Homework 1:
NACA 4-digit airfoils analysis using the Discrete Vortex Method
Vı́ctor Barrachina, Younes el Jarari, Gerard Gallardo, Guillem Olivella, Enric Royo
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, ESEIAAT, Technical University, Colom 1 Street, 08222 Terrassa, Barcelona
Delivered 29 December 2017
Aerodynamics - 220024
Professor Enrique Ortega
ABSTRACT: The results shown are calculated under the
assumptions of the thin airfoil theory (TAT). During this
study, the characteristics related to a given airfoil (NACA
2408) are going to be analysed, in concrete, load calculations
and the flap efficiency trend as a function of the flap-chord ra-
tio and its deflection. It has been observed that experimental
results resemble the computed data in almost all the cases.
The characteristic curves of an airfoil have been compared to
INTRODUCTION
An airfoil is defined as the shape of a wing that produces
an aerodynamic force (lift and drag) when moved through a
fluid. The NACA1 airfoils are normalized shapes for aircraft
wings developed by the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics. They follow a numerical code that determines
their shape and properties. In the following figure, all the
airfoils properties are represented.
Figure 1: Profile geometry
The most basic and common NACA airfoils (and also the
ones used here) are the Four-digit series. Those shapes, as
we advanced, are described by four digits: the first and the
second are referred to the camber line and represent maxi-
mum value of camber and its position along the x-axis, both
expressed in % of chord, and the third and fourth terms rep-
resent the maximum thickness in % of chord too. NACA
1 NACA: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
1
theoretical results and they show a clear parallelism to the
theoretical results. In both curves (CL and CM,0 ) the slopes
coincide with the expected by the TAT. All the calculus and
algorithms done in this project are going to be based on the
Discrete Vorthex Method [1].
Key words: Thin airfoil theory (TAT), Discrete vortex
method (DVM), Lift coefficient (CL ), Moment coefficient at
the Leading Edge (CM,le )
4-digits airfoils have good stall characteristics and high-speed
performance. However, the maximum lift is relatively low
and the pitching moment and drag are elevated. [2] [3]
As the NACA airfoil description is not the topic of this
assignment, we will not go deeper. If interested, check the
following bibliography for more accurate descriptions. [3]
In terms of the project, this assignment is divided in
three distinguished parts: Verification assessment, Val-
idation assessment and Discussion. Furthermore, the fol-
lowing study has been done using the Discrete Vortex Method
(DVM). This method is based in the the discretization of
the camber line in consecutive flat panels or lumped-vortex
elements.
Using this scheme, a computational modelling study can
be conducted in order to compute the effects that flying con-
ditions have to the loads. This scheme also let us compute
the effects of the flap by modifying the camber line, so we will
also be able to study its effects to the loads and, moreover, its
efficiency. Hence, for the given airfoil (NACA 2408) all of
this calculations are going to be computed with the support
of the software MatLab ®.
Then our calculations are verified by comparing them to
the theoretical results; common aerodynamic curves (such as
CL vs α or CM,le vs α) will be provided. This part is focused
mainly on the slopes of this curves, knowing that the linear
of the CL plot must be around 2π and 0 for the CM,le . This
results are deeply reviewed latter in their own sections.
Eventually, a discussion about the results obtained and
its matches with the theoretical onesis set.In the annexes the
full MatLab®script is provide ready to compile.
 0.67 9 -0.205 6
Cm
8 Theoretical Cm
0.66 Error 5
7
0.65
6 -0.21 4

0.64 5
Cl
Theoretical Cl 3
Error 4
0.63

3 -0.215 2
0.62
2
1
0.61
1

0.6 0 -0.22 0
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 2: CL & error vs Num. of panels Figure 3: CM,le & error vs Num. of panels

VERIFICATION ASSESSMENT
In this section, we proceed to calculate the parameters in-
troduced previously in order to verify the DVM’s solution.
In this purpose, we set the flying conditions as told in the
assignment (NACA: 2408, α: 4º)
Then, reference exact values are calculated under the as-
sumptions of the TAT (see Appendix). Thus we proceed to
make a Sweep for the number of panels (in this case from 4 to
250 panels), in order to obtain the CL in function of the num-
ber of panels. As it is supposed, the curve obtained enhance
its precision as we increase the number of panels.
But the last part is yet to be determined for now. As
it can be seen in the Figure 2, the CL goes to a asymptotic
value, but we can not talk about precision if theoretical trend
of CL is not known yet. Is at this point where the TAT starts
having huge importance.
From the equations of the TAT, we can state:
1 π dz
 Z 
CL = 2π α + (cos θ0 − 1)dθ0 (1)
π 0 dx
Where term dz/dx represents the slope of the camber line
and the angle (θ0 ) and the slope are related by the following
expression:
x0 = c/2(1 − cos θ0 ) (2)
Hence we proceed to calculate the theoretical value of CL
as it is shown in the equation (1). In order to obtain cor-
rect results some particular things must be present. As we
know for the theory lectures (see [3]), NACA Four-digit se-
ries camber line’s are constructed by two parabolic curves
that meet at the point where the camber is maxim. Due
to that, the previous integral is divided in two parts, and is
easily predictable that both slopes (dz/dx) are meant to be
different. First comes from zero to 1.369 rad and second goes
from 1.369 rad to π. This points have been obtained from the
NACA (x0 ) and computing x0 in (2). This data is resumed
in the following table for our particular case:
x0 0 0.4 c cases, which has been considered small enough to be accepted
θ0 0 1.369 π as the quantity of panels used for the following results.
The routine for obtaining the CM,le is exacly the same,
but instead of eq. (1), the following expression has been used:
CL π
CM,le = − + (A2 − A1 ) (3)
4 4
where A1 and A2 are the coefficients of a Fourier’s trigono-
metrical expansion. They can be obtained from the equation
shown below:
2 π dz
Z
Ai = cos(iθ0 )dθ0 for i ∈ N+ (4)
π 0 dx
fractioning, again, the integral in the two same parts as did
for the theoretical CL . The following results have been ob-
tained from operating as described:
Theoretical Parameters
CL 0.6667 CM,le -0.2197
Once obtained this theoretical results, our MatLab
®script have been executed (see Appendix), taking this the-
oretical values as the reference when computing the error.
This results are shown at the top of this page (see Figures
2 and 3). In this curves we can see quite information, and
the following description is valid for both curves: Continuous
traces are for computed results and slashed ones for theoret-
ical, the left y-axis correspond to the blue lines (CL ) and the
right y-axis gives information about the error in %.
As can be seen, the results match with a very high pre-
cision the assumptions we made, obtaining in both cases an
error lower than 0.1% for 250 panels. Also, as predicted, the
precision increases with the number of samples used (the er-
ror decreases). The tendency in both cases is the same as
the hyperbole, having a greater error for a very low num-
ber of panels (it tends to infinity when approaching 0) and
approaching asymptotically to a constant value (the theoreti-
cal parameter) when increasing the number of lumped-vortex
elements.
As it can be seen in Figure 2 and 3, the error commit-
ted when working with 100 panels is less than 0.2 % in both

2
 Angle of delflection vs. Flap efficiency factor
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Flap-chord ratio = 0.5
Flap-chord ratio = 0.45
0.4 Flap-chord ratio = 0.4
Flap-chord ratio = 0.35
Flap-chord ratio = 0.3
Flap-chord ratio = 0.25
0.3 Flap-chord ratio = 0.20
Flap-chord ratio = 0.15
Flap-chord ratio = 0.10
Flap-chord ratio = 0.05
0.2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 4: Flap-chord ratio vs efficiency
Flap effects
This second part of the validation assessment pretends to in-
troduce the effects that flaps produce in our airfoil. As we
introduced, the effect of the flap can be easily computed due
to the TAT. The advantages of having an airfoil with rela-
tively low thickness allows the modelling of the present air-
craft by introducing some vortex filaments perpendicular to
the aircraft that will generate a vortex sheet. Every vortex
filament has a constant circulation, but most important they
are placed in the camber line.
Because of that, using TAT we are giving main impor-
tance to the camber line, because all the information given
by the fly conditions will be represented there. Using the
camber line as the representation of our airfoil gives a simple
and easy way to model a flap. Considering that the flap is
just a portion of the aircraft that can be deflected (upper or
downwards), we will be able to shape it by giving an extra
camber to the aircraft in some determined points.
In order to decide which concrete points are these, it is
needed to define the flap geometrically and it becomes easier
using the support of the Figure 5. There can be spotted many
parameters, but only two of them are needed in order to get
all the information, and these two are shown at the bottom
of this figure (E and η).
As explained, and it is easy to see in the Figure 5, the por-
tion of the aircraft deflected is called Flap-chord ratio (E), and
its deflection is measured by η (according to the note under
the figure).
Once that the flaped airfoil is characterised, it is time to
start working on its properties. To perform so, there is a pa-
rameter which is basic in the characterisation of the of the
properties that also has a direct effect on the loads. This
parameter is called flap efficiency and it is written ∂αl0 /∂η.
In order to explain the physical interpretation it is con-
sidered a plain airfoil moving through a fluid at some relative
velocity that in this case is assumed perpendicular to the air-
foil2 . Now, lets consider that a portion of this airfoil starts
deflecting itself η degrees, so it produces a certain camber.
This camber induces some circulation that increases as the
2 The total contributions to the loads will be computed applying the superposition principle, adding the contribution of the flap to
the other contributions (see [4]).
Figure 5: Flap characteristics
E: Flap-chord ratio = 1-xh /c; tan η: Flap deflection
16 18 20
Note: For non-dimensional problem with relatively low flap
deflections, we will assume that Flap-chord ratio = 1-E and
tan η ≈ η.
deflection is produced. This deflection also produces a Lift
and a Pitching moment. So, if previously a certain α is given
(we considered zero for simplifying) where the lift generated
is zero, this angle αl0 is displaced anticlockwise.
Repeating the process described, a certain function will
be generated that shows how the zero lift angle (αl0 ) changes
in function of η. Now, we just have to differentiate respect η,
so we will obtain how αl0 changes with η, the flap efficiency.
Now, we have to keep in mind that in this whole process we
have assumed a certain Flap-chord ratio deflected. If we re-
peat this process for different Flap-chord ratio, we will get
the flap efficiency in function of the deflection for different
flap-chord ratio.
All this routine have been implemented in MatLab ®,
again for the NACA and α given, and Figure 4 have been
obtained.
In Figure 4, we can see many interesting things. First
of all, the curves show that the slopes are constant and de-
pends only on the flap-chord ratio. We can also observe that
those slopes increases with flap-chord ratio, going to zero for
very small flap-chord ratios. This result could be easily ex-
pected, so when the portion deflected tends to zero is easy
to see that its efficiency would go to zero (it does not exist).
On the other hand, we can see that the efficiency increases
also with the flap-chord ratio. Another information that this
figure proves is that the main parameter when designing a
flap is the flap-chord ratio, and it can be seen by observing
the values of efficiency for a constant flap-chord ratio and
for a constant deflection. Focusing in the effect of the de-
flection, for a certain flap-chord ratio the values of efficiency
oscillates between 0 and 0.05 (for flap-chord ratios of 0.05 and
0.5 respectively), however, for a given deflection the values of
efficiency are bounded obtaining ranges between 4.5 or 5 (for
deflections of 1 and 20 respectively).
In short, the range of values we can control by focusing
on the flap-chord ratio is the order of 10 times higher that the
range we would get by controlling the deflections. So that,
we can state that the main parameter in flap designs is the
flap-chord ratio.
3
 2 0.9
Computed
Computed and corrected
0.8 Experimental

1.5
0.7

0.6

1 X: 0.08727
Y: 0.7724 0.5
Cm 0
Cl
0.4
0.5
X: 0
Y: 0.2256 0.3

0.2
0

0.1

-0.5 0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Figure 6: CL & error vs Num. of panels Figure 7: CM,le & error vs Num. of panels

VALIDATION ASSESSMENT
In this part of the project, the main purpose is to check if the
results obtained match with the expected from the TAT. In
order to do that, a table with the results obtained from Mat-
Lab ®and the experimental ones obtained from “Abbast and
Doenhoff ” will be shown bellow. The experimental results
have been tested at a very high Reynolds in order to avoid
any interference from compressible and viscous effects. [5]
Experimental and computed data
Exp. data Comp. data
αL0 -2º -2,06º
Cm0 -0.05º -0.0546º
CL,α 0.1 deg−1 0.1087 deg−1
As it can be seen, the experimental results are practically
the same as the computed ones. It can aslo be stated that the
precision of the computing results is higher than the experi-
mental shown in the bibliography. But how have this results
been computed? Regarding the computed calculations, the
characteristic parameters of the airfoil have been calculated
following these equations and procedures:
CL,α is the slope of the plotted line in the Cl vs α dia-
gram, and it has been computed as a regression line of the
different Cl calculated for different angles.
Clα0
Zero-lift angle of attack (αL0 :) αL0 = − C
L,α
Eventually we want to prove the near perfect match that
our computed results have with the expected by the TAT.
Therefore an extra plot has been added. It shows the depen-
dence on the angle of attack of two of the most characteristic
parameters of the airfoil, the CL and the Cm0 (see Figure
6). Asit was expected and advanced previously, the moment
coefficient does not depend on the angle of attack and the
slope of the CL vs α is 6.27 ≈ 2π(note that the units of the
x-axis are radians. In case of using degrees, this slop must be
≈0.1 deg−1 ).
Flap effects
In order to obtain some conclusions regarding the influence of
the flap-chord ratio in the efficiency of a flap, a plot display-
ing the flap efficiency factor vs. the flap-chord ratio has been
computed (Figure 7), where a flap deflection of 0-20º has been
used. In the same graph, experimental data obtained from
Abbast and Doenhoff is shown. The computed calculations
of the flap efficiency have also been modified to obtain the
corrected flap efficiency factor, a correction that consists on
doing the following calculation:
   
∂αl 0 ∂αl 0
= · f actor (5)
∂η C ∂η T
where the factor used is 0.7

L,α
Aerodynamic centre (Xac ): Xac = − CM,LE
Cm about Xac (Cm0): Cm0 = Cm,LE + Xac · Cl
Where:
Clα0 is the Cl with α = 0,CL,α is the slope of the Cl
graph, CM,LE is the slope of the Cm graph, CmLE is the mo-
ment with respect to the LE, Xac is respect the aerodynamic
centre and Cl is the lift coefficient.
C
Analysing the suitability of the corrected flap efficiency
factor, some conclusions can be drawn: For small flap-chord
ratios (0 - 0.15), the experimental data resembles the cor-
rected computed flap efficiency factor. There is a transition
area (0.15 - 0.3) where the experimental data can be found
between the non-corrected and the corrected trends. Finally,
for big flap-chord ratios (0.3-0.45) the experimental data is
better represented with the non-corrected calculations.

4
0 0
Xmc = 10% Xmc = 10%
-1 Xmc = 20% Xmc = 20%
Xmc = 30% -0.05 Xmc = 30%
-2 Xmc = 40% Xmc = 40%
Xmc = 50% Xmc = 50%
Xmc = 60% Xmc = 60%
-3
-0.1

-4

-0.15
-5

-6
-0.2
-7

-8 -0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0
MC = 0% MC = 0%
-1 MC = 1% MC = 1%
MC = 2% -0.05 MC = 2%
-2 MC = 3% MC = 3%
MC = 4% MC = 4%
MC = 5% MC = 5%
-3
MC = 6% -0.1 MC = 6%

-4

-0.15
-5

-6
-0.2
-7

-8 -0.25
10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 8: αl0 and Cm0 as function of f and p.

DISCUSSION of Figure 8).

Using the same initial conditions and the same criteria (100
panels) a study of how does the maximum camber and its
position affect the zero-lift angle and the Moment Coefficient
about the Aerodynamic Centre will be carried out.
First of all the effects of the maximum camber for its
given relative position will be studied. Then the maximum
camber will be fixed and how the αl0 and Cm0 changes with
the position of the maximum camber will be stuided.
Referent to the αl0 , in Figure 8a it can be seen that the
zero-lift angle decreases in almost linear trend with the maxi-
mum camber. It can be interpreted as a displacement through
the left of the line that defines Cl vs α. This means that for
a given angle of attack and f, the Cl increases with the cam-
ber (always in the range admitted by the TAT). However,
this would have effect in the Drag, although it has not been
computed. This effect is increased when the position of the
maximum camber is being moved backwards.

Effects of the Maximum camber For the Coefficient of Moment about Aerodynamic Cen-
tre (see Figure 8b), the same explanation about the diagram
The behaviour of αl0 and CM 0 for a given f (position of max- can be applied, although it has different consequences. First
imum camber) is represented in Figures 8a and 8b (first row of all, we have to assume that a negative moment means that

5
the trend is to rotate clock-wise. Hence, a relatively big Cm0
will make the airfoil rotate by increasing the angle of attack
significantly. It would contribute heavily on the Drag and, for
relatively big angles of attack, the boundary layer could even
come off losing a huge part of lift. As in the previous case,
the effect increases when moving the position of the maximum
camber is being moved backwards.
Effects of the position of Maximum Camber
The behaviour of αl0 and CM 0 for a given p (maximum cam-
ber) is plotted in Figures 8c and 8d (second row).
Referent to the αl0 , in Figure 8c similar results to the
case of the fixed position of the maximum camber can be seen.
Nontheless it has some remarkable differences, specially when
moving through small maximum cambers. As expected, for
little maximum cambers the αl0 is independent of the posi-
tion of its maximum camber. Despite this particular case, the
main trend is to reduce the αl0 as the position of the max-
imum camber is being moved backwards, having the same
effects on the lift and drag as explained for the αl0 behaviour
with fixed p. Closing, as we introduced for small maximum
chambers, this effect is intensified by increasing the maximum
camber.
For the Coefficient of Moment about Aerodynamic Centre
Signed, the group
6
(see Figure 8d), the same explanation about the diagram can
be applied, although with different consequences. Following
the same condition that we saw for Figure 8b, the negative
moments only affect at the sense of rotation. In general terms,
the effect on the moment tends to increase when increasing p
(moving the maximum camber backwards). As with the αl0
for fixed f, the effect on the Cm0 is also intensified for bigger
maximum cambers, being almost independent of p for a small
camber (same explanation can be applied too).
References
[1] Ortega. Enrique, Discrete Vortex Mothod, Lecture
notes and support, UPC (ESEIAAT), 2017.
[2] Wikipedia, NACA airfoil, consulted on December 05
2017 [online].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil
[3] Ortega. Enrique, Airfoils, Lecture notes and support,
UPC (ESEIAAT), 2017.
[4] Ortega. Enrique, Thin Airfoil Theory, Lecture notes
and support, UPC (ESEIAAT), 2017.
[5] Abbast and Doenhoff, Theory of wing sections, 1959,
Appendix IV, page 474.
Appendix: MatLab ® SCRIPT

1 function [AngleCl0, Cm0, LiftC , MomentC0, Angle] = Analisis (xw,flapangle,MC, Xmc, M)

2 %%Study of CL
3 for i = 1:20
4 alpha = −5 + (i−1);
5 LiftC (i) = DiscreteVortexMethod(alpha,xw,flapangle,MC, Xmc, M);
6 Angle (i) = alpha;
7 end
8 [r,Clalpha,ClAngle0] = regression(Angle,LiftC)
9
10 % Determination of AngleCl0
11 AngleCl0 = − ClAngle0/Clalpha;
12
13 %%Study of Cm
14 alpha = 0;
15 for i = 1:20
16 alpha = −5 + (i−1);
17 [Cl,Cm] = DiscreteVortexMethod (alpha,xw,flapangle,MC, Xmc, M);
18 MomentC(i) = Cm;
19 Angle (i) = alpha;
20
21 end
22 [r,Cmalpha,MomementC0] = regression(Angle,MomentC);
23 xac = − Cmalpha / Clalpha
24
25 %Determinaction of Cm0
26 for i = 1:20
27 alpha = −5 + (i−1);
28 [Cl,Cm] = DiscreteVortexMethod (alpha,xw,flapangle,MC, Xmc, M);
29 MomentC0(i) = MomentC(i) + xac * LiftC(i);
30 Angle (i) = alpha/180*pi;
31 end
32 Cm0 = mean (MomentC0);
33 end

1 function [Cl,Cm] = DiscreteVortexMethod (alpha,xw,flapangle,MC, Xmc, M)

2 %−−−−− Declaration of variables −−−−
3 %MC corresponds to Max camber in %of chord
4 %Xmc corresponds to Position of Max Camber in %of chord
5 %ecorresponds to Max. Thickness in %of chord
6 %M corresponds to n? of panels
7 %xw corresponds to flap−chord ratio
8 %flapangle corresponds to flap angle
9
10 %−−−−−−−PROBLEM ADIMENSIONALIZATION−−−−−−−
11 c=1; %Chord
12 Uinf=1; %Non−disturbed relative velocity
13 N=M+1; %Numer of x
14
15 %−−−−−−−− Computation of camberline −−−−−−
16 COORD=ones(N,2); %Matrix with the coordinates of points of the camber line
17 for k = 1:N
18 xi = 1/2*(1−cos((k−1)/(N−1)*pi));
19 if xi < Xmc/10
20 zi = (MC/100) / (Xmc/10)ˆ2 * (2 * (Xmc/10) * xi − xiˆ2);
21 else
22 zi = (MC/100) / (1−(Xmc/10))ˆ2 * (1 − 2 * (Xmc/10) +...
23 2 * (Xmc/10) * xi − xiˆ2);
24 end
25 COORD(k,1)=xi;
26 COORD(k,2)=zi;
27 end
28
29 %Determination of zw
30 zw = 0;
31 for k = 1:(N−1)
32 if ((COORD(k,1)<xw) && (COORD(k+1,1)≥xw))

7
 33 zw = COORD (k,2)+(COORD (k+1,2)−COORD (k,2))/...
34 (COORD (k+1,1)−COORD (k,1))*(xw−COORD (k,1));
35 end
36 end
37 for k = 1:N
38 if (COORD(k,1)>xw)
39 %Determination of r
40 flap (k,1) = sqrt((COORD (k,1) − xw)ˆ2 + ((COORD (k,2)) − zw)ˆ2);
41 %Determination of initial angle
42 flap (k,2) = asin((COORD (k,1) − xw)/flap (k,1));
43 end
44 end
45 for k = 1:N
46 if (COORD(k,1)>xw)
47 %New COORD after applying flap deflection
48 COORD (k,1) = xw + flap (k,1)*sin (flap (k,2)−flapangle/180*pi);
49 COORD (k,2) = zw − flap (k,1)*cos (flap (k,2)−flapangle/180*pi);
50 end
51 end
52
53 %−−−−− Computation of normal & tangent vector and Cp & CV coordinates −−−−−
54 NORMALS = ones(M,2); %Normal vectors in components (nx,ny) of each panel
55 CPS = ones (M,2); %Coordinates of Control Point of each panel
56 VS = ones(M,2); %Coordinates of the vortex point of each panel
57
58 for k = 1:M
59 dxi = COORD (k+1, 1) − COORD (k, 1);
60 dzi = COORD (k+1, 2) − COORD (k, 2);
61 ci = sqrt (dxiˆ2 + dziˆ2);
62
63 NORMALS (k,1) = −dzi / ci;
64 NORMALS (k,2) = dxi / ci;
65
66 CPS (k,1) = COORD (k,1) + 3/4 * dxi;
67 CPS (k,2) = COORD (k,2) + 3/4 * dzi;
68
69 VS (k,1) = COORD (k,1) + 1/4 * dxi;
70 VS (k,2) = COORD (k,2) + 1/4 * dzi;
71
72 end
73
74 A = ones(M,M); %Influence coeficients Aij
75 RHS= ones (M,1); %Right hand side matrix
76 GAMMA= ones (M,1); %Circularion distribution
77
78 for k1=1:M %loop over the control points
79
80 xi = CPS(k1,1);
81 zi = CPS(k1,2);
82 nxi = NORMALS(k1,1);
83 nzi = NORMALS(k1,2);
84
85 for k2=1:M %loop over the panels
86
87 x0i=VS(k2,1);
88 z0i=VS(k2,2);
89
90 r2=(xi−x0i)ˆ2+(zi−z0i)ˆ2;
91 u=1/(2*pi)*(zi−z0i)/r2;
92 w=−1/(2*pi)*(xi−x0i)/r2;
93 A(k1,k2)=u*nxi+w*nzi;
94 end
95
96 RHS(k1,1)=−Uinf*(cos(alpha/ 180 * pi)*nxi+sin(alpha/ 180 * pi)*nzi);
97 end
98 %−−−− Loads Calculations −−−−
99 CIRCULATIONS = inv(A) * RHS;
100 Cl = 2 * ones (1,M) * CIRCULATIONS;
101 Cm = − 2 * VS (:,1).' * CIRCULATIONS * cos (alpha / 180 * pi);
102 end