News:



  • May 19, 2025, 10:31:31 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Airfoils  (Read 20091 times)

Offline john e. holliday

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22966
Airfoils
« on: September 16, 2010, 03:35:37 PM »
Over in the building tips section a question was asked about flat bottom airfoils.  I got to wondering when was the symetrical airfoil developed?  Or did it just happen? %^@
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Howard Rush

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7953
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2010, 03:53:10 PM »
About 1906, probably, when Joukowsky published some airfoil stuff.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline FLOYD CARTER

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4500
    • owner
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2010, 04:10:20 PM »
And it was all downhill from there!
91 years, but still going
AMA #796  SAM #188  LSF #020

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2010, 04:18:08 PM »
About 1906, probably, when Joukowsky published some airfoil stuff.
AFAIK airfoil theory didn't mature -- at least it didn't flow down to the airplane builders -- until after WW I.  Until the 20's aircraft manufacturers were still using the "copy a bird's wing" method, which leads to thin sections and teeny leading edge radii.  This works when you're a bird and can change camber at will -- it's not necessarily so hot when you're driving a rigid (well, hopefully rigid) machine through the air hoping that it won't stall.

I suspect you really need to ask a number of questions: when was it recognized that a symmetrical airfoil would be useful, when was the NACA 00xx section developed, and when was there finally an airplane built to take said symmetrical section (all the WW-II fighters that I know of use cambered sections).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Bob Whitely

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2010, 04:37:49 PM »
I have no hard data but I would guess around mid to late forties when some guys got serious about aerobatics and wanted to fly inverted as easily as upright.  I'm talking about full size aircraft now such as the Pitts Special for instance.  I'm pretty sure Betty Skeltons' L'il Stinker was a symmetrical section but not  positive. Not sure about models but probably about the same time frame. RJ

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2010, 05:09:16 PM »
I suspect that before then there just wasn't the interest, or the money and time to make a full-scale oiling system work inverted.

And I'll bet that there were symmetrical sections used in stabs during WWII -- I was thinking "wings" real hard in my previous post.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Jim Kraft

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3431
  • AMA78415
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2010, 07:02:24 PM »
I was supprised to see this 1928 Waco bipe had undercambered airfoil wings.
Jim Kraft

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2010, 07:37:43 PM »
I was supprised to see this 1928 Waco bipe had undercambered airfoil wings.
Undercambered wings were used up into the early 30's.  They were particularly seen on biplanes which are (a) a more conservative design, and (b) allows for strong wing assemblies with thinner wing sections.

From my limited knowledge of aviation history, I see the flat- or round-bottom wing sections coming in on airplanes like the Aeronca C-2 (late late 20's), the Cessna A series (ca 27-28 IIRC), and the similar generation of light planes immediately prior to the Piper and Taylor cubs.  I think they were being adopted by the likes of Lockheed and Douglas as well, in the late 20's early 30's timeframe.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline john e. holliday

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 22966
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2010, 08:22:18 PM »
He Jim, I bet he don't fly that Waco inverted for very long.   It is one gorgeous plane.   H^^
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Tom Niebuhr

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2767
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2010, 08:25:53 PM »
Bob,

I started building a Pitts and can verify that Betty Skelton's L'il Stinker had a M-6 airfoil. The airfoil was not symmetrical. That airplane also had ailerons on the lower wing only. Betty's Pitts was powered by a Lycoming 65 (Continental?). By the 1960's people were using 180HP and then 200HP Lycomings.

In the 60's the symmetrical airfoil Pitts came using 4 ailerons.  The M-6 airfoil versions was flown by many including Mary Gaffney, Bob Herendeen, and Don Pittman. I flew a Breezy to the 1969 EAA fly-in in Rockford IL. (The last one in Rockford). Gene Soucy and his father had 3 airplanes. One older version Pitts (N8J) with the M-6 airfoil, a newer version Pitts (N9J) with the symetrical 4 aileron wings, and a Senior Aero Sport. (N89J)  2 place version of the PJ260, painted like the two Pitts Specials.
The famous "Red Devils" flew for the 1st time with a quickly made up routine, and were introduced as the "Red Angels". Bob Heuer and Gene Soucy flew the red Pitts and Marion Cole flew Mary Gaffney's Yellow and Black Pitts. Before the end of their flight they were renamed the "Red Angels".

The "Red Angels" evolved into the team of Gene Soucy, Tom Poberezny, and Charlie Hilliard. They later flew the Christen Eagles.

