I
'1
".
&1
' TI ,\
I
\ I-l-
\;--t-',hl-I- 1 6~
20
l

~
Q.

~
~20 ~
,2
40 I -I
II
I
"- II ' - 'fli --- f - , -
11 I"ll-:.. c ~ 1.0~.2°8 2·03
"-.. 'Qj ;;: r-~+ _I ~, _t-i -I.
C-\ I 1
1I I
1
I I
\, "tt:= 12~~
,
II ' ,...:-.= :iJ tJ> Il... r-,.. 0'0 : / I ' 8 '~
~ 1 .8~~ .16 Cl2 ~I-' X 1-1
i

it' 16t60 II 1/ l'

>; t 1--'-=::J
i .02 I_J--L-..... 2 L, .' ,,'
,
~, ~
l

Tl J Ie
I
l.. '2 H-"-'- 1'- ,,...- I I. J
~- 12
0
80 J' ~~;- ------1 6~/2 .01 ] t- . 4~

n'?:~~'OO~~~ -4]
v - t-"1 t-j~- I I1 ',O-I-t -I-

iQ20 ~
- '1

: :r;t; v \J
<::: "- 0 I II 0 J- . L .b ' -I- 0 :f2

~- , ' ) if li
L. I \ 4 08 ' - I - h.

/~
I •
V

~
i 0 ~
!;
-4"'""
til
L
- .
v c.
I
Airfo il: NA.C.A. 23012 R.N:"CLmo;·C'mm
~ize : (6/3J.'t) I vei/7/S/~)~:5/4> l-·2
res, S n .0 m,: a e: -c -
Where lested: L. MAL , F5. T Test· 42- 2 _. 4
']'
I
.0 4
0 QJ - .
0
~-3
c:
~
2 -r- rr-
1-+---+--+--+1-t---jARirN.foil3:N9,
r-r-i-+ '-r- . .: " .1.
I-+--
--j

A9·CO·AO·02~03
1236
: " , 2,000
Dote: 10-24 - 34
~[-J -
-

Test: 42-2
il-+--+-+-+-<-8
"- --+-+-1

-12
g-
"

-8 ~ Correcte d for tunnel-w oll effe ct, 0 -.4 I I ' -r-t- Correcte d 10 in f inite aspect ratio -/6
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 ~ -.6 .,.4 --:2 0 ,Z .4 , 6 ,8 1.0 /,2 1.4 /.6
Angle of atfock. a (de qreesL Lift coefficient. C.

"I GUIlE 4.- The r A. C. A. 23012 airfoil. Full-scale wind tunnel.

strut at the center of the wing. This" dummy " up- pre enLed in these figures for purpose of compari on.
port was not connected to the airfoil 01' to the balance The e Clll'ves n.re presen ted in semilogarithmic form to
and all changes in the mea ured force with the strut assist in extrapolation to higher values of the Reynolds
in place could be attributed to its interference. Dou- Number. Figlll'e 5 hows the variation of the maxi-
bling the effect of thi single dummy support wa mum lift coefficient for the two airfoil ; the scale effect
considered to account for the total interference of the on the n.ngle of attack at zero lift for th e airfoil ection
two airfoil upports. All the data are corrected for is shown in figure 6; fig ure 7 give the effect of Rey-
wind-tunnel effects and tares. The corrections are nolds Number on the slope of the profile-lift Clll've;
the same a tho e used for the corresponding Clark Y and figlll'es and 9 show, respectively, the scale-effect
airfoil (reference 4). variation of the drag coefficient at zero lift and the
The results of the full- cale-tunnel tests of the minim um-profile-drag coeffici en t.
N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil are given in tables IV to VIII. A detailed discu ion of the precision of airfoil testE
The values of CL , (X, COl L ID, and c. p. are tabulated in the full- cale tunnel is given in reference 4. In
for the airfoil of aspect ratio 6 n.nd values of (Xo and GDO brief, it may be mentioned that a consideration of all

l
 CHARACTERI TIC OF THE . A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 439

the contributing error invoh'ed in the e te t gl\'e that of the lark Y (reference 4) hows that the new
the following e timu,ted preci ion: airfoil ha a harper break at mu,.:·:imum lift than does
the Clark Y.
ll' = ±0.1° The curves of the ano-Ie of attack of zero lift for the
two airfoil are hown in figure 6. Th e Clu,rk Y ha a
-7
dOL
-d = ±0.0015 per degree
ll'o
II)
QJ -- ---
QJ-6
-- . ..- --
OD O (OL= 0) = ± 0.0004 ~ - - - - ,; .... Clark r
,
-' -5
OVo (OL=1.0 )= ±0.0015 0

~ -4
Cma .c .= ±0.003
h
.....
T= ± 0.005 chord J( -3
lJ
...
0

?J = ± O.03 chord °_2

.....
0 i
(f)
D/ maz
= ± 1.0 ~
g-I I- -+~t""""~H=t.{~ T' Cf'~ 3012 T +--'I-I--t-+H!
'" r---
1.6
I I I
I I I
-
N.A.C.A. 23012

I ~ .".-
;; .. ··Clark y
I
II ° 1 4 6 8 10
Re ynolds Number
20 x/0 6

i;. 4
~

./ I I I FI GURE G.- AnRle of attack for ?.ero·lift variation. Variation with Reynolds
Number from tests in the full·scale wind tunnel.
....: -----~ I I
I
§1.2 I
1

.<;:
II -' I I con iderable scale effect; where a the N . A. . A. 23012
r- I J is unaffected by change in R ynold N"umber. Atzero
1.0 ~-
,
0 r-- ~
! I -~ lift a large adveI e o-raclient of pre ure exi t at the
lJ
I
-'"
.....
.8
I 1

!
I II
forward portion of the lower urfu,ce of the Clark Y
that probably re ult in an early di turbance of the
"::J .6
EO
i--
I 1 . 12

~
)(
.4
I I
f- r-I
1
./0
NA .C.A.23012,
n_
-
I
.2 r--
r------.
~ - - -1- ~ I I
I
I (JI~ -- r-=-Oo - --
a-:" -- - -
·· ..Clark yl
-
J
I "tI"tI
_- .08 r--- I I I
4 6 8 10 20 X 10 6 .....
Reynolds Number
""<u
:-:: .06 I
~f A"imum lift coefficient . Variation with Reynolds Number from
lests in tbe f"ll·sca le wind tunnel. o
Q
I
'0 .04
I I
Comparison with the Clark Y.- The comparison be~
QJ
g.
I

I
I
Vi .02 I I I
t\\'een the new eetion and the Clark Y section is en-
tirely ba ed on the te t re ult from the full- cale
I I
tunnel. The curye in figure 5 how that the maximum I I I
4 6 8 10 20 xl0 6
lift coefficient for the two airfoils differ by little more Re ynolds Number
than the xperimental error. The scale effect on the rI Gl:RE i. L ift-<un·e s!ope. , 'aria tion with Reynolds Number from tests in the
full·scale wind tunnel.
maximum lift c efficient for the new airfoil i ,ho",e,-er,
slightly greater than that for the lark Y within the flow at the leading edge (referenc 4). Thi condition
range of Reynolds N umbers tested. The result indi- of flow has a critical effect on the angle of zero lift and
cate that the coefficient for the . A. C. A. 23012 is yaries con iderably with Reynolds Iumber. The
somewhat grea ter than that for the lark Y at Rey- :='l. A. . A. 23012 au'foil ha milch Ie camb r than
nold Tumbers above 3,000,000. \.. comparison of the lark Y and the general profile, which i more
the shape of the lirt curve of the 23012 (fig. 4) with nearly symmetrical, et up a flow about th e leading

.1 946-:36- -19
r-----
I l
I
AUTICS
440 REPOR T NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI TTEE FOR AERON
I TABLE I
edge that is not critical ; hen ce, the effects of scale on FULL-S CALE WIND- TUNNE L TESTS COMPA RI NG
I the angle of zero lift should be small. This view i N. A. C. A. 23012 A:;-r D C LARK Y AIRFO ILS
suppor ted by the tests in the full-scale and variabl e- A L R. N . = 4.500,000

density tunnels. :\. A. C. A . Clark Y

Figure 7 shows that the slope of the lift curve for the
C harac teristic 23012

. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil is slightly higher than thaI, c __________ _ _ ____ -._-- ------- _
1. 50 I. 47
(or the Clark Y. Both sets of results indicate that
l _ m ar
"'·o(degrees)_ . .. __ .... _____ ......... .. -1.2 -5.5

the lift-cur ve slope increases slightly with R eynold s dC,.( per d agree) . . __ . _..... ___ ..
ao=<r.;; .1 01 . 098

umber. CDO"'I .. ____ __ __ _____ _____ ____ ---- --- -- .0069 .0086
The cur ves of drag coefficient a t zero lift (fig. ) e",o.c.
-. --- -- - - - -
__ _________ . - - - - ._. __ . __
CL opt _ _ _ --- - - - - - - -_______
1 .19
-1 .007
1.20
-1 .075
and minim um profile-drag coeffici ent (fig. 9) show that
AerOdYrl'l TniClr~ -________
1 .015 1 .025
the drag of the N. A. C. A. 230 12 airfoil is definit ely center
-- - - - - - - -
~ ______ _ 1.06 1. II

lower than that of the Clark Y. These figures al 0

indicat e that the drag decreases more rapidly with an
Ct.m'uICDO min _____ _ ___ ___ ________ _ -.-- 161
increase of R eynold umb er for the new airfoil than COmi " _____ _ __________ _____ --- --- _
208
.0078 .00
for the Clark Y. It should be mentio ned that the L IDmoz ... ___ ... _..... . __ __ ._ ..•.• __ 25.0 21. 5
CLnt (L ID) mor __ ._ .. ... _ • __ ... __ 1. 3 1 .4

minim um-profile-drag results are relativ ely inaccu rate C. p. forw ard position (perrent c) _. _
c. p . a t C,.=0.3 (percent c) .. ______ ....
'25.0
1 25.7
129. .)
' 4 .5
as compa red with the drag at zero lift so that caution
will be u ed in extrapo lating them to hiO'her values 1 :"Jo consistent variation with cha nges in Re y nolds Number.

of the R eynold s Numbe r. F ollowing a recentl y adopted tandar d proced ure,

Th e remainin g import ant charac teri tics for one
pitching-moment coefficients are referred to the ae1'O-
yalu e of the R eynold s J umber are presen ted for com-

