1.

INTRODUCTION:
The birth of wind tunnels was even before the Wright Brothers success in 1903. It was first designed and operated in the year 1871 by Frank H. Wenham. Since then great advancement and understanding took place in airfoil profiles and designs. ( www.grc.nasa.gov, 2009) Wind tunnels are primarily used to study aerodynamic effects on objects under test. In aeronautical engineering, they provide facility to test proposed designed models of aircrafts and parts, duplicating the various aerodynamic effects on a full-scale aircraft. This enables designers to improve performance and features of the designed model before stepping onto a full-scale production. Thereby cutting down unnecessary costs involved, they also allow the possibility of comparison of different aerofoil shapes and determine the behavior of air around the airfoil as well. Purpose of wind tunnels is to create a low-turbulent, high-speed airflow through the test section in order to obtain precise values of lift and drag data that later used for analysis. (www.fi.edu, 1998) The experiment was carried out on a Pitsco Aitech 40, which is an open circuit type wind tunnel. The tests were done on six different aerofoil in order to achieve a sound knowledge of aerodynamic effects on the test piece. Some of the objectives of this experiment also include finding of stall angles and the angle of attack where the wing is most efficient. Finally, above all it also highlights recommendation on improving wind tunnel construction in order to obtain better results.( www.grc.nasa.gov, 2009)

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 1

2. TEST METHODS:
The experiment is done with a view of finding data such as Lift, drag forces and particular stall angles for each aerofoil. During the experiment, six different aerofoils are used. The experiment involves 3 tasks to be completed. First, it requires the experimenter to find out the stall angles for each aerofoil using the graph computed from wind tunnel software. Then use values of the data plotted by the computer to calculate lift (CL) and drag (CD) coefficients by the use of formula given below:

CL =

CD =

(www.centennialofflight.gov, n/k) Finally, the angle at which the wing is most efficient is calculated through lift/drag ratio.

3. EXPERIMENT IMPLEMENTATION:
To begin with, the class was broken down to six groups of four. Then each group was assigned to carry out test on one of the six foils in the wind tunnel. This involves the experimenter to securely mount the aerofoil at 00 to the horizontal. Once verified through visual inspection, the experimenter then proceed on to configure the computer to test angles from 00 to 450 . Its important make sure those readings are not taken immediately after the tunnel is switched on. But allow the tunnel run free for few seconds in order to stabilize the airflow over the wing. Then after satisfactory KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514 Page 2

amount of time the readings are taken and by taking the mean of a number of measurements for each aerofoil reduces the random error caused. It also important to make a note that environment characteristics where assumed to be at sea-level (e.g density,pressure) while the experiment was carried out. After every satisfactory test, the graph is saved onto the computer which is later printed-out for analysis. Next, the dimensions of the six models are recorded to determine area, chord length, etc. Lastly, above procedure is repeated for all six aerofoil separately.

Pic 1:Wind Tunnel By :Sammy Ritoch

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 3

4. TEST LIMITATION:
Its important to take into account the tunnel by itself has limitation that restricts the experimenter from performing fully defined operation. This includes availability of space which limits the size of aerofoil that could be tested. Moreover, to have controlled laminar flow over the wing could be difficult owing to course surface finish and surface contamination through dust and dirt. These create turbulent airflow within the tunnel. Another factor is the Tunnel vibration generated by running propeller. This causes buffeting of the aerofoil contributing an error factor to results. One other factor is direction of relative airflow at which it strikes the aerofoil. The oncoming airflow hits the aerofoil at an angle due to converging design of the intake ducts and thus giving negative lifts for first few angles resulting off-set of the graph origin(by 4 approx). In addition to above, mounting of aerofoil 0 to horizontal was challenging task and was confirmed merely through a visual inspection. ( www.fortus.com, 2010)

5. RESULTS
Refer to Appendix A and B for values obtained through the experiment. The values were produced in terms of force (Oz) which requires the following formulas given below to find CL and CD coefficients

CL =

CD =

Where V=velocity,

= density of air, S= surface area, D=drag,L= lift

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 4

5.1.

