![naca airfoil naca airfoil](http://airfoiltools.com/images/maths/naca4camber.gif)
Jerzy simply took what had worked before. As Jerzy Makula explained to me, it gives excellent snap roll and spin control, and when flying the prototype, I could control the exit direction from a spin within ☑5° with very little practice. The excellent Polish aerobatic glider Swift S-1 uses indeed a NACA 6-digit airfoil, the $64_1412$. Later flight tests showed the need to add a leading edge droop on the outer wing, a modification that cost several knots in top speed and would have been entirely avoidable with better airfoils and/or the use of washout.ĭornier Seastar. The wing of the Dornier Seastar, designed by a group of old Dornier engineers in the early 1980s, used the same airfoils as the venerable Do-17 of the 1930s, namely the NACA 23012. It did not help that the Wortmann airfoil is used on many small airplanes, has more lift and less drag and an abundance of data exists on it: The (mainly British) engineers at Pilatus were too conservative to use anything newer than an airfoil from the 1920s.
![naca airfoil naca airfoil](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/x81l-YhhN-o/maxresdefault.jpg)
Just three data points: The tail surfaces of the Pilatus PC-12 still use the venerable NACA 0012, even though a better alternative (from the Wortmann FX 71 L series) was proposed.
![naca airfoil naca airfoil](https://www.ehsanmadadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/airfoil.png)
If someone wants to jump in to help define "modern", I'd take no offense. A simple yes, this aircraft/wing from 5-10 years ago uses a NACA standard would answer the question completely, as would a the last one I'm aware of is from 35+ years ago.Īlso, the use of "modern" is rather vague as the Boeing 757 certainly feels "modern" (having been launched in 1982) but has been out of production since 2004, while the 747 started production in 1969 and is still being built. Thinking about this further, I realize it could quickly devolve into a very broad this aircraft uses a NACA standard wing, that one doesn't list. Information on the (few, dozens, hundreds?) of other aircraft manufacturers (and kit designers) that don't pop to the top of my head is also welcome and appreciated. I'm asking about the major airliner manufacturers like Boeing & Airbus, regional jet builders like Embraer, as well as private/GA companies like Cessna, Gulfstream, and, of course Piper. It is also well known for its airfoils, and many planes in the early years of aviation used NACA designed airfoils for their wings (for example the Piper Cherokee referenced here).ĭo current aircraft manufacturers still use stock NACA airfoil designs, start with a NACA standard design then modify it to meet needs, or are the airfoils completely bespoke? By the help of contours of static pressure and DPM concentration, it was possible to study the region around NACA 0012 airfoil.I know that NACA is famous for its ducts:
![naca airfoil naca airfoil](https://dbrenew.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/5/4/125468801/145350121.jpg)
In particular, the predicted lift coefficient was decreased and at the same time the drag coefficient was increased. The validation of the obtained numerical results was achieved by comparing them with reliable experimental data from other researchers and it was shown that the existence of sand particles in the air influences the aerodynamic performance of the airfoil. The simulations where accomplished for Reynolds number of Re=1.76×10 6, at various angles of attack, on Realizable k–ε turbulence model and the injection of the particles was succeeded using the Discrete Phase Model (DPM). The current study deals with numerical simulations of a National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics (NACA) airfoil, NACA 0012, using a commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Code, in air phase flow as well as in two-phase flow of air and sand particles, which consisted of 1 percent and 5 percent sand particles in air. Computational Study of NACA 0012 Airfoil in Air-Sand Particle Two-Phase Flow at Reynolds Number of Re=1.76×106ĭimitra C.