Bicycle Aerodynamics for those interested.

[1212FBGS]

the 021 would probably move the cp farther back but i like the NLF (1)-0414f much better... it has about 10% better laminar flow.... but i wouldn't use either in a 2D design...
Kent

[Blue]

the 021 would probably move the cp farther back but i like the NLF (1)-0414f much better... it has about 10% better laminar flow.... but i wouldn't use either in a 2D design...
Kent

I'm not a fan of the 0414, it's thin (less room for structure) and has a sharp leading edge radius.  This radius makes the profile very "peaky":  the laminar bucket is very deep, but only for a narrow range of alpha.  With the crosswinds that I saw at Bonneville, I would prefer a profile that didn't slam into a wall of drag at higher alpha.

Other than F-1 air racers, where the wing area is fixed, every trade study comes out against the 0414.  The sharp leading edge makes the stall hard and prevents the use of large flaps.  This forces more wing area, so the total drag is more, the stall higher, and the weight more than a thicker wing that is lighter and can use bigger flaps.

Remember that when looking at airfoil data in reference books, that data is for a 2D "infinite wing" and not applicable to bodies of revolution.  These can be much fatter for the same recovery as a 2D airfoil.

[k.h.]

So, is there much abrasion to the frontal area of salt racers in any diverse or given environmental conditions?  Just looking for an outlier observation that is separate from the wind tunnel data numbers.  Looking to test some paint in 2010.  Thnx.