The 2412 having a curved lower shape will reguire some jigging of some form. The ClarkY should have the advantage in lower landing speeds and ease of building. So the 2412 will be more capable if you start doing much inverted flying or general stunting. Both are 12% or very close to it (11.7 for ClarkY). It has 1.92% camber compared to the Clark Y's 3.43%. I would say the 2412 is a better choice for your model.ΔΆ412 was a commonly used airfoil in many of the more succesful early RC birds of the 50's and 60's so you won't go too far wrong if you use it for your model. 2412 stalls at 12 degrees AOA with lift coef of 1.2. Clark Y stalls at 10 degrees AOA with lift coefficient of 1.0. I just looked deeper into my collection of data and found a hand drawn graph comparing Clark Y and 2412 at Reynolds number of 80,000-model size data. If you need stations to plot the airfoil you can send a PM and I will copy for you. I too (like Tall Paul) suspect the 2412 would work well on your model. I have used NACA 23018 on an original design (looks similar to an amateur designer although much thicker) and it flew very well including aerobatics. Your stall speed will depend on model weight and wing area. The data I have shows the stall at 20 to 22 degrees angle of attack for Reynolds number of 3 to 8 million with a lift coefficient of 1.4 to 1.6. I have some other data and modeling experience that tells me that airfoil results at modeling dimensions follow similar patterns. I am a chemical engineer so I can't stand behind any aeronautical calculations. The NACA 2412 data is given at a Reynolds number of 3,120,000 and may not be accurate for model sizes. I have a book on airfoil sections for full sized aircraft.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |