AY g1 827 NATIONAL AKOONUATICS

AND SPACE ADMNI4STRATIONA moorET--IETC FIG 20'

AN EXPERIMENTALSTUDY OF DYNAMICSTALL 0ONADVANCED AIRFOIL SECT--ET
,JL02 V .1MCCROSKEY.K v MCALISTER. L 9 CARR OL CTIT()
-UCASFE AA82(0VO- NASA-T*-*%2#$5-VOL-1 NS6

IhmEEEhhhh7h
 NASA Technical Memorandum 84245 USAAVRADCOM TR-82-A-8

An Experimental Study of Dynamic

Stall on Advanced Airfoil Sections
Volume 1.Summary of the Experiment
W. J. McCroskey, K. W. McAlister, L. W. Carr, and
S. L. Pucci

July 1982 DTIC

8 cD OCT4 19823

_____________________ United States AryE

Aviation Researh
and Development
National Aeronautics and --
82 1o 0 O 0
-"Command

Space Administration w
• ._,:,. . ._., ,,.9
. .,. ..Z 5 6. :
,,0
 NASA Technical Memorandum 84245 USAAVRADCOM TR-82-A-8

An Experimental Study of Dynamic

Stall on Advanced Airfoil Sections
Volume 1.Summary of the Experiment
W. J. McCroskey
K. W. McAlister
L. W. Carr
S. L. Pucci. Aeromechanics Laboratory
AVRADCOM Research and Technology Laboratories
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

National Aeronautics and United States Army

Space Administration Aviation Research and
Development Command
Ames Remrch Cente
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Moffett Field. California 94035

t
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .. .. ....................... ........ v

LIST OF FIGURES. .. ....................... ....... vii

SYMBOLS .. ............ ......................... ix

SUMMARY. .. ....................... ............. 1

1. INTRODUCTION .. ........................ ....... 1

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT .. ............ ........... 2

Test Apparatus. .. ....................... .... 2
Instrumentation. ............. ................ 3
Data Analysis and Measurement Accuracy .. ................. 4
Test Conditions. .............. ............... 7

3. GUIDE TO THE DATA. .. ...................... ...... 8

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. ......................... .... 10

Static Data. .............. ................ 10
Dynamic Data .. ............. ................ 12
Comments on Wind-Tunnel Effects .. ................... 14

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .. .......................... 14

REFERENCES. ............. ...................... 16

TABLES. .............. ........................ 19

FIGURES .. ............. ........................ 55

NTIS
DTIC 2'B

DistrjhUt!0 r,/
T 10 Avai .IL llitV

2 Dst S , a.1
S~i
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

1 Harmonic C-fficients of the Oscillation Mechanism .. ........... ... 19

2 Airfoil Coordinates: NACA 0012 and Ames A-01 Airfoils .......... ... 20

3 Airfoil Coordinates: Wortmann FX-098 and Sikorsky SC-1095

Airfoils ............. ................................... 21

4 Airfoil Coordinates: Hughes HH-02 (-5o Tab) and Vertol VR-7

(-30 Tab) Airfoils .......... ............................... 22

5 Airfoil Coordinates: NLR-l and NLR-7301 Airfoils .. .............. 23

6 Transducer Locations on the Airfoils ......... ................. 24

7 Static Drag Coefficients at H. - 0.30 based on Wake Surveys .. ..... 25

8 Summary of the Measured Static Airfoil Characteristics at

M. - 0.30, including Wind Tunnel Wall Corrections .. .............. 25

9 List of Test Points with Unusual Zero Drift of Pressure

Transducers ............ ................................... 26

10 Coefficients of Linear Curve-Fit of Static Lift Data,

without Wind-Tunnel Corrections ....... .................... ... 27

11 List of Data Frames .......... .......................... ... 28

12 List of Static Data ........ ............................. 44

13 Mach Number Sweep at a = 150 + 10* sin wt, k - 0.10 ............

.. 45

14 Frequency Sweep at M. - 0.29, a - 15* + 10* sin wt ..... ........... 45

15 Frequency Sweep at Mw - 0.30, a - 100 + 10* sin wt ..... .......... 46

16 Frequency Sweep at M. = 0.30, a - 15* + 50 sin wt ..... ........... 46

17 Frequency Sweep at M. " 0.30, a - 10* + 5* sin wt ..... ........... 46

I, Stall Onset at M. - 0.30, a - a o + 10* sin wt, k - 0.10 ..........

... 47

19 Stall Suppression at M. - 0.30, a - ao + 10* sin wt ..... .......... 47

20 Stall Suppression at M, - 0.18, a -a o + 10' sin wt ..... .......... 47

21 Pitch Damping Studies at M. - 0.30, a ao + 2* sin wt .... ......... 48

22 No Separation: M. - 0.30, a - 50 + 50 sin wt ....... ............ 50

23 Dynamic Boundary-Layer Trip Data ................. 50

.e . ~* o. ot ee oo ea'
24 Hiscellaneous Dynamic Data. .... ...................... 51
25 Test Cases for Numerical Analysis (ref. 1) .. ................. 54

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1 Airfoils tested in the experiment ...... ................... ... 55

2 Model installation in the test section ..... ..................... 56

3 Photograph of the oscillation mechanism ..... ................ ... 57

4 Sketch of the wooden model shells surrounding the steel spar ... ..... 58

5 Pressure transducer and hot-wire installation: view from

inside the upper-surface shell ....... ......................... 59

6 Coordinate axes for the airfoils ...... ........................ 59

7 Sketch of the shadowgraph system for visualizing the leading-

edge region ........... .................................. 60

8 Representative shadowgraphs before (upper) and during (lower)

dynamic stall: Sikorsky SC-l095 airfoil, Mw - 0.30,
a - 10 + 100 sin wt, k = 0.10 ....... ......................... 61

9 Static lift and moment data on the NACA 0012 airfoil at

M. = 0.3; shaded bands represent uncertainty limits of data
corrected for wind-tunnel-wall effects ..... ..................... 62

10 Static lift and moment data on the Wortmann FX-098 airfoil

at M. = 0.11 ........... ................................. 63
11 Static lift and moment data on the Vertol VR-7 airfoil
at M. - 0.30 ........... ................................. 64

12 Comparison of measured lift-drag polars for the NACA 0012

airfoil at M. - 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections ..... . 65

13 Comparison of lift-curve slopes on the NACA 0012 and SC-1095

airfoils, Including wind-tunnel-wall corrections ... ............ ... 65

14 Typical data presentation from volume 2; no wall corrections ......... 66

15 Typical data presentation from volume 3 ..... ............... ... 67

16 Static characteristics of the NACA 0012 airfoil at

M. - 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections .. .............. 67

17 Static characteristics of the Ames A-0l airfoil at

M - 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections .. .............. 69

18 Static characteristics of the Wortmann FX-098 airfoil at

Mm - 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections .. ........... ... 71

vii
 Page

19 Static characteristics of the Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil at

K. - 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections .. .............. 73

20 Static characteristics of the Hughes HH-02 airfo!, at

M. - 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall correctior's .. .............. 75

21 Static characteristics of the Vertol VR-7 airfoil at

M, = 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections ........... 77

22 Static characteristics of the NLR-l airfoil at

M. = 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall zorrections ........... 79

23 Static characteristics of the NLR-7301 airfoil at

M. = 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections .. .......... .. 81

24 Comparison of maximum static lift on the NACA 0012 airfoil .......

... 83

25 Comparison of maximum static lift on the Ames A-01 airfoil ... ....... 83

26 Comparison of maximum static lift on the Wortmann IX-098

airfoil ............... ................................ 84
27 Comparison of maximum static lift on the Sikorsky SC-1095
airfoil ............. .....
............................... 84

28 Comparison of maximum static lift on the Hughes HH-02 airfoil ..... 85

29 Comparison of maximum static lift on the Vertol VR-7 airfoil ... ...... 85

30 Comparison of maximum static lift on the NLR-l airfoil .... ......... 86

31 Comparison of maximum static lift on the NLR-7301 airfoil. . . . . . .. 86

32 Maximum unsteady lift on the eight airfoils:

solid symbols - stall onset; open symbols = deep stall ...........
... 87

33 Comparison of maximum lift on the eight airfoils at M. - 0.30 .. ..... 88

34 Comparison of maximum lift on the NACA 0012 airfoil under deep-

dynamic-stall conditions: a - 150 + 10* sin wt, k - 0.10 ........ 89

35 Comparison of the lift hysteresis on the NACA 0012 airfoil:

M. 9 0.1, a - 15* + 10* sin wt, k - 0.10 ........................ 89

36 Comparison of maximum airloads on the NACA 0012 airfoil at

M0, - 0.30 and cik 2 2 constant ....... .................... ... 90

37 Comparison of maximum airloads on the Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil

at M. - 0.30 and auk2 a constant ...... .............. . . . 91
38 Comparison of maximum airloads on the NLR-l airfoil at
M(- 0.3 and 0 max - 20. ....................... 92

viii

- - -
 SYMBOLS

A static lift coefficient at u 0 (see table 10)

B static CL, Ifii. (see table 10)

CC chord force coefficient

CD form drag coefficient derived from surface pressure measurements

CDW total drag coefficient derived from wake survey (see table 7)

CL lift coefficient

CL0 lift:-curve slope at low a, per deg

CM quarter-chord pitching moment coefficient

CMO static pitching-moment coefficient at zero angle of attack

CN normal force coefficient

Cp pressure coefficient

c airfoil chord, m

k reduced frequency, wc/2U,,.

L/D ratio of lift to drag

M.

Mmax
free-stream Mach number (also M in table 11 and fig. 14)

maximum local Mach number on the airfoil

I
q. free-stream dynamic pressure, N/m2 (also Q, psi, in table 11)

Re Reynolds number based on chord and free-stream conditions

ro leading-edge radius, m

t time, sec

U. free-stream velocity, m/sec

Xa.c. chordwise location of the aerodynamic center of pressure at zero lift

x chordwise coordinate, m (see fig. 6)

y normal coordinate, m (see fig. 6)

a angle of attack, deg

Cimn angle of attack for maximum negative chordwise force, deg

ix
 aLmax angle of attack for maximum lift, deg

aMmax angle of attack for maximum local Mach number, deg

ao mean angle, deg (also AO in computer printouts); also angle for zero lift in
table 8 and figs. 9-11

ass static-stall angle, corresponding to CLmax, deg

aI amplitude, deg (also Al in table 11 and fig 14)

a2 magnitude of second harmonic of a, deg

aerodynamic pitch damping coefficient, - 4 CM da

02 phase of second harmonic component of a, deg

w circular frequency, rad/sec

N
x
 AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DYNAMIC STALL ON ADVANCED AIRFOIL SECTIONS

VOLUME 1. SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENT

W. J. McCroskey, K. W. McAlister, L. W. Carr, and S. L. Pucci

U.S. Army Aeromechanics Laboratory (AVRADCOM), Ames Research Center

SUMMARY

-,The static and dynamic characteristics of seven helicopter sections and a fixed-
wing supercritical airfoil were investigated over a wide range of nominally two-
dimensional flow conditions, at Mach numbers up to 0.30 and Reynolds numbers up to
4x106. Details of the experiment, estimates of measurement accuracy, and test condi-
tions are described in this volume, (the first of three volumes). Representative
results are also presented and comparisons are made with data from other sources.
The complete results for pressure distributions, forces, pitching moments, and
boundary-layer separation and reattachment characteristics are available in graphical
form in volumes 2 and 3.

The results of the experiment show important differences between airfoils, which
would otherwise tend to be masked by differences in wind tunnels, particularly in
steady cases. All of the airfoils tested provide significant advantages over the
conventional NACA 0012 profile. In general, however, the parameters of the unsteady
motion appear to be more important than airfoil shape in determining the dynamic-
stall airloads.

1. INTRODUCTION

Retreating-blade stall limits the high-speed performance of most modern heli-

copters. In the past decade, numerous new airfoils have been designed in attempts to
improve the stall characteristics of rotors without compromising the advancing-blade
performance. Only a few of these have been tested under unsteady conditions, and
some have not been tested at all. Furthermore, there is almost no overlap between
the existing data sets with regard to the important parameters of oscillatory motion.

The motivation of the present experimental investigation was the obvious need for
a standard data base for a series of modern rotor-blade sections. The primary objec-
tive was to measure the unsteady airloads, over an extensive matrix of test conditions,
on the eight profiles shown in figure 1. Other investigations were also overlapped as
much as possible. The NACA 0012 served primarily as a standard reference section; the
six modern helicopter sections were chosen as representative of contemporary designs
from several different companies and research organizations. A modern fixed-wing
supercritical profile was also included to extend the range of leading-edge geometries
and to provide a basis for comparison with oscillating-airfoil results obtained in
other wind tunnels.

Secondary objectives were to investigate the type of stall and boundary-layer

separation characteristics for each profile, to provide guidelines for estimating the
dynamic-stall characteristics of new airfoils in the future, to supplement the con-
ventional lift and pitching-moment measurements with unsteady drag data and
stall-flutter boundaries, and to determine the effeLts of leading-edge roughness
that is comparable to the erosion of blades in service or in incipient icing
conditions.

Dynamic stall depends on a large number of parameters. Consequently, a very

large number of unsteady test points (more than 600) plus 44 sets of static data were
required to fulfill the objectives of this investigation. As a result, the complete
report consists of three volumes. The present volume summarizes the experiment and
some of the principal results, including comparisons with data from other sources.
It also contains a comprehensive index of the individual unsteady data points. Vol-
ume 2 (Pressure and Force Data) contains the pressure, force, and moment data in
graphical form. These data are also available upon request on digital computer
tapes, one tape for each airfoil, as explained in volume 2. In addition, there is
a single tape containing only the 10 test cases that were discussed in reference 1
for the NACA 0012, Vertol VR-7, and NLR-7301 airfoils. Boundary-layer transition,
flow reversal, and reattachment results appear in volume 3 (Hot-Wire and Hot-Film
Measurements).

This report is primarily intended to assist ie users of the data; therefore,

the results are not discussed at length. Th pt ival results have been published
in references 1 and 2.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE - RIMENT

Test Apparatus

The experiment was performed in the 2- by 3-m atmospheric-pressure, solid-wall

Wind Tunnel at the U.S. Army Aeromechanics Laboratory. The tests were conducted in
essentially the same manner as those in a previous experiment (refs. 3,4), except
that the free-stream Mach number was extended to 0.3, the model chord c was reduced
to 0.61 m (except for the Hughes HH-02 airfoil, c = 0.69 m), the frequency of oscil-
lation was extended to 11 Hz, and the data processing was refined considerably. The
models spanned the 2.13-m vertical dimension of the wind tunnel, as indicated in
figure 2, and were oscillated sinusoidally in pitch about the quarter chord. A gap
of approximately 2 mm existed between the ends of the model and the wind-tunnel walls.

The drive mechanism used (fig. 3) was the same one described in references 3
and 4, with some notable improvements. In some cases, the connecting push rod was
fitted with a remotely controlled jackscrew mechanism that allowed the mean angle,
ao , to be varied continuously while the tunnel was operating. Discrete amplitudes of
oscillation of 20, 50, 60, 80, 10, or 140 could be set between runs. The motion of
the airfoils was given by a = ao + ai sin wt, with maximum higher harmonic distor-
tion approximately 2% of ai. Table 1 gives the harmonic content of the mechanism
for various values of ao and aI. The frequency of oscillation could be varied
between approximately 0.02 and 12 Hz.

The models of the eight airfoils (fig. 1) consisted of interchangeable shells

constructed of wood and fiberglass. These shells surrounded a stainless steel spar
that contained the instrumentation and wiring, as indicated schematically in fig-
ures 2 and 4. The shells contained special fittings for the pressure transducers
and hot-wire or hot-film sensors (fig. 5) that facilitated model changes without dis-
connecting the instrumentation.

2
 Each set of shells was precision-machined, while mounted on the spar, to a
design accuracy of ±0.1 mm. However, measurements after the test revealed that the
rms standard deviation of the coordinates from the design values was about 0.4 mm,
or 0.06% of chord, and that the maximum error was about 0.8 mm. The nominal design
coordinates of the airfoils are given in tables 2-5, referred to the standard coordi-
nate system sketched in figure 6. The coordinates were taken originally from refer-
ences 5-9 and from Amer (K. Amer, private communication, 1977).

A limited amount of static and dynamic data were obtained on each airfoil at
M = 0.185 and 0.29 with a boundary-layer trip, consisting of a 3-mm-wide band of
0.10-mm-diam glass spheres glued to the leading edge. The purpose of the trip was to
eliminate the laminar separation bubble that would normally form near the leading
edge as the stall angle was approached. It also approximately simulated surface
abrasion on helicopter blades operating under severe field conditions, as well as
roughness caused by incipient icing conditions.

Instrumentation

The primary data were obtained from 26 Kulite differential pressure transducers,
types YCQH-250-1 and YCQL-093-15. Those of the latter type were used in the leading-
and trailing-edge regions, because of their smaller size. The locations of the trans-
ducers for each airfoil are given in table 6. The back side of each transducer was
referenced to the total pressure of the wind tunnel; total pressure was measured
about 1.5 m upstream of the model. The measuring side of the transducers mated with
the fittings shown in figure 5, which had 0.79-mm-diam orifices. The transducers
thus installed had flat amplitude versus frequency responses of 250 Hz or better and
typical cavity resonance frequencies of about 850 Hz.

