I found a Fortran source code and executable file that generates NACA 6 and 6A series airfoil ordinates on the PDAS website. I recompiled it, because the exe file they provided wouldn't run on my computer. It contained a program to create a postsript plot of the airfoil. I updated that. Lastly, I made an input file for the NACA 65A009 airfoil file. I am attaching this program here, for those that are interested.

It satisfies questions by Steve and Burrman. Moreover, you get the elliptical fit for the le and the sharp te. Also, you get lots of data points with a bit more significant digits. I looked over the output but haven't had a chance to compare it to the existing options. I don't plan on implementing this method. Some of the reasons being; I would have to remove the sharp trailing edge and put in the radius, I already have a method I prefer, the airfoil was defined and tested long before this code was created, the original definition uses a circle for the le and te that is tangent to the rest of the definition (whereas this version does not). The most important thing for me is to create an airfoil that represents the test data I am using. However, I thought some of you may enjoy having this information for your own work, since you have brought it up. I do plan on comparing it to what I'm doing, just to make sure they are in reasonable agreement, which I expect that they are.

Note, the Fortran code to do the ordinates is over 3,000 lines of code (about the same amount as PROP_DESIGN). Thus the reason I did not want to attempt programming it from scratch. Since I found it on the PDAS site, it was basically no work for me to provide this to you.

Enjoy,

Anthony

Edit; I got a chance to compare all methods and the error is roughly .035 in terms of 100 * x/c and 100 * y/c values. With the majority of the error being contained in the LE transition. Well within the margin of error, considering how the original points were obtained (with slide rules, drafting, charts, etc...). The only option that sticks to the NACA specs is the one I demonstrated with the screencast on my YouTube page. Burrman's method is acceptable as well. I wasn't impressed with the Fortran results. However, they could be beaten into a more usable form if so desired.

Edit 01/04/11: I just noticed in the summary of NASA TM X-3069 they get the same amount of error I am seeing (.035 in terms of percent x/c and y/c). Martin Hepperle's site makes use of this code apparently too. He notes, in the JavaFoil User Manual, not to use the output for the 6 series and instead use the original data sheets, which is what I have been doing. From what I can gather the 6 and 6A series can be traced back to NACA Report 383 by Theodorsen. This work could probably be translated to SMath Studio. A free Mathcad clone.

update; have since determined it is best to use the data points from NACA RM L51I12 for the 65A009 definition.