AEROFOIL 1:

Pic by: West. J

Pic 2

Aerofoil 1
0.06

0.05

0.04 Coefficient

0.03

CL CD

0.02

0.01

0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Angle of Attack

Above graph 5.1 shows Coefficient of Lift/Drag characteristics of aerofoil 1

This particular aerofoil shows maximum lift is obtained approximately 8 and starts to stall soon after. The lift of this aerofoil rises almost steadily up to stall angle while the drag shows no adverse change with stall angle.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 5

5.2.

AEROFOIL 2

Pic by: West. J

Pic 3

Aerofoil 2
0.07

0.06
0.05 Coefficient 0.04

0.03
0.02 0.01 CL CD

0.00
0 -0.01 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Angle of Attack

Above graph 5.2 shows Coefficient of Lift/Drag characteristics of aerofoil 2

This aerofoil generates lift until about 12 and then looses lift dramatically. While the drag curve increases at slow rate with increasing angle of attack.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 6

5.3.

AEROFOIL 3

Pic by: West. J

Pic 4

Aerofoil 3
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 Coefficient 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 CL CD

Angle of Attack

Above graph 5.3 shows Coefficient of Lift/Drag characteristics of aerofoil 3

It is obvious from the above graph this aerofoil is quiet unique. It has two points of noticeable stall. It begins its 1st stall around 5 and then catches lift again at about 6.5. Final stall occurs between 10-11 and thereafter looses lift significantly. In addition, adverse negative lift is observed during initial angles of attack.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 7

5.4.

AEROFOIL 4

Pic by: West. J

Pic 5

Aerofoil 4
0.12 0.10 0.08 coeiffient 0.06 CL 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 -0.02 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 CD

Angle of Attack

Above graph 5.4 shows Coefficient of Lift/Drag characteristics of aerofoil 4

It is visible from above graph it has a fairly higher stall angle of 17 odd degrees and also produces greater lift coefficient of 0.104. Therefore the graph has an extended scale to accommodate higher values. Drag coefficient remains zero until 4 and kicks in between 4-5 and rises steadily with minor fluctuation.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 8

5.5.

AEROFOIL 5

Pic by: West. J

Pic 6

Aerofoil 5
0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 Coefficient 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Angle of Attack CL CD

Above graph 5.5 shows Coefficient of Lift/Drag characteristics of aerofoil 5

Aerofoil 5 shows a steady increase in lift coefficient up to stall angle of 13. However there is no massive loss in lift but a gradual decline. On the other hand drag remains fairly straight and increases linearly with increasing angle of attack.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 9

5.6.

AEROFOIL 6

Pic by: West. J

Pic 7

Aerofoil 6
0.12
0.10 0.08 Coefficient 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Angle of Attack

CL CD

Above graph 5.6 shows Coefficient of Lift/Drag characteristics of aerofoil 6

The fact this aerofoil produce the most lift compared to all other aerofoil is proven from above the graph. This aerofoil generates a maximum lift coefficient of 0.116 and starts to stall at high angles of attack in close proximity to 14.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 10

5.7.

LIFT/DRAG RATIO- MEASUREMENT OF AERODYNAMIC

EFFICIENCY.
In order to determine the efficiency of aerofoil, the experimenter requires finding CL/CD ratio by dividing the calculated figures of CL by CD. However, by equation and theoretically Lift and drag forces are proportional CL and CD respectively and knowing for the fact that conditions such as velocity of airflow, density and surface area remains same throughout the experiment. We can determine the lift/drag ratio by dividing the lift and drag forces directly by eliminating the constants. (See Appendix C Efficiency state of a wing) 5.7.1. Aerofoil 1

Aerofoil 1
25

20

Lift/Drag ratio

15

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Angle of attack

Fig 5.7.1 Maximum efficiency lies at 2

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 11

5.7.2. Aerofoil 2

Aerofoil 2
20

15

Lift/Drag ratio

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

-5

Angle of attack

Fig 5.7.2 Maximum efficiency lies at 7

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 12

5.7.3. Aerofoil 3

Aerofoil 3
40 30 20 Lift/Drag ratio 10 0 0 -10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

-20
-30

Angle of attack

Fig 5.7.3 Maximum efficiency of the wing lies at 3. The constant downhill slope is due to generation of negative lift during the initial angles of attack.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 13

5.7.4. Aerofoil 4

Aerofoil 4
70 60 50 Lift/Drag ratio 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 2 4 6 8 Angle of attack 10 12 14 16

Fig 5.7.4 Maximum efficiency of this aerofoil lies at sharp 4.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 14

5.7.5. Aerofoil 5

Aerofoil 5
35 30 25 lift/Drag ratio 20 15 10 5 0 0 -5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Angle of attack

Fig 5.7.5 Maximum efficiency of the 5th aerofoil lies at 3.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 15

5.7.6. Aerofoil 6.

Aerofoil 6
16 14 12 Lift/Drag Ratio 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Angle of attack

Fig 5.7.6 Maximum efficiency lies at high angle of 1.

6. ANALYSIS
Aerofoil 1 and 2 belongs to symmetrical shape aerofoil. Therefore both produce zero lift at zero angle of attack. However, close look on aerofoil 1 reveals it has slight camber giving it a shape of a semi-symmetrical aerofoil. Hence it produces a slight lift at zero angle of attack compared to aerofoil 2. When comparing the efficiency of wings, aerofoil2 is less efficient than aerofoil 1(ref fig 5.7.1 and 5.7.2). This due to fact that aerofoil 2 has greater thickness as compared to aerofoil 1, thereby creating more drag when it rips through air than aerofoil1. Moreover use of aerofoil 1 has an added benefit maintaining considerable amount of lift even after stalling as

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 16

compared to aerofoil 2.(refer 5.1 and 5.2). Another drawback with the use of aerofoil 2, the high angle of attack at which wing being most efficient (7) and low stall angle (12), thus limiting the amount of pitch it can attain during flight. Moving to Aerofoil 3, the under-cambered design of the wing enhances the production of lift even at zero angle of attack contrast to what is shown on the graph. This due to experimental error, whereby the chord line of the aerofoil was mounted facing below the horizontal axis. This error resulted in generation of negative lift at zero angle of attack. The concave design on the lower surface of the aerofoil creates a diverging path for the oncoming airflow and producing high-pressure underneath the wing. Thus inducing more lift than usual. The design itself is a combination of 2 aerofoils giving 2 noticeable stall points (ref graph 5.3). (www.blackflight.com, n/k) Taking the Graph 5.4 and 5.7.4 of aerofoil 4 into consideration we can deduce this aerofoil produce the highest efficient of all other aerofoils and also maintains lift even at higher angles of attack (17). Moreover, this graph proves theoretical curve of lift/drag ratio of the wing being most efficient at 4 of angle of attack. The reason for its extraordinary efficiency and higher stall angles is the position of the maximum camber of the wing which occurs at 50% of the chord line. This helps to maintain laminar flow of air over greater distance across chord line. Laminar flow means less drag and hence less energy is consumed making the wing more efficient during cruise. By having the maximum camber near to middle of the wing also creates even pressure distribution over wing surface. Therefore has a favourable pressure gradient across the pressure recovery region (see the glossary) and thus having more control over the onset of a transition point. These factors help to attain higher angles of attack. Whereas aerofoil 5 is conventional type of aerofoil with camber

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 17

situated at 25% of the chord line (ref fig 5.5). This results in an adverse pressure gradient and a larger drag.( members.tripod.com, 2003) From the analysis of graphs, its evident that aerofoil 6 produce the most lift. This attributed to its highly cambered shape of underside of the wing. However, its least efficient of all (ref 5.7.6).

7. CONCLUSION
It can be concluded by referring to appendix E the experiment proves the wings are most efficient at about 4 as expected. The experiment also supported the fact that Irrespective of the aerofoil shapes all wings begin to lose lift when it hits the stall angle. It also highlighted the wing profile had an effect on the characteristics of lift/drag ratios and stall angles of the wing. Lastly, the importance of using wind tunnels for testing different aerofoil shapes to establish their behaviour when subjected to airflows was satisfactorily appreciated and met with success.

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 18

8. RECOMMENDATION:
During the experiment implementation, number of factors affected to the accuracy of results and performance of the wind tunnel. One such factor was the oncoming airflow striking the aerofoil at an angle generating negative lift for the first few degrees. This could be resolved by constructing a longer venturi tube, hence keeping the test piece at further distance apart from the converging duct. This helps the airflow to straighten-up by the time it reaches the aerofoil. In addition to this, mounting additional honeycomb structure and wire mesh smoothing screen into the converging duct would serve additional ways of achieving accurate and laminar airflow in the test section. Another problem encountered during the experiment was wobbly reading caused by aerofoil flutter. Replacing the softwood aerofoil with much heavier and rigid aerofoil made from hardwood could overcome the flutter to serve better results. One other reason for fluttering is improper positioning of centre of gravity on the aerofoil. This is caused when centre of gravity is offset from hinge axis of the aerofoil and causes the aerofoil to overshoot the equilibrium position due to inertia. This is rectified by balancing the entire mass of the aerofoil at hinge axis. Modification to test section can be made by making it more air tight so as to ensure no suction takes place through window sealing. In the light of this conclusion, it would be highly recommended to take the following measures stated above into consideration for more better and accurate results in future. (www.fi.edu, n/k)

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 19

9. REFERENCE:
Author n/k (1998). The Wind Tunnel Parts. NASA Observatorium. [Online] Available at <http://www.fi.edu/flights/first/tunnelparts/index.html> [Accessed on 01st August 2010] Author n/k (2007). Air Pressure Distribution. Digital Textbook. [Online]. Available at < http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/airfoils1/airfoilpressures.html> [Accessed on 03rd August 2010] Brendon J. (2009). Knowing the Aircraft. Fly Safe. [Online]. Available at < http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html>. [Accessed on 01st August 2010] Available at < http://www.blackflight.com/intro_rc/intro_rc_air.asp>. [Accessed on 04th August 2010].

Ewing J. (n/k). Introduction to R/C Aircrafts. Black Flight Models. [Online] Ghods M. (2001). Wind Tunnel Testing. Theory of Wings.[Online] Available at
< http://members.tripod.com/m_ghods/frme2.pdf>. [Accessed on 05th August 2010] Talay, Theodere A. (not known). Subsonic Airflow Effects The TwoDimensional Coefficients. [Online] Available at < http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Two_dimensional_ coef/TH14.htm> [Accessed on 30th July 2010] William. R et al. (2009). Whirling Arms and The First Wind Tunnel. Wind Tunnel of NASA. [Online] Available at < http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K12/WindTunnel/history.html>. [Accessed on 20th July 2010] Wind tunnel(Pic 1) photo taken by Sammy Ritoch on 30th July 2010 at KLM Technical college. Aerofoil (Pic 2-7) photo taken by Joe West on 30th July 2010 at KLM Technical College.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Author n/k (2009). Airfoil lnvestigation database. A.I.D.[Online] Available at <
http://airfoils.worldofkrauss.com:8888/web/help> [Accessed on 05th August 2010].

Author n/k (2010). Laminar Airfoil Theory. The Aviation History

Online.com.[Online] Available at < http://www.aviationhistory.com/theory/lam-flow.htm>. [Accessed on 05th August 2010]

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 20


Angle of attack 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENTAL VALUES FOR CL AND CD

Aerofoil 1 CL 0.0051 0.0124 0.0203 0.0266 0.0322 0.0335 0.0429 0.0505 0.0561 0.0531 0.0529 0.0452 0.0501 0.0494 0.0424 0.0463 0.0482 CD 0.0004 0.0007 0.0009 0.0018 0.0021 0.0025 0.0033 0.0033 0.0042 0.0049 0.0042 0.0051 0.0054 0.0056 0.0053 0.0056 0.0061 AEROFOIL 2 CL 0.0005 0.0034 0.0109 0.0164 0.0193 0.0268 0.0298 0.0405 0.0423 0.0528 0.0480 0.0546 0.0582 0.0243 0.0212 0.0207 0.0189 CD -0.0002 0.0002 0.0009 0.0014 0.0019 0.0023 0.0023 0.0026 0.0037 0.0047 0.0051 0.0044 0.0047 0.0047 0.0040 0.0049 0.0052 AEROFOIL3 CL -0.0067 -0.0020 0.0057 0.0158 0.0309 0.0361 0.0237 0.0275 0.0356 0.0401 0.0673 0.0646 0.0492 0.0304 0.0289 0.0235 0.0228 CD -0.0002 -0.0005 -0.0002 0.0005 0.0025 0.0030 0.0017 0.0017 0.0022 0.0027 0.0052 0.0072 0.0054 0.0042 0.0045 0.0045 0.0047 AEROFOIL 4 CL -0.0112 -0.0045 0.0915 0.1339 0.2767 0.3547 0.3525 0.3882 0.4730 0.5667 0.6381 0.7296 0.7162 0.6983 0.7073 0.8121 0.9192 0.9080 0.6740 0.6870 CD 0.0022 -0.0022 0.0000 0.0067 0.0045 0.0156 0.0290 0.0245 0.0245 0.0312 0.0335 0.0580 0.0558 0.0513 0.0469 0.0491 0.0692 0.0892 0.0647 0.0669 AEROFOIL 5 CL -0.0010 0.0057 0.0121 0.0220 0.0275 0.0322 0.0334 0.0393 0.0507 0.0564 0.0646 0.0695 0.0685 0.0769 0.0730 0.0591 0.0552 CD 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0007 0.0012 0.0020 0.0027 0.0030 0.0037 0.0037 0.0042 0.0049 0.0047 0.0057 0.0057 0.0054 0.0057

AEROFOIL 6 Angle of attack 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CL 0.0423 0.0509 0.0621 0.0659 0.0673 0.0612 0.0752 0.0846 0.0885 0.0841 0.0834 0.0920 0.1047 0.1096 0.1140 0.1065 0.0930 CD 0.0040 0.0035 0.0051 0.0061 0.0063 0.0077 0.0070 0.0082 0.0084 0.0086 0.0089 0.0089 0.0089 0.0100 0.0112 0.0107 0.0112

Table 1

The following were the values of variables used in the experiment: Airflow Speed: 50mp/H (22.22m/s) Density Of Air: 1.225kg/M3 Surface Area: 0.1334 M2

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 21

APPENDIX B: LIFT/DRAG RATIOS

AEROFOIL 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 14 17 23 15 15 13 12 15 13 10 12 8 9 8 8 8 7 AEROFOIL 2 -2.00 5.33 12.00 12.00 10.63 11.80 13.10 16.18 11.63 11.60 9.59 12.63 12.80 5.35 5.47 4.33 3.61 AEROFOIL AEROFOIL 4 AEROFOIL AEROFOIL 6 3 5 27 -5.00 #DIV/0! 10 4 2.00 #DIV/0! 14 -22 #DIV/0! 12.25 12 32 20.00 29.67 10 12 62.00 22.20 10 12 22.71 16.25 7 13 12.15 12.27 10 15 15.82 13.25 10 16 19.27 13.67 10 14 18.14 15.20 9 12 19.07 15.35 9 9 12.58 14.05 10 9 12.84 14.58 11 7 13.61 13.52 10 6 15.10 12.83 10 5 16.55 10.86 9 4 13.29 9.70 8 10.18 10.41 10.27

Angle of attack

Table 2

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 22

APPENDIX C: IDEAL THEORETICAL CURVE FOR EFFICIENCY The graph to the right shows an ideal curve where the highest Lift-to-Drag ratio most likely to occur. This usually occurs at angle between 4 and 5. At this point the wing gains the maximum lift for minimum drag. Hence, it is the optimum angle of attack for cruise.(www.auf.asn.au, 2009)

Brandon J. (2009). Efficiency Graph. Fly safe. [Online] Available at < http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.htmlhttp://www.auf.asn.au/emerg st encies/aircraft.html>. Accessed on 1 August 2010.

APPENDIX D

Stall Characteristics; Angle at which the rate of increase in lift starts to reduce. 7.50 11.60 100 16.20 10.60 13.40 Table 3 Angle at which lift starts to decrease 8.00 120 10.50 170 11.60 14.40

Aerofoil 1 Aerofoil 2 Aerofoil 3 Aerofoil 4 Aerofoil 5 Aerofoil 6

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 23

APPENDIX E: AVERAGE POSITION OF HIGHEST EFFICIENCY

AEROFOIL Aerofoil NO 1 Angle of Highest Efficiency 2

Aerofoil 2 7

Aerofoil 3 3

Aerofoil 4 4

Aerofoil 5 3

Aerofoil 6 1

Average Angle of attack 3.33

Table 4 GLOSSARY

PRESSURE RECOVERY REGION: This region of the pressure distribution is called the pressure recovery region. The pressure increases from its minimum value to the value at the trailing edge.( www.desktop.aero, 2007)

KINGSTON UNIVERSITY-K0827514

Page 24