AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.

FarooqSaeed

1. Airfoil Design or Airfoil Selection

The two most common ways to determine the wing airfoil section are: (1) Airfoil design, and (2)
Airfoil selection. The design of the airfoil is a complex and time consuming process and needs
expertise in fundamentals of aerodynamics at graduate or post-graduate levels. Once a design is
accomplished, it needs to be verified by testing it in a wind tunnel which is an expensive and timeconsuming process. Aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing and Airbus have sufficient human
expertise (aerodynamicists) and budget to design their own airfoil for their aircraft. However, small
aircraft companies, experimental and homebuilt aircraft manufacturers cannot afford to design their
airfoils. Instead they select the best airfoils for their application from amongst a host of tried and
tested airfoils that are found in literature, such as the NACA airfoil database.

With the advent of high speed and powerful computers, the design of airfoil is not as hard as thirty
years ago. There is currently a host of aerodynamic analysis and design software (XFOIL,
PROFOIL, PROFIL, JavaFoil, etc.) in the market that can be used to design airfoil for a variety of
needs. Airfoils are not only needed by aircraft designers but are also used in a host of other
applications that include: jet engine axial compressor blades, jet engine axial turbine blades, steam
power plant axial turbine blades, wind turbine propellers, centrifugal and axial pump impeller blades,
turboprop engine propellers, centrifugal and axial compressor impeller blades and large and
small fans, to name a few. The efficiencies of all of these industrial mechanical or aerospace
devices depend mainly on the aerodynamic characteristics of the sectional profiles of their blades.
If one has enough time, budget and manpower, and decides to design an airfoil for his aircraft, he
should refer to the references that are listed at the end of this handout. But he should remember that
the airfoil design is a design project by itself and needs to be integrated into the complete aircraft
design process properly. But if one is a junior aircraft designer with limited resources, he is
recommended to select the airfoil from the previously designed and published airfoil sections. Two
reliable airfoil database resources are the NACA (Refs. 1 and 2) and Eppler (Ref. 3). These
references contain airfoil coordinates, pressure distribution, lift curves (cl vs. ), drag polar (cd vs.
cl), and moment coefficient plots (cm vs. ), for a range of Reynolds numbers. NACA airfoils use
NACA designation while the Eppler airfoils use the letter E followed by three numbers.

The choice of airfoil primarily depends on the critical segment of an aircrafts mission profile.
Typical mission segments include: take off, climb, cruise, turns, maneuvers, descent, approach, loiter
and landing. For general aviation (GA) aircraft or commercial transports, the critical mission
segment is the cruise segment, that is, the aircraft spends much of its flight time in this flight phase.
The aerodynamic characteristics of the wing or its section, that is the airfoil, play a very
important role during cruise since the aerodynamic efficiency of the wing (CL/CD) depends on
the choice of airfoil. Thus, for an efficient cruise, the wing must produce sufficient lift while
keeping drag to a minimum.
For a steady, straight and level flight during cruise, the lift (L) must equal aircraft weight
and drag (D) must equal engine thrust (T). Thus, the main governing equations for cruise are:
1
L W V 2 SCL mg
2
1
D T V 2 SCD nTmax
(jet engine)
2
n P
1
D T V 2 SCD p max
(prop engine)
2
VC

(W),
(1)
(2)
(3)

Equation (2) is for an aircraft with jet engine while Equation (3) is for an aircraft with propeller
engine. The variable n ranges between 0.6 to 0.9. It means that only a partial engine throttle

Page1

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

is used in a cruising flight and maximum engine power or engine thrust is not employed. The
exact value for n is determined in later design steps. In the initial stages of airfoil, it is suggested to
use 0.75. The maximum engine power or engine thrust is only used during take-off or when
cruising with maximum speed. Since a major criterion for airfoil design is to satisfy cruising flight
requirements, Equations (1) through (3) are used in airfoil design.
In the sections that follow, the main airfoil characteristics and desirable qualities are described that
can aid in the proper selection of airfoils for a particular application.
a. The variation of lift coefficient (cl) versus angle of attack ()

Figure 1 shows the typical variations of lift coefficient versus angle of attack for a positively
cambered airfoil. The significant features of this graph are: stall angle (s), maximum lift coefficient
(clmax), zero lift angle of attack (L=0), ideal or cruise lift coefficient (cli) and angle of attack
corresponding to ideal lift coefficient known as wing setting angle (set), lift coefficient at zero
angle of attack (cl0), and the lift curve slope (ao or cl). These features are critical to identify the
performance of an airfoil.

Figure 1. A typical airfoil lift coefficient versus angle of attack curve and drag polar

i. The stall angle (s) is directly related to the flight safety, since the aircraft will lose the balance
of forces in a cruising flight. If the stall is not controlled properly; the aircraft may enter a spin
and eventually crash. In general, the higher the stall angle, the safer is the aircraft, thus a
higher stall angle is sought in airfoil selection. The typical stall angles for majority of airfoils
are between 12 to 16 degrees. This means that the pilot is not allowed to increase the angle of
attack more than about 16 degrees. Therefore the airfoil which has the higher stall angle is more
desirable.
ii. The maximum lift coefficient (clmax) is the maximum capacity of an airfoil to produce nondimensional lift; i.e. the capacity of an aircraft to lift a load (i.e. aircraft weight). The stall speed
(Vs) is inversely related to maximum lift coefficient, thus the higher clmax leads to lower Vs and
a safer flight.
iii. The zero lift angle of attack (L=0) is the airfoil angle of attack at which the lift
coefficient is zero. Typical values for L=0 are around 2 degrees when no high lift device is
employed. However, when a high lift device is employed; such as 40 degrees of flap down;
the L=0 increases to about 12 degrees. The design objective is to have a higher L=0 (more
negative), since it leaves the capacity to have more lift at zero angle of attack. This is
essential for a cruising flight, since the fuselage center line is aimed to be level (i.e. zero fuselage
angle of attack) for variety of flight reasons such as comfort of passengers.
iv. The ideal lift coefficient (cli) is the lift coefficient at which the drag coefficient does not vary

Page2

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

significantly with the slight variations of angle of attack. The ideal lift coefficient usually
corresponds to the minimum drag coefficient. This is very critical in airfoil selection, since
lower drag coefficient means lower flight cost (lower thrust and fuel consumption). Thus, the
design objective is to fly at the cruise lift coefficient that is as close as possible to the ideal
lift coefficient. The typical value of ideal lift coefficient for GA aircraft is about 0.1-0.4, and for
supersonic aircraft 0.01-0.05.
v. The angle of attack corresponding to ideal lift coefficient is the wing setting angle (set).
It is also referred to as the wing incidence (iw) angle. The wing setting angle is the angle between
the wing chord line at root and the longitudinal axis (horizontal reference such as fuselage center
line parallel to the cabin floor) as shown in Figure 2. The wing setting angle must: (1) be able to
generate the desired lift coefficient during cruising flight, (2) produce minimum drag during
cruising flight, and (3) be such that during cruise, the fuselage center line is parallel to the
horizontal axis for passenger comfort and minimum drag (i.e. the fuselage angle of attack must
be zero in cruise) and thus minimum fuel cost. The wing incidence for majority of aircraft is
between 0 to 4 degrees. In general, the wing setting angle in supersonic fighters, is between 0 to
1 degrees; in GA aircraft, between 2 to 4 degrees; and in jet transports between 3 to 5 degrees.

Figure 2. Wing incidence or setting angle

vi. The lift coefficient at zero angle of attack (cl0) is the lift coefficient when the geometric angle of
attack is zero. From design point of view, the more the cl0 the better it is, since it implies we
can produce more positive lift at zero angle of attack.
vii. The lift curve slope (ao or cl) is l another important performance feature of an airfoil. The lift
curve slope is the slope of variation of lift coefficient with respect to the change in the angle of
attack, and its units are 1/deg or 1/rad. Since the main function of an airfoil is to produce lift, the
higher the slope, the better the airfoil. The typical value of lift curve slope of an airfoil is
around 2 (or 6.28) per radian (or about 0.1 per degrees). It implies that for each 1 degree of
change in the airfoil angle of attack, the lift coefficient will be increased by 0.1. The lift curve
slope (1/rad) may be found from the lift curve data using the relation for a slope of a curve
which in this case is the linear range of the cl vs. curve, i.e.:
cl cl1
ao cl 2
(4)
2 1
or one can also use the following empirical equation (approximate) in the absence of airfoil data:
dc
t

(5)
ao cl l 1.8 1 0.8 max
d
c

where tmax/c is the maximum thickness to chord ratio of the airfoil.

viii. Another important airfoil characteristic is the shape of the lift curve at and beyond the stall
angle of attack (stall behavior). An airfoil with a more gradual drop in lift past the stall is
safer and hence desirable, rather than an abrupt or sharp loss of lift (see Figure 1), since the
pilot can recover more easily from a gradual drop in lift than a sharp one. Although the sudden
airfoil stall behavior does not necessarily imply sudden wing stall behavior, a careful wing

Page3

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

design can significantly modify the airfoil tendency to rapid stall. In general, airfoils with
thickness or camber, in which the separation is associated with the adverse gradient on the aft
portion rather than the nose pressure peak, have a more gradual loss of lift. Unfortunately, the
best airfoils in this regard tend to have lower maximum lift coefficient.

b. The variations of pitching moment coefficient versus angle of attack

For a positively cambered airfoil, the slope of pitching moment coefficient about quarter-chord
cm,c/4 versus angle of attack is usually negative (nose-down moment) while the pitching moment
coefficient about aerodynamic center cmac is almost constant, usually about -0.02 to -0.05 for typical
range angle of attacks. The sign convention is that the moment is considered positive in the
direction of pitch up or positive angle of attack. A negative value of cm,c/4 or cmac is desirable,
since it will cause the airfoil to pitch down if a gust of air results in an increase in its angle of attack
(pitch up). The design objective for conventional aircraft is to have an airfoil with a negative
cmac that is close to zero as much as possible. The reason is that the aircraft must be in equilibrium
during cruise. This negative wing pitching moment must be balanced by the horizontal tail or
stabilizer. Thus, a higher cmac (more negative) results in a larger tail, which means a heavier
aircraft. Therefore the airfoil which has the less negative cmac at the wing setting angle (set)
corresponding to ideal lift coefficient is more desirable. It is interesting to note that the
pitching moment coefficient for a symmetrical airfoil section is zero (ideal for aerobatic aircrafts!!!).
c. The variations of drag coefficient as a function of lift coefficient

The cd vs. cl plot on the right in Figure 1 is called the drag polar and shows the typical variations of
drag coefficient as a function of lift coefficient for a positively cambered airfoil. The lowest point of
this graph is where the drag coefficient is minimum (cd min) and the corresponding lift coefficient is
known as cl min drag. As the drag is directly related to the flight (fuel) cost, the airfoil which has a
lower cd min value is more desirable. A typical value for cd min is about 0.003 to 0.006.

Figure 3. The variation of drag coefficient vs. the lift coefficient (drag polar) for a laminar airfoil

Figure 3 shows a typical drag polar for a laminar airfoil; such as a 6-series NACA airfoil. This
graph has a unique feature called the drag bucket, due to the bucket-like shape of the lower portion
of the cd vs. cl curve. The unique aspect of the bucket is that the cd min is constant for a range of cl
values. This is very significant, since it implies that the pilot can stay at the lowest drag point for
small changes in the angle of attack. Since the aircraft weight reduces as the fuel is burned
during cruise, the pilot can bring the aircraft nose down (decrease the angle of attack) without being
worried about an increase in the aircraft drag or constantly changing the throttle setting. The mid
point of the bucket is the ideal or cruise lift coefficient (cli), while the highest cl in the bucket is
referred to as the design lift coefficient (cl design). Remember that the design lift coefficient
occurs at the point whose cl/cd is maximum. For some flight segments, aircraft operate at cli yet
at some other flight operations (such as loiter), the objective is to fly at cl design.

Page4

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

d. The variations of lift-to-drag ratio (cl/cd) as a function of angle of attack

The last important parameter in the airfoil selection process is the variation of lift-to-drag ratio (cl/cd)
as a function of angle of attack. Figures 1 & 2 show the points of maximum lift-to-drag ratio. In
general, the maximum lift-to-drag point can be found by drawing a line tangent to the drag polar as
shown in Figure 2. For more accuracy, it is best to calculate the cl/cd ratio at several points on the
drag polar near the tangent point. Both aircraft range and endurance can be maximized by
maximizing the lift-to-drag ratio. Thus, a higher value of maximum lift-to-drag ratio is desirable.
The angle of attack corresponding to this point is an optimum candidate for a loitering flight (l).
e. Airfoil maximum thickness-to-chord ratio (t/cmax)

As a guide, the typical values for the airfoil maximum thickness-to-chord ratio of majority of aircraft
are about 6% to 18%. For a low speed aircraft with a high lift requirement (such as cargo aircraft),
the typical wing t/cmax is about 15% 18%. For a high speed aircraft with a low lift requirement
(such as high subsonic passenger aircraft), the typical wing t/cmax is about 10% 15%. For the
supersonic aircraft, the typical wing t/cmax is about 6% 9%.
2. Summary of Desirable Airfoil Characteristics for Airfoil Selection

Selecting an airfoil is a part of the overall wing design process. Selection of an airfoil for a wing
begins with the clear statement of the flight requirements. For instance, a subsonic flight design
requirements are very much different from a supersonic flight design objectives. On the other
hand, flight in the transonic region requires a special airfoil that meets drag divergence requirements.
The designer must also consider other requirements such as airworthiness, structural,
manufacturability, and cost requirements. In general, the following criteria should be used for the
initial selection of an airfoil for a wing or aircraft, i.e., an airfoil with:
i. A higher stall angle (s) is more desirable since it is safer.
ii. A higher maximum lift coefficient (cl max) is more desirable since it results in a lower stall speed
(Vs) and thus a safer flight.
iii. A higher zero lift angle of attack (L=0) (more negative) is more desirable since it leaves the
capacity to have more lift at zero angle of attack as well as adds to passenger comfort.
iv. A lower minimum drag coefficient (cdo or cd min).
v. A higher maximum lift-to-drag ratio (L/Dmax or cl/cd max).
vi. A proper ideal lift coefficient (cli) at which the drag coefficient is minimum and does notl vary
significantly with slight variations of angle of attack. The design objective is to fly at the cruise
lift coefficient that is as close as possible to the ideal lift coefficient.
vii. A lower wing setting angle (set) corresponding to ideal lift coefficient (cli) that will result in a
minimum drag which in turn would require minimum engine thrust (smaller engine) and hence
minimize fuel consumption resulting in greater range.
viii. A higher lift coefficient at zero angle of attack (cl0).
ix. A higher lift curve slope (ao or cl) is desirable since it will result in higher lift or maximum lift
coefficient
x. A less negative pitching moment coefficient about aerodynamic center cmac at the wing setting
angle (set) corresponding to ideal lift coefficient is more desirable since it will reduce wing
bending and torsional stresses, horizontal tail size as well as control requirements
xi. A more gradual or gentle stall is desirable since it is safer (easy of recovery) & will prevent spin.
xii. A moderately thick airfoil is desirable since it can be structurally reinforced. The airfoil should
not be very thin that spars cannot be placed inside.
xiii. An airfoil must be such that the cross section is easy to manufacture. Too much camber will
result in an increase in manufacturing cost.
xiv. Any other design and cost requirements must be considered. For instance, if the fuel tank has

Page5

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

been designated to be placed inside the wing inboard section, the airfoil must allow the sufficient
space for this purpose. Or if more than one airfoil is considered for a wing, the integration of two
airfoil sections in one wing must be smooth.
It is stated here that there is no single airfoil will satisfy all of the above-mentioned requirements.
For example, you may find an airfoil that has the highest cl max, but not the highest maximum lift-todrag ratio (cl/cd max). In such cases, there must be compromise through a weighting process, since not
all design requirements have the same importance.
3. NACA Airfoils

NACA (predecessor of NASA) developed one of the most reliable and widely used airfoil
database resources in 1930s and 1940s. Details of the airfoils and the test are contained in (Refs. 1
and 2). The three most common and widely used types of NACA airfoils are the:

Four-digit NACA airfoils

Five-digit NACA airfoils
6-series NACA airfoils

Some brief description of these airfoils is as follows:

a. Four-digit NACA airfoils

The four-digit NACA airfoil sections are the oldest and simplest NACA airfoils to generate. The
camber of a four-digit airfoil is made up of two parabolas. One parabola generates the camber
geometry from the leading edge to the maximum camber, and another parabola produces the camber
shape from the maximum camber to the trailing edge. In a Four-digit NACA airfoil, the first digit
indicates the maximum camber in percent chord. The second digit indicates the position of
maximum camber in tenths of chord length. The last two digits represent the maximum
thickness-to-chord ratio. A zero in the first two digits means that this airfoil is a symmetrical
airfoil section. For example, the NACA 1408 airfoil section has a maximum camber of 10%, the
maximum camber is located at 40% of the chord, and has a maximum thickness (t/c)max = 8%.
Although these airfoils are easy to produce, but they generate high drag compared to the other two
airfoil categories.
a. Five-digit NACA airfoils

The camber of a five-digit airfoil section is made up of one parabola and one straight line. The
parabola generates the camber geometry from the leading edge to the maximum camber, and
then a straight line connects the end point of the parabola to the trailing edge. In a five-digit NACA
airfoil section, the first digit represents 0.15 or 2/3rd of ideal lift coefficient in tenths. It is an
approximate representation of maximum camber in percent chord. The second & third digits indicate
the location of maximum camber in two hundredths of chord length. The last two digits represent the
maximum thickness-to-chord ratio. A zero in the first digit means that this airfoil is a symmetrical
airfoil section. For example, f o r the NACA 23012 airfoil section, the first digit gives the ideal lift
coefficient of this airfoil as: ()cli = 2/10 cli = 2/10 3/2 = 0.3, the second and third digits give
the location of maximum camber as: 3 0 / 20 0 = 0 . 1 5c o r 15% of the chord, and the fourth and
fifth digits give the maximum thickness (t/c)max = 12%.
c. The 6-series NACA airfoils

The four- and five-digit airfoil sections where designed simply by using parabolas and lines. They
were not designed to satisfy major aerodynamic design requirements, such as laminar flow and no
flow separation. Moreover, new high-speed aircraft designs required more efficient airfoil

Page6

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

sections. To overcome this shortcoming, NACA researchers developed several new series of airfoils
that were driven by design requirements. Amongst them the 6-series airfoils gained more interest
since they were designed to maintain laminar flow over a large part of the chord, yielding lower
values of cdmin compared to the four- and five-digit airfoils. The 6-series NACA airfoils are
designated by five main digits and begin with number 6. Some 6-series airfoils have a subscript
number after the second digit. There is also a - between the second digit and the third digit.

In the 6-series airfoil designation, the first digit is always 6; that is the series designation. The second
digit represents the chord wise position of minimum pressure in tenths of chord for the basic
symmetrical section at zero lift. The third digit indicates the ideal lift coefficient in tenths. In case the
airfoil name has a subscript after the second digit, it indicates the lift coefficient range in tenths
above and below the value of ideal lift coefficient in which favorable pressure gradient and low
drag exist. A zero in the third digit means that this airfoil is a symmetrical airfoil section. The
last two digits represent the maximum thickness-to-chord ratio.

For example, the NACA 633-218 airfoil section minimum pressure is located at 30% of the chord
(the second digit), the lift coefficient range above and below the value of ideal lift coefficient is 0.3
(the subscript) where the drag is minimum, ideal lift coefficient of the airfoil is 0.2 (the third digit),
and the airfoil has 18% thickness-to-chord ratio (the last two digits). It demonstrates that the laminar
bucket in the drag polar (cd vs. cl curve) starts from a lift coefficient of 0 (since 0.3 - 0.3 = 0) and
ends at 0.6 (since 0.3 + 0.3 = 0.6).
Table 1 lists the characteristics of several NACA airfoil sections. Table 2 lists the airfoil sections for
several propeller-driven aircraft. Table 3 lists the airfoil sections for several jet aircraft. Note that
all of the aircrafts listed in Tables 2 and 3, from Cessna GA (General Aviation) aircraft to F-16
fighter aircraft, employ NACA airfoils. Table 4 lists the wing incidence for several aircraft. More
comprehensive lists of airfoil usage (what airfoils used on which aircraft) are maintained by
Selig (Ref. 4) and Lednicer (Ref. 5) and can be accessed online.

Table 1. Characteristics of several NACA airfoil sections

No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Airfoil
section
0009
4412
2415
23012
23015
631-212
632-015
632-618
64-210
654-221

clmax at
Re=3106
1.25
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.55
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1

cmac

(cl/cd)max

cli

cdmin

(t/c)max

(deg)
13
13
14
16
15
14
14
14
12
16

0.0
-0.09
-0.05
-0.013
-0.008
-0.004
0.0
-0.1
-0.042
-0.025

39
71
86
60
52
67
61
52
57
46

0.0
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.1

0.0052
0.006
0.0065
0.006
0.0063
0.0045
0.005
0.0052
0.004
0.0048

9%
12%
15%
12%
15%
12%
15%
18%
10%
21%

Page7

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Table 2. The wing airfoil section of several prop-driven aircraft (Ref. 6)

No

Aircraft name

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Cessna 550
Beech Bonanza
Cessna 150
Piper Cherokee
Dornier Do-27
Fokker F-27
Lockheed L100
PC-7
Hawker Siddely
Beagle 206
Beech Super king

First
flight
1994
1945
1957
1960
1955
1955
1954
1978
1960
1967
1970

Max speed
(knot)
275
127
106
132
145
227
297
270
225
140
294

12
13
14
15
16

Lockheed Orion
Moony M20J
Lockheed Hercules
Thurston TA16
ATR 42

1958
1976
1951
1980
1981

411
175
315
152
269

17 AIRTECH CN-235
18 Fokker 50

1983
1987

228
282

Root
airfoil
23014
23016.5
2412
652-415
23018
644-421
64A-318
642-415
23018
23015
2301823016.5
0014
632-215
64A318
642-A215
43 series
(18%)
653-218
644-421

Tip
airfoil
23012
23015
2412
652-415
23018
644-421
64A-412
641-415
4412
4412
23012

Average
(t/c)max
13%
14.25%
12%
15%
18%
21%
15%
15%
15%
12.5%
14.5%

0012
641-412
64A412
642-A215
43 series
(13%)
653-218
644-415

13%
13.5%
15%
15%
15.5%
18%
18%

Table 3. The wing airfoil section of several jet aircraft (Ref. 6)

No Aircraft name

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

First
flight
F-15E
1982
Beech Starship
1988
Lockheed L-300
1963
Cessna 500 Citation 1994
Bravo
Cessna 318
1954
Gates Learjet 25
1969
Aero Commander
1963
Lockheed Jetstar
1957
Airbus 310
1982
Rockwell/DASA X- 1990
31A
Kawasaki T-4
1988

12 Gulfstream IV-SP

1985

13 Lockheed F-16
14 Fokker 50

1975
1985

Max speed Root airfoil Tip airfoil

(knot)

Mach 2.5
468
275
441
333
360
383
595
1485
560

340
Mach 2.1
282

Page8

64A (6.6%)
13.2%
0013
23014

64A (3%)
11.3%
0010
23012

Average
(t/c)max
4.8%
12.25%
11.5%
12%

2418
2412
15%
64A-109
9%
644-109
12%
641-212
641-212
63A-112
63A-309
10.5%
15.2%
10.8%
13%
Transonic
Transonic 5.5%
airfoil
airfoil
Supercritical Supercritical 8.8%
airfoil
airfoil
(7.3%)
(10.3%)
Sonic rooftop Sonic rooftop 9.3%
(10%)
(8.6%)
64A-204
64A-204
4%
18%
644-415
644-421

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Table 4. Wing setting or incidence angle for several aircraft (Ref. 6)

No. Aircraft

Type

Jet transport
Prop-driven transport

Wing
Incidence
5o 30
3o 30

Cruising Speed
(Knot)
Mach 0.8
282

1
2

Airbus 310
Fokker 50

3
4

Sukhoi Su-27
Embraer FMB-120 Brasilia

Jet fighter
Prop-driven transport

0o
2o

Mach 2.35
272

5
6
7
8
9

Tucano
Antonov An-26
BAE Jetstream 31
BAE Harrier
Lockheed P-3C Orion

Turbo-Prop Trainer
Turbo-prop Transport
Turbo-prop Business
V/STOL close support
Prop-driven transport

1o 25
3o
3o
1o 45
3o

222
235
282
570
328

10
11

Rockwell/NASA X-31A
Kawasaki

Jet combat research

Prop-driven transport

0o
0o

1485
560

12

ATR 42

Prop-driven transport

2o

265

Turbo-prop Transport
Turbo-prop Transport
Jet transport
Jet transport
Jet fighter

13
14
15
16
17

Beech Super King Air B200

SAAB 340B
AVRO RJ
McDonnell MD-11
F-15J Eagle

3 48
2o
3o 6
5o 51
0o

289
250
412
Mach 0.87
> Mach 2.5

Example 1

Identify set (deg), cli, cd min, cmac, cl,design, (cl/cd)max, L=0 (deg), clo, s (deg), cl max, ao = cl(1/rad),
and t/cmax of the NACA 63-209 airfoil section (flap-up) at a Re = 6 106 (or 6 million). The
aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil can be found in Ref. 2, page 419 and attached as Figure 4.
As an exercise, indicate the locations of all parameters on the airfoil characteristics plot in Figure 4.

Solution:

By referring to Figure 4, the required values for all parameters at Re = 6 million ( symbols) are as
follows:

set
(deg)

0.5

cli

cd min

cmac

0.2 0.0045 -0.033

l
(deg)

2.0

cl,design (cl/cd)max L=0

(deg)

0.375

0.375/0.005
-1.5
= 75

clo

1.45

s
(deg)

12.5

cl max ao = cl t/cmax
(0.8-0)/
(6-(-1.5))
= 0.1067
1.45
per deg
= 6.1115
per rad

9%

Note: cli, cd min and cmac, correspond to wing setting angle set, cl,design and (cl/cd)max, correspond to
angle for loiter conditions l, and clo corresponds to = 0 deg.

Page9

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Figure 4. Aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 63-209 airfoil section (Ref. 1).

Page10

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

4. Practical Steps for Wing Airfoil Section Selection

In the previous sections, the general characteristics of an airfoil section, NACA airfoil sections,
and criteria for airfoil section are covered. In this section, the practical steps for wing airfoil section
selection are presented. It is assumed that an airfoil section data base (Refs. 1 through 3) is
available and the wing designer is planning to select the best airfoil from the list. It is also assumed
that the aircraft designer has the initial geometric and performance specifications of the aircraft based
on data from historical trends and existing similar aircraft. That is, the designer has a good idea about
the wing dimensions, cruise conditions, weight, etc. With this initial information, one proceeds
towards the conceptual design phase where the first step is to design a wing with select airfoil
sections that will support the weight of the aircraft yet at the same time offer minimum possible drag.
With this objective in mind, the selection of an appropriate airfoil section can be accomplished by
following the steps outlined below:

1. Unless given, otherwise estimate the weight of the aircraft (Wave) from historical data on similar
aircraft. In later design iterations, the average aircraft weight in cruise must be considered, i.e.:
1
(6)
Wave Wi W f
2
where Wi is the initial aircraft weight at the beginning of the cruise and Wf is the final aircraft
weight at the end of the cruise.
2. Calculate the aircraft ideal cruise lift coefficient (CLc) and the associated Reynolds number Re
based on the mean aerodynamic chord c . In cruise, L = W, so:
2Wave
Vc c
2 1 2
(7)
,
Re
and
MAC
CLc

cr

3 1
Vc2 S

where Vc is the aircraft cruise speed, and are the air density and viscosity, respectively, at
cruise altitude, and S is the wing planform (reference) area.
3. Calculate the wing ideal cruise lift coefficient (CLcw). Since other aircraft components may
contribute to the total aircraft lift; negatively or positively; the wing lift may be different than the
aircraft lift. In the initial preliminary design stage, the wing cruise lift coefficient (CLcw) can be
approximated by:
CL
(8)
C Lcw c
0.95
Later in the design, when other components have been identified and defined in subsequent
design iterations, this relationship is updated.
4. Calculate the airfoil ideal cruise lift coefficient (cli). The wing is a three-dimensional body with a
finite span and is subject to induced flow effects due to the downwash created by the wing tip
vortices. The result is a decrease in the wing lift coefficient. This may further be affected by
factors such as wing taper, sweep, dihedral, etc. In the conceptual design phase where the wing
geometry has not been designed yet, the following approximate relation is recommended:
CL
(9)
c l i cw
0.9
Later in the design, this approximate relation must be modified to account for changes in the
wing geometry by using appropriate aerodynamic analysis & design software tools.

Page11

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

5. Calculate the wing maximum lift coefficient at takeoff (CLmax TO) and the associated Reynolds
number Re based on the mean aerodynamic chord c . At take-off, the wing is producing
maximum lift while operating close to its stall speed Vs, i.e., the takeoff speed VTO = 1.2Vs. Thus:
CLmax TO

2WTO
0.95 0VTO2 S

and

Re

0VTO c
0

(10)

where and are the air density and viscosity, respectively, at take-off altitude (usually sea
level), and WTO is the aircraft maximum/gross take-off weight.
6. Repeat steps 3 & 4 to obtain the airfoil gross maximum lift coefficient (clmax). This can be
found from the following relation:
CL
(11)
clmax gross max TO
0.9
where the airfoil gross maximum lift coefficient is the airfoil maximum lift coefficient in
which the effect of high lift device (e.g. flap) is included.
7. Select a high lift device (type, geometry, and maximum deflection). At this stage of design, only
a rough estimate of the high lift device contribution (CL,HLD) to the airfoil "gross" maximum lift
coefficient should be made. For a preliminary estimate, use data of Figure 1.21 of text or airfoil
data with split flap in Refs. 1 and 2. Note: The split flap data (cl and cd) in Refs. 1 and 2 is given
at different Re and for 60o flap deflection. The data for any other flap deflection can be found by
linear interpolation between clean and 60o-flap data. The choice of flap deflection is dictated by
the fact that the wing airfoil net maximum lift coefficient as follows:
(12)
clmax clmax gross C L , HDL
8. Identify airfoil section alternatives that deliver the desired cli (step 4) and clmax (step 8). This is a
very essential step. Figure 5 shows a collection of cli and clmax for several NACA airfoil sections
in just one graph (Ref. 7). The horizontal axis represents the airfoil ideal lift coefficient while
the vertical axis the airfoil maximum lift coefficient. Every black circle represents one NACA
airfoil section. For cli and clmax of other airfoil sections, refer to Refs. 1 & 2. If there is no airfoil
section that delivers the desired cli and clmax, select the airfoil section that is nearest to the design
point (desired cli and clmax).
9. If the wing is designed for a high subsonic passenger aircraft, select the thinnest airfoil (the
lowest t/cmax). The reason is to reduce the critical Mach number (Mcr) and the drag-divergent
Mach number (Mdd), i.e., the Mach number at which the slope of the CD versus M curve is 0.05
(Ref. 8). This allows the aircraft to fly closer to Mach one before the drag rise is encountered. In
general, a thinner airfoil will yield a higher Mcr than a thicker airfoil (Ref. 8). Figure 6 shows the
variation of the drag coefficient versus Mach number for three airfoil thickness ratios where the
Mdd of the 9% percent thick wing occurs at about 0.88. By reducing the wing t/cmax to 6 and 4
percent, the magnitude of the drag rise is progressively reduced, and the value of Mdd is
increased, moving closer to Mach one.
10. Among several acceptable alternatives, select the optimum airfoil by using a comparison table. A
typical comparison table which includes a typical weight for each design requirement is shown
in Table 5. Reference 9 is a rich resource for the systematic procedure of the selection technique
and table construction.

Page12

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Figure 5. Variation in maximum lift coefficient for various airfoil section ideal lift coefficients
(Ref. 7)

Page13

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Figure 6. Variation of wing drag coefficient versus Mach number with airfoil thickness ratio as a
parameter (Ref. 8). The wing is swept where the sweep angle is 47 degrees.
Table 5. A sample table to compare the features of five airfoil sections
Weight Airfoil 1

Design
objectives
cdmin
cmac

Airfoil 2 Airfoil 3 Airfoil 4 Airfoil 5

25%
15%
15%

s
L=0

10%

(cl/cd)max
ao or cl
Stall quality
Total

10%
5%
20%
100%

64

76

93

68

68

Example 2

Select a NACA airfoil section for the wing of a jet non-maneuverable GA aircraft with the
following characteristics:
mTO = 4000 kg, S = 30 m2, Vc = 250 knot (at 3000 m), Vs = 65 knot (sea level), and c 1 m . The
high lift device (split flap) will provide CL,HLD = 0.4 when deflected.
Solution:

Ideal (cruise) lift coefficient:

CLc

2Wave
2 4000 9.81

0.174
2
Vc S 0.9091 (250 0.5144) 2 30

Re

Vc c 0.9091 (250 0.5144) 1

6.8 million

1.694 10 5

M=

Vc
Vc
250 0.5144

0.39
a
RT
1.4(287 J/kg-K)(4.5o C 273.15)

CLcw

CLc
0.95

CL
0.183
0.174
0.204 cli 0.2
0.183 cli cw
0.9
0.9
0.95

Page14

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Maximum lift coefficient:

2WTO
2 4000 9.81
CLmax TO

1.3963
2
0.95 0VTO S 0.95 1.225 (1.2 65 0.5144) 2 30
ReTO

0VTO c 1.225 (1.2 65 0.5144) 1

2.75 3 million
1.789 105
0

1.3963
1.552
0.9
0.9
cl max gross CLHLD 1.552 0.4 1.152 cl max 1.2

cl max gross
cl max

C Lmax TO

Thus, we need to look for NACA airfoil sections that have an ideal lift coefficient of 0.2 (or an
airfoil with cli 0.2 cli + cli within the minimum drag bucket) and a net maximum lift
coefficient of equal or greater than 1.2. Moreover, since it is a jet aircraft (subsonic M = 0.39),
section 1.e and Table 3 suggest that the maximum airfoil thickness should be between 10% 15%,
i.e., the last two digits should be between 10 or 15 for NACA 5-digit or 6-series airfoils. Thus, from
Figure 5, we find the following airfoils whose characteristics are close to the design requirements,
i.e. cli = 0.2, cl max 1.2, and 10% t/cmax 15%:

NACA 66-210, 65-210, 63A210, 642-A215, 652-215, 641-212, 631-212, 632-215

Please note that Figure 5 lists a limited number of airfoils. For more or better choices, look up the
airfoils listed in References [1] and [2]. For this example, Reference [2] lists the following additional
airfoils that satisfy the design requirements:

NACA 0012, 1410, 1412, 2410, 2412, 2415, 4412, 4415, 23015, 63-210, 632-015, 632-415, 64-210,
641-112, 642-015, 642-215, 64A210, 641A212, 642A215, 651-212, 661-212, and 662-215

In order to select an airfoil from amongst these candidate airfoils, we follow a process of elimination.
In almost 99% of the design cases, a lower value of minimum drag coefficient cd min is desirable at or
near the ideal lift coefficient. As a first step, we eliminate all that have a cd min 0.005, i.e., NACA
0012, 1410, 1412, 2410, 2412, 2415, 4412, 4415, 23015, 632-015, 632-415 and 632-215. The
remaining candidate airfoils are:
NACA 63-210, 631-212, 63A210, 64-210, 641-112, 641-212, 642-015, 642-215, 64A210, 641A212,
642A215, 65-210, 651-212, 652-215, 66-210, 661-212, and 662-215

Next, we eliminate airfoils with very sharp stall characteristics, i.e., the lift curve drops off sharply
(almost vertical or within 2 degrees angle of attack for a cl = 0.2) just past the maximum lift
coefficient point. Although the sudden airfoil stall behavior does not necessarily imply sudden wing
stall behavior, a careful wing design can significantly modify the airfoil sharp stall tendency. In this
exercise, the airfoils with sharp stall characteristics include: NACA 63-210, 631-212, 63A210, 64210, 64A210, 65-210, 651-212, 66-210, and 661-212, which are excluded from the previous list. The
remaining candidate airfoils are:
NACA 641-112, 641-212, 642-015, 642-215, 641A212, 642A215, 652-215, and 662-215

Once the choice of candidate airfoils is reduced to a short-list (5-7 airfoils), a table should be drawn
that lists important aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoils to facilitate comparison and help
identify which airfoil is the best as demonstrated in Table 6.

Page15

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

Table 6. A comparison among five airfoil candidates for use in the wing of Example 2

No

NACA

cd min

cmac

s (deg) 0L (deg) cl max at

Flap up f = 60o ReTO

(cl /cd)max

Stall quality

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

641-112
641-212
642-015
642-215
641A212
642A215
652-215
662-215

0.0046
0.0043
0.0045
0.0047
0.0044
0.0047
0.0044
0.0035

-0.021
-0.027
0.000
-0.033
-0.035
-0.039
-0.030
-0.028

14
16
15.5
15.5
14
16
16
17

65
81.4
60
83.3
93.5
89
104
108

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Docile
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

-12
-12
-12
-13
-13
-13.5
-13
-13.5

1.45
1.50
1.33
1.39
1.48
1.34
1.42
1.45

The best airfoil is the airfoil whose cmac is negative and closest to zero, the cd min is the lowest, the
s is the highest, the (cl /cd)max is the highest, and the stall quality is docile.

By comparing the numbers in the above table, we can conclude the followings:

i. The NACA 662-215 airfoil section yields the highest maximum speed, since it has the
lowest cd min (0.0035).
ii. The NACA 641-212 airfoil section yields the lowest stall speed, since it has the highest cl max
(1.5).
iii. The NACA 662-215 airfoil section yields the highest endurance, since it has the highest (cl
/cd)max (111).
iv. The NACA 642-215 airfoil section yields the safest flight, due to docile stall quality.
v. The NACA 641-212 airfoil section delivers the lowest control problem in flight, due to the
lowest cmac (-0.027).

Since the aircraft is a non-maneuverable GA aircraft, the stall quality cannot be sharp; hence airfoils
with sharp stall are not acceptable. The NACA 662-215 airfoil section delivers the highest maximum
speed, highest endurance, second to best safest flight as well as lowest control problem in flight and
is, therefore, clearly the best choice for the design.
In this exercise, the final choice of airfoil was quite obvious. In cases, when there is no clear choice
of airfoil, the selection may be further refined by using a comparison table, such as Table 4,
incorporating the weighted design requirements.
Some Observations:

i. The NACA database refers to the NACA report 824 (Ref. 1) or the book by Abbot and Von
Doenhoff (Ref. 2). In fact both are almost same and by same authors. And this is only database
discussed in class as far as airfoil selection is concerned.
ii. During selection, you can choose any airfoil with a cl max value equal or greater than the required
value but not less than it.
iii. During cruise, the aircraft weight decreases as the fuel is consumed. Since a constant lift is
maintained by the wing, the aircraft altitude will continue to increase due to decrease in its
weight. Thus, to maintain constant altitude, the pilot must either lower the wing angle of attack,
i.e., decrease wing lift coefficient or slow down the aircraft. Thus, to avoid higher drag at lower
than ideal lift coefficient, the wing setting angle should be chosen considering the changes in lift
coefficient at the start and end of cruise segments. It is sometimes more preferable to have wider
drag bucket both for the above reason and to be safe from higher drag coefficient values that
could be encountered during gusts as a result of sudden changes in wing angle of attack.

Page16

AE240HandoutNo.2AirfoilSelectionGuideDr.FarooqSaeed

iv. References 1 or 2 provide split flap characteristics for some of the airfoils. During airfoil
selection, make sure that its flap characteristics (cl and cd curves for deflected flap) are given.
Moreover, in the NACA database, the flap characteristics are for 60 deg flap deflection. For
takeoff you can limit flap deflection to any value between 10 and 60 deg based on your
requirements. For the handout example, the maximum flap deflection was set to 20 deg. Thus to
get the lift characteristics for the 20 deg flap deflection, use linear interpolation between the data
for clean and flapped cases.
v. Stall characteristics:
Docile or Gentle
Moderate
Sharp or Abrupt

References:
1. Abbott, Ira H., and Von Doenhoff, Albert E., and Stivers, Louis Jr., Summary of Airfoil Data,
NACA Report 824, 1945. (Available on Blackboard)
2. Abbot, I. H. and A. E. Von Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Sections, Dover, Publications, New
York 1959. (A MUST-HAVE BOOK for all aerospace engineers!!!)
3. Eppler, Richard, Airfoil Design and Data, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990
4. Selig, M. S., UIUC Airfoil Data Site (www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads.html).
5. Lednicer, David , The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage, what airfoil(s) are used in the wing of
a particular aircraft (www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html).
6. Jackson P., Janes All the Worlds Aircraft, Jane's information Group, Various years.
7. Shevell R. S., Fundamentals of Flight, Prentice Hall, Second edition, 1989.
8. Anderson John D., Modern Compressible Flow, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2003.
9. Blanchard B. S. and Fabrycky W. J., Systems Engineering and Analysis, Prentice Hall, Third
edition, 2006.
Useful Links:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

UIUC Airfoil Data Site (www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads.html)

The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage (www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html)
Martin Hepperles Site (www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/index.htm),
Airfoil Comparison and more (http://airfoiltools.com/compare/index)
XFOIL (www.raphael.mit.edu/xfoil/index.html)
Kel Comp (www.ctaz.com/~kelcomp/)

Page17