Advanced Aerodynamics Lab Report

RMIT University School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
Advanced Aerodynamics Lab Report

AERO2358
Dr. John Watmuff
Andrew Pandelis
Angus Muffatti
Daniel Chadwick
Isaiah Marquez
Daniel D'Cruz
3378766
3330774
3332866
3378780
3298430
April 28 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Estimates Calculations ......................................................................................................... 8
Description of Apparatus ...................................................................................................................... 14
Experimental Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 18
Experimental forces and moments ....................................................................................................... 23
Cm vs Alpha........................................................................................................................................... 35
Cm vs Del E ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Experimental Vs Theoretical ................................................................................................................. 50
Discussion.............................................................................................................................................. 51
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 52
References ............................................................................................................................................ 53
I NTRODUCTION
A model of the P-51D aircraft was tested in the RMIT wind tunnels, using the
experimental values obtained, this report will detail the configurations of the model aircraft
and quantify the experimental values of certain longitudinal stability derivatives.
The main objective of this laboratory demonstration is to compare the theoretical and
experimental estimates of certain longitudinal stability derivatives with an aim to predict the
motion history of the pitch-constrained scale wind-tunnel model of the P-51D
An aircraft's stability is expressed in relation to each axis: lateral stability - stability in roll,
directional stability - stability in yaw and directional stability - stability in pitch. Lateral and
directional stability are interdependent and thus the most important is the longitudinal
stability.
The longitudinal stability of an aircraft refers to the pitching plane's stability; this
plane describes the position of the aircraft's nose in relation to its tail in the horizon. If an
aircraft is longitudinally stable, a small increase in the angle of attack will cause the pitching
moment on the aircraft to change so that the angle of attack decreases. Similarly, this also
works backwards where if the angle of attack decreases even slightly, this will cause the
pitching moment to change so that the angle of attack increases.
The pitch moment works in conjunction with the elevator, angle of attack and the rate of
pitch. This simply means that stability will be affected from any variations of those
components.
A slight change in certain factors such as airspeed (
mean aerodynamic chord (
), pressure (Q), wing's surface area (S),
can all affect the pitch moment and therefore alter an aircraft's
longitudinal stability.
B ACKGROUND I NFORMATION
P-51D
The P-51 Mustang was American long-range fighter jet. It was designed and created
by North American Aviation by the request of the British Purchasing Commission. This
fighter-bomber took its first flight on the 26th October 1940. The P-51 was originally
designed to have an AllisonV-1710 engine; however, with this engine limiting the aircrafts
high altitude performance the Rolls Royce Merlin was fitted for both the P-51B and the P51C models, which drastically improved the high altitude performance. The iconic P-51D
utilized the Packard V-1650-7 engine, which was merely a license-built version if the Rolls
Royce Merlin. The P-51D was armed with six .50 calibre M2 Browning machine guns which
is a weapon still used on todays fighter jets.
P-51D Specifications
First Flight
May 20, 1941
Wingspan
37 feet
Wing area
233 square feet
Length
32 feet
Horizontal Stabilizer Span
13 feet
Height
8 feet and 8 inches
Power Plant
Packard V-1650 "Merlin" with 1,695-hp V-12
Speed
437 mph
Landing Gear
Hydraulically operated
Propeller
Hamilton Stanford, four blade. 11 feet and 2 inches
Maximum Take-off Mass
12, 100 lbs
Cruise Speed
275 mph
Stall Airspeed (flaps up, down)
95 mph, 102 mph
Range
1650 miles
Maximum Altitude (Ceiling)
41, 900 feet
Table 1: P-51D Specifications

4
The P-51 mustang is the answer to the allies need of an effective bomber escort, with
the assistance of external fuel tanks, its impressive ability for reasonably long range flight
could accompany bombers all the way to Germany and back. It wasnt long before it was
evident that the P-51 was far superior to the older P-47 and by the end of 1944, the mustang
was utilized by 14 out of the 15 thunderbolt and lightning groups. From a more technical
perspective, the U.S air force flight test engineers concluded that "The rate of climb is good
and the high speed in level flight is exceptionally good at all altitudes, from sea level to
40,000 feet. The airplane is very manoeuvrable with good controllability at indicated speeds
to 400 MPH. The stability about all axes is good and the rate of roll is excellent, however, the
radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter. The cockpit layout is excellent, but visibility is poor
on the ground and only fair in level flight." This plane dominates at a deadly pace and an
unparalleled manoeuvrability that made it a crucial asset not only to the United States, but
also to many allied forces.
Figure 1: North-American P-51 Mustang

The United Kingdom where the first to operate this historical aircraft with the
Mustang Mk I entering service in 1941, however, having the altitude issues at this time the
aircrafts where only operated by Army Co-operation command and where not used by
Fighter command until 1942 where they undertook their first reconnaissance mission over
Germany. It wasnt until late 1943 when the English started using their vast amount of P51Bs and P-51Cs, which were known to the Royal Air Force (RAF) as Mustang Mark IIIs.
France first started incorporating the P-51 mustangs in their Tactical Reconnaissance
Squadron for various photograph-mapping missions over Germany. These planes stayed in
service until the early 1950s.
Figure 2: P-51D Side View

The Chinese nationalist air force used the P-51 during the war against Japan in the
later part of the Sino-Japanese war. They continued to use them against communist rebels,
however where overpowered and where required to retreat to Taiwan in 1949. Pilots that
where still loyal to the nationalist forces transported most of the mustangs to Taiwan where
they were used primarily for defence.
This ionic plane was revolutionary to say the least having moulded history with its incredible
abilities. The P-51 Mustang was not only one of the greatest aviation and engineering
achievements in history, but it also set the bar for future generations of fighter jets.
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
AR
Aspect Ratio
CoM
Centre of Mass
EoM
Equations of Motion
PID
Proportional-Integral-Differential (Pitch Controller)
USAAF
United States of America Air Force (WWII Acronym)
USB
Universal Serial Bus
PWM
Pulse Width Modulation
TABLE OF NOMENCLATURE
Angle of attack
Angular displacement of control surface
Pitching angle
&
Rate of change of pitch angle
q&
Rate of change of pitch
Elevator component ( E represents elevator deflection)
Wingspan
Mean aerodynamic chord
CL
WB
Wing Body lift coefficient
CL
T
Tail lift coefficient
CM
Pitching moment coefficient
CM
Coefficient of pitching moment due to angle of attack
CM
Coefficient of pitching moment due to pitch rate
Coefficient of pitching moment due to elevator deflection
CM
Pitching moment due to angle of attack
Mq
Pitching moment due to pitch rate
Pitching moment due to elevator deflection
Dynamic Pressure
Surface Area of main wing
u0
Incident airspeed generated by wind tunnel
VH
Vertical tail volume coefficient
Iyy
Second inertial moment of area
T HEORETICAL E STIMATES C ALCULATIONS

The longitudinal derivatives theoretically are a major necessity for comparison and testing the
accuracy of the practical experiment and overall determination of the aircrafts longitudinal
aerodynamic features. In order to achieve this we calculated the various Moments using data
from the CAD model as well as theoretically estimated some of the other features. Our
primary aim was to calculate the M, Mq & ME.
Figure 3: P-51D CAD model

The data from the CAD model were measured for various magnitudes and tabulated along
with its Inertia Along the 3 axes. This made our calculations easier as getting our primary
data was not a problem. And working backwards from our final derivate formulas, we were
able to establish the various longitudinal stability derivatives.
Recorded Data
Quantity
Value
Units
Mean aerodynamic chord, c
0.0704715
Distance from CG to AC of tail, lt
0.1423064
XAC
0.0176179
XCoM
Wing area, S
0.0232556
Tail area, St
0.005478
Horizontal tail volume coefficient, VH

Elevator area
0.3911593
0.002619
Area fixed horizontal stab
0.002859
Aspect ratio AR
5.6944584
Moment of inertia about y axis Iyy

Change in downwash to AoA d3/da
0.0015233
0.02828
Air density rho
0.4079202
1.225
Kg/
dCLt/dE
Flap effectiveness parameter,
2.8207997
Elevator (control surface area / lifting surface area)
0.4780942
Root chord
0.099745
Tip chord
0.045376
Taper ratio
0.65
0.45492005
Tail span
0.13548
Span b
0.401297
0.04043401
35
m/s
Cl wing
4.58
/rad
Cl tail
5.73
/rad
CmE
-0.99304377
Chord tail
Flight speed, u0
Efficiency factor of tail
0.9
Cmq
-6.17015456
CL wing
3.64877822
CL tail
4.3396918
/rad
/rad
9
-0.61265343
Cm
Mw
-17.1830211
m/s
750.3125
Pa
Dynamic pressure Q
M
-601.405739
Mq
-6.09767391
ME
-974.812502
Table 2: Quantity Values
Recorded Data 2
Location with respect to the CoM (m)
Mass (kg)
Component of inertia
Servo
0.008
-0.025
0.027
1.08E-05
Ballast
0.048
0.055
0.00015
Spinner
0.05
0.115
0.00066
Top Half
0.17293
-0.0038
0.00232
3.37E-06
Bottom Half
0.08223
0.01829
0.01039
3.64E-05
Top fuselage
0.04918
0.03128
-0.0177
6.36E-05
Horizontal
0.01174
-0.1493
-0.0248
0.000269
0.00379
-0.1731
-0.2414
0.000334
Mass Element
Stabilizer
Elevator
Total Mass
0.42586
Center of Rotation (CoR)
Value used in calculation

0.02432
-0.0054
Iyy = 0.00152
= 0.00179
Table 3: Mass Element table
10
Calculations
1) Pitching Moment due to change in (
).
Where,
U0 = Flow Velocity
Mw= Downward velocity Pitching Moment
S = Area of Wing Body

Iyy= Moment of Inertia about the Y axis
Q = Dynamic Pressure
(
(
= Tail Efficiency
11
Stail = Tail Area

ltail = the distance from the Pivot point to the aerodynamic centre of the tail
For the 3D coefficient of lift for the wing and tail the formula is similar,
From utilizing the above formulae and data from the table we were able to calculate the
pitching moment due to change in Angle of Attack ().
2) Pitching Moment Due to Pitch Rate (Mq)
12
3) Pitching Moment Due to Elevator Deflection
Where,
is the flap effectiveness parameter
Calculated Pitch Moments

Flow Velocity
15 m/s
-110.462279
-2.61328882
/s
-179.047194
Flow Velocity
25 m/s
-306.839663
-4.35548136
/s
-497.353318
Flow Velocity
35 m/2
-601.405739
-6.09767391
/s
-974.812502
Table 4: Pitch Moment Answers
13
D ESCRIPTION OF A PPARATUS
Wind Tunnel
The wind tunnel provided by RMIT that was used in the lab test had a test section of 2m wide
x 1.6m long. This wind tunnel is capable of producing wind speeds of up to 150 km/hr.
Figure 3: Wind Tunnel Test Section

The wind tunnel used in RMIT is a closed loop wind tunnel; in a closed-loop wind tunnel,
the moving air is brought back to the fan and is continuously re-circulated through the tunnel.
A close-looped tunnel efficiently produces long test times.
Figure 4: Closed Loop Wind Tunnel
14
Force Balance
The Force/Torque: Nano17 titanium sensor is a 6-axis sensor that is capable of measuring the
forces and moments with 6 degrees of freedom. In our case the force balance will be
measuring the forces in the X, Y, Z directions and also the moments, which will produce the
data as a time series to a connected computer.
Figure 5:Force balance on test model
Figure 6: Force Balance
Wing-tip Potentiometer
The potentiometer is connected to the pivot shafts that are connected to the wing tips; these
constrain the model to rotate about the y-axis/pitch axis. The potentiometer, which is a
rotational variable resistor, is being used to determine the pitch angle in response to elevator
deflection. The output voltage from this device is converted to pitch angle using a simple
voltage divider rule.
Figure 7:Potentiometer coupled to the wing tip
15
Microcontroller
The Arduino microcontroller takes an input signal from the user, which in this case, is the
desired pitch angle via a control. This is then converted to a signal with a proportion to the
difference between the current pitch angle and the desired pitch angle. The microcontroller
has a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller implemented in the on-board software;
the output signal of this controller is the required servo angle, servo, in degrees. A second
software function converts this into a pulse width modulation (pwm) signal required for the
servo input.
Figure 8: Arduino Microcontroller
Servo and Control Rod

The servo is responsible for deflecting the elevator using the control rod; the amount of
deflection required is determined by the pulse width modulation signal, which is received
from the microcontroller.
Figure 9:Control connection to elevator
Figure 10: Location of servo
16
Model Pitch Constraining Rig

The constraining rig is a vital part of this experiment as it ensures that there is a stable base in
order to yield better accuracy of the results. The potentiometer and wingtips are connected to
the structure as seen in figure 11 below.
Figure 11: Pitch constraining rig
Rod Support
The rod support ensures the model has a stable base and is fixed in the rig to eliminate any
discrepancies in the data that will be generated. The rod support has a pivot point so that the
angle of attack can be altered in order to obtain the forces acting on the aircraft at multiples
angles of attack.
Figure 12: Support rod Pivot Point
17
E XPERIMENTAL P ROCEDURES
1. Ensure the model, P-51, is mounted to the force balance using a short rod. This device
allows for the measurement of both forces and moments, three of these being components of
forces applied to the plane and the other three being components of moment applied. Mount
the complete assembly on an adjustable sting, which will allow for a variation in the angle of
attack.
2. The rods that are connected to each of the ends of the wings allow the model plane to
rotate about the y-axis. A rotational variable resistor known as a potentiometer that is
connected to either one of the rods, which is also connected to the wings, measures this
rotation. By using the voltage divider rule the pitching angle can be derived by using the
voltage output of the potentiometer. With the potentiometer determining the current pitching
angle of the P-51, the microcontroller will determine the error signal between the desired
pitch angle and the actual pitch angle, this in turn will be sent to the PID controller. The
readings calculated by the PID controller are directly proportional to the commanded servo
angle servo (degrees). Other software, which is also on-board the microcontroller allows the
servo angle to be converted to what is known as servo pulse width modulation signal. This is
the procedure required for operating the servo.
3. After ensuring that all the electronics are working correctly, a serial interface program will
be used connected to the assembly. Enter the desired pitch angle and the computer will send
this command through the microcontroller via USB.
4. All six components (forces and moments) are logged in a time series. Having many values
for all six components allows for the calculation of an average magnitude for the six forces
and moments acting on the plane.
5. Transducers are susceptible to high frequency electronic noise and drift. Both these
phenomena can interfere with result so precautions must be taken. To guarantee that these
two things do not hinder our results, samples of the force balance readings must be taken
without any wind and without any load being applied to the model. (The procedure to solve
the problems with wind can be seen in the workings below) Subtracting these wind-off forces
will account for the effects of drift.
18
Factors Affecting Quality

Flow quality
Over the course of this testing there are some factors that may affect the accuracy and
precision of our results. One of the hardest to sources of error to measure is the quality of the
laminar flow in the test section. Closed-loop wind tunnels are capable of producing flow with
turbulent flow percentage between 0.5-2% (Advanced thermal solutions, 2012) which is
relatively low in low speed wind tunnels. This turbulent flow would affect the test results
marginally, but not to a degree that would significantly alter the measurements.
Figure 13: Schematics of wind tunnel with turbulence reducing design

(advanced thermal solutions, 2012)
19
Equipment calibration
The measuring equipment may be a source of error if the devices are poorly calibrated or
have a manufactured systematic error. The F/T: Nano17 Titanium sensor has the ability to
resolve down to a 0.149 gram-force and near-zero noise distortion (ATI Industrial
Automation, 2014), which will give a reasonably accurate result given that it is in perfect
working order.
Linkage
A major part of the results is based on the elevator deflection, which is controlled by a very
simple mechanical link. Ensuring this link produces input angle before the test will eliminate
this as a potential source of error.
Low Reynolds Number Trip wire

Due to the low speed of the wind tunnel and the small scale of our model it is very difficult to
replicate the Reynolds number of the full size aircraft. Different methods have been used to
try replicating the flow separation in small-scale tests by attaching a boundary layer leadingedge trip to increase the boundary layer thickness. This trip will allow a boundary layer
transition to turbulent flow at relatively low speeds (Rona & Soueid, 2010). Common trips
that have been tested are sandpaper, silicon granules and a trip wire. In this test a trip-wire
has been used which will increase Reynolds number, which will result in a closer replication
of the flow over a full-scale aircraft at high speeds. If the trip wire is not set up correctly and
too much turbulent flow is produced, this may affect the measurements due to the turbulent
flow altering the forces acting on the wing altering the actual aerodynamic forces of the
aircraft.
20
Drift
The force balance also suffers from a problem known as drift, this occurrence is discussed
further when the mean and RMS values are calculated and how to eliminate drift as a source
of error. Table 2 shows the average values for the measurements with the wind off, in theory
these values should remain constant if the conditions are unchanged. As shown in Table 2 the
values vary which suggests that the position or orientation of the model may have been
slightly altered, to take this into account as a possible source of error in the measured
calculations a 95% confidence interval has been calculated. Therefore when the drift is being
eliminated, to obtain maximum accuracy this confidence interval should be noted. In this case
we are only focussing on the moment about the Y-axis (pitching moment) which has a
relatively low confidence interval that would not cause significant error in our measurements
therefore it can be ignored.
Wind Off
Force X
Force Y
Force Z
Moment about
Moment about
Moment about
direction
direction
direction
the X-axis
the Y-axis
the Z-axis
Test 1
0.028310041
0.01811601
0.089125675
-0.000552377
-5.48427E-05
0.000235214
Test 2
0.011644781
-0.004370597
0.13265941
0.000102094
0.000588598
0.000752102
Test 3
0.028310041
0.01811601
0.089125675
-0.000552377
-5.48427E-05
0.000235214
Test 4
0.011644781
-0.004370597
0.13265941
0.000102094
0.000588598
0.000752102
Average
0.019977411
0.006872707
0.110892543
-0.000225141
0.000266878
0.000493658
Stdev
0.009621692
0.012982649
0.025134214
0.000377859
0.000371491
0.000298425
Confidence
Interval
0.02886508 0 .038947946
0.075402641
0.00113358
0.001114472
0.00089528
Table 5: Repeat test data for wind off condition
21
Repeatability
Repeatability is the ability to repeat the same measurements under certain conditions. These
repeatability conditions state that the same operator must take the measurements in the same
lab, same equipment and procedure (Pandiripalli, 2010). The overall repeatability of the test
cannot be calculated due to their being two different conditions, wind on and wind off. The
repeatability of these two conditions is directly related to the standard deviation between the
repeat tests, the confidence interval calculated for each independent force using a significance
level of 0.95 meaning 95% of the data will lie between these intervals. Table 1 shows the
average force plus or minus the confidence interval for the four repeat tests, the measurement
that is the main focus of this test is the moment about the Y-axis which has a relatively large
confidence interval. Due to the small scale of this test this interval should be taken into
account. The 95% interval is represented graphically in Figure 2 as a normal distribution
curve, with the values at each standard deviation presented in Table 3.
Wind On
Force X
Force Y
Force Z
Moment about
Moment about
Moment about
direction
direction
direction
the X-axis
the Y-axis
the Z-axis
Test 1
-0.330904586
0.043191308
6.051690684
0.012199536
-0.038229987
-0.001598755
Test 2
-0.32691614
0.043309695
6.007004294
0.012077555
-0.042624876
-0.001773912
Test 3
-0.352473091
0.016492863
6.080261077
0.013739574
-0.041933998
-0.001276483
Test 4
-0.329133144
0.03064805
6.146087448
0.014662234
-0.026099067
-0.00142624
Average
-0.33485674
0.033410479
6.071260876
0.013169725
-0.037221982
-0.001518848
Stdev
0.011857038
0.012747494
0.05828642
0.001249855
0.007662238
0.000215066
0.035571113
0.038242483
0.17485926 0.003749565
0.022986714
0.000645197
Confidence
Interval
Table 6: Repeat Data for Wind On Condition

22
Standard Deviation
Score
Normal Distribution
-4
-0.067870934
0.017466206
-3.5
-0.064039815
0.11389397
-3
-0.060208696
0.578401304
-2.5
-0.056377577
2.287621533
-2
-0.052546458
7.046370391
-1.5
-0.048715339
16.90336384
-1
-0.04488422
31.57964116
-0.5
-0.041053101
45.94810677
-0.037221982
52.06602611
0.5
-0.033390863
45.94810677
-0.029559744
31.57964116
1.5
-0.025728625
16.90336384
-0.021897506
7.046370391
2.5
-0.018066387
2.287621533
-0.014235268
0.578401304
3.5
-0.010404149
0.11389397
-0.00657303
0.017466206
Table 7:Normal Distribution of Wind on Repeat Data for the Moment about the Y-axis
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
Figure 14: 95% confidence interval for moment about the Y-axis
23
E XPERIMENTAL FORCES AND MOMENTS

Mean
In order to simplify data and make it more user friendly, we firstly have to find the mean
(average) of the data. The force balance used for the experiment measures the data repeatedly
and shows all of the fluctuations that occur during that time. Hence, taking the mean should
provide an estimate as to what the average forces are, during that time interval for the set
angle of attack or elevator angle. In order to do this we went about calculating the area using
the trapezoidal rule and dividing it into 473 equal parts. This was then compared to the mean
using the standard method and further checked for accuracy.
To calculate the trapezoidal area we first need to get our step size, this is done using the
formula:
Where, b = last recorded data point

a= initial recorded data point
n=number of strips
After getting our step size we then using the trapezoidal rule formula and calculate the area
under our data curve.
24
Once the area is calculated we can derive our mean by simply dividing the area and by taking
away one from the number of recorded data.
RMS
The Root Mean Square (RMS), also known as the quadratic mean, is the average calculated
when the data set has a lot of fluctuations. Especially when the data moves between the
positive and negative during measurement, like a sinusoidal wave. In order to calculate the
RMS of our data we used a simple and effective RMS formula:
Drift and Noise

The calculations need to be altered with respect to drift as there could be existing drift or
noise within the wind tunnel prior to the commencement of the experiment.
These factors always interfere with the integrity of the data tabulated at the end of the
experiment. To get rid of drift and noise effects the force balance measurements were
recorded before and after the experiment, i.e.,
The same method was carried out to calculate the actual moments as well
25
Data Quality
Data quality measurements were done in order to check how far our actual values are from an
acceptable range. Dividing the RMS over the Mean enabled us to acquire a more accurate
data quality. The data that equates closer to 1 are presumed to be relatively good and
acceptable for the experiment.
Angle of
Data
Attack
Fx
0.3
Mean
RMS
Mean
RMS
Quality
Quality
(off)
(off)
(on)
(on)
(off)
(on)
-0.86364647
0.86641658
-1.20432956
-1.00320745
-1.16617993
-2.38844152
-1.46863506
1.001216297
3.174059069
1.486965141
1.873697214
-1.00143081
-1.36108904
-16853.2308
-0.04698568
0.056586246
Fy
-0.0377554
0.04402959
Fz
-0.0712203
0.10459663
Tx
0.000333473
0.001058463
Ty
0.000420925
0.000788686
Tz
-0.00038261
0.000520769
-0.06033362
1.990547025
0.012671599
-0.12032226
-4.59E-07
0.144103345
1.992968121
0.018842226
0.120494425
0.007736779
Table 8: Data Quality Example
The discrepancies in the data quality at certain spots are due to fluctuations within the wind
tunnel and at some spots, this obviously have affected the quality of the data significantly.
26
Calculated Data
1. Varying Angle of Attack
Angle of
Attack
Data
Mean (off)
RMS (off)
Mean (on)
RMS (on)
Fx
-0.046985682
0.056586246
-0.863646472
0.86641658
Fy
-0.0377554
0.04402959
-0.060333629
0.144103345
Fz
-0.0712203
0.10459663
1.990547025
1.992968121
Tx
0.000333473
0.001058463
0.012671599
0.018842226
Ty
0.000420925
0.000788686
-0.120322266
0.120494425
Tz
-0.000382612
0.000520769
-4.59E-07
0.007736779
Fx
-0.039902846
0.051963012
-0.7455381
0.75232132
Fy
-0.00127395
0.023820056
0.00380132
0.1324861
Fz
-0.134750391
0.151481552
3.29663982
3.29820294
Tx
0.000772268
0.001116131
0.01217275
0.01813789
Ty
0.000712018
0.000876288
-0.097375
0.09790305
Tz
-0.000395264
0.000497702
-0.0005264
0.01098305
Fx
0.00970643
0.03441805
-0.4959374
0.50457367
Fy
-0.0384456
0.04685305
-0.0250547
0.15027446
Fz
-0.0496022
0.0936422
5.03348321
5.0344938
Tx
0.00503905
0.00531427
0.01775956
0.02372547
Ty
0.00139994
0.00176525
-0.0611797
0.06181862
Tz
0.00075454
0.00087879
-0.0006363
0.00992038
0.3
27
Fx
0.06930005
0.07731067
-0.1737987
0.19097755
Fy
0.03786172
0.04592361
0.05395597
0.12826804
Fz
0.07080594
0.10820409
6.75249412
6.76744398
Tx
0.00171086
0.00190003
0.01463158
0.0190158
Ty
0.00158878
0.0016895
-0.0227462
0.02396071
Tz
0.00054562
0.00065273
-0.0016704
0.01158755
Fx
-0.0577762
0.06579474
-0.0111083
0.08074491
Fy
-0.0314337
0.03867139
-0.017648
0.1708552
Fz
0.07712771
0.10820007
8.08488351
8.08555758
Tx
1.01E-05
0.00081256
0.01193277
0.02117678
Ty
8.43E-05
0.00047487
0.01401353
0.01588458
Tz
0.00028783
0.00043184
-0.0020258
0.01497464
Fx
-0.0191087
0.04283723
0.35537997
0.36145426
Fy
0.0780545
0.0816325
0.08356053
0.15032691
Fz
0.13735282
0.15809701
9.3439296
9.34433181
Tx
-0.0042268
0.00437825
0.00484711
0.0134266
Ty
-0.0069322
0.00727058
0.05318312
0.05357541
Tz
-0.000387
0.00053974
-0.0017549
0.01319431
6.1
10
Table 9: Calculated Data for Varying AoA
28
2) Elevator angle changing with Angle of attack at 0.3 degrees
Elevator
Data
Mean (off)
RMS (off)
Mean (on)
RMS (on)
Fx
0.03512613
0.04576137
-0.7829603
0.78630889
Fy
0.04554277
0.05102774
0.0428672
0.13508016
Fz
0.11338087
0.14356424
2.21199777
2.21425332
Tx
0.00112758
0.00150574
0.01229549
0.01844999
Ty
-0.00035
0.00079623
-0.0995397
0.09976264
Tz
0.00050895
0.00064533
0.00114523
0.00840498
Fx
-0.0493484
0.06020544
-0.8453816
0.84890488
Fy
-0.0340282
0.0424589
-0.0060608
0.1179919
Fz
0.13315176
0.15636052
2.08005206
2.08257864
Tx
0.00087366
0.00113107
0.010301
0.01634015
Ty
0.00011817
0.00061978
-0.1456107
0.14576766
Tz
0.00062057
0.000716978
0.00204854
0.0073027
Fx
-0.0407299
0.05169733
-0.7910104
0.79470157
Fy
-0.0125647
0.02512264
0.03036458
0.13653872
Fz
0.14901834
0.17167739
2.46986723
2.47201407
Tx
-0.0003523
0.00104628
0.01321421
0.01935803
Ty
0.00033702
0.00064467
-0.0568792
0.05728723
Tz
0.00039439
0.00055521
7.34E-05
0.00905867
4.1
4.3
29
Fx
-0.0493484
0.06020544
-0.9281221
0.93231398
Fy
-0.0340282
0.0424589
-0.0225814
0.11586053
Fz
0.13315176
0.15636052
1.81967054
1.82238895
Tx
0.00087366
0.00113107
0.00780928
0.01431143
Ty
0.00011817
0.00061978
-0.2060659
0.20620386
Tz
0.00062057
0.00071697
0.004438
0.0077539
Fx
-0.0408584
0.05169733
-0.8159015
0.82003421
Fy
-0.0126044
0.02512264
0.04015511
0.12905737
Fz
0.14948843
0.17167739
2.69483299
2.69665155
Tx
-0.0003534
0.00104628
0.01500936
0.01990107
Ty
0.00033808
0.00064467
-0.0010192
0.0076689
Tz
0.00039563
0.00055521
-0.0004393
0.01048086
Fx
-0.0493484
0.06020544
-0.9580186
0.96148289
Fy
-0.0340282
0.0424589
-0.0310396
0.11829027
Fz
0.13316176
0.15636052
1.73085563
1.73354375
Tx
0.00087366
0.00113107
0.00746893
0.01447754
Ty
0.00011817
0.00061978
-0.2228302
0.2229376
Tz
0.00062057
0.00071697
0.00564332
0.01110972
Fx
-0.0407299
0.05169733
-0.8641081
0.86772956
Fy
-0.0125647
0.02512264
0.05001416
0.11093155
Fz
0.14901834
0.17167739
2.90774062
2.90915024
Tx
-0.0003523
0.00104628
0.01729261
0.02029803
Ty
0.00033702
0.00064467
0.04651304
0.04698827
Tz
0.00039439
0.00055521
-0.0013357
0.00708795
7.9
8.9
11.5
13.6
30
Fx
-0.0493484
0.06020544
-0.996548
1.00106449
Fy
-0.0340282
0.0424589
-0.0315008
0.11737656
Fz
0.13315176
0.15636052
1.63913017
1.64241703
Tx
0.00087366
0.00113107
0.00630117
0.01339783
Ty
0.00011817
0.00061978
-0.2447933
0.24493561
Tz
0.00062057
0.00071697
0.00618468
0.01007277
Fx
-0.0408584
0.05169733
-0.9184086
0.92117253
Fy
-0.0126044
0.02512264
0.06040042
0.13962282
Fz
0.14948843
0.17167739
3.03044543
3.03191905
Tx
-0.0003534
0.00104628
0.01918841
0.02359609
Ty
0.00033808
0.00064467
0.07384452
0.07410657
Tz
0.00039563
0.00055521
-0.0023338
0.00787925
14.8
18.7
Table 10: Calculated Data for Varying Elevator Angle
31
3) Changing Elevator angle with Angle of attack at 5 degrees
Elevator
Data
Mean(off)
RMS(off)
Mean(on)
RMS(on)
Fx
0.028310588
0.041705156
-0.330539026
0.339681554
Fy
0.018105813
0.028856354
0.04290192
0.13959575
Fz
0.088949966
0.120748577
6.04528698
6.04607779
Tx
-0.00055348
0.000920942
0.012207862
0.01876994
Ty
-0.000055608
0.000530156
-0.03819059
0.0388994
Tz
0.00023442
0.00041986
-0.0016076
0.00945575
Fx
0.028311
0.041705156
-0.356914008
0.365699436
Fy
0.18105813
0.028856354
0.03808199
0.123876106
Fz
0.088949966
0.120748577
5.872540547
5.873376289
Tx
-0.00055348
0.000920943
0.010761499
0.016568039
Ty
-5.56078E-05
0.000530156
-0.079841238
0.080209588
Tz
0.000234422
0.000419863
-0.000746881
0.010392749
Fx
0.1169757
0.036205282
-0.332185476
0.344261675
Fy
-0.004327195
0.02622378
0.027164674
0.138342589
Fz
0.132410516
0.154919326
6.315984361
60316953397
Tx
0.001019954
0.001303715
0.015737618
0.021293423
Ty
0.000586904
0.00078367
0.01975302
0.021737681
Tz
0.000750898
0.000820002
-1.87E-03
0.012759533
4.1
4.3
32
Fx
0.028310588
0.041705156
-0.428069526
0.43647113
Fy
0.018105813
0.028856354
0.029704462
0.171277906
Fz
0.088949966
0.120748577
5.695981966
5.6965422
Tx
-0.00055348
0.000920942
0.008059964
0.019769977
Ty
-0.000055608
0.000530156
-0.126621632
0.126914942
Tz
0.000234422
0.000419863
0.000711753
0.011646944
Fx
0.01169757
0.036205282
-0.359832764
0.365097271
Fy
-0.004327195
0.02622378
0.035400788
0.126062263
Fz
0.132410516
0.154919326
6.540855106
6.541695393
Tx
0.001019954
0.001303715
0.018718713
0.022557673
Ty
0.000586904
0.00078367
0.073840275
0.074088236
Tz
0.000750898
0.000820002
-0.002806726
0.012932775
Fx
0.028310588
0.041705156
-0.48315371
0.492293637
Fy
0.018105813
0.028856354
0.018549877
0.158813282
Fz
0.088949966
0.120748577
5.554766432
5.555515627
Tx
-0.00055348
0.000920942
0.007614651
0.018069708
Ty
-5.5608E-05
0.000530156
-0.154686987
0.15497725
Tz
0.000234422
0.000419863
0.002747951
0.008702491
7.9
8.9
11.5
33
Fx
0.01169757
0.036205282
-0.408581615
0.414571547
Fy
-0.004327195
0.02622378
0.042747953
0.137872495
Fz
0.132410516
0.154919326
6.726861823
6.727623793
Tx
0.001019954
0.001303715
0.020473033
0.024509457
Ty
0.000586904
0.00078367
0.120401259
0.120562529
Tz
0.000750898
0.000820002
-0.003760003
0.010750215
Fx
0.028310588
0.041705156
-0.503556902
0.513762972
Fy
0.018105813
0.028856354
0.013882405
0.141440815
Fz
0.088949966
0.120748577
5.498618464
5.499584926
Tx
-0.00055348
0.000920942
0.007476593
0.016358228
Ty
-5.5608E-05
0.000530156
-0.166280013
0.166599125
Tz
0.000234422
0.000419863
0.003090666
0.011894883
Fx
0.01169757
0.036205282
-0.46725399
0.473279577
Fy
-0.004327195
0.02622378
0.049947956
0.1455884
Fz
0.132410516
0.154919326
6.886474671
6.887204829
Tx
0.001019954
0.001303715
0.022410034
0.026554173
Ty
0.000586904
0.00078367
0.147625607
0.14777559
Tz
0.000750898
0.000820002
-0.004694543
0.012022215
13.6
14.8
18.7
Table 11: Calculated Data for Changing Elevator Angle
34
C M VS A LPHA
Resolving and rotating data
The location of the force balance must be taken into account when analysing the data to
ensure the pitching moment used in the calculations is about the CG. Resolving the forces
and moments back to the CG involves a simple translational matrix.
Figure 15:Force balance with respect to CG
35
Using the measurements in the above diagram the general transformation matrix can be
formed and be applied to the data.
[ ]
The force balance has been setup in such a way that it rotates with the rod when the angle of
attack is altered. To account for this we have to rotate the axis to align it with the wind
direction with a rotational matrix.
Where
is the angle of attack
36
The calculations below for angle of attack 2 degrees, demonstrating the process used to
resolve and rotate all sets of data.
Resolving to CG using transformation matrix
Rotating to align with direction of the wind
(
[ ]
Angle of Attack
Force/Moment
(
(
Raw Mean
Force/Moment
Rotated and
Resolved Mean
Fx
-.81666079
Fx
-1.389479758
Fy
-.022578229
Fy
-.022578229
Fz
2.061767325
Fz
1.728341792
Mx
0.012338126
Mx
-.188021404
My
-.120743191
My
-.321102721
Mz
0.000382153
Mz
-.199977377
Table 12: Rotated and Resolved Data for AoA 2 degrees
37
AoA(Deg)
0.3
6.1
10
Data
Mean(off)
RMS(off)
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
-0.0469857
-0.0377554
-0.0712203
0.00033347
0.00042093
-0.0003826
-0.0399028
-0.001274
-0.1347504
0.00077227
0.00071202
-0.0003953
0.05658625
0.04402959
0.10459663
0.00105846
0.00078869
0.00052077
0.05196301
0.02382006
0.15148155
0.00111613
0.00087629
0.0004977
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
0.00970643
-0.0384456
-0.0496022
0.00503905
0.00139994
0.00075454
0.06930005
0.03786172
0.07080594
0.00171086
0.00158878
0.00054562
-0.0577762
-0.0314337
0.07712771
1.01E-05
8.43E-05
0.00028783
-0.0191087
0.0780545
0.13735282
-0.0042268
-0.0069322
-0.000387
0.03441805
0.04685305
0.0936422
0.00531427
0.00176525
0.00087879
0.07731067
0.04592361
0.10820409
0.00190003
0.0016895
0.00065273
0.06579474
0.03867139
0.10820007
0.00081256
0.00047487
0.00043184
0.04283723
0.0816325
0.15809701
0.00437825
0.00727058
0.00053974
Mean(on)
-0.8636465
-0.0603336
1.99054703
0.0126716
-0.1203223
-4.59E-07
-0.7455381
0.00380132
3.29663982
0.01217275
-0.097375
-0.0005264
-0.4959374
-0.0250547
5.03348321
0.01775956
-0.0611797
-0.0006363
-0.1737987
0.05395597
6.75249412
0.01463158
-0.0227462
-0.0016704
-0.0111083
-0.017648
8.08488351
0.01193277
0.01401353
-0.0020258
0.35537997
0.08356053
9.3439296
0.00484711
0.05318312
-0.0017549
RMS(on)
0.86641658
0.14410335
1.99296812
0.01884223
0.12049443
0.00773678
0.75232132
0.1324861
3.29820294
0.01813789
0.09790305
0.01098305
0.50457367
0.15027446
5.0344938
0.02372547
0.06181862
0.00992038
0.19097755
0.12826804
6.76744398
0.0190158
0.02396071
0.01158755
0.08074491
0.1708552
8.08555758
0.02117678
0.01588458
0.01497464
0.36145426
0.15032691
9.34433181
0.0134266
0.05357541
0.01319431
Mean On - Off
-0.81666079
-0.022578229
2.061767325
0.012338126
-0.120743191
0.000382153
-0.705635254
0.00507527
3.431390211
0.011400482
-0.098087018
-0.000131136
-0.50564383
0.0133909
5.08308541
0.01272051
-0.06257964
-0.00139084
-0.24309875
0.01609425
6.68168818
0.01292072
-0.02433498
-0.00221602
0.0466679
0.0137857
8.0077558
0.011922685
0.013929261
-0.00231363
0.37448867
0.00550603
9.20657678
0.00907391
0.06011532
-0.0013679
38
Table 13: Experimental Values for Cm vs Alpha

Moment Resolving Matrix
-0.0055
0.095
Angle (deg)
0.3
6.1
10
Axis Rotation Matrix

0.95533649
-0.2955202
0.29552021
0.95533649
-0.4161468
-0.9092974
0.90929743
-0.4161468
-0.6536436
0.7568025
-0.7568025
-0.6536436
0.98326844
0.1821625
-0.1821625
0.98326844
-0.1455
-0.9893582
0.98935825
-0.1455
-0.8390715
0.54402111
-0.5440211
-0.8390715
39
Real Force Values

AoA (Deg)
0.3
Data
6.1
-1.389479758
Fy
-0.022578229
Lift
1.728341792
L (moment)
-0.188021404
Nm
M (moment)
-0.321102721
Nm
N (moment)
-0.199977377
Nm
Drag
-2.826506411
Fy
0.00507527
Lift
-2.069594502
L (moment)
-0.318462582
Nm
M (moment)
-0.427950082
Nm
N (moment)
-0.3299942
Nm
4.177402586
Fy
0.0133909
Lift
-2.93985384
L (moment)
-0.472953645
Nm
M (moment)
-0.548253795
Nm
N (moment)
-0.487064995
Nm
Drag
0.978121723
Fy
0.01609425
Lift
6.61417658
L (moment)
-0.6231767
Nm
M (moment)
-0.6604324
Nm
N (moment)
-0.63831344
Nm
Drag
10
unit
Drag
Drag
Real Force (N)
-7.929329419
Fy
0.0137857
Lift
-1.118957468
L (moment)
-0.748557443
Nm
M (moment)
-0.746550867
Nm
N (moment)
-0.762793758
Nm
Drag
4.694349346
Fy
0.00550603
Lift
-7.928706199
L (moment)
-0.863491196
Nm
M (moment)
-0.812449786
Nm
N (moment)
-0.873933006
Nm
coefficients
value
cd
-0.1327918
cl
0.16517659
Cm
-0.4354611
cd
-0.2701275
cl
-0.1977899
Cm
-0.5803614
cd
0.39923187
cl
-0.2809601
Cm
-0.7435104
cd
0.09347851
cl
0.6321129
Cm
-0.8956406
cd
-0.7578013
cl
-0.1069381
Cm
-1.0124295
cd
0.44863616
cl
-0.7577417
Cm
-1.1017978
40
Plot of Cm vs Alpha
0
0
10
12
-0.2
-0.4
Series1
-0.6
Linear (Series1)
-0.8
-1
y = -0.0696x - 0.4422
-1.2
From the graph above Cm_alpha = - .0696
41
C M VS D EL E
Elevator
4.1
4.3
Data
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
7.9
8.9
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Mean(off)
0.03512613
0.04554277
0.11338087
0.00112758
-0.00035
0.00050895
-0.0493484
-0.0340282
0.13315176
0.00087366
0.00011817
0.00062057
-0.0407299
-0.0125647
0.14901834
-0.0003523
0.00033702
0.00039439
-0.0493484
-0.0340282
0.13315176
0.00087366
0.00011817
0.00062057
-0.0408584
-0.0126044
0.14948843
-0.0003534
0.00033808
0.00039563
RMS(off)
Mean(on)
RMS(on)
Mean(on-off)
0.04576137
0.05102774
0.14356424
0.00150574
0.00079623
0.00064533
0.06020544
0.0424589
0.15636052
0.00113107
0.00061978
0.00071698
0.05169733
0.02512264
0.17167739
0.00104628
0.00064467
-0.7829603
0.0428672
2.21199777
0.01229549
-0.0995397
0.00114523
-0.8453816
-0.0060608
2.08005206
0.010301
-0.1456107
0.00204854
-0.7910104
0.03036458
2.46986723
0.01321421
-0.0568792
0.78630889
0.13508016
2.21425332
0.01844999
0.09976264
0.00840498
0.84890488
0.1179919
2.08257864
0.01634015
0.14576766
0.0073027
0.79470157
0.13653872
2.47201407
0.01935803
0.05728723
7.34E-05
-0.9281221
-0.0225814
1.81967054
0.00780928
-0.2060659
0.004438
-0.8159015
0.04015511
2.69483299
0.01500936
-0.0010192
-0.0004393
0.00905867
0.93231398
0.11586053
1.82238895
0.01431143
0.20620386
0.0077539
0.82003421
0.12905737
2.69665155
0.01990107
0.0076689
0.01048086
-0.81808643
-0.00267557
2.0986169
0.01116791
-0.0991897
0.00063628
-0.7960332
0.0279674
1.9469003
0.00942734
-0.14572887
0.00142797
-0.7502805
0.04292928
2.32084889
0.01356651
-0.05721622
0.000321007
-0.8787737
0.0114468
1.68651878
0.00693562
-0.20618407
0.00381743
-0.7750431
0.05275951
2.54534456
0.01536276
-0.00135728
-0.00083493
0.00055521
0.06020544
0.0424589
0.15636052
0.00113107
0.00061978
0.00071697
0.05169733
0.02512264
0.17167739
0.00104628
0.00064467
0.00055521
42
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Fx
Fy
Fz
Tx
Ty
Tz
11.5
13.6
14.8
18.7
-0.0493484
-0.0340282
0.13316176
0.00087366
0.00011817
0.00062057
-0.0407299
-0.0125647
0.14901834
-0.0003523
0.00033702
0.06020544
0.0424589
0.15636052
0.00113107
0.00061978
0.00071697
0.00039439
-0.0493484
-0.0340282
0.13315176
0.00087366
0.00011817
0.00062057
-0.0408584
-0.0126044
0.14948843
-0.0003534
0.00033808
0.00039563
0.05169733
0.02512264
0.17167739
0.00104628
0.00064467
-0.9580186
-0.0310396
1.73085563
0.00746893
-0.2228302
0.00564332
-0.8641081
0.05001416
2.90774062
0.01729261
0.04651304
0.96148289
0.11829027
1.73354375
0.01447754
0.2229376
0.01110972
0.86772956
0.11093155
2.90915024
0.02029803
0.04698827
-0.9086702
0.0029886
1.59769387
0.00659527
-0.22294837
0.00502275
-0.8233782
0.06257886
2.75872228
0.01764491
0.04617602
0.00055521
0.06020544
0.0424589
0.15636052
0.00113107
0.00061978
0.00071697
0.05169733
0.02512264
0.17167739
0.00104628
0.00064467
0.00055521
-0.0013357
-0.996548
-0.0315008
1.63913017
0.00630117
-0.2447933
0.00618468
-0.9184086
0.06040042
3.03044543
0.01918841
0.07384452
-0.0023338
0.00708795
1.00106449
0.11737656
1.64241703
0.01339783
0.24493561
0.01007277
0.92117253
0.13962282
3.03191905
0.02359609
0.07410657
0.00787925
-0.00173009
-0.9471996
0.0025274
1.50597841
0.00542751
-0.24491147
0.00556411
-0.8775502
0.07300482
2.880957
0.01954181
0.07350644
-0.00272943

-0.0055

0
Angle (degrees)
0.3
0.095
Axis Rotation Matrix

0.95533649
-0.2955202
0.29552021
0.95533649
43
0.3 Degrees Angle of Attack

angle of
attack =
Elevator
Data
0.3
Real Forces (N)
deg
Unit
Coefficients
Drag
-1.401731518
Fy
-0.00267557
Lift
1.76312423
L (moment)
M (moment)
4.1
-0.192700171
-0.303057781
Nm
-0.203231801
Nm
Drag
-1.335827942
Fy
0.0279674
Lift
1.624701002
L (moment)
-0.179906371
Nm
N (moment)
-0.187905741
Nm
Drag
-1.402628082
Fy
0.04292928
Lift
1.995468582
L (moment)
-0.211040677
Nm
M (moment)
7.9
-0.281823407
Nm
N (moment)
-0.224928194
Nm
Drag
-1.33792496
Fy
0.0114468
Lift
1.351497545
-0.158116919
Nm
L (moment)
M (moment)
cl
0.16850073
Cm
-0.4109896
cd
-0.1276643
cl
0.1552717
-0.4354611
0.0244
71513
-0.4354611
0.0189
31562
Cm
-0.4543927
cd
-0.1340483
cl
0.19070574
Cm
-0.3821927
-0.4354611
0.0532
68353
cd
-0.1278647
cl
0.12916181
-0.4354611
0.0679
88705
Nm
-0.371236609
N (moment)
-0.1339626
Nm
-0.335062581
4.3
cd
Cm due to
AoA
Nm
N (moment)
M (moment)
Value
-0.161235109
Cm due
to
elevato
r
delecti
on
Cm
-0.5034498
Nm
44
Drag
8.9
-1.492627704
Fy
0.05275951
Lift
2.202619638
L (moment)
-0.23070771
Nm
M (moment)
N (moment)
Drag
11.5
-0.24742775
-0.2469054
Nm
Fy
0.0029886
Lift
1.257804847
L (moment)
-0.150183334
Nm
13.6
N (moment)
-0.151755854
Nm
Drag
-1.601861417
14.8
0.06257886
2.392183162
L (moment)
-0.248962287
Nm
-0.220431177
Nm
N (moment)
-0.268337287
Nm
Drag
-1.349941391
Fy
0.0025274
Lift
1.158799505
L (moment)
-0.142850037
Nm
M (moment)
N (moment)
-0.142713437
Nm
Drag
-1.689736735
Fy
0.07300482
Lift
2.492949529
L (moment)
-0.258975631
Nm
M (moment)
N (moment)
Cm
-0.3355473
cd
-0.1280856
cl
0.12020766
-0.4354611
0.0999
13771
-0.4354611
0.0795
0285
Cm
-0.514964
cd
-0.1530889
cl
0.22861952
Cm
-0.2989361
-0.4354611
0.1365
24977
cd
-0.1290131
cl
0.11074578
-0.4354611
0.0977
59301
-0.4354611
0.1574
36935
Nm
-0.393189017
18.7
0.21050304
Lift
M (moment)
cl
Nm
-0.379726974
Fy
-0.1426495
Nm
-1.340236621
M (moment)
cd
-0.205011001
-0.281246871
Nm
Cm
-0.5332204
cd
-0.1614871
cl
0.2382497
Cm
-0.2780242
Nm
45
Plot of Cm vs Del E (0.3 degrees)

0.2
0.15
0.1
y = 0.0036x - 0.0103
0.05
Series1
Linear (Series1)
0
0
10
15
20
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
From the graph above, Cm_del.E = .0036
46
5 Degrees Angle of Attack
Elevator
Data
Real Force (N)
Unit
Coefficients
Drag
5.609884085
Fy
0.024796107
Lift
2.033697181
L (moment)
0.010787669
Nm
M (moment)
4.1
0.030917834
Nm
Drag
5.436751635
Fy
-0.14297614
Lift
2.009987555
L (moment)
0.009196241
Nm
Nm
0.030828445
Nm
Drag
5.802169023
Fy
0.031491869
Lift
2.184757626
L (moment)
0.012247278
Nm
0.019339321
Nm
N (moment)
0.031386482
Nm
Drag
5.247261313
Fy
0.011598649
Lift
2.028136921
L (moment)
0.006103353
Nm
M (moment)
-0.126502231
Nm
N (moment)
0.031316007
Nm
Drag
6.039823973
Fy
0.039727983
Lift
8.9
-0.080571999
N (moment)
M (moment)
7.9
Nm
N (moment)
M (moment)
4.3
-0.037998603
L (moment)
M (moment)
N (moment)
2.174102854
0.015655343
0.073471876
0.031688821
Value
cd
0.53613327
cl
0.19435922
Cm
-0.0515315
cd
0.51958711
cl
0.19209331
Cm
-0.1092671
cd
0.55450983
cl
0.20879598
Cm
0.02622688
cd
0.50147763
cl
0.19382783
Cm
-0.1715551
cd
0.57722237
cl
0.20777771
Cm
0.09963835
Cm due to
AoA
Cm due
to
elevator
delection
-0.7902
0.738668
473
-0.7902
0.680932
874
-0.7902
0.816426
879
-0.7902
0.618644
927
-0.7902
0.889838
345
Nm
Nm
Nm
47
11.5
Drag
5.096221009
Fy
0.000444064
Lift
2.040900975
L (moment)
0.005355077
Nm
M (moment)
13.6
0.03257552
Nm
Drag
6.204362124
Fy
0.047075149
Lift
2.273612382
L (moment)
0.017141544
Nm
0.120073269
Nm
N (moment)
0.031758581
Nm
Drag
5.036591745
Fy
-0.004223408
Lift
2.044539037
L (moment)
0.005104802
Nm
M (moment)
18.7
Nm
N (moment)
M (moment)
14.8
-0.154628937
-0.166247634
Nm
N (moment)
0.032609421
Nm
Drag
6.340775625
Fy
0.054275151
Lift
2.375150876
0.018755847
Nm
L (moment)
M (moment)
N (moment)
0.147337217
0.031701912
Nm
cd
0.4870428
cl
0.19504769
Cm
-0.2096989
cd
0.59294718
cl
0.21728778
Cm
0.16283648
cd
0.48134406
cl
0.19539537
Cm
-0.2254555
cd
0.60598414
cl
0.22699175
Cm
0.19981029
-0.7902
0.580501
101
-0.7902
0.953036
483
-0.7902
0.564744
49
-0.7902
0.990010
286
Nm
48
Plot of Cm vs Del E (5 degrees)

1.2
y = 0.0071x + 0.6934
0.8
Series1
0.6
Linear (Series1)
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
15
20
From the above graph, Cm_del.E = 0.0071
Similarities or Differences
Based on the two graphs, the different angle of attacks still showed a very similar pattern and
trend. Not only are the values of the coefficient of pitching moment due to the elevator's
deflection are both very homogenous, it also fluctuates at the same point when the elevators
are on the same angle.
49
E XPERIMENTAL V S T HEORETICAL
Firstly, the pitch moment coefficient due to the angle of attack, Cm, displays a negative
linear trend with a value of -.0696; this negative slope for a positive value of alpha indicates
that there is stability in pitching. Compared to the experimental values, our derived
theoretical value was out by a factor of 10, where the experimental values are -.61. By
calculating the percentage error (calculated percentage error = (|theoreticalexperimental|)/(|theoretical|), it gives an error of 88.6395% which is a huge difference.
As for the coefficient of pitching moment due to the elevator's deflection,
, the
experimental values and theoretical values are completely different. The theoretical value of
was 0.0071 while the experimental value was -0.993, obviously one of these two values
are wrong. The graph shows an escalating and declining pattern, which means the pitch of the
test model is completely unstable. Some assumptions could be the external factors in the
experiment that produced the experimental values to be different such that there were no
proper controls implemented to reduce the effect of drift in the model plane; another could
have been the placement of the force balance under the aircraft was not a very ideal position
as it could have picked up or resulted better values if it was placed in the centre of the aircraft
model. Another hypothesis for this result could be the density of air within the wind tunnel
might have been different in our presumptions; it could also be due to wrong assumptions
like the y-axis moment might have been negative in respect to our assumption of what the
positive moment rotation is. Also, the force balance was connected in the rod instead of the
model plane; this can create a different pitch moment that the plane experiences and a
different drag force when compared to what the model is undergoing.
50
D ISCUSSION
The values of Cm had an error of 88.6395% and was a factor of 10 out when compared and
plotted with the experimental values of the lab test, the outcome of
was completely
different to the experimental values that were taken from the lab. Even though the same
procedures were used to obtain the theoretical values, the trend relationship that came out
showed instability in the pitching moment coefficient due to the elevator angle. As stated
before, certain factors could have affected the entirety of the report ranging from the
ineffectiveness of the apparatus and procedures up to the possibility of wrong assumptions in
the theoretical calculations. The data also shows that there is a moment about the X-axis
(rolling moment) in one direction for all tests. This suggests that there is more lift or drag on
one of the wings, a reason for this occurrence may be due to the trip wires not being set up
symmetrically resulting in higher turbulent flow over one wing resulting in increased drag
and decreased lift. This occurrence may also be a significant contributor to the measured
moment about the Z-axis (yaw moment).
In theory, the effects of Reynolds number to the pitch moment diminishes the faster the
aircraft moves (>0.6) and is practically eliminated at Mach 0.9. In the experiment, there was a
noticeable effect of Reynold's number on the pitching moment in and beyond the stall region
but this effect diminishes as the angle of attack increases. The most important effect that
Reynold's number has on pitch moment is its effect on the boundary layer thickness and thus
the displacement thickness. It is also important for determining laminar and turbulent flows
over the model as it expresses the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces.
51
C ONCLUSION
The P-51D model aircraft was thoroughly examined under strict test conditions. It's
background shows that it's the perfect aircraft to be used in these circumstances as it performs
superbly in terms of stability during pitching moments. The lab test was performed under a
constrained and closed loop test section in an attempt to derive force and balance
measurements; through this, we were able evaluate the three different pitch moment
coefficients (pitch due to angle of attack, pitch rate and deflection) and compare the results of
the experiment to our theoretical values. As stated in the discussion and comparison of
theoretical and experimental, the pitch moment due to the angle of attack, Cm, already had a
large error difference and just from looking at the graphs of Cm_del.E (pitch moment
coefficient due to the elevator deflection) it 's obvious that it yields a completely different
result with the results from the lab even when the same method and procedure were
implemented. This could probably be smoothened quite a bit if the test conditions and other
distinct factors were altered such as the fact that the force balance placement was on the rod
which creates its own drag and pitch moment. Another factor that affected the overall
accuracy was the laminar flow quality inside the wind tunnel, our data showed that there is a
moment in the roll axis when the purpose of the lab was to measure the pitch; this indicates
that there is some sort of drag or lift in one side of the model and the reason this was picked
up could have been due to the apparatus being asymmetrical. In terms of data similarity and
differences, the different angles still resulted the same output but just with a different
magnitude. In our circumstances of calculating the theoretical values of Cm_del.E,it
should've been correct as the steps and procedure were checked several times, unless, we
assume that the positive moment rotation is actually supposed to be a negative y-axis moment
then this might transform the results a bit.
Further improvements within the apparatus and its positioning could definitely result a
different experimental data. Seeing as most of the calculations and procedures were followed
thoroughly and correctly, the only conclusion or assumption possible would be that there
might have been something wrong with the way the lab test was done, because most of the
theoretical explanation that could've resulted this were only due to the wrong assumptions of
positive and negative moments and nothing else.
52
R EFERENCES
N.a(n.d) What Are Wind Tunnels? | NASA. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/what-are-wind-tunnels58.html#.U1ijI_mSySo
N.a (n.d.). Boeing: P-51 Mustang. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/bna/p51.page
Kinzey, Bert. P-51 Mustang in Detail & Scale: Part 1; Prototype through P-51C.
Carrollton, Texas: Detail & Scale Inc., 1996. ISBN 1-888974-02-8
Kinzey, Bert. P-51 Mustang in Detail & Scale: Part 2; P-51D thu P-82H. Carrollton,
Texas: Detail & Scale Inc., 1997. ISBN 1-888974-03-6
Advanced thermal solutions. (2012, 07 17). Some basic principles of wind tunnel design.
Retrieved 04 15, 2014, from Advanced themal solutions Inc:
http://www.qats.com/cms/2012/07/17/some-basic-principles-of-wind-tunneldesign
ATI Industrial Automation. (2014, 01 01). F/T Sensor: Nano17 Titanium. Retrieved 04 16,
2014, from ATI Industrial Automation, Inc: http://www.atiia.com/products/ft/ft_models.aspx?id=Nano17+Titanium
Pandiripalli, B. (2010). Repeatability and Reproducibility studies: A comparison of techniques.
Wichita State University. Kansas: Unpublished.
Rona, A., & Soueid, H. (2010). Boundary Layer Trips for Low Reynold's Number Wind Tunnel
Tests. Orlando: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
53

Advanced Aerodynamics Lab Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

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

Advanced Aerodynamics Lab Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

RMIT University School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering