Uncertainty Analysis of Various Design Parameters on

Winglet Performance
Z. Toor* and J Masud
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Institute of Avionics & Aeronautics,
Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
Zaheer Abbas3 and Umair Ahsun4
PSATRI, College of Engineering, Building 3, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia

Winglets are used to decrease lift loss due to wing tip vortices. However, their design
requires careful understanding and selection of each design parameter. In this paper,
uncertainty associated with each design parameter is investigated by performing a OneFactor-at-a-Time (OFAT) sensitivity analysis using CFD. A baseline winglet is designed and
installed on a reference wing by choosing near optimum values from historical trends. Then
its performance is numerically analyzed by varying one parameter at a time keeping all
others constant to identify effect of each parameter on winglet effectiveness. It was found
that winglet effectiveness decreased with increasing Cant angle and remained fairly constant
for all root toe angles. For different sweepback angles, taper ratios and spans winglet
performance increased to an optimum by increasing their value and then again started to
decrease. General variation of each parameter in design space is also identified. Overall
winglet performance is gauged by comparing it to performance of reference wing without
winglet.

Nomenclature
AOA
CFD
AR
LE
OFAT
M
SA
RKE
x, y, z
y+
RANS
DOE
RDS

Angle-of-Attack (Degrees)
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Aspect Ratio
Leading Edge
One Factor at a Time
Mach number
One equation Spalarat-Allamaras turbulence model
Realizable K-epsilon turbulence model
Cartesian ordinates
Non-dimensional length scale associated with turbulence model
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes A12
Design of Experiments
Raymer Design Software

Graduate Student, Dept of Mech. & Aero. Engg, IAA, Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
Associate Prof, Dept of Mech. & Aero. Engg, IAA, Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan. Senior Member
AIAA.
3
Researcher, PSATRI, College of Engineering, Building 3, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
4
Researcher, PSATRI, College of Engineering, Building 3, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
2

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

I. Introduction
In recent years, modern aircraft design and development has directed significant consideration towards optimal
designs in terms of economy and performance. One of the essential considerations of such studies in the field of
aerodynamics has been drag reduction and fuel economy. Within the context of total aircraft development,
aerodynamic considerations must be seen in connection with other integrating factors such as structural weight and
flight load management. However, in this research, purely aerodynamic effects would pre-dominate.
Aerodynamically, there are numerous potential solutions to reduce drag and hence improve fuel consumption and
endurance and one of them pertains to reduction in drag due to lift.
Total Drag of the wing can be divided into zero lift drag and drag due to lift or lift-induced drag. Zero lift drag is
the inherent drag of the wing which is present irrespective of the lift produced. It is mainly caused by the skin
friction of the wing [1]. Airfoil shape of the wing causes upper and lower surfaces of the wing to operate at lower
and higher pressure respectively. Pressure difference between these two surfaces results in lift force. Towards the tip
of the wing, some of the high pressure air swirls around wing tip towards the low pressure region at top of the wing.
This swirling of flow has two profound effects on aircraft dynamics; firstly it causes slight decrease in lift as the
high pressure air leaks around wing tip. In order to recover this lost lift, aircraft now needs to operate at slightly
higher Angle of Attack (AOA), which in turn means higher induced drag. Secondly, this swirling around wing tip
introduces a whirling flow around wing tip, also known as wing tip vortices. These vortices affect the velocity flow
field around wing trailing edge, deflecting it downwards and inducing a down wash. This downwash alters the
effective Angle of Attack and lift vector is also tilted. Component of the effective lift force acting in the direction of
drag is called induced drag [2].
Induced drag accounts for 60% of the drag during cruise and around 80% of total drag during takeoff and
climb [2]. Mathematically, induced drag can be expressed as follows:

