Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Technical > Technical Requests

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-19-2009, 12:55 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Question about NACA airfoils

I recently found a site with a lot of NACA airfoil profiles given as coordinates. When I looked at the NACA 0008 and 0009 profiles I found that they were symmetrical about the horizontal (they had no camber). Is there something I'm missing or did early airfoils have to be angled to provide lift?
philthepile is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 01:18 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by philthepile View Post
I recently found a site with a lot of NACA airfoil profiles given as coordinates. When I looked at the NACA 0008 and 0009 profiles I found that they were symmetrical about the horizontal (they had no camber). Is there something I'm missing or did early airfoils have to be angled to provide lift?
Many of the early airfoils started with flat bottom surface and curved top surface as these airfoils were more efficient in low speed. Both symmetrical and cambered airfoils give lift but a cambered airfoil may give lift at zero angle of attack with freestream, whereas a symmetrical airfoil requires a finite angle of attack to generate lift.

Additionally the Theodorsen Transformation yielded a forward solution, using a complex variable mapping of a rotating cylinder immersed in an airflow (think curveball), to design an airfoil with a specific velocity distribution target. - Its immediate application was cambered wings.

Theodorsen and Von Karman were the leading intellects in the US driving theory and knowledge of thin airfoil theory.
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 01:55 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Thank you for the quick reply. I was not aware that airfoils relying on a non zero angle of attack for lift were so common.
philthepile is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 07:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by philthepile View Post
Thank you for the quick reply. I was not aware that airfoils relying on a non zero angle of attack for lift were so common.
Any symmetrical airfoil, absent flaps, etc would fit that bill. You have to have airflow faster over one surface than the other to achieve a 'lower' pressure compared to the other surface - inverted or upright.

At zero angle the symmetrical airfoil has equal velocity over both top and bottom surfaces - no lift until AoA changes one direction or the other
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 07:28 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
drgondog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by philthepile View Post
Thank you for the quick reply. I was not aware that airfoils relying on a non zero angle of attack for lift were so common.
Any symmetrical airfoil, absent flaps, etc would fit that bill. You have to have airflow faster over one surface than the other to achieve a 'lower' pressure compared to the other surface - inverted or upright.

At zero angle the symmetrical airfoil has equal velocity over both top and bottom surfaces - no lift until AoA changes one direction or the other.

As to examples - think of most all USAF fighter a/c since Mustang
drgondog is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 08:39 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 270
The tail surfaces of most planes are symmetrical airfoils.

- Ivan.
Ivan1GFP is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118