AIAA 2017-0771

AIAA SciTech Forum

9 - 13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas
55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

Experimental Study of NACA Symmetric and Camber

Airfoils at Low Reynolds Numbers

Vibhav Durgesh
Elifalet Garcia and Hamid Johari

California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA, 91330, USA

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

The performance of airfoils at low Reynolds numbers is intriguing due to the complex
fluid dynamics phenomena observed including laminar separated flow, increased transition
susceptibility, and the rapid transition of the separated shear layer to a turbulent flow.
Therefore, the objective of this investigation was to experimentally study the aerodynamic
performance of a symmetric airfoil (NACA-0009) and a cambered (NACA-6409) airfoil at
low Reynolds numbers (specifically below 50,000), as well as to identify the flow structures
responsible for altering aerodynamic performance. Lift and drag force measurements were
performed, along with flow visualization measurements for Reynolds numbers of 20,000,
30,000, 40,000, and 50,000. All measurements for this study were performed in a low-
speed water tunnel facility. A force/torque transducer was used for performing force and
moment measurements, and hydrogen bubble technique was used for flow visualization. The
lift coefficient results and drag polar results indicated that the camber airfoil performed
better than the thin symmetric airfoil. The results also indicated that the aerodynamic
performance of the studied airfoils is significantly different from that at Reynolds number
values of the order of 106 . Furthermore, the flow visualization results showed a strong
correlation between the observed flow structures and aerodynamic performance.

Nomenclature
Angle of attack
c Chord length
Cl Lift coefficient
Cd Drag coefficient
Rec Reynolds number based on chord length
x, y, and z Cartesian coordinate system

I. Introduction
The aerodynamics of airfoils at low Reynolds numbers are complex, since the boundary layer separates
due to the presence of an adverse pressure gradient, and the separated shear layer transitions and reattaches
further downstream as a turbulent boundary layer. The region between laminar separation and turbulent
reattachment is commonly referred to as a laminar separation bubble (LSB). The presence and structure
of a LSB and other associated flow phenomena have a significant influence on the overall aerodynamic
performance of airfoil. Moreover, it has been observed that airfoils exhibit significantly different flow behavior
at low Reynolds numbers as compared to that at high Reynolds numbers.16
Several experimental studies have focused on quantifying the aerodynamic performance of different airfoils
at low Reynolds numbers.1, 713 While studying low-Reynolds number flows, Gaster5 observed the presence of
LSB on airfoils. Since then, several researchers have experimentally and numerically studied LSB on different
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, and AIAA member.
Undergraduate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, and AIAA Student Member.
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, and AIAA Associate Fellow.

1 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2017 by Dr. Vibhav Durgesh. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 airfoils.4, 1417 However, while several studies have been conducted to assess the aerodynamic performance of
airfoils at low Reynolds numbers, there has been a lack of systematic studies of the impact of airfoil thickness
ratio and camber on aerodynamic performance at these low Reynolds numbers. Such investigations would
add to current understanding of the aerodynamics of airfoils at low Reynolds numbers and thereby allow for
improvement in design and performance of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles/ Micro Aerial Vehicles (UAVs/MAVs)
and vertical axis wind turbines, which tend to operate in the low-Reynolds number regime.
The objective of this investigation was to quantify the aerodynamic performance of a thin symmetric
and a thin cambered airfoils on aerodynamic performance at low-Reynolds number regimes. The airfoils
used for this study had a thickness of 9%. The cambered airfoil (NACA-6409) used for this study enabled
characterization of the impact of camber at low Reynolds numbers, while maintaining the thickness ratio
at 9%. This study also aimed to correlate flow structures with aerodynamic performance. Therefore, flow
visualization experiments along with load measurements, were performed on both airfoils. These measure-
ments were conducted at Reynolds numbers (Rec ) from 20,000 to 50,000. Angle of attack () was varied
from 8 to 20 for the NACA-6409 airfoil, and 0 to 12 for the NACA-0009 airfoil. Lift and drag forces,
as well as moments (not presented here), were measured using a sensitive 6-axis force and torque load cell.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

Hydrogen bubble flow visualization was used to identify the flow structures on the suction side of the airfoils.
The results obtained from this study provided critical information about the aerodynamic loads on airfoils
at low Reynolds numbers, which may potentially aid in developing improved flow control applications for
UAVs and MAVs.