Special on-line analog computers that calculated and displayed the instantaneous
normal force, pitching moment, pitch damping, and pressure distributions proved to be
extremely valuable in assessing the dynamic-stall behavior, as well as the perfor-
mance of the instrumentation, while the tests w-e in progress. These devices also
enabled the unsteady parameters to be adjusted until some desired result was obtained,
such as the maximum lift condicion in the absence of moment stall or neutral aero-
dynamic damping in pitch.

Boundary-layer transition, flow reversal, separation, and reattachment were

studied with a variety of surface hot films and hot-wire sensors (single-, double-,
and triple-element probes), using the techniques described in references 4, 10, and
11. Six sensors were used on the upper surface of each airfoil, at the locations
given in table 6. In addition, a hot-wire probe protruding just outside the boundary
layer was mounted near the leading edge of the NLR-1 profile to aid in diagnosing the
local supersonic zone that wis frequently inferred at high incidence.

The leading-edge region was also examined with a shadowgraph flow visualization
system (fig. 7). The high-intensity strobe light was fired at selected phase angles
during the oscillation, and the pattern that developed on the Scotchlite high-gain
reflective sheeting on the floor of the tunnel was photographed by the pulse camera
above the test section. A representatire photograph is shown in figure 8.

Finally, a traversing pitot-static probe was used to survey the wake behind each
airfoil under steady-flow conditions. The steady drag of the airfoils at M. = 0.30
was derived from these measurements; these drag coefficients are listed in table 7.

3
 Data Analysis and Measurement Accuracy

For quantitative purposes, the pressure transducer and hot-wire signals were
amplified and recorded on a 32-channel analog tape recorder with 2500-Hz flat fre-
quency response. In addition, the average free-stream dynamic pressure, the instan-
taneous angle of attack of the model, and l/cycle and 200/cycle timing indicators
were recorded simultaneously. Calibrations of the pressure transducers were recorded
at the beginning and end of each analog tape. The unsteady data tapes were digitized
and ensemble-averaged off line. At least 50 cycles of data were normally sampled
200 times per cycle; however, for the NACA 0012 airfoil at very low frequencies, that
is, k < 0.002, only about 10 cycles were recorded. Reference and calibration signals
and the steady pressure data were acquired with the same system and were digitally
sampled 100 times over a 5-sec interval. The averaged pressure data were then pro-
cessed and integrated numerically by trapezoidal rule to determine the unsteady lift,
moment, and pressure drag.

End-to-end checks of the data acquisition and processing system indicated that 2
the pressure signals were reproduced to within an rms error of approximately 70 N/m
(0.01 psi), and that the transducer calibrations were reliable to better than
t150 N/m 2 (0.02 psi) or ±3% of the reading, whichever was greater, over the range of
tunnel speeds and temperatures. The model temperature, measured inside the shells,
was closely monitored and not allowed to vary more than 3C between records of
no-flow pressure readings. Transducer zero drift was normally controlled to within
the greater value of either ±150 N/m 2 (0.02 psi) or ±5% of free-stream dynamic pres-
sure. However, some exceptions are noted later in this suction.

The hot-wire and hot-film signals were recorded as consecutive, separate data
frames, and individual cycles of the analog records were examined to determine the
boundary-layer characteristics, as discussed in references 4, 10, and 11. For these
data, the results from three to eight cycles were averaged to obtain the relative
times within the cycle, wt, at which the various boundary-layer events occurred.

The instantaneous angle of attack was measured ,ith a potentiometer attached to

the tubular portion of the model spar (fig. 3). The angle-of-attack signal was cali-
brated for each data point based on the value of al, which was set by the oscilla-
tion linkage, and physical measurements of amax and amin that were obtained from
the trailing-edge position relative to the centerline of the tunnel with the wind off.
The maximum absolute error in a was estimated to be ±0.20, with a relative uncer-
tainty of ±0.05 ° over the cycle. The maximum torsional deflection of the model at
the centerline was calculated to be ±0.3 ° . Table 1 gives the amplitude and phase of
the second harmonic component of a for various nominal values of al. The frequency
of the oscillation was maintained and measured to an estimated accuracy of ±0.03 Hz.

The tunnel dynamic pressure was measured with a conventional pitot-static probe
mounted approximately 1.5 m upstream of the model and connected to a pressure trans-
ducer and amplifier system with a net accuracy of approximately ±14 N/m 2 (0.002 psi)
under steady conditions. The measured values ranged from 90 N/m 2 (0.013 psi) at
M. - 0.04 to 6200 N/m 2 (0.90 psi) at M,,.
- 0.3. The output of this transducer was
recorded by hand and on the 32-channel analog tape recorder. An average of these two
values, which rarely differed by more than 2%, was used to compute q., except in a
few cases in the early stages of the test program in which the tape-recorded value
was obviously in error and was therefore ignored. The 25-mm-thick ground plane shown
in figure 2 caused a 1% reduction in tunnel cross-sectional area between the pitot-
static tube and the model; this was ignored except as noted in connection with the
steady lift results presented in section 4 under the heading Static Data.

4
 A detailed examination of the digitized data revealed that the 200/cycle sam-
pling of the analog signals was not always synchronized perfectly with the 200/cycle
timing indicators. That is, the effective time base of the digitized data was in
error, the cumulative effect of which was either to leave a small gap in the data at
the end of the cycle or to overlap the 200th sample of a given cycle with the first
sample of the next cycle. Consequently, a corrected time base for the digital data
arrays was obtaint by least-squares curve-fitting a first- and second-harmonic sine
wave to the angle-of-attack signal, a. All of the pressure data were then linearly
interpolated onto the new time base at 200 even intervals per cycle and stored in
new arrays, with the first data point in each array corresponding to wt - 0. The
end result is that the final data appear at the desired times, but suffer an effec-
tive "smearing" that would be, at worst, equivalent to sampling at a rate of
100 points per cycle instead of 200 per cycle.

Experimental uncertainty of the airloads- For the purposes of comparing the

static and dynamic-stall characteristics of the eight airfoil sections, the absolute
accuracy of the measurements and the consequences of wind-tunnel blockage, circula-
tion interference, and sidewall boundary-layer interference are less important than
the random experimental errors outlined above. However, an attempt was made to
assess all of these, as described below.

The total measurement uncertainty in the pressure, force, and moment coeffi-
cients depends on the operating conditions. For example, the probable error in Cp
based on the instrumentation characteristics quoted above varies from less than
±0.07 at M. - 0.3 and a = 0 to about ±0.4 near the leading edge at M. = 0.11
and a approaching the stall angle. For most of the static data at M. - 0.3, the
measurement uncertainty is estimated at ±0.03 for CLmax, ±0.005 for CM, and
±0.0005 for CD derived from the wake measurements. However, the uncertainty in
the SC-1095 lift and moment data is thought to be at least twice as large, because
of some unresolved difficulties with the pressure measurements. These values
increase with decreasing Mach number, rising by a factor of about 5 in the extreme
case M. = 0.035, where the pressure signals were very small.

Some representative examples of static CL and CM versus a are given in

figures 9-11, and the primary characteristics of each airfoil at M. = 0.30 are pre-
sented in table 8. The symbols in the figures indicate the individual uncorrected
data points, as presented in volume 2 of this report; the shaded bands denote the
estimated bounds of the airfoil characteristics. The bounds of the airfoil charac-
teristic include static wind-tunnel-wall corrections according to Allen and Vincenti
(ref. 12) and a 1% correction due to the reduction in test-section area at the model
caused by the steel plate on the floor of the tunnel (fig. 2). (This wall correction
method is only valid below stall, where the corrections are about 1% for a and 1.5%
for CL.) These boundaries were derived based on the measurement uncertainties
described above, on data that were obtained with the on-line analog computers, and
on the dynamic data obtained at k S 0.01. It should be noted that the scatter in
the data and the uncertainty bounds increase considerably for conditions above the
stall angle. The last line in table 8 indicates the experimental uncertainties for
the various quantities listed. The static data are discussed further in section 4.

A novel feature of the present experiment was the determination of unsteady

pressure drag, CD - CC cos a + CN sin a, where CC and CN are the chordwise and
normal force coefficients derived from the upper and lower surface-pressure distri-
butions. The two terms in this expression for CD are approximately equal and oppo-
site at high angles of attack below stall, so that the probable percentage errors of

.... .' , .. ',L. _ HI in I I . ll ll5

CD are much greater than for CC, CN, CL, or CM. Figure 12 shows a typical static
lift-drag polar based on pressure measurements and on the more accurate wake survey
of the total drag (table 7). The measured pressure drag, which neglects the contri-
bution due to skin friction, is less than the total drag at low lift coefficients,
but it incorrectly exceeds the wake measurements by as much as 0.02 near the stall
angle, that is, by as much as 100%. (It may be noted that Woodward (ref. 13)
reported similar, unexplained discrepancies between measured pressure drag and CD
based on wake surveys.) However, the percentage errors are much less in the stall
regime, where the magnitude of CC decreases considerably and the maximum drag coef-
ficient becomes of the order of CL tan a (i.e., of the order of unity) for the deep-
dynamic-stall cases studied.

The measurement uncertainty of the unsteady data is probably comparable to that

of the static data, but fewer independent checks were available to assess the random
experimental errors and the wind-tunnel interference, especially in the post-stall
regime. Fromme and Golberg (ref. 14) have indicated that unsteady wall corrections
can be greater than the corresponding static corrections, but it is not clear to what
extent their potential flow analysis can be applied to the present measurements.
Likewise, it is not possible to estimate reliably the post-stall tunnel sidewall
effects nor how these vary from one airfoil to another, but tuft flow visualization
and experience suggested that these problems became less important as the frequency
of oscillation is increased. It is the authors' judgment that for M. 0.2, the
unsteady data in the deep-dynamic-stall regime should be in error by no more than
±0.2 for CL, ±0.05 for CM, and ±0.10 for CD, except as noted in the next section.
The results are thought to be about twice this accurate below stall and in light
stall, whereas the accuracy was seriously degraded for M. < 0.1 because of the small
values of the pressure signals.

Special cases of questionable accuracy- Despite efforts to monitor the perfor-

mance of the pressure instrumentation during the test and to control and minimize the
measurement uncertainties, various problems sometimes arose that only became evident
during the post-test reduction and analysis of the data. In most cases, it was pos-
sible to correct these problems on an individual basis, using redundant information
or by interpolating in time or space between neighboring values, without signifi-
cantly compromising the accuracy of the results. In other instances, the measure-
ments appeared to be qualitatively correct, but the experimental uncertainty was
likely to have been outside the normal bounds discussed in the previous section.
These cases are identified below by data-point or "frame" number.

Frame 10202 for the NACA 0012 airfoil had an unusually large number of random
irregularities, a total of 44 in the 5,200 pressure data samples. These were elimi-
nated by linearly interpolating between data at preceding and succeeding time incre-
ments. Because some of these irregularities occurred during rapid fluctuations of
the flow, the time-histories of part of the pressure data for this particular frame
may have been degraded. However, the effect on the integrated force and moment coef-
ficients was probably small.

Table 9 lists the frames for which the "zero" drift of one or more of the trans-
ducers appeared to have exceeded by a significant amount the nominal values quoted in
the previous section. Also included are the low Mach-number cases for which the
no-flow pressure readings taken before and after recording data varied by more than
50% of free-stream dynamic pressure, even though this drift amounted to less than the
nominal measurement uncertainty of 150 N/m 2 (0.02 psi). It should be mentioned that
in all cases the differences between these pretest and post-test zeros were linearly
interpolated with respect to elapsed time to obtain effective zeros for the individual
data frames. In principle, this should have reduced the effects of the transducer
drift; however, the actual improvement in the measurement accuracy because of this
technique remains unknown.

For the Hughes HH-02 airfoil, the responses of pressure transducers No. 1 (lead-
ing edge) and No. 25 (x/c - 0.0081, lower surface) were rather sluggish, possibly
because the orifices were partially clogged. Therefore, the unsteady data from these
two transducers are suspect. In calculating the force and moment data for this air-
foil, transducer No. 25 was ignored and the pressure integrals

CN - P p dx/c etc.

were replaced by

CN = -2 fCpE dE etc.

where = x7, thereby eliminating the influence of transducer No. 1, since

Cp A=o
1 0. Another problem with the HH-02 force and moment data is that the
trailing-edge transducers were at x/c = 0.925 instead of 0.98, so that the error
in extrapolating to x/c = 1.0 is greater for this airfoil. The net effect of these
modifications is difficult to assess, but it probably increased the experimental
uncertainties for the lift, pressure drag, and pitching moment data by no more than
50%.

The NLR-7301 airfoil had a large amount of concave curvature on the lower sur-
face downstream of x/c = 0.5, which produced larger pressure gradients there than
existed on the other airfoils. Therefore, the relatively sparse distribution of
pressure transducers in that region may have led to larger errors in determining the
forces and moments than the nominal values quoted in the preceding section.
The reduced data for the Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil under static conditions and
at low frequencies consistently exhibited values of maximum lift coefficient and
lift-curve slope that appeared to be about 5% too large, based on comparisons with
the other airfoils and with the results obtained from the special on-line analog com-
puter described above under Instrumentation. In particular, the comparison with the
present NACA 0012 data (fig. 13) contrasts significantly with the steady results of
Noonam and Bingham (ref. 15) and Jepson (ref. 16), who found CL, to be approxi-
mately the same for both airfoils. A detailed examination of the present data and
the transducer calibrations revealed somewhat erratic performance in a few cases, but
no systematic behavior emerged that could explain the apparent problem. Therefore,
the conclusion is that the SC-1095 results should be viewed with caution, even though
they appear to be qualitatively correct. :1
Test Conditions

The primary reference conditions for the initial comparisons of the various air-
foils were static and deep-dynamic stall at M,, = 0.3, with the nominal unsteady
motion given by a - 100 + 100 sin wt and k - wc/2U. - 0.10. Limited but system-
atic variations in Mach number and the unsteady parameters were explored for all air-
foils as indicated below and in section 3, where the specific test points are indexed
and cross-referenced.

7
 Static data- Pressure measurements were recorded at discrete values of a
between -5* and 200 for M, - 0.11, 0.185, 0.25, and 0.30 for all airfoils except the
NACA 0012. In the latter case, static data were recorded only at M. - 0.30; quasi-
steady data were obtained for a continuous range of a = ao + 100 sin wt for
k z 0.001 for nine values of M. between 0.035 and 0.30. A number of the static
conditions were repeated with a boundary-layer trip at the leading edge. Wake sur-
veys for static drag were obtained at M. -c-0.3 for a between -50 and the static
stall angle.

Unsteady data- The parameters that were varied under dynamic-stall conditions
were Mach number, reduced frequency, mean angle, and amplitude of the oscillation.
The effect of Mach number was studied between M. = 0.035 and 0.30, primarily in the
deep-stall regime for a = 158 + 100 sin wt and k = 0.10. In these cases, the
Reynolds number also varied, proportional to Mach number, according to the relation
Re = 14x10 s M6.

The principal ranges of reduced frequency, mean angle, and amplitude were
0.01 : k S 0.20, ao - 10* and 15, and a, = 2, 50, and 10', respectively; the
effects of these parameters were studied primarily ac M. = 0.30. Additional varia-
tions in k and ao were effected to achieve specific dynamic effects, such as no
stall, stall onset, stall suppression because of unsteady effects, and neutral aero-
dynamic damping in pitch.

Finally, additional test points were selected that duplicated some of the condi-
tions of references 3 and 17-19 as closely as possible. A complete list of the
unsteady test conditions and descriptions of the parametric variations are given in
the following section.

3. GUIDE TO THE DATA

A very large data base was generated in this investigation. As mentioned in the
Introduction, summary graphs of the pressure, force, and moment coefficients and
selected results from the boundary-layer studies are contained in separate volumes.
The airloads data are also stored on digital computer tapes, one for each airfoil, as
explained in volume 2. This section describes briefly the data presentations to be
found in the subsequent volumes and indicates by test point, or "frame number," the
various types of data that are available.

Figure 14 illustrates the format of volume 2 for the unsteady pressure, force,
and moment coefficient data, that is, CL, CM, and CD versus a and wt, and the
upper-surface pressure distributions throughout the cycle. Additional information
is listed at the top if the graphs. Following the airfoil name is the identification
number for each test point. As explained in volume 2, these frame numbers comprise
data at a single angle of attack for the steady data, and data at 200 evenly spaced
time intervals throughout the cycle for the unsteady cases. The quantities AO and
Al are the mean value and the first-harmonic amplitude, respectively, of the
instantaneous angle of attack, a; Mmax is the estimated maximum value of the local
Mach number at any time in the cycle, calculated from the classical gas-dynamic equa-
tions for steady isen:ropic flow and the measured pressure coefficient, -Cpmn
(cf. ref. 2); aLmax, %min, and aMmax are the angles of attack corresponding to
maximum lift, minimum chord force (cf. ref. 3), and Mmax, respectively; and c is

8
the aerodynamic damping in pitch. The asterisk on the ordinate of the pressure-
coefficient graph represents sonic conditions.

The dotted line in the CL vs a curve in figure 14 is an approximation to the

quasi-static lift behavior for this flow condition, according to the relation
Ba
CL -A +

where a is in degrees and A and B were obtained from the relevant steady and very
low-frequency data, that is, for k 1 0.01. The values of A and B are given in
table 10. Finally, it should be mentioned that in contrast to the data in table 8
and the static results presented in section 4 under the heading Static Data, wind-
tunnel wall corrections have not been applied to A and B, to the data in volume 2,
nor to the numerical data tapes.

Figure 15 shows two representative examples of the boundary-layer "flow

reversal" information contained in volume 3. The abscissa in the figures show the
position on the airfoil where the surface instrumentation first indicated a break-
down of the attached boundary-layer flow at the beginning of dynamic stall, as
explained and discussed in volume 3 and in references 4, 10, and 11. This event
either signifies or is closely associated with the separation that accompanies the
beginning stages of dynamic stall. The ordinate indicates the nondimensional time
in the cycle, wt, at which this event occurred.

Tables 11-24 provide a comprehensive summary and index of the entire experi-
mental program. Table 11 lists the frame numbers of all the pressure data, in the
sequence in which they appear on the data tapes. The airfoil and pertinent test con-
ditions are also listed, and the conditions for which boundary-layer data were
recorded are indicated in the last column. The letter "Y" in the "TRIP" column indi-
cates the use of the boundary-layer trip; "N" denotes the standard smooth condition.
The notations "ST" and "US" denote steady and unsteady data, respectively, and the
frequency of oscillation in Hertz is given in the column labeled "FREQ."
Table 12 is an index of the steady-data sets, arranged by airfoil and Mach num-
ber. The use of a boundary-layer trip is indicated by the letter "T." The notation
"Quasi-steady" indicates the data that were acquired on the NACA 0012 airfoil as
unsteady data, but at very low frequency, k 5 0.002.

A cross-reference index that groups the unsteady data by types for each of the
eight airfoils is given in tables 13-24. There are some duplicate entries in these
tables, in order to facilitate the identification of data sets with variations in the
individual parameters of the unsteady motion. There are also blank entries, since
not all conditions were recorded for all airfoils. The principal types of unsteady
conditions are outlined below.

Variations in Mach number- Table 13 lists the test points concerned with the
effect of Mach number on deep dynamic stall, for a - 150 + 100 sin wt and k - 0.10.
Although the NLR-7301 airfoil was only tested at three values of M. with ao W 150,
it was also tested with ao - 10° at M. - 0.11, 0.18, 0.22, and 0.30; these frames
are given in table 24. Stall-suppression conditions, tables 19 and 20, and the
effects of leading-edge trips, table 23, were studied at M. - 0.18 and 0.30 for
various values of mo and k. As stated in section 2 under Test Conditions, the vari-
ation of Reynolds number with Mach number was Re a 14x105 M.

it
 Reduced frequency sweeps- The test points concerned with the effect of frequency
on dynamic stall are given in tables 14-17. These data cover the range
0.01 5 k S 0.20 at M. = 0.3, with mean angles of 100 and 150 and amplitudes of 5*
and 10*. In addition, the t,\CA 0012 airfoil was tested over an extensive range of
other values of ao (table 24).

Stall onset- This condition, defined in references 1 and 2 as obtaining the

maximum possible lift without moment stall occurring at any time throughout the cycle
of oscillation, was studied at M,. = 0.30, k - 0.10, a, - 100 , and variable mean
angle, as indicated in table 18.

Stall suppression caused by unsteady effects- With a. fixed at 10, ao was

varied so that 0amax was slightly greater than the static-stall angle. Data were
then recorded (tables 19 and 20) at various reduced frequencies to study whether
stall would diminish or increase with increasing k.

Pitch damping boundaries- Stall conditions relevant to small-amplitude flutter

boundaries are listed in table 21, at a. = 2° and M.. - 0.30. Mean angle and
reduced frequency were varied to obtain approximate boundaries of neutral aerodynamic
damping in pitch and to obtain the maximum negative value of pitch damping, -Cmin"
However, no data of this type were recorded for the NACA 0012 airfoil.

No separation- A limited number of test points were recorded at M. - 0.30 and

a = 5 ° + 50 sin wt, as indicated in table 22. Some additional conditions for the
NLR-l and NLR-7301 profiles without separation are given in table 24.

Boundary-layertrLip- Data with the leading-edge trip were obtained statically

for a between 0 ° and 20* and dynamically for a - 15* + 100 sin wt at two values
of Mach number, 0.18 and 0.30. The values of k for the dynamic data are given in
table 23; the static data with trip are so indicated in table 12. An exception was
the NLR-7301 section at M. - 0.30, for which a - 10* + 50 sin ut (table 24). In
addition, the NLR-l section with trip was studied with ao - 2.5' (table 24).

Miscellaneous- These test points are included in table 24. In addition to the
cases mentioned above, the unsteady test conditions of references 3 and 17 for the
NACA 0012, of reference 18 for the Sikorsky SC-1095, and of reference 19 for the
NLR-l airfoil were reproduced insofar as possible. Also, for the Vertol VR-7 air-
foil, k was varied from 0.01 to 0.25 at MO - 0.18 with ao - 100 and 15* and
a1 = 100. Finally, dynamic stall on the NLR-l profile at negative incidence was
studied at M. = 0.30 for a - -2* + 100 sin wt and 0.01 5 k 5 0.10.

Selected test cases- Finally, table 25 lists the unsteady data that were pro-
posed in reference 1 as specific test cases for evaluating unsteady viscous flow
theories and computational methods. These data were obtained on the NACA 0012,
Vertol VR-7, and NLR-7301 airfoils. They include conditions of no-stall, stall-onset,
light-stall, and deep-dynamic-stall, all at M. - 0.3.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Static Data

The measurements performed under steady or quasi-static flow conditions provide

a frame of reference for the dynamic-stall results and a basis for comparison with

10

. . . .. . ..
... ... .7 -
data from other wind tunnels. Some of the highlights of the static data are pre-
sented below, with particular reference to the force and moment coefficients at
M. - 0.3. With the exception of the drag data listed in table 7, wind-tunnel-wall
corrections have been applied to all of the static results presented in this section,
using the formulae of reference 12.

As noted earlier, table 8 gives a summary of the primary static characteristics

of each airfoil at M. - 0.30, and figures 16-23 show the basic variations of lift,
pitching moment, and drag coefficients for the eight sections. The dashed lines in
the "a" parts of figures 17-23 represent curve-fits of the lift data in the linear
CL - a regime. The drag data derived from the wake surveys are listed in table 7.
In the following discussions, some comparisons are made for each airfoil between the
present measurements and data obtained elsewhere.

NACA 0012 airfoil- This profile has been tested by many investigators, with s
wide range of results. Figure 24 shows the variation in CLmax with Mach number,
including results reported or sumarized in references 3, 5, 15-17, and 20-24 over a
wide range of Reynolds numbers. The present values of C 1 nax increase with increas-
ing Mach number for M. < 0.22, probably because of the effects of increasing
Reynolds number, whereas compressibility effects are thought to be responsible for
the decrease in CLmax for H. > 0.22. The boundary-layer trip was found to be
relatively unimportant for this airfoil at the Mach and Reynolds numbers of the test.

The present CLmax data tend to lie near the upper range of the values from
other sources. The same is true for the lift-curve slopes in the linear regime,
CL., which is not shown.
Ames A-01 airfoil- Figure 25 compares the data from the present I.est with mea-
surements made in a transonic wind tunnel at somewhat lower Reynolds numbers (ref. 6)
for the A-01 airfoil. Although the lift-curve slopes for CL < 1.0 were not sig-
nificantly different in the two tests, the airfoil stalled at lower angles of attack
in the transonic tunnel. Consequently, lower values of maximum lift coefficient were
measured and reported in reference 6 at M. - 0.2 and 0.3, which was near the lower
operating limit of that facility.

Wortmann FX-098 airfoil- Maximum-lift data from several investigations (refs. 8,

24-26) are compared with the present data in figure 26 for the FX-098 airfoil. All
of the data agree reasonably well over the Mach-number range of the present test.
However, there are marked differences at higher Mach numbers.

Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil- Steady results for this section are shown in figure 27,
where the comparison is generally unfavorable. The suspicious nature of the present
lift data was mentioned earlier in section 2 under Data Analysis and Measurement
Accuracy; here the open circles indicate the present data analyzed in the normal way
and the solid symbols represent what are thought to be the true values. The latter,
somewhat lower, values are based primarily on the on-line measurements. It should
be mentioned that the data of Noonan and Bingham (ref. 15) were obtained on a modi-
fied profile with a reflex training edge that reduced CMo to approximately zero,
compared with the present value of -0.027 at H. - 0.3 (cf. table 8). Also, the data
of Jepson (ref. 16) in figure 27 came from a slotted-wall tunnel with 12.5% porosity,
which was thought to yield somewhat lower values of CL than comparable tests in
solid-wall tunnels. Furthermore, the Reynolds numbers in references 15 and 16 were

11
lover than those of the present tests. Nevertheless, the discrepancies in figure 27
oo large to be attributed to these factors or to measurement uncertain-
seem to be -.
ties. It will be shown later that dynamic data on the SC-1095 section are generally
in better agreement.

Hughes Hl1-02 airfoil- Figure 28 shows the measured maximum lift coefficients for
the present HH-02 airfoil, in comparison with !ata from a section that is almost
identical except for a slightly smaller leading-edge radius (ref. 27). Although the
Mach number range does not overlap, the two sets of results seem consistent.

Vertol VR-7 airfoil- Results from four sources are plotted in figure 29 for the
VR-7 profile. The present data are somewhat higher than those of Coulomb (ref. 28),
primarily because the stall occurred at slightly higher angles of attack, but the
lift-curve slopes (not shown) and the effect of a boundary-layer trip were approxi-
mately the same. The value of CLmax at M. - 0.3 is slightly lower than that of
Dadone (ref. 5), whose measurements at higher Mach numbers exceed considerably those
of Bingham et al. (ref. 29).

NLR-l airfoil- Figure 30 shows the good agreement of the present measurements
with those of Dadone (ref. 19) for the NLR-I airfoil. It should be mentioned, how-
ever, that the details of the pitching-moment behavior in the vicinity of CLmax (not
shown) were somewhat different. As in the previous example, the data of Noonan and
Bingham (ref. 24) for Clmax at M. 2 0.35 tend to be lower than the data of Dadone
(ref. 19). This airfoil appears to be more sensitive to Mach number than any of the
other modern helicopter sections.

NLR-7301 airfoil- As shown in figure 31, the maximum static lift for the
NLR-7301 airfoil exceeded that of the other sections by a considerable margin; how-
ever, CM was -0.083 (cf. table 8). The values of CLmax shown are also greater
than those obtained at NLR under virtually identical conditions (ref. 30). This was
obtained at a significantly larger stall angle, more than 1* larger at M. - 0.18,
than in the NLR experiments, apparently because of different boundary-layer separa-
tion characteristics and sidewall interferences.

Dynamic Data

Although the static data described above comprised an essential part of the
investigation, the primary objective was to obtain a comon data base of unsteady
characteristics for helicopter applications. In this section some representative
examples are presented and comparisons made with other investigations. More complete
discussions of the basic phenomena and of the results obtained are given in refer-
ences 1 and 2.

The unsteady stall-onset and dynamic-stall counterparts of the static CLmax

results discussed above are shown in figures 32 and 33, reproduced from reference 2
with some minor corrections. The dashed lines in figure 33 indicate the estimated
deep-stall CLmax for the NLR-7301 airfoil; data were not obtained for this condi-
tion for M. > 0.25. These results have not been corrected for wind-tunnel-wall
interference.

12
 Figures 32 and 33 illustrate an important general result of the investigation:
the parameters of the unsteady motion tend to be more important than the airfoil
geometry. For example, the differences in the values of CLmax for the Wortmann,
Sikorsky, and Hughes airfoils can hardly be discerned within the experimental uncer-
tainty, but the unsteady stall-onset and deep-stall results are much higher than the
static values shown ir.figures 26-28 and 33. It is also interesting to note that at
least for M S 0.25, the deep-stall CLmax values for the NLR-l and NLR-7301 airfoils
are almost identical. In contrast, the static and unsteady stall-onset results for
these two very different profiles are considerably different and represent the lower
and upper bounds, respectively, of all the airfoils tested.

In view of the aforementioned scatter in the static results from different wind
tunnels, it is logical to inquire how different sets of dynamic data might compare.
Because of the large number of parameters that affect dynamic stall and the tendency
for past investigators to select different combinations of these parameters, the pos-
sibilities for direct comparison of unsteady results are much more limited. However,
some examples are given below.

NACA 0012 airfoil- The first comparison for this profile is shown in figures 34
and 35, where data from reference 3 were obtained in the same wind tunnel as the pres-
ent results, but with a model whose chord was twice as large. Figure 34 shows that
the large values of CLmax reported in reference 3 were not realized in the present

t
experiment. Figure 35 shows CL versus a, where the two results are seen to differ
by approximately 10% during the portion of the cycle when a is increasing but before
dynamic stall begins. This is approximately the same as the difference in the lift-
curve slopes for the corresponding static data, and it is consistent with the differ-
ences that would be predicted for static wind-tunnel-wall corrections (ref. 12) for
the two chord-to-height ratios. However, it can be inferred from the differences in
the peaks of the lift curves in figure 35 that the organized vortex-shedding phenom-
enon was more pronounced on the larger model after stall began. Also, reattachment
of the boundary layer on the downstroke occurred earlier. These do not seem to be
solely Reynolds-number effects; rather, it is suspected that in the earlier tests
there was excessive interference between the boundary layers on the upper and lower
walls of the tunnel and the unsteady viscous flow on the ends of the vertically
mounted airfoil.

St. Hilaire and Carta (ref. 17) have reported on dynamic-stall tests of the
NACA 0012 airfoil at UTRC under conditions similar to those in the present experiment.
Figure 36 compares some of the data from the two investigations. The format and
choice of unsteady parameters is based on an extension of the observation in refer-
ence 2, that for sinusoidal pitching oscillations the values of amax and the prod-
uct alk 2 seem to be particularly important in determining the detailed time-history
of the unsteady airloads during dynamic stall. In order to compare as many test
points as possible, data were selected that satisfied the criterion
0.0014 < alk 2 < 0.0022, where a, is in radians. The variations in CLmax and CMmin
ir figure 36 are seen to correlate reasonably well on this basis, and the results
from the two sources are in fairly good agreement. Some of the Cmax data from the
UTRC wind tunnel are slightly higher than the present measurements.

SC-l095 airfoil- Gangwani (ref. 18) has reported data that were obtained on the
SC-1095 section in the same facility that was used by St. Hilaire and Carta (ref. 17)
to obtain the NACA 0012 data described in the preceding paragraph. The results are

13
compared with the present data in figure 37, following the same format as above.
Fewer data points are available, but the degree of correlation is approximately com-
parable to that of the NACA 0012 results in figure 36. In contrast with that figure,
however, the present values of CLmax tend to be slightly higher than the UTRC data
(ref. 18). In any case, the discrepancies generally appear to be within the measure-
ment uncertainty, and the agreement is better than for the static results (fig. 27).

NLR-l airfoil- This profile was tested by Dadone (ref. 19) over a wide range of
Mach numbers, mean angles, and amplitudes. Based on the considerations outlined
2
above regarding amax and 1 Ik I his results are compared with the present data in
figure 38 as functions of alk at a constant value ama x = 200, where a3 is also
in degrees. The lift data are in better agreement than in the previous examples,
but more scatter appears in the pitching-moment results than before.

No unsteady results from other sources are presently available from other
sources for comparison with the data obtained on the Wortmann FX-098, Ames A-01,
Hughes HH-02, Vertol VR-7, and NLR 7301 airfoils.

Comments on Wind-Tunnel Effects

It is well known that testing the same airfoil in different wind tunnels often
gives different results, especially for the static-stall characteristics. This is
borne out in figures 24-31. In fact, if the results from these eight figures were
overlaid, the real differences between the individual airfoils would be almost com-
pletely obscured by the differences attributable to the test facilities.

Although more limited in scope, the comparisons of dynamic-stall data shown in

figures 36-38 are more encouraging than the static results. Since all of these data
came from tests with either high aspect-ratio models or sidewall boundary-layer con-
trol, this suggests that the present dynamic data may be relatively free of wind-
tunnel-wall contamination and other three-dimensional effects. A detailed examina-
tion of the complete time-histories of the unsteady airloads and further studies on
models of various aspect ratios would be required to confirm this speculation.

A special feature of the present experiment is that a large number of airfoils

were studied over a wide range of unsteady flow conditions in the same facility.
This provides the basis for meaningful comparisons, even though wind-tunnel inter-
ference effects were not completely negligible. However, as stated in reference 1,
it is recommended that the wind-tunnel walls be included or considered in any quan-
titative uses of the data.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A large amount of steady and unsteady data has been obtained on eight airfoil
sections over a wide range of test conditions, at Mach numbers up to 0.30. The
details of the experimental arrangements, estimates of the measurement accuracy, and
the test conditions are described in this volume. Some comparisons are also made
with data from other sources. Volume 2 (Pressure and Force Data) presents the
results in graphical form and describes the digital computer tapes that contain the
extensive numerical data. Volume 3 (Hot-Wire and Hot-Film Measurements) describes
the boundary-layer studies performed with surface-mounted hot wires and hot films.

14

_ _ t
 The results of the experiment show important differences between airfoils, dif-
ferences that would otherwise tend to be masked by differences in wind tunnels, par-
ticularly in steady cases. All of the airfoils tested offer significant advantages
over the standard NACA 0012 profile. In general, however, the parameters of the
unsteady motion appear to be more important than airfoil shape in determining the
dynamic-stall airloads.

15
7!
 REFERENCES

1. McCroskey, W. J.; and Pucci, S. L.: Viscous-Inviscid Interaction on Oscillating

Airfoils in Subsonic Flow. AIAA J., vol. 20, no. 2, Feb. 1982, pp. 167-174.

2. McCroskey, W. J.; McAlister, K. W.; et al.: Dynamic Stall on Advanced Airfoil

Sections. J. American Helicopter Soc., vol. 26, no. 3, July 1981, pp. 40-50.

3. McAlister, K. W.; Carr, L. W.; and McCroskey, W. J.: Dynamic Stall Experiments
on the NACA 0012 Airfoil. NASA TP-IIO0, 1978.

4. Carr, L. W.; McAlister, K. W.; and McCroskey, W. J.: Analysis of the Develop-
ment of Dynamic Stall Based on Oscillating Airfoil Experiments. NASA
TN D-8382, 1977.

5. Dadone, L. U.: U.S. Army Helicopter Design Datcom. Vol. I - Airfoils. NASA
CR-153247, 1976.

6. Hicks, R. M.; and McCroskey, W. J.: An Experimental Evaluation of a Helicopter

Rotor Section Design by Numerical Optimization. NASA TM-78622, 1980.

7. Balch, D. T.: Helicopter Blade. L.S. Patent 3,728,045, 1973.

8. Kemp, L. D.: An Analytical Study for the Design of Advanced Rotor Airfoils.
NASA CR-112297, 1973.

9. Barche, J., ed.: Experimental Data Base for Computer Program Assessment. AGARD
Advisory Report 138, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development,
Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, 1979.

10. Carr, L. W.; and McCroskey, W. J.: A Directionally Sensitive Hot-Wire Probe for
Detection of Flow Reversal in Highly Unsteady Flows. International Congress
on Instrumentation in Aerospace Facilities, 1979 Record, Sept. 1979,
pp. 154-162.

11. McCroskey, W. J.; McAlister, K. W.; and Carr, L. W.: Dynamic Stall Experiments
on Oscillating Airfoils. AIAA J., vol. 14, no. 1, Jan. 1976, pp. 57-63.

12. Allen, H. J.; and Vincenti, W. G.: Wall Interference in a Two-Dimensional Flow
Wind Tunnel with Consideration of the Effect of Compressibility. NACA
Report 782, 1944.

13. Woodward, D. S.: The Twodimensional Characteristics of a 12.2% Thick R.A.E.

Aerofoil Section. RAE Technical Report 68303, Royal Aircraft Establishment,
Farnborough Hants, England, Jan. 1969.

14. Fromme, J. A.; and Golberg, M. A.: Unsteady Two-Dimensional Airloads Acting on
Oscillating Airfoils in Subsonic Ventilated Wind Tunnels. NASA CR-2914,
1977.

15. Noonan, K. W.; and Bingham, G. J.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of Three Heli-
copter.Rotor Airfoil Sections at Reynolds Numbers from Model Scale to Full
Scale at Mach Numbers from 0.35 to 0.90. NASA TP-1701, 1980.

16

i
16. Jepson, W. D.: Two Dimensional Test of Four Airfoil Configurations with an
Aspect Ratio of 7.5 and a 16 Inch Chord up to a Mach Number of i.i. Report
SER-50977, Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, Conn., Apr. 1977.

17. St. Hilaire, A. L.; and Carta, F. 0.: The Influence of Sweep on the Aerody-
namic Loading of an Oscillating NACA 0012 Airfoil. Vol. II - Data Report.
NASA CR-145350, 1979.

18. Gangwani, S. T.: Prediction of Dynamic Stall and Unsteady Airloads for Rotor
Blades. American Helicopter Society Paper 81-01, May 1981.

19. Dadone, L. U.: Two-Dimensional Wind Tunnel Test of an Oscillating Rotor Airfoil.
NASA CR-2915, 1977.

20. Lizak, A. A.: Two-Dimensional Wind Tunnel Tests of an H-34 Main Rotor Airfoil
Section. TREC Technical Report 60-53, U.S. Army Transportation Research
Command, Ft. Eustis, VA, 1960.

21. Prouty, R. W.: A State-of-the-Art Survey of Two-Dimensional Airfoil Data.

J. American Helicopter Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, Oct. 1975, pp. 14-25.

22. Bevert, A.: Essais Comkaratifs en Courant Plan des Profils "G.1" et NACA 0012.
ONERA Doc. No. 76/1157.AN, Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches 1ro-
spatiales, ChAtillon, France, Mar. 1970.

23. Harris, C. D.: Two-Dimensional Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 0012

Airfoil in the Langley 8-Foot Transonic Pressure Tunnel. NASA TM-81927,
1981.

24. Noonan, K. W.; and Bingham, G. J.: Two-Dimensional Aerodynamic Characteristics

of Several Rotorcraft Airfoils at Mach Numbers from 0.35 to 0.90. NASA
TM X-73990, Jan. 1977.

25. Bingham, G. J.; and Noonan, K. W.: Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of

Five Helicopter Blade Sections at Reynolds Numbers from 2.4xi06 to 8.4xi06 .
NASA TM X-2467, 1972.

26. Wortmann, F. X.: Design of Airfoils with High Lift at Low and Medium Subsonic
Mach Numbers. Paper No. 7, AGARD Conference Proceedings CP-102, Advisory
Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France,
1972.

27. Prouty, R. W.: Airfoil Section Data Report. Report No. 150-A-1012, Hughes
Helicopters, Culver City, Calif., Mar. 1978.

28. Coulomb, J.: Caractdristiques Stationnaires du Profil VR 7. Procs-verbal

No. 102 B/SC, Centre d'Essais Adronautique de Toulouse, Toulouse, France,
June 1979.

29. Bingham, G. J.; Noonan, K. W.; and Jones, H. E.: Results of an Investigation
of Several New Rotorcraft Airfoils as Related to Airfoil Requirements.
Paper No. 8, NASA Conference Publication 2046, Mar. 1978.

17

IIt
30. Joosen, C. J. J.; and Kho, C. G.: Two Dimensional Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
Investigation on a NLR 73-108-10 Airfoil with Fowler Type Flap, Part 1:
Text, Tables, and Figures. NLR TR 74058 C, National Lucht- en
Ruimtevaartlabotorium, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Sept. 1975.

18
 TABLE 1.- HARMONIC COEFFICIENTS
OF THE OSCILLATION MECHANISM
a= + a,1 Sin Wt + Q2 Sin(Wt + 02)

5 10 1.00.05.2 (a)

10 10 9.90 .20 2600

15 10 9.90 .20 (a)
15 14 14.10 .38 2000

aNot measured.

19
 TABLE 2. - AIRFOIL COORDINATES: NACA 0012 AND AMES A-01 AIRFOILS

x/c NACA 0012, y/c AMES A-01, y/c

upper lower upper lower

0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0005 0.00395 -0.00395 0.00377 -0.00338
0.0010 0.00556 -0.00556 0.00541 -0.00472
0.0020 0.00781 -0.00781 0.00766 -0.00651
0.0035 0.01027 -0.01027 0.01013 -0.00844
0.0050 0.01221 -0.01221 0.01214 -0.00994
0.0065 0.01386 -0.01386 0.01388 -0.01120
0.0080 0.01531 -0.01531 0.01543 -0.01227
0.0100 0.01704 -0.01704 0.01732 -0.01350
0.0125 0.01894 -0.01894 0.01945 -0.01481
0.0160 0.02127 -0.02127 0.02214 -0.01634
0.0200 0.02360 -0.02360 0.02490 -0.01777
0.0250 0.02615 -0.02615 0.02801 -0.01922
0.0350 0.03043 -0.03043 0.03335 -0.02137
0.0500 0.03555 -0.03555 0.03991 -0.02365
0.0650 0.03966 -0.03966 0.04523 -0.02549
0.0800 0.04307 -0.04307 0.04961 -0.02710
0.1000 0.04683 -0.04683 0.05421 -0.02902
0.1250 0.05055 -0.05055 0.05829 -0.03104
0.1500 0.05345 -0.05345 0.06098 -0.03277
0.2000 0.05737 -0.05737 0.06344 -0.03551
0.2500 0.05941 -0.05941 0.06431 -0.03727
0.3000 0.06002 -0.06002 0.06446 -0.03828
0.3500 0.05949 -0.05949 0.06409 -0.03866
0.4000 0.05803 -0.05803 0.06316 -0.03848
0.4500 0.05581 -0.05581 0.06154 -0.03782
0.5000 0.05294 -0.05294 0.05924 -0.03665
0.5500 0.04952 -0.04952 0.05623 -0.03501
0.6000 0.04563 -0.04563 0.05249 -0.03297
0.6500 0.04132 -0.04132 0.04792 -0.03056
0.7000 0.03664 -0.03664 0.04246 -0.02785
0.7500 0.03160 -0.03160 0.03600 -0.02486
0.8000 0.02623 -0.02623 0.02860 -0.02153
0.8500 0.02053 -0.02053 0.02064 -0.01786
0.9000 0.01448 -0.01448 0.01260 -0.01374
0.9250 0.01132 -0.01132 0.00899 -0.01144
0.9500 0.00807 -0.00807 0.00598 -0.00888
0.9750 0.00472 -0.00472 0.00392 -0.00603
0.9900 0.00265 -0.00265 0.00322 -0.00421
1.0000 0.00126 -0.00126 0.00299 -0.00300

ro/C - 0.0158 r /c - 0.012

20
TABLE 3. - AIRFOIL COORDINATES: WORTMANN FX-098 AND SIKORSKY SC-1095 AIRFOILS

x/c WORTMANN FX-098, y/c SIKORSKY SC-1095, y/c

upper lower upper lower

0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0005 0.00293 -0.00249 0.00307 -0.00257
0.0010 0.00426 -0.00343 0.00443 -0.00368
0.0020 0.00619 -0.00471 0.00640 -0.00535
0.0035 0.00837 -0.00609 0.00865 -0.00724
0.0050 0.01017 -0.00717 0.01054 -0.00880
0.0065 0.01175 -0.00807 0.01221 -0.01016
0.0080 0.01319 -0.00886 0.01374 -0.01138
0.0100 0.01494 -0.00978 0.01560 -0.01285
0.0125 0.01692 -0.01079 0.01771 -0.01450
0.0160 0.01944 -0.01202 0.02041 -0.01657
0.0200 0.02204 -0.01321 0.02320 -0.01865
0.0250 0.02501 -0.01451 0.02635 -0.02092
0.0350 0.03021 -0.01664 0.03140 -0.02454
0.0500 0.03681 -0.01913 0.03677 -0.02842
0.0650 0.04234 -0.02111 0.04070 -0.03108
0.0800 0.04705 -0.02277 0.04374 -0.03295
0. 1000 0.05222 -0.02464 0.04680 -0.03464
0.1250 0.05714 -0.02658 0.04963 -0.03619
0.1500 0.06073 -0.02819 0.05174 -0.03739
0.2000 0.06491 -0.03059 0.05447 -0.03884
0.2500 0.06650 -0.03198 0.05548 -0.03933
0.3000 0.06630 -0.03251 0.05524 -0.03918
0.3500 0.06515 -0.03242 0.05437 -0.03858
0.4000 0.06336 -0.03184 0.05299 -0.03760
0.4500 0.06097 -0.03096 0.05105 -0.03622
0.5000 0.05798 -0.02982 0.04854 -0.03446
0.5500 0.05445 -0.02843 0.04555 -0.03234
0.6000 0.05040 -0.02678 0.04212 -0.02985
0.6500 0.04586 -0.02487 0.03819 -0.02702
0.7000 0.04085 -0.02273 0.03375 -0.02384
0.7500 0.03543 -0.02034 0.02887 -0.02034
0.8000 0.02962 -0.01768 0.02362 -0.01658
0.8500 0.02337 -0.01473 0.01808 -0.01265
0.9000 0.01642 -0.01134 0.01235 -0.00865
0.9250 0.01253 -0.00932 0.00943 -0.00664
0.9500 0.00856 -0.00702 0.00642 -0.00454
0.9750 0.00476 -0.00423 0.00328 -0.00233
0.9900 0.00255 -0.00237 0.00132 -0.00093
1.0000 0.00110 -0.00110 0.00000 0.00000

ro/c 0.007 ro/c 0.008

21
TABLE 4. - AIRFOIL COORDINATES: HUGHES HH-02 (-50 TAB) AND VERTOL VR-7 (-30 TAB) AIRFOILS

x/c HUGHES HH-02, y/c VERTOL VR-7, y/c

upper lower upper lower

0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0005 0.00283 -0.00284 0.00337 -0.00330
0.0010 0.00405 -0.00388 0.00483 -0.00460
0.0020 0.00594 -0.00532 0.00696 -0.00633
0.0035 0.00819 -0.00683 0.00943 -0.00800
0.0050 0.01009 -0.00800 0.01149 -0.00919
0.0065 0.01176 -0.00895 0.01330 -0.01010
0.0080 0.01327 -0.00978 0.01494 -0.01086
0.0100 0.01510 -0.01072 0.01695 -0.01172
0.0125 0.01717 -0.01172 0.01923 -0.01263
0.0160 0.01975 -0.01290 0.02213 -0.01367
0.0200 0.02237 -0.01404 0.02512 -0.01467
0.0250 0.02531 -0.01524 0.02846 -0.01575
0.0350 0.03029 -0.01714 0.03423 -0.01751
0.0500 0.03640 -0.01943 0.04144 -0.01966
0.0650 0.04137 -0.02127 0.04759 -0.02154
0.0800 0.04553 -0.02276 0.05299 -0.02320
0.1000 0.05012 -0.02432 0.05922 -0.02516
0.1250 0.05468 -0.02575 0.06565 -0.02709
0.1500 0.05828 -0.02675 0.07091 -0.02855
0.2000 0.06328 -0.02793 0.07887 -0.03055
0.2500 0.06608 -0.02843 0.08378 -0.03186
0.3000 0.06738 -0.02834 0.08592 -0.03273
0.3500 0.06750 -0.02755 0.08574 -0.03308
0.4000 0.06640 -0.02600 0.08365 -0.03271
0.4500 0.06391 -0.02377 0.07984 -0.03148
0.5000 0.06008 -0.02104 0.07451 -0.02952
0.5500 0.05504 -0.01797 0.06781 -0.02712
0.6000 0.04891 -0.01482 0.05996 -0.02464
0.6500 0.04174 -0.01176 0.05171 -0.02207
0.7000 0.03344 -0.00952 0.04322 -0.01929
0.7500 0.02403 -0.00851 0.03442 -0.01639
0.8000 0.01436 -0.00889 0.02527 -0.01346
0.8500 0.00481 -0.00984 0.01575 -0.01050
0.9000 -0.00431 -0.01041 0.00558 -0.00744
0.9250 -0.00394 -0.00777 0.00117 -0.00609
0.9500 -0.00203 -0.00583 -0.00016 -0.00512
0.9750 -0.00006 -0.00387 0.00115 -0.00380
0.9900 0.00112 -0.00269 0.00194 -0.00300
1.0000 0.00190 -0.00190 0.00247 -0.00247

r o /c- 0.008 r0 /c 0.011

22
 TABLE 5. - AIRFOIL COORDINATES: NLR-1 AND NLR-7301 AIRFOILS

x/c NLR-1, y/c NLR-7301, y/c

upper lower upper lower

0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0005 0.00359 -0.00288 0.00730 -0.00748
0.0010 0.00499 -0.00388 0.01051 -0.01020
0.0020 0.00687 -0.00518 0.01518 -0.01373
0.0035 0.00890 -0.00643 0.02030 -0.01735
0.0050 0.01053 -0.00730 0.02424 -0.02016
0.0065 0.01194 -0.00799 0.02756 -0.02252
0.0080 0.01321 -0.00858 0.03043 -0.02455
0.0100 0.01475 -0.00929 0.03375 -0.02688
0.0125 0.01648 -0.01006 0.03729 -0.02935
0.0160 0.01868 -0.01101 0.04140 -0.03225
0.0200 0.02097 -0.01196 0.04514 -0.03502
0.0250 0.02358 -0.01301 0.04873 -0.03794
0.0350 0.02799 -0.01477 0.05372 -0.04264
0.0500 0.03328 -0.01688 0.05920 -0.04806
0.0650 0.03750 -0.01859 0.06321 -0.05229
0.0800 0.04093 -0.02007 0.06636 -0.05576
0.1000 0.04435 -0.02179 0.06985 -0.05962
0.1250 0.04701 -0.02363 0.07347 -0.06358
0.1500 0.04905 -0.02522 0.07648 -0.06689
0.2000 0.05200 -0.02775 0.08115 -0.07194
0.2500 0.05386 -0,02958 0.08441 -0.07527
0.3000 0.05489 -0.03082 0.08649 -0.07713
0.3500 0.05528 -0.03154 0.08755 -0.07763
0.4000 0.05511 -0.03185 0.08764 -0.07672
0.4500 0.05443 -0.03176 0.08678 -0407412
0.5000 0.05327 -0.03126 0.08495 -0.06934
0.5500 0.05164 -0.03025 0.08206 -0.06237
0.6000 0.04948 -0.02882 0.07789 -0.05386
0.6500 0.04677 -0.02707 0.07212 -0.04397
0.7000 0.04348 -0.02503 0.06458 -0.03316
0.7500 0.03892 -0.02276 0.05551 -0.02227
0.8000 0.03172 -0.02028 0.04523 -0.01221
0.8500 0.02368 -0.01756 0.03415 -0.00409
0.9000 0.01562 -0.01427 0.02269 0.00108
0.9250 0.01179 -0.01199 0.01696 0.00228
0.9500 0.00811 -0.00903 0.01129 0.00246
0.9750 0.00454 -0.00511 0.00577 0.00153
0.9900 0.00244 -0.00253 0.00258 0.00042
1.0000 0.00103 -0.00103 0.00055 -0.00055

r/c- 0.007 r/C 0.055

0 0

23
 0 '.0
N~' 0- ON.00in C4 1-4m

0 0 00 -4- Ne n .o~ 00 MC,00%0 :r N

Dr, 4-40000

1- 4C oe
U'14 C,4 C, 0.-11ONU)4 4, -4
0000000000Q00
Ln 0
-n"C)0)C 00
D0 C DU 0iA I L -40 -4
.41 0 ) or om0%04"enI
0%
moN r L n 4C).-0 0 (:

41 4W
I 'l0L 0L' 00O -N to
ca - e 0O 4..--1r-%0 %r-C) 40"0 0

'U 0 0

00 C14C. 0
-10 0U)m T C

o 0 a'. 00 .0%4-r-
C-4 0L o00 DC)00 0 000 NVooN.O

oj co 0z
1.4 U

LA04
r- r-n OCtO4
4000 0 004 M .n Q)
0 r- C Li f in C4 0 00 00 0fgLn IC'44 0 ()

PQ W . . . . . . . . . . . . G

(7%
-4 C )0 m -4 -4 00P00(1r40000ru'C.o m
0 C 0 0 0 0 A Nm !-0.o00 m 0%r--LP
% m .- 4 00 0 0
0 . . I

04 0C n0 n% c 4 '.0'

-) w co
4
C0 0 C%4 C4 C4 0D M10 IIChg
-4' 01 W r L Cl 0t ON. 00C r 1 U
. . .. . . . . .

LIID

w0 r- CV)l.'U c
.,q 4-4

~ $4
0- 0. C4.
2% co C

l 0C4L
a N00F-U.4 0 0%J00000M0000 00a Mir M -4 0 44
a 00 4'.a4 ' m'T Lco 00 4m0% 0% - C-4-4 0o

01. C 4

o0 00

l4a U

24
 TABLE 7. - STATIC DRAG COEFFICIENTS AT M - 0.30 BASED ON WAKE SURVEYS

a, deg N-0012 AMES-O W-098 SC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-l NLR-7301

-5.0 0.00843 0.00851 0.00886 0.00739 0.00846 0.00899 0.02602 0.00952

-2.0 0.00729 0.00832 0.00771 0.00713 0.00719 0.00759 0.00743 0.00780
0.0 0.00711 0.00794 0.00683 0.00708 0.00679 0.00723 0.00710 0.00968
2.0 0.00718 0.00662 0.00664 0.00670 0.00655 0.00707 0.00745 0.00891
5.0 0.00865 0.00767 0.00755 0.00807 0.00816 0.00800 0.00831 0.01011
8.0 0.01031 0.00965 0.01142 0.01013 0.01112 0.01059 0.01086 0.01305
10.0 0.01190 0.01248 0.01405 0.01127 0.01382 0.01353 0.01322 0.01569
12.0 0.01711 0.01600 0.01773 0.01586 0.01849 0.02156 0.02006 0.02022
13.0 .. .. .. 0.02015 0.02236 -..-
14.0 0.02901 - - 0.08922 - - - -...
-4.0 ....- - - -. 0.00773 0.00843
-1.75 - - 0.00874
-1.0 .. .. ...- - 0.00962
1.0 - - 0.00738 .......... 0.00973
1.5 .. .. ...- - 0.00910
2.5 - - 0.00896
3.0 - - 0.00702 . .. .. .. .. .. .
4.0 - - 0.00712 . .. .. .. .... .
6.0 - - 0.00791 . .... .... .. .
9.9 - - 0.01218 . .. .. .. .. .. .

TABLE P.- SUMMARY OF THE MEASURED STATIC AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS AT M. = 0.30,

INCLUDING WIND TUNNEL WALL CORRECTIONS

Airfoil CLa a° CMo CDmin Xa'c" CLmax Oss (L/D)max

NACA 0012 0.109 -0.10 -0.007 0.0072 0.24 1.33 13.70 90

Ames-Ol .111 -.6 -.005 .0070 .25 1.45 13.6 100
FX-098 .109 -1.3 -.02b .0066 .24 1.43 13.1 94
SC-1095 (.11O)a -.9 -.027 .0073 .245 (1 .4 6 )a 13.5 (98 )a
HH-02 .114 -.6 -.002 .0066 .255 1.42 13.2 92
VR-7 .117 -1.6 -.016 .0071 .26 1.51 12.6 107
NLR-1 .102 -1.0 -.025 .0071 .22 1.29 12.4 87
NLR-7301 .117 -1.9 -.083 .0078 .25 (1 .8 3 )a (1 7 .2 )a 89
Nominal ±.003 .2 .005 .0005 .005 .03 .3 5
uncertainty
auncertainty larger than nominal value in table.

25
 TABLE 9.- LIST OF TEST POINTS WITH UNUSUAL ZERO DRIFT OF PRESSURE TRANSDUCERS

Airfoil Frame M. Type Problem Airfoil Frame M. Problem

transducers TyPe transducers

NACA 0012 8019 U.035 U All Wortmann

8021 FX-098 18414 .11 S 20,22
8023 19401 .25 2,3,4
8102 19402 .25
8104 19405 .25
8106 19406 .25
8114 .07 23 20103 .25 2,3
8116 .07 23 20104 .25
8118 .07 23 20122 .30
8210 .11 4 20123 .30
12118 .26 Q.S. 3 20203 .30
13107 .11 1,4,20 20204 .30
13115 .07 Many Sikorsky
13120 .07 1,3,4,18, SC-]095 33022 .07 U 1,17,18,25
24,26 33106 .11 U Many
13205 .033 Many 33110 .11 U Many
13217 .035 Many 34409 .29 U 2,3
14104 .18 U 3,8 35021 .30 S 11
14106 .18 U 3,8 35023 .30 11
14108 .18 U 3,8 35100 .30 11
Ames A-01 26306 .30 S 2,3 35102 .30 11
26307 .30 2,3 35103 .30 11
28019 .11 1,20 36209 .11 1,20,22
28021 1,20 36210 .11 1,20,22
28023 1,20 35211 .11 1,20,22
28101 1,20 35212 .11 1,20,22
28106 All 35213 .11 1,20,22
28107 Hughes
28109 HH-02 42309 .22 U 6
2.8110 42313 .25 6
28115 43308 .30 13
28116 43-09 .30 13
28117 Vertol
28119 VR-7 47213 .18 1,4,24
28120 + 47217 .22 1,4,24
29317 .035 U 5,12,14,23 47301 .25 3,24
Wortmann 1 47305 .28 3,24
FX-098 16019 .035 U Many NLR-1 62020 .07 1,16,18
16200 .18 U 4,11 63018 .30 2
17220 .30 U 2 63019 .30 2
18102 .18 S 2,3,4 63020 .30 2
18106 .18 2,3,4 63021 .30 2
18108 .18 2,3,4 65207 .20 2,3,4
18410 .11 20,22 65209 .30 2,3,4
18411 .11 20,22 NLR-7301 66616 .11 S Many
18413 .11 I 20,22 NLR-7301 66617 .11 S Many

aS - steady; U - unsteady; Q quasi-steady, k 0.002.

26
TABLE 10.- COEFFICIENTS OF LINEAR CURVE-FIT OF STATIC LIFT DATA
WITHOUT WIND-TUNNEL CORRECTIONS
Ba
CL A +

Airfoil A = CL(O) B - OCLa

NACA 0012 0 0.110

Ames 01 .15 .108
Wortmann FX-098 .07 .111
Sikorsky SC-1095 .11 .110
Hughes HH-02 .07 .116
Vertol VR-7 .19 .117
NLR-1 .11 .102
NLR-7301 .24 .116

27
 - - 000--~ 'JN000- 00 NNO --
00o
COO -..-- NC4I
rPr",r-s V@WC Dw Q~
o0C D0 0 0Q
WC

- A- ~0 o 0~ 0 00I-AN. N toeu

~
4~ M M(~)~r.
I cU .. . .- .. . .

00 0 0000,0

weeOOO m-r-ee-r
wewe1!w emeeet
1mmw ir ! wiP o 9 e D1o C!99999
000-
C!eCt... P1 ... V 1 11.r r ! eeor

ODODW
01,N ,I D00N W I l-0 0 ToT
O 0 0 0 0
,oIooo17oooooFo4 OI-z M 0,0 oNWe
o, , oo PJMe0N0IIIInI0UI~eOAAIIIIIa00o~
-
C C L 3 n nMMM PM W O
-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
O. 0 ZZZZ0 C
ZZZ ZWZZZ
.. .ZzZ.Z.Z.ZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZ
.. ZZZZZ
1 . ZZ Z ZZZZZW
CZ

<9099PPP99P99P9PP99P99PC
9 a0 !p9C popppC !0C C
~
b%Wk.r..I.eeeeeeee
UN9 N6%w ,W ,U ,0%

0.-

$4 5 8PQ-?:OUIN EA 0-t.O 00IN . 0', M NV1e0 0 IA 9 N A 9 1 1. I W . ~ 0~ e W N .

(n1'e w,0N 190UlNl1919U

2' ONL'1N200
F. F,'0 0.

~~t'NN00

qO00000ggog,0
999Pweeee. P(99 ON9PC wwwct eP99Cwww!POPP9 .~.1.-weww)w r

.- 00000 0000000
000000...0.........................00000
00 20 N"000000000 000 0000 00 00N 000to00 00C,0000;CNA
M00000
"o'o~o lU
Cooofooo-ooooooooo 0'0000000009 e
I 01LmNNA0wwN99 N
C4nOm19wIAAO1 N 0 V~Co fw9~~l0
c C 000O

06
OWD
06 4I00w00oo 00 0 C'covm 00 00 0E~.1

- 0 N -- ifiQ
4~~~~~~~~~0~~'
fffN 'q w W q 0 ii P' f 9 0

10 ! qwRC
9pC 00 p001w9O q 9C w C w99oIRC1a q! -C
9. 90 * ,R1 ! !IR99 R99

28em
 O NMAN WOONMV OU'0VON
moo
win -itw- M 00 N '4

00010'M N U' O NM 00O00O00 0000000000 00M0 00a o w

........ ........ C!........ ..... 8v8 u'NU'0K

C!.....888R..098....C.- M

-~ ~~ ~ ~~~0U~ ~'WWO-MM-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
00 NOC UOWNO
NWNWO @0 OM MM 0,

~ .~ MtIMMMMMMMM()MMMM MMNMNNN-v~vMMM Ne MN N M MtM M(~

M MMMM M
0 :3
~.4
N '- ~ M- 0N O0 -0 ,O NW'go- O 0 'N MN M M MW - N ND

-N N- - N N- N N N-
- N ON N N N- M-0UN M M M -~W - -'-
N -OO-M-- - N N

I_ OO OOzOz OO 0O0O zz O zz .Oz' zz NM- zz OCO zz OW zD. MzOMMMMMMz .- V- . z2z

-0000000000000 NMo0 11100 220000 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- 0 N~ NNNNN

~4--~--'d ~ -------- M~M ---- --) M -. NN M M M 0 - - J N N N

29
 4D-C- ~ 0"11 0N
Cy N~r.O0 O 0WNmm,-.

NNe ~ CN N
0 ~N N N C. N 'N 2NN NN NNNrqNNC.

00 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 000000000000 q0 ol 010a0 C00.

0 . -N 9 0 ~~~~
N 0 0NO
!D N
-N
9 (0
I0 Q'
N ma)_
M
~ Nv .-. ~t-.9000 N..l
4~~6NN
t ~ NNN. ~D Mt0
MMNO I -4NN
I
00'0'T
lna0 -
m'
1I ' Z A0-
COO D0
-9
D04
0 a9
NNNNNm to NNNMtM 11M(1M I Cr-I MM N'C IN '4

-N M M N NCr d7J.NN.

3c," -MIvm'?Wm 0.I M2 1F -No m 004 nmV WW ~ t-- o)-00v2

-000000 000
00 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 000 000000000 00 0

00 00 r00;f);4N 0 00 M 00 M 0 O 00QNQ
00 e 00 0 W0 M N;
0000 ffMC Q
00 0000000nCP0000000000m

oooooooeoooooooooooo6OooooIooooOOooooooc. OOOOOOO0000000IAIAOOO

N.-)1.g-tO tNQ-O - N -M- N N-%NLY-

CY- -4 -

.p K -- - -NC JNNNNPCmrP1Off, MMMN0

-7PPM'I'944.q.0
- I'I v ""YC~P

4., 44 Wf4NN~NNNNNNNNN NNNNN NlNNNNNN NNNN '7 N NNNNNNNN

-4

:!--- N ID~0- N N N N NP P1
000N0 .0.
N O'N N NN N
NN N NN Nm N N NNN N1 Ve N N 'vNN Nv

0 000 0 0000000(

'- I.000000000000000 OOOO00 00 0000000000000000000000000o0

O0
00 0000 00 0 00
~O 888820o0o 0000ooo
00 000000
H08~Oocooo
0 OO O8OO
000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000
OO O 8oo oooo
0800000
O O O oO O oooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~coo OOOoOO
00 a

9W'0 0NNN;I0'D'.
0- s3I .- I0.N1 1... 4) 0 U'P10 0 'OW
V In 0 ,04. I'D 0' MO
Nc '0- N . 0
N IA N0 0P
N N P 1 N N Nl N N Z N4 -4 . CD99 CD 9 4 9 9 01 9
Cv0201P1P1P1MflP1P1NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
.- NPNNNNP1WN0~ N..PN.--,NP1 OO O00-'00''N mm0A.I 'o0W 'A...4A
P1P01
2990000000'
1N
0' 00
N
0C'~0'0OCoo
P N I P N N
9I
N
U9 NAI
N N IaNINN
.0' N MUI
TAIII INN VTOD9WWIUD
to -
lI 8000
UM- I ~ WIUIQ0ID0
- T uP -
.

'
O' W 0.4 M N I N0NW.M W .NO4 W .N
*~WW IAP1AWN-NN~.IN
N~,. - - - - Nm - 'OImAN..
- N 1O
1---0-94.44.4..4 11 .4AM.4'
9
4.4N.4N.4N
X N NoNRNoWWWMyM4
oW 9W.N.E0
OW c42
WW. 00o .. 0 0 0a.0 0 0OOp N010 Q. wto woUN0 v 0

4mrOmNMn
INONN.y "Y N
MrND0q~ AIN N .W N 14 .0

0 !- 00 0v IA ) ) I0W0 o 0 N . PIW7-4A0'. 0 0 0 N 0o!C)000P1 N

0 IA -N 0 0 a140o

0 0, -R!T -
 U
C O-D ~.--
WM~O ON~O~.-~0N
00
Of.Ooms=
ON
N~~0-
Rev~OO-NNO~
0
D2T;'
0 -

NN N m~ mm 0NN 0Uq 0'p-

O000oZ200 onn 00C,0~ O,0r a 0.

O ...0 0 0 (O. 000,,M 0000- ~- 0000'pq'pj TNOO

Lo(~PE CrV0o 7 W0NCD

" Mo Oi- w O -o
WNN- - 0
gOODg
T M-; - 9 0 N ~
NN ,,.1 N 'N2

0 r 7V

m 31
 !Cooo
O O oOn ol 0 0F,00 O0 MN000
000 T~
000 0c ) f c W

00000000000000a000 000000 00 0000000000 000 0000NMmo C,00 -O :

00
0L0'6000 0, 000000 "00

000000000M~N o0 oo N 0oo~o 0 00

-M~ 0 - G 0 f-N
. ) O f- N'IAu
OWL qwcp

-00 0 0 0 0 C 0 00,0 0S0 N0 000 0 0 001O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00z0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0000 0000 LA
000 0000000000000000.004)000 qo oLA 00000 000000m00 LAL 00 0
-n r) r) - m N N0,0 , . m ve Nn V0-" u

0- 00 a

N 0 -.- 0 0 O O N .0000-NNOO.0
V 00 -NN.J00--0 00 -

~~ ~~
~ - NNNM6 DNMM4 0 - r, N.

OOOC000000000~O0o000000000000000000 000000o.or-t.

o0

,4 >
W evoo' - 0000 0N 0-0 N q 0))qqNN 0-0 04 100'1L
4- 00N O -- N 0 -N O O
0~0 0 N 0 - - O O - N O N Nq -
N N--NNNN

,,a,-a-4:,. 0)000000) ON 0)TO owe)0N00))000))

00000OC.00000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000080000
uiooac~gooooooooooooooooogsg8888 0000000000008000oo000 000

00000000000000000000000000000000 000000800000 000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

~~ 0A)'O~-00N0LO--'-o
,~MC,
0000))0)0) LAL~w ww Cw a'I
rMqPI )) NN NN NN - N N ' I N N N 0NN
-- N
Nmo
00NqoLAALq
o))')o o - o
0
o. o
0
-
0 _4000
o
0
vv- ~ ~ ~L
0
-- o
q
0)
A
LA
L AAAAA~LL

000000000N"000 00 v 000 00 00
2a000000 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 LAO C
0 ~M
---- N m tv-
- -- - -- -- -- - -- T- - - -

a.
Z0 N~~~~0-
---
NNNNN'00)000000
0~~ 0- -N
0
~-NO--NNONJ'O--
NN,
30)000)00)0000000.fl)0 0000 oO06000~06
-------------------------------- oogo goo ooo ooo ooo oo

K o' , 0 0 MV ,6 : .o'U CO
~o, 60 n 6 0 r, ,f30)2
 ~OOW4N,4 N8fE *O EIIN ON dN -

W-" NN.~I NN
M ~0 N
C ~ 0 N EN N (O~
Oi'J.O
NNNNM
N N NrN
NNIM
N It4

U.t N N V NOW N . 0~~O N L~ O !?UN

W0.0 00"n~r ncN ON 06~

r.)~v !a
'n coo

m m

-4
__
NNNM
~~ ~ ON
~r ~ ~N
M.OII
N
V -
ODO
a CD.N~UO
CO -ON
N~fN
IM

COI
4 C- -4N "00
00 00
NN MMt MU-vM~
4= m a

i~4N
NNNN N N NN N N N N N N N4 N N N N N N N N m 04 N N

33
 OMA NN NM NN

p0o ... 0....0,m D--

00000 8 000000V 0mo ~ W W~ ma * mN N No

w 0.0
V80000(:0000O0O0 -- U 0 N - N t70 0
8!M0--

O00 O0 0000o oq! 01~ Cc ?al0-00' OU a N v 0.: "&: Ngc- ! ag.

MW gO 0005O 0

000elo000000000

G'N'VrMOM
o00~-0
0ON ..
- N-q-
0 NV 0~
U
OfMM
'
MNqLO
0
0 -N ~
0'
OA,,OmN:-0:
,.~
W-
NG 0 q N
O-'-
OSN t(
0o MMMOOW
N
M
O'-
;7

~0a2
00 ~ 00L '0N N-~ OOo ozo
0. 00mm 01 0w..-

~~~~~N
mm~ 0 ~ O N~"

G~~~~~~~ PNM !D . P ( CO 00 0 0 m-0- c 0 0 p C 0- 4'0 O

W m 0 0.
0- 0,M

000 000
u~0 u~0 O0O N00 000000 q004O.- -- O O OOONO OO N O
C! .4 CW " N
-N-0InM.-NrOOODODO Q- - O-D
.. .. .... .. z zz zz . .z.z

o yro
'44 -ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ -'-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

olro
W0)0 N.0O;NM 00 NO 0)00 0 NNN 2 NC'NNMN NM
cM-.4 0 N.O-0 -4

r. 0

0~

- .
0 0 0 0 0 n O0 0 0 0 tn000000
0 0 0O.4.0.4.0.c.00000o0040400u OO4

0
I.. 0 00 QOOOOOOOOO O OO 0 OQOOOOOOOO oOOOOOO ooooooooooooo O U0o

00000000000000000000000o~o00000000000 C 000000000000000000o

"T0 N~ 0 0& VMN 0' DN 07 N N~4 (P0-N

Q'! '. 0,M Q( 4& of N M.4 OM0)mNOm 0 .4'O0NC )- 4
ON 00'
M0 .4 0 ~~~~~L (C MM MOw
(
0( NO
-- w0NN
n 0a)0 N) r,) M N :4N. ) f Ut -m , z" m. a, m. m)0ON N m
Sf 0'
0)SN Af0'N -'If0 0' 0' L-O (f' ( ON '.0 NNN- ).
0NCI'U~) 4 M OM0MM
o n NvNOvv
r N) NN N) N M m m m4 mSlml) m ') Mm m m MM m M r) M MM mmmmmm
MM MM MM
mmm N N N N N N N N
--
4' NNNo,w .44 - 0 (4SMMSlN''00''')NO000'000w.'L
&Q&4.
K00O000'0)00)(00)~~W0)0)M.2! -0
MMMMN M..................N
mf" QD
11...44.00 en444C 0 ' 00m. (14.0000000
NNN NN NNN N

into0000~0 000 0 000000 too 0oo0o0o00 0000000o00

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

" """" " I "I zzzzzzzzzz . zzzzzzzzzz

fC 8 .C U%,NCV2d
'Nf N O f ' , .Y 0 0 M . 0 N U N N 0 ) M . 4 ) .MN frOqf 0 L (N M.
0O NU W-S O i- qv I U, -N - - "S
,-1ACSOIUSU
tl( i(A sf )C AI SU U0SUSC )I S AU S( SU S SI AU0i )USI SU SI SUSI SU SU t" AU AU
0(AU SU
LL5o-~o r
fnM r) r

~~~S-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZZ34Z
 cogl

F)l

.,4 L)

00 "

I-I

35
 W N
w00 0 C3
00N 8 -M
ONWN000 UO, 08 Mot0'- a A& I. N0

0000000000000000 00O 0 -NN N 0-

H r. OQ 009N (000000 COD

2O-NP 40--M- -qM N t0Cw V &Wt0,

mv 0 r Nr CO r OONAMMN0N
00000000- N mm 00000m-N mmmmin On ia~0 Mm

&E0 9M~4DN

0 M 11 fl, 00 NN ONe COItqg0 = DCOCOO O

RNNNPI M N - LoM q M M M Do~M~

r'' - MN MN M&

e~ N M M N~--- - - - - - ----------- - ~ M ----

NN MM M M

s Z gs O)SDsU3D , nt

9 00000LM MM M0' MMO00NNN q0000000000000

4 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000zzzzz zzzzzz

10

-- -n -- - -l I U- in innN in inen N NIAcn A lfn lPfif mAl~n -.

-qUU

* h 0.T!N QO

8 0
co>>8a -N oO-- o o 0g N00000CC0
o o o c o08-000808-NNO 0
;8 N 0 00- 0 0 8

00 OQCU 0

1 11

In
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 OLOU'"01cm
OO a OO O OC0000 000No000000000
o u oo ~

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

-------- -V r. INV S

00'0'O~i~tI36
 a- mD MnT N 2- 0N D7 q c) C.C; m

Soa -C>40 NCF 0 0 cm OD

0V~' 3c (v 84 1 fb .ON r); ~ 0y
0

1. 0
0 r rN! ~ NQrN

4 08 4O000iNUMVNN'
I0 00S 0w a a co C 00 a o

.- M Ino%'1
N . * -- ~,
N4 OM(40N N, NN
oCC R Rg~~gD
C!o~ ,W!U U 0!00000
U

IL NNNCzzzz N)NMNzz

137
 NOOQ. 00 . -000.-- NNONNO.
0,0- 0N
N O
0-
--. 0 ON--.00.-
-'N N N
CI0(NNO-.
N "00?

00000000000000000000Mnul
ONU)(' O OqOWO oU~
WN0M'

000000
00000 00000-NOW

00 00 0C 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 U nC -0M02Wa

0 0a 02 N0'0 00a
000 NW.-0 0 CflONN - '00, 0 C 'a0 0 0 N 02' N 00 v WN O 0 0
OWNO- P
03-C

'o MM M - MMNN )MMM 0 M N...-..o....NNN

'eaMMM - -

0000-00 0 N- C)O M.-'NN Om 00a0''Nm.0 N0003'03 NU 00000'....

00000 r M O 4M)V
0 0 C C0 )Q0 )0 0 0 0 ML0 0 ar >C -) -) N) 0 V) in0 m)
0 N) V) 00
v) 0 V

00000000000 00000000000000 000000 V 000000000

N
.N00a)NM'Ua)000a) , -'Ua)O
066%no)tn0000a ."n U, u00O0a
%,r;V; W, W,W,~ oooo
-N N -- ---

AiO N'N N0mW0W3 W30 -NNNN~ e.MO N

NN M 0- - -

r. .4 "% ol

4 0 W0'O )N3N ' - NU00'

2 N OO -- N -.- O
Ix O00000. z .0 030z0000
Ooo oow00 0 "'oooooo
0 0 0 0 w0 0 0~ DDoooooooOD
0 0 0 0000 D

O000000000000000000000 O 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0

' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 ..

0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0
00 Z00 00000N cll200 00
00
000 000000 00 000 0 0c 0: 0 00000 0 0000C 00000 0
-40 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o) 0 a 0 a0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 U.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00%0 0 0 0 0 0 00000V
0000 0000 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
.'N00'U0'a)NN03.0'W~~~N
'('0NM-.0''"N0'mm'Ua)Wa)U02 O00N0NN2AU O .- M 'M O
ON-0''
~D a0 a , m mm n
~O 4-'n m m m0'U00W'W
a 03 -
WWa'm
NNa
-
)0 0r)0 'U ('
0 -
M
Om'UO0OCO
N N
(0'U
C" .- 4 .) 3N M(!u(' 'UCa
N UNO

,www w w w w 0'0000000'M
' w 03000300
w 0'''3'330
o000'.I 0w 0030'0to'03oo

-0 C0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000000000----0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0

00000~~~ a) 00 0 000 0 0 a)
000 0 DD
0 0 000 a
"4 MD")
0
000000000)0200
4)
vv v v

VIl U 2NO0002O
O M NM ' ) a 2 O A O NM ' 2 02MN INN AWO M38U )N
 *~0-0-
- --00- 2R
LISPM0VO0 VV " M" V v WQ

WlanODMW0'l V 0- M 0 04 CDV! O - O03 fM;;oV M0

-O0 OC00 000-00 0 -- - - n -*0 'n

v nam g N ryN N tv NCY N N Inv N (n I

q . .0.-N . . . 0 .C!.. I-.

wo0mo0m00 -0 0 t .Q

X*O0 ~
000 O WOWC WOW WWWWI39
 L.JN'OOO NOO-S StSUS O~.O~~f000-M-.q est%~'0-aler~

1000 0- O--
-000--- 0-.0~-.- N00 0-- O- -NOI'm -

088oOO 0 O o0oooO00 0 0 0 Z 00- 0

OMOM 0;; N 'V A
'S 0 0M VSi ' 00V
W. N 'M0 -0
(D 0
GC Sf?', 'S0
OO ON'00SS' 0 SNo - N S 0Ow? O 8
'

~~0000000000 0000
0N.~ 0000 0-00 0--0 O-N0 N0.0 .- 0
.0.000.00000000.0099

ZooO~ r- 0 0 0 -NNNOOG0CNOOOO
NN N mmmm m n M M N N M M M M M M M M MM M M ' ' ' ' '
.... ... ... - N-AOS 0'000'00'SN1N
eUS N M0NO!'?'.O!Nr!OWr!Or!Sr!

m Q M --- NNNNN
vMMM3M "NND)NMO-" MM MMN NNN>M MM(NMMD M
X''..O'SO~
A0 00".000N0SfO'M.0fNO .000MOS0

eMcc
'S 'Sc~RtP 'S PN "S
cS Mt ON
PS CN N R 4R 9 c! 0'
c! RSRf of MO'
C! 9 R~ R o- oM U' 00
R CNR U?
9 90 - N RSR0004R 0 M O 9 9

MM M9' MM M c!00 90 0 90 009 00!0 99 M! c M 91 ON9C

MM N
o9o99 0
Rc 0 0 0
oC 0 0: 0 c, N cN 000000

.- 0000
00 0000000- - -0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0- 0
0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U? 0 :0
0 0 = D 0 0 SSiS?5?ISf f f ? O :g o o 0
I~00

O000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000'S000--U'SfSfzzzzzzz

SA0N
tf? 'S0
Sf? -O'N
-M'S 000 0000 f~i?00 N0NN f?.-N D

U-S
t& 't o4 r LsS' ONNN
LA LA o N NNNNNNNN NSJN mmMM M M M M M M M'

0 M~
u

E-1

00Nq0 'S Li ol4 .9,9(-!9 1

0 - 'S M-M0'- 'SO (.~c

wz.. Y 000 0 0 0 0000 00 00 o 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 00 00 0 0 00 0 0

000 0 00 0
V00 0 00 0D 0
oogo 00 0 0
u 00 00
ooo0 00 00
o00oo0oo'00 o t0 000
o
. . 0 -S 0 0........-
0 00 0 0 0 00 1 .r0 0 0 000000 1 1 O 1 C !r 0 0 r 0 Ii1
0 .2 00000000

00000000000000000Qwr;0000000000000000000000

1 'S U 00OO' ' NO O f O O-'S NNO 'M N a M5"0 -

'.... O OMMOO'I mO lN-m.7 ON
NOO'NN S'N05OQ?0fO
- 1 O
.... N M.... ' f0LlS~ N-0 0 -00I?~S S O 0 ' 07OuO

~S.05?'
M'
~S S i''i
~O N SO O ' ?0 SS.N 'N O0 O
.N N'S S 00 'Mf S S5 NM
'S'SO'NNNN..N.-S"O0'
O N.Ni O.-'S ~ ?- ~ NS ~
N ?0 )iM
olv --*O ' - N -- OOM

oNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMaMMMMMM~ WSMMM
-~~~ NN ? N N NN
N Nq NM MMS'nMMM MMMM.-.%

I MN NNDzz
NNN NOO M N). N - f ' - O -j
-N S --- ' 0O----- --NOONNO'0O,:'NO'NN-O--'-N - !CO'0-,
*NN
N ND N, DN4
-0''''SS''' 10Dl - NN4 o4NN004- 41O 0j N NO NO 'SD4

MMMMM
MMMMO OO 0 00 0 0 0 0O O O O O O O O O O O
 h.oo-No~-I'I. -NO~d -NUlf -Mn om MO~ 0

N N0 ~~QQ O 0. Oo - OlO~

0 04 NIS -- MN
& o M' M~o
4

0 0
-I0 0') 00 ~ O

NCCONNN PCD~CDCQ M-0 NN;.N.-

WC0M..-m

cc 00C! 00 t U' Umf 00000

U 00000 000!

-- N 3- -- N
b--r ZNOZZ 0 .ONZZ
F N
3- N1)-00
-

is~ 0O19--N ONNNN=!.- NO NgI'I~N

41
 IL0p. M-U0 0 N00 -M-M0- W,~VNOW

0 O-- N O 0-N
0N00 0N0--0"0-N
0-60 06006666000 0 mo0No00Mo
000 OM4 0v 00.000-OOON06~

0.0w0q o q 0 O .0 O M o M 0 0.o00 0 N N 0 0 N
00W90
goOSHW MO N g, FD !
"'0N'

0800000000000000 ao'N&OVM0 2N -M 0-Op-

0 0 0 8
00 0~ 0 0 ~ ~ . 08 0 00 00 000 0 0 0 0
O-a?"NV
0 ~ 0~. 9O~ U.)C0
P c b 0 0- 00 N M M Mz o W0
~O 00000008 00 0000066000 0

00
0000 0 00 000
00 00 00 0 000.0 0;coig zpco&N 0NR -aC D;etmu m

NNNCNNNNNMMMM NMMM N v INMMMMMMMM M P)MMMM M

00 ~ ~
MMWMMMM~~~~qM~~pV Np M
~W 0
~ONO4
NW gmmg.
WW
~0 000
' OMMM NW~0NNM--N~M
NP
M0 M N N
,20 lot~ 0,M n
~ p

Ixoz 4,00 0 )U)PWw

0f WOO 0 Win

'o 4,40 ozV 00D

.. 4 0C!4C! t .000
- - !C 0! 0 P-P.NN0O 0<O)O')WWW00O 00

o~0. 0 000 0 .000Do o 004000 000 000000 00.000.00 0.0.OL,0.0.0tcoc(-cjco~c)OC~

M "AWmm a. VlS~O-
NOO M W'o 0U'
mN~N
0- WM V -o n .o mNOn U )tN m, 'CN .~tO f,-.
0 O0
,q~ 0 a~ , , n0 , .,K !NNf) W

.0 . 0 00000 00(p4) 0
. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0I 0 0 0 0 0 0
h. 0 t M.DO

00 000000000000000000000' 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;C 0-00000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
020 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 000 0a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ev000000
000000v) w0 000 000 00000000000
00()00

U) 0A04"Mt 0 0 0I A M 0 -'o00 N0 0~
-A . 0 %A
4A 0 (A 0 V550
0C0( MO ) &AW-00 MO i' -n0M 0 op)4A0W I- 0 MO LA p.U)
A~ 0 'A 0f
-C
wo
OL
0OzM0W'%0O
.04 .W0
Nz-.5Pz
. .U
0s7z
.W-S O
U'00m0-uz W
MO~4
f)N0'
~0 )lt'OONO
Oa ~5.W0 W .p )p '4 ~M
00'tf'O'0'0000p.Nop.-0
50

A! r N0pNMWfc) C0- 04UN00(

CO000 Ot'r.W~'.~~~NO'CL.5P.00
~ -')0'-N"P
000000 ~ qN
cc.
NOMO M, 050U
N,Nz
vp-950
'o if%'U'V~UU'0
-M4.NN~)
-a5
W )W
M
IS U '''''5555 N IM~W5
- -lu

