7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 1/12

Airfoil DatabaseTailless and Flying Wings

Airfoils  f [%]  d [%]  cm_0   _0  Occupation 

MH32   2.37 8.71 -0.0580 -2.37° C-WingMH45   1.65 9.85 +0.0070 -0.27° F3B, F3F, Slope Soaring

MH45-8%  1.65 8.00 +0.0070 -0.27° Do not use!

MH60   1.76 10.08 +0.0030 -0.31° F3B, F3F, Slope

MH60-12%  1.76 12.00 +0.0030 -0.31° Open class, Combat

RS 004  1.64 9.00 -0.0416 -1.87° F3B, Allround

TL54   2.41 9.99 -0.0171 -1.20 ° F3B, F3F, F5B

TL55 1.90 9.44 -0.0052 -0.68 ° F3B, F3F

TL56   1.40 8.96 +0.0072 -0.144 Aerobatics, Turbine, EDF

SD7003 

1.46 8.51 -0.0430 -1.76° Thermal Soaring, AllroundS5010   2.20 9.83 +0.0080 -0.52° F3B, F3F, F5B, Allround

S5010-8% 2.20 8.00 +0.0080 -0.52° F3B, F3F, F5B, Slope

S5020   2.62 8.40 +0.0080 -0.70° F5B, F3B, Allround

S5020-8% 2.62 8.00 +0.0080 -0.70° F5B, F3B, Allround

HS 520   2.13 8.82 +0.0041 -0.64 ° F5D, F3F

HS 522   2.01 8.67 -0,0050 -0.84 ° F5D, F5B, F3F?

EH 1.5/9   1.50 9.00 +0.0000 -0.51 ° Aerobatics, Turbine, EDF Ex: F3B 

EH 2.0/10.0   2.00 10.07 +0.0000 -0.68° Ex: F3B, Open Class

Sipkill 1.7/10 1.70 9.93 -0.0060 -0.76° EPP Combat (Zagi)

HS3.0/8.0  3.00 8.00 -0.0060 -1.20° HLG

HS3.0/9.0  3.00 9.00 -0.0060 -1.21° Ex: Allround

HS3.4/12.0  3.50 12.00 -0.0010 -1.25° Open Class

Airfoils Planks  f [%]  d [%]  cm_0   _0  Occupation 

HS 130   1,678 9,652 +0,0157 -0,09° Slope Soaring, DS

JWL-065   1,687 7,96 +0,0298 +0,30° Allround, Slope Soaring

CJ-5  2.33 9.30 +0.0200 -0.10° Ex: Plank, Thermal Soaring

CJ-3309  3.34 9.41 +0.0190 -0.58° Thermik

CJ-25²09 

2.50 9.50 +0.0270 -0.13° Ex: Plank, Thermal SoaringEMX-07  2.54 9.91 +0.0210 -0.30° Plank. F3B

Phönix  2.78 8.20 +0.0090 -0.69° Plank, F3B

HS 2.0/8.0   2.00 8.00 +0.0120 -0.33° Plank, Slope

Ex: Outdated, you should not use these airfoils in high performance designsS: Flying wing airfoils are characterized as reflexed, in German called: "S-Schlagairfoile"F: Airfoils developed for the application of flaps or working well with

new or edited airfoil

Note: The airfoils of Martin Hepperle (MH) and Michael Selig (S,SD) can be found on their

websites (coordinates, data).

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 2/12

Airfoils for Tailless Swept Wings

MH32 

Oops?! No, not a mistake of mine just the latest trend in Tailless scene. Tailless??? No, C-Wings are no more Tailless I think (see Projekt 42!). It is allowed to use C-Wings in Flying

Wing contests but from aerodynamic point of view these upper wing parts are functionalseperated  horizontal stabilizer.In the early 70s the "Spezi" or "Wehmann" concept using little wings outside the winglets is

 just the same principle: functional seperate parts for horizontal stabilization. This is mypersonal opinion, you can surely discuss about this item. C-Wing is some kind of hybridebetween h-stab and tailless but a very strange one!But whether Tailless or not is not really important. It is a new design and perhaps it helps toanalyze some other problems. The strange central rudder designs in the early 90s(e.g. E.T.) were necessary to get rid of the "propeller" problem during highstart. The

fuselages had been longer than the one of h-stabs!!! This way doesn't make any sense butwas very helpful to analyze Winglet effects!So never damn a concept just because it is a design philosophy problem like C-Wing! Let's

see if they get rid of their handling problem. Nowadays you can fly with them around theworld. But don't try to fly a turn or something like that. The C-Wing tries to keep hisdirection in a manner that is unbelievable. No advantage without disadvantagee, the oldgame.

Conclusion: Still something for immortal optimists!

MH45 The maximum lift coefficient (cl) is somewhat small. This causes some disadvantagesespecially during high start compared to newer high cambered designs. See MH-32 trend...To achieve the best performance small wingloading is recommended! CO5 is a design like

this, around 25-30g/dm² you get maximum performance. At higher wingloadings there is alack in performance (sinking rate) in comparison to MH60 or S5010.But inspite of the needed low wingloading for best performance the speed performance isquite impressive! So if you think this section is just something for light thermal soarers,definitely not! The disadvantage of these MH-45 concepts is more or less somewhat lowaspect ratio and due to this lack in gliding performance. Thermal and speed performance isquite good. If you ever met a CO5 in a small, tight thermal you know that your model is

damn shit. But leaving this thermal you know that CO5 is damn shit! Ok?!

Conclusion: For lightweight swept wings having low aspect ratio. Optional airfoil for Zagi,also see Sipkill. 

MH45-8% 

Somewhat faster than the original 45er, but a lack of clmax. Therefore stall is coming like a

shark during high speed turns for example. A very fine training for your flying skills butno insurance for a long life...It has not been one of my best ideas modifying the airfoil this way. To get an idea of theinfluences: the lack of camber is compensated by higher thickness. Lower thicknesstogether with higher camber works well too. But a lack of camber and  thickness causestrouble on this specific kind of reflexed airfoils. E.g. 1,5/10 (camber%/thickness%) and2,5/8 works well too. But 1,5/8,0 can cause trouble!

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 3/12

Conclusion: Bad idea!

MH60 

The LOGO Team often flew this section. You can believe me: they were damn good! It wasno fun to fly against these guys that time! Surely a fine design of Martin Hepperle, perhapssomewhat better than the MH45. This difference seems to be more induced by the resulting

Tailless design than by the airfoil itself. The pitching moment (cm, cm0.25, cm25, cm1/4however called) of the MH60 is lower than that of MH45. So for same basic cl you needmore wing washout when using MH60. This causes more differences in handling than the

airfoil itself.

Attention: Some pilots have had trouble with a marginly negative pitching moment! E.g.LOGO Team have had a model (HOLON) with a design cl around 0.1 (bad idea!!!). Stabileflight in clean wing configuration with MH60 had been upside down!!!

MH60-12% Just a MH60 with 12,0% thickness. No further modification. First results in a few weeks.

TL54 Thorsten Lutz has developed the airfoil series TL54, TL55 and TL56 using Eppler Code. Theairfoile series is already some years old, but has been hardly known in tailless scene. Thedifficult relations concerning stall behaviour on Tailless using different airfoils does normallynot concern to the requirements of competition RC-Models. The potential benefite using

different airfoils is minimal due to the flight behavior. Often it is so worse that just Taillessspeed models use different airfoils. But even F5D designs normally use just one airfoil

because cd optimization means reducing cd where cl requirement is small. And where is clsmall? @Wingtip. What means stall @wingtip? Ok, the influence of reduced cd on stall

behavior should be quite clear now. RC pilots normally don't like digging their models...Therefore we do not  talk about teamwork performance of this TL series, just about possibleapplication using one airfoil for wingdesign.

The main attention during design phasis aimed for long laminar run on airfoil lower surfaceat high speed (cl=0.1 .. 0.0). This is the basis to achieve low airfoil drag at highspeed.Inspite of 2,41% camber TL54 reached this design goal. We have here an airfoil thatprovides a lot of lift (CLmax) despite very low drag at low CL! The direct consequence is an

extremely wide area of application! Now the F3B designer should become poorelysoundproofed among us, because the secret of the MH-32 is reasonable just this...

Let's talk about something else: the zero lift moment coefficient (cm0) is around cm0 =-

0.017 and this is unstable. Some years ago (4mm washout and cm0=0 design airman )

we didn't have the counsciousness to use cm0<0 sections because of high washout. Lateron we became more self-confident and noticed that a lot of washout does not hurt. Theexperience using SD7003 and RS004A showed that it works, inspite of cm0 =-0.04. Inaddition to this there is something else: Some of these models had problems around pitchaxis (elevator). Pilots complained about stability problems, some designs of this period hadbeen unstabile.And just this is an interesting point: I do not know F3B-Tailless designs which aim the

middle between these before mentioned design concepts: cm0 =-0.02. Which does not or just partially work with cm0 =-0.04, could work with cm0 =-0.02!!! And in my opinion TL54

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 4/12

is just the right choice for this!

(Don't talk about C Wings! This is a hidden h-stab!!!)

The only disadvabtage of TL54 is the thickness of about 10% from my point of view. Light

models might fly a little bit restless in gusty conditions. I would advise you to reduce

thickness around 9%. Same time you should decamber the TL54 to get the beforementioned long laminar run on lower surface inspite of reduced thickness.

Result: My personal favourite for the next season!

TL55 For further details, please, read TL54. In my opinion TL55 is unsuitable for high-stretcheddesigns having high wing load. Models with variable flight weight should use TL54, as itoffers a clearly better gliding, highstart and speed turn performance especially at high wingload.

TL-55 is not suitable for F3F because upper surface laminar run is not as long as on otherairfoils. The MH-60 might be here better choice. In negative flight figures (upside down) the

TL55 will be much better than the usual suspicious . Therefore, as section for the ZAGI itwould be certainly interesting, beside Sipkill, a special section for Foamies.

Result: For medium-sized Allrounder certainly a good choice, for performance andcompetition models use TL54...

TL56 

RS 004A One of the newer creations for Swept Wings. Design by Sielemann /Hans-Jürgen Unverferth.Due to negative pitch moment a lot of washout is needed. I suppose same handlingcharacteristics (something strange!) as tailless designs using SD7003. This RS 004A has been used on CO8 and this model have had handling problems they never

get rid of (Source: Sielemann). This was probably induced by the airfoil. They nevermanaged their problems in flight stability around pitch axis. For a first attempt in low-cmpitch down airfoils it is not a good choice I think. SD7003 is a better choice to do this for the

first time I guess.

I suppose that the real cm is lower than calculated. Having too low cm in design and later

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 5/12

on correcting this by using Flaps/Elevon is always extremely critical!!! Often you never getrid of stability problems around pitch axis. I know this problem from several designs ofmyself!

Why this effect occurs I cannot say. I suppose that a frequency effect induced by laminar

separation bubbles when deflecting flaps is responsible for this because some modelsmanaged their problems by using trips. But in most cases nothing was helpful except takinga chainsaw and cut that model in very little pieces for a final fire...

Please note that most modern Tailless projects use cm<<0 sections. The advantage is risingthe gliding performance, the disadvantage is handling around pitch axis! Speed and sinking

rate are more or less the same as on cm=0 concepts. Most projects never get rid of theirpitch axis problems! Rising gliding performance is only one part...So general for beginner in Tailless design I would recommend cm=0 concepts because theyare very well tested and uncritical. Later on you can try these cm<<0 sections.

Conclusion: This way of design works or works not! Unfortunately there is no criteria

during design phase to indicate if there are these before mentioned problems.

SD 7003 The design of these Tailless is similar to RS004. Same difficulties. Performance is quite wellonly handling characteristic is something strange. Gliding sometimes feels like swimming,

not flying "in" the air, just "on" the air. Yes, really strange especially using low flight stability(CG back).So try this cm0<0 concept or forget it. For thermal conditions this is surely one of the bestor even the best Tailless design concept I have ever seen. Allround conditions seems torecommend less negative cm than SD7003 or RS004 have.

S5010 Quite well but something too thick. Due to this it is something gust sensitive. Direct flight

comparison between S5010 and S5010/8% showed this on a quite heavy day. Wind around20-30kts, gusts up to 40kts. The model with the origin airfoil had some problems in holdingcourse and there was an interesting effect on height axis: when hard gusts came in, themodel swang for 1-2s! The thinner airfoil in same conditions (parallel runs) was faster and

did not show this swinging. Both models speed was around 100-150kts, quite fast. Butthese are the conditions in competitions where this can decide about victory or not. This wasthe final reason for using the thinned airfoil for my F5B contest model. In the meantime Iknow that a thickness about 9% does not cause these problems on this kind of model.

Never forget that these experiences are tight related to the test model HS40 (F5B): ElectricEngine 1.7kW (2.1hp), climb rate 50m/s (60-70kts), wing loading 75g/dm² FAI(=24,58oz/ft²) and weight around 2kg (4 lbs). That means: For a F3B or allround taillessdesign this has not much to say. But this example shows that you can run into trouble in

flight dynamic induced by airfoil beside cl/cd and velocity distribution diagrams. Ok?! Notmore! Ok, back to the unmodified airfoil: clmax is high enough, high start works well.Testwing for this airfoil had been HS40V1 "Sexxy".(This airfoil is also known as S 5010-098-86)

S5010-8%Does not have the before mentioned problems in gust sensivity. It is a quick and very agil

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 6/12

airfoil, some people would say nervous. I like this but it is not everybodys thing. Than usethe S5010-9% and it is ok. Tailless in F5B-600 can use this section. For F5B it could be agood choice. But therefore I recommend a S5010 (2,4/8,5) because of high speed turnradius. Back to S5010-8%: in all weather conditions it works well. For slope soaring it isperhaps one of the best allround sections I have ever seen.

MH45 is better at lower wing loadings (15-40g/dm² = 4,9-13,1oz/ft²), S5010-8% around

20-80g/dm², S5010 35-100g/dm², S5020 is a good choice for 25-90g/dm². Just to get anidea what you can do with these sections in allround conditions. This data given is not todiscuss about 1 or 2g/dm² where a section works or not. But for small up to midsize models

(1-4m) this could be helpful. No, I don't want to talk about Rn-numbers, because handlingcharacteristics have much more to do with model's dynamic behaviour and its airfoil thanactual Rn. So I think it is more helpful for you to talk about wing loadings...

For handy models (1,5-2,5m) this section works well up to 80g/dm². I used this on theHS33V5 "Chicane", this was a damn good model, one of the best I have ever designed. It

was fast, smooth handling characteristics, tight speed turns and had a good thermalperformance. At this time the HS33V5 was the very best existing F5B/10 model. Sorry, Ialways try to be realistic, but this combination of low weight (1,7kg), 10 cells and 1kWengine power was really a sexy combination. Now you know, where the name of HS40"Sexxy" the following development come from.

S5020 Very fine airfoil unfortunately too high cambered for F5B. This means heaving disadvantagesagainst S5010-080-86 when flying at high gliding speed (cl<0.3). For wings without

winglets almost acceptable but not with. Decambering to 2.4% could be helpful. The reasonfor this behaviour is the drag increase beneath cl=0,2 of the origin S5020.

But in thermal soaring you will kill these h-stab guys in F5B! FAI 75g/dm²

(=24,58oz/ft²) is nothing to think about, this airfoil is a thermal soarer! Up to 90g/dm²(=29,5oz/ft²) it works damn well.For a F3B Tailless this section should be proper too, regarding MH32 e.g. My full mouldedF5B project HS40 "Sexxy" uses the unmodified S5020 and even nowadays after plenty of

years with this design I am surprised how great this model runs! You cannot hear this modeluntil it passes you with 200km/h or whatever with a cool whispering sound and thendisappears almost silent in the sky. The reason for this? Reflexed camber means having thinboundary layer and so these kind of airfoil is silent especially at high speed. This behaviour

is actually used for the most uptodate Wind-Turbines to reduce the acoustic noise.No, F3F pilots should choose some other section like MH60 or so, the S5020 is not the rightchoice. But for Tailless that have higher wingloading and allround requirements this sectionis absolutly perfect!The low wing loading tests on this section are actual (nowadays) going into the next phase.

In the next month there will be some more experience on this except my own! One of theseprojects is that of  Arne. 

There is a hint in some airfoil databases that you should use this section only for Taillesswith high wingloading. This is damn shit! There is no Rn problem and velocity distributionsays exactly the same: nothing to think about!

(This airfoil is also known as S5020-084-86)

S5020-8% Don't do this, use the origin S5020. It is just a thinned (8,0%) version of S5020. No

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 7/12

disadvantages in handling I think. But the laminar bump ends earlier so the S5020 issomething faster although the 8,0% is thinner!!! I didn't think about this point during designphasis. My HS40V2 "Sexxy" is build with this section. This model had been lost during thefirst test campagne because of RC problems.So I cannot say, if there is a large difference between S5020 and S5020-8,0%. I think usingthe unmodified S5020 is the best idea!

HS 520  Designed for swept speed tailless having low aspect ratio and/or low sweep angle.

HS 522 

One of the most popular airfoils for swept wings due to low drag (speed) and very low Re-Numbers you need. Outboard chord has been tested until 70mm (!), 100mm is morecommon. This airfoil was designed for speed wings too, but today you find even HLG taillessusing this airfoil.

EH 1,5/9 For Impeller/Turbine models with delta/swept wings, acrobatics. F3B/Allround tailless do notuse this airfoil any more due to lack in gliding performance.

EH 2,0/10,0 (EH series) 

There are some things in this world you should not do. Some people say aeromodelling is

something like that. I say: Using this airfoil series! The whole EH series is difficult. The

holy bible of Hans-Jürgen Unververferth (Faszination Nurflügel) promoted this airfoilseries but this book is somewhat outdated when talking about airfoils.The problem seems to be a pitch frequency induced by boundary layer separation bubbles.The result is a lack in gliding performance around 10-30% (!!!) against airfoils like MH45,S5010 and other more uptodate sections. Actual the exact reason for this is not known youcan compare this with the difficulties on SB-13. "Pilot shaker" would be the right name forthis behaviour...

Especially the EH2,0/10,0 have had such a bad influence that swept wings with 2,4...3,0mhave a bad handling and performance that one day I took my daddy's chainsaw to check outhow much time it takes to cut the fat carbon fibre spar (max load: 40g) into pieces: five

seconds...

Annotation about the history: These airfoil series had been designed by John Yost. He tookthe E228 drop and combined this with an old Horten camber line. This was the birth of EH-Series (Eppler Horten).Conclusion: Never use this section! 

Be careful using EH family at all! Please choose another section! 

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 8/12

 

Sipkill 1.7/10B

What is the design goal of this section? Just to be better than ZAGI section!!! kill is the

hint... Where does the rest of the name come from? Si is abb. for my nick Siggi, Peter

K(pk) is a crazy EPP combat guy who asked me to design this.The Sipkill 1,7/10 is for Combat and nothing else! Crashproof mechanical design is one thing

that has nothing to do with aerodynamics, more with fat trailing edges and so on. So Sipkillis surely not the best design for high performance but a good combination of mechanicaland aerodynamic requirements! And as I guess surely better than ZAGI-10%. Due to thefact that most "modern" Combat designs her in Europe use C-Fibre-Spars means reducingthickness causes no structural disadvantages. Less than 10% is not crashproof enough Ithink but we will test it.Several modellers asked me if I could design something new for Combat tailless. During last

weeks I got several Emails asking me when I would publish this new section! I always said:Not before I tested it myself! Ok, they persuade me not to wait so long and here it is! And itwas the right choice: Sipkill is fairly (much) better than original Zagi. Especial gliding and

speed turn performance is the improvement. S5010 or MH60 reduce sinking rate, but upsidedown and bank rotation is surely not as well as MH45 and Sipkill. MH45 and Sipkill seems tobe the overall best airfoils for Zagi. These sections have alomost same performance as youcan see in the polar sheet. Sipkill just have thicker trailing edge due to foam buildingtechnologie.

If anybody asks me about the negative pitching moment (cm0<0) do not Email me, justthink about Trailing Edges/Elevons made of 4mm Balsa like ZAGI. Yes, we understand eachother I guess: doesn't matter, really not! For calculations on a Combat tailless assume pitchmoment coefficient cm0=+0.01, because most pilots adjust their flaps in that manner.

Conclusion: For Foamies like Zagi and here much better than original airfoil without any

disadvantages in handling. Due to 10% thickness you might use a carbon spar. Advice: Smoothed coordinates, renamed Sipkill 1.7/10B 

HS 3.0/8.0B 

This section bases upon HS3.0/9.0. For HLG Tailless models it is a quite good section. Butthinking about SAL (Side Arm Lauch) means using Tailless at all in HLG contests is a badidea. We still work on this item but we didn't get our Flying Wings started without one ortwo rolls... Don't do anything against these rolls. It's just waste of electric power. Justwonder how fast your model rolls just after leaving your hand. Don't panic.

So if you think you have a hard, crashproof model try SAL. Then you know, that it isdestroyable. After this first lesson you are just on the right way to get the first really  SALlaunchable Tailless when designing a new one...

Ok, back to the section: The high camber of 3.0% seems to be quite much. A section likethis cannot glide like low cambered designs, fast and efficient. Ok, this was the reason why Itested this for Indoor (HS14 "Hallengeist 1"). This model had a speed that it was almostunusable for Indoor! This section is terrible fast, inspite of 3.0% camber!!!

Designing my HLG HS29 "Silence" I remembered this behaviour. Launching this model is afeeling like flying into a black hole: where is the drag??? I have no idea! So it was noproblem inspite of open bay construction (!!!) to get second place in a HLG speed contest.The only reason why I did not win was a short touch down before A-Line...

Conclusion: Quite good choice for small lightweight Tailless projects (HLG class)!

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 9/12

 Advice: Smoothed coordinates, renamed HS 3.0/8.0B 

HS 3.0/9.0B Due to NACA 4-digit philosophy developed: NACA 0009 and my own camber line. What is it

designed for? Thermal and light slope soaring. This section belongs to the same family(velocity distribution) as the EH or NACA23XXX family. So you will find here a lack in glidingperformance too! But the handling is much better than the EH2,0/10 so there should be noproblem when using this (see Spariane).And: Don't use a cm0=0 airfoil like this for a flying plank! Those models have a quite goodperformance, but the handling is horrible!!! A rodeo ride is a nice coffee&cake afternoon incomparison to a plank using this section. I tried this, I will never do this again (HS22Summerdream), so help me God...

Conclusion: If lack in gliding performance doesn't matter it's ok.

 Advice: Smoothed coordinates, renamed HS 3.0/9.0B 

HS 3.4/12.0B Design philosophy see HS 3.0/9.0. This section has been designed for large tailless projects

like HS09 "Albatros" and here is the thermal performance simply great! The low speedgliding performance is acceptable but at higher gliding speed the performance is anythingelse than convincing.

Unfortunately slight nick induction (pitch axis) probably takes place (see EH series).Therefore I cannot recommend this section in general, but because of the rarely highcamber there is no choice so far except EH family. The EH 2.0/10.0 is surely in comparisonmore than terrible, the problems around pitch axis are more than hundred times harder.

The EH 3.0/12.0 is perhaps worth a try, but I do not have experiences.For small tailless HS 3,5/12 is not suitable. HS11 "Spariane legend" flies very well at lowspeed but the before mentioned lack in high speed gliding performance is really remarkable.At the Northern Sea where most slopes are strong, short and not so high, the disadvantage

is acceptable. But flying at wide, flat slopes where every point in gliding performance at allspeeds is needed there you will not be happy with this section.The HS3.5/12 is damn uncritical at all, stall comes very smooth, wholes in the wing doesn'treally matter, some crincles in leading edge is nothing to think about. It is like ZAGI 12%

that no roughness of this life can improve. No, ZAGI 12% has surly not the performance insinking rate so there is really no further comparison.

Conclusion: A good choice for larger projects (span 4m and more...)

 Advice: Smoothed coordinates, renamed HS 3.4/12.0B 

Airfoils for Flying Planks (cm0>0)

HS 130  

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 10/12

This airfoil is very popular in Germany for very fast planks, e.g. dynamic soaring andeverything else you need for slope soaring. Less drag and very fast. Thickness can bereduced to 7,5% without modification of camber. In german "Aufwind" magazine you canfind a detailed analysis of this airfoil. Elevons: 25% chord. This airfoil is optimized for use ofelevons. HS2,0/8,0 is outdated, you should use HS130 if you want to use an airfoil of myseries for slope soaring. Minimum chord 150mm due to Rn. Please note that "classic" plankairfoils need 250mm and more! Aspect ratio 8-13, not more; e-powered planks up to 16.

JWL-065

This airfoil is the opposite of HS130 in many cases: center elevator is the right choice toreach optimal performance. Do not slow down using Elevator, the cm is somewhat higherthan HS130. Elevator is just used to rise speed and nothing else. The basic trim is low speed(thermal) and pitch down is just for gliding/speed. Elevator: 20% chord. Minimum chord

150mm due to Rn, aspect ratio 8-13, not more.

CJ-5 More than outdated. Don't even think about using this airfoil!

CJ-3309 Thermal Planks in open bay construction are still using this section. Recommended minimumchord is around 200mm. Wing loading up to 30g/dm² causes no problems. Not more! Formore you have to choose EMX-07, Phönix or similar designs.

The leading edge area is designed like a stone, rough and hard. The result is a very sharp

and early suction pike that cause sudden stall. So stall recovery is no problem when havinglow wing loading. Using high wing loading is not a good idea, the ground is the killer and aspade the right tool. Your local Balsa dealer will be a rich man in the near furture. We

understand each other I think.Conclusion: Only for lightweight open bay construction thermal planks.

CJ-25²09 Grmpf! We just discussed leading edge design on CJ-3309. If CJ-3309 is designed like a

stone, CJ-25²09 is designed like a rock. I guess every user of this section took sandingpaper to smooth the surface. Otherwise I do not know, why some CJ-25 models had goodhandling characteristics and acceptable performance inspite of higher wing loading.

Open bay constructions, ok, if there is some need to have better gliding performance thanCJ-3309. All other modellers should trust the real excellent EMX-07 or Phönix or somethingelse except this one here!Conclusion: Only for lightweight open bay planks that need better gliding performance thanCJ-3309!

EMX-07 Modern airfoil designed by Martin Lichte. Seems to work very well as on Stefan Siemensflying plank "Niveau". I flew against him and I can say that this section is not a bad choice!!!

Ok, I killed him in gliding performance using my "Aeolus" but in thermal soaring he wasalways a challange!

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 11/12

 

Phönix Well known since it emerged at the Plank of Perlick/Kowalski. Seems to be dreadfully good.The somewhat smaller cm0 is something more for fast/heavier planks. No, I do not have a

reliable value in addition. I estimate it according to experience on approximately +0.0 max+0.01. Due to this the Phönix is not the right choice for lightweight designs, some (mass-)inertia behind it is recommended to get rid of the low-cm problems.Lightweight constructions can be detected by a classic rodeo flight style (instability pitchaxis). Gyroscopes can conditionally help, surely not the hit. A heavier model absorbs alonedue to its mass inertia this possible fast pitch nick frequency ("wippen" like SB-13).Conclusion: On of the best sections for vacuum bagged planks I have ever seen!

HS 2.0/8.0This section has been developed for fast plank concepts (slope soaring) and is based on"Phönix" not the worst reference I think. It was a rainy day when I got the idea that I would

like to have a section between speed and sections like Phönix or EMX-07. Modelslike"Sturmtänzer" and E-powered flying planks are the destination of this section. Why? Thelow cm design needs some mass intertia behind so it is not a good idea to build alightweight plank with this kind of section.

Where I got this experience? HS06 and HS22 used just the same wing. HS06 is an E-powered flying plank and it was quite well. I destructed this plank by passing a thermal with

a lot of speed. Not a good idea having an open bay construction without D-Box and doingthis! Some years later I remembered the good performance of this plank and I build HS22,

a thermal plank, using the parts of the old HS06 wing. The handling was terrible! It is like arodeo ride around pitch axis! HS3,0/9,0 has been used. Ok, now you see that things canwork just because of mass inertia and in other case, same section, same wing, absolutelynot!!! And believe me:

NEVER USE CM0=0 SECTIONS FOR FLYING PLANKS!!! This might work  as before mentioned but normally does not! 

The Phönix's trailing edge is somewhat fat due to building technologie. But on a speed plankconcept like "Sturmtänzer" nothing except vacuum bagging makes sense. This building

technology do not need any compromise in airfoil design so we get some moreperformance...This difference is quite substantially, especially at low cls we have longer laminar run on thelower side. At low Rn the airfoil is something better too so there is no disadvantage in doingthis.

7/18/2019 Airfoil Database, COMPLETE AIRFOIL DATA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/airfoil-database-complete-airfoil-data 12/12