.
Q

..,-
~.O I 6r---~--+-_r-+_r+-~++-+~~-
-r-+-~-++-r
...:'
Q)
o
.... u.OI2'r---_r--+--+-+-L-r++~-+_r
~--+_~~~~H
~o· OI2~--~--+_~-+~+-b+++-+~~--r-+-r1-++-r C)-
o
_ ,,: ' Clark Y
~ ~~~~~~H
"-<.,- - -- -- -- - - ___ .,: "Clork Y
15
-~
- ~__
~ . 008~--~~±r~~ ~~
~~-~ -~
4_ ~·+·+N+A-.C+.-A~.2+3~0-1-2+---~-+~
o .008~-~=+~~~~~~~~~
·NA.C.A. 23012 I • • •• ~
...: o
Q)
~ . 004· ~--r-I--·- - -l--t-l-t L+-I-I~+_~-+~-I-I_++-I
8.004~--~--+_~-+~+-b+++-+~~--r-+-~-++4- I
§
8' .§
0/L----1--2
x-;10-;;!;J
2i;::0.L
-!:--L-L-L...l4:--l-.L..l-;;6--L-;81;--L/-;-;O:;---'-..L.~ 6
~ S
2 4 6 8 10 20 xl0 6 < Reynold s Number
Re ynolds Number Number
FIG UR E 9.- l\Iioimum profile·dra g coefficient . Va riation with R eynolds
frolll
FI GURE S.- Drag coefficient at zero lift. Variation with Reynolds Number from tests in the full·scale wind tunnel.
tests in the full ·scale wind tunnel.
dynam ic center rather than to the quarte r-chord
parison in the following table. The method of obtain - point. This proced ure is con idered prefera ble be-
ing the ratios of GL max /GDO min in the table is somew hat cause, by d efinition, a constant pitching-moment co-
fallacious as bo th the lift and drag values were taken efficien t is obtain ed throug hout the flight range. The
at the same Reynol ds J umber ; whereas in flight the average values of the pitchin g-mom ent coeffici ents
two conditi ons occur at different air speeds. Th e thus found for the two a,irfoils togethe r with the mean
comparative ratios indicat e, however, that the peed location of the aerody namic center are given in the
range of the new airfoil i much better than that of table. The coeffici ent for the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil
the Clark Y. As the result of the smalle r camber of is very mall and is only about 9 percen t of the valu e
the . A. C. A. 23012 a compa red with the Clark Y, found for the Clark Y.
GL opt ,the lift coeffi cient corre pondin g to the minim um- In brief, it may be concluded from the resu lts that
profile-drag coefficien t, might be expected to be con- the . A. C. A. 23012 airfoil with the excepti on of a
siderab ly Ie . Airfoil s such as the N. A. C. A. 23012 sharp er break in the lif t curve is su perior in all respects
having the camber well forwar d tend, however, to h ave to the Clark Y a.irfoil.
Comparison with the N. A. C. A. 2212.- -Anoth er com-
higher optimu m lift coeffi cients than airfoils with usual
mean-line shapes. Actually, table I indicat es that the parison betwee n the new ection and a well-known ec-
optimu m lift coeffi cient for the two sec tions are nearly tion is afforded by table II , in which are compa red the
eq lIaJ. import ant charac teristics of the 1 . A. C. A. 23012 and
 CHARACTER! TICS OF T HE" . A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 441
the N. A. C. A. 2212 ection. For thi purpo e only TABLE III
tandard 20-atmo pherc test result from the varia ble- COMPARI ON OF RI~ U LT FROM TWO TC'NN ELf;
N . A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL.
den ity tunnel corre ponding to an "effective R f'jTDo lds
Numb er" (discussed later ) of approximately ,000,000 \ ra ri able-
Full·scale
ar e employed. The are the u ual te t re Lilt from
the tandard plot in figure 2 excep t that the draa- co-
I Characleris tic

--
tunnel densit y
tunnel

efficient have been reduced, as indicated in thi fj a-ure E iTecth'e R. " 3. 4()(), 000 3. 400.000
T est H. " 3.090. 000 I. 286. 000
and discus ed later, to allow for the r edu ction in the C Lm • • • _ I. 40 1. 43
a Lo (d egrees)"
kin-friction drag to be ex-p ected in pa sing from the - 1.2 - 1. 2
a o= dCI'(per degre~)
te t R eynold umber to the higher effective R eynolds da ,
.099 .102

1 umber. The R eynold umber of ,000,000 at C" O"' in _____ ., . 0072 . 0034
C I. op l - - - ___ . 19 . 16
which the compari on is made, rorre pond approxi- C"' o.t _ -.007 -.007
ma tely to that for a modern two- ngine transport air-
plane flying near i t minimum peed. Aerod ynamic cenler{~ . 01 5
.06
.013
.05
Cn ", j,, __ .. , . 00 I .0036
TABLE II ( L I D ) mu
,

.. , 24. I 22.5
COMPARJ ON OF . A. C. A. 230]2 AND 2212 AIRF01L CL8 t ( L I D ) mu .30 . 40

C haracteris t ic ~ ..1 .
230 12
c:. .1 .
I ~ · 2\lf .1. The method of comparison employed utilize the
concept of an effective Reynold I umber in order to
h. WO.OOO
3.090.000
. 500. 000 allow for the effect of the turbulence pre ent in the
3. 220. 000
I. 61 1.60
\\-jnd t unnel . Thi method, which \\'a fu t proposed
-1. 2 -I. in reference 5 and i di u sed in the ucc eeding para-
. I().! . 103 graph, appears to be Lbe be t at pre ent ayailable for
. 1J074 . 0076
the interpretation of wind-tunnel results a applied to
. 16 . 17 flight .
-.00b '-. 029 ~1aJ'k ed cale effect, uch a the rapid dec rea e of
. 012 009 drag coefficient with R eynold Tumber for the phere,
.07 .05
the rapid increa e of the maximum lift coefficit"nt for
ome airfoil , and the incr a e of drag coeffic ient for
CLm oz"C['lC "' ." . ___ _ 217 210 kin-friction plate, are as ociated with a tran ' ition of
CD . 0077 .0077
( L/i»~:;,:::::::':::: __ ~3. 23.9 the boundary-layer flow from laminar to turbulent.
CL a t ( L I D ) .3fl . 40
MU . , __ __

c. p. forward position (percent c) 2.,.6 27. 0 Numerous e::-..-periment including Reynolds' oria-inal
c. p. a t ' . C L (percent c) __ 1.'. Y 31. ti
m
..
cIa sic experiment have indicated that the tran ition
occur at progr e ively lower valu e of the Reynolds
All the important charactCl·j tic of the two ections N umb er as the "un teadine s", or initial turbulence,
are compared in a form that r equire practically no of the a-eneral air tl'eam i increa ed. Hence, when
di cu ion. It will be noted that the chara cteri tic of turbillence i introduced into the air tream of a wind
the T. A. C. A. 23012 are approximately the ame a , or tunn el, the e marked cal efl'ect appear at a prog]'e -
lia-htly uperior to, tho e of the N. A. . A. 2212 except iv ly lo \\"er value of the Reynold Number a the
that the pitching-momen chara cteri tic of the new air- tream urbulence i increa ed. In a \\'ind tunnel
airfoil are markedly uperior. Th e . A. C. A. 230]2 having turbul ence, the flow that i ob erved at a giYcn
airfoil hould therefore be u ed in preference to the Reynold umber therefore cone pond approximately
N. A. C. A. 2212 for airplan e requiring thi general to he fl w tha would be ob erv d in a turbulence-free
type of airfoil section. stream at a higher value of the R eynold Num ber.
Comparison of variable-density-tunnel and full-scale - The observed coefficiant and cale effect li kewi c
tunnel r esults,- The com pari on of the I'e ult from the corre pOlld more nearly to a higher yallle of the
two tunnel i made fir t at one value of the "efl'ecti" e R e nold umber in free air than to the actual test
Reynolds umber" by mean of table III, which Ii t R eynold umber in the turbulent tream . It i then
all the important characteri tics at one yalue of the ad ,"j able to refer to till higher value of the Reynold
Reynold umber, and later by a more detailed com- ~umb er at which corre ponding flo\\" would be ob-
parison of the characteri tic that how marked yaria- crved in free air it the " efre ti \' 0 Reynold X umber" .
tions with Reynolds N umber wi thin the full -scale of th te t and to mak e compari on and apply
range. In the table, the ]'e ult from the ,-ari a bl e- the tu nnel data to flight a t tbat valuo of the Reynolds
den ity tunnel were taken dir ectly from figure 2. The Number.
result from the full-scale t unnel were taken from A regards the relation of the effective Reynolds
curves representing variations of the different r\tar- N um bel' to the te t R eynold umb r, it app ar that
acteri ti s with R eynolds umb er. a factor, which will be referred to as the " turbulence
 442 REPORT NATIO NAL A DVI ORY COMMITTEE FOR AEROXAUTICS
factol''', may be a pplied to the test R eynolds N umb er
to obtain th e en'ective R eynolds Number. The value
of t be tu r bulence facto)' fol' a g iven wind t unnel m ay
be determ ined by a com pari on of spher e drag te ts or
<l irfoil m ax i mum ~lif t te ts in th e \~'ind tunnel and in
nigh t. B ecause the factors determ ined by th e two
methods mig ht no t agree, the air foil method i CO I1-
idere l preferable ; bu t ad eq uate da ta on maximum lift
coe ffi cien t · are not a va ilab le 1'01' making the comp arison
between both the fu ll-sca le t unnel and the vur iabl -
den sity tunnel and fligh t by this method. A \'alu e of
the f,) cto r of 2.4 was tentati \'ely esta blishecl between
the Y<U'ia bl e-dcnsity tunn el and the fu ll-sca le t unn el
by n compl1l'iso n of tests of Clar k Y airfoil in bo tb
Lunnels. This valu e wa emp loyed in reference 5,
flss umin g th e factor 1'0 1' the fu ll-scale t unnel to be
un ity (no t urbu lence) .
T he as umption that the factor is un ity for the full-
scale tun nel i npproximn tely co rrect because d if-
(eren es in the t ur bu lence between th e fu ll-scale
tunne l and nigh t produ ce only sm:l ll clwnges in the
I
-
~
. 012
o I
\..
Q)
x~ , N.A. C. A. 230/2
" 008
"0. x ,
".. "-'< I
....: f--
~-c: VD.T.
Qj '-r.5. T.
o I
u 004
0-
o -
I_ "
~ \
2 4 10 6 8
[ffec..tlVe Reynolds Number
F'11;L"ltf: 10 . Drug coe ffi cient Hl zer lift. COfllpjrison of resu lts from \"ari a ble·
dens ilr a nd rlill -s('~dc wine! tunnel s.
max imum lift coeffi cient, probab ly within th e ex peri-
mental accurn cy for most il.irfoil s. R ecent com par ati ve
sphere tests in the fu ll-sca le tunnel and in nig h t ll aye,
however , indicated that t he factor 1'0 1' the full-scale
tunJ1C'1 mny be taken as n,ppr ox im ately 1.1 instead o(
1.0 in deri\'ing the fa cto r 1'0 1' t he \Tariable-densi ty
tllnncl. Th e co rre pondin g va lue 1'0 1' t he nU'ia,ble-
dens ity t unnel t hen becom e 2.4 X l.l or 2.64. Th ese
turbu lence factors a re used throughout t ili r eport to
de riy e va lu cs o f the en'ectiy e R eyno lds N umber.
Incid entally, i t may be n oted that s phere te ts in the
yari'lb le-d ensity tun nel a nd in nigh t ind;cate yalues for
Lbe t urbulence fa ctor in approx ima te 1Lgree m('n t wi t h
the \'alues gi \Ten; the <tct unl \'alue derived from sph ere
tests [1.1'8, 11o\\'e \'e1', dep end en t on th c size or t he p her
employed.
The resu lts of the test at a given R eynold umb el'
m ig ll t be directly applied at th e higher eft'ective
R eynolds N umb er; 11owe \' e1', one ch an O'e for wh ich ap-
proximate allowance m ay be m ad e i to be expected i n
pass in g to the higher R eynolds Number. Th e part o f
'-- -
t he drag a ociated \\'ith skin [ric tion i known to ele-
cr ea e with the R eynold Number. TherefOl'<' , alth ough
t he cond itions a apply ing to the transition from lam-
inar to t urbu len t fl ow may be consideJ'e 1 a r eproduc-
ing tho e at the hig her crrective R eynoll Number , th e
value of th e drag coeffi cien t hou ld be r edu ced in pa s-
in g to the efl' ectiv e R eynold Number. Th e actual
vlllue of th is in cremen t t hat hould be s ubtracted i
omewha t uncerta in, but 11 \Ta lu e determine 1 as s ug-
gested in reference 5 is used in thi repor t for co rrecting
the Yllt'iable-density-tul1nelre ults. Th e enduation of
th e in cremen t is ba ed on t he a s umpti on t hat at th e
hig her valu es o f t he R ey nolds Nu mber encounter ed in
IIigh t, wh en the proflle-drag coefl1cien t is of imp ortan ce,
m o t of the profile dr'a g i. du e to skin friction from the
tu rbu lent bo undary layer. T he increment m ay then
be determined from Prandt l' analy i of the completely
t urbulen t skin -friction layer (referen ce 6) as the
amo un t by which th e skin-fl'iction-drug coefficien t
decrel1ses in t he R eynolds N umb er range from the
te t R eynold Num ber to the efl'ective R eynold
J u m bcr. T il us, wh en the talld fl rd ai I' (oil te t r e ults
It~
from the yariable-density t unnel itt a. te t R ey nolds
umb el' of approximately 3,000,000 arc a pplied to
I
fligh t at the efrective R eynold s N umb el' of 11 pproxi-
mately ,000,000, the m ea urecl profil e-drag coefficients
should be corrected by dedu ctin g the increment 0.0011.
I It hould be m! 11 a ize 1 th at the vfllu es employed
I in thi r e port for botb the t urbul ence factor and th e
I drag in crement should be consid erecl a only tentative
\
approximations. Th e n llu e may be rcvised a th e
res ul t of fllrther te ts now on the program at the
20 x/G' Com mittee 's l:l borato ry . In particular, the fact th at
t he kin -friction coemcien t for airfoil tenels to be
h igher than for Hat pi /) tes (upon which the pre en t
\'alue of dl'l) g in crement i. based ) agrees witb the
pre en t re ults in ind icatin g tbnt the drag in crem en t
may be too low.
Th e compariso n between tIl e pl'ofllr-drag r es ul ts
from the two tunnels may be made on t he above-
de cl'ib e I bllsis by co mp:lring t he dottecl curve in
figure 2 w ith the profilc-drag cuJ'\'c from th e full-
scale tunnel in fi g ure 4, although th e va lu e of the
e(recti ve R eynold N limber differ sligh tly . A better
comp ari on i a fi'ord ed by the curves in figure s 10 and
11 representing yariations of ce rtain characteri tic
with Lh c effectiv e R eynold s N umber. It \\oill be noted
that t he re ul ts from t he full-scale tunnel indicate
som ewhat lower profile-drag coefficien ts bu t t hat th e
din'eren ccs are maIler at zero lif t where tbe 1'e ults
a rc mor e r li able owin g to t he a.bsence of everal more
or les u ncel'tain correc tion in vol ved in deducing th e
profile-drag coeffic ien t ,vb en t he a irfoil i developing
lif t .
Th e values of th e maximum lift coefficient ar e com-
pared in figure 12 by means of curves repre enting
variations with the R eynold s umb el'. The agree-
 CHARACTERISTI C F THE X. A. C. A. 23012 AIRFOIL 443
m nt between the r e ult from th e two tunne l , COll - den ity a nd fllll- cale tunnels are interpreted on the
idering th e difficulties of mea Ul'emen t, i reasona bly ba i of un "efl'ecti \' E' Rey nold umber" to allow
satisfactory. Th e mall discrepancy that remain s may for t he crl'ect of turbulence, r ea onably satisfactory
indicate eith er that th e yalue of the t urbul e"1ce factor
/.8
hould be modified or po ibly t hat an in crement
corr e ponding to t hat u ed with the drag hou ld be 1.6
~
em ployed.
~ N.A.C.A. 230/2 / x
" -F.v.O:r.._
For th e remaining characteristics, tabular yalues
may be directly compar ed. Th e r es ul t from botb
cJ
E/. 4

----
. I--< ,-)--
S. T.
.....' ~ x
t UDn els agree in indica ting th at within the ffiO'h t .§1.2 .--f-
r ange of value of th e R eynold Jumber inn tiO'uted ~
"- /.0
th e followin O' ch aracte ri tic for the ~. A. C. A . 23012 Q)
o
section h ow no yariation " 'ith R ey nolds f\ umber (J

..... . 8
su fficiently marked to require their being ta ken in to '-
-:::
account in engineerinO' work : a.ngle of zero lift, a Lo ; '§ ,6 -
optim um lift coefficient, CL p '. pitchinO'-moment
b f}
co - .§
l(
I - -
~.4
, '-
o·
"' .016 ,2 -1- )-- .

-
Q)
o
u.012 I ~3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 8x/0'
CJ> EffectIVe Reynolds Number
e
'?008
Q)
.
---0-...
t--
. A
NA.C.A. 2 3012

..,. r. s. T. ""'v.D. T. I
""t' RE 12. ~r 3\imll:n lift co Oldent. Comparison of results from ,'n riable
density and full,sc3 1e wind tunneh .
~ r-
o
Q.004
I agreement may be expected, at lea t f r efficient
a irfoil. of moderate thickne .
3 L
.§
.S 0/ 2 4 6 8 /0 20 x/0 6
Effe cflve Reynolds Number
F'H;t°RE II. :\1 inimum profile-drag- coefficient. Comparison of re..~ults from
"ariable,dell'it)' a nd fuJl·sca le wind wnnels. LAXGLEY ::\l E :lIO RlAL .\ERO;\AUTICAL LABORATORY,
~ATIONAL ADVl ~ ORY O\L\fITTEE FOR A E RONA U TIC,
effici ent about the aerodynam ic center, C'm a . c . ; and LAN GLEY FIELD, Y A., ,\larcl! 1, 193,;;.
the corre ponding aeroelyo,lm ic-cente l' po ition. For
the e chanlcteristic , th e tabu la r yalue pre ented in REFERE CE
table III may therefore be di rectly compared . I t I. Jacobs, Ea tman N. , 'Yard, l(cn n th E., and Pink erton,
R obert M .: The Characte ri stic of 7 R elated Airfoil .... cc-
will be Doted that, in ,111 ca e , t h e nllue obtained from tions from T c t - in the Ya ri ab l -Den-it\' 'Yind Tunncl.
the two tunnels sh o,,' rea :-;onably good ag reement. T. R. N o . 460, N. A. C . A. , 1933. .
2. Jacob, Ea tman ., and Abbott, Ira II .: The . A. C. A.
Th e lift-curve lope ao h o\\' a ligh t in cr ense \\'ith Va ri able- D en it.\' Wi nd Tunnel. T. R. N o. 4 16, N. A.
inc1'ea iu g Reynold ~ umbe l' in bot h \\'inel tunnel. C. A., 1932.
3. D eFrance, mith J.: The X . A. C. A. Full- 'cale Wind
Tu nnel. T. R. No. 459, X. A. C. A., 1933.
o CLU 10 S 4. • ih'e r tcin , Abe: Qcale Effcc t o n Clark Y Airfoil haracter-
isiic ' from . A. C. A. Full- calc Wind-Tunnel T e ts.
1. The N. A . C. A. 23012 nirfoi l ection h ows T. R. No. 502, . A. . A .. 1934.
5. Jaco bs, Ea tman ~. : R ecent Progre' Concerning the Ae ro-
characteri tic that are generally uperior to tho e of dynamic of Wing .,ec lion. Paper pre~ented bcfore
well-known and commonly u cd ection of mall or A. . r.r. E., Berkel ey, a lifornia, Jun e 19, 1934 (a \'ai lablc
from til Office of A rOllautira l Intelligencc, . A. C. A.,
meelium camber and moderate thicknes " 'a hington , D . C. ).
2. When ilirfoil te t ]'e ult ut large yuluE' of the 6. Prandtl , L.: Zur Turbulen ten triimung in R oh ren und
Lii ngs P latten. Erg b. Aero. " c r.;;. Zli Giittingen, I V
R eynold Xlimb er from the X . A. . A. ynrinble- LiefcrLl ng, 1932, pp. I 29.
444 REPORT NATlO AL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TABLE IV TABLE VII.-FULL-SCALE WlND-T NNEL DATA

FULL-SCALE WIND-TUNNEL DAT A J. A. C. A. 23012
AIRFOIL COARACTERISTICS
. A. C . A. 23012 RN: Zero lift-3,906,OOO; l\-Iax. Iift-3,G5 ,000
AIRFOIL CUARACTERISTICS
CL a Co LI D c. p . C a C
TlN: Zero lift-I ;26.000: M ax. Iift-U93 .000 Do o d.t'.
--- --- - - - - - - - -- --- - --
CL a CO LID c. p. C
Do a
0 C"" cJ.t. 0
Percent 0
T= 0. 0147
y=O.O,
I
- -- - - - - - --- --- --- -2.0
-.1
-4.0
-2.6
0.011 '1 - - ------
.00<)0 _. ------
20.0 0.0092 -3.3 -0.007
I
x= O.OO9.'ic 15.5 .0084 -2.3 -.008
0 -1.2 .00&0 0 -------- . 0080 -1.1 -.008
0
Percent 0
1/=0.023c
0.2
-.1
-4.0
-2.6
0.0126
.OUB
--------
- -------
1 .0
12. 0
0.0 104
.009
-3.3
-2.3
- 0.012
- .013
.1
.2 I. :~
.0080
.0092
12.5
21. 7
31. 9
27.2
. 0074
. 0070
.0
1.0
-.007
-.008 I
.3 3.1 .0123 24.4 2~. 5 .0073 2.1 -.009
0 -1.2 .0088 0 --- ----- .0088 -1.2 -.012 .4 4.5 .0170 23. G 25. i .0081
.1 .2 11. 4 ..5 . 2 -.1 - . 013 3. 0 - . 008
. 0088 .5 5.8 .0228 21. 9 25.5 .0089 4.0 -.00
.2 1.7 .0103 19.4 31. 2 .0080 1.0 -.0 14 .6 7. I . 0300 20.0
.3 3.2 .0131 22.9 29.0 .0081 2.0 -.014 25. 4 .0099 5.0 - .009
.7 8. 'I .0380 18.4 25.2 . 0107 6. 0 -.008
.4 4.5 .0173 23. I 27.9 .0084 3.0 -.014 9.7 .0470 17.0 25.2 . 0113 6.9 -.009

n
.5 5. 9 .0228 21. 9 27.0 .0089 4.0 -. 014 1I.0
.6 i.2 .0300 20.0 26.2 .0098 5.0 -.013 .9 . 057G 15. S 25.2 .0119 - . 009
-.0 12 1.0 12.3 .0660 14.7 25.3 .0121 -.009
.7 8.5 .0400 1 .3 26.0 .0107 6.0 1.1 13.7 .0800 13.75 25.3 .0125
10.0 . 0485 16.5 25.6 .0128 7. I -.011 9.7 -.009
.9
1.0 :U .0597
.0723
15. I
13. 8
25.5
25.5
.0146
.0166
.2
9.3
-. 011
-.011
1.2
1.3
15. I
16.6
.09·10
.1105
12.8
11. 7
25.3
25.3
. 0137
.01 65
10.7
11. 9
- .009
-.009 I
1.4 18. I .1285 10.9 25.4 . 019·1 13.0 -.008
1.1 14.3 .0860 12.8 25.5 .0186 10.4 -.01 1 I. '16 19.2 .1450 10. I 25.4 .0261
1.2 15.9 .1020 II. 25.5 . 0208 I I. 7 -.012 13.8 -.007
2.1.5 .0250 -.012 1.2 19.6 .19·13 6. I 27.0 . 1140 15.5 -.039
I. 26 16.9 .112 I I. 3 12.5 1.1 20.7 .223
1.2 Ii. 5 .140 8.6 25.6 .0590 13. I -.021 4.9 30.0 .155 16.8 -.063
1.1 19.6 .194 30.0 . 1267 15.7 -.056 1.0 22.6 .263 3. 32.0 .207 19.1 -.079
5.7
1.0 22.6 . 251 4.0 33.0 .IU5 19.0 -.086
.9 2.;' 8 · ~20 2.8 35.5 .2i5 22.5 - 107
2i. I .384 2. I .0 . 34 24. I - . 118
TABLE VIII
FULL- CA LE WIND-TUNNEL D ATA
TABLE V
N. A. C. A. 23012
FULL-. CALE WI D-TUNNEL D ATA
ArRFOIL CHARACTERIST ICS
. A. C. A. 23012

a
RN: Zero Iift-4.4.'5.000; Max. Iift-4,143.000
AIRFOIL CnARACTERISTICS

Tll\' : Zero Ii ft-2,680.000: M ax. Iirt- 2,4 0,000 CL

_
a l~ LD c. p. C
no C
,.

___~
( ~

--
~_I_a_I~~~~ _a_o 0
Percent 0
r=0. 014
y=0.049
-0.2 -3.9 0.0112 I .8 0.0090 -3.2 -0.008
o Percent
x=O 0145
11 = 0 0680 - .1 -2.5 .0090 C::::: 14.0 .0084 -2.2 -.009
I
0
-0 2 -4 . 0 0.0120 19 0 0.010 3 3 -0 010 0 -I. 2 .OOi9 0 ---- ---- .0079 -1.2 -.009
.1 .2 .0079 12.67 - 00,
-:~
-. 1 -2.6 .0910 13.0 .090 -2.2 -.009 32.0 .0073
o -1.2 .0084 0 .0084 -1.2 -.009 .2 1.6 • ()()<JO 22.2
2;;.0
27.8 .Q()~ -.008
3.0
.I
.2
.3
.2.0081
1.7
3. I
.0094
.0 125
12.4
21.3
24.0
33.5
28.0
25.5
. ()()75
.0072
. 0075
-.1
1.0
2.0
-.003
-.008
-.009
.3
.4
.5
4.3
5.7
.0120
.0167
.0228
23.
21. 9
26.0
25.5
25.2
:. ggf~
OO~9
1.1
2.
~.
-.OOi
-.00;
- . 007
.4 4.5 .0170 22.8 25.1 .0081 3. 0 -.0 10 .6 7.0 .0290 20. I 25.0 .00<17 4.9 -.006
.5 5 . 9 . 0240 20.7 25.1.010 4.1 - .OIC .7 .3 .0378 18. 5 25.0 .0105 5. 9 -.007
.6 7.3 .0320 18.9 25.1 .012 5.1 - . 011 9.7 .0467 17. I 25.0 .0110 6.9 - .007
.7
.8
8.6
10.0
.010
.0·19
I 17.5
16.2
25.1
25.1
.012
.0 13
n.l
7.1
-.011
- .011
.9
1.0
I I. 0
12.3
.0565
. 0673
16.0
I·\. 9
25.0
25.0
.0114
.0116
7.9
8.9
-.C05
-.007
I:g
I. I
:U
14 . I
:g~y
. 083
:n
13.2
~~::
25. I
:g:~
.015
g::
10. I
=:&\8
-.009
1.1
1.2
1. 3
13. 7
15.1
16. 4
.0796
.092
.100
1~ . 8
12.9
12.0
25.0
2:i.l
25.2
.0121
. 0125
.0139
9. ~
n~
-.006
-.00
-.009
1.2 15.5 .097 12.3 2.5.1 . 017 11.1 - .007 1.4 17.9 . 1260 Il.l 25.4 .0169 13.0 -.009
I. 33
I. 2
Ii.
18. 0
I. 121
. 152
II. 0
7.9
2.1. I
25.2
I. 022
.072
13. 2
13.9
-. 007
-.032
1. 46
1.2
19.2
19.6
.141
.197
10. I
G. I
25.4
2G.2
.0251
1168
13. 9
15. 4
-.010
- . 037
1.1 20.3 .210 5.2 29.3 . 143 16.5 -.054 1.1 21. 0 . 221) 4. S 30.0 .162 Ii I -.067
1.0 22.1 .246 '1. 0 32.0 .190 18.5 -.076

TAB LE VT.- FULL- CALE WI ND-TUNNEL DATA

N. A. C. A. 2301 2
AIRF OIL CHARACTERISTICS
RN: Zero lift-3.362,OOO; Max. Iift- 3,199,OOO

---
CL a CIJ
LID I~ C
Do
a
o
-
Cm
fI·(',

x= 0.0191
0
Percent 0
y=0.0887
-0.2 -4.0 O. OlIO -------- 20.5 0.0090 -3.3 -0.005
-. 1 -2.6 . 0090 ----_.-- 10.7 . 0085 -2.2 -.005
0 -1.2 .0082 0 -------- .0082 -1.2 -.006
.1 .3 .0080 12.5 29. 0 . 0074 -.1 - .000
.2 1.7 .0094 21. 3 26.5 .0072 .9 -.005
.3 3. I .0125 24.0 25.0 .0075 1.9 -.006
.4 4.4 .0175 22.8 25.0 .0086 2.9 - . 007
.5 5.8 .0230 21. 7 25.0 .0091 3.9 - . 008
.6 i.l .0300 10.0 25.0 .0101 4.9 - . 007
.7 .4 · 03~0 18.4 25.0 .0107 5.9 -.008
.9 1~: ~ .0470
.0575
.or,s2
17.0
15.6
14.7
25.1
25. I
25.1
.0113
.0121
6.9
I. 9
-.008
-.008
-.C07
g:~
1.0 .0125 .9
1.1 · OR05 13.6 25.2 .0130 9.9 -.00r.
1.2
1.3
I. 41
1.3
15. 2
16. 7
18.6
18.9
.0945
.1102
.134
.153
10.5
:n
.1
25. 2
25.2
26. 0
27.0
.0142
.OWO
.023
.065
11.0
12. I
1:1. 5
14. 2
-. 000
- .005
-. ()( ~ 7
-.021
1.2 19.0 .1 0 6.7 28.0 . 100 14.8 -.0:14
1.1 20.3 .212 5.2 30.0 .14.5 16. ~ -.0.1.5
1.0 22. 3 .252 4.0 31. ~ . 194 18.8 - . 072
--