~000000'0..0V p..0 00W 0

00 N-Wp.O
005Op0 00
WWW
.Op~ ' .0
WWWD
'00p.wMWM
W 00
WWMWMMMMMM
0000SID0O000O
M 0'Ozoo0 ' 0

MMflMMMMN
NN NN M N NN NN NN NN NN2
 - ~~ ~ ~.00C0 NW
al 0
mOC, l 0
l QO O 0W 0

OOOONOOOO o -NO

.... 00....00.00...0.0.0N N N N a a- v
* OWW C 0 .9 rNW 0 .W NO 1
N! 99MO
0R
.0 .O ... . N. .0.0
.N 0.0 0.00.. I

000-0.N o.-NONOOOO o nO.-

mm -00 N N... N MN N N W mmN

x 0,(=
O§E;CMOW
"
~ 'a.- OIAP 0MLnS(t

COO C.0OWWOV W"WWN N lrM0M0W

M M MM MM MM MM MN NM MM
le N
DMMe =NrDD L
NNNNN -
w!
D- -
4CAOO
trbNNN0
~
tQA00
30

0L
* M O N.0 N 0 N W 0.In.0 W 0 x00 U 1.0 N Zn

de N N~ 00 0 %fNfO q W N N

0 QO
NNNNNNO 000 M MO 00
 Cu1
-H CDC l
0-4 C1

Vq-1N 4 C 4 C NC14 C4 44-44-4-4-4-4- N 4

NCO -IN 4 -4N

Z4-4U
0 a)

0 n
9
w0 CO
. C
-4C . - ~,~C0
-1 w0 r- in
C-4
w
CD r.10
4C'
4 4
0 wnaN m
C ' -
0m 0
-A
NCC7
,4
1-1
-4t 0mOCw
-1 11 .-4 1 4 .- 4
0 m
-
0*

-4 0 ~-4C -4 - C 40 - 1 0 qN- 40 - -4 )-4 --- 4N4

4J 00 M -i 0 aA CN 0 t0 - 10 0C 4r ri 0C rI(1 0 0 ) 0 0
w 4 )
00r-44- C40N-)CNC 0 0 0I - 0 C4 T IT M 00 ',
r-- -TN IC 0 " 0 N I)0ID

E- E-4

0 ~ (N4
00 00 ON N (N m- -4-4- -4
EN (N (N N(
E-4 E-4 M-4 M- N( M- MN(
N
F-404 00ON40C00-C4C0-040-cl NC 40N- 4000000000000 , - r r
L) 0 -4-4-A4- -0 4 0' 0 C )CD0 r,0 - r-0 , r0 I 0 I' I In I I 00 In I f In In
1ii II-4II-4II-4I-4I.-4I lull lii

r- *.114 (N (N 1 0-1 1 .4 ('

*C PW r-4 W WC1( X zz CNC'I'J(N
zz

I ~ bo
.14. . .-
-4
o 'r-.C
- ' -
O
.?(C
OC 000
~ - ' n
CO
cl 0-' N N( N N( ( N4

N0M00 -4C*40 Cr- 00CN O-4N i 4- 4 4 N r-i N C1 C-40N0-qC-40 -(4

40

E-4-E-

44 W4

o) C*'I CT%n r r00 0 0 C

tCOC N 00

.44 -4 -C4C4N NC4N N N14-

v
41.
-0 19 -4- -
0L
C
4r-00g
DC - 4- 4r4C
w, C4r g0 ggn
T0
Da N N 40 0C 40 40 0 - 1C4-
w d0 a - - 1 4C4e 4zlm m m - 4- - -
$ 'T-4N
N" m"m Cj 44y
Nmm mm m%0 or- ww
 TABLE 13.- MACH NUMBER SWEEP AT a - 150 + 10 ° sin wt, k = 0.10

M NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 SC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-l NLR-7301

0.035 8102 16019 58102

.07 8114 24323 16105 33022 42121 47123 62020
.11 8214 24314 16114 33106 42321 |4711 62104 67120
124217 I47213
.18 8220 2317 16200 33110 42302 4721 62112 67220
131209 58121
.18T 141 29117 17103 34321 42110 47112 64109 67021
.20 62114
.20 165207
.22 9202 24209 16300 33205 42309 47217 62208
.25 9203 24201 16308 33207 42313 47301 62210 67305
.28 9208 24117 22208 33215 42218 47305 62218
|9217 24105 22201 33300 42210 45023 f62307
.29
114220 165209
.29T 14208 29106 17200 34308 42100 47100 64023

aT = trip.

TABLE 14.- FREQUENCY SWEEP AT M. 0.29, a - 15* + 100 sin wt

ka NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 sC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-1 NLR-7301

0.01 9210 30019 21100 38300

.025 9213 24022 22023 33217 42206 45019 62302

14218
.025T 14117
14200 29023 17117 42019 47020 64019

.05 9214 24100 22103 33222 42208 45021 62304

14219
.05T
14119
14202 29101 17119 34306 42021 47022 64021
9217 62307
.10 14220 24105 22201 33300 42210 45023 65209
• 1420
.10T 114210 29106 17200 34308 42100 47100 64023
[42212
.15 9218 24109 22206 34409 4 45101 62309

aT - trip.

45
 TABLE 15.- FREQUENCY SWEEP AT M. = 0.30, a - 100 + 100 sin wt

k NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 SC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-1 NLR-7301

0.01 9221 30105 21107 38306 43019 45109 62317 69019

125022
.025 9222 |31102
131102 22216 37023 43106 45111 62320 69100

.05 9223 125102 22217 37101 43108 45113 62322 69102

131104
.10 9302 25104 22218 37107 43112 45117 62400 69105
.12 62403
525109 143114
.15 9307 31110 22219 37109 431 45119 62405 69107
131112

TABLE 16.- FREQUENCY SWEEP AT M = 0.30, a = 15* + 5* sin wt

k NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 SC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-1 NLR-7301

0.01 10113 30110 21112 39104 45203 63018 68019

.025 10114 25204 23021 38021 43303 45205 63019 68100
.05 10117 25205 23022 38022 43304 45207 63020 68102
.10 10118 25208 23023 38102 43305 45209 63021 68104
.12 63100
.15 10120 25209 23100 38103 43308 45211 63101 68109
.20 10123 25210 23101 38104 43309 45213 63102 68111

TABLE 17.- FREQUENCY SWEEP AT M. 0.30, a = 100 + 50 sin wt

k NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 SC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-1 NLR-7301 NLR-7301T

0.01 10202 30119 21200 39107 44019 68119

S12 4 221618 682170
.025 17112 25117 22307 37207 144029 45221 63108 68121 67108

.05 10204 25118 22308 37208 44023 45223 68123 67110

.075.1 10207
713f44104
.70 7113 25119 22309 37210 44104 45300 63112 68201 67112
10208 24118
.15 700 (25121 22311 37213 44106 45302
.20 I7114
110211 144112
25123 22312 37215 44120 45303 63114 68203

It
 -0
4 -4r- -4. r-4

II 0
00

-4 * N-It 0 0D
4..
41 (N ,4 -4 ,-4 (NJ 4..)
0 1' M'C M C-1 MV

m -4 z 0

%0
3

o 0 -.
i s0 * 0 0* 0
*~1- 0% -. 0 II CJN (' ' N

0 ID C) 0 Ni (D -7 -. II 1- r-1

0 T- t t00l

0 0;

C! - -4 a 0 0
0 1 ,4 N
C C% -4 C4-4 11

I ci
E-4 ~C-0
5-; -4 M 4 -4
n A0

Ito 0 14 11 1 0 I r4
U) ) 00 01 a - r, r - U,
IT
a% 0-
1 n n -1I 4C4( 0 1 % c(n V)
Al 0-U
-It(N-,IC..-,4 u' 0- u-0 4 0-4

0 C1 CA 0
~e InIif

coIN -4 4 m n M0 -
0 m o4 C1 4 N 4C 04 0-
0 0 -7 0 .4 - 4

0H 0 % 0
En 0 1. LM
^- . n Mr - - n c)0I 4L 4L1 % l

4 -4) -4 w4.1 4M 40 N 0 ae
en u0 ' G 0 CN U 0
V))

0 0 C1 G

C) 47 0 o -4 -4
 0 00 0 0 00

oD ON0 r-'.%00o0 %0 -4 rt 0 ts- 4 003-t 'o e Ir--I

cn 4 4 -10o--4 -I 4N '-4 0 r-4 C4 -I0 -IC r-4 -4
r-4 C- cn .-I Nq N m N
117% 110ON0 l 0% 110m 110ON NOa, '
0 0 ~ 0 0
C5
% 0
d
0 0

413
3 0 0 0

'-4 C n0 0- e

-4I ' N - N
0. en0 11M

0 0 0

H C4 0 C 0 'D 0 0 0 0n r04 4 0n
0 -4~ 0 r1*1 0 P-4 04
q 0 04C4
-

6nIn C' -4 CO) 1-4 CN m 4 Nq

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04~ -1 U1 C4 LNC1 L3 -.t N~ V)TC49 &I 0M .

N* -IN " -I-4 N

N-4 .- qP-IN" -4 - '-4 0 '-4
01 N N Ldn N Nq N4 m' N N
0
1- t 11'T - It -It 0r -N 'T'-

E4
~
E-4 ~0 I
0
't 0 't o
0
* a
0
o
0 0 0 6

0-4

04L
in4
4
C7% -- -40

'-4

z co

00

044

I 08
 00 0 0

r,-)4 4 ,L -o
- - -40 .- q -4 ,-1 "

0 0 0
83 Z5 8
0 0 0 0
-4 0 It 0

r-i0 r-4~C -4 0 -4r4

0 0 0 0

o a 0 0 0

4 0 00 0 ,

-0 -0 r-40 -- -
In eC-1
C4 C, C,4
11W
00 t0 11 0 11W
co f
-- t -It -zr '
0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0
Lr) L11 L1 Lfn 114

ej40 -4 -4 0 0 -44 r4 0
uJ 0 C,4 enJ C,4 cq (N

C.)Z * 0 0 * 0 0 0 0

-I ( 0 0
Ln, C1 -I -T %

0 C"
-4 -4

E-4 U.. 0 0 0
e3 C5 8

0 0 0
W (0 -0 .0
0% -4 -404C -4 -

J 00 0
-4 C4 1 I 4 y

1-4 4 - 4 C-4 r- 0 0 4

0 0 00

-4
0

49
 TABLE 22.- NO SEPARATION: M = 0.30, = 50 + 50 sin wt

k NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 SC-l095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-Ia NLR-7301a

0.01 10218
.10 10221 25301 23107
.20 10222 25303 23109 68211

aSee table 24.

TABLE 23.- DYNAMIC BOUNDARY-LAYER TRIP DATA

M. k NACA 0012 A-01 FX-098 SC-1095 HH-02 VR-7 NLR-1 NLR-7301

0.18 0.05 14104 29115 17100 34318 42108 47110 64107 67019
14021
.18 .10 114021 29117 17103 34321 42110 47112 64109 67021
114106
.18 .15 114108 29119 17109 34323 42113 47114 64111
.18 .20 67023
f14 117
.30 .025 j14200 29023 17117 a
42019 47020 64019 (a)
114119
.30 .05 11422 29101 17119 34306 42021 47022 6 40 21a (a)
30 i0 1142(12
.30 .10 14210 29106 17200 34308 42100 47100 64 0 23a (a)

aSee table 24.

50

,iMZ 7
 TABLE 24.- MISCELLANEOUS DYNAMIC DATA

Airfoil Frame MW ao al k Remarks

6
N-0012 8019 0.035 10.0 10.0 0.10 Low Reynolds number, 0.5x10
8021 .035 10.0 10.0 .15
8023 .035 10.0 10.0 .25
8104 .035 15.0 10.0 .15
8106 .035 15.0 14.0 .10
8116 .07 15.0 10.0 .15 Match reference 3
8118 .07 15.0 10.0 .25
8123 .07 15.0 14.0 .10 Match reference 3
8203 .07 10.0 10.0 .25
8210 .11 10.0 10.0 .25
8222 .18 15.0 10.0 .15 Match reference 3
8306 .18 15.0 14.0 .10 Match reference 3
9022 .18 15.0 6.0 .24 Match reference 3
9101 .18 15.0 5.0 .29
9106 .18 10.0 10.0 .25
7108 .30 8.0 5.0 .025 Variable ao
7110 8.0 .10
7111 8.0 .20
7216 8.8 .05
7214 8.8 .10
7212 8.8 .15
7104 9.0 .025
7019 9.0 .05
7021 9.0 .10
7101 9.0 .15
7023 9.0 .20
10.0 See table 17
7117 11.0 .025
7118 11.0 .05
7119 11.0 .10
7120 11.0 .15
7121 11.0 .20
7200 12.0 .025
7202 12.0 .05
7205 12.0 .10
7305 12.0 .15
7207 12.0 .20
15.0 See table 16
10309 2.8 10.0 .10
10305 3.8
10303 5.0
9302 10.0
10022 12.0
9217 .29 15.0
14220 .29 15.0
10101 .27 20.0
10104 .30 12.0 8.0 .05 Match reference 17
10105 .30 12.0 8.0 .10 Match reference 17
10108 .30 12.0 8.0 .13 Match reference 17
15218 .29 15.0 10.0 .10 Pressure orifices closed

51
 TABLE 24.- Continued.
Airfoil Frame MW ao a1 k Remarks
N-0012 Many Variable Variable 10.0 0.001 Quasi-static; see table 12
W-098 23117 0.30 5.0 10.0 .10
Ames-Ol 30201 11.0 5.0 .01
Ames-0l 25214 jI .05
Ames-O1 25216 .10
SC-1095 39110 .01
37219 .05
37221 .10
37304 12.0 8.0 .05 Match reference 18
37305 12.0 8.0 .10 Match reference 18
37306 12.0 8.0 .13 Match reference 18
HH-02 43314 11.0 5.0 .025
HH-02 43315 11.0 5.0 .05
HH-02 43316 11.0 5.0 .10
VR-7 54019 .18 10.0 10.0 .025
54022 10.0 .05
54101 10.0 .10
54 10 10.0 .15
54113 10.0 .20
54116 10.0 .25
49023 15.0 .01
49110 .025
49117 .05
49120 .10
58121 .10
49203 .15
54216 .15
57018 .15
58018 .15
58120 .15
49206 .20
NLR-I 65223 .11 7.0 5.0 .025 No separation
65300 .11 7.0 5.0 .20 No separation
62114 .20 15.0 10.0 .10
65207 .20 15.0 10.0 .10
62121 .20 10.0 10.0 .17 Match reference 19
62202 .20 15.0 5.0 .17
62201 .20 15.0 5.0 .28
62403 .30 10.0 10.0 .12
63100 15.0 5.0 .12
63122
65309 12.0 8.0 .12
7.0 5.0 .01 No separation
65311 7.0 5.0 .20 No separation
65121 -2.0 10.0 .01 Stall at negative a
65122 .025 Stall at negative a
65123 .05 Stall at negative a
65200 .10 Stall at negative a
NLR-1T 64212 .01 Trip; stall at negative
NLR-IT a
64213 .025 Trip; stall at negative a
NLR-lT 64214 .05 Trip; stall at negative a

52
 TABLE 24.- Concluded.

Airfoil Frame M. ao al k Remarks

NLR-lT 64215 0.30 -2.0 10.0 0.10 Trip; stall at negative a

NLR-IT 64119 .30 2.5 .01 Trip; stall suppression
NLR-lT 64121 .30 2.5 .025 Trip; stall suppression
NLR-lT 64202 .30 2.5 .05 Trip; stall suppression
NLR-lT 64204 .30 2.5 .10 Trip; stall suppression
NLR-7 67201 .11 10.0 .10
67208 .18 10.0 .025
67210 .18 10.0 .10
67212 .18 10.0 .20
67218 .18 15.0 .025
67220 .18 15.0 .10
67222 .18 15.0 .20
67310 .25 10.0 .10
68219 .30 12.0 2.0 .05 No separation
68221 .30 12.0 2.0 .10 No separation
68304 .30 12.0 2.0 .20 No separation
NLR-7T 67108 .30 10.0 5.0 .025 Trip
NLR-7T 67110 .30 10.0 5.0 .05 Trip
NLR-7T 67112 .30 10.0 5.0 .10 Trip

I
-i

53
 TABLE 25.- TEST CASES FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS (ref. 1)

Case Frame Airfoil Co a, k Case Frame Airfoil Co L k

1 10222 NACA 0012 5 5 0.20 7 10212 NACA 0012 10 5 0.20
2 68211 NLR-7301 5 8 9302 10 10 .10
3 7111 NACA 0012 8 9 10113 15 5 .01
4 68203 NLR-7301 10 j 10114 .025
5 7023 NACA 0012 9 1 10117 .05
6 45221 VR-7 10 .025 10118 .10
45223 .05 10120 .15
45300 .10 10123 .20
45302 .15 10 45203 VR-7 .01
45303 .20 45205 .025
7 10202 NACA 0012 .01 45207 .05
10203 .025 45209 .10
10204 .05 45211 .15
10208 .10 4521.3 .20
10211 .15

54
 NACA 0012 AMES-01

SIKORSKY SC-1095
NLR-1

VERTOL VR-7 WORTMANN FX-098

HUGHES HH-02 NLR-7301 SUPERCRITICAL

Figure 1.- Airfoils tested in the experiment.

51

55

- __... _- .. .. .. .,_. . .. _ -
 AXIS OF ROTATION 'CONNECTED TO DRIVE SYSTEM

PLEXIGLASS WINDOW
OFIN
OUTLIE TUNNEL CEILING
STAINLESS STEEL SPAR

OUTER MODEL SHELL

I PRESSURE ORIFICES II

I* * * '-HOT WIRE SENSORS III

2mm GROUND PLANE

LOWER BEARING ASSEMBLY

Figure 2.- Model installation in the test section.

56
 La 0 9-

uJ ;
U cL

CL~
0

ccc

444

m LU
> 0

00

57x

*, ~-. - ---
 T .*
2.11m

FLOW
FL0.61m'l TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

WOODEN UPPER SHELL

WITH FIBERGLASS SKIN

PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
AND HOT WIRE FITTINGS

HOLLOW STEEL S. "AR

WOODEN LOWER SHELLS

WITH FIBERGLASS SKIN

Figure 4.- Sketch of the wooden model shells surrounding the steel spar.

58
Figure 5.- Pressure transducer and hot-wire installation: view from
inside the upper-surface shell.

y/c
N C M A I E

00 I] xlc

Figure 6.- Coordinate axes for the airfoils.

59
 PLANE MIRROR PULSE CAMERA

COLLIMATING MIRROR
APERTURE

STROBE LIGHT

PLEXIGLASS WINDOW

LIGHT BEAM

7~MODEL

TUNNEL TEST SECTION

(SIDE VIEW)

SCREEN ,

Figure 7.- Sketch of the shadowgraph system for visualizing the

leading-edge region.

60
Figure 8.- Representative shadowgraphs before (upper) and during (lower) dynamiic
stall: Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil, M,,, 0.30, a. 100 + 100 sin wt, k 0.10.

61
 18i

1. NACA 0012
16 M ,=0.30
16 CLO 0.109±0.004

1. a 0.1' ± 0.20'o
C =1.33 ±0.03
1.2- MAX
CM0 = -0.005 j0.010

~CMM~iN =-0.08
1.0 ±0.02

CL EXPERIMENTAL
.6- UNCERTAINTY

-. 2 -

-.4~

_.62
 1.8 -WORTMANN 098
M 0.11
1.6 CL =0.108 t 0.006
1.4- CL a~ .o0
CLM = 1 .3' 00
1.2

12 CM 25
0 = -0. ±O0,010
1.0 -CMM, -0.09 ±0.03

.8-
CL
.6

.4

.2

0 ___

-. 2

-.4

CM

a, dog

Figure 10.- Static lift and moment data on the Wortmann FX-098 airfoil
 1.8- VR-7
h =0.30
1.6 = 0.117 ± 0.003

1.4- a0 -1.6'o±0.2'

1.2 LMAX1.51 ±0.03

cMi = -0.015 ±0.005

10
CMMIN =-0.10 ±00
.8-
CL .

.4-

.2

-. 2

-. 4

CM

-. 2
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
a, deg

Figure 11.- Static lift and moment data on the Vertol VR-7 airfoil
at M. = 0.30.

64

___________________________________________________________________t.7_
 .04 0 STATIC WAKE SURVEY
PRESSURE DRAG
a= 5 + 100 sin wt; k = 0.001

.03 0

CD

.02
0

0
0 i ,
-1 -. 5 0 .5 1 1.5
CL
Figure 12.- Comparison of measured lift-drag polars for the NACA 0012 airfoil
at M., = 0.30, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

.12 0 NACA 0012

c SC-1095
SOLID SYMBOLS - TRIPPED

CLa . . . . . 0.106

0~~~-/ 0-__M1-__

.10

L L
0 .1 .2 .3

Figure 13.- Comparison of lift-curve slopes on the NACA 0012 and SC-1095
airfoils, including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

Sft65
0 03 P

o~0 0,U

a0
'n. 0

o a

0- ......
00 N - . *

U.au 0 ta 00

a 0 0

44

00
00

o (

C4O
C; 0 0

* iiSj

66U
 60 70
BOEING VERTOL VR-7 RED FRED MACH NO
0 - 0.010 BOEING VERTOL VR-7 - - 0.076
0D - 0.025 o - 0.110
- 0.050 60 A - 0.185
+ "0.100 + - 0.220
40. x - 0.250
0 -0.200o - 0.2110

30

a 20- 40 V=0.

z z
,- w 30

101

-3030

-20-
0 0
-10-

-50 "-10
0 .4
x/C
.6 .8 1.0 0 .. .2 .4
x/c
.6 .8 1.0
(
(a) Reduced frequency sweep: (b) Mach number sweep:
light stall, deep stall.

Figure 15.- Typical data presentation from volume 3.

0 STATIC
°
a - 5* + 10 sin wt; k 0.001
1.5

1.0 2
CL . E1

.5

-.5

-10 -6 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, dog
(a) CL VS ct.

Figure 16.- Static chracteristics of the NACA 0012 airfoil at M. - 0.30,

including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

67

- .

- - 1
 .15 0 PRESSURE DRAG
0 WAKE DRAG

.10

CD

.05

-. 051 aa

.1 0 STATIC
- ot= 5+ 10°sin wt; k 0.001

CM
00

.1 0

-. 2

-. 3 1 , . ,i
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

(b) CD and CM vs a.

Figure 16.- Concluded.

68
 /
0.080 + 0.112
/
1.5 - CLMAX =1.451

1.0 in
CL /

-.
5 / //

0 I I I p

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, dog

(a) CL vs a.

Figure 17.- Static characteristics of the Ames A-01 airfoil at M. - 0.30,

including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

69

i I Il
_ ill ill .. .
 .15 0 PRESSURE DRAG
0 WAKE SURVEY 0
8
.10

CD

.05

0000

.1

0 U 0 93

-. 1 0

-. 2

3 ii i i i
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a,dog
(b) CD and CM vs a.

Figure 17.- Concluded.

70
 /
/
0.142 + 0.109 c
1.5 CLMAX = 1.444

1.0A 1.44

CL 1/

/
.5

/
-.5

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a dog

La vs a..
(a) CLV
Figure 18.- Static characteristics of the Wortmann FX-098 airfoil at M. = 0.30,
including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

71

I
, , ,II IlL
 .15 0 PRESSJRE DRAG 5
0 WAKE SURVEY o

.10 -
0
CD

0
.05 - 0

0 n

-.50
0 131

0 0

-. 2

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a dog

(b) CD and CM vs a.

Figure 18.- Concluded.

9' 72
 / -0.089 + 0.118 oC
1.5 - CLMA X =1.529

1.0 8 0

CL P'~/11

C/
//

-.5
I I I 1 I I I

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, deg

(a) CL vs (1.

Figure 19.- Static characteristics of the Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil at M' - 0.30,
including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

73
 15 0 PRESSURE DRAG
0 WAKE SURVEY

.10

CD
.05
0

0 0 0

-. 05

.1

CM
8
-. 1 0

-. 2

-. 3 -I I
-10 -F 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, deg

(b) CD and CM vs a.

Figure 19.- Concluded.

74
 0.081 + 0.114 a
1.5 CLMAX = 1.417

1.0 - 03
CL
/
.5 /

oYA'
0/

I /

I /
-. 5

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
cr, deg

(a) CL vs a.

Figure 20.- Static characteristics of the Hughes HH-02 airfoil at M. - 0.30,

including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

75

w o
 .15 0 PRESSURE DRAG
0 WAKE SURVEY

B
.10

CD

.05

3 0 00 00

-. 05

0 0 0~ 0 ULJ0

CMU
.I-
U

Cum
00
-. 1 01

-. 2

-. 31
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, deg

(b) CD and CM vs a.

Figure 20.- Concluded.

76
 / 0.188 +0.117o
1.5 -1.516 '
CLMAX=l.SlS

1.0 /1

CL
.5 /
/

-.5 / II I I , I I I -t

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, deg

(a) CL Vs a.
Figure 21.- Static characteristics of the Vertol VR-7 airfoil at Ml, = 0.30,
including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

77

O "
 .15 0 PRESSURE DRAG
0 WAKE SURVEY ]

.10 r
0
CD

.05

03
00

0 -

-. 051

EI 10 1 021 n rE, r0 - 0
CM
CM

-.1 0 03
0

.3

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, dog

(b) CD and CM VS a.

Figure 21.- Concluded.

78
 1.5 CLMAX = 1.302 ,,,,. 0.090+ 0.103 a

4
1.0 0
0
CL
0

.5

-.5 /

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
(Ydeg
(a) CL Vs a.

Figure 22.- Static characteristics of the NLR-l airfoil at M, = 0.30,

including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

79
 .15 0 PRESSURE DRAG
0 WAKE SURVEY

.10

CD

.05 o
0 0

0 0 o] t 0

-. 05 ' I I

."1

0 n
CM[3[
E3800
1.3 0
-. 1 0 0

-. 2

-. 3
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a,dog

(b) CD and CM vs a.

Figure 22.- Concluded.

80
 /1

/
' 01
/ 0
1.5 CLMAX 1.821 A A

1.0 , 0.231 + 0.118u

CL /
/

/
0
/

-. 5

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Q, dog

(a) CL vs .•

Figure 23.- Static characteristics of the NLR-7301 airfoil at M. - 0.30,

4including wind-tunnel-wall corrections.

81
 -- lo

.15 0 PRESSURE DRAG

0 WAKE SURVEY

.10

CD

o 0 0 00
Go OOGM0

-. 05 I I I I I I

.1

C- 31 0 0 13013 E

-. 2

-. 31
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
a, dog

(b) CD and CM vs ct.

Figure 23.- Concluded.

82
 2.0

CLMAX

1.0

.5
* PRESENT, NO TRIP
o PRESENT, WITH TRIP
~ REFS. 3, 5, 15-17, 20-24
I I I

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
M_

Figure 24.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the NACA 0012 airfoil.

2.0 -

1.5 * . -

CLMA x 0 0 0

1.0

Re/M
.5 0 PRESENT 14 X 106
6
* REF. 6 5-9 X 10

.1
.,|I
.2 .3
FLAGGED SYMBOLS - TRIPPED

I
.4 .5 .6
4
Figure 25.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the Ames A-01 airfoil.

83
 2.0-

1.5 * *

CLMAX
1.0

Re/M.
* PRESENT 14 X 106
6
* REF. 8 10 X 10
.5 I-3 REF. 25 11-40 X 106
6
-* REF. 24 13 X 10
o REF. 26 15 X 106
FLAGGED SYMBOLS - TRIPPED
I I I I

0 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Mo

Figure 26.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the Wortmann FX-098 airfoil.

2.0 -

1.5 - 0 0 0

CLMAX

1.0 0o

Re/Moo
.5 0 PRESENT, ON-LINE ANALYSIS
o PRESENT, NORMAL ANALYSIS
6
< REF. 15 8 X 10
A REF. 16 4-9 X 106
I I I I

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Moo

Figure 27.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil.

84

- . Be -- - - -
 2.0

1.5 *

CLMAX .E

1.0

.5
O PRESENT
O PROUTY (HH-01) [27]
FLAGGED SYMBOL - TRIPPED
i p I I I

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
M..

Figure 28.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the Hughes HH-02 airfoil.

2.0 I

1.5 * VV.

CLMAX oo,, O

1.0

Re/Mw
* PRESENT 14 X 106
.5 I-0 CO ULOM B 128 1 X 106
V DADONE 15] 18 X 106
6
IN GH AM [29117 X 10
ao o0,0B
FLAGGED SYMBOLS - TRIPPED

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
M..

Figure 29.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the Vertol VR-7 airfoil.

85
 2.0

1.5 -

CLMAX

1.0 00 0 13

Re/Mo
.5- 0 PRESENT 14 X 106
6
* REF. 19 16 X 10
6
0 REF. 24 3 X 10
FLAGGED SYMBOLS TRIPPED
II I I

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Moo

Figure 30.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the NLR-l airfoil.

2.0

0 0 0

1.5

CLMAX

1.0

.5 Re/M oo
6
O PRESENT 14 X 10
* NLR 1301 14× 106
FLAGGED SYMBOLS - TRIPPED
I I I

0 1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Moo

Figure 31.- Comparison of maximum static lift on the NLR-7301 airfoil.

t
I
i
_ __
86
 0 to
0

(A -

a1 - w 4
M + 0a Co4-4
U
00 + + 4U

3 4U
+ c.U LU '*

w1 00

e370 Cu
oJ

-i4

C? C 8
0 a

00

87t
 AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DYNAMIC STALL 0ONADVANCED AIRFOIL SECT--ETC(i

ffflll
JULLA
82 v .J NCCAPSKET. K V MCALISCR. L v CARR
ACASIFICO NAAA8924VO-1 NASA-TM-64245-VOL-1 NL
2,2
 2

CLMA

-r
Z:'X.

*A''~-

III ~CC cc

0.

STTI YNMCTALL RE DYNAMIC, DEEP STALL

Figure 33.- Comparison of maximum lift on the eight airfoils at MH,= 0.30.

88
 3

CLMAX

'I

o PRESENT
* McALISTER, et al [31
FLAGGED SYMBOLS - TRIPPED

.1 .2 .3
M..

Figure 34.- Comparison of maximum lift on the NACA 0012 airfoil under deep-
dynamic-stall conditions: a - 150 + 100 sin wt, k - 0.10.

2.0
ao HI
PRESENT - , -

CL

1.0 -------- o~m

0 5 10 15 20 26
a, dig

Figure 35.- Comparison of the lift hysteresis on the NACA 0012 airfoil:
M. a 0.1, a - 15* + 100 sin wt, k = 0.10.

89
 STALL A m
ONSET o ( SOLID SYMBOLS- REF.17
CLMAp SYM. a 1 , deg k
0 5 0.15
v 8 0.10
STATIC & 8 0.13
CL Vs a 0 10 0.10
I MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY

.4 0

13
i CMMN. * V
00

I ASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY

II 20 25
I=15 3
a MAX, d*9

Figure 36.- Comparison of maximum airloads on the NACA 0012 airfoil at

M- 0.30 and cik 2 constant.

90
 2-
A

CLMAX . CA -SOLID SYMBOLS - REF.18

SYM. a, k
A S0 0 5 0.15
A N STATIC 8 0.10
C L vs( A 8 0.13

E0 10 0.10
I MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY

0 1 I
V 10 15 20 25
a MAX

-CMMIN Y

.2
0

CP MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY

1 0 16 20 25
*MAX. dog

Figure 37.- Comparison of maximum airloads on the Sikorsky SC-1095 airfoil at

- 0.30 and aik 2 a constant.

91
 o0 SOLID SYMBOLS - REF. 19

(A 0SYM. oil, dog

CLMAX 0 5
1 0 8
10
< STATIC
I MEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY
SI -I p

.4

-CMMIN L a
.2 0

IMEASUREMENT
UNCERTAINTY

0 .25 .50 .75 1.0

Figure 38.- Comparison of maximum airloads on the NLR-1 airfoil at

M. 0.3 and aiax 20.

92
 1. Report No.NASA TM 84245 2. Goverment Acusoe No. 3. Flpstsa
cawog No.
USAAVRADCOH TR-82-A-8 ,p,-llq
R 41-_
4. Title
&W Subtitle . Report Dow
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DYNAMIC STALL ON ADVANCED July 1982
AIRFOIL SECTIONS 6. Peformiig Organization coda
VOLUME 1. SUMMARY OF THE EXPERIMENT
7. Authorls) & Performing Orgenization Report No.
W. J. McCroskey, K. W. McAlister, L. W. Carr, A-8924
and S. L. Pucci 1o. work Unit No.
9. Perforring Organization Nam.e
and Addrs NASA Ames Research Center, K-1585
Moffett Field, Calif. 94035, and U.S. Army Aero- 11. ContractorGrantNo.
mechanics Laboratory (AVRADCOM), Ames Research
Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 94035 13. Typeof ReporendPeriodCovred
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address National Aeronautics and Technical Memorandum
Space Administration, Washington, D.C. 20546, and 14 SponingAgncyC
U.S. Army Aviation R&D Command, St. Louis, MO 93166

15. Supplmentary Notes

Point of Contact: W. J. McCroskey, Ames Research Center, MS 202A-1
Moffett Field, Calif. 94035
(415) 965-6428 or FTS 448-6428
16. Abstract
The static and dynamic characteristics of seven helicopter sections and
a fixed-wing supercritical airfoil were investigated over a wide range of
nominally .-.
o-dimensional flow conditions, at Mach numbers up to 0.30 and
Reynolds numbers up to 4xlO 6 . Details of the experiment, estimates of mea-
surement accuracy, and test conditions are described in this volume (the
first of three volumes). Representative results are also presented and com-
parisons are made with data from other sources. The complete results for
pressure distributions, forces, pitching moments, and boundary-layer separa-
tion and reattachment characteristics are available in graphical form in
volumes 2 and 3.

The results of the experiment show important differences between air-

foils, which would otherwise tend to be masked by differences in wind tun-
nels, particularly in steady cases. All of the airfoils tested provide
significant advantages over the conventional NACA 0012 profile. In general,
however, the parameters of the unsteady motion appear to be more important
than airfoil shape in determining the dynamic-stall airloads.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)) 18. Oistnibution Swtement

Dynamic stall Maximum lift Unlimited
Oscillating airfoils Airfoil data
Boundary layer
measurements
Unsteady pressure distributions Subject Category - 02
19. Security Oaf. lof ths irport) 20. Security loesaif.
(of this pae) 21. No. of Pages 22. Peice
Unclassified Unclassified 103 A06

'For Weby the Notional Technical Information Service, Springfeld, Virginia 22161