Aerodynamics Extended Essay

Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029
TITLE RESEARCH QUESTION APPROACH

WORD COUNT: 3999/4000
Identification of the effects of plain trailing-edge flap deflection on wing properties How are the lift, lift coefficient, zero-lift angle of attack, and stalling angle of attack of a wing with a NACA 2412 airfoil dependent on plain, trailing-edge flap deflection?
An experimental and theoretical approach is taken. The effect of flap deflection on wing lift is determined first from numerical thin-airfoil theory and then from empirical data collected in a low-speed wind tunnel. Results are compared and a conclusion is made in real-world context with uncertainty levels appreciated.
AN IB EXTENDED ESSAY IN PHYSICS
Dedicated to my family, the time with which was foregone in the writing of this essay.
The Abstract
This is an experimental study considering the change the lift, lift coefficient, zero-lift angle of attack, and stalling angle of attack of a wing with a NACA 2412 airfoil and a plain trailing-edge flap when this flap is deflected. The wing has an aspect ratio of 3.2 and the flap chord to wing chord ratio is 0.36, hence allowing for both large enough increments in the maximum lift to be measured and a small enough error to be made in predicting flap deflection effects with thin airfoil theory (this theory is bad at predicting flap effects at low flap-to-wing-chord ratios). To experimentally test the effect of flap deflection on the lifting characteristics of my wing in real life, a homemade wind tunnel was made and lift data in grams (or the equivalent grams-force) was taken by connecting the wing to a 2 D.P. balance via rods through the tunnel floor. The power plant provided a steady airflow of 4.1 m/s, allowing the wing to create appreciable lift to be collected as data. This data along with aerodynamic formulae and graphical analysis were used to convert raw lift into section lift coefficient and the zero-lift angle of attack values for different flap deflections. This allowed for several data plots to be created which showed that the maximum lift and lift coefficient were directly and positively proportional to flap deflection and that the zero-lift angle of attack was negatively, but also directly, proportional to flap deflection. It was likewise discovered that flap deflection decreases the stall angle of attack, but in so doing it increases the maximum lift achieved before this angle. Compared against textbook data, this showed that a homemade wind tunnel can correctly predict theoretical trends but cannot give accurate experimental values due to design limitations. Word Count: 296
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
The Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 A briefing on flight mechanics ................................................................................................................ 1 The airfoil ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Basic forces acting on an airborne body.............................................................................................. 2 The lift equations ................................................................................................................................. 2 Reynolds number................................................................................................................................. 3 Boundary layer theory ......................................................................................................................... 3 Thin airfoil theory ............................................................................................................................... 5 Thin airfoil theory applied to trailing-edge flaps................................................................................. 5 What are plain trailing-edge flaps?.................................................................................................. 6 Applying flaps to a thin airfoil ...................................................................................................... 6 Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Physics-based ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Thin-airfoil based ................................................................................................................................ 8 Experimental design & procedure ......................................................................................................... 11 Design................................................................................................................................................ 11 Method .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Safety ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Wind tunnel test results ......................................................................................................................... 13 vs. vs. vs. plots....................................................................................................................................... 14 plots .................................................................................................................................... 19 plots .................................................................................................................................. 21 and , , and .................................................................. 24
Conclusion on relationship between
Scrutiny ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Of method and apparatus ................................................................................................................... 25 Of wind tunnel ................................................................................................................................... 27 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 31 A ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 B ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 C ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 D ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 E ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 F ......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Apparatus diagram ........................................................................................................................ 43 Apparatus photographs .................................................................................................................. 44 G ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 H ........................................................................................................................................................ 47 I.......................................................................................................................................................... 49 J ......................................................................................................................................................... 50 K (Nomenclature) .............................................................................................................................. 52
I NTRODUCTION
Aerodynamics is the study of the motion of air and of objects through air.1 Interaction with air particles, engineers, and good theories are what airplanes rely on to operate flawlessly. This paper uses thin-airfoil theory and a wind tunnel to investigate one of the most important aspects of a wing: flaps. Flaps provide the lift (and drag) necessary for large airplanes to take off and land in length-constrained spaces. Engineers must know how flaps affect wing lift; with this knowledge, more efficient flaps can be made which will allow airplanes to take off in shorter distances, saving money, energy, and space in building smaller airports in a world where space is becoming limited. I consider the effects of flap deflection on maximum lift, lift coefficient, and stalling and zero-lift angles of attack of a wing with a NACA 2412 airfoil. These properties are major aircraft performance factors, and I will measure them using a home-made wind tunnel whose accuracy I will compare to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and professional wind tunnels- key tools in aircraft design.
A BRIEFING ON FLIGHT M ECHANICS

Background aerodynamic knowledge was required for this paper. Appendix K (Nomenclature) defines the symbols used in this paper.
T HE AIRFOIL
The airfoil is a cross-section perpendicular to the wing span. I needed to know about two airfoil properties; the angle of attack, , and the camber line. angle between is the
and the chord line, and the camber line is constructed from points midway between
upper and lower airfoil surfaces measured perpendicular to the camber line itself. Fig.1 illustrates these:
"Aerodynamics Definition." NASA. NASA. Web. 14 July 2011. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K12/FoilSim/Manual/fsim001m.htm>.
Figure 1 Airfoil section terminology
B ASIC FORCES ACTING O N AN AIRBORNE BODY

By Newtons second law, an objects motion depends on the forces/moments acting on it: ( )
Four forces act on an airplane: lift, drag, thrust, and weight. Only lift and drag are aerodynamic forces as such forces arise from pressure or viscous shear forces only, and lift equals weight while thrust equals drag in non-accelerated flight.3 Fig.2 shows this:
Figure 2 Forces acting on an aircraft in level flight (angles exaggerated)
T HE LIF T EQUA TIONS
2 3 4
Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 27. Print. Phillips, Warren F. "1.1 Introduction and Notation." Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 261. Print.
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 Concepts of lift airfoil) whilst and section lift exist. refers to a wing with no wingtips (an infinite wing or a 2D refers to a finite wing; is hence always greater than because lift decreases near the
wingtips of a finite wing due to induced drag. In my wind tunnel, wingtips were placed very close to the tunnel walls, so finite affects were minimized, making more appropriate: So is:
R EYNOLDS NUMBER
The Reynolds number is a ratio of the magnitudes of pressure to viscous aerodynamic forces (a higher value indicates the dominance of pressure forces):
My wing operates at low
because of low
and short chord length, so viscous forces will be
significant. Thin airfoil theory only analyzes pressure forces, limiting the accuracy of its predictions for my experiment.
B OUNDARY LAYER THEORY

This theory states that viscous effects for flow over a wing at low and high are confined to a thin
layer around the wings surface. Outside this layer, viscous forces are insignificant. Fig.3 shows this:
Figure 3 Boundary layer flow over an airfoil To note: Pressure forces dominate at high . flow.
Inviscid (pressure-only) flow analysis is accurate for high Boundary layer separation occurs at high (Fig.4).
Figure 4 Wake formation behind an airfoil beyond the critical angle of attack
Fig.4 is referred to as a stall, which is reached after a near-linear increase in as in Fig.5:
5 6
Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 14. Print. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 15. Print.
3
2 1 4
1.
Figure 5 Lift curve of NACA 0012 airfoil increases as a linear function of .
2. Pressure build-up on top of the wing eventually causes partial boundary layer separation, flattening the slope. 3. At maximum , a Fig.4 wake occurs. Airfoil geometry influences the sharpness of this cusp. 4. Lift rapidly decreases. Beyond , lift becomes independent of airfoil shape.8
T HIN AIRFOIL THEORY

The thickness of an airfoil with maximum thickness of chord length has little effect on the
pressure forces acting on it. Thin airfoil theory uses this to simplify such an airfoil to a thin filament (Fig.7, Appendix G).
T HIN AIRFOIL THEORY A PPLIED TO TRAILING - EDGE FLAPS

Deflection of a plain flap changes the wing camber line, and the resulting changes in aerodynamic characteristics may be calculated from thin airfoil theory assuming zero flow separation.
"AeroCFD Operating Instructions." AeroRocket Simulation Software for Rockets and Airplanes . Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://aerorocket.com/AeroCFD/manual.html>.
8
Phillips, Warren F. "1.4 Inviscid Aerodynamics." Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print.
W H AT
AR E P L AI N TR AI L I N G - E D G E F L A P S ?
Some aft portion of an airfoil is hinged to make a plain trailing-edge flap (Fig.6); rotating it about the hinge axis produces a flap-deflection angle considered positive.
9
(Fig.7). A downward deflection increases camber, so is
Figure 6 An airfoil section with a deflected flap
A P P L YI N G
For small
FL AP S T O A TH I N AI R F OI L
and , thin airfoil theory can predict the effects of flap deflection on lift. Development of
below-given equations is in Appendix H. Fig.7 shows the geometric meaning of terms used in subsequent equations:
Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 39. Print.
10
Figure 7 Thin airfoil flap approximation

Flap chord fraction is: ( Ideal section flap effectiveness is: )
Lift coefficient for an airfoil with a plain flap is: ( ) [ ( ) ]
is section flap effectiveness (accuracy evaluated in Appendix B):
and
are the section flap hinge efficiency and deflection efficiency (Appendix A). , and from the lift-curve x-
Using above formulae, one deduces , then from intercept.
H YPOTHESIS
10
Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 40. Print.
P HYSICS - BASED
In a positive plain flap deflection, airfoil camber is increased so air over the top surface has less space to travel in than on the bottom surface. From the Law of Continuity:
Hence, decreased cross-sectional area Bernoullis Law as dynamic pressure
will increase airspeed increases:
and decrease static pressure
from
Lower
on top increases lift so a positive correlation with
should exist. should
Lift is a multiple of lift coefficient; and decrease for positive
should also be in positive correlation.
as extra lift will have to be suppressed with more negative angles of attack; and .
there should be a negative correlation between
T HIN - AIRFOIL BASED

A spreadsheet (Appendix D) is created using thin airfoil equations to simulate the effect of , and . Results: on ,
Calculated L versus for various

400.0
300.0
200.0
-10 100.0 L (/gf) -5 0 5 10 0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 15 20 25 -100.0
-200.0
-300.0
(/)
Calculated CL versus for various

4.0
3.0
2.0 -10 CL (/dimensionless) -5 1.0 0 5 0.0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20
-20
-1.0
25
-2.0
-3.0
(/)
L0 vs. plot
4
2
0 -15 -10 -5 -2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
L0 (/)
-4
-6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 (/) Thin airfoil theory
10
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 Physics-based reasoning was correct- positive increases lift/lift coefficient and decreases . This is
an accepted textbook fact, so what I am looking for is the accuracy to which my wind tunnel will match these predictions. NB: thin airfoil theory ignores stall, so I will be able to determine the effect of on the stall angle of
attack only from wind tunnel tests. Note that lift coefficients greater than 3.0 cannot be achieved on a NACA 2412 airfoil with a plain flap, and high-end coefficients of 2.0 are unlikely to be recorded in my limited wind tunnel. The accuracy of thin airfoil values is hence dubious, but the demonstrated relationship may not be.
E XPERIMENTAL DESIGN & PROCEDURE

D ESIGN
A 3m home-made wind tunnel with a 0.30mX0.30mX0.30m test section is used. A ProTronik Pro72210 electric motor spinning a 0.254mX0.119m propeller blows air through the tunnel at an average speed of 4.1 ms-1. A NACA 2412 airfoil (Fig.8) is used for the wing; its 12% of chord maximum thickness makes it applicable for thin airfoil approximation. The wing is rectangular with 0.300m span and 0.095m chord; the aspect ratio is 3.2. It is made from Styrofoam enclosed in plywood and heat-shrink plastic to reduce friction drag; hinged rods extend through the tunnel floor from its ideal quarter-chord aerodynamic center to a 2 D.P. balance measuring wing mass. A steel rod is hinged to the wing to seamlessly control . An acrylic cover encloses the test section to prevent flow leakage. The wing is mounted at 0.15m above the tunnel floor, almost touching the tunnel sides with the wingtips to reduce effects of finite wingspan.
11
11
Figure 8 NACA 2412 airfoil A plain flap is hinged at the trailing edge such that the ratio is 0.36c below which thin-airfoil increase is observed12.
theory produces high error (Appendix B) and above which only marginal Flap deflection is controlled manually.
A flow straightener positioned before the test section minimizes the spin the rotating propeller gives to the airflow. Appendix E shows an apparatus diagram.
M ETHOD
Independent variable: flap deflection Dependent variables: lift (/gf13). The methods aim is to provide a way of collecting lift data accurately (to be converted later to , , and stall angle parameters). To collect lift data in /gf: (/).
1. Introduce a 2 D.P. balance underneath the wind tunnel and rest on it an MDF base attached to the wing via rods through the tunnel floor. a. Make sure the balance is zeroed prior to step 1.
11
Photograph. UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ae.illinois.edu/mselig/ads/coord_database.html>.

12
Ira H. Abott, Alber E. Von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.
13
Grams-force (equivalent to grams).
12
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 2. The lift force is to be tested in grams for a range of -10-25 for and -15-20 for , both in
5 increments, so construct an appropriate table/spreadsheet in Excel. 3. Enter an equation =massbefore-massafter in the cell for the appropriate where the massbefore value is the wing mass prior to turning on the fan. 4. First test all positive , so begin by adjusting the wing to 0 alpha and -10 delta. Hence, fill in for massbefore. a. Adjust by adjusting the wing chord in reference to a protractor mounted in the test and condition,
section centered at the wings pivot point. b. Adjust manually with another protractor.
5. Turn on the engine to full throttle and fill in for massafter, completing the equation for the appropriate spreadsheet cell. a. Turn off the engine to save battery. 6. Repeat steps 3-5 for all positive alpha 0-20 and delta -10-25. a. Keep controlled variables constant (Appendix J). 7. Flip the protractor measuring increments. 8. Having taken all raw lift measurements, Excel makes it easy to translate them into , , to repeat steps 3-5 for the negative alpha range, also in 5
and values from graphical analysis and equations in the theoretical section of this paper. 9. Clear up. Process data. Draw a conclusion/evaluation.
S AFETY
The fan spins at over 6000 RPM so presents a potential hazard. A fine chicken wire mesh installed at the fan duct prevented accidental contact with the fans plane of rotation.
W IND TUNNEL TEST RESU LTS

Appendix E presents raw/processed data tables. Notice the absence of error bars due to only one trial of data being collected; collecting more trials to enable error bar calculation is a future improvement. 13
VS .
PLOTS
Empirical lift curves for -10-25 :
L versus for various

60
50
40
30 -10 -5 20 L (/gf) 0 5 10 10
15
20 0 -20 -15 -10 -5 -10 0 5 10 15 20 25 25
-20
-30
(/)
The lift curves follow standard lift curve form. A linear part for small
exists where lift increase is
linear; the curves then level off and the slope becomes negative as the wing stalls at high . This is
14
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 expected from boundary layer theory as the boundary layer separates from the upper surface beyond the stall angle. For 0 , stall occurs at 15
14.
There was evident friction in my data collection mechanism; as a result, my lift data is lower than the thin airfoil theory predictions, for which the lift slopes are:
Calculated L versus for various

400.0
300.0
200.0 -10 -5 100.0 L (/gf) 0 5 0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 -100.0 25
-200.0
-300.0
(/)
Note, however, that thin airfoil theory ignores wing stall, in which case theoretical positive lift increments beyond 15 would be unachievable even in a 100% accurate wind tunnel experiment.
Experimental and theoretical lift slopes show that positive flap deflections translate the =0 lift curve vertically upwards, and downwards for negative flap deflections. Therefore, even though the
14
Evaluation check: the stall angle has a few degrees uncertainty as
was taken at 5 intervals.
15
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 magnitude my experimental lift values are below theoretical results, the upward shift of the lift slope is definitely correct as it is backed by both theory and experiment. Judging from data for small , this horizontal translation is almost constant each time15. As proof, one graphs against (in degrees):
Lmax vs.
70 60 50 Lmax (/gf) 40 30 20 10 0 -20 -10 0 (/) 10 20 30 Wind tunnel data Linear (Wind tunnel data)
The average linear best-fit shows what the theoretical variation of inspection of Fig. 9, is most likely the case.
could be which, from
15
Discrepancies at larger alpha may be caused by increasing friction between wing rods and tunnel floor due to higher lift and drag forces
16
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 decreases linearly with
Notice the very consistent shift upwards of the lift curves with .
16
Figure 9 Typical trend for a NACA 66(215)-216 airfoil with 0.20c plain flap My data also shows that the angle of maximum lift coefficient generally decreases with positive flap deflection- this is a trend likewise demonstrated by Fig. 9. Plotting change in : angle, , versus
16
Photograph. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book, 1959. 195. Print.
17
0 vs. plot
18 16 14
12
0 (/) 10 8 6 4 2 0 -20 -10 0 (/) 10 20 30 Wind tunnel data Linear (Wind tunnel data)
Since I was measuring lift data for 5
increments, I could not capture the gradual decrease in
hence a linear trend line was plotted which shows the likely change in
as hypothesized by Fig. 9.
Note from Fig. 10 that the accurate stall angle for the NACA 2412 airfoil is in fact around 14-16, which shows that my collected data is roundabout accurate in terms of stall angle at 0 . Hence, and increases the maximum lift of a wing as shown by the positive correlation between . Additionally, there is negative correlation between and .
18
17
Figure 10 Lift slope for the NACA 2412 airfoil ( =0)
VS .
PLOTS
A plot was obtained from its equation in the introduction:
17
Photograph. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book, 1959. 478. Print.
19
CL versus for various

0.7 0.6
0.5
0.4 -10 CL (/dimensionless) 0.3
-5
0 5 10
0.2
0.1
15 20
0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 -0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25
25
-0.2
-0.3
(/)
The slope of the linear section of graphs above is used to compare lift curves; a steeper linear part suggests that a wing creates more lift per alpha. The discrepancy in lift slopes for =0 between my results and those from NACA (Fig. 10) (their slope: 0.105 deg-1, mine: 0.024 deg-1) may be attributed to friction in my data collection mechanism which would impeded lift increase by friction factor .
Notice that is a multiple of from the section lift equation, so all analysis and evaluation from the previous section applies and will not be repeated here. My experiment has also shown the following relationship between degrees): 20 and the flap deflection (in
CLmax vs.
0.8 0.7 CLmax (/dimensionless) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -20 -10 0 (/) 10 20 30 Wind tunnel data Linear (Wind tunnel data)
increases the maximum lift coefficient as shown by the positive correlation between . VS . PLOTS
and
My data confirms the hypothesized negative correlation between Comparing wind tunnel data to thin airfoil predictions for Flap deflection (/) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 L0 (/) Empirical 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -7 -19 N/A
and
and graphing: L0 (/) Theory 3 1 -2 -5-7 -10 -12 -15
21
L0 vs. plot
5
0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5
L0 (/)
-10
Wind tunnel data Thin airfoil theory
-15
-20
-25
(/)
22
Linear fit lines calculated with Vernier LoggerPro
An outlier (ignored for linear fit)
23
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 The theoretical vs. slope (=-0.517) appears more negative than the experimental slope (=-0.371). for negative and underestimates for positive , and
Notice that thin airfoil theory overestimates equals experimental for
. This may be due to the theorys neglect for viscous effects which
perhaps increase with flap deflection due to higher drag. There is a large jump in between the 15-20 deflections, and no data for =25. This is because increases lift/drag, the rods connecting
my lift curves flatten for negative alpha of large . As higher
the wing to the 2D.P. balance would rub more against their tunnel floor holes, preventing seamless lift force transmission- producing the leveling off effect. Thus at large the extrapolated value
appears unnaturally low, creating the jump seen above. My results should not be a benchmark for the theory or the theory for my results- my tunnel lacks accuracy due to friction in the data collection mechanism whereas thin airfoil theory wrongfully ignores viscous effects. The values from both are therefore dubious in magnitude, but it is certain that there is a negative correlation between and .
C ONCLUSION ON RELATIO NSHIP BETWEEN
AND
, , AND
and , a positive and , and a negative
True to my hypothesis, there exists a positive correlation between correlation between correlation between and , a negative correlation between
and . It is of great interest for the engineer and the pilot to know that the
stall angle of attack decreases linearly with positive flap deflection; as a result, it is crucial that the airplane takes off and lands at lower than usual so as to avoid a stall and a subsequent crash. For a
further investigation in flap deflection effects on aerodynamic properties, I should investigate drag. I predict there would be a proportional rise in the section drag and drag coefficients with increased flap deflection as flow separation and frontal area facing the free stream airflow would increase.
S CRUTINY
24
O F METHOD AND APPARATUS

The Reynolds number in my experiment was . This is smaller by 2 orders of magnitude from value from graph () in Fig.
the values used in for Fig. 1018. Notice that the lowest comparable19 10 was achieved under the lowest of
. The small magnitudes of my may therefore be through
explained by my lower Reynolds number. I may increase my values by raising
increasing airspeed, the chord of the wing, or the fluid viscosity by using something like water (although this is unrealistic for my tunnel). These improvements are questionable in their usefulness as I am merely proving a trend; however, engineers designing planes like the Airbus A380 will need accurate values. The test chamber I used also prevented me from achieving entirely accurate data. From a forum about my tunnel: Y O U R E G O I N G T O F I N D T H A T W I T H A 12 X 12 I N C H T E S T A R E A Y O U ' R E G O I N G
TO SUFFER INTERFERENCE FROM THE WAL LS, BOTTOM AND TOP OF THE TEST AREA WITH AIRFOILS IN THE
3 TO 4 INCH CHORD RANGE IN FULL SIZE WIND 1/10 T H E S I Z E
TUNNELS THE MODELS BEING TES TED ARE TYPICALLY LESS THAN O F T H E C R O S S S E C T I O N O F T H E T E S T A R E A .
20
Compression of airflow and wingtip vortices has thus likely offset the accuracy of my results. To improve, I would need to reduce wing size to satisfy above conditions (in which case wingtip vortices would be present), and/or increase the size of the test section (this is not feasible as my tunnel is stationed in school).
18 19 20
Fig. 10 is not my own data. The shallowest curve () is for a rougher, incomparable wing section.
BMatthews. RC Universe. s.d. 19 July 2011 <http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10501474/anchors_10506889/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#10506889>.
25
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 One of the largest shortcomings was friction in the data collection mechanism of wing rods against tunnel floor and the wing against the acrylic container in trying to reduce wingtip effects21. The wing rods also had turbulent circular cross-sections; they could be reshaped into symmetric airfoils such as the NACA 0012. The steel rod for changing was also circular. To avoid this, one could buy
university-grade apparatus, but a more feasible solution may be to implement simple harmonic motion (Appendix I). The accuracy of used, and and and measurement could also be improved. As a protractor of 1 uncertainty was
was measured in 5 increments, this presented over 20% uncertainty in the
readings! More accurate methods of measuring these variables are implemented in university-grade apparatus in attaching the wing to a device which sets it at an accurate angle while measuring the forces acting on the wing, such as in Fig. 11.
22
Figure 11 A three-component balance designed for use with the AF100 Subsonic Wind Tunnel.
Thin airfoil theory, as previously mentioned, is also worth evaluating. This theory is a tremendous simplification which allows quick performance predictions for aircraft operating at high operated at low . My wing
so the considerable flow separation and viscous forces acting on it were ignored by
this theory! Hence whereas both empirical and theoretical results agreed on the trend between and , they rarely agreed on the magnitudes of these values. Thin airfoil theory also ignores stall- an
21 22
This means reducing wingtip vortices to make the section lift coefficient applicable TecQuipment. s.d. 19 July 2011 <http://www.tecquipment.com/prod/AFA3.aspx>.
26
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 important performance factor- so could not predict factors like factors such as separation over my wing at low . The turbulent flow
also explains the relative irregularity of my data compared to the
linearity of thin airfoil theory that assumes no flow separation.
O F WIND TUNNEL
Found through this paper are textbook facts. Presented alone, these give limited value to the extended essay as flap deflection effects on lift are common engineering knowledge. My essay goes beyond information in such books as it evaluates a homemade wind tunnels abilities to predict a known aerodynamic relationship. The good. Lift data collected in a homemade wind tunnel enable an engineer to extrapolate results to a wide range of performance features- lift coefficient, maximum lift alpha, effect of zero-lift alpha, etc. These relationships have been compared against recognized sources in this essay and all were correct. An engineer seeking experimental evidence from a wind tunnel will also find these trends; he/she will also have more time than I did and, by collecting data for more alpha and perhaps buying a more powerful engine to increase , he/she will make patterns in this essay more refined (such as for )
and thus get better results than I did. The bad. A wind tunnels job is to show both trends and values of correct/accurate magnitude. In designing aircraft, it is of little use to an engineer to merely know the trend- he/she must also know the value, such as the maximum lift coefficient. He/she may design a failed aircraft thinking is 0.7
from an inaccurate homemade wind tunnel test when it is in fact 1.4. As a result, CFD23 methods will be much more useful as they will reveal both patterns and correct values. What makes wind tunnels still useful is their ability to predict what CFD cannot- a wind tunnel must hence be more accurate than a computer code. In the case of my homemade wind tunnel, even though it reveals the trends, its construction is painstaking and will not pay off as its accuracy will be inferior
23
CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics.
27
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 to that of computer simulation. In my case, CFD will ultimately be both faster and more accurate than a wind tunnel- and this is a topic for a whole another extended essay. Nevertheless, the data achieved in my tunnel enabled me to draw conclusions consistent with those achieved in much more expensive, professional-grade aerodynamic testing facilities. To what extent can a homemade wind tunnel predict the effect of on wing performance? To the extent of trends, not
of correct values; as a result, what I found is that my wind tunnel enabled me to find the trends I was looking for, and they were correct trends. Never mind that I did not get accurate actual magnitudes of or - my wind tunnel enabled me to construct an experimentally-supported argument, and that was its aim. As for an engineer, he/she should seek more elaborate testing facilities and CFD methods to fulfill his/her needs. Word Count: 3999/4000
28
B IBLIOGRAPHY
Internet: "Aerodynamics Definition." NASA. NASA. Web. 14 July 2011. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K12/FoilSim/Manual/fsim001m.htm>. BMatthews. RC Universe. s.d. 19 July 2011 <http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10501474/anchors_10506889/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1 0506889>. Books: Phillips, Warren F. "1.1 Introduction and Notation." Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print. Phillips, Warren F. "1.4 Inviscid Aerodynamics." Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print. Phillips, Warren F. "1.6 Incompressible Flow over Airfoils." Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print. Ira H. Abott, Alber E. Von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Video/audio/photo: TecQuipment. s.d. 19 July 2011 <http://www.tecquipment.com/prod/AFA3.aspx>. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 27. Print. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 261. Print. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 14. Print. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 15. Print.
29
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 "AeroCFD Operating Instructions." AeroRocket Simulation Software for Rockets and Airplanes. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://aerorocket.com/AeroCFD/manual.html>. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 39. Print. Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 40. Print. Photograph. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book, 1959. 195. Print. Photograph. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book, 1959. 478. Print. Database photos : Photograph. UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ae.illinois.edu/mselig/ads/coord_database.html>.
30
A PPENDICES
A
Section flap hinge efficiency, section flap effectiveness, : , and deflection efficiency, , are used in the equation for calculating
The values for these parameters are deduced from the following graphs:
Figure A.1 Section flap hinge efficiency for sealed trailing-edge flaps. For unsealed flaps (as in my case) these values should be reduced by 20%.
31
Figure A.2 Section flap deflection efficiency for sealed trailing-edge flaps. For deflections less than 10, a deflection efficiency of 1.0 should be used.
32
B
As seen in Fig. B.1, the section flap effectiveness predicted by thin airfoil theory correlates well to the more complex vortex panel method which takes thickness into account (this method is beyond the scope of this text), but overestimates the actually flap effectiveness calculated from experiment (Fig. B.1 is not my own data).
Figure B.1 Section flap effectiveness compared amongst thin airfoil theory, vortex panel method, and experimental data. As we can see, thin airfoil theory always overestimates actual section flap effectiveness. This is because, in reality, the hinge mechanism about the flap causes local boundary layer separation and flow leakage from the high-pressure bottom surface to the lower-pressure top surface, and this causes the section flap effectiveness to reduce as it is a factor of the section flap hinge efficiency as in
. In addition, at deflections greater than 10, error associated with the ideal section flap
33
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 effectiveness for becomes significant, resulting in the implementation of the factor in the equation
whose value is calculated from Appendix A.
From Fig. B.1 we see that for a flap chord fraction like mine of about 0.36, the discrepancy in theoretical and experimental results is only about 7%, whereas for smaller flap chord fractions of about 0.1 the error rises to almost 25%. As a result, a flap chord fraction like mine is a good choice for the application of thin airfoil theory as it reaches a good compromise which allows for a small enough error yet provides large enough maximum section lift coefficient increments to reduce percentage error in data as per Abbott and Doenhoff24 and yet does not dominate too much of the airfoil geometry by the flap.
24
Ira H. Abott, Alber E. Von Doenhoff. Theory of Wing Sections. United States: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.
34
C
As was mentioned in the main body of the text, thin airfoil theory is a method belonging to a field of inviscid aerodynamics that ignores viscous effects on the forces acting on airborne bodies. Thin airfoil theory is in good agreement with experimental data for low speeds and small for airfoils
of thickness <12%. Figs. C.1 and C.2 compare the results given by thin airfoil theory to those given by the vortex panel method (ignored here) and experimental data:
Figure C.1 Section lift coefficient for NACA 2412 predicted by thin airfoil theory vs. vortex panel method vs. experimental data.
Figure C.2 Section lift coefficient for NACA 2421 predicted by thin airfoil theory vs. vortex panel method vs. experimental data.
At small , thin airfoil theory agrees well with experimental data. However, as it predicts a linear relationship between lift coefficient and the angle of attack, thin airfoil theory overestimates and becomes flat out incorrect for lift coefficients beyond the stall angle. Also, viscous effects become important for airfoils thicker than 12%, so thin airfoil theory predictions deviate from experimental data as seen in Fig. C.2. However, notice than thin airfoil theory and experimental data agree very closely around the zero lift angle of attack; we hence see that thickness distribution has little effect on 35
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 lift produced by any airfoil around the zero-lift angle of attack. It is hence interesting to notice that, in my own experiment, thin airfoil theory agreed very well with my data for the vs. plot- in fact, it
agreed with it more than for any other plot that I generated for this extended essay. The reason for why thin airfoil theory predicts lift so well over such a wide range of airfoil thicknesses is because thickness increases the lift slope, whereas viscous effects decrease it. As the theory neglects both, these errors tend to cancel, giving the theory a wide usability range. However, thin airfoil theory cannot predict section drag- which makes it impossible to use if I were to extend the scope of this essay to collect drag data as well for the NACA 2412 airfoil. An alternative to thin airfoil theory is a computation fluid dynamics (CFD) solution; however, CFD experiments require high computational power and will increase computation time by several orders of magnitude.
36
D
Excel was used to create spreadsheets which were used in plotting the vs. , the vs. , and the vs. curves as predicted by thin airfoil theory. In doing so, spreadsheets were created that are
demonstrated on the following pages as part of Appendix D. To create these spreadsheets, the following functions were create within excel and used for each appropriate cell. These are shown below. Equation for calculating the L(,) column: =2*PI()*(RADIANS(A18)-RADIANS($B$30)+G30*RADIANS($A$16))= [ ( ) ]
Where the flap deflection angle , the zero-lift angle of attack with no flap deflection angle of attack are all in radians.
( ), and the
Equation for calculating the column: =B18*0.5*$B$34*$B$35^2*(95/1000)*101.971621298= Where the factor of 1000 is because 95 is the airfoil chord in millimeters and the factor of 101.971621298 are to convert Newtons, the force unit of lift which the lift equation outputs by default, to grams-force, which is the gram multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and is equal to the gram measured by the 2 D.P. digital balance used during the experiment. Equation for calculating the ( cell is: )
=ACOS(2*B33-1)=
Equation for calculating the
cell is:
=1-((B32-SIN(B32))/PI())=
37
Raw theoretical lift: -10 (/) -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Calculated theoretical lift coeff.: -10 (/) -16 -11 -6 -1 4 9 14 19 -5 0 Flap Deflection (/) 5 10 15 20 25 -5 Lift (/g) (/) Lift (/g) (/) -193.2 -14 -156.9 -13 -142.9 -9 -106.6 -8 -92.6 -4 -56.4 -3 -42.4 1 -6.1 2 7.9 6 44.2 7 59.5 11 95.1 12 111.9 16 146.4 17 164.4 21 197.8 22 Flap Deflection (/) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Lift Lift Lift Lift Lift Lift (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) -130.7 -12 -104.5 -11 -78.3 -10 -52.1 -9 -25.9 -8 0.3 -80.4 -7 -54.2 -6 -28.0 -5 -1.8 -4 24.4 -3 50.6 -30.2 -2 -4.0 -1 22.2 0 48.4 1 74.7 2 100.9 20.1 3 46.3 4 72.5 5 98.7 6 124.9 7 151.1 70.4 8 96.6 9 122.8 10 149.0 11 175.2 12 201.4 120.7 13 146.2 14 171.8 15 197.3 16 222.9 17 248.4 170.9 18 195.4 19 219.9 20 244.4 21 268.9 22 293.4 221.2 23 244.6 24 268.0 25 291.3 26 314.7 27 338.1
L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) -2.1 -15 -1.7 -15 -1.4 -15 -1.1 -15 -0.9 -15 -0.6 -15 -0.3 -15 0.0 -1.6 -10 -1.2 -10 -0.9 -10 -0.6 -10 -0.3 -10 0.0 -10 0.3 -10 0.6 -1.0 -5 -0.6 -5 -0.3 -5 0.0 -5 0.2 -5 0.5 -5 0.8 -5 1.1 -0.5 0 -0.1 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.8 0 1.1 0 1.4 0 1.6 0.1 5 0.5 5 0.8 5 1.1 5 1.3 5 1.6 5 1.9 5 2.2 0.6 10 1.0 10 1.3 10 1.6 10 1.9 10 2.2 10 2.4 10 2.7 1.2 15 1.6 15 1.9 15 2.1 15 2.4 15 2.7 15 2.9 15 3.2 1.8 20 2.2 20 2.4 20 2.7 20 2.9 20 3.2 20 3.4 20 3.7
38
Other factors Airfoil L0(0) fi f cf/c (kg/m^3) V (m/s) NACA 2412 -2.0 0.70666159 1.87548898 0.35 1.126098 4.1 (/) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
h
0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
d
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.89 0.85 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.66
f 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.34
(/) L0() -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
4 2 0 -2 -3 -5 -7 -8
The other factors table provides values of variables that are needed for the calculation of other parameters which were used in this paper. Equation for calculating the =E30*F30*$B$31= Where and are taken from Appendix A. 39 column:
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 Method for obtaining the The column:
column was obtained through analyzing the plot for the x-intercept of the curves for each flap deflection .
40
E
To those whom it may concern, below are raw and collated data tables of all values which were used to present the different plots shown throughout the main body of this text. Note that lift was collected in grams, or its equivalent grams-force, and therefore a factor of 0.00980665 was used to convert the lift in grams into lift in Newtons when calculating the section lift coefficient values .
Aux. Data
Chord of wing (/mm) Chord of flap (/mm) Flap fraction Wing airfoil (kg/m^3) V (m/s) Airspeed right pole Airspeed left pole Airspeed middle air (kg m/s) Re (dimensionless)
95 34 0.36 NACA 2412 1.126098 4.1 3.7 3.6 5 0.00001983 22119 2.2*104
Flap deflection (/) L0 (/) -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 N/A 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -7 -19
41
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 Raw theoretical lift: -10 (/) -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Calculated theoretical lift coeff.: -10 (/) -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -5 0 Flap Deflection (/) 5 10 15 20 25 -5 Lift (/g) (/) -20 -15 -15 -10 -10 -5 -3 0 6 5 13 10 16 15 13 20 0 Lift (/g) (/) -14 -15 -9 -10 -5 -5 0 0 10 5 19 10 22 15 19 20 Flap Deflection (/) 5 10 15 20 Lift Lift Lift Lift Lift (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) (/) (/g) -10 -15 -9 -15 -8 -15 -4 -15 -7 -10 -6 -10 -4 -10 -2 -10 -3 -5 -1 -5 1 -5 3 -5 3 0 7 0 12 0 14 0 15 5 21 5 27 5 30 5 29 10 35 10 50 10 53 10 39 15 43 15 45 15 46 15 25 20 31 20 34 20 36 20 25 Lift (/) (/g) -15 7 -10 10 -5 14 0 22 5 36 10 56 15 50 20 44
3 7 11 19 33 54 48 41
L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) (/) L(,) -0.2 -15 -0.2 -15 -0.1 -15 -0.1 -15 -0.1 -15 0.0 -15 0.0 -15 0.1 -0.2 -10 -0.1 -10 -0.1 -10 -0.1 -10 0.0 -10 0.0 -10 0.1 -10 0.1 -0.1 -5 -0.1 -5 0.0 -5 0.0 -5 0.0 -5 0.0 -5 0.1 -5 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.2 5 0.2 5 0.3 5 0.3 5 0.4 5 0.4 0.1 10 0.2 10 0.3 10 0.4 10 0.5 10 0.6 10 0.6 10 0.6 0.2 15 0.2 15 0.4 15 0.5 15 0.5 15 0.5 15 0.5 15 0.5 0.1 20 0.2 20 0.3 20 0.3 20 0.4 20 0.4 20 0.4 20 0.5 42
F
Excel data collection
Air Intake Airflow straightener
A P P AR A T US D I AG R AM
Test section
NACA 2412 wing
Alpha-measuring protractor
Wing-balance rods
Wing-balance base
Rod to vary angle of attack 2 D.P. balance
Sample airflow path
Wind tunnel base
43
A P P AR A T US P H O T OG R AP H S
Perspective Side
Inside
Me & The Wind Tunnel!
44
G
The thickness distribution of an airfoil of maximum thickness only slightly affects the
pressure forces and moments acting on it. The net aerodynamic force on such airfoils is largely dependent on and the camber line geometry, which is why, as shown in Fig. 7, thin airfoil theory
assumes an airfoil of zero thickness about its camber line.
Figure 7 An airfoil simplified by the thin airfoil theory
Thus, the aerodynamic forces about such airfoils can be approximated by a vortex sheet placed along the camber line whose strength is allowed to vary with distance along the camber line, as shown in Fig. 6.25 The making of such a sheet is beyond the scope of this paper and is not required background knowledge; as of raw interest, the equation governing the construction of this vortex sheet is: ( )
After several derivations, thin airfoil theory suggests that the section lift coefficient of an airfoil of thickness is equal to:
25
Phillips, Warren F. "1.6 Incompressible Flow over Airfoils." Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print.
45
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 Note that thin airfoil theory performs an inviscid analysis- one which does not take into account viscous effects of an airfoil- and is thus suited for approximation at high .
46
H
For small and , thin airfoil theory may be used to predict the effects of flap deflection on lift. The
development of equations to do so is described below. Let be the y-position of the camber line of an airfoil with a deflected flap as shown in Fig. 9:
Figure 9 Thin airfoil flap approximation (Fig. 1.7.2)
So, from the last given equation for without flap deflection, we may write as:
And from small-angle approximation:
Where
is the undeflected camber line and
is the flap chord length and
is the flap deflected in
radians. Another important quantity is the flap chord fraction: ( And the ideal section flap effectiveness: 47 )
Notice that
depends only on the flap to total chord ratio and is independent of camber line
geometry or flap deflection; using this, one finds that the zero lift angle of attack for an airfoil with an ideal flap varies linearly with flap deflection: ( ) ( )
Eventually, one finds that the lift coefficient for an airfoil with a trailing edge flap varies linearly with and : ( Where ) [ ( ) ]
is the section flap effectiveness:
and
are the section flap hinge efficiency and deflection efficiency, and are deduced from graphs is given
given in Appendix A. An evaluation of the accuracy with which thin airfoil theory predicts by Appendix B. As a result, using , , and values in the equation for (
), one may deduce the section lift
coefficient and hence the lift from the aforementioned lift equation, and from graphical analysis of the lift slopes the value may be found. A more careful critique of thin airfoil theory in terms of its
discarding of viscous effects is given by Appendix C.
48
I
To avoid buying expensive university-grade apparatus, a more feasible solution of using simple harmonic motion could be used. The wing would be suspended by 4 springs at the wing planform edges from bottom and top, and as it generates lift it would oscillate up and then down as the force from the springs pulls it back to equilibrium. Using a 32 fps camera, this could be recorded, digitized, and by means of a scale the displacement of the wing from equilibrium could be measured. With this and the spring constant known, the lift force could be determined. If the wing also exhibits horizontal motion backwards, even drag force could be determined. Diagram:
32 fps camera
Test section
Drag
Lift
Springs
However, springs would introduce a lot of turbulence and such a setup would make it difficult to vary , limiting the amount of data that could be collected. 49
J
The wind tunnel experiment carried out for this paper had the following controlled variables, all of which were successfully controlled by methods outlined below: 1. The test section must be closed off from surroundings by an acrylic cover for each trial a. This was achieved by ensuring that the acrylic cover was mounted over the test section with 4 screws for each trial. 2. The wing used has a NACA 2412 cross-section a. This was controlled by using the same model wing for each trial (only one such model was made, so everything related to the wing was controlled). All results were also collected in the space of two days, so it was ensured that the wing model did not degrade significantly in quality across trials. 3. The flap to wing chord ratio is 0.36c a. This is likewise controlled by using the same wing model. 4. The same lift measurement mechanism must be used for each trial a. This is controlled by, essentially, using the same mechanism- the same rod length connecting the wing to the 2 D.P. digital balance underneath the wind tunnel, the same 2 D.P. balance itself, and the same wire to control the wing angle of attack. 5. The same engine speed setting must be used for each trial to ensure the same airflow speed inside the wind tunnel a. As the engine is radio-controlled, this variable is controlled by running the engine at full-throttle on the radio-control transmitter controlling the engine. This ensures that the engine is running air through the wind tunnel at the maximum possible speed, thus improving the accuracy of collected data and the fair test factor across all trials in the experiment. 6. The wing surface texture must be the same a. Controlled by using the same wing model. 50
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 7. The wing must have the same span of 0.30m and aspect ratio of 3.2 a. Controlled by using the same wing model. 8. The same 2 D.P. digital balance must be used for measuring wing mass a. This is controlled by using the same 2 D.P. digital balance available in the school physics laboratory. 9. The wing must be positioned at the same height in the test section a. This is controlled by using the same 2 D.P. balance, positioning the wind tunnel at the same height above ground for each period of data collection, and using the same rods connecting the wing to the base on the 2 D.P. digital balance, thus ensuring that the wing is propped up at the same height in the wind tunnel test section. This hence outlines all the main controlled variables and how they were controlled in the experiment carried out for this extended essay. The idea behind controlling controlled variables is to ensure constant/identical conditions across all trials of the experiment to make collected data comparable and thus conclusions drawn more accurate.
51
K (N OMENCLA TURE )
Angle of attack Lift coefficient Section lift coefficient Lift Section lift Air density Free stream density Air pressure Free stream pressure Velocity Free stream Velocity Reynolds number Aspect ratio Wingspan Mean geometric chord Area Angle of flap deflection Thrust vector Weight vector Drag Reynolds number Dynamic (absolute) viscosity of fluid y-coordinate of airfoil camber Change in y-coordinate of camber with the x-coordinate (camber line shape) Zero-lift angle of attack y-coordinate of airfoil camber with flap deflected
52
Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029 Flap-deflected camber line shape Flap chord Flap chord to total chord ratio Ideal section flap effectiveness ( ) ( ) ( ) Zero-lift angle of attack when flap is deflected Zero-lift angle of attack when flap deflection is 0 Section lift coefficient at an angle of attack Section flap effectiveness Section flap hinge efficiency Section flap deflection efficiency Area Dynamic pressure Static pressure Aspect ratio and flap deflection angle
53

Aerodynamics Extended Essay

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aerodynamics Extended Essay

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Danylo Malyuta; International School of Geneva: Campus des Nations; Candidate Number: 002169-029

TITLE RESEARCH QUESTION APPROACH

AN IB EXTENDED ESSAY IN PHYSICS

Conclusion on relationship between

A BRIEFING ON FLIGHT M ECHANICS

"Aerodynamics Definition." NASA. NASA. Web. 14 July 2011. <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K12/FoilSim/Manual/fsim001m.htm>.

Figure 1 Airfoil section terminology

B ASIC FORCES ACTING O N AN AIRBORNE BODY

Figure 2 Forces acting on an aircraft in level flight (angles exaggerated)

T HE LIF T EQUA TIONS

My wing operates at low

and short chord length, so viscous forces will be

B OUNDARY LAYER THEORY

Fig.4 is referred to as a stall, which is reached after a near-linear increase in as in Fig.5:

Figure 5 Lift curve of NACA 0012 airfoil increases as a linear function of .

T HIN AIRFOIL THEORY

T HIN AIRFOIL THEORY A PPLIED TO TRAILING - EDGE FLAPS

(Fig.7). A downward deflection increases camber, so is

Figure 6 An airfoil section with a deflected flap

Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 39. Print.

Figure 7 Thin airfoil flap approximation

Lift coefficient for an airfoil with a plain flap is: ( ) [ ( ) ]

is section flap effectiveness (accuracy evaluated in Appendix B):

Using above formulae, one deduces , then from intercept.

Photograph. Mechanics of Flight. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. 40. Print.

Hence, decreased cross-sectional area Bernoullis Law as dynamic pressure

will increase airspeed increases:

and decrease static pressure

on top increases lift so a positive correlation with

should exist. should

Lift is a multiple of lift coefficient; and decrease for positive

should also be in positive correlation.

there should be a negative correlation between

T HIN - AIRFOIL BASED

Calculated L versus for various

-10 100.0 L (/gf) -5 0 5 10 0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 15 20 25 -100.0

Calculated CL versus for various

2.0 -10 CL (/dimensionless) -5 1.0 0 5 0.0 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20

E XPERIMENTAL DESIGN & PROCEDURE

Photograph. UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ae.illinois.edu/mselig/ads/coord_database.html>.

Grams-force (equivalent to grams).

W IND TUNNEL TEST RESU LTS

Empirical lift curves for -10-25 :

L versus for various

exists where lift increase is

Calculated L versus for various

200.0 -10 -5 100.0 L (/gf) 0 5 0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 -100.0 25

Evaluation check: the stall angle has a few degrees uncertainty as

was taken at 5 intervals.

could be which, from

Since I was measuring lift data for 5

increments, I could not capture the gradual decrease in

Figure 10 Lift slope for the NACA 2412 airfoil ( =0)

A plot was obtained from its equation in the introduction:

CL versus for various

0.4 -10 CL (/dimensionless) 0.3

0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 -0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25

and graphing: L0 (/) Theory 3 1 -2 -5-7 -10 -12 -15

Wind tunnel data Thin airfoil theory

Linear fit lines calculated with Vernier LoggerPro

An outlier (ignored for linear fit)

Notice that thin airfoil theory overestimates equals experimental for

my lift curves flatten for negative alpha of large . As higher

C ONCLUSION ON RELATIO NSHIP BETWEEN