Morphing wing with variable camber provides a mean of optimising aerodynamic performance (e.g. lift, drag, moment) across different flight phases without the gaps, noise and drag penalties associated with conventional high-lift devices [1]. Among morphing concepts, camber morphing remains one of the most aerodynamically effective and structurally practical strategies for adaptive lifting surfaces [2]. Parametrisation techniques include parabolic camber morphing and B-spline- or Class-Shape Transformation-based methods. However, most Computational Fluid Dynamics studies adopt a single morphing approach and rarely assess how the choice of parametrisation influences geometric fidelity and aerodynamic accuracy for widely used aerofoils, e.g. NACA-2412. Radial Basis Function (RBF) interpolation is typically used as a mesh-deformation tool, propagating prescribed structural or geometric displacements while the morphing law is defined independently, so its potential as a camber-morphing parametrisation remains underexplored. This study addresses that gap by using RBF control-point displacements as the parametrisation and comparing them, under same morphing inputs, with a traditional polynomial (parabolic) camber morphing. Test case is the Leading- and Trailing-edge Camber Morphing (LTCM)-2412 aerofoil, a variable-camber derivative of NACA-2412 with simultaneous leading-edge (LE) and trailing-edge (TE) camber morphing with same deflections imposed. Two-dimensional steady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations are conducted using ANSYS Fluent solver at Re = 3.9×10⁶, M = 0.15, and angles of attack from 0° to 20°. Geometric fidelity is evaluated by chord length, nose-curvature and camber-line smoothness, while performance is assessed by aerodynamic coefficients. Results show that the polynomial method shortens the chord and alters nose curvature under combined LE and TE deflection, whereas RBF preserves baseline geometry. These differences lead to prediction discrepancies in lift, drag and stall onset, with RBF giving slightly higher maximum lift and a delay in stall. The findings clarify how parametrisation choice influences both geometry and aerodynamics and provide guidance for variable-camber wing design and optimisation.