1320

5320

9320

Crazy Engineer Kid

January 25, 2007
Science Fair Project Paper
7th Grade
Sylvania Franciscan Academy
 Crazy Engineer Kid
Abstract

I originally wanted to do a project about aeronautics because I want to be an

aeronautical engineer. I decided to test whether wings with a higher camber, or curvature,

would have a higher lift to drag ratio than wings with lower camber. My hypothesis was

that this would prove to be true.

There were many steps in the scientific process to follow. After researching the

basics of aeronautics, an experiment was designed to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

The next step was to build wings that had specific amounts of camber to produce the data

required. The wings had to be very accurate and strong enough to stand up to 45-mph

winds. The wings were tested in the University of Toledo’s wind tunnel. The lift

generated by the wings was measured at different angles of attack until the wings reached

their stall point.

The data showed that at any given angle of attack, the lift coefficient was higher in

the wings with a higher camber. Although the stall point of the middle wing didn’t line up

as expected, this was most likely due to the fact that the middle wing was the first and least

accurately made of the three.

The experiment yielded positive results but presented an issue with the usage of the

lift to drag ratio. Because the wind tunnel’s force balance was unable to accurately

measure the minimal differences in drag, the lift to drag ratio could not be used. The lift

coefficient was a good alternative to the lift to drag ratio because it incorporates multiple

factors to get an accurate assessment of a wing’s efficiency.

Using the coefficient of lift, the experiment proved that a wing with a higher

camber would perform more efficiently than a wing with a lower camber. This information

can be used to better understand the dynamics of flight and how the attributes of a wing

affect its performance.

 Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………….....…………Page 1

Problem Statement…………………………………………………………...……...Page 5

Hypothesis……………………………………………..……………………...……..Page 5

Materials………………………………………………………………………..…...Page 6

Procedures………………………………………………………………………...…Page 7

Results……………………………………………………………………..…..…….Page 8

Conclusions………………………………………………………………..……….Page 11

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………...Page 12

Bibliography……………………………………………………………...………...Page 13
 Introduction

I did a science fair project regarding aeronautics and airplanes because I want to

be an aeronautical engineer. My project is all about wings and their efficiency.

Some of the first flying attempts were modeled after birds. Some birds coast for

long periods of time like airplanes. Birds and airplanes change the camber of their wings

to make almost any maneuver in the air. An obvious difference however, is that airplanes

use their wings for lift and their jets or propellers to give them thrust, but birds use their

wings for both thrust and lift (Smith). Birds create leading edge vortices when they flap

their wings to give them extra lift (Weiss), while airplanes form bound vortices along

their wings. These are some important differences between birds and current airplanes.

The defining characteristics of an airfoil

are the chord, camber, and thickness. The

chord of an airfoil is the length from the front

most point to the back tip. The mean camber

line is determined by making a line starting and

ending at the ends of the chord line but curved

http://www.av8n.com/how/img48/airfoil- so that it is always equidistant from the upper

and lower edge of the airfoil. The maximum camber is the greatest distance between the

mean camber line and the chord line; it is measured in percent of the chord. The point of

maximum camber is the spot on the chord line that is the farthest away from the mean

camber line; it is measured in tenths of the chord. The thickness, measured in percent of

chord, is the maximum distance from the upper edge of the airfoil to the lower edge.

Every airfoil has its own set of these characteristics.

Crazy Engineer Kid 1

 Wings generate lift by the Bernoulli Principal. It states that if a fluid surrounds an

object, and the fluid on one side is under less pressure than the fluid on the other side, the

object will be pulled towards the side with a lower pressure. This applies to airfoils

because as the airstream hits the airfoil, it divides at the front stagnation point, where the

air is perfectly still, with part moving over the top of the

airfoil and part moving under the airfoil. The air comes

back together at the rear stagnation point after passing the

airfoil. If the airfoil has camber, the area of the airfoil

http://www.av8n.com/how/img48/90flat0
above the stagnation points is greater than the area below the stagnation points. This

means that the air on top of the airfoil is more compressed and therefore moving faster,

than the air on the bottom of the airfoil. When air moves faster, there is a reduction of

pressure, which means that there is a lower pressure on top of the airfoil than the bottom,

and it is pulled upwards, creating lift. Airfoils with higher camber have more area above

the stagnation point and will therefore generate more lift (Smith). Lift is definitely

important to flight because it is what keeps airplanes in the air.

Angle of attack is the angle that the chord line forms, relative to the airstream it is

moving through (Smith). The higher the angle of attack, the more lift it generates until

the stall point. The stall point is the angle of attack, specific to each airfoil, at which a

streamline of air around the airfoil ceases to exist and the airfoil rapidly loses lift (Ng).

Angle of attack is raised during takeoff and landing, or when flying at lower speeds.

Angle of attack can, however, be lower during standard cruising flight, typically around

one or two degrees. (Smith).

