|Sep/Oct 1963 American Modeler|
Table of Contents
Some things never grow old. These pages from vintage modeling magazines like American Aircraft Modeler, American Modeler, Air Trails, Flying Aces, Flying Models, Model Airplane News, & Young Men captured the era. I will be glad to scan articles for you. All copyrights are hereby acknowledged.
New airfoils today are designed by computer - literally. As with circuit and mechanical simulator software, aerodynamic fluid flow algorithms exist that will run thousands of iterations on an initial design until it reaches the goal set by the engineer. Limits are defined on parameters such as chord, wingspan, airspeed, thickness, manufacturing tolerances, temperature coefficients, material stiffness, to name a few, and then a mouse click sends the computer into its happy place while obeying convergence rules and arriving (hopefully) at a solution that provides the performance characteristics desired. If it fails to produce the expected result, a new set of starting points, limits, and convergence algorithms can be stipulated and then the process is run again. The engineer can focus his attention of other pressing matters (like drinking a cup of coffee) while the computer does his bidding.
Prior to the computer age, airfoils were designed according to a set of rules empirically determined through wind tunnel testing of many varieties of shapes. The original work was performed by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) - forerunner to today's NASA. Volumes were published on airfoils meant for particular applications - speed, heavy lifting, short field operations, high altitude, etc. Nowadays rather than thumbing through a tome that takes two men to lift, you simple click on a pull-down menu and there you go.
Ritz on Airfoils
One of modeldom's best known designers has distilled all current state-of-the-art data on wing sections down into a single you-read-it-at-a-glance chart
By Gerald "Jerry" Ritz
A common question is "How do you go about choosing the best airfoil for a projected model design?" The answer to this is that there is no single best airfoil for a model except in calm air with no turbulence to produce variations.
Max Hacklinger of Germany, one of the world's keenest minds on airfoil design, had this proven to him decisively at the Nordic World Championships on two occasions, when with undoubtedly the best model for pure glide duration, he wasn't able to squeeze by the downdraft air factor to which high performance models are especially susceptible. He has since then switched to indoor models where his scientific skill will not be subjected so much to the vagaries of the air.
Of course, we can choose the best general area of airfoils for any given design, with a refinement of choice for given weather conditions. To do this we have to make an analysis of the design factors of airfoil sections.
One of the best all-around methods for describing the physical characteristics of airfoil sections for use in model aircraft is undoubtedly the 4 digit system as originated by the N.A.C.A. Here is stated the essential proportion of height of mean camber, with its positioning, and the maximum overall thickness of the section. One of the factors not found in this 4 digit system is the data on body form, inasmuch as the NACA used standardized thickness forms in most of their early sections. (Of course, on specialized high performance sections such as some of my glider sections and some of Benedek's top performance sections, it is necessary to depart from these standardized body forms.)
Now in a further analysis of this 4 digit system (which actually consists of 3 descriptive features: 1st number - Height of mean camber in percent of chord; 2nd number - positioning of this mean camber high point in tenths of the chord from the leading edge; 3rd and 4th numbers - maximum thickness of the section in percentage of chord) we find that each descriptive feature has a definite relationship to the type of model on which the section is to be used. To illustrate the various general areas into which different types of models will fall, we have laid out a chart diagramming the two basic airfoil features - the height of the mean camber, (6409) and the chordwise high point of this camber, (6409). In this example, the first number, 6 means that the airfoil mean camber height is 6% of the airfoil chord length. The second number, 4, means that the maximum high point of this mean camber is located at 40% of the chord from the front of the airfoil.
For example, in a speed model or in a plane designed for aerobatics such as a radio control contest job, very little height of mean camber would be used. The reason here is that in these cases the wing is used mainly for neutral suspension of the model, and for purposes of control, and very little positive lift (which is a feature of camber) is required. Because of this, the camber for this type of model will range from 0% for use with high speed jobs, to a high of about 3% in slower flying scale R/C jobs.
In engine powered free flight models, however - the object being duration - we must necessarily use some camber to obtain enough lift for a good glide. However, the amount of camber we can use is limited by the fact that the power phase of the flight is at quite high speed and too much camber would create too much lift and be hard to control, and also it would create too much drag, which would slow down the speed thereby reducing the climb which is so necessary for good duration. Therefore in this case we use moderate cambers, with a low of about 3% to a high of about 6%. Hand launched gliders, with their high powered launch phase, fall into this same category.
In outdoor rubber powered models, where the power surge is not so great, it is possible to move toward the higher lift sections characterized by the higher cambers, both for good lift in the power phase, and principally for better gliding performance. In this type model the mean camber should range between a 4% low up to a high of about 7%.
The final outdoor category of pure glide is used mainly by towline gliders, where the model is towed to maximum height without any regard for camber or its effect in the tow, and then cast off to glide. Here we come into one of the highest ranges of mean camber of any type of model. In this region of pure glide, the most effective mean camber for duration will fall into the low of 5% up to a maximum of about 9%.
One factor that will modify the height of the mean camber on free flight models is that in very windy turbulent weather, the highly cambered airfoils tend to stall easier. So if a model is being designed for windy weather, use the lower range of cambers for greater consistency. For calm weather flying, use the higher range of cambers for maximum duration.
Now we come to an argumentative phase, which concerns the mean camber for indoor duration models. Because of the low power surge of this type of model, where the power flight contains nearly the whole of the duration pattern, the flight falls into much the same category as pure glide, except for there being just enough power added on the average to about maintain altitude. Although some of the experts have been using lower cambers (down to even 3 or 4%) for maximum duration on indoor rubber powered models, our figures show that the camber height should be from a low of about 5% up to a maximum of about 9%. Following the reasoning as outlined above, I would venture a prediction that the first man in the "one-hour" club will use an airfoil camber of about 8%.
So far we have discussed only the height of the mean camber. And very frankly, this is by far the most important criteria of the three digits. Next in order is the chordwise placement of the high point of the mean camber. If you will examine the chart, you will see that the lower cambers used in models generally have the high point quite well forward in the chord, and as the camber height increases, the high point gradually moves rearward. There are good reasons for this. As the camber increases, it is a pretty sure bet that the Reynolds Number (principally a factor of chord length x speed) is decreasing - that is, the airfoil is being used on a slower flying model. This generally means a thinner airfoil to get more undercamber, as tests have shown that the undercamber of an airfoil carries a gradually increasing proportion of the load at lowering Reynolds Numbers. With this increased undercamber, care has to be taken not to allow too high an undercamber entry angle, or there will be a stagnant area with loss of lift and increase of drag. To help avoid this, the high point of the undercamber can be moved rearward. This automatically shifts the mean camber maximum high point rearward also. In conjunction with this, the higher trailing edge undercamber angle of a rearward location of maximum mean camber will produce considerable additional lift without too much drag. Care must be taken not to overdo this, however, as lift produced by trailing edge deflection builds up quite fast, and in this critical Reynolds Number region, can produce a stalled condition rather easily in turbulent air.
Therefore we can draw the following conclusions: When choosing an airfoil for use on a model for turbulent air, do not use too much camber, and keep the high point of the mean camber fairly well forward - (lower left hand area of the circle). For calm air flying, however, use the higher cambers, with the camber high point more rearward (top right hand area of the circle).
An interesting observation is that the camber of Hacklinger's 44· minute indoor model and the mean camber on my "Continental" Nordic glider were nearly identical.
The large X in each circle is a suggested ideal choice of camber for average weather for the type of model portrayed by that circle.
The third factor of the NACA digits is the maximum thickness of the section measured in percent of the chord. Here we have two prime considerations. One is the matter of structural strength, and, of course, the thicker the airfoil, the greater the strength that can be built into it. The other factor is the matter of efficiency, where in these low Reynolds number regions the thin sections have a higher L/D ratio than the thick sections. Here again the weather factor enters into the problem. The thicker sections are more tolerant of rough weather conditions. They have a more gentle stall, and their center of pressure shift is generally much less violent, mainly because of the greater movement of the air separation point on the round nose of the thicker sections. Thus they are easier to control in turbulent air.
However, this very roundness of the nose of the airfoil that makes control less difficult in turbulent air, is a decided disadvantage in calm air, especially in the lower Reynolds number region. Here we count to a large extent on the small radius nose to help provide enough natural air turbulence over the airfoil to prevent the early breakaway with high drag so attendant to airfoils flown at low Reynolds number in a lifting condition.
In R/C contest models, where the Reynolds number is fairly high, one of the main differences between a thick or thin section is that, as stated before, the round nose of a thicker section will be more tolerant to control than a sharper nosed section, and the section will have more drag and "grip" on the air, thus allowing patterns to be flown more slowly.
So if you are a beginner in R/C by all means use a thicker section with a round nose to get a smooth, more sluggish control that you can keep up with. However, a real expert with a good control unit, who can handle high-speed maneuvers, can get sharp and decisive patterns with a thinner, sharper nosed section at speeds a beginner could not hope to handle. In years ahead, look to the time limit in R/C to become increasingly important as a judging factor in contest flying. I would suggest points be given for total time saved in flying the prescribed patterns.
As we enter the free flight range, with the duration factor to contend with, we are immediately forced into the thinner type sections for purposes of efficiency. In free flight power, for example, a 10% thickness of section would be about the maximum anyone would go to, and many of the high performance jobs, especially in the FAI classes, are down to about 6% thickness. In Wakefield models and Nordic gliders, the thickness is down even more in many of the best models.
By this time you can see the general trend: As the Reynolds number the airfoil is flown at is decreased; the overall section thickness is decreased also. The limiting factor in most cases of outdoor models is either structural or that oft-repeated turbulent air problem where a thin section coupled with high camber may not give you the necessary consistency for contest flying.
The final phase of the thickness category is, of course, the indoor duration models, with the lowest Reynolds numbers of all, and appropriately the thinnest sections of all ... and here where we don't have to worry unduly about turbulent air. We can freely go to the thinnest of sections and the greatest cambers for maximum efficiency, and naturally have the greatest duration potential of any type of model.
The next time you design or build a model, keep in mind the three criteria of the NACA digit system, and pick your airfoil carefully for the type of model you have in mind, and for the conditions you intend to fly it in, and it won't be long until you'll be giving some of the experts a real "run for the money".
Posted June 13, 015