Design of Cambered Aerofoil For Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based On Subsonic Wind Tunnel Test

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
__________________
The most important factor for flying an aerial vehicle is the amount of lift generated. Again
the generation of lift depends on how much the flow is turned, which depends on the shape of
the object. In general, the lift is a very complex function of the shape. Thus optimising a
desired shape of aerofoil is a matter of great importance. This thesis involves such an
important topic and that is design of cambered aerofoil for unmanned aerial vehicle based on
subsonic wind tunnel test. The design of an Aerofoil usually starts with the definition of the
desired or required characteristics. These can be a certain range of lift coefficients, Reynolds
numbers, where the Aerofoil should perform best, moment coefficient, thickness, low drag,
high lift or any combination of such requirements. As there is no such an Aerofoil available,
which perfectly fits the desired conditions and fulfils all requirements, hence this effort was
attempted to design something new with improved performance.
The first section of this chapter provides with the description of aerofoil development, then
historical evolution and ends with a short description of aerofoil.
1.1Aerofoil development
The earliest serious work on the development of Aerofoil sections began in the late 1800's.
Although it was known that flat plates would produce lift when set at an angle of incidence,
some suspected that shapes with curvature that more closely resembled bird wings would
produce more lift or do so more efficiently. H.F. Phillips patented a series of Aerofoil shapes
in 1884 after testing them in one of the earliest wind tunnels in which "artificial currents of
air (were) produced from induction by a steam jet in a wooden trunk or conduit." Octave
Chanute writes in 1893, It seems very desirable that further scientific experiments be made
on concavo-convex surfaces of varying shapes, for it is not impossible that the difference
between success and failure of a proposed flying machine will depend upon the sustaining
effect between a plane surface and one properly curved to get a maximum of 'lift'."
At nearly the same time Otto Lilienthal had similar ideas. After carefully measuring the
shapes of bird wings, he tested the Aerofoils shown here (reproduced from his 1894 book,
"Bird Flight as the Basis of Aviation") on a 7m diameter "whirling machine". Lilienthal
believed that the key to successful flight was wing curvature or camber. He also
experimented with different nose radii and thickness distributions.
Fig 1.1: The earliest aerofoil design at last 19th century

Aerofoils used by the Wright Brothers closely resembled Lilienthal's sections: thin and highly
cambered. This was quite possibly because early tests of Aerofoil sections were done at
extremely low Reynolds number, where such sections behave much better than thicker ones.
The erroneous belief that efficient Aerofoils had to be thin and highly cambered was one
reason that some of the first airplanes were biplanes.
A wide range of Aerofoils was developed, based primarily on trial and error Some of the more
successful sections such as the Clark Y and Gottingen 398 were used as the basis for a family of
sections tested by the NACA in the early 1920's.
Fig 1.2: Aerofoil variation before World War II
Unusual Aerofoil design constraints can sometimes arise, leading to some unconventional
shapes. The Aerofoil here was designed for an ultra light sailplane requiring very high
maximum lift coefficients with small pitching moments at high speed. One possible solution:
a variable geometry Aerofoil with flexible lower surface.
1.2Historical evolution
A flat sheet makes a perfectly serviceable wing. That flat surfaces in the wind could produce
the sideways force that we now call lift was a very ancient observation. Two early
applications of it, the windmill and the fore-aft rigged sail, date back at least 800 years. It was
also perfectly evident to any thinking person that what kept birds and bats aloft were the large
flat surfaces attached to their arms. Neither the feathers of birds nor the fabric of sails and
windmill blades had any thickness to speak of, and so the earliest lifting surfaces were just
that: surfaces.
Thin surfaces restrained by a supporting structure naturally bellied out under air pressure,
assuming what we now call a "cambered" -- that is, arched -- shape. The fact that camber was
actually beneficial seems first to have been appreciated -- at least in writing -- by an English
civil engineer of the 18th century, John Smeaton, who noted that curving the surfaces of
their blades improved the performance of windmills.
For the next century and a half, nothing noteworthy occurred -- other than the invention of
the modern airplane, in 1804, by another Englishman, George Cayley.
When we arrive at the beginning of the 20th century, we find the Wrights conducting
systematic wind tunnel experiments to determine not only the best amount of camber to use,
but also the best fore-and-aft distribution of curvature. The Brazilian Santos-Dumont, whose
1906 Paris flights in his huge 14-bis ("Number 14 encore") are considered by some to have
been the first true powered flights because his airplane rolled and rose under its own power
(the Wrights employed a catapult and rail to get airborne in 1903), used very little camber,
perhaps because he knew that it made an airplane want to dive. On the other hand, the wings
of the Bleriot 11 that made the first aerial crossing of the English Channel had a great deal
more camber than they needed.
A number of early airplanes had sail-like wings, consisting of a single skin sewn to spars and
ribs. Such a wing lent itself to wing-warping, which was the earliest form of roll control.
Once ailerons appeared, wings had to be made rigid. By the time the First World War began,
well-streamlined biplanes of rather good performance were the rule; their wings had smooth
top and bottom surfaces with the structure hidden inside. Their cross-sections scarcely
5
deserved the name of Aerofoils, however. They were actually just eel-like shapes, rounded at
the front and tapered more or less to a point at the back, and thickened just enough to envelop
the necessary internal structure.
Despite the random and ad hoc quality of these early Aerofoil designs, efforts were being
made to sort out the wheat from the chaff in wind tunnels. At first, unfortunately,
investigators did not recognize the importance of scale. They tested very small models at very
low speeds, and, because speed and size actually play important roles in the behaviour of
flowing air, their results supported the mistaken guess that thin Aerofoils were superior.
By 1917 the gray eminence of German aerodynamic research, Ludwig Prandtl, had a wind tunnel at
Gttingen large enough to allow testing of full-scale Aerofoil sections at realistic speeds. He also had
a mathematical method of creating Aerofoil-like curves. He quickly discovered the superiority of
thick sections, whose larger leading-edge radii allowed them to reach higher angles of attack, and
thus to produce more lift before stalling, than thin ones could. The long-held belief that thicker
sections must have greater drag also proved to be false. Anthony Fokker immediately adopted thick
Aerofoils for the triplane of Red Baron fame. The British and French builders persisted with their thin
Aerofoils through the end of the war, but then abandoned them.
The Wright brothers had done some of the earliest research on the most effective curvature,
or camber, of a wing, known as an Aerofoil. But during the early years of powered flight,
Aerofoils for aircraft were essentially hand-built for each airplane. Before World War I, there
had been little research to develop a standardized Aerofoil section for use on more than one
6
aircraft. The British government had performed some work at the National Physical
Laboratory (NPL) that led to a series of Royal Aircraft Factory (RAFnot to be confused
with the Royal Air Force) Aerofoils. Aerofoils such as the RAF 6 were used on World War I
airplanes. Most American airplanes used either RAF sections or a shape designed by
Frenchman Alexandre Gustave Eiffel (best known for designing the Eiffel Tower).
The mean camber line shown in this illustration is the line that is equidistant at all points
between the upper and lower surfaces of the Aerofoil.
When the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) was established in 1915, its
members immediately recognized the need for better Aerofoils. The first NACA Annual
Report stated the need for "the evolution of more efficient wing sections of practical form,
embodying suitable dimensions for an economical structure, with moderate travel of the
centre of pressure and still affording a large angle of attack combined with efficient action."
NACA explained its first work with Aerofoils in 1917 NACA Technical Report No. 18,
"Aerofoils and Aerofoil Structural Combinations." The authors noted that mathematical
theory had not yet been applied to Aerofoil design and most of their work was trial and error.
They had tested a number of brass Aerofoil models with a span of 18 inches and a chord (or
maximum width) of 3 inches in a wind tunnel. With this report, they introduced the U.S.A.
series of Aerofoils and reported wind tunnel data for the U.S.A. 1 through U.S.A. 6 sections.
The authors stated that slight variations in Aerofoil design resulted in large differences in
aerodynamic performance, a fact that required extensive and careful research in order to
obtain the best possible performance from an Aerofoil.
In 1933, NACA issued its monumental Technical Report No. 460, "The Characteristics of 78
Related Aerofoil Sections from Tests in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel." The authors of
this report described the NACA four-digit Aerofoil series. The four digits defined the overall
shape of the Aerofoil. For instance, NACA Aerofoil 2412 had a maximum camber of 2
percent of the length of the chord, represented by the first digit; the maximum camber
occurred at a distance of 0.4 chord (or 4/10 or 40 percent) from the leading edge, indicated by
the second digit; and the maximum thickness of the Aerofoil was 12 percent (0.12) of the
overall width (or chord length) of the wing, represented by the last two digits. So if Aerofoil
2412 has a chord length of 10 feet, its maximum camber would be (0.02)10 = 0.2 feet; the
maximum camber would be located 40 percent (0.4) away from the leading edge (0.4)10 =
4 feet; and the maximum thickness of the Aerofoil would be 0.12(10) = 1.2 feet.
Not all 78 Aerofoil sections would necessarily be used by airplane designers, but the testing
data gave aircraft manufacturers a wide selection. After this report was published, the NACA
Aerofoils became widely used, and the NACA 2412 continued in use on some light airplanes
more than half a century later.
NACA Technical Report 460 represented a major contribution to the development of the
Aerofoil. The information in the report eventually found its way into the designs of many
U.S. aircraft of the time, including a number of important aircraft during World War II. The
DC-3 transport, the B-17 Flying Fortress bomber, and the twin-tailed P-38 Lightning
interceptor airplane all relied upon the Aerofoil information in Report 460.
During the 1930s the U.S. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA,
developed and tested "families" of Aerofoils. Some of the most successful of these were the
NACA four-digit and five-digit series, which consisted of a "basic thickness form" -- a
symmetrical "teardrop" shape-superimposed on a "camber line" from which the profile
derived most of its aerodynamic characteristics, such as the amount of lift it produced at an
angle of attack of zero, and the strength of the "pitching moment" or diving tendency that
camber tended to produce. Many of those sections are still in use today and NACA's 23000
series, created in 1935, is probably the most widely used Aerofoil in history.
8
Despite all the highly technical theoretical work done by NACA, there continued to be a
parallel tradition of what might be called barefoot Aerofoil design. It grew out of the
recognition that the Aerofoils on real wings, many of which were still skinned with fabric at
the time, did not bear much resemblance to idealized wind tunnel models. In practice,
anything that looked like an Aerofoil worked like an Aerofoil. The finest flower of the
barefoot school was the Clark Y, a 1922 invention of a Colonel Virginius Clark, who arrived
at it by the highly unscientific expedient of deforming one of the wartime Gttingen
Aerofoils to make the aft 70 percent of its bottom flat. The flat bottom turned out to be a very
attractive feature. It facilitated construction (especially for modellers, who flocked to the
Clark Y because it allowed them to make a wing straight by simply pinning it down to a flat
surface while the glue dried) and measurement of angle of attack, and it simplified the
carving of propeller blades. In spite of its possessing no special aerodynamic merit, the Clark
Y has been used in a great variety of airplanes.
By 1940, Aerofoil development had passed three milestones -- or at least what I think of as
milestones. The first was the general recognition, not due to any single investigator, that
camber aided the production of lift, and that if an Aerofoil had more than negligible thickness
it needed to be rounded in the front and somewhat sharp in the back. The next was the
discovery, due to Prandtl, that thickness -- meaning thickness greater than, say, a tenth of the
chord length -- was beneficial. The third milestone was the systematization of profiles -largely the work of a NACA Langley researcher named Eastman Jacobs -- into "families"
with well-documented characteristics, which allowed designers to select suitable sections
from a catalogue. (By the way, the words "Aerofoil," "profile" and "section" are
synonymous)
The fourth milestone was a revolution in the relationship between mathematics and Aerofoil
design. From the early days, various kind of mathematical functions had been used to
generate Aerofoil shapes. But these procedures were not based on the physics of fluid flow;
they were just equations that happened to produce smoothly curved lines that looked like
Aerofoils. In 1931, another NACA aerodynamicist, Theodore Theodorsen, invented a
mathematical method of calculating the pressure distribution on any Aerofoil. The pressure
distribution is very important; it is the key to the Aerofoil's drag, lift and stalling behaviour.
Theodorsen was a confident fellow. When his calculated results did not precisely coincide
with wind-tunnel measurements, he airily dismissed the empirical results as unreliable.
9
Relations between Theodorsen and the experimentalist Eastman Jacobs were prickly, and
when Jacobs, playing against type, proposed reversing Theodorsen's method in order to
obtain an Aerofoil shape that would generate a desired pressure distribution, Theodorsen
dismissed the idea as mathematically nonsensical. Jacobs persisted, however, and he
succeeded in creating the procedure used to design profiles in digital computers today.
The first fruit of Jacobs' work was the natural laminar flow Aerofoil. (Natural, in this context,
means that no powered method, such as boundary-layer suction, is used to maintain laminar
flow.) His work was based on the knowledge that the behaviour of the boundary layer -- the
thin layer of air, close to the Aerofoil surface, that the airplane drags along with it -- is
influenced by the pressure distribution. A laminar boundary layer, in which all air particles
follow paths parallel to the Aerofoil surface, could be sustained along the front of an
Aerofoil, as its upper and lower surfaces grew farther apart. But when the surfaces began to
converge, tiny turbulent eddies and vortices would appear in the boundary layer. The drag of
a laminar boundary layer is much less than that of a turbulent one. All Aerofoils have some
laminar flow, but the new family of laminar profiles developed by the NACA extended the
laminar boundary layer to as much as 60 percent of the Aerofoil's length, reducing drag by as
much as two-thirds.
As John Anderson notes in his History of Aerodynamics, the laminar Aerofoils, first used on
the P-51 Mustang, were successful in reducing drag in the wind tunnel but less successful in
the field because the irregularities of practical metal construction, along with general wearand-tear and unavoidable bug splatter, would disrupt the temperamental laminar boundary
layer. Yet they proved to be successful in an unexpected way; laminar-flow sections, with
their maximum thickness far aft, turned out to be well-suited for high-speed airplanes,
because they were less prone to early formation of transonic shock waves. Anderson might
have added that they had some success, even in the field and on low-speed airplanes, when
composite wings came into use. A high-performance sailplane with a non-laminar Aerofoil is
unthinkable today.
The fifth milestone in Aerofoil evolution comes with the development of foils especially
designed for flight below, but close to, the speed of sound. These so-called supercritical
Aerofoils have thick noses, flattish tops and aft camber, all characteristics designed to delay
the onset of shock waves due to local supersonic flow.
10
You might suppose that supersonic Aerofoils would represent yet another great advance, but
in fact they are not Aerofoils in the normal sense at all. The laws of supersonic flight are
entirely different from those of subsonic flight, and purely supersonic wing sections dispense
with sophisticated camber and thickness distribution; a flattened diamond shape, or even, as
on the stabilizing surfaces of the X-15, a triangle with a bluff aft end, is sufficient. A knife
blade is as good a supersonic wing as anything else. The wings of supersonic airplanes do, in
fact, still have Aerofoils -- generally very thin ones -- but that is only because they take off
and land at subsonic speed.
In the late 1930s, the NACA performed more research on Aerofoils with the goal of
increasing maximum lift. This resulted in the NACA five-digit Aerofoil series and Aerofoils
such as the 23012, which is used on the Beech craft Bonanza aircraft. The first digit and the
last two digits in this series designate camber and thickness as in the four-digit series.
However, the second digit indicates twentieths of a chord rather than tenths as in the fourdigit series (3/20 in this example). And the middle digit is used to indicate either a straight
mean camber line (0) or a curved mean camber line (1). (The mean camber line is the line
that is equidistant at all points between the upper and lower surfaces of the Aerofoil. It is also
referred to as the "mean line.")
One of the problems with the NACA Aerofoil research performed up until the late 1930s was
that aerodynamicists could not test an entire wing section. They did not have a wind tunnel
big enough to mount an entire wing and so they tested only a part of the wing and then
extrapolated the data to a full wing. But the problem with this approach was that the
researchers could not determine the effects of the airflow at the tip of the wing, which was
often quite important to understanding its overall performance.
This changed in 1939 when the NACA constructed a new low-turbulence two-dimensional
wind tunnel at Langley Research Centre in Virginia. This wind tunnel was exclusively
dedicated to Aerofoil testing. Once it was constructed, NACA aerodynamicists conducted a
huge number of tests in the wind tunnel on a wide range of Aerofoil designs.
By the end of the 1930s, NACA aerodynamicists had turned their attention to laminar-flow
Aerofoils (laminar flow relates to the smooth flow of air over a structure). The laminar-flow
Aerofoils (NACA's six series) were shaped with their maximum thickness far back from the
11
leading edge. The first aircraft to use the laminar-flow Aerofoils for their low-drag qualities
was North American's P-51 Mustang, and they are still used quite extensively today on many
high-speed aircraft. Although, in most cases, when used in actual flight outside of the wind
tunnel, these Aerofoils behaved much like traditional Aerofoils, they proved to have excellent
high-speed characteristicsan unexpected but welcome result.
The North American XP-51 Mustang was the first aircraft to incorporate a NACA laminarflow Aerofoil. It was used extensively during World War II.
NACA Aerofoil development was virtually halted in 1950 as the aerodynamicists switched
their attention to supersonic and hypersonic aerodynamics. But in 1965, Richard T.
Whitcomb developed the NASA supercritical Aerofoil. This was a revolutionary
development, for it allowed the design of wings with high critical Mach numbers, which can
operate at high speeds.
After Whitcomb's breakthrough, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), which was created in 1958 and absorbed the NACA, revived U.S. Aerofoil
research? It developed a low-speed Aerofoil series for use by general aviation on light
airplanes. These low-speed Aerofoils, designated LS (1), LS (2), and so on, have better lifting
characteristics than their predecessors and allow smaller wing areasand hence less drag
12
for small private aircraft. But it is not uncommon to find aircraft in operation today that still
use the NACA four-digit and five-digit Aerofoil sections developed in the 1930s and 1940s.
In 1939, Eastman Jacobs at the NACA in Langley, designed and tested the first laminar flow
Aerofoil sections. These shapes had extremely low drag and the section shown here achieved
a lift to drag ratio of about 300.
A modern laminar flow section, used on sailplanes, illustrates that the concept is practical for
some applications. It was not thought to be practical for many years after Jacobs
demonstrated it in the wind tunnel. Even now, the utility of the concept is not wholly
accepted and the "Laminar Flow True-Believers Club" meets each year at the homebuilt
aircraft fly-in.
One of the reasons that modern Aerofoils look quite different from one another and designers
have not settled on the one best Aerofoil is that the flow conditions and design goals change
from one application to the next. On the right are some Aerofoils designed for low Reynolds
numbers.
13
At very low Reynolds numbers (<10,000 based on chord length) efficient Aerofoil sections
can look rather peculiar as suggested by the sketch of a dragonfly wing. The thin, highly
cambered pigeon wing is similar to Lilienthal's designs. The Eppler 193 is a good section for
model airplanes. The Lissaman 7769 was designed for human-powered aircraft.
Unusual Aerofoil design constraints can sometimes arise, leading to some unconventional
shapes. The Aerofoil here was designed for an ultra light sailplane requiring very high
maximum lift coefficients with small pitching moments at high speed. One possible solution:
a variable geometry Aerofoil with flexible lower surface.
14
The Aerofoil used on the Solar Challenger, an aircraft that flew across the English Channel
on solar power, was designed with a totally flat upper surface so that solar cells could be
easily
mounted.
The wide range of operating conditions and constraints, generally makes the use of an
existing, "catalogue" section, not best. These days Aerofoils are usually designed especially
for their intended application. The remaining parts of this chapter describe the basic ideas
behind how this is done.
.
Today, it is routine to custom-design the Aerofoils for each new airplane on a computer. In a
way, as Anderson remarks, Aerofoil design has come full circle. In the early years, each new
airplane might get a new Aerofoil. The same is true today-but today we no longer design new
Aerofoils in ignorance of how they work.
15
CHAPTER 2
AEROFOIL THEORY
2.1 Aerofoil
An Aerofoil (in American English) or aerofoil (in British English) is the shape of a wing or
blade (of a propeller, rotor or turbine) or sail as seen in cross-section.
An Aerofoil-shaped body moved through a fluid produces an aerodynamic force. The

component of this force perpendicular to the direction of motion is called lift. The component
parallel to the direction of motion is called drag. Subsonic flight Aerofoils have a
characteristic shape with a rounded leading edge, followed by a sharp trailing edge, often
with asymmetric camber. Foils of similar function designed with water as the working fluid
are called hydrofoils.
The lift on an Aerofoil is primarily the result of its angle of attack and shape. When oriented
at a suitable angle, the Aerofoil deflects the oncoming air, resulting in a force on the Aerofoil
in the direction opposite to the deflection. This force is known as aerodynamic force and can
be resolved into two components: Lift and drag. Most foil shapes require a positive angle of
attack to generate lift, but cambered Aerofoils can generate lift at zero angle of attack. This
"turning" of the air in the vicinity of the Aerofoil creates curved streamlines which results in
lower pressure on one side and higher pressure on the other. This pressure difference is
accompanied by a velocity difference, via Bernoulli's principle, so the resulting flow field
about the Aerofoil has a higher average velocity on the upper surface than on the lower
16
surface. The lift force can be related directly to the average top/bottom velocity difference
without computing the pressure by using the concept of circulation and the Kutta-Joukowski
theorem.
2.2 Aerofoil Design Characteristics
An Aerofoil is essentially a wing. While all Aerofoils share characteristics, not all of them are
used for flight. Some use the characteristics to have other aerodynamic effects. The primary
characteristic of the Aerofoil is a curve that causes a differential in air pressure on one side of
the Aerofoil.
Purpose
All Aerofoils are designed to affect the air and subsequently affect the car, boat,
airplane or other object they're attached to. Airplanes don't just use them for vertical
lift; they use them to navigate right and left and sometimes as stabilizers. Race cars
often employ an upside down wing. These foils press toward the ground, snugging the
car tight to the ground, improving traction. As with all Aerofoils, deign challenge is to
create an Aerofoil that will create adequate pressure differential while minimizing
drag, the pressure required to push the foil through the air.
Curve
Aerofoils are more complex than a flat plane angled in a direction to create deflection.
The foil or wing is curved. One side of the wing has a slightly exaggerated curve
17
making it a longer distance from the leading edge of the foil to the trailing edge than
the other side of the foil.
Pressure Differential
This differential in distance causes a differential in pressure as air passes over each
side of the foil. Imagine still air hitting the leading edge of the foil at high speed. The
air wants to pass around the foil. The density of air on the longer plane of the foil
stretches out and speeds up the way water speeds through a garden hose nozzle. The
air on the shorter side creates an eddy. Pressure builds and it creates lift.
Leading Edge
Nearly all air foils have a sharp trailing edge and a relatively gentle radius on the
leading edge. This edge causes less disruption as the foil moves through the air,
letting air move around it gently with as little drag as possible. Imagine the difference
between a sharp-edged scraper moving across a surface and a smooth, rounded
surface. The rounded surface doesn't cut into the air the way a sharper edge would.
18
2.3 Types
The cross-sectional shape or profile that is obtained by the intersection of an airplane wing
with a perpendicular plane is known as an Aerofoil. Aerofoils are of different shapes are sizes
depending on the specifications and configuration of the intended aircraft.
There are three basic types of Aerofoils.

1. Semi-symmetrical Aerofoils
2. Symmetrical Aerofoils
3. Flat Bottom Aerofoils
Fig 2.1: Three Basic types of Aerofoils
19
2.4 Aerofoil terminology:
An Airfoil (in American English) or aerofoil (in British English) is the shape of a wing or
blade (of a propeller, rotor or turbine) or sail as seen in cross-section. Subsonic flight
Aerofoils have a characteristic shape with a rounded leading edge, followed by a sharp
trailing edge, often with asymmetric camber.
Figure 2.2: Aerofoil geometry
The various terms related to aerofoil:
The mean chamber line is the line drawn midway between upper and lower surface.
The most forward and rearward points of mean camber line are leading and trailing
edges respectively.
The straight line connecting the leading and trailing edges is the chord line of the
aerofoil.
The chord is the length of chord line.
Camber is the asymmetry between the top and the bottom surfaces of an aerofoil.
The thickness is the distance between upper and lower surface and measured
perpendicular to the chord line.
20
2.5 Aerodynamic Forces
The aerodynamic forces acting on a body may be described by lift, drag and pitching moment.
Lift is the net vertical force and drag is the net horizontal force with respect to the direction of
the motion. The pitching moment reflects the tendency of the Aerofoil to pitch about a given
reference point. These quantities are derived from the normal force and axial force acting on
the Aerofoil by trigonometric relations (Eq. (1)).
FL Ncos
FD Acos
Asin
Nsin
(1)
The normal force (N) is defined as the force perpendicular to the Aerofoil chord and the axial
force (A) is the force acting parallel to the chord. It can be seen in these equations that the lift
force (FL) and the drag force (FD) are both derived from the same normal and axial force.
However, the angle of attack () determines how much of the normal and axial forces transfer
into lift and how much into drag. The pitching moment may be expressed by an integral of the
net moments acting on the Aerofoil (Eq. (2)).
M=
(2)
In this equation, the differential moments are taken with respect to a given reference and then
integrated from the leading edge to the trailing edge. A graphical representation of these forces
is shown in Figure 2.3.
21
Figure 2.3: Aerodynamic forces
2.6 Low-Speed Aerodynamics
In low-speed flows, where the free stream velocity is well under Mach 0.3, several
idealizations may be applied to simplify fluid dynamics analysis. One such idealization was
that the air density was assumed constant since it varies by only a few percent from speeds of
0 to 300 mph. This idealization is known as incompressible flow. Another idealization,
inviscid flow, was made by neglecting viscous effects such as friction, thermal conduction and
diffusion. Such effects are known to be minimal for low-speed air flow and this idealization is
well supported by current theory. The flow was assumed to be steady, and the body forces
acting on the working fluid were assumed to be minor compared to dynamic effects. These
idealized conditions are sufficient to allow the use of Bernoullis equation, (Eq. (3)), in lowspeed flow analysis.
Bernoullis equation may also be derived from the momentum equation by
considering a differential control volume and applying the assumptions made previously. The
resulting equation shows that the sum of the local pressure (p) and dynamic pressure (Eq. (4))
are constant throughout a given flow. From this equation, the local velocities may be
computed from knowledge of upstream data and local pressure so that all of the flow
characteristics may be obtained.
22
P + 2 2 = constant = P +
(3)
= 2 2
(4)
Effects of the wind tunnel walls may be ignored by applying the inviscid flow approximation.
By doing so, the flow may be assumed to be uniform except over the Aerofoil. Uniform flow
simplifies control volume analysis, and allows the consideration of a full length Aerofoil as a
2D profile. The assumption of uniform flow is justified due to the smooth wind tunnel walls,
the filtered flow, and the controlled entry flow into the test section.
2.7 Characterizing Aerofoil Performance
Aerofoil performance may be characterized by quantities such as the lift, drag or pitching
moment produced under different operating conditions. These aerodynamic forces are often
computed from the total pressure over the planform area, and then normalized by the dynamic
pressure in order to produce non-dimensional quantities. For example, the lift coefficient may
be expressed as (Eq. (5)). The drag and normal force coefficients may also be expressed in a
similar manner as (Eq. (6)) and (Eq. (7)). The pitching moment must also be normalized by
the chord length in order to produce a non dimensional moment coefficient (Eq. (8)).
(5)
(6)
()dc

(7)
= 1
(8)
2
2
These non-dimensional quantities are functions of the Reynolds number and the angle of
attack. The Reynolds influence may be seen by the inclusion of the density ( ) and velocity
( ) terms. While the angle of attack (aoa) influences is implied through the force, moment
23
and area terms. Thus to in order appreciate the full range of responses of a given Aerofoil, it is
necessary to consider a range of Reynolds numbers and angles of attack. Variation in the
Reynolds number produces different lift curves, while variations in the angle of attack will
alter the lift-drag ratio.
24
CHAPTER 3
WIND TUNNEL THEORY
_________________________________________
3.1 Calibration of the Tunnel:

A suitable initial experiment to perform with the tunnel is to survey the velocity at the inlet to
the working section. This allows students to become familiar with the operation of the tunnel
and yield useful data for further work.
The velocity is surveyed at:
1. The working section centre line to establish a reference velocity.

2. Various distances from the floor to the ceiling of the working section to check
the uniformity of the velocity and show the height of the boundary layer.
3. Various planes along the length of the working section.
The pilot tube static wall tapping measure the stagnation pressure and the static
pressure at the wall. Referring to Bernoullis equation, the difference between the stagnation
and static pressure are connected to each limb of either one of the manometers provided on
the Control and Instrumentation Frame.
25
The velocity at the point of measurement is given by:

V=
29.81
100
Where:
=
V= velocity
T= Ambient temperature
P= Ambient atmospheric pressure
R= Gas constant
3.2 Calibration of AFA3:

The AFA3 unit is delivered already set up and calibrated by TecQuipment; however, it may
sometimes be necessary to recheck the calibration of the apparatus.
To calibrate the AFA3 balance:
1. Fit the balance to its calibration/storage frame; place the assembly onto to a table so
that the back of the apparatus is close to the edge of the table.
2. Make sure the large pulley wheel is turned around to the rear of the frame (it may
have been shipped the other way round for easy packing.
3. Connect the cable from the balance to the display unit.
4. Use a spirit level across the top of the back plate to make sure that the balance is level,
adjust the four feet of the calibration frame if necessary. Also, place the spirit level up
the back of the back plate to check that it is vertical.
5. Slide the T shaped calibration arm from the top of the calibration frame and insert it
into the model holder from behind, with the bar roughly horizontal.
6. On the display module, press and hold the zero button. At the same time, switch on
the power. Wait a few seconds for the unit to settle. The display is now in the
26
calibration mode It will show the individual readings from the load cells as FORE,
AFT and DRAG (the display normally shows lift, drag and pitching moment).
7. Undo the centering clamps. The zero readings for each of the load cell should be 0 +/5 N. Make a note of the entire zero readings.
8. Precede with the following calibration procedures.
3.3 Drag Calibration:
Fig 3.1: Drag Calibration
1. Unscrew and fit the small pulley to the central hole on the calibration arm.
2. Fit the looped end of the cord (supplied) around the small pulley.
3. Run the cord around the large pulley.
4. Hang a 5 kg mass from the ringed end of the cord.
5. Read the DRAG value; subtract the zero reading from earlier. The result should
49.10 N.
27
3.4 Fore/Aft Calibration:
.
Fig 3.2: Fore/Aft Calibration
1. Allow the cord to hang straight down from the small pulley.
2.
Attach a 10 kg mass.
3.
Read the FORE and AFT values. Subtract the zero readings from earlier. The result
should be 49.10 N.
28
3.5 Moment Calibration:
Fig 3.3: Moment Calibration
1. Move the small pulley to the left hand hole of the left hand hole of the calibration
arm; use a spirit level to ensure it is level.
2. Attach a 4 kg mass to the cord.
3. Read the FORE and AFT readings. Subtract the zero readings from earlier. The
results should be 39.2 N for the FORE load cell and 0N for the AFT load cell.
Remove the mass. Tap the frame and check that the readings return to zero +/- 0.2
N. If the readings are much greater or smaller than +/- 0.2 N, then contact
TecQuipment or your local agent for instructions.
29
CHAPTER 4
AEROFOIL SELECTION
_________________________________________
The aerofoil, in many respects, is the heart of the airplane. The aerofoil affects the cruise
speed, takeoff and landing distances, stall speed and overall aerodynamic efficiency during
all phases of flight.
4.1 Aerofoil Design Considerations:
Design considerations: 1-7(Daniel P. Raymer), 8, 17(Egbert Torenbeek), 9-16&18(Denis

Howe)
1. Aerofoil characteristics are strongly affected by the Reynolds numbers at which
they are operating. Reynolds number, the ratio between the dynamic and the viscous
forces in a fluid, is equal to (Vl/), where V is the velocity, l the length the fluid has
travelled down the surface, the fluid density, and the fluid viscosity coefficient.
The Reynolds number influences whether the flow will be laminar or turbulent, and
whether flow separation will occur.
2. Another consideration in modern Aerofoil design is the desire to maintain laminar
flow over the greatest possible part of the Aerofoil.
3. thickness ratio has some effect upon the maximum lift coefficient
30
4. The drag increases with increasing thickness due to increased separation.

5. For initial selection of the thickness ratio, the historical trend shown in Fig. 4.14 can
be used. Note that a supercritical Aerofoil would tend to be about 10% thicker (i.e.,
conventional Aerofoil thickness ratio times1.1) than the historical trend.
6. In incompressible flow conditions relatively high thickness to chord ratios of up to 0.2

are acceptable
7. The basic Aerofoil must have a low profile drag coefficient for the range of lift
coefficients used in cruising flight.
8. The maximum lift coefficient both at low and higher Mach numbers
31
9. The stalling characteristics where a gentle loss of lift is preferable, especially for light
aircraft.
10. The aerofoil drag especially in aircraft climb and cruise conditions, when the lift
to drag ratio should be as high as possible
11. The aerofoil pitching moment characteristics which may be particularly important at
higher speeds. If it is unduly large there may be a significant trim drag penalty.
12. The nose radius, which should be relatively large to give good maximum lift
coefficient.
13. Trailing edge angle, which is often best made as small as is feasible.
14. The maximum lift coefficient of a basic, two dimensional, aerofoil can vary over a
wide range
15. In the case of a low speed aerofoil and an advanced one for use at high subsonic Mach
number a maximum lift coefficient of about 1.6 is typical.
16. Increase of thickness to chord ratio also results in a reduction of critical Mach
number. Various formulae and data sources have been derived to enable critical
Mach number to be evaluated. Subsonic airliner: MCRIT = 0.9 - (t/c) approx.
32
17. For preliminary design purposes the most critical aerofoil parameters are the
maximum lift coefficient and the related high speed drag characteristics, and lift curve
slope.
18. All these requirements cannot be satisfied by one single Aerofoil. Span wise variation
of the sectional shape and some measure of compromise will therefore generally be
accepted.
4.2 Performance Requirement:

On an air surveillance mission, purpose is to watch for ground or sea activity of various sorts,
or monitoring the path and characteristics of a hurricane. Our main concern is staying in the
air for the longest possible time. We want the airplane to have long endurance. A good
solution to the long endurance flight is to operate the aircraft at almost maximum lift
and lowest cruise speed with engine power just good enough to maintain the altitude
and against the wind, so as to reach the minimum fuel consumption and longest
mission endurance.
By definition, endurance is the amount of time that an airplane can stay in the air on one load
of fuel.
We know for a jet propelled airplane thrust specific fuel consumption is given by
33
[assuming
Ct
&
L/D
=constant]
This is the general equation for endurance E of an airplane.

From above equation we see that (L/D) is the only aerodynamic parameter upon which
endurance depends upon and as our purpose is surveillance which requires best endurance. So
we will get best endurance for (L/D) max
Hence we should search for such an aerofoil which will gives us best (L/D)
Following are the requirements which are required to meet to develop new long-endurance
Aerofoils:
High operational lift coefficient, Cl>1;
High endurance factor Cl/Cd;
Less value of dCl/d
Limited pitching moment coefficient Cm;
Large relative thickness t/c.
So we have to select such an aerofoil having the above characteristics.
34
CHAPTER 5
Experimental Investigation
_________________________________________
5.1 Data for Aerofoil-1
Air density=1.225
viscosity=1.83e-5 Pa-s
aerofoil chord=25 cm
Geometric Specification of Aerofoil-1:
X(L)
1
0.95
0.9
Y(L)
0
-0.00138
-0.00276
X(U)
1
0.95
0.9
Y(U)
0.0012
0.01352
0.02524
Thickness
0.0012
0.0149
0.028
35
Camber
0.0006
0.00607
0.01124
Chord
1
0.95
0.9
t/c
0.0012
0.015684
0.031111
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0.0125
-0.00552
-0.00828
-0.01104
-0.0138
-0.01656
-0.01932
-0.02208
-0.02346
-0.02454
-0.02453
-0.02352
-0.02071
-0.01696
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0.0125
0.04668
0.06522
0.08046
0.0916
0.09774
0.09818
0.09052
0.08204
0.06936
0.06097
0.05068
0.03559
0.02395
0.0522
0.0735
0.0915
0.1054
0.1143
0.1175
0.1126
0.1055
0.0939
0.0855
0.0742
0.0563
0.04091
0.02058
0.02847
0.03471
0.0389
0.04059
0.03943
0.03422
0.02929
0.02241
0.01822
0.01358
0.00744
0.003495
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0.0125
Table 5.1: Geometric Specification of Aerofoil-1
At wind speed 5.97m/s or Re=100000
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Cd
0.03535
0.05695
0.13793
29.96728
-0.97948
11.52364
2.65337
1.32001
0.95062
0.818
0.09539
0.09123
0.24334
3.88143
0.17978
0.21209
Cl
1.548
1.582
1.62
1.694
1.783
1.94
2.084
2.24
2.408
2.584
2.769
2.943
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
Cm
-0.269
-0.292
-0.323
-0.356
-0.394
-0.435
-0.485
-0.541
-0.604
-0.672
-0.747
-0.826
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
L/D
43.789
27.772
11.749
0.057
-1.82
0.168
0.786
1.697
2.533
3.16
29.028
32.256
9.764
0.62
17.677
14.784
Table 5.2: Experimental Data for Aerofoil-
36
0.06525
0.105
0.1525
0.2108
0.28575
0.391667
0.563
0.703333
0.939
1.14
1.484
2.252
3.2728
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Fig 5.1: Cl Vs plot of Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000
Cd Vs
35
30
25
20
Cd
15
10
5
0
-10
-5
-5 0
10
15
20
Fig 5.2: Cd Vs for aerofoil 1 at Re=100000
37
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
-0.4
Cm
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
Fig 5.3: Cm Vs of Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000
L/D
50
40
L/D
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10
10
15
20
Fig 5.4: L/D Vs for Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000
38
25
30
Cl Vs Cd
3.5
3
Cl
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd
Fig 5.5: Cl Vs Cd of Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000
So for Aerofoil-1 at for Re=100000

(d Cl /d)max = 0.085625
Cl max =3.178
(Cl /Cd )max = 43.789
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
-5 0.03672
1.55 -0.269 42.198
-3 0.04447
1.582 -0.292 35.575
-1 0.10399
1.621 -0.323 15.583
1 21.19162
1.694 -0.356
0.08
3 -0.98054
1.783 -0.394 -1.818
5 8.14862
1.94 -0.435
0.238
7 1.87645
2.084 -0.485
1.111
9
0.9332
2.24 -0.541
2.401
11 0.67562
2.408 -0.604
3.564
13 0.57781
2.584 -0.672
4.473
15 0.07134
2.769 -0.747 38.814
17 0.07306
2.943 -0.826 40.278
39
35
19
21
23
25
0.19918
2.82043
0.12857
0.15126
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
11.93
0.854
24.719
20.731
Table 5.3: Experimental data for Aerofoil-1 at Re=200000
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
25
20
15
Cd
10
5
0
-10
-5
-5
10
15
20

40
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
-0.4
Cm
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
L/D
L/D Vs
-10
-5
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
10
15
20
Fig 5.9: L/D Vs for aerofoil 1 at Re=200000
41
Cl Vs Cd
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5
10
15
20
Cd

(d Cl /d)max = 0.08916
Cl max =3.178
(Cl /Cd )max = 42.198
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
-5 0.03637
1.55 -0.269 42.619
-3 0.03892
1.582 -0.292 40.651
-1 0.08909
1.621 -0.323 18.191
1 17.30384
1.694 -0.356
0.098
3 -0.98186
1.783 -0.394 -1.816
5 6.65734
1.94 -0.435
0.291
7 1.53192
2.084 -0.485
1.361
9 0.76212
2.24 -0.541
2.94
11 0.54897
2.408 -0.604
4.386
13 0.47197
2.584 -0.672
5.476
15
0.0636
2.769 -0.747 43.535
17
0.0646
2.943 -0.826 45.554
42
25
19
21
23
25
0.1641
2.45185
0.10651
0.12498
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
14.481
0.982
29.839
25.089
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
20
15
Cd
10
5
0
-10
-5
0
-5
10
15
20
Fig 5.12: Cd Vs for Aerofoil 1 at Re=300000

43
25
30
L/D
60
50
40
L/D
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10 0
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Fig 5.13: L/D Vs for Aerofoil 1 at Re=300000
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
Cm
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
44
Cl Vs Cd
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5
10
15
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.0805
Cl max =3.178
(Cl/Cd )max = 45.554
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
-5
0.0366
1.551 -0.269 42.365
-3 0.03589
1.582 -0.292 44.087
-1 0.07749
1.621 -0.323 20.911
1 14.98754
1.694 -0.356
0.113
3 -0.98269
1.784 -0.394 -1.815
5 5.76641
1.94 -0.435
0.337
7
1.3315
2.084 -0.485
1.565
9 0.66008
2.24 -0.541
3.394
11 0.47471
2.408 -0.604
5.072
13 0.40902
2.584 -0.672
6.319
15 0.05879
2.769 -0.747 47.095
17 0.05937
2.943 -0.826 49.562
45
20
19
21
23
25
0.15201
2.24293
0.09057
0.10967
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
15.632
1.074
35.09
28.592
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
16
14
12
10
Cd
8
6
4
2
0
-10
-5
-2 0
10
15
20
Fig 5.17: Cd Vs for aerofoil-1 at Re=400000

46
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
-0.4
Cm
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
L/D Vs
60
50
40
L/D
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10 0
10
15
20
Fig 5.19: L/D Vs for aerofoil-1 at Re=400000
47
Cl Vs Cd
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-5
10
15
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.0829
Cl max =3.178
(Cl/Cd )max = 49.562
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
-5 0.03618
1.551 -0.269 42.859
-3 0.02795
1.584 -0.293 56.677
-1 0.07179
1.621 -0.323 22.574
1 13.40587
1.694 -0.356
0.126
3 -0.98334
1.784 -0.394 -1.814
5 5.16037
1.94 -0.435
0.376
7 1.19261
2.084 -0.485
1.748
9 0.60152
2.24 -0.541
3.725
11 0.42448
2.408 -0.604
5.672
13 0.36611
2.584 -0.672
7.059
15 0.06136
2.769 -0.747 45.125
17 0.05571
2.943 -0.826 52.823
48
20
19
21
23
25
0.14641
0.15947
0.08232
0.09619
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
16.232
15.103
38.607
32.6
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
16
14
12
10
Cd
8
6
4
2
0
-10
-5
-2 0
10
15
20
Fid 5.22: Cd Vs for Aerofoil-1 at Re=500000

49
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
-0.4
Cm
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
L/D Vs
60
50
40
L/D
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10 0
10
15
20
50
Cl Vs Cd
3.5
3
Cl
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-2
10
12
14
16
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.0805
Cl max =3.178
(Cl/Cd )max = 56.677
Comparing Aerofoil-1 Performance at different Reynolds Number

Re
100000
200000
Cl max
3.178
3.178
300000
3.178
400000
500000
3.178
3.178
Comments
Same
(Cl)max at
Reynolds
Number
(Cl/Cd )max
43.789
42.198
45.554
51
49.562
56.677
maximum
(Cl/Cd)max
at
Re=500000
(dCl/d)max
0.085625
0.08916
0.0805
0.0829
0.0805
minimum
(dCl/d)max
at
Re=300000
& 500000
Cm
-0.269
-0.269
-0.269
-0.269
-0.269
-0.269
Table 5.7: Performance Comparison of Aerofoil-1
From our requirement and Aerofoil design consideration 8 & 9 design should be opted for
Maximum Cl max,
Maximum (Cl/Cd )max,
Minimum (dCl/d)max
So from above table it can be decided that Aerofoil-1 performs well at Re= 500000 &
300000
52
5.2Data for Aerofoil-2

Air density=1.225
Viscosity=1.83e-5 Pa-s
aerofoil chord=25cm
X(L)
1
0.99572
0.98296
0.96194
0.93301
0.89668
0.85355
0.80438
0.75
0.69134
0.62941
0.56526
0.5
0.43474
0.37059
0.33928
Y(L)
0
-0.00025
-0.00094
-0.0019
-0.00302
-0.00429
-0.00575
-0.00741
-0.00928
-0.01131
-0.01345
-0.01566
-0.01792
-0.02018
-0.02242
-0.02351
X(U)
Y(U)
1
0.99572
0.98296
0.96194
0.93301
0.89668
0.85355
0.80438
0.75
0.69134
0.62941
0.56526
0.5
0.43474
0.37059
0.33928
0
0.00115
0.00448
0.00972
0.01656
0.02475
0.034
0.04394
0.05412
0.06405
0.07319
0.08105
0.08719
0.09128
0.09312
0.09318
Thickness
0
0.0014
0.00542
0.01162
0.01958
0.02904
0.03975
0.05135
0.0634
0.07536
0.08664
0.09671
0.10511
0.11146
0.11554
0.11669
53
Camber
Chord
t/c
0
0.00045
0.00177
0.00391
0.00677
0.01023
0.014125
0.018265
0.02242
0.02637
0.02987
0.032695
0.034635
0.03555
0.03535
0.034835
1
0.99572
0.98296
0.96194
0.93301
0.89668
0.85355
0.80438
0.75
0.69134
0.62941
0.56526
0.5
0.43474
0.37059
0.33928
0
0.001406
0.005514
0.01208
0.020986
0.032386
0.04657
0.063838
0.084533
0.109006
0.137653
0.171089
0.21022
0.256383
0.311773
0.343934
0.30866
0.27886
0.25
0.22221
0.19562
0.17033
0.14645
0.12408
0.10332
0.08427
0.06699
0.05156
0.03806
0.02653
0.01704
0.00961
0.00428
0.00107
-0.02458
-0.02559
-0.02653
-0.02734
-0.02795
-0.02832
-0.02839
-0.02816
-0.02763
-0.0268
-0.02567
-0.02414
-0.02214
-0.01959
-0.01651
-0.01296
-0.00898
-0.00453
0.30866
0.27886
0.25
0.22221
0.19562
0.17033
0.14645
0.12408
0.10332
0.08427
0.06699
0.05156
0.03806
0.02653
0.01704
0.00961
0.00428
0.00107
0.09266
0.09158
0.08996
0.08774
0.08483
0.08113
0.0766
0.07134
0.06552
0.05939
0.05313
0.04677
0.04027
0.03352
0.02652
0.01943
0.01254
0.00616
0.11724
0.11717
0.11649
0.11508
0.11278
0.10945
0.10499
0.0995
0.09315
0.08619
0.0788
0.07091
0.06241
0.05311
0.04303
0.03239
0.02152
0.01069
0.03404
0.032995
0.031715
0.0302
0.02844
0.026405
0.024105
0.02159
0.018945
0.016295
0.01373
0.011315
0.009065
0.006965
0.005005
0.003235
0.00178
0.000815
0.30866
0.27886
0.25
0.22221
0.19562
0.17033
0.14645
0.12408
0.10332
0.08427
0.06699
0.05156
0.03806
0.02653
0.01704
0.00961
0.00428
0.00107
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.04226 -0.177 -0.059 -4.198
0.03006
0.076 -0.085
2.522
0.0304
0.317 -0.088 10.443
0.03176
0.548 -0.092 17.247
0.03193
0.778 -0.096 24.378
0.03368
0.999 -0.102 29.644
0.03976
1.19
-0.11 29.934
0.04797
1.345 -0.123 28.047
0.06228
1.425 -0.143 22.887
0.10049
1.299 -0.177 12.924
0.12953
1.335 -0.184 10.308
0.16297
1.35 -0.196
8.282
0.20481
1.305 -0.208
6.373
0.27111
1.221
-0.22
4.505
0.34773
1.115 -0.232
3.206
0.44065
0.999 -0.244
2.266
Table 5.9: Experimental Data for Aerofoil-2

54
0.379835
0.420175
0.46596
0.517888
0.576526
0.642576
0.7169
0.801902
0.901568
1.022784
1.176295
1.375291
1.639779
2.001885
2.525235
3.370447
5.028037
9.990654
Cl
Cl Vs
-10
-5
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
Cd
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
55
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.05
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Cm
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
L/D Vs
35
30
25
20
L/D
15
10
5
0
-10
-5
-5 0
-10
10
15
20
Fig 5.29: L/D Vs for Aerofoil-2 at Re=100000
56
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.103
Cl max =1.485
(Cl/Cd )max = 29.934
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
Cd
0.02754
0.02845
0.02858
0.02831
0.02966
0.03261
0.03626
0.04178
0.05239
0.07213
0.11517
0.15045
Cl
-0.163
0.076
0.317
0.551
0.784
1.006
1.209
1.376
1.48
1.482
1.329
1.319
57
Cm
-0.082
-0.085
-0.088
-0.092
-0.096
-0.101
-0.108
-0.12
-0.137
-0.162
-0.191
-0.198
L/D
-5.909
2.666
11.108
19.456
26.447
30.865
33.342
32.928
28.256
20.539
11.543
8.77
0.5
19
21
23
25
0.19453
0.23118
0.29351
0.37176
1.285
1.209
1.107
0.994
-0.209
-0.221
-0.233
-0.245
6.605
5.228
3.772
2.673
Cl
Cl Vs
-10
-5
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
Cd
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
15
20

58
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.05
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Cm
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
L/D
L/D
-10
-5
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
10
15
20
59
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.103125
Cl max =1.482
(Cl/Cd )max = 33.342
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02704 -0.163 -0.082 -6.021
0.02774
0.076 -0.085
2.734
0.02766
0.317 -0.088 11.478
0.02717
0.553 -0.092 20.334
0.02798
0.787 -0.096 28.123
0.03132
1.01 -0.101
32.24
0.03451
1.217 -0.108 35.279
0.03979
1.391 -0.118 34.947
0.04896
1.501 -0.134 30.647
0.06473
1.524 -0.157 23.547
0.09687
1.413 -0.188 14.584
0.14118
1.311 -0.201
9.286
0.1786
1.277 -0.211
7.148
0.21643
1.2 -0.223
5.542
60
0.4
23 0.26603
25 0.33862
1.1
0.99
-0.234
-0.245
4.135
2.922
Cl
Cl Vs
-10
-5
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
Cd
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Fig 5.37: Cd Vs for Aerofoil 2 at Re=300000

61
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.05
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Cm
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
L/D
L/D Vs
-10
-5
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
10
15
20
Fig 5.39: L/D Vs for Aerofoil 2 at Re=300000
62
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.10066
Cl max =1.524
(Cl/Cd )max = 35.279
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02692 -0.163 -0.082 -6.047
0.02718
0.076 -0.085
2.79
0.02713
0.317 -0.088
11.7
0.02672
0.554 -0.092 20.725
0.02718
0.788 -0.096 29.004
0.03055
1.013 -0.101 33.144
0.0334
1.223 -0.107 36.602
0.03856
1.399 -0.117 36.278
0.04728
1.515 -0.132 32.035
0.06082
1.548 -0.155 25.458
0.08643
1.467 -0.183 16.971
0.13296
1.324 -0.204
9.958
0.17015
1.274 -0.212
7.487
0.20821
1.197 -0.223
5.75
63
0.35
0.4
23 0.25224
25 0.3099
1.097
0.986
-0.235
-0.246
4.349
3.183
Cl
Cl Vs
-10
-5
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
0.35
0.3
0.25
Cd
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Fig 5.42: Cd Vs for aerofoil-2 at Re=400000

64
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.05
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Cm
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
L/D
L/D Vs
-10
-5
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
10
15
20
Fig 5.44: Cl/Cd Vs for aerofoil-2 at Re=400000
65
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.101833
Cl max =1.548
(Cl/Cd )max = 36.602
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02659 -0.163 -0.082 -6.122
0.02671
0.076 -0.085
2.839
0.02671
0.317 -0.088 11.883
0.02645
0.554 -0.092 20.959
0.02731
0.788 -0.096 28.867
0.0297
1.015
-0.1 34.159
0.03261
1.227 -0.107
37.62
0.03759
1.405 -0.116 37.377
0.04573
1.525 -0.131 33.345
0.05863
1.566 -0.152
26.7
0.0806
1.497
-0.18 18.571
0.12608
1.338 -0.204 10.614
66
0.35
19
21
23
25
0.16331
0.20017
0.23955
0.29043
1.273
1.196
1.096
0.985
-0.212
-0.224
-0.235
-0.247
7.794
5.975
4.573
3.39
Cl
Cl Vs
-10
-5
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
0.35
0.3
0.25
Cd
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
Fig 5.47: Cd Vs for Aerofoil-2 at Re=500000

67
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.05
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
Cm
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
L/D
L/D Vs
-10
-5
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
10
15
20
68
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Cd

(dCl/d)max = 0.106375
Cl max =1.566
(Cl/Cd )max = 37.377

Re
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
Comments
Cl max
1.485
1.482
1.524
1.548
1.566
Maximum
(Cl)max at
Re=500000
(Cl/Cd )max
29.934
33.342
35.279
36.602
37.377
maximum
(Cl/Cd)max
at
Re=500000
69
(dCl/d)max
0.103
0.103125
0.10066
0.101833
0.106375
minimum
(dCl/d)max
at
Re=300000
Cm
-0.059
-0.082
-0.082
-0.082
-0.082
-0.082
Maximum Cl max,
Minimum (dCl/d)max
So from above table it can be decided that Aerofoil-2 performs well at Re= 500000
70
5.3 Data for Aerofoil-3
Air density=1.225
viscosity=1.83e-5 Pa-s
aerofoil chord=25.5cm
X(L)
1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
Y(L)
X(U)
Y(U)
-0.0006
1 0.000599
-0.00097
0.99 0.002969
-0.00133
0.98 0.005334
-0.0017
0.97 0.007687
-0.00207
0.96 0.010023
-0.0028
0.94 0.014624
-0.00354
0.92 0.019116
-0.00427
0.9 0.023503
-0.00501
0.88 0.027789
-0.00574
0.86 0.031974
-0.00648
0.84 0.036054
-0.00721
0.82 0.040025
-0.00794
0.8 0.043884
-0.00868
0.78 0.047628
-0.00941
0.76 0.051257
-0.01015
0.74 0.054768
-0.01088
0.72 0.05816
-0.01162
0.7 0.061433
Thickness
0.001199
0.003936
0.006667
0.009388
0.012092
0.017427
0.022653
0.027774
0.032795
0.037715
0.042529
0.047234
0.051828
0.056307
0.06067
0.064915
0.069042
0.07305
71
Camber
0
0.001001
0.002
0.002993
0.003977
0.005911
0.007789
0.009615
0.011391
0.013117
0.014789
0.016407
0.01797
0.019475
0.020922
0.02231
0.023639
0.024908
Chord
1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
t/c
0.001199
0.003975
0.006803
0.009678
0.012595
0.018539
0.024623
0.03086
0.037268
0.043854
0.05063
0.057603
0.064785
0.072188
0.079829
0.087723
0.095892
0.104357
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.6
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.012
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.0005
-0.01235
0.68
-0.01309
0.66
-0.01382
0.64
-0.01456
0.62
-0.01529
0.6
-0.01602
0.58
-0.01676
0.56
-0.01749
0.54
-0.01823
0.52
-0.01896
0.5
-0.0197
0.48
-0.02044
0.46
-0.02117
0.44
-0.0219
0.42
-0.02263
0.4
-0.02336
0.38
-0.02409
0.36
-0.02482
0.34
-0.02556
0.32
-0.02631
0.3
-0.02707
0.28
-0.02782
0.26
-0.02852
0.24
-0.02914
0.22
-0.02967
0.2
-0.03005
0.18
-0.03025
0.16
-0.03024
0.14
-0.02996
0.12
-0.02938
0.1
-0.02846
0.08
-0.02713
0.06
-0.02605
0.05
-0.02452
0.04
-0.02261
0.03
-0.02027
0.02
-0.01697
0.012
-0.01429
0.008
-0.01051
0.004
-0.00781
0.002
-0.00594
0.001
-0.00467 0.0005
0.064584
0.067605
0.070482
0.073206
0.075763
0.078145
0.080348
0.082371
0.084215
0.085877
0.087357
0.088643
0.089718
0.090566
0.091171
0.091521
0.091627
0.091508
0.091186
0.09068
0.090002
0.089084
0.087831
0.086143
0.08392
0.081069
0.077571
0.073436
0.06862
0.062998
0.056431
0.048757
0.044275
0.039128
0.033022
0.025374
0.017858
0.013735
0.008924
0.005803
0.003727
0.002339
0.076936
0.080691
0.084303
0.087761
0.091053
0.094168
0.097105
0.099863
0.102441
0.104839
0.107056
0.109078
0.110888
0.11247
0.113805
0.114882
0.115714
0.116326
0.116742
0.116988
0.117071
0.1169
0.116349
0.115288
0.113586
0.111118
0.107825
0.103676
0.098584
0.092377
0.08489
0.075885
0.070321
0.063649
0.055627
0.045646
0.034831
0.028021
0.019436
0.013614
0.009669
0.007009
0.026116
0.027259
0.028331
0.029325
0.030237
0.031061
0.031795
0.03244
0.032994
0.033458
0.033829
0.034104
0.034273
0.034331
0.034269
0.03408
0.03377
0.033345
0.032815
0.032186
0.031466
0.030634
0.029656
0.028499
0.027127
0.02551
0.023658
0.021598
0.019329
0.01681
0.013986
0.010815
0.009115
0.007304
0.005208
0.002551
0.000442
-0.00028
-0.00079
-0.001
-0.00111
-0.00117
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.6
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.012
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.0005
72
0.113141
0.122259
0.131723
0.141549
0.151754
0.162359
0.173402
0.184931
0.197001
0.209678
0.223033
0.237126
0.252019
0.267785
0.284513
0.302321
0.321427
0.342134
0.364819
0.389961
0.418111
0.449617
0.484787
0.524035
0.567929
0.617321
0.673908
0.740546
0.821531
0.923767
1.061129
1.264747
1.40641
1.591235
1.854237
2.28229
2.902617
3.50265
4.8591
6.8069
9.6689
14.018
Cd
Cl
L/D
Cm
0.02613
1.451 55.523 -0.223
0.02268
1.422 62.709
-0.24
0.03989
1.376 34.502 -0.257
0.20173
1.408
6.981 -0.272
0.06183
1.452 23.485 -0.283
0.0564
1.311
23.25 -0.318
0.03357
1.284 38.238 -0.341
0.04139
1.244 30.048 -0.365
0.05039
1.177 23.363
-0.39
0.06309
1.076 17.058 -0.417
0.33161
0.945
2.85 -0.444
0.02728
1.196 43.839 -0.399
0.51349
0.658
1.282 -0.501
0.61265
0.533
0.871
-0.53
0.05639
0.691 12.257 -0.463
0.85201
0.347
0.407 -0.591
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Table 5.16: Experimental Data for Aerofoil-3
Cl Vs
Cl
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
73
30
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Cd
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.1
10
15
20
Cm
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
74
25
30
Cl/Cd Vs
70
60
50
Cl/Cd
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10 0
10
15
20
25
30
Fig 5.54: Cl/Cd Vs for aerofoil 3 at Re=100000
Cd Vs
Cd
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
So for Aerofoil-3at Re=100000

(dCl/d)max = -0.0366
Cl max =1.452
(Cl/Cd )max = 62.709
75
25
30
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02278
1.452 -0.224 63.744
0.025
1.423
-0.24 56.916
0.03178
1.376 -0.257 43.301
0.15019
1.408 -0.272
9.376
0.04807
1.452 -0.283
30.21
0.04488
1.311 -0.318 29.222
0.03093
1.284 -0.341 41.501
0.03859
1.244 -0.365 32.237
0.04698
1.177
-0.39 25.061
0.0592
1.076 -0.417 18.177
0.25735
0.945 -0.444
3.673
0.01945
1.196 -0.399
61.5
0.38518
0.658 -0.501
1.709
0.46691
0.534
-0.53
1.143
0.04199
0.691 -0.463 16.457
0.64338
0.347 -0.591
0.539
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Cl Vs
Cl
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
76
30
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Cd
Cd Vs
0.7
0.6
0.5
Cd
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
77
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
-0.2
Cm
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Cl/Cd Vs
70
60
50
Cl/Cd
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10 0
10
15
20
78

(dCl/d)max = -0.0366
Cl max =1.452
(Cl/Cd )max = 63.744
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02167
1.452 -0.224 67.017
0.02304
1.423
-0.24 61.765
0.02821
1.376 -0.257 48.791
0.1286
1.408 -0.272 10.951
0.04199
1.452 -0.283 34.584
0.0403
1.311 -0.318 32.542
0.02972
1.284 -0.341 43.197
0.03724
1.244 -0.365
33.4
0.0455
1.177
-0.39
25.88
0.05777
1.076 -0.417
18.63
0.06712
0.945 -0.444 14.082
0.01639
1.196 -0.399 72.964
0.32729
0.659 -0.501
2.012
0.39536
0.534
-0.53
1.35
0.03449
0.691 -0.463 20.041
0.54332
0.347 -0.591
0.639
79
Cl Vs
Cl
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
0.6
0.5
Cd
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
80
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
-0.2
Cm
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Cd
81
0.6
Cl/Cd Vs
80
70
60
50
Cl/Cd
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
-10 0
10
15
20
25

(dCl/d)max = -0.0366
Cl max =1.452
(Cl/Cd )max = 67.017
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02742
1.452 -0.224 52.969
0.02287
1.423
-0.24 62.228
0.02674
1.376 -0.257 51.469
0.11544
1.408 -0.272 12.199
0.03816
1.452 -0.283
38.06
0.02528
1.311 -0.318 51.877
0.02962
1.284 -0.341 43.349
0.03646
1.244 -0.365 34.117
0.04451
1.177
-0.39 26.454
0.0566
1.076 -0.417 19.014
0.06561
0.945 -0.444 14.407
0.01431
1.196 -0.399 83.566
0.29909
0.659 -0.501
2.203
0.35527
0.534
-0.53
1.503
82
30
23
0.032
25 0.49815
0.691
0.348
-0.463
-0.591
21.6
0.698
Cl Vs
Cl
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
0.6
0.5
0.4
Cd
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20

83
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
-0.2
Cm
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Cl/Cd
Cl/Cd Vs
-10
-5
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10 0
10
15
20
84
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Cd

(dCl/d)max = -0.02675
Cl max =1.452
(Cl/Cd )max = 62.228
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Cd
Cl
Cm
L/D
0.02718
1.453 -0.224 53.442
0.02227
1.423
-0.24
63.91
0.0254
1.376 -0.257 54.182
0.10571
1.408 -0.272 13.322
0.03556
1.452 -0.283 40.833
0.02444
1.311 -0.318 53.669
0.02942
1.284 -0.341 43.637
0.03601
1.244 -0.365 34.542
0.04394
1.178
-0.39 26.797
0.05579
1.076 -0.417
19.29
0.06518
0.945 -0.444 14.506
85
0.6
17
19
21
23
25
0.01343
0.27642
0.33202
0.03018
0.45125
1.196
0.659
0.534
0.691
0.348
-0.399
-0.501
-0.53
-0.463
-0.591
89.06
2.384
1.609
22.898
0.771
Cl Vs
Cl
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Cd Vs
0.5
0.4
Cd
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
10
15
20
86
25
30
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
25
30
-0.2
Cm
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
Cl/Cd Vs
100
80
Cl /Cd
60
40
20
0
-10
-5
-20
10
15
20
87
Cl
Cl Vs Cd
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Cd

(dCl/d)max = -0.029375
Cl max =1.453
(Cl/Cd )max = 54.182

Re
Cl max
100000
1.452
200000
1.452
300000
1.452
400000
1.452
500000
1.453
(Cl/Cd )max
62.709
63.744
67.017
62.228
54.182
(dCl/d)max
-0.0366
-0.0366
-0.0366
-0.02675
-0.029375
Cm
-0.223
-0.224
-0.224
-0.224
-0.224

88
Comments
almost
same at all
Re
maximum
(Cl/Cd)max
at
Re=300000
minimum
(dCl/d)max
at
Re=400000
-0.224
Maximum Cl max,
Minimum (dCl/d)max
So from above table it can be decided that Aerofoil-3 performs well at Re= 300000 & 400000
Summary:
Aerofoil-1 is suitable for UAV operating at Re= 500000 & 300000
Aerofoil-2 is suitable for UAV operating at Re= 500000
Aerofoil-3 is suitable for UAV operating at Re= 300000 & 400000
89
CHAPTER 6
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION
_________________________________________
6.1 Investigation of Variation of Pitching Moment Co-Efficient with the

Variation of Angle of Attack:
At Reynolds Number = 100000
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
-0.269
-0.292
-0.323
-0.356
-0.394
-0.435
-0.485
-0.541
-0.604
-0.672
-0.747
-0.826
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
Cm
A-2
-0.059
-0.085
-0.088
-0.092
-0.096
-0.102
-0.11
-0.123
-0.143
-0.177
-0.184
-0.196
-0.208
-0.22
-0.232
-0.244
A-3
-0.223
-0.24
-0.257
-0.272
-0.283
-0.318
-0.341
-0.365
-0.39
-0.417
-0.444
-0.399
-0.501
-0.53
-0.463
-0.591
Table 6.1: Variation of Cm with at: Re = 100000
90
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
Cm
-0.4
-0.6
A-1
-0.8
A-2
A-3
-1
-1.2
-1.4
Fig 6.1: Graphical plot of variation of Cm with at: Re = 100000
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
-0.269
-0.292
-0.323
-0.356
-0.394
-0.435
-0.485
-0.541
-0.604
-0.672
-0.747
-0.826
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
Cm
A-2
-0.082
-0.085
-0.088
-0.092
-0.096
-0.101
-0.108
-0.12
-0.137
-0.162
-0.191
-0.198
-0.209
-0.221
-0.233
-0.245
A-3
-0.224
-0.24
-0.257
-0.272
-0.283
-0.318
-0.341
-0.365
-0.39
-0.417
-0.444
-0.399
-0.501
-0.53
-0.463
-0.591

91
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
Cm
-0.4
-0.6
A-1
-0.8
A-2
A-3
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
-0.269
-0.292
-0.323
-0.356
-0.394
-0.435
-0.485
-0.541
-0.604
-0.672
-0.747
-0.826
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
Cm
A-2
-0.082
-0.085
-0.088
-0.092
-0.096
-0.101
-0.108
-0.118
-0.134
-0.157
-0.188
-0.201
-0.211
-0.223
-0.234
-0.245
A-3
-0.224
-0.24
-0.257
-0.272
-0.283
-0.318
-0.341
-0.365
-0.39
-0.417
-0.444
-0.399
-0.501
-0.53
-0.463
-0.591

92
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
Cm
-0.4
-0.6
A-1
-0.8
A-2
A-3
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
-0.269
-0.292
-0.323
-0.356
-0.394
-0.435
-0.485
-0.541
-0.604
-0.672
-0.747
-0.826
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
Cm
A-2
-0.082
-0.085
-0.088
-0.092
-0.096
-0.101
-0.107
-0.117
-0.132
-0.155
-0.183
-0.204
-0.212
-0.223
-0.235
-0.246
A-3
-0.224
-0.24
-0.257
-0.272
-0.283
-0.318
-0.341
-0.365
-0.39
-0.417
-0.444
-0.399
-0.501
-0.53
-0.463
-0.591

93
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
Cm
-0.4
-0.6
A-1
-0.8
A-2
A-3
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
-0.269
-0.293
-0.323
-0.356
-0.394
-0.435
-0.485
-0.541
-0.604
-0.672
-0.747
-0.826
-0.993
-1.089
-1.091
-1.187
Cm
A-2
-0.082
-0.085
-0.088
-0.092
-0.096
-0.1
-0.107
-0.116
-0.131
-0.152
-0.18
-0.204
-0.212
-0.224
-0.235
-0.247
A-3
-0.224
-0.24
-0.257
-0.272
-0.283
-0.318
-0.341
-0.365
-0.39
-0.417
-0.444
-0.399
-0.501
-0.53
-0.463
-0.591

94
Cm Vs
0
-10
-5
-0.2
10
15
20
25
30
Cm
-0.4
-0.6
A-1
-0.8
A-2
A-3
-1
-1.2
-1.4
From above graphs and tables it is clearly visible that moment co-efficient varies with angle
of attack. It has been observed that at all Reynolds Number Aerofoil-1 and Aerofoil-2 fail to
maintain stability due to severe changes in pitching moment co-efficient with the increase in
angle of attack. But Aerofoil-2 has better stability.
So from this point of view Aerofoil-2 performs best.
95
6.2 Investigation of Cd- curves at different Reynolds Number :
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
0.03535
0.05695
0.13793
29.96728
-0.97948
11.52364
2.65337
1.32001
0.95062
0.818
0.09539
0.09123
0.24334
3.88143
0.17978
0.21209
Cd
A-2
A-3
0.04226 0.02613
0.03006 0.02268
0.0304 0.03989
0.03176 0.20173
0.03193 0.06183
0.03368
0.0564
0.03976 0.03357
0.04797 0.04139
0.06228 0.05039
0.10049 0.06309
0.12953 0.33161
0.16297 0.02728
0.20481 0.51349
0.27111 0.61265
0.34773 0.05639
0.44065 0.85201
Table 6.6: Variation of Cd with at: Re = 100000
96
Cd Vs
35
30
25
Cd
20
A-1
15
A-2
10
A-3
5
0
-10
-5
-5 0
10
15
20
25
30
Fig 6.6: Graphical plot of variation of Cd with at: Re = 100000
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
0.03672
0.04447
0.10399
21.19162
-0.98054
8.14862
1.87645
0.9332
0.67562
0.57781
0.07134
0.07306
0.19918
2.82043
0.12857
0.15126
Cd
A-2
0.02754
0.02845
0.02858
0.02831
0.02966
0.03261
0.03626
0.04178
0.05239
0.07213
0.11517
0.15045
0.19453
0.23118
0.29351
0.37176
A-3
0.02278
0.025
0.03178
0.15019
0.04807
0.04488
0.03093
0.03859
0.04698
0.0592
0.25735
0.01945
0.38518
0.46691
0.04199
0.64338

97
Cd Vs
25
20
15
Cd
A-1
10
A-2
A-3
0
-10
-5
-5
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
0.03637
0.03892
0.08909
17.30384
-0.98186
6.65734
1.53192
0.76212
0.54897
0.47197
0.0636
0.0646
0.1641
2.45185
0.10651
0.12498
Cd
A-2
A-3
0.02704 0.02167
0.02774 0.02304
0.02766 0.02821
0.02717
0.1286
0.02798 0.04199
0.03132
0.0403
0.03451 0.02972
0.03979 0.03724
0.04896
0.0455
0.06473 0.05777
0.09687 0.06712
0.14118 0.01639
0.1786 0.32729
0.21643 0.39536
0.26603 0.03449
0.33862 0.54332

98
Cd Vs
20
15
10
Cd
A-1
A-2
A-3
0
-10
-5
-5
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
0.0366
0.03589
0.07749
14.98754
-0.98269
5.76641
1.3315
0.66008
0.47471
0.40902
0.05879
0.05937
0.15201
2.24293
0.09057
0.10967
Cd
A-2
A-3
0.02692 0.02742
0.02718 0.02287
0.02713 0.02674
0.02672 0.11544
0.02718 0.03816
0.03055 0.02528
0.0334 0.02962
0.03856 0.03646
0.04728 0.04451
0.06082
0.0566
0.08643 0.06561
0.13296 0.01431
0.17015 0.29909
0.20821 0.35527
0.25224
0.032
0.3099 0.49815

99
Cd Vs
16
14
12
Cd
10
8
A-1
A-2
A-3
2
0
-10
-5
-2 0
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
0.03618
0.02795
0.07179
13.40587
-0.98334
5.16037
1.19261
0.60152
0.42448
0.36611
0.06136
0.05571
0.14641
0.15947
0.08232
0.09619
Cd
A-2
A-3
0.02659 0.02718
0.02671 0.02227
0.02671
0.0254
0.02645 0.10571
0.02731 0.03556
0.0297 0.02444
0.03261 0.02942
0.03759 0.03601
0.04573 0.04394
0.05863 0.05579
0.0806 0.06518
0.12608 0.01343
0.16331 0.27642
0.20017 0.33202
0.23955 0.03018
0.29043 0.45125

100
Cd Vs
16
14
12
Cd
10
8
A-1
A-2
A-3
2
0
-10
-5
-2 0
10
15
20
25
30
From above graphs and tables it is clearly visible that moment co-efficient varies with angle
of attack. It has been observed that at all Reynolds Number, Aerofoil-1 gives the maximum
drag co-efficient where Aerofoil-2 gives lowest drag co-efficient.
So from this point of view Aerofoil-2 performs best.
101
6.3 Investigation of Cl- curves at different Reynolds Number :
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
1.548
1.582
1.62
1.694
1.783
1.94
2.084
2.24
2.408
2.584
2.769
2.943
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
Cl
A-2
A-3
-0.177
1.451
0.076
1.422
0.317
1.376
0.548
1.408
0.778
1.452
0.999
1.311
1.19
1.284
1.345
1.244
1.425
1.177
1.299
1.076
1.335
0.945
1.35
1.196
1.305
0.658
1.221
0.533
1.115
0.691
0.999
0.347
Table 6.11: Variation of Cl with at: Re = 100000
102
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
A-1
1.5
A-2
A-3
0.5
0
-10
-5 -0.5 0
10
15
20
25
30
Fig 6.11: Graphical plot of variation of Cl with at: Re = 100000
A-1
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
1.55
1.582
1.621
1.694
1.783
1.94
2.084
2.24
2.408
2.584
2.769
2.943
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
Cl
A-2
A-3
-0.163
1.452
0.076
1.423
0.317
1.376
0.551
1.408
0.784
1.452
1.006
1.311
1.209
1.284
1.376
1.244
1.48
1.177
1.482
1.076
1.329
0.945
1.319
1.196
1.285
0.658
1.209
0.534
1.107
0.691
0.994
0.347

103
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
A-1
1.5
A-2
A-3
0.5
0
-10
-5 -0.5 0
10
15
20
25
30
A-1
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
1.55
1.582
1.621
1.694
1.783
1.94
2.084
2.24
2.408
2.584
2.769
2.943
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
Cl
A-2
A-3
-0.163
1.452
0.076
1.423
0.317
1.376
0.553
1.408
0.787
1.452
1.01
1.311
1.217
1.284
1.391
1.244
1.501
1.177
1.524
1.076
1.413
0.945
1.311
1.196
1.277
0.659
1.2
0.534
1.1
0.691
0.99
0.347

104
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
A-1
1.5
A-2
A-3
0.5
0
-10
-5 -0.5 0
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
1.551
1.582
1.621
1.694
1.784
1.94
2.084
2.24
2.408
2.584
2.769
2.943
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
Cl
A-2
A-3
-0.163
1.452
0.076
1.423
0.317
1.376
0.554
1.408
0.788
1.452
1.013
1.311
1.223
1.284
1.399
1.244
1.515
1.177
1.548
1.076
1.467
0.945
1.324
1.196
1.274
0.659
1.197
0.534
1.097
0.691
0.986
0.348

105
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
A-1
1.5
A-2
A-3
0.5
0
-10
-5 -0.5 0
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
1.551
1.584
1.621
1.694
1.784
1.94
2.084
2.24
2.408
2.584
2.769
2.943
2.376
2.408
3.178
3.136
Cl
A-2
A-3
-0.163
1.453
0.076
1.423
0.317
1.376
0.554
1.408
0.788
1.452
1.015
1.311
1.227
1.284
1.405
1.244
1.525
1.178
1.566
1.076
1.497
0.945
1.338
1.196
1.273
0.659
1.196
0.534
1.096
0.691
0.985
0.348

106
Cl Vs
3.5
3
2.5
Cl
2
A-1
1.5
A-2
A-3
0.5
0
-10
-5 -0.5 0
10
15
20
25
30
From the investigation of all the graphs and tables it has been observed that in
all Reynolds Number Cl increases with the increase of .
So according to the investigation of Cl- curve, Aerofoil-1 performs best.
107
6.4 Investigation of Variation Maximum Lift Co-Efficient With Maximum

Camber of the 3 Aerofoils:
At Reynolds Number = 100000:
Aerofoil
C max
Cl max
A-1
0.04059
3.178
A-2
0.03555
1.425
A-3
0.034331
1.452
Table 6.16: Variation of Cl max with camber at Re = 100000
Cl max
Cl max Vs Camber
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.034
0.035
0.036
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.04
0.041
Camber(%Chord)
Fig 6.16: Graphical plot of variation of Cl max with camber at Re = 100000
108
Aerofoil
C max
Cl max
A-1
0.04059
3.178
A-2
0.03555
1.482
A-3
0.034331
1.452
Cl max
Cl max Vs Camber
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.034
0.036
0.038
0.04
0.042
Camber(%Chord)
109
Aerofoil
C max
Cl max
A-1
0.04059
3.178
A-2
0.03555
1.524
A-3
0.034331
1.452
Cl max
Cl max Vs Camber
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.034
0.036
0.038
0.04
0.042
Camber(%Chord)
110
Aerofoil
C max
Cl max
A-1
0.04059
3.178
A-2
0.03555
1.548
A-3
0.034331
1.452
Cl max
Cl max Vs Camber
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.034
0.036
0.038
0.04
0.042
Camber(%Chord)
111
Aerofoil
C max
Cl max
A-1
0.04059
3.178
A-2
0.03555
1.566
A-3
0.034331
1.452
Cl max
Cl max Vs Camber
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.034
0.036
0.038
0.04
0.042
Camber(%Chord)
After investigation of all the graphs and tables it can be decided that the trend of variation of
maximum lift coefficient with maximum camber is same at all the five Reynolds number and
that is Clmax increases steadily as camber increases.
From this point of view, Aerofoil-1 performs best but Aerofoil-2 may be chosen also as it
performs better than Aerofoil-3.
112
6.5 Investigation of Variation Maximum Lift Co-Efficient With Maximum

Thickness of the 3 Aerofoils:
At Reynolds Number: 100000:
Aerofoil
Tmax
Cl max
A-1
0.1175
3.178
A-2
0.11724
1.425
A-3
0.117071
1.452
Table 6.21: Variation of Cl max with maximum thickness at Re = 100000
Cl max Vs Thickness(Maximum)
3.5
3
Cl max
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.117
0.1171 0.1172 0.1173 0.1174 0.1175 0.1176

Thickness(Maximum)
Fig 6.21: Graphical plot of variation of Cl max with maximum thickness at Re = 100000
113
Aerofoil
Tmax
Cl max
A-1
0.1175
3.178
A-2
0.11724
1.482
A-3
0.117071
1.452
3.5
3
Cl max
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.117
0.1171 0.1172 0.1173 0.1174 0.1175 0.1176

Thickness(Maximum)
114
Aerofoil
Tmax
Cl max
A-1
0.1175
3.178
A-2
0.11724
1.524
A-3
0.117071
1.452
3.5
3
Cl max
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.117
0.1171 0.1172 0.1173 0.1174 0.1175 0.1176

Thickness(Maximum)
115
Aerofoil
Tmax
Cl max
A-1
0.1175
3.178
A-2
0.11724
1.548
A-3
0.117071
1.452
3.5
3
Cl max
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.117
0.1171 0.1172 0.1173 0.1174 0.1175 0.1176

Thickness(Maximum)
116
Aerofoil
Tmax
Cl max
A-1
0.1175
3.178
A-2
0.11724
1.566
A-3
0.117071
1.452
3.5
3
Cl max
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.117
0.1171
0.1172
0.1173
0.1174
0.1175
0.1176
Thickness(Maximum)
After investigation of all the graphs and tables it can be decided that the trend of variation of
maximum lift coefficient with maximum camber is same at all the five Reynolds number and
that is Clmax increases steadily as camber increases.
From this point of view, Aerofoil-1 performs best but Aerofoil-2 may be chosen also as it
performs better than Aerofoil-3.
117
6.6 Investigation of Variation Maximum Lift Co-Efficient With Reynolds

Number:
Aerofoil-1:
Re
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
Cl max
3.178
3.178
3.178
3.178
3.178
Table 6.26: Variation of Cl max with Reynolds Number of Aerofoil-1
Cl max Vs Re
3.5
3
Cl max
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.00E+00
2.00E+05
4.00E+05
6.00E+05
Re
Fig 6.26: Graphical Plot of Variation of Cl max with Reynolds Number of Aerofoil-1
118
Aerofoil-2:
Re
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
Cl max
1.425
1.482
1.524
1.548
1.566
Cl max
Cl max Vs Re
1.58
1.56
1.54
1.52
1.5
1.48
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.4
0.00E+00
2.00E+05
4.00E+05
6.00E+05
Re
119
Aerofoil-3:
Re
Cl max
1.00E+05
1.452
2.00E+05
1.452
3.00E+05
1.452
4.00E+05
1.452
5.00E+05
1.452
Cl max Vs Re
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl max
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.00E+00 1.00E+05 2.00E+05 3.00E+05 4.00E+05 5.00E+05 6.00E+05
Re
From the above graphs and tables it has been observed that Cl max increases with Reynolds
Number only in case of Aerofoil-2.
So according to this investigation Aerofoil-2 performs best.
120
6.7 Investigation of Cl Values At Different Angles of Attack:
At
Re. No
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
7
Cl
A-1
2.084
2.084
2.084
2.084
2.084
constant
degree
values
A-2
1.19
1.209
1.217
1.223
1.227
3.1%
increase
AOA
A-3
1.284
1.284
1.284
1.284
1.284
constant
Table 6.29: Variation of Cl values with Reynolds Number for the 3 Aerofoils at 7 AOA
At
Re. No
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
5
Cl
A-1
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
constant
degree
values
A-2
0.999
1.006
1.01
1.013
1.015
1.6%
increase
AOA
A-3
1.311
1.311
1.311
1.311
1.311
constant
Table 6.30: Variation of Cl values with Reynolds Number for the 3 Aerofoils at 5 AOA
121
At
Re. No
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
11
Cl
A-1
2.408
2.408
2.408
2.408
2.408
constant
degree
values
A-2
1.425
1.48
1.501
1.515
1.525
7% increase
AOA
A-3
1.177
1.177
1.177
1.177
1.178
constant
Table 6.31: Variation of Cl values with Reynolds Number for the 3 Aerofoils at 11
AOA
From above graphs and tables it has been observed that at 5, 7, 11 angles of attack Cl
increases only for Aerofoil-2. But as the surveillance UAV optimizes for maximum
endurance i.e, maximum L/D and according to previous decision Aerofoil-2 is the optimized
aerofoil which gives maximum L/D at 7 degree. So the optimized angle of attack is 7
122
6.8 Investigation of variation of Cl/Cd values at different Angles of Attack:
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
43.789
27.772
11.749
0.057
-1.82
0.168
0.786
1.697
2.533
3.16
29.028
32.256
9.764
0.62
17.677
14.784
Cl/Cd
A-2
A-3
-4.198 55.523
2.522 62.709
10.443 34.502
17.247
6.981
24.378 23.485
29.644
23.25
29.934 38.238
28.047 30.048
22.887 23.363
12.924 17.058
10.308
2.85
8.282 43.839
6.373
1.282
4.505
0.871
3.206 12.257
2.266
0.407
Table 6.32: variation of Cl/Cd values at different Angles of Attack at Re= 100000
123
Cl/Cd Vs
70
60
Cl/Cd
50
40
30
A-1
20
A-2
10
A-3
0
-10
-10 0
10
20
30
Figure 6.29: Graphical Plot of variation of Cl/Cd values at different AOA at Re= 100000
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
42.198
35.575
15.583
0.08
-1.818
0.238
1.111
2.401
3.564
4.473
38.814
40.278
11.93
0.854
24.719
20.731
Cl/Cd
A-2
A-3
-5.909 63.744
2.666 56.916
11.108 43.301
19.456
9.376
26.447
30.21
30.865 29.222
33.342 41.501
32.928 32.237
28.256 25.061
20.539 18.177
11.543
3.673
8.77
61.5
6.605
1.709
5.228
1.143
3.772 16.457
2.673
0.539
124
Cl/Cd Vs
70
60
50
Cl/Cd
40
A-1
30
A-2
20
A-3
10
0
-10
-5 -10 0
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
42.619
40.651
18.191
0.098
-1.816
0.291
1.361
2.94
4.386
5.476
43.535
45.554
14.481
0.982
29.839
25.089
Cl/Cd
A-2
A-3
-6.021 67.017
2.734 61.765
11.478 48.791
20.334 10.951
28.123 34.584
32.24 32.542
35.279 43.197
34.947
33.4
30.647
25.88
23.547
18.63
14.584 14.082
9.286 72.964
7.148
2.012
5.542
1.35
4.135 20.041
2.922
0.639
125
Cl/Cd Vs
80
70
60
Cl/Cd
50
40
A-1
30
A-2
20
A-3
10
0
-10
-5 -10 0
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
42.365
44.087
20.911
0.113
-1.815
0.337
1.565
3.394
5.072
6.319
47.095
49.562
15.632
1.074
35.09
28.592
Cl/Cd
A-2
A-3
-6.047 52.969
2.79 62.228
11.7 51.469
20.725 12.199
29.004
38.06
33.144 51.877
36.602 43.349
36.278 34.117
32.035 26.454
25.458 19.014
16.971 14.407
9.958 83.566
7.487
2.203
5.75
1.503
4.349
21.6
3.183
0.698
126
Cl/Cd
Cl/Cd Vs
-10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-5
0
-20
A-1
A-2
A-3
10
15
20
25
30
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
A-1
42.859
56.677
22.574
0.126
-1.814
0.376
1.748
3.725
5.672
7.059
45.125
52.823
16.232
15.103
38.607
32.6
Cl/Cd
A-2
A-3
-6.122 53.442
2.839
63.91
11.883 54.182
20.959 13.322
28.867 40.833
34.159 53.669
37.62 43.637
37.377 34.542
33.345 26.797
26.7
19.29
18.571 14.506
10.614
89.06
7.794
2.384
5.975
1.609
4.573 22.898
3.39
0.771
127
Cl/Cd Vs
100
80
60
Cl/Cd
A-1
40
A-2
20
A-3
0
-10
-5
-20
10
15
20
25
30
From the above graphs and tables it is visible that Aerofoil-3 gives maximum value but it is
in the stall region. But within the acceptable range of angle of attack Aerofoil-2 and Aerofoil3 give suitable value from which we can take Aerofoil-2 as it meets other performance
requirements. Thus it is the acceptable one.
128
CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
_________________________________________
7.1 Discussions
In this thesis three aerofoils have been developed for experimental investigation by subsonic
wind tunnel. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the tests and investigations that
have been done such as
At all Reynolds Number Aerofoil-2 performs best while investigating the variation of
drag co-efficient with the variation of angle of attack and it gives the minimum drag
co-efficient.
At all Reynolds Number Aerofoil-1 performs best while investigating the variation of
lift co-efficient with the variation of angle of attack.
Aerofoil-2 performs best while investigating the variation of pitching moment coefficient with the variation of angle of attack.
Aerofoil-1 performs best but Aerofoil-2 may be chosen also as it performs better than
Aerofoil-3 in case of investigation of variation maximum lift co-efficient with
maximum camber and maximum thickness.
Aerofoil-2 performs best in the investigation of variation of maximum lift co-efficient

with Reynolds number.
Aerofoil-3 gives maximum Cl/Cd values at different AOA and it is in the stall region.
But within the acceptable range of angle of attack Aerofoil-2 and Aerofoil-3 give
129
suitable value from which we can take Aerofoil-2 as the desired aerofoil, as it meets
other performance requirements. Thus Aerofoil-2 is the acceptable one.
After discussing the comparative performance of Aerofoils individually it has been

decided that Aerofoil-2 can best meet performance requirements. Although in some
cases Aerofoil-1 performs best but Aerofoil-1 failed to maintain a stable variation of
pitching moment with angle of attack which is one of our major performance
requirements. Again Aerofoil-1 gives maximum drag co-efficient. On the other hand
Aerofoil-2 gives minimum drag co-efficient as well as it can maintain a stable
variation of pitching moment co-efficient with angle of attack i.e. it meets major
performance requirement.
So, Aerofoil-2 best meet the performance requirements and it is the optimised
aerofoil.
.
130
7.2 Recommendations for future work:
Future work should focus on developing more detailed wind tunnel testing
results.
The same analysis can be done with the other types of aerofoil like semi-symmetrical
aerofoil, symmetrical aerofoil.
In future a step can be taken which will be useful in improving the aerodynamics of
cambered Aerofoils
through improving
the
lower
surface
boundary
layer
performance by designing an optimised leading edge.
Using the optimised aerofoil of this thesis, wing for unmanned aerial vehicle can be
constructed.
Applying this methodology, comparison of performance among different aerofoil can

be made in future.
131
References
_________________________________________
1. Daniel P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series,

1992
2. Egbert Torenbeek, Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Delft University, 1976
3. Denis Howe, Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, Professional Engineering
Publishing, 2000
4. John D. Anderson Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 2001
5. L J Clancy, Aerodynamics
6. Jan Roskam, Chuan-Tau Edward Lan, Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance
7. John Dreese, The Dreese Airfoil Primer
8. Dr.Ing. Luca Cistriani, UAV Design Engineer , Falco UAV Low Reynolds Airfoil
Design and Testing at Galileo Avionica
9. Michael R. Reid, Thin/Cambered/Reflexed Airfoil Development for Micro-Air
Vehicles at Reynolds Numbers Of 60,000 To 150,000
10. G Manikandan, M Ananda Rao, Effect of Maximum Thickness Location of An
Aerofoil on Aerodynamic Characteristics.
11. Nicholas K. Borer, Design and Analysis of Low Reynolds Number Airfoils
12. Kyoungwoo Park, Ji-Won Han, Hyo-Jae Lim, Byeong-Sam Kim, and Juhee Lee,
Optimal Design of Airfoil with High Aspect Ratio in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
13. Shawn E. Gano, John E. Renaud, Stephen M. Batill, Andr es Tovar, Shape
Optimization for Conforming Airfoils
14. J. Hua, F.M. Kong, Po-yang Jay Liu, D.W. Zingg, Optimization Of Long-Endurance
Airfoils
15. Luis E. Casas, Jon M. Hall, Sean A. Montgomery, Hiren G. Patel, Sanjeev S. Samra,
Joe Si Tou, Omar Quijano, Nikos J. Mourtos, Periklis P. Papadopoulos; Preliminary
Design and CFD Analysis of a Fire Surveillance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
16. Neal Allgood, Kevin Albarado, Elizabeth Barrett, Grace Colonell, Brian Dennig,
Jayme Howsman, and Ajay Madhav; Design, Fabrication, and Testing of a
Surveillance/Attack UAV
132
Bibliography
1. http://zenithair.com/kit-data/ht-87-5.html
2. http://www-f1.ijs.si/~rudi/sola/drugi_seminar.pdf
3. http://aerospaceengineeringblog.com/bio-mimetic-drag-reduction-part-2-aero-andhydrodynamics/
4. http://scienceofaircraft.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html
5. http://www.dreesecode.com/primer/airfoil1.html
6. http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/uiuc_lsat/Airfoils-at-Low-Speeds.pdf
7. https://ritdml.rit.edu/bitstream/handle/1850/2607/MReidThesis09?sequence=1
8. http://mail.tku.edu.tw/095980/airfoil%20design.pdf
9. http://www.disasterzone.net/projects/docs/mae171a/wind_tunnel_experiment.pdf
10. https://ritdml.rit.edu/bitstream/handle/1850/2607/MReidThesis09?sequence=1
11. http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Chapter%205.%20Wing%20Design.pdf
12. http://people.clarkson.edu/~pmarzocc/AE429/The%20NACA%20airfoil%20series.pd
f
133

Design of Cambered Aerofoil For Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based On Subsonic Wind Tunnel Test

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Design of Cambered Aerofoil For Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based On Subsonic Wind Tunnel Test

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Chapter 1

Fig 1.1: The earliest aerofoil design at last 19th century

Fig 1.2: Aerofoil variation before World War II

An Aerofoil-shaped body moved through a fluid produces an aerodynamic force. The

2.2 Aerofoil Design Characteristics

There are three basic types of Aerofoils.

Fig 2.1: Three Basic types of Aerofoils

2.4 Aerofoil terminology:

Figure 2.2: Aerofoil geometry

The various terms related to aerofoil:

The chord is the length of chord line.

2.5 Aerodynamic Forces

Figure 2.3: Aerodynamic forces

2.6 Low-Speed Aerodynamics

2.7 Characterizing Aerofoil Performance

3.1 Calibration of the Tunnel:

The velocity is surveyed at:

1. The working section centre line to establish a reference velocity.

The velocity at the point of measurement is given by:

3.2 Calibration of AFA3:

3.3 Drag Calibration:

Fig 3.1: Drag Calibration

3.4 Fore/Aft Calibration:

3.5 Moment Calibration:

Fig 3.3: Moment Calibration

4.1 Aerofoil Design Considerations:

Design considerations: 1-7(Daniel P. Raymer), 8, 17(Egbert Torenbeek), 9-16&18(Denis

4. The drag increases with increasing thickness due to increased separation.

6. In incompressible flow conditions relatively high thickness to chord ratios of up to 0.2

4.2 Performance Requirement:

This is the general equation for endurance E of an airplane.

High operational lift coefficient, Cl>1;

High endurance factor Cl/Cd;

Less value of dCl/d

Limited pitching moment coefficient Cm;

Large relative thickness t/c.

So we have to select such an aerofoil having the above characteristics.

Geometric Specification of Aerofoil-1:

Table 5.1: Geometric Specification of Aerofoil-1

At wind speed 5.97m/s or Re=100000

Table 5.2: Experimental Data for Aerofoil-

Fig 5.1: Cl Vs plot of Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000

Fig 5.2: Cd Vs for aerofoil 1 at Re=100000

Fig 5.3: Cm Vs of Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000

Fig 5.4: L/D Vs for Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000

Fig 5.5: Cl Vs Cd of Aerofoil-1 at Re=100000

So for Aerofoil-1 at for Re=100000

At wind speed 11.95m/s or Re=200000

Table 5.3: Experimental data for Aerofoil-1 at Re=200000

Fig 5.6: Cl Vs plot of Aerofoil-1 at Re=200000

Fig 5.7: Cd Vs for aerofoil 1 at Re=200000

Fig 5.8: Cm Vs of Aerofoil-1 at Re=200000

Fig 5.9: L/D Vs for aerofoil 1 at Re=200000

Fig 5.10: Cl Vs Cd of Aerofoil-1 at Re=200000

So for Aerofoil-1 at for Re=200000

At wind speed 17.575m/s or Re=300000

Table 5.4: Experimental data for Aerofoil-1 at Re=300000

Fig 5.11: Cl Vs plot of Aerofoil-1 at Re=300000

Fig 5.12: Cd Vs for Aerofoil 1 at Re=300000

Fig 5.13: L/D Vs for Aerofoil 1 at Re=300000

Fig 5.14: Cm Vs of Aerofoil-1 at Re=300000

Fig 5.15: Cl Vs Cd of Aerofoil-1 at Re=300000

So for Aerofoil-1 at for Re=300000