Crazy Engineer Kid 2

 “Drag is the term used to denote resistance to an airflow” (Smith). There are two

primary types of drag on an airfoil that, combined, are called “parasite drag”. Parasite

drag is made up of skin friction drag and pressure drag. Skin friction drag is the physical

friction of a fluid flowing over a surface. Pressure drag is caused by there being different

amounts of pressure on different parts of an airfoil (Smith). One issue with testing an

airfoil in a wind tunnel is that the flat edges at both ends of the test airfoil create so much

drag, it can be hard to get an accurate reading for the actual shape of the airfoil. One way

to get around this is to only use percentages in your final results. This will eliminate the

exact numbers so you are only dealing with the relative differences between airfoils,

which are still accurate (Ng). Drag reduces the efficiency of an airfoil greatly but is

sometimes hard to measure.

Lift and drag are tested in a wind tunnel. Lift pulls up relative to the mounting

and drag pulls backward relative to the mounting. Sensors in the mounting called a force

balance can measure lift and drag. The mounting can either be a rod or wires that in

some way control the test model but can also measure forces from it. Some wind tunnels

require their test models to be mounted sideways (Ng). There are open and closed circuit

wind tunnels. The air in a closed circuit wind tunnel can be compressed for more

realistic testing, and recycled so you can easily regulate it. The air passes through the test

section, and is then pulled through a segment called the diffuser by a fan, which

accelerates it. Then it is directed carefully through a circular track and back to a segment

before the test section that straightens the airflow and contracts it. The straightened air is

then sent through the test area again (Wegener). Wind tunnels are great tools but

computer simulations are slowly replacing them for many applications.

Crazy Engineer Kid 3

 Airfoils are classified by many different codes. One is the NACA (National

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) four-digit code. It consists of four numbers.

(ABCD) A=(maximum camber) B=(Location of maximum camber) CD=(Thickness).

This is one good way to classify airfoils based on their defining characteristics.

There are three steps in making a balsa wood airfoil. First, you have to make four

ribs out of sheet balsa by cutting them out with a small knife. These are shaped

according to the NACA four-digit code. While making them you have to cut out square

slots in the top, the bottom, and in the front of the rib profile. The front slot is at an angle

to form the leading edge of the airfoil. You then attach long, square pieces of balsa that

are called spars. These fit into the square slots to connect and hold the ribs together. To

finish it, you cover the top and bottom in sheet balsa that is thin enough to bend. This is

one way to make an airfoil for testing (Karpanty).

The hypothesis that I tested was whether airfoils with higher camber would have a

higher lift to drag ratio. The first steps in the project were to compile a list of required

materials, build the wings to be tested, and develop a set of procedures to follow during

the experiment. The next step was to actually do the experiment and then analyze and

summarize the data.

Crazy Engineer Kid 4

Question:

Does the maximum camber of an airfoil affect its lift to drag ratio?

Hypothesis:

I hypothesize that the airfoil segments with higher camber will have a higher lift to drag

ratio.

Crazy Engineer Kid 5

Materials:

University of Toledo’s wind tunnel testing facility

One 1/64” thick, 48” by 12” plywood sheet

One 1/8” thick, 48” by 6” balsa wood sheet

Three 48” long spruce rod

Three 4.5” segments of 1” PVC pipe

Three 14.25” segments of 3/8” wooden dowel

Three 2” segments of 7/8” wooden dowel

Clamps or vice

One bottle of wood glue

One tube of wood filler

Drill

Bit set

Three set screws

Tape measure

Exacto knife

Duct tape

Crazy Engineer Kid 6

Procedures:

1 Airfoil Specifications:

1.1 Length = fifteen (15) inches

1.2 Chord length = four (4) inches

1.3 NACA four digit airfoil codes:

1.3.1 NACA 1320

1.3.2 NACA 5320

1.3.3 NACA 9320

2 Mount wing onto the force balance in the wind tunnel at approximately zero (0) degrees
angle of attack.

3 Start wind tunnel with speed set to 45 mph.

4 Test

4.1 Recording Data

4.1.1 Using the wind tunnel’s software, measure and record lift at a rate of 30,000
samples every 15 seconds

4.1.2 Increase angle of attack by 2 degrees and repeat step 4.1.1 until stall point is
reached.

4.1.3 Once stall point is hit, stop increasing the angle of attack.

4.1.4 Record stall point.

5 Stop wind tunnel.

6 Remove airfoil from the wind tunnel.

7 Repeat steps two through six (2-6) for each airfoil being tested.

Crazy Engineer Kid 7

Results:

AOA = Angle of Attack (in degrees)

CL = Lift Coefficient

1320, 5320, 9320 = 4-digit NACA airfoil codes

1320 5320 9320

AOA CL AOA CL AOA CL
0 0.00000 0 0.00000 0 0.00000
1.5 0.00110 2 0.00182 0.7 0.00068
3.5 0.00245 4 0.00353 2.7 0.00282
5.5 0.00422 6 0.00513 4.7 0.00481
7.5 0.00565 8 0.00692 6.7 0.00686
9.5 0.00695 10 0.00797 8.7 0.00820
11.5 0.00749 12 0.00868 10.7 0.00938
13.5 0.00474 14 0.00896 12.7 0.01074
15.5 0.00505 16 0.00928 14.7 0.01176
17.5 0.00511 18 0.00941 16.7 0.00508
19.5 0.00556 20 0.00775 18.7 0.00538
21.5 0.00581 22 0.00770 20.7 0.00567
23.5 0.00616 24 0.00747 22.7 0.00610

Stall Points

NACA # 1320 5320 9320

Stall AOA 11.5º 18.0º 14.7º

Crazy Engineer Kid 8

 Lift Coefficient of Airfoil Designs
0.014

0.012

0.010
Lift Coefficient

0.008

1320
0.006 5320
9320
0.004

0.002

0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Angle of Attack (in degrees)

The data shown here was adjusted from its original form to reflect the actual angle

of attack zero point, which was determined by the point where there was zero lift. This

was necessary because it was not possible to set the actual zero point visually.

The graph shows the coefficient of lift, at different angles of attack (AOA) for the

three tested airfoil designs. The x-axis is the angle of attack, the y-axis is the coefficient

of lift (CL), and the three plotted lines are the graphs of how the three airfoils performed.

The coefficient of lift is a formula that determines the overall efficiency of the wing. It

Crazy Engineer Kid 9

takes into account things like the size of the wing, the airspeed, the density of the air, and

the actual lift generated to get you an accurate result.

For the wing 1320, the wing with the smallest camber, at 4 degrees AOA, it had a

CL of about 0.003, and at 8 degrees AOA, it had a CL of about 0.006. It stalled at about

11.5 degrees AOA and had a peak CL of around 0.0075.

For the wing 5320, the wing with a medium amount of camber, at 4 degrees

AOA, it had a CL of about 0.0035, at 8 degrees AOA, it had a CL of about 0.007, at 12

degrees AOA, it had a CL of about 0.00825, and at 16 degrees AOA, it had a CL of about

0.00925. It stalled at about 17.5 degrees AOA and had a peak CL of around 0.0095.

For the wing 9320, the wing with the highest camber, at 4 degrees AOA, it had a

CL of about 0.004, at 8 degrees AOA, it had a CL of about 0.00775, and at 12 degrees

AOA, it had a CL of about 0.01025. It stalled at about 14.5 degrees AOA and had a peak

CL of around 0.02.

Crazy Engineer Kid 10

Conclusions:

My hypothesis was that the lift to drag ratio would be higher for the wings that

had a higher camber. The data showed that at any given angle of attack, the lift

coefficient was higher in the wings with a higher camber. Although the stall point of the

middle wing didn’t line up as expected, this was most likely due to the fact that the

middle wing was the first and least accurately made of the three.

The experiment yielded positive results but presented an issue with the usage of

the lift to drag ratio on which I had originally based my hypothesis. The equipment at the

wind tunnel was not physically able to measure drag accurately because the vast majority

of the drag recorded came from the force balance connector, which made the wings’

minimal differences in drag impossible to measure. The connector is a piece of pipe that

attaches the wing to the force balance, the tool used to measure forces like lift and drag in

the wind tunnel. Because I wasn’t able to accurately measure drag, I couldn’t use the lift

to drag ratio. The alternative to the lift to drag ratio that I used is the coefficient of lift

because it incorporates many factors like the size of the wing, the airspeed, the density of

the air, and the actual lift generated

If I could repeat the whole process over again, I would do more research on the

details of the equations of flight like the dynamic pressure in the coefficient of lift. This

would teach me more about how the different attributes of a wing affect its flight and

performance.

The results of my experiment prove that a wing with a higher camber would fly

more efficiently than a wing with a lower camber. This information can be used to better

understand the dynamics of flight and how the attributes of a wing affect its performance.

Crazy Engineer Kid 11

Acknowledgments:

- Jeff and Victoria Haidet

- Dr. Terry Ng - Professor at the University of Toledo

- Mr. Javier Lopera – Research Assistant to Dr. Ng

- Ms. Susan Bastian – Science Teacher

- Mrs. Bernie Thompson – Language Arts Teacher

- The Ryder’s Hobby Staff

Crazy Engineer Kid 12

 Works Cited

Airfoils and Airflow. September 21, 2006.

<http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html>.

Beginner’s guide to Aerodynamics. NASA. October 8, 2006.

<http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/>.

Federal Aviation Administration. Aeronautical Science Course of Study. Chapter 1.

Redondo Beach, CA: General Publishing Company LTD.

Karpanty, Dennis. personal interview. October 1, 2006

Ng, Terry. personal interview. October 5, 2006

Smith, Hubert. Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books.

1985.

Wegener, Peter P. What Makes Airplanes Fly?. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag

New York INC. 1991

Weiss, Peter. “Swift Lift”. Science News Vol. 166, Issue 24. December 11, 2004. MAS

Ultra - School Edition. EBSCO Host. InfOhio. 3 Oct. 2006.

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=15349040&si

te=src-live>.

“Wind Tunnel”. The Columbia Encyclopedia. 3 Oct. 2006.

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=voh&AN=IXBwindtun

n&site=src-live>.

Wind Tunnel Fact Sheet. NASA. September 24, 2006.

<http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/WindTunnel.html>.

Crazy Engineer Kid 13