II. Experimental Setup

A. Test Facility
The measurements for this investigation were conducted in the Experimental Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
(EFDL) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at California State University Northridge (CSUN).
The water tunnel facility used for this study has a test section with a cross-sectional area of 2.0ft 2.0ft and a
length of 10ft. The test section has access on all sides for conducting optical flow measurements. A separate
mounting structure was fabricated around the test section of the water tunnel and firmly secured to the
ground in order to isolate the vibrations from the water tunnel pump system from the airfoils. The mounting
structure was fitted with a force torque transducer and a rotating mechanism the force torque transducer
was used for measuring the lift, drag and pitching moment on the airfoils. The rotating mechanism allowed
for changing the angle of attack of the airfoils in increments of 1o .
The water tunnel facility has a tubular cell, three sets of honeycomb mesh sections for flow conditioning,
as well as a separate filtration system capable of recirculating the water in the tunnel in three hours. The
flow velocity in the water tunnel can be varied from 0.10 m/s to 0.40 m/s. The free stream turbulence level
in the tunnel was measured to be 1.5%. Furthermore, to verify the free stream velocity and turbulence
level, a 2-component Dantec Dynamic (Fiber Flow) Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) system was used to
measure free stream velocity six chord lengths upstream of the airfoils during each experiment.

B. Models
The two airfoils used for this study were the NACA-0009 and NACA-6409, as shown in Figure 1. The
cambered airfoil (NACA-6409) allowed for studying the impact of camber on aerodynamic performance for
a fixed thickness ratio of 9%. Both airfoils used in this study had a chord length (c) of 6.0in, and were
CNC-machined from a single-piece aluminum block with an industrial-grade smooth surface (hydraulically
smooth). The maximum blockage ratio in the test section was 8% at the highest angle of attack.

C. Instrumentation
The aerodynamic load on the airfoils was measured using a Gamma ATI 6-Axis force/torque transducer,
which was capable of measuring 65N of force along the x and y axes and 130N along the z axis, with a
resolution of 0.025N. This transducer can measure 5Nm of torque with a resolution of 0.00075 Nm. The
force and moment data from the transducer were acquired using a 16 channel NI data acquisition system at
a sampling rate of 200 Hz for 120 seconds. Multiple measurements were performed for each case in order to
test for consistency in the aerodynamic load results. A schematic of the load cell and mounting mechanism

2 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 (a) (b)

Figure 1: Profile of airfoils used: (a) NACA-0009, and (b) NACA-6409.

is shown in Figure 2(a).

Hydrogen bubble flow visualization was used to identify flow structures on the suction side of the airfoils.
The key components of the hydrogen bubble system include a pulse generator circuit, a high voltage DC
power source, a CCD camera, and a pure platinum wire with a diameter of 0.001 in (25.4 m). An 8 MP
Imager LX CCD camera was used for this investigation, and images were captured at a frame rate of 1
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

to 5 per second, depending on the Reynolds number. The pulse generator circuit was designed based on
the guidelines provided by Smits and Lin.18 A schematic of the field of view of the hydrogen bubble flow
visualization system, along with coordinate axes, is shown in Figure 2(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 2: Schematic of experimental setup: (a) airfoil with force torque transducer and rotating mechanism,
and (b) airfoil with coordinate axes and flow visualization field of view.

III. Test Matrix

The details of the airfoils used for this investigation, the measurements performed on these airfoils, and
the Reynolds numbers for the tests performed in this study, are provided in Table 1. The symmetric and
the cambered airfoils allowed for studying the impact of camber at these Reynolds numbers. For this study,
lift, drag and pitching moment measurements were carried out to quantify the aerodynamic performance of
the airfoils. Flow visualization measurements were performed to identify the flow features over the airfoils.
Finally, Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) measurements were performed six chord lengths upstream of the
airfoils to quantify the free-stream flow.

3 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Table 1: Measurements test matrix. The symbols , ?,  represent force and moment measurements, LDV
measurements upstream of airfoil, and hydrogen bubble measurements, respectively.

Airfoil Rec Measurements

20,000 0 to 12

, ?, 
30,000 0 to 12 , ?, 
NACA-0009
40,000 0 to 12 , ?, 
50,000 0 to 12 , ?, 
20,000 -8 to 20 , ?, 
30,000 -8 to 20 , ?, 
NACA-6409
40,000 -8 to 20 , ?, 
50,000 -8 to 20 , ?, 
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

IV. Results and Discussion

The following section presents the lift coefficient, drag polar plots, and relevant flow visualization results
for the studied airfoils. The first part of this section presents the lift and drag polar characteristics for both
airfoils, followed by a discussion of the flow visualization results, and an explanation for the aerodynamic
load behavior observed at low Reynolds numbers.
The lift coefficients (Cl ) of airfoils presented here is based on the lift measurements. The Cl results
for the NACA-0009 airfoil at Reynolds numbers of 50k, 40k, 30k and 20k, are shown in Figures 3(a)-(d),
respectively. As observed in these figures, the slope for the greater part of the lift coefficient curves deviates
from the 2 line. At angles of attack between = 5 and 6 , the Cl value approaches the theoretical 2
curve. Furthermore, the Cl curve displayed non-linear behavior at angles of attack between 0 and 4 . The
extent of non-linearity in these lift coefficient curves decreased with increasing Rec values. The lift curves
for all Rec values reached a peak value of 0.8, after which there is a slow decrease in lift coefficient values,
indicating soft stall behavior. As observed in figure 3(d), at Rec value of 20k, the NACA-0009 airfoil showed
a sharp increase in lift coefficient values (i.e., from 0.2 to 0.5) for angles of attack between 4 and 5 . The
lift curve for the NACA-0009 airfoil at Rec values of 50k, 40k, 30k and 20k, demonstrated several unique
features and trends not observed at higher Rec values of the order of 106 .

A. Lift coefficient

(a) (b) (c) (d)

0.8

0.6
Cl

0.4

0.2

0
0 3 6 9 12 0 3 6 9 12 0 3 6 9 12 0 3 6 9 12
, , , ,

Figure 3: Lift coefficient as a function of angle of attack, for NACA-0009 airfoil at: (a) Rec =50k, (b)Rec =40k,
(c) Rec =30k, and (d) Rec =20k.The blue dash-dot line represents the 2 curve.

Figure 4(a)-(d) shows Cl behavior of the NACA-6409 airfoil for Reynolds numbers of 50k, 40k, 30k and
20k, respectively. The observed Cl trend is different from that observed for the thin NACA symmetric airfoil
(NACA-0009). As observed in these figures, zero lift occurred at negative values, which is as expected for
the cambered airfoil. However, at Rec values of 50k and 40k, zero lift occurred at zL = 4 , while at Rec
values of of 30k and 20k, zero lift coefficient occurred at zL = 3 . For Rec values of 50k and 40k, the

4 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 cambered airfoil follows the 2 curve for between 2 and 5 . Here again, we observe a non-linearity
similar to that displayed by the Cl curve for the NACA-0009 airfoil at the lower Reynolds number. However,
in this case, the non-linear trends are observed at negative values (i.e., between 8 to 3 ). At Rec
values of 50k and 40k, the NACA-6409 airfoil reached a maximum Cl value of 1.5 at between 13 and 16 .
Again, a sharp increase in Cl , from 1.2 to 1.5, was observed between of 10 and 11 at Rec of 20k (see
Figure 4(d)). The lift curves for the NACA-6409 airfoil at Rec values of 50k, 40k, 30k and 20k, demonstrated
several unique features and trends not observed for higher Rec values of the order of 106 .

(a) (b) (c) (d)

1.5
1
Cl

0.5
0
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

-0.5
-5 0 5 10 15 20 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -5 0 5 10 15 20
, , , ,

Figure 4: Lift coefficient as a function of angle of attack, for NACA-6409 airfoil at: (a) Rec = 50k, (b)Rec
= 40k, (c) Rec = 30k, and (d) Rec = 20k. The blue dash-dot line represents 2 curve.