Doc,
The nonsymetrical airfoils were in many airshow airplanes, including Stearmans, Wacos, PJ 260's. Cap 10s and on and on. Inverted flight required a larger angle of attack.

Bill Byles can add much more on the flight characteristics, since he flew air shows for many years.  
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 09:48:42 PM by Tom Niebuhr »
AMA 7544

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2010, 08:41:56 PM »
I thought the Mustang's wing was "almost" fully symmetrical.
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Offline L0U CRANE

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2010, 09:32:45 PM »
There are a few good texts on the development of airfoil theory, experimentation and practice... 

Aimed at model airfoils: - Martin Simons' "Model Aircraft Aerodynamics," available from Carstens, and perhaps from AMA.

The "real stuff":-"Theory of Flight," by Richard von Mises and "Theory of Wing Sections," by Ira Abbott and Albert von Doenhoff. Both should be available on college bookstores or other sources.

These later two are a bit heavier sledding, but if you can follow the general trends of the math, along with the descriptions of what those, ugh, yecch, equations mean, they are very illuminating.

Abbot and von Doenhoff (A&vD) go into more (verbal)  detail on the evolution of NACA "low drag thickness forms" - in effect, most of these are NACA 00?? sections shaped by - again - equations that "graph out" the shape of the airfoil in symmetrical form. The equations allow changes of max thickness to chord, so the same 'essential form' can generate an NACA 0001 or an NACA 0030 equally easily.

Camber and chord line are interesting concepts, well described (in words, not algebra) in A&vD. NACA did a lot of work in the 1920's and 1930's to find a "low-drag streamline form" they could use to generate airfoils of different thickness to chord ratios: these became the NACA00 family. The last two digits specify the max thickness in % of chord. These have a straight camberlines. Every point on the upper surface is the same distance above the (straight) camberline as the corresponding point on the lower surface is below that line. Chordline and camber line are the same on a symmetrical airfoil. For a cambered section, the chordline is still a simple straight line from the absolute leading edge to the absolute trailing edge, regardless of the shape of the camber line used.

"Cambered" airfoils do not have a straight camber line. Usually, cambered airfoils are "lifting" types, with the upper surface more arched than the lower surface. You can do this with an NACA00 thickness form, by drawing a curved line from leading edge to the chord location of max thickness, then a straight line to the trailing edge. Wrap the "thickness form" around this line so that the upper surface points at a given chord locations are as are as far above the camber line, as the corresponding lower surface points are below it. Cambered "NACA4-digit"  section names use the first two digits to name the type of chord line, and the location of maximum thickness.
 
"NACA 4-digit" airfoils can be of many shapes. The Clark Y - which everybody knows is a flat-bottom airfoil, right? - is practically identical to the NACA 2412 airfoil!

As in some discussions over the years in places like this, and recently here and perhaps elsewhere, comment was made that "bending" our symmetrical airfoils (moving flaps and elevators "off neutral" in effect creates crudely "cambered" airfoil sections to change how the surfaces generate lift.

There  has been a lot of development since the NACA (now NASA) early work, as successes led to discovering areas to improve, and ways to win improvement. It can get fascinating...
\BEST\LOU

Offline Howard Rush

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7953
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2010, 11:04:11 PM »
The B-17 had NACA four-digit symmetrical airfoils. I can't find anybody who knows why.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Serge_Krauss

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1330
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2010, 11:19:06 PM »
Northrop used the symmetrical NACA 6530xx laminar sections in his flying wings, company patent applicationss showing symmetrical sections dating from around 1940.  These were, for him, low-moment airfoils with lower cruise drag than the reflexed sections more often used for tailless designs (M-series, Horten, Fauvel,...) or the NACA 230xx types with forward max camber blending to straight camber lines. Apparently their thinner boundary layer also helped solve a control-reversal problem, and wing twist was available for stability. This was not the usually preferred choice in such applications, and I think that modern low-moment sections would solve all his problems more efficiently. I'm not sure why he didn't seek better efficiency. Obviously though, JKN did not view these sections as just profiles to be fit to curved camber lines.

SK

Offline Howard Rush

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7953
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2010, 11:37:35 PM »
Apparently their thinner boundary layer also helped solve a control-reversal problem, and wing twist was available for stability.

Huh?
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline W.D. Roland

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2010, 11:58:36 PM »
laminar=delayed flow separation?=less turbulence at control surface?
David Roland
51336

Offline Serge_Krauss

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1330
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2010, 01:26:27 AM »
Could be.

Howard -  Perhaps a clairvoyant somewhere? I wasn't able to ask why that was a reported problem/solution and could only guess - not my field of interest. 'saw it mentioned a couple times as I skimmed through some file material to verify airfoils.

Oh, the other? Trim?

SK

Offline Igor Burger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2193
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2010, 01:50:58 AM »
The B-17 had NACA four-digit symmetrical airfoils. I can't find anybody who knows why.

May be better question is why not ... they not need lot of lift (I mean lift coefficient) because they fly quickly there and quickly back unloaded. They need lot of lift at loaded take off at low speed, so the wing area must be larger than needed for cruising (unlike modern airplains wich can extend the area for take off by large Fowler flaps and slots on LE). Disadvantage of 4 digit cambered airfoils is little higher drag at low AoA.

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2056
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2010, 03:01:02 AM »
I think i found the 1st symetrical airfoil LL~




If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline George

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1468
  • Love people, Use things.
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2010, 08:48:35 AM »
Over in the building tips section a question was asked about flat bottom airfoils.  I got to wondering when was the symetrical airfoil developed?  Or did it just happen? %^@

I have a 1947 issue of Model Craftsman where Joseph Flor used a symmetrical airfoil on a "stunt" SE5.

George
George Bain
AMA 23454

Offline Don Hutchinson AMA5402

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2010, 09:11:40 AM »
The "Moitle" biplane, designed by Francis Reynolds around 1944/45 used a symmetrical airfoil and was the first model that could fly inverted and do outside maneuvers. The Moitle will also do a great OTS pattern with a good 35 glow engine today!
Don

Offline don Burke

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2010, 10:13:56 AM »
Did a google on NACA airfoils, found a reference to a 1933 report.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930091108_1993091108.pdf
don Burke AMA 843
Menifee, CA

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2010, 10:49:26 AM »
"NACA 4-digit" airfoils can be of many shapes. The Clark Y - which everybody knows is a flat-bottom airfoil, right? - is practically identical to the NACA 2412 airfoil!
Practically identical unless you want to build the wing on a flat board -- none of the NACA 4-digit airfoils (except for 0000) really has a flat bottom; the Clark Y does.  The 2412 comes close, but it has a bit of a wave in the bottom, where the Clark Y is dead flat.

Ironically, Clark didn't design the Y for easy-building wings -- he designed it as a section for propellers!
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2010, 10:59:51 AM »
More than you ever wanted to know about airplanes and the airfoils that use them:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~akmitra/aero361/design_web/airfoil_usage.htm.  Correlating these entries to dates is left as an exercise to the reader.

The Bell P-39 used an NACA 0018 at the wing root, tapering to an NACA 23009 at the tip.  So there was a symmetrical airfoil in there someplace, even if it soon gained a curved camber line.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2010, 11:04:33 AM »
(all the WW-II fighters that I know of use cambered sections).
But Bombers on the other hand...

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~akmitra/aero361/design_web/airfoil_usage.htm says that the B-17 and a number of other Big Boeings used NACA 00xx sections, generally tapering from root to tip.  So I guess if you want to do that stunt-scale B-17 you don't have to wander too far from the well when you do your airfoil selection.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Jim Thomerson

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2010, 11:47:28 AM »
To say that the Clark Y is a flat bottom airfoil is only 70% true.  I wish our politicians could reach that standard of truth.  S?P

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12879
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2010, 11:50:28 AM »
To say that the Clark Y is a flat bottom airfoil is only 70% true.  I wish our politicians could reach that standard of truth.  S?P
True -- but it has more than enough of a flat bottom to make it easy to build a wing on a flat board.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline W.D. Roland

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2010, 04:48:26 PM »
For what its worth here is 1/4 scale airfoil template for Benny Howard's Mr Mulligan  laminar flow air foil.

According to X-Piper designer(Tri Pacer)friend this airfoil was used on Mr Mulligan and the P-51.
The Re is supposed to be real good at 16.25in chord at our speeds.
He took his NACA airfoil book back when I was finished with template, and I no longer have the coordinates. ''


NACA2R112 (the first 1 is dropped down 1/2 line, see scan)

The aluminum template will not fit completely in scanner.
Have always wondered how it would do for stunt by cutting at LE to TE center line and the mirror image for the other half.

The template is for I think 3/32 sheeting, would have to dig my plans out to be sure as it could be for 1/8.
David Roland
51336

Offline Dennis Adamisin

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4396
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2010, 06:35:55 AM »
The universtiy of Illinois Aero site has a link showing airfoils used on a LOT of different airplanes up to about he early 1960's or so,

http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
Denny Adamisin
Fort Wayne, IN

As I've grown older, I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake!

Offline bob branch

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 943
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2010, 06:38:18 AM »
I have not seen the coordinates, but I have inspected the 100% scale plane several times. A Bunker Jungmiester biplane which I believe is credited with the first outside loop has very thin symmetric airfoils.

bob branch

Offline Howard Rush

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7953
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2010, 12:24:58 PM »
The universtiy of Illinois Aero site has a link showing airfoils used on a LOT of different airplanes up to about he early 1960's or so,

http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html


Yep, I had lunch with Dave Lednicer awhile back and asked him why the B-17 ahd a symmetrical airfoil.  He didn't know the story, either, but as Igor said, it flew half of each trip empty.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline Jim Kraft

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3431
  • AMA78415
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2010, 12:52:27 PM »
All of the Bucker Jungmiester's that I have seen all had a flat bottom modified clark Y airfoils, along with 2 deg. negative in the top wing.
Jim Kraft

Offline George

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1468
  • Love people, Use things.
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2010, 08:58:25 AM »
Nobody has defined this discussion as model or full-size, so who gets credit for the at-looks-about-right and the sneaker airfoils?  H^^  S?P  LL~

George
George Bain
AMA 23454

Offline Dennis Adamisin

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4396
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2010, 03:17:19 PM »
Nobody has defined this discussion as model or full-size, so who gets credit for the at-looks-about-right and the sneaker airfoils?  H^^  S?P  LL~

George

Keds? (Nikes are too modern)

and don't get me started on WINGTIPS
Denny Adamisin
Fort Wayne, IN

As I've grown older, I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake!

Offline W.D. Roland

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2010, 09:10:05 PM »
George
its all in the Re whatever the size.

2 lightning strokes of the pencil, erase and redraw till it looks bout right works amazingly well!.

David
David Roland
51336

Offline billbyles

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 648
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2010, 10:42:41 PM »
The "Moitle" biplane, designed by Francis Reynolds around 1944/45 used a symmetrical airfoil and was the first model that could fly inverted and do outside maneuvers. The Moitle will also do a great OTS pattern with a good 35 glow engine today!
Don

Yeah, Don, but are black AMA numbers on a black "Moitle" apparent to a discerning judge?
Bill Byles
AMA 20913
So. Cal.

Offline billbyles

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 648
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2010, 01:26:34 AM »
Bob,

I started building a Pitts and can verify that Betty Skelton's L'il Stinker had a M-6 airfoil. The airfoil was not symmetrical. That airplane also had ailerons on the lower wing only. Betty's Pitts was powered by a Lycoming 65 (Continental?). By the 1960's people were using 180HP and then 200HP Lycomings.

In the 60's the symmetrical airfoil Pitts came using 4 ailerons.  The M-6 airfoil versions was flown by many including Mary Gaffney, Bob Herendeen, and Don Pittman. I flew a Breezy to the 1969 EAA fly-in in Rockford IL. (The last one in Rockford). Gene Soucy and his father had 3 airplanes. One older version Pitts (N8J) with the M-6 airfoil, a newer version Pitts (N9J) with the symetrical 4 aileron wings, and a Senior Aero Sport. (N89J)  2 place version of the PJ260, painted like the two Pitts Specials.
The famous "Red Devils" flew for the 1st time with a quickly made up routine, and were introduced as the "Red Angels". Bob Heuer and Gene Soucy flew the red Pitts and Marion Cole flew Mary Gaffney's Yellow and Black Pitts. Before the end of their flight they were renamed the "Red Angels".

The "Red Angels" evolved into the team of Gene Soucy, Tom Poberezny, and Charlie Hilliard. They later flew the Christen Eagles.

Doc,
The nonsymetrical airfoils were in many airshow airplanes, including Stearmans, Wacos, PJ 260's. Cap 10s and on and on. Inverted flight required a larger angle of attack.

Bill Byles can add much more on the flight characteristics, since he flew air shows for many years.  

Hi Tom,

Curtis Pitts designed the first Pitts Special (the S-1) in 1944 using an M6 airfoil, which is very close to being a reflexed Clark Y airfoil.  The Clark Y is often called a "flat-bottom" airfoil, however it is only flat from about 30% aft of the leading edge.  The M6 airfoil is cambered on the bottom surface for about the last 35% to the trailing edge as well as being cambered on the bottom from the leading edge aft for about 30%.  It performs pretty well in negative "G" maneuvers for a non-symmetrical airfoil.  In inverted flight it does fly at a higher angle of attack than a fully symmetrical airfoil.

The second Pitts Special Curtis built was also an S-1 with an 85 hp fuel-injected Continental engine, and that airplane was the one ultimately bought by Betty Skelton and the one in which she won the 1948, 1949, & 1950 U.S. Female aerobatic championship.

The S-1C is an evolution of the S-1 with ailerons on the lower wings only and having an M6 airfoil, being designed for more horsepower (from 100 to 180 hp) and was the original amateur-built version.

The S-1D, also an amateur-built version, is a further evolution of the S-1C, and began using symmetrical airfoils although some continued to use the M6.  This version has four ailerons.  Plans were made available for this version in the early sixties.

(Skipping a couple of versions here.)

The S-1S is the factory-built version with symmetrical airfoils, four ailerons and spades, and has the Lycoming AEIO-360-B4A aerobatic engine.  I have quite a bit of time in this version and it is really fun to fly.  Factory production of this version was begun in the early 1970s (the one I flew was a 1974 model.)

The S-1T is also a factory-built airplane with an AEIO-360-A1E aerobatic engine and had some airframe reconfiguration to accommodate the additional weight of the bigger engine.  It has a fully symmetrical airfoil with four ailerons and spades on the lower ailerons to assist with stick force reduction in the roll mode.

Beginning in the late sixties a two-seat Pitts was produced and became the S-2 and subsequent versions of the two-seat design.  It has a slightly larger airframe than the previous single-seat Pitts and was produced with both a 200 hp Lycoming four-cylinder engine and a 260 hp six-cylinder, 540 cubic inch engine.  Of the Pitts I have flown the Pitts S-2B with fully symmetrical airfoil, four ailerons with spades, and the AEIO-540 using a composite three-blade propeller is my personal favorite.  You can take a passenger in this one & it has great performance in both the climb and roll rate capability.

The early S-1's with two ailerons and M6 airfoil are great fun and are capable of doing pretty much all of the IAC schedule maneuvers.  However, the
S-1S, S-1T, & S-2B with the big engines, fully symmetrical airfoils, and four ailerons with spades do it all easier & better.

While Pitts was far from the first to use fully symmetrical airfoils he did begin using them in the early sixties with good success.

 



  
Bill Byles
AMA 20913
So. Cal.

Offline billbyles

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 648
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2010, 01:36:15 AM »
Practically identical unless you want to build the wing on a flat board -- none of the NACA 4-digit airfoils (except for 0000) really has a flat bottom; the Clark Y does.  The 2412 comes close, but it has a bit of a wave in the bottom, where the Clark Y is dead flat.

Ironically, Clark didn't design the Y for easy-building wings -- he designed it as a section for propellers!

Hi Tim,

Actually, the Clark Y is cambered from the leading edge back to about 30% of the chord; from there back it is flat.
Bill Byles
AMA 20913
So. Cal.

Online Paul Smith

  • 25 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6113
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2010, 05:11:16 AM »
Yep, I had lunch with Dave Lednicer awhile back and asked him why the B-17 ahd a symmetrical airfoil.  He didn't know the story, either, but as Igor said, it flew half of each trip empty.

well, obviously, so it could be used as a CL stunter in the future.
Paul Smith

Offline Don Hutchinson AMA5402

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 721
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2010, 03:17:23 PM »
Boeing B-17. NACA 0018 at center tapering to NACA 0010 at the tip.
Don

Offline Tom Niebuhr

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2767
Re: Airfoils
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2010, 03:42:43 PM »
Bill,
Thanks for the run down on the various Pitts models. You have comepletely supported my statements about the M6 and symetrical airfoil versions. Thanks for claifying that Betty Skelton's S-1 had an 85 HP Continental.

I was very familiar with the M6 airfoil since I had been actively building the Pitts S-1C. The project was well along when I sold it because Linda said we should have a 2 place airplane. I had started the S1C before we met.  I still have a copy of the drawings  for the S-1C.

The S-2B sounds like a real beast. Gotta be lots of fun.
AMA 7544


Advertise Here
Tags: