I have a Midwest Aerobat that I would like to create a model of in Realflight. Unfortunately, the manufacturer does not have NACA data for their airfoil. It is semi-symettrical, but I have not done any measurements on it.
What I would like to know is if there is a way for me to translate the cross-section of the airfoil (traced from the end of the wing) into a 4 or 5 digit NACA number.

Can you post a scan of the airfoil here? We should be able to get pretty close.

Nothing says it truly is a NACA section. So many designers use some generic airfoil or even draw it freehand based on experience that it's just as likely that it is a free form airfoil. Sure you can measure the thickness and max camber point and value but there's no guarantee that the shape is a NACA form. But if you measure a few stations you can get some Naca like numbers to use. You need the max thickness and the max camber and the point at which the max camber occurs. All those are expressed at % of the chord. The 4 digit naming convention is as follows. The first digit is the maximum camber value. The second times 10 is the location of the maximum camber and the final two digits are the thickness. The 5 digit series is much more complex to decipher but most models use shapes similar to the 4 digit series.

On the other hand it may be one of the Eppler or similar airfoils with the unique shape envelopes that go with these newer airfoils designed by other means then the basic geometrical NACA types.

Thanks for the feedback. I have played with a java scripted (?) interface that presents NACA airfoils.
(http://www.pagendarm.de/trapp/progra...les/NACA4.html)

As I said, I am hoping to find some NACA parameters (4 or 5 digit) that come close to my Aerobat. Then I will try to find out which Realflight add-on has something close to it. By the weekend, I'll post a scan of the tracing of the cross section of the wing.

It could be one of the ever popuar Nike airfoils

jess

We still use Florsheim as basis for most - an 11 C
On our models the difference in wind tunnel tests has proven to be - well--- very few steps apart .

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. I have been a little more focused on getting the real plane in the air. Having finally flown my Aerobat last weekend, I am pretty sure that the wing I have selected (NACA 2414) is pretty close. That being said, my other choice in the baseline version of RealFlight G2 (referred to as a Geo617) might also be a good fit. Any information I could get that would help me refine my simulation would be helpful.
Thanks for your feedback/help

You are a sick man Mr Hanson.... VERY sick.....

GadgetMann, the leading edge of your sketch looks a little blunt but it may just be your tracing. But if it is accurate you may indeed be dealing with a Nike or Florsheim special. I don't think a proper NACA would come out with that rounded a nose.