B. Drag polar
Lift and drag measurements on the airfoils allow for drag polar analysis at the studied Reynolds numbers.
Figures 5 and 6 show the drag polar for the NACA-0009 and NACA-6409 airfoils, respectively. As observed
in Figures 5(a)-(d), the drag polar curves exhibited a similar trend for Rec values of 50k, 40k, 30k, and 20k,
suggesting Cd Cl2 . It should be noted that for Rec of 20k and of 0 , the NACA-0009 airfoil exhibited
higher Cd values as compared to those at greater Rec values (i.e., 50k, 40k, and 30k). Similar to the
symmetric airfoil, the NACA-6409 airfoil exhibited a quadratic relationship between Cl and Cd , as observed
in Figure 6. At higher drag coefficient values and Rec of 50k and 40k, the airfoil displayed no significant
increase in lift coefficient values. For lower Rec values (i.e., 20k) at a higher drag coefficient values (i.e.,
Cd 0.3), there is a decrease in lift coefficient values with further increase in drag coefficients (see Figure
6(d)). Furthermore, a discontinuous variation is also observed in the drag polar at low Rec values as a result
of jumps in the lift curves.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

0.8

0.6
Cl

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2
Cd Cd Cd Cd

Figure 5: Drag polar for the NACA-0009 airfoil at: (a) Rec = 50k, (b)Rec = 40k, (c) Rec = 30k, and (d)
Rec = 20k.

C. Flow visualization
In this subsection, a comparison of flow visualization results for select cases is presented. These flow visual-
ization results underline the differences in the flow field under various scenarios and the observed differences

5 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 (a) (b) (c) (d)
2
1.5
Cl 1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Cd Cd Cd Cd

Figure 6: Drag polar for the NACA-6409 airfoil at: (a) Rec = 50k, (b)Rec = 40k, (c) Rec = 30k, and (d)
Rec = 20k.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

in Cl values.
Figures 7(a) and (b) highlight the difference in the flow field for the NACA-0009 airfoil at = 0 for
Reynolds numbers of 20k and 50k. As observed in these figures, at Rec of 50k, the NACA-0009 airfoil
exhibited the presence of a thin laminar boundary layer, while at Rec of 20k the presence of a thick laminar
boundary layer was observed. Furthermore, the wake is observed to be laminar at both these Rec values
(i.e., 50k and 20k). Periodic oscillation in the near wake region can be observed at Rec value of 50k, but not
at Rec value of 20k, at least in the near wake.
The Cl values vary significantly with change in Rec value from 50k to 20k and of 3 for the NACA-
0009 airfoil. Therefore, the flow visualization images at this value are analyzed further. Figures 8(a)
and (b) show typical flow visualization images for the highest and lowest studied Rec values of 50k and 20k,
respectively. The wake exhibited turbulent behavior for Rec value of 50k, which is in contrast to the behavior
for Rec value of 20k. As observed in Figure 8(a), for Rec of 50k, the separated flow follows the airfoil profile
closely on the suction side, which aided in suction pressure recovery at this Rec . However, at Rec of 20k, the
separated flow moved away from the airfoil suction side, as observed in Figure 8(b). It should be noted that
for Rec value of 50k, the separation location had close to the leading edge, while the separation location has
moved towards the trailing edge for Rec value of 20k.

(a) (b)

Figure 7: Flow visualization on NACA-0009 airfoil for = 0 at: (a) Rec = 50k, and (b) Rec = 20k.

(a) (b)

Figure 8: Flow visualization on NACA-0009 airfoil for = 3 at: (a) Rec = 50k, and (b) Rec = 20k.

The flow visualization results at of 6 for the NACA-0009 airfoil display separated flow behavior
different from those presented earlier. Moreover, this particular case was of interest because at this value,
the Cl values are almost equal for all studied Rec values. Figures 9(a) and (b) show flow visualization results

6 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 at = 6 for Rec values of 50k and 20k, respectively. As observed in these figures, the flow separated close to
the leading edge. The formed shear layer transitioned to turbulence and reattached to the airfoil, recovering
its suction pressure. For both cases, the wake flow visualization shows a turbulent wake with similar-sized
wakes.