(1)
It is evident from the equation that induced drag is directly related to Lift and hence, to Angle of Attack (AOA).
Aspect Ratio (AR) also plays an important role in induced drag of the wing. An infinitely long wing with infinite
Aspect Ratio (AR) would have zero lift induced drag [3]. Similarly, for a long wing, the area of wing affected by
wing tip vortex would be less and hence, it would have lower induced drag than a similar wing with lower Aspect
Ratio [4].
It was observed very early in the aircraft development research that the induced drag produced by non-planar
wing systems, such as box wing, is less than that produced by similar planar wing. This effect was quickly
associated with wing tip vortices and an intuitive solution of wing tip fence was devised. Further wing tip
extensions, such as raked winglet or even simpler configurations such as addition of a triangular in-plane wing (later
named Hoerner Tips) were also introduced [4]. These configurations lead to approximately 4-8% aircraft drag
reduction [5].
However, as the phenomenon regarding how flow field is affected by wing tip vortex and down wash caused by
these vortices were further investigated, it was revealed that induced drag can be significantly minimized by
introducing a cambered wing tip extension that would displace more flow outwards and spread the downwash field
along wing trailing edge [6]. This revelation was first made by Dr. Richard Whitcomb, at NASA Langley in the
1970s and lead to the idea of cambered winglets. However, research showed that cambered winglets can have
degraded performance at high speeds [7]. Drag reduction achieved by winglet is a trade off against the wetted area
added, and hence the skin-friction drag, to the actual wing area. Even if one were to ignore the structural limitations,
a large winglet that completely diminishes the wing tip vortices would also result in large skin friction drag addition.
The basic premise is to achieve minimum drag rather than to eliminate wing tip vortices completely. End plate was
patented by Frederick W. Lanchester as early as 1897 in England. Modern winglet design was first conceived,
evaluated and tested in detail by Dr. Richard T. Whitcomb, at NASA Langley from 1974 to 1976. In 1977, Learjet
Longhorn was produced with first winglets ever used on a jet aircraft. Boeing incorporated winglets in 1985 on 747400, first Jetliner to do so. Since then, a lot of aircraft, military and civilian, have used winglets for their drag and
fuel reduction advantages.
At this point, it might seem obvious that winglets have a great advantage in terms of reducing drag and
improving fuel efficiency, and can also be retrofitted to almost any wing. Here, the question arises as to why all

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

aircraft have not yet employed this concept in their design? As discussed earlier, winglet design is a tradeoff
between increased parasite drag and reduced induced drag. As winglets effectively increase the wing Aspect Ratio
without increasing span, their affectivity diminishes for high Aspect ratio wings already built at their limits.
Moreover, the added advantage is sometimes insignificant as compared to increased cost and increased weight.
Hence, winglet design is unique for each wing planform and is to be done distinctly for every wing.
A. Problem Statement
Effectiveness of various design parameters on winglet performance is to be evaluated by incorporating various
winglets on a reference wing. The operating conditions for the purpose of this study are as follows:
Cruise Speed
: 90 Knots TAS
Altitude
: 20,000 feet
Mean Take-off Weight : 250 kg
Wing chosen for the purpose of this study is a high aspect ratio wing with relatively long span. The details of
wing geometry are given below:
Wing Span

3686 mm

Wing Airfoil

NACA 4415

Wing Root Chord

614 mm

Wing Tip Chord

307 mm

Wing Dihedral

2 degrees

Figure 1. Top view of the reference wing without winglet

An inherent challenge associated with presented problem is that the wing tip vortex strength associated with this
wing is relatively weak. This is due to the fact that Aspect Ratio of wing under discussion is slightly more than 12,
which is considerably high. In addition to this, operating conditions render the operating Mach number around
0.1465 and taper ratio of the wing is also close to 0.5. High Aspect ratio, low cruise speed and higher taper ratio all
lead to weak wing tip vortex. In turn, weak wing tip vortex corresponds to lower induced drag and hence, winglet
effectiveness is also reduced [10, 11].
B. Research Methodology
Initially, original wing would be analyzed comprehensively employing commercially available Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code Fluent [8] for its original coefficients of drag and lift. These are the reference values
that need to be compared for winglet performance estimation. Next, all design Parameters for a winglet would be
explored and then a few parameters would be fixed at pre-selected values, while effect of others would be
thoroughly investigated. A baseline winglet would be modeled based on the parameters generally applied on the
winglets of similar aircraft with similar operating conditions. Amount of uncertainty associated with each design
parameter would be determined by performing a One-Factor-At-a-Time (OFAT) sensitivity analysis. Finally, a
comparative analysis would be done to quantify the effect of all design parameters on winglet performance.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2. Flow chart of research methodology

II. Computational Setup

For the CFD computations, symmetric analysis was deemed appropriate since the analysis is being performed
only on the wing and it is symmetric over the UAV fuselage. Original wing geometry is off set from the centerline
by an amount of 205.36 mm to allow for the fuselage. For CFD analysis, wing root airfoil was protruded inwards
towards fuselage up till the UAV Symmetry plane. Hence only one wing was modeled.
A. Grid Density
Accuracy of a CFD analysis is heavily dependent upon the grid density, mesh size and quality. Hence grid
independence was done with three different mesh sizes. A five layered boundary layer mesh was also applied to
capture near wall effects and to cater for required Y-plus values. Mesh density is kept higher at leading edges and
trailing edges of aircraft surfaces and gradually coarsen over the surfaces and subsequently through the fluid volume
domain. Wing is modeled with a finite trailing edge and all wing surfaces are meshed using map-split triangular
elements. Final chosen mesh consists of approximately 8 million cells. Far field length was approximately 50 times
wing chord to allow pressure variations to diminish and eradicate possibility of boundary walls affecting the
solution. Surface mesh and far-field mesh are as follows:

Figure 3. Wing surface (left) consists of triangular map-split elements while fluid domain (right) is
meshed using unstructured tetrahedral elements
A density box was created around the wing and winglet with denser mesh to accurately capture flow field near
the wing. While meshing various winglets, an effort was made to retain same surface meshes criterion and mesh
growth size to eliminate mesh effects on the results while comparing various winglets. Density box and mesh
growth is shown in figure 4.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 1. Mesh density box (left) was created with dimensions of one-chord length in front of the wing and
two-chord lengths behind the wing to accurately capture wing wake and tip vortices. Further away from
the density box (right), mesh grows gradually as distance increases from the wing.
B. Solution Strategy
In the present work, compressible RANS system of equations with air (fluid) was solved using the density based
formulation with explicit algorithm of Fluent CFD code [8]. For external flow, second order upwind scheme was
selected with appropriate values of under relaxation parameters. For computations with explicit algorithm, four-level
multi-grid was employed. The problem was partitioned into four regions for parallel computing.
C. Boundary Conditions
All wing and winglet surfaces were modeled as walls with enforced no slip conditions. Pressure boundary
conditions were used at far field corresponding to the desired altitude, free stream Mach number and angle-of-attack.
D. Turbulence Model
Turbulence model independence was carried out for wing without winglet and selected turbulence model was
used for subsequent winglet optimization CFD runs. Four turbulence models were analyzed and their results were
compared for selection of best performing turbulence model. Figure 5 shows lift and drag coefficients as measured
by different turbulence models at 0 degrees Angle of Attack.

Figure 5. Lift coefficient (left) and Drag coefficient (right) of wing without winglet at zero degree AOA for
various turbulence models
For the present study, the one-equation Spalart-Allmaras (SA) [9] and Realizable K-epsilon (RKE) turbulence
models gave consistent results and hence were spontaneous choice for final selection. RKE turbulence model was
finally selected due to its proven efficacy for capturing vortices and solve separated flow [12].

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

III.

Winglet Design Parameters

A winglet is an out of plane extension of the wing tip and hence has all variables as that of a wing with
additional variables like Cant angle. Design process employed during this study is commenced from the point where
some design variables like winglet type and winglet airfoil are chosen from existing similar designs. In this study
only conventional winglet design variables are explored.
A. Winglet Airfoil
Initially, it was thought that winglet airfoil should be same as that of the main wing; however, further studies
revealed that dominant requirements of winglet airfoil differ from those of conventional wing. Firstly, the winglet
airfoil needs to be comparatively a low Reynolds number airfoil than the wing, as its chord is less than that of the
wing. Also, in order to operate normally in gusts and side slip angles, winglet airfoil needs to be more tolerant at
negative angles of attack. PSU-90-125WL winglet airfoil was designed by Dr. Maughmer and Mr. Selig of
Pennsylvania State University for use on sailplanes winglets. Unlike conventional airfoil, this airfoil has its lower
cambered removed. This ensures attached flow at moderate negative Angles of Attack. Although absence of lower
camber also causes decrease in maximum lift co-efficient, but this is insignificant parameter for winglet airfoils.
Also, this airfoil has lower coefficient of drag throughout the range from -7 degrees to +7 degrees Angles of Attack.
Hence, PSU-90-125WL airfoil was chosen for winglet design process.

Figure 6. Winglet Design Parameters

B. Winglet Toe-out Angle
For classical winglets without lower part, some of the whirling flow leaks around wing tip and hence results in
lower effective AOA at winglet root airfoil. Hence, winglet root needs to be toed out to cater for decreased effective
AOA. If no toe out angle is given, winglet root would not only operate at lower AOA and higher C d configuration, it
will also cause the winglet root to stall before winglet tip. Aerodynamically it is desirable that complete wing span
stalls uniformly. Hence, range of toe out angles would be explored to identify its effect on wing C D and CL / CD.
C. Twist Distribution
It is evident from above discussion that winglet root and tip would experience different AOA, and would be
installed at different toe-out angles. This would result in aerodynamic twist along the span of winglet. This twist
distribution needs to be such that aerodynamic loads are uniformly distributed throughout the winglet span. For ease
of design and manufacturing, it is desirable that twist distribution is linear and smooth from root to tip. Hence, a
linear twist distribution was selected for winglet design.
D. Cant Angle
Cant angle is measured from vertical axis to the winglet chord. For a winglet that is nominally set to 0 degree
Cant angle, wing deflection caused by aerodynamics load would result in negative Cant angle. As a result, resultant
vector from winglet would have a component oriented downwards. This is a self-opposing situation and highly
undesirable. Special attention must be given while dealing with wings with dihedral angles. In such cases, it must be
ensured that Cant angles are measured from global axis system rather than relative to wing. A reasonable approach
would be to install the winglet at maximum tip deflection angle plus the dihedral angle. During design process,
range of Cant angles would be explored for its effects on wing performance.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

E. Sweepback.
Winglet sweepback angle is another important design parameter that would be investigated through the design
process. As AOA varies rapidly from winglet root to winglet tip, uniform loading requires the winglet to have a
sweep back.
F. Taper Ratio.
Taper ratio is also required to achieve uniform loading of the winglet. In addition to this, as taper ratio is
decreased, wetted area and parasite drag also decreases. Effect of taper ratio variation has been studied in detail by
K.H. Horstmann in his PhD thesis, whereby it is exhibited that as taper ratio increases, a linear twist distribution is
achieved. As we have already chosen linear twist distribution, a higher taper ratio is essential.
G. Winglet root to wing tip chord ratio.
Although winglets are an extension of wing tips, however, there is a sudden change in chords while moving from
wing tip towards winglet root. Since other requirements suggest that winglet root be installed at some negative
AOA, it is desirable that some flow be allowed to whirl around winglet root and provide positive AOA at all flight
speeds. This ratio is a function of wingtip vortex strength and needs to be evaluated.

IV.

Results and Discussion

Operating conditions for current analysis are governed by UAV cruise conditions that come out to be Mach
0.1465 and operating pressure of 20,000 feet altitude (46563.2556 Pa). Although cruise altitude was known, cruise
AOA was estimated using lift curve slope and aircraft weight. Wing analysis was carried out at various AOAs to
identify lift coefficient corresponding to aircraft gross take-off weight. Cruise AOA of the UAV was found to
located at 6 degree.
A. Wing performance without winglet
After selecting appropriate mesh and turbulence model, wing without winglet was analyzed at different AOAs.
Figure 6 shows lift coefficient, drag coefficient and lift to drag ratio at various AOAs:

0.9

CL / CD

CL

0.6
0.3

0
-6

-4

-2

Figure 7. CL vs
(left) and CL vs CD (right) results of wing without winglet
-0.3

All the results are consistent with aerodynamics theory. Slope of lift co-efficient is linear and found to be 0.0787.
Experimental results show that slope of lift co-efficient for NACA 4415 is 0.093 for Re number of 1.5e06 (Re
number of root chord is 1.588e06). This is the value for infinite length wing however; lift loss occurs due to wingtip
vortices on finite wing length and also results in reduced slope of lift co-efficient. It is also evident from Pressure
Coefficient (Cp) distribution over the wing surface (Fig 7) that a drop in pressure co-efficient and lift occurs at wing
tip.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 8. Pressure Coefficient distribution over wing (left) and stream lines from wing surface (right)
showing wingtip vortex causing loss of lift
B. Baseline Winglet Selection and Performance
Baseline Winglet parameters were selected based on the current winglets in use on similar aircraft, primarily sail
planes [1]. Baseline winglet Parameters are tabulated below:
WINGLET TYPE

Classical Winglet

PARAMETER

SELECTED VALUE

Airfoil

PSU-90-125WL

Toe Angle

-2 Degrees

Twist Distribution

Linear

Cant Angle

12 Degrees

Sweepback Angle

30 Degrees

Taper Ratio

0.6

Span

300 mm

Table 1. Baseline Winglet Parameters

The winglet was modeled employing Raymer Design Software (RDS) to generate Winglet cross sectional airfoil
points data for required parameters. This data was imported in GAMBIT to model the winglet and subsequent preprocessing for CFD analyses. For initial analysis, root chord was selected to be 225 mm.

Figure 9. Isometric view of winglet model from RDS (left) and wing with baseline winglet (right)

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

While all other parameters were selected based on existing designs, winglet root chord and span were chosen
arbitrarily. As evident from selected parameters, this Winglet is a non-dimensional Winglet, where the chord length
of tip and root airfoil is yet to be determined. This selection was done using Parametric Scaling of Baseline Winglet.
C. Parametric Scaling of Winglet
Root chord length of baseline winglet was varied from 75% of wing tip chord to 30% wingtip chord and CFD
Analysis were conducted for each configuration to select the Parametric Scale of baseline winglet. For all these
parametric analyses, trailing edge point of winglet root airfoil was positioned at same position in line with wing tip
airfoil trailing edge. Hence, this resulted in varied location of leading edge of winglet root airfoil. This in turn
allowed for different amount of wing tip swirling flow to leak in front of winglet.

Figure 10. Winglets with different scales were created by changing Root chord length and keeping
constant sweep and taper ratio constant
Results from these CFD analyses showed that drag coefficient reduced rapidly when winglet root chord length
was half of that of wing tip chord, and increased when chord length was either increased or decreased from this
value. Physically, when winglet root chord length is decreased, more swirling flow is leaked at the base of winglet
and increases its efficiency. However, when winglet root chord becomes too small, the net effect tends towards that
of no winglet. Hence, the result are consistent with theory as drag decreases with decreasing chord length up till an
optimum value and then again starts increasing. Similar trend is seen in pronounced amplitude in CL / Cd plot for
different scales, as shown below:

Lift to Drag Ratio

20
19

18
17

AOA 0

16

AOA 6

15
14
13
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Winglet Root Chord to Wing Tip Chord Ratio

Figure 11. Lift to drag ratio variation by changing winglet scales parametrically.

IV.

Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is performed to determine how sensitive a model is to variations in the values of the design
parameters of the model. Parameter sensitivity is usually performed as a series of tests in which different parameters
are varied individually and their effect on the model is identified. Sensitivity analysis also helps to identify extent of
uncertainty associated with each parameter. Summary of how all the winglet design parameters are selected and
evaluated during this design process is as follows

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 12. Winglet design parameters selection process

A. Cant Angle
Design space selected for Cant angle was from 12 degrees to 45 degrees. Minimum Cant angle was selected by
taking into account dihedral angle plus the maximum wing tip aero-elastic deflection angle due to Fluid-StructureInteraction (FSI).

Figure 13. Winglets with various Cant Angles varying from 12 to 45 degrees
Co-efficient of drag remains fairly constant with Cant angle at low AOA, however, there is an increasing trend
observed for Cd with increasing Cant angle and maximum value occurring at 45 degrees cant angle for 6 degrees
AOA. This is owing to the fact that as Cant angle is increased, the flow field adjustment made by winglet also
moves away from the wing. At first it may appear from the trend that a winglet with a cant angle lower than 12
might perform better than all these configurations, but it is reminded that 12 degrees cant angle was chosen taking
into account aero-elastic wing tip deflection due to fluid-structure interaction. Hence cant angle value of lower than
12 is not recommended unless structural analysis shows otherwise. Instinctively, lift co-efficient should increase
with Cant angle as greater component of winglet lift force acts normal to free-stream, but the trend observed is
otherwise. It is due to the fact that while winglet lift increases with Cant angle, winglet affectivity decreases and lift
loss of wing recovered is also reduced. Hence the overall CL / CD variation with Cant angle is dominated by drag
variation.

Figure 14. Drag Coefficient (left) and lift to drag ratio (right) variation with Cant angle

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

B. Winglet Root Toe Angle

Design space for wing root toe out angle was selected from similar designs in use and was chosen from -3 to +1
degrees with 1 degree step. Generally winglet root toe angle is kept at negative values of one or two degrees. This is
to account for local variation in AOA experienced by winglet. These five configurations were analyzed and
aerodynamic coefficient variation is shown below

Figure 15. Drag Coefficient (left) and lift to drag ratio (right) variation with Toe angle
As evident from graphs that effect of toe-out angle on winglet design is negligible. This result is expected as toe
angle affects the effective local AOA at winglet and the Cd value for selected winglet remains fairly constant at these
AOAs. Also, the individual contribution of winglet itself is insignificant as compared to that of complete wing with
winglet hence any minute changes do not show up on the plot. Similar trend is also seen in C L / CD plot.
C. Sweepback Angle
Sweepback angle was varied initially varied from 30 degrees to 60 degrees with a step size of 10 degrees.
However, results indicated a trend that maximum C L/CD occurred for 30 degrees leading edge sweep of winglet, and
winglet performance started degrading with increased sweepback angle. Hence it was felt necessary to model and
analyze a winglet with 20 degrees leading edge sweepback angle.

Figure 16. Winglets with various Sweepback Angles varying from 20 to 60 degrees
The results showed that minimum drag occurs at 30 degrees sweepback angle and increases when sweepback
angle is either increased or decreased. Same trend is also evident in C L / CD variation plot.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 17. Drag Coefficient (left) and lift to drag ratio (right) variation with Toe angle
D. Span
Baseline winglet was modeled with a span of 200 mm. Span affects the overall wing drag in two ways. Firstly,
larger the winglet span lesser the winglet tip vortex effect as it obstructs swirling flow from interacting with upper
surface flow field. Secondly, added surface area of winglet directly increases the viscous drag component. The aim
is not to diminish wing tip vortex completely, but to design a winglet that results in minimum drag. So, this is
achieved by finding the right balance between increase in viscous drag and decrease in induced drag. To find the
trend from the baseline winglet, two additional winglets were modeled with 150 mm and 250 mm span respectively.

Figure 18. Winglets with various Spans varying from 150 mm to 250 mm
These results show that optimum value lies between 150 mm and 250 mm span length. Same trend is also
evident in CL / CD variation plot.

Figure 19. Drag Coefficient (left) and lift to drag ratio (right) variation with winglet span

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

E. Taper Ratio
Taper ratio of baseline winglet was chosen to be 0.6. This taper ratio was varied from 0.35 to 0.7 and five
winglets were modeled. Since taper ratio is the ratio of winglet tip chord to winglet root chord, it can be varied by
varying any of the two chords. However, as the root chord length and its location was selected based on parametric
scaling of winglet, hence root chord was kept fixed and tip chord was varied to achieve varying taper ratios. While
modeling these winglets, in order to maintain all other parameters fixed at their baseline values, leading edge of
winglet tip was kept at same position. This in result required the trailing edge of the winglet to be moved forward.
Comparison of geometries of all these configurations is shown in figure 20.

Figure 20. Winglets with various Taper Ratios varying from 0.35 to 0.7
Results from these analyses are depicted in figure 21. It was revealed that taper ratio had more pronounces effect
at lower AOA than higher AOA. It was observed that minimum drag and maximum lift to drag ratio was observed at
0.5 taper ratio as compared to baseline value of 0.6. Although decreasing taper ratio results in smaller wetted area
and hence less viscous drag, its overall effectiveness in drag reduction is also reduced at lower taper ratio values.

Figure 21. Drag Coefficient (left) and lift to drag ratio (right) variation with Taper Ratio

V. Conclusion
In this paper, effects of varying winglet parameters are investigated on overall winglet effectiveness. It was
found that winglet effectiveness decreased with increasing Cant angle and remained fairly constant for all winglet
root toe angles. For different sweepback angles, taper ratios and spans, winglet performance increased to an
optimum by increasing their value and then again started decreasing. Hence it is concluded that winglet toe angle is
least important parameter for low speed winglet design as compared to other design parameters. For all other
parameters, full range is to be explored to find the optimum winglet.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the use of Computer Aided Engineering Lab (CAEL) of the Institute of
Avionics and Aeronautics, Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

References
1Maughmer, M.D. About Winglets. ; translated into Italian as Le winglet e la resistenza, for Vol A Vela, July/Aug., 2002.
Soaring, June 2002, pp. 18-23.
2McCormick,
3Ning,

Barnes W. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics. s.l. : Wiley, 1995. ISBN 0471110876.

S. A. and Kroo, I. Tip Extensions, Winglets, and C-wings: Optimization in Conceptual Wing Design.

4Yates J. E., Donaldson C. Fundamental study of Drag and assessment of conventional Drag-due-to-lift reduction devices . s.l.
: NASA, 1986. NASA Contract Rep 4004.
5Numerical analysis effect of Winglet on Lift and Drag coefficients of a CESSNA wing. Izadi, Mohammad J. Alexandria,
Egypt : Proceedings of ICFDP9: Ninth International Congress of Fluid Dynamics & Propulsion, Dec 18-21, 2008. ICFDP9-EG217.
6Whitcomb,

R. T. A Design Approach and Selected Wind-Tunnel Results at High Subsonic Speeds for Wing-Tip Mounted
Winglets. s.l. : NASA, 1976. NASA N D-8260.
7Methods for Reducing Aerodynamic Drag. Whitcomb, R. T.,. s.l. : NASA Conference Publication 2211, 1981. Proceedings of
Dryden Symposium California .
8FLUENT,

Computational Fluid Dynamics Software Package, Ver. 6.3.26, Fluent Inc, Lebanon, NH

9Spalarat, P., and Allmaras, S., A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows. Technical Report AIAA-920439, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1992.
10CFD Analysis of Winglets at Low Subsonic Flow. M. A Azlin, C.F Mat Taib, S. Kasolang and F.H Muhammad. pp87-91,
London, U.K. : Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, July 6 - 8, 2011, Vol. 1. WCE 2011.
11Winglet

Design and Optimization for UAVs . J. Weierman, J. D. Jacob. s.l. : 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference,
2010. AIAA 2010-4224.
12TH Shih, WW Liou, A Shabbir, Z Yang, J Zhu. A new k-epsilon eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent
flows: Model development and validation. NASA Technical Report NASA-TM-106721. NASA Lewis Research Center;
Cleveland, OH, United States

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics