MH-16 testing for Q500
08-11-2005, 09:21 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mexico city, MEXICO
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH-16 testing for Q500
Hi everyone,
Based on a previous post, it was commented by Spaghetti, that MH-16 airfoil tested better (in theory at least) than other airfoils even NACA 66-012.
I am really interested in testing it, so it would be very useful any comment of any previous experience with this airfoil as well as the incidence it needs to be set for straight flying.
Spaghetti comment it needs to be set -.8 or -1 degree
"The number one choice for Q500 is the 'newer' MH16. It clearly beats the E220, R140 by lightyears and also the older MH18 and MH18B."
"My numbers also show that the MH16 is better than the NACA64012 and the modded NACA 64012 (50%), and also better than the NACA66012"
Any experience will be very appreciated.
Best Regards
Victor.
Based on a previous post, it was commented by Spaghetti, that MH-16 airfoil tested better (in theory at least) than other airfoils even NACA 66-012.
I am really interested in testing it, so it would be very useful any comment of any previous experience with this airfoil as well as the incidence it needs to be set for straight flying.
Spaghetti comment it needs to be set -.8 or -1 degree
"The number one choice for Q500 is the 'newer' MH16. It clearly beats the E220, R140 by lightyears and also the older MH18 and MH18B."
"My numbers also show that the MH16 is better than the NACA64012 and the modded NACA 64012 (50%), and also better than the NACA66012"
Any experience will be very appreciated.
Best Regards
Victor.
