SUBSONIC AIRFOIL DESIGN

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

From its very beginning, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) rec-
ognized the importance of airfoils as a cornerstone of aeronautical research and development. In
its first Annual Report to the Congress of the United States, the NACA called for “the evolution
of more efficient wing sections of practical form, embodying suitable dimensions for an econom-
ical structure, with moderate travel of the center of pressure and still affording a large range of
angle of attack combined with efficient action” (ref. 1). By 1920, the Committee had published a
compendium of experimental results from various sources (ref. 2). Shortly thereafter, the devel-
opment of airfoils by the NACA was initiated at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory
(ref. 3). The first series of airfoils, designated “M sections” for Max M. Munk, was tested in the
Langley Variable-Density Tunnel (ref. 4). This series was significant because it represented a sys-
tematic approach to airfoil development as opposed to earlier, random, cut-and-try approaches.
This empirical approach, which involved modifying the geometry of an existing airfoil, culmi-
nated in the development of the four- and five-digit-series airfoils in the mid 1930’s (refs. 5–7).

Concurrently, Eastman N. Jacobs began work on laminar-flow airfoils. Inspired by dis-

Thus, the basic idea behind modern airfoil design was conceived: the desired boundary-
layer characteristics result from the pressure distribution which results from the airfoil shape. The
inverse method mathematically transforms the pressure distribution into an airfoil shape whereas
the designer intuitively/empirically transforms the boundary-layer characteristics into the pres-
sure distribution.

The resulting 2- through 7-series airfoils, the most notable of which are the 6-series, were
tested in the Langley Low-Turbulence Tunnel and the Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel
(LTPT) in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s (refs. 9 and 10). To concentrate on high-speed aerody-
namics, the NACA got out of the airfoil business in the 1950’s, leaving the world with a large
number of systematically designed and experimentally tested airfoils (ref. 11). The four- and five-
digit-series, turbulent-flow airfoils produced relatively high maximum lift coefficients although
their drag coefficients were not particularly low whereas the 6-series, laminar-flow airfoils offered
the possibility of low drag coefficients although their maximum lift coefficients were not espe-
cially high. The quandary faced by the aircraft designers of the day over the type of airfoil to
select, laminar- or turbulent-flow, was solved by the available construction techniques, which pro-
duced surfaces that were insufficiently smooth and rigid to support extensive laminar flow.

The airfoil scene then shifted to Germany where F. X. Wortmann and Richard Eppler were
engaged in laminar-flow airfoil design. Wortmann employed singularity and integral boundary-
layer methods (refs. 12–14) to develop a catalog of airfoils intended primarily for sailplanes

1
(ref. 15). Because the theoretical methods he used were relatively crude, however, final evalua-
tion of the airfoils was performed in a low-turbulence wind tunnel. Eppler, on the other hand,
pursued the development of more accurate theoretical methods (refs. 16 and 17.)

The successor to the NACA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
reentered the airfoil field in the 1960’s with the design of the supercritical airfoils by Richard T.
Whitcomb (ref. 18). The lessons learned during the development of these transonic airfoils were
transferred to the design of a series of turbulent-flow airfoils for low-speed aircraft. The basic
objective of this series of airfoils was to achieve higher maximum lift coefficients than the earlier
NACA airfoils. It was assumed that the flow over these airfoils would be turbulent because of the
construction techniques then in use by general aviation manufacturers. While these NASA,
turbulent-flow airfoils (ref. 19) did achieve higher maximum lift coefficients, the cruise drag coef-
ficients were no lower than those of the NACA four- and five-digit-series airfoils. Emphasis was
therefore shifted toward natural-laminar-flow (NLF) airfoils in an attempt to combine the low-
drag characteristics of the NACA 6-series airfoils with the high-lift characteristics of the NASA
low-speed airfoils. In this context, the term ‘natural-laminar-flow airfoil’ refers to an airfoil that
can achieve significant extents of laminar flow (≥ 30-percent chord) on both the upper and lower
surfaces simultaneously, solely through favorable pressure gradients (no boundary-layer suction
or cooling).

The advent of composite structures (ref. 20) has also fueled the resurgence in NLF
research. This construction technique allows NLF airfoils to achieve, in practice, the low-drag
characteristics measured in low-turbulence wind tunnels (ref. 21).

Today, airfoils are being designed for an ever-widening range of applications (ref. 22).
Examples include unmanned aerial vehicles (ref. 23), cooling-tower fans (ref. 24), sailplanes
(refs. 25 and 26), wind turbines (refs. 27 and 28), rotorcraft (ref. 29), and general aviation
(ref. 30), commuter (ref. 31), and transport aircraft (ref. 32).

PHILOSOPHY

At this point, it is important to emphasize that the goal of the effort at NASA Langley
Research Center was not the design of a series of natural-laminar-flow airfoils for low-speed air-
craft. Rather the philosophy of Richard Eppler was adopted, which is to develop a (theoretical)
method and verify it such that others can use the method to design airfoils for their own specific
applications. The key to the success of this philosophy is the verification of the method. The
objective then was to accomplish this verification through selective testing of various airfoil con-
cepts in the Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel.

Note that this philosophy is contrary to the approach taken by the NACA and F. X. Wort-
mann. They developed catalogs from which aircraft designers could select airfoils for their pro-
posed vehicles. This approach was necessary for the NACA because the theoretical methods of
the day were too primitive to predict accurately the aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil. The
use of catalogs has been successful, however, because the applications for which the airfoils were
used were indeed those for which the airfoils were intended. In addition, the section characteris-

2
tics were painstakingly measured in good, low-turbulence wind tunnels at the appropriate Rey-
nolds numbers. Thus, the airfoils, their measured characteristics, and their applications coincided
well. As applications have become more diverse, however, the older airfoils and the measured
characteristics have become less appropriate. Today, with applications ranging from fans to trans-
port aircraft, the use of airfoils designed for aircraft having Reynolds numbers of 3 to 9 × 106, low
Mach numbers, and relatively low lift coefficients is unacceptable. For some applications, the use
of such airfoils is particularly unsuitable because the design requirements for these low-speed air-
craft airfoils are significantly different from those for the airfoils for the other applications; wind
turbines are a good example (ref. 33).

The catalogs also suffer from a lack of coverage. Each application requires a specific per-
formance from the airfoil. If this performance falls within the range of characteristics contained
in a catalog, an airfoil can be selected from that catalog for the given application. More than
likely, however, this airfoil will still represent a compromise because its characteristics do not
match exactly those of the application.

A related advantage of the theoretical airfoil design method is that it allows many different
concepts to be explored economically. Such efforts are generally impractical in wind tunnels
because of time and money constraints.

Thus, the need for a theoretical airfoil design method is threefold: first, for the design of
airfoils that fall outside the range of applicability of existing catalogs; second, for the design of
airfoils that more exactly match the requirements of the intended application; and third, for the
economic exploration of many airfoil concepts.

The ultimate acceptance of this philosophy faces one final hurdle that can be summed up
by the following saying:
No one believes the theory except the one who developed it.
Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
This hurdle can be overcome by a rigorous verification of the method.

THEORY

In 1975, NASA personnel began working with the Eppler Airfoil Design and Analysis
Code (refs. 22 and 34). This code contains a conformal-mapping method for the design of airfoils
with prescribed velocity-distribution characteristics, a panel method for the analysis of the poten-
tial flow about given airfoils, and a boundary-layer method. With this code, airfoils with pre-
scribed boundary-layer characteristics can be designed and airfoils with prescribed shapes can be
analyzed.

In all other inverse methods, the velocity (pressure) distribution is specified at one angle
of attack and the airfoil shape that will produce that velocity (pressure) distribution is computed.
Thus, the airfoil is designed at a single point. All other conditions are considered “off-design”
and must be taken into account intuitively and analyzed later to determine acceptability.

3
 The conformal-mapping method in the Eppler code is unique because it allows the veloc-
ity distribution to be specified along different segments of the airfoil at different angles of attack.
This is an extremely powerful capability because it allows the important features of many velocity
distributions to be incorporated into the airfoil design from the outset. Thus, the airfoil is
designed at several points simultaneously and the off-design conditions can be taken into account
in the initial specification.

The following sketch helps to illustrate, in a very simplified way, the use of this capability.

B
cl

cd

As determined from the desired application performance, the airfoil must produce low drag over
the range of lift coefficients from points A to B. Point A corresponds to the lift coefficient below
which the transition point moves rapidly forward along the lower surface. Thus, for this point, the
design of the lower surface is critical. Point B corresponds to the lift coefficient above which the
transition point moves rapidly forward along the upper surface. For this point, the upper surface
is critical. Using conventional design methods, the velocity distribution must be specified at point
A or point B or, possibly, some intermediate point. With the Eppler code, however, the velocity
distribution along the lower surface at point A is specified as is the distribution along the upper
surface at point B.

It should be noted that the actual, absolute velocity distributions are not specified in the
method, only the velocity gradients. For details, see reference 34.

The panel method allows the velocity distribution about a given airfoil to be computed.
This is obviously required for the analysis of specified airfoil shapes but, with respect to airfoil
design, it is also necessary for determining the effect of a simple flap deflection on the velocity
distribution. This method employs third-order panels with vorticity distributed parabolically
along each panel.

An integral method is used for the prediction of the boundary-layer development for each
velocity distribution. The method can predict laminar and turbulent boundary layers, transition,

4
and separation, both laminar and turbulent. The drag due to laminar separation bubbles is also
predicted. The method is semi-empirical and contains a boundary-layer displacement iteration.

An important feature of the Eppler code is the connection between the boundary-layer
method and the conformal-mapping method. This connection allows the boundary-layer charac-
teristics to be controlled directly during the airfoil design process. This is a particularly signifi-
cant capability for the design of laminar-flow airfoils and represents a major step forward from
the procedure used to design the NACA laminar-flow airfoils. Now, instead of intuitively or
empirically transforming the desired boundary-layer characteristics into a velocity distribution,
the designer can determine directly the modifications to the velocity distribution that will produce
the desired boundary-layer development at any given angle of attack.

VERIFICATION

To verify the theory, several airfoils have been designed using the Eppler code and the
majority have been tested in low-turbulence wind tunnels, including the Langley Low-Turbulence
Pressure Tunnel (refs. 35 and 36), the low-turbulence wind tunnel of the Delft University of Tech-
nology Low Speed Laboratory (ref. 37), and The Pennsylvania State University low-speed, low-
turbulence wind tunnel (ref. 38). See references 39–41, for example.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Airfoil design has progressed considerably over the past century. The first airfoils were
mere copies of birds’s wings. These airfoils were followed by cut-and-try shapes, some of which
were tested in simple, low-Reynolds-number wind tunnels. The NACA systematized this
approach by perturbing successful airfoil geometries to generate series of related airfoils. These
airfoils were carefully tested in a more sophisticated wind tunnel that could replicate flight Rey-
nolds numbers. Eastman Jacobs recognized the need for a theoretical method that would deter-
mine the airfoil shape that would produce a specified pressure distribution that would exhibit the
desired boundary-layer characteristics. This idea represents the basis of modern airfoil design:
the desired boundary-layer characteristics result from the pressure distribution, which results from
the airfoil shape.

The inversion of an airfoil analysis method provided the means of transforming the pres-
sure distribution into an airfoil shape. The transformation of the desired boundary-layer charac-
teristics into a pressure distribution was left to the imagination of the airfoil designer. Since that
time, over 60 years ago, Richard Eppler, through his computer code, has developed a much more
direct connection between the boundary-layer development and the pressure distribution.

NASA adopted the philosophy of Eppler that a reliable theoretical airfoil design method
should be developed instead of catalogs of experimental section characteristics. The method can
then be used to explore many concepts with respect to each specific application. The success of
this philosophy hinges on the verification of the method.

5
 Several airfoils have been designed to test Eppler’s method. By investigating the airfoils
in low-turbulence wind tunnels, the range of applicability of the method has been established.
Initially, the classical, low-speed Reynolds-number range of 3 to 9 × 106 was investigated. From
there, higher Reynolds numbers (~20 × 106) and Mach numbers (~0.7) were explored. More
recently, lower Reynolds numbers (~0.5 × 106) have been investigated. The latest indications are
that the method is also applicable at even lower Reynolds numbers (~0.1 × 106). The method has
been steadily improved in response to inadequacies revealed during these experimental investiga-
tions.

In summary, an experimentally-verified, theoretical method has been developed that

Further improvements in the science of airfoil design await more accurate theoretical
methods. These improvements require fundamental experiments aimed at improving the predic-
tion of the boundary-layer phenomena of transition and separation. These improvements are,
however, not likely to lead to large increases in airfoil performance. Major improvements in air-
foil characteristics await advances in the art of airfoil design, which is still the domain of the
designer’s creativity.

6
 REFERENCES

1. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics: First Annual Report of the National Advi-
sory Committee for Aeronautics. 1915.

2. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics: Aerodynamic Characteristics of Aerofoils.

3. Hansen, James R.: Engineer in Charge. NASA SP-4305, 1987.

4. Munk, Max M.; and Miller, Elton W.: Model Tests with a Systematic Series of 27 Wing Sec-
tions at Full Reynolds Number. NACA Rep. 221, 1925.

5. Jacobs, Eastman N.; Ward, Kenneth E.; and Pinkerton, Robert M.: The Characteristics of 78
Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. NACA Rep. 460,
1933.

6. Jacobs, Eastman N.; and Pinkerton, Robert M.: Tests in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel
of Related Airfoils Having the Maximum Camber Unusually far Forward. NACA Rep. 537,
1935.

7. Jacobs, Eastman N.; Pinkerton, Robert M.; and Greenberg, Harry: Tests of Related Forward-
Camber Airfoils in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel. NACA Rep. 610, 1937.

8. Theodorsen, Theodore: Theory of Wing Sections of Arbitrary Shape. NACA Rep. 411,
1932.

9. Jacobs, Eastman N.: Preliminary Report on Laminar-Flow Airfoils and New Methods
Adopted for Airfoil and Boundary-Layer Investigations. NACA WR L-345, 1939 (formerly,
NACA ACR).

10. Abbott, Ira H.; Von Doenhoff, Albert E.; and Stivers, Louis S., Jr.: Summary of Airfoil Data.
NACA Rep. 824, 1945. (Supersedes NACA WR L-560.)

11. Abbott, Ira H.; and Von Doenhoff, Albert E.: Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publ., Inc.,
c.1959.

12. Truckenbrodt, E.: Die Berechnung der Profilform bei vorgegebener Geschwindigkeitsvertei-
lung (The Calculation of the Profile Shape from Specified Velocity Distribution). Ingenieur-
Archiv, Bd. 19, Heft 6, 1951, pp. 365–377.

13. Truckenbrodt, E.: A Method of Quadrature for Calculation of the Laminar and Turbulent
Boundary Layer in Case of Plane and Rotationally Symmetrical Flow. NACA TM 1379,
1955. (Translated from Ingenieur-Archiv, Bd. 20, Heft 4, 1952, pp. 211–228.)

7
14. Wortmann, F. X.: Progress in the Design of Low Drag Aerofoils. Boundary Layer and Flow
Control, Volume 2, G. V. Lachmann, ed., Pergamon Press (London), 1961, pp. 748–770.

15. Althaus, Dieter; and Wortmann, Franz Xaver: Stuttgarter Profilkatalog I. (Stuttgart Profile
Catalog I.) Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn (Braunschweig), 1981.

16. Eppler, R.: Direct Calculation of Airfoils from Pressure Distribution. NASA TT F-15,417,
1974. (Translated from Ingenieur-Archiv, Bd. 25, Heft 1, 1957, pp. 32–57.)

17. Eppler, R.: Practical Calculation of Laminar and Turbulent Bled-Off Boundary Layers.
NASA TM-75328, 1978. (Translated from Ingenieur-Archiv, Bd. 32, Heft 4, 1963, pp. 221–
245.)

18. Whitcomb, Richard T.; and Clark, Larry R.: An Airfoil Shape for Efficient Flight at Super-
critical Mach Numbers. NASA TM X-1109, 1965.

19. McGhee, Robert J.; Beasley, William D.; and Whitcomb, Richard T.: NASA Low- and
Medium-Speed Airfoil Development. NASA TM-78709, 1979.

20. Naegele, H.; and Eppler, R.: Plastic Sailplane FS-24 Phoenix. Soaring, vol. 22, no. 4, July-
Aug. 1958, pp. 2–5. (Translated from Aero Revue, 33, Mar. 1958, pp. 140–143.)

21. Eppler, Richard: Some New Airfoils. Science and Technology of Low Speed and Motorless
Flight, NASA CP-2085, Part I, 1979, pp. 131–153.

22. Eppler, Richard: Airfoil Design and Data. Springer-Verlag (Berlin), 1990.

23. Maughmer, Mark D.; and Somers, Dan M.: Design and Experimental Results for a High-
Altitude, Long-Endurance Airfoil. J. Aircr., vol. 26, no. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 148–153.

24. Somers, Dan M.: The S904 and S905 Airfoils. Airfoils, Inc., 1999.

25. Horstmann, K. H.; Quast, A.; and Boermans, L. M. M.: Pneumatic Turbulators – A Device
for Drag Reduction at Reynolds Numbers Below 5 * 106. AGARD-CP-365, 1984, pp. 20-1–
20-19.

26. Boermans, L. M. M.; and van Garrel, A.: Design and Windtunnel Test Results of a Flapped
Laminar Flow Airfoil for High-Performance Sailplane Applications. ICAS-94-5.4.3, Ana-
heim, Sept. 1994.

27. Tangler, J. L.; and Somers, D. M.: NREL Airfoil Families for HAWTs. NREL/TP-442-
7109, Jan. 1995.

28. Timmer, W. A.; van Rooij, R. P. J. O. M.; and Bruining, A.: Measured Section Performance
of Rotating Blades as Input to the Design of Inboard Airfoils. Proceedings of the 1999 Euro-
pean Wind Energy Conference, James & James (London), Mar. 1999, pp. 679–682.

8
29. Somers, Dan M.: The S401 and S402 Airfoils. Airfoils, Inc., 1996.

30. Selig, Michael S.; Maughmer, Mark D.; and Somers, Dan M.: Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoil
for General-Aviation Applications. J. Aircr., vol. 32, no. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 710–715.

31. Somers, Dan M.; and Horstmann, Karl-Heinz: Design of a Medium-Speed, Natural-
Laminar-Flow Airfoil for Commuter Aircraft Application. DFVLR IB 129-85/26, 1985.

32. Körner, H.; Horstmann, K. H.; Köster, H.; Quast, A.; and Redeker, G.: Laminarization of
Transport Aircraft Wings – A German View. AIAA Paper 87-005, Jan. 1987.

33. Tangler, J. L.; and Somers, D. M.: Status of the Special-Purpose Airfoil Families. SERI/TP-
217-3264, Dec. 1987.

34. Eppler, Richard: Airfoil Program System “PROFIL00.” User’s Guide. Richard Eppler,
c.2000.

35. Von Doenhoff, Albert E.; and Abbott, Frank T., Jr.: The Langley Two-Dimensional Low-
Turbulence Pressure Tunnel. NACA TN 1283, 1947.

36. McGhee, Robert J.; Beasley, William D.; and Foster, Jean M.: Recent Modifications and
Calibration of the Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure Tunnel. NASA TP-2328, 1984.

37. van Ingen, J. L.; Boermans, L. M. M.; and Blom, J. J. H.: Low-Speed Airfoil Section
Research at Delft University of Technology. ICAS-80-10.1, Munich, Oct. 1980.

38. Brophy, Christopher M.: Turbulence Management and Flow Qualification of The Pennsyl-
vania State University Low Turbulence, Low Speed, Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel. M. S.
Thesis, Pennsylvania State Univ., 1993.

39. Somers, Dan M.: Subsonic Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoils. Natural Laminar Flow and
Laminar Flow Control, R. W. Barnwell and M. Y. Hussaini, eds., Springer-Verlag New York,
Inc., 1992, pp. 143–176.

40. Somers, Dan M.: Design and Experimental Results for the S814 Airfoil. NREL/SR-440-
6919, Jan. 1997.

41. Somers, Dan M.: Effects of Airfoil Thickness and Maximum Lift Coefficient on Roughness
Sensitivity. Airfoils, Inc., 1998.