(a) (b)

Figure 9: Flow visualization on NACA-0009 airfoil for = 6 at: (a) Rec = 50k, and (b) Rec = 20k.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

Key aspects of the aerodynamic performance of the NACA-0009 airfoil are evident in Figures 7(a), 8(a),
and 9(a). As observed in these figures, the separated flow exhibited distinctly different behavior, (1) the
separated flow stayed away from the airfoil for of 0 , (2) the separated flow closely followed the airfoil
suction surface for of 3 , and (3) the separated flow reattached to the airfoil surface for of 6 . For
Rec value of 20k, the separated flow exhibits similar behavior, except for the case where the separated flow
closely followed the airfoil surface.
The cambered airfoil studied here also showed significant deviation in Cl and drag polar behavior with
increase in Rec value from 20k to 50k. The following paragraphs discuss in detail the flow visualization
results for the studied cambered airfoil.
The flow visualization images in Figures 10(a) and (b) show the flow behavior over the NACA-6409 airfoil
at Cl values close to zero. As observed in the figure, the flow separated close to the leading edge and stayed
separated over the airfoil with a turbulent wake. Furthermore, for both cases presented here, the flow on the
pressure side of the airfoil separated, transitioned to fully turbulent flow, and vortex rolling over the surface
is observed.

(a) (b)

Figure 10: Flow visualization on NACA-6409 airfoil for = 3 at: (a) Re = 50k, and (b) Re = 20k.

The flow visualization results for the cambered airfoil are analyzed for Rec values of 50k and 20k and
of 2 , as shown in Figure 11. At this , there was significant deviation in the Cl values for the studied Rec
values of 50k and 20k. These flow visualization results illustrated the difference in flow structure leading
to the differences observed in Cl values. The separated flow stayed close to the airfoil suction surface and
reattached near the trailing edge for Rec value of 50k. This may help in recovery of suction pressure on the
airfoil. In contrast, the separated flow for Rec value of 20k did not reattach to the airfoil, thereby leading
to a significant loss in suction pressure.

(a) (b)

Figure 11: Flow visualization on NACA-6409 airfoil for = 2 at: (a) Rec = 50k, and (b) Rec = 20k.

7 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 The Cl values for the NACA-6409 airfoil showed a significant increase between of 10 and 12 at Rec
value of 20k. Therefore, the flow visualization data at these conditions are analyzed and shown in Figure
12. As observed from this figure, the flow separated close to the leading edge for of 12 as compared to
of 10 . At of 10 , the shear layer formed due to the separated flow showed vortex roll-up and did not
reattach to the airfoil. In contrast, at of 12 , the separated flow closely followed the airfoil suction surface.
This observed difference in the separated flow behavior can be attributed to an increase in Cl between of
10 and 12 for Rec value of 20k.

(a) (b)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

Figure 12: Flow visualization on NACA-6409 airfoil for Rec = 20k at: (a) = 10 , and = 12 .

At of 12 , the NACA-0009 airfoil exhibited soft stall behavior and the NACA-6409 airfoil had Cl values
almost two times larger than those observed for the NACA-0009 airfoil. Therefore, flow visualization images
for this particular case are analyzed. As observed from Figures 13(a) and (b), the flow separated close to
the leading edge for both airfoils. However, the separated shear layer became fully turbulent and did not
reattach to the airfoil, thereby leading to a loss of suction pressure for the NACA-0009 airfoil. On the other
hand the separated flow stayed close to the suction surface of the airfoil for the NACA-6409 airfoil and
may have aid in recovery of some suction pressure over the airfoil. This behavior of the separated flow is
responsible for better performance of the thin camber airfoil than the thin symmetric airfoil.

(a) (b)

Figure 13: Flow visualization at Rec = 50k and = 12 : (a) NACA-0009, and (b) NACA-6409.

V. Conclusions
For this investigation, lift and drag coefficient measurements, along with flow visualization measurements
were performed for two airfoils (i.e., NACA-0009 and NACA-6409) at Reynolds number of 20k, 30k, 40k, and
50k. The lift coefficient and drag polar plots for the studied airfoils showed that aerodynamic performance
of the airfoils at low Reynolds numbers is different compared to the behavior observed at Reynolds number
of the order of 106 . The cambered airfoil (i.e., NACA-6409) had higher lift coefficient values than the
symmetric airfoil (NACA-6409) at these low Reynolds numbers. At Reynolds numbers of 20k, both airfoils
demonstrated non-linear Cl behavior, and the non-linear trend decreased with increase in Reynolds number.
Furthermore, the drag polar showed that there was a quadratic relationship between drag coefficient and lift
coefficient values with a Reynolds number dependence.The flow visualization images indicate a correlation
between the separated flow condition and observed aerodynamic performance of the to studied airfoils.

References
1 Carmichael,B., Low Reynolds number airfoil survey, Vol. 1, NASA Technical Report, 1981.
2 Yarusevych,S., Sullivan, P. E., and Kawall, J. G., On vortex shedding from an airfoil in low-Reynolds-number flows,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 632, 2009, pp. 245271.

8 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 3 Chitta, V., Walters, D. K., and Dhakal, T. P., Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics for Elliptic Airfoils in Un-

manned Aerial Vehicle Applications, INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2012.

4 Ol, M. V., McAuliffe, B. R., Hanff, E. S., Scholz, U., and Kahler, C., Comparison of laminar separation bubble

measurements on a low Reynolds number airfoil in three facilities, AIAA paper , Vol. 5149, No. 1, 2005, pp. 2005.
5 Gaster, M., The structure and behaviour of laminar separation bubbles, Citeseer, 1969.
6 Ravi, S., Watkins, S., Watmuff, J., Massey, K., Peterson, P., and Marino, M., Influence of large-scale freestream

turbulence on the performance of a thin airfoil, AIAA Journal, Vol. 50, No. 11, 2012, pp. 24482459.
7 Boutilier, M. S. H., Experimental investigation of transition over a NACA 0018 Airfoil at a low Reynolds number ,

Masters thesis, 2011.

8 Burgmann, S., Dannemann, J., and Schroder, W., Time-resolved and volumetric PIV measurements of a transitional

separation bubble on an SD7003 airfoil, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2008, pp. 609622.
9 Fitzgerald, E. J. and Mueller, T. J., Measurements in a separation bubble on an airfoil using laser velocimetry, AIAA

Journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1990, pp. 584592.

10 Lian, Y. and Shyy, W., Laminar-turbulent transition of a low Reynolds number rigid or flexible airfoil, AIAA Journal,

Vol. 45, No. 7, 2007, pp. 15011513.

11 Mueller, T. J., Aerodynamic measurements at low raynolds numbers for fixed wing micro-air vehicles, Tech. rep., DTIC

Document, 2000.
12 OMEARA, M. and Mueller, T., Laminar separation bubble characteristics on an airfoil at low Reynolds numbers,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 15, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-0771

AIAA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1987, pp. 10331041.

13 Alam, M. M., Zhou, Y., Yang, H., Guo, H., and Mi, J., The ultra-low Reynolds number airfoil wake, Experiments in

fluids, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2010, pp. 81103.

14 Tani, I., Low-speed flows involving bubble separations, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 5, 1964, pp. 70103.
15 Radespiel, R. E., Windte, J., and Scholz, U., Numerical and experimental flow analysis of moving airfoils with laminar

separation bubbles, AIAA Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2007, pp. 13461356.
16 Burgmann, S. and Schroder, W., Investigation of the vortex induced unsteadiness of a separation bubble via time-resolved

and scanning PIV measurements, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 675691.
17 Olson, D. A., Katz, A. W., Naguib, A. M., Koochesfahani, M. M., Rizzetta, D. P., and Visbal, M. R., On the challenges

in experimental characterization of flow separation over airfoils at low Reynolds number, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 54, No. 2,
2013, pp. 111.
18 Smits, A. J. and Lim, T., Flow Visualization, Techniques and Examples, Imperial College Press, 2000.

9 of 9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics