Aerodynamic Analysis using XFLR-5

Aditya Kotikalpudi, Brian Taylor, Claudia Moreno, Harald Pfifer, and Gary J. Balas
Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics
University of Minnesota

Contact: Aditya Kotikalpudi (kotik001@umn.edu)

UAV lab (http://www.uav.aem.umn.edu), phone: 612-626-3549
In order to estimate the aerodynamic stability derivatives and control derivatives of the BFF aircraft,
aerodynamic analysis was carried out using an open source software, XFLR-5 [7]. The analysis was
carried out using the Vortex Lattice Method (VLM). Since the analysis assumes inviscid flow, the total
drag estimate is not reliable. It can also carry out dynamic stability analysis, given the mass properties
(total mass, location of center of gravity, moments of inertia about X, Y, Z and XZ plane) which were
determined via inertia swings [2]. Inertia about XZ plane (Ixz ) was determined from inertia estimator
provided by XFLR-5. The stability and control derivatives extracted from the analyses were used to
construct a nonlinear simulation for the rigid body dynamics of the BFF vehicle.

Aerodynamic Design Realization

The airfoil cross-section used for constructing the model in XFLR-5 was extracted from the point cloud
data generated via laser-scan of the aircraft, carried out by The QC Group, based out of Minnetonka,
MN [6]. Fig. 1 shows the airfoil extracted from the point cloud (normalized to unit length). It has
been verified that the airfoil cross-section remains constant across the entire aircraft except along the
center line, which incorporates the motor mount, GPS hood and the keel/landing skid. The geometric
properties of the airfoil are listed in table 1.

Figure 1: Airfoil cross-section of BFF

Table 1: Airfoil Geometric Properties

1.

Maximum thickness
Max. thickness location

9.47%
25.89%

2.

Maximum camber
Max. camber location

1.69%
24.09%

The model constructed in XFLR-5 does not incorporate the landing skid, the GPS hood and the
motor mount. The modelling of control surfaces is close to the actual model, although it is not exact.

The deflections are simulated in a streamwise, rather than hingewise, sense. For comparison with
future flight data, the measured hingewise deflections can be converted to streamwise with equation
1.
SW = tan1 (tan(HW ) cos())

(1)

where SW is streamwise deflection, HW is hingewise deflection and is the hingeline angle of the
control surfaces. Trailing edge downward deflection is considered positive. The model constructed is
shown in Fig. 2. Figure 3 depicts the control allocation for the BFF aircraft, surfaces L2 and R2
on the wing are used as elevators while surfaces L3 and R3 are used as ailerons. Table 2 summarizes
these definitions.

Figure 2: XFLR-5 Model of BFF

Figure 3: Control surface locations

1.
2.

Table 2: Virtual Control Surfaces

Virtual elevator (e) (L2 + R2)/2
Virtual ailerons (a) (L3 R3)/2

Figure 4: Comparison of BFF airfoil with NACA 23010

An effort was made to match the given airfoil to a standard NACA airfoil. The closest match was the
NACA 23010 but it had a sharper leading edge compared to the extracted airfoil (Fig. 4). Also, NACA
0010 was tried as a substitute for the given airfoil, in an effort to reduce the manufacturing costs of
replicas of the aircraft. However the pitch stability characteristics could not be matched accurately,
and since absence of empennage results in sensitivity in pitch stability, it was decided that the original
airfoil extracted will be retained in all the future aircraft built based on the BFF aircrafts design.
The XFLR-5 file (.wpa extension) containing all the analyzed airfoils and wing-body design described
above has been provided on the UAV labs website for users to download. It also has three pre-defined
analyses set up for aerodynamic, longitudinal and lateral stability analyses. Also, a text file containing
the coordinates of the airfoil is provided on the website.

Lift and Pitching Moment Characteristics

The lift coefficient (CL ) vs. angle of attack () curve and pitching moment coefficient (Cm ) vs.
curve are shown in Fig. 5. The airspeed is fixed to 67.5 ft/s (40 KEAS) which is the airspeed for the
first linear model out of the 26 linear models which were published by Lockheed Martin for the flexible
BFF vehicle [5]. The X intercept of the Cm vs. curve determines the trim angle of attack for the
given airspeed. As seen from the Fig. 5, trim is around 3.5 degrees. The corresponding coefficient
of lift is 0.195. The slope of the Cm curve is negative (-0.4166/rad), indicating static stability of
the aircraft.

Figure 5: Cm vs & CL vs graphs

Shown in Fig. 6 is the variation of trim elevator deflection with change in angle of attack. Trailing
edge downward deflection is considered positive.

Figure 6: elevator deflection vs angle of attack

Stability and Control Derivatives

XFLR-5 is capable of dynamic stability analysis of an aircraft if the mass properties are provided.
These values were estimated from inertia swing tests [2] and center of gravity estimation test [1]
carried out in the Aeromechanics laboratory of the department and are listed in table 3. Owing to the
symmetry of the aircraft, the lateral and vertical coordinates of center of gravity are assumed to lie
on their respective center lines of the aircraft body. The stability and control derivatives were taken
from the log files generated by the software during the analysis. These derivatives were obtained for
a range of trim angles of attack () and the acquired data was plotted out. An approximate function
was then generated for each of these derivatives in terms of from these plots. The functions are
provided in tables 4 and 5 while the plots are given in appendix A. All the functions are either linear
or quadratic and are represented in the following form:
Y = A2 + B + C

(2)

where Y represents a derivative and is the angle of attack in radians. The derivatives which vary
linearly have a zero value for A.
Table 6 lists the derivatives at the trim airspeed of 40 KEAS and an angle of attack of 3.5 degrees,
just as an example case. All derivatives are in rad1 . The variation of all control derivatives except
Cme was found to be quite small and hence was averaged over the interval of considered. Also,
the side force and sideslip derivatives (CY , CY p , CY r , Cl , Cn ) vary within a very small range due
to lack of a large vertical fin. Hence these values were averaged over the interval as well. All these
derivatives therefore have the values A and B to be zero. A more sophisticated analysis would be
required in order to accurately capture the variations of these derivatives.
CLe derivative is calculated from the CZe derivative which is actually the output from the analysis.
Z axis in XFLR-5 is not the body fixed axis. It refers to the stability Z axis of the aircraft, pointed
downward (i.e. opposite to direction of lift). Similarly, drag derivatives are calculated from the CX
derivatives where X axis is pointed along the velocity vector in absence of sideslip. All the coefficients
are calculated in stability axes.

Table 3: Mass Properties

Property
Value
Total Weight
11.99 lb
C.G. Location
23.2585 inches (from nose)
Pitching moment of inertia
1245.83 lb in2
Rolling moment of inertia
8529.45 lb in2
Yawing moment of inertia
8118.42 lb in2
Product of inertia Ixz (estimated) -0.296 lb in2

Table 4: Longitudinal Aerodynamic

Derivatives A
CD0
0
CD
0
CDe
0
CL0
0
CL
-7.4785
CLq
-7.3119
CLe
0
Cm0
Cm
Cmq
Cme

0
0.8488
1.5488
0.3029

Stability and Control Derivatives

B
C
0
0.00056
-0.2875 -0.1154
0
-0.0313
0
-0.0238
0.3521
4.5461
0.5846
4.4078
0
0.7600
0
-0.0888
-0.0463
-0.0379

0.0188
-0.4145
-1.9074
-0.0924

Table 5: Lateral-Directional Aerodynamic Stability and Control Derivatives

Derivatives A
B
C
CY 0
0
0
0
CY
0
0
-0.0138
CY p
0
0
0.0353
CY r
0
0
0.0418
CY a
0
0
-0.044
Cl0
Cl
Clp
Clr
Cla

0
0
0.249
0
0

0
0
-0.0211
0.7450
0

0
-0.0153
-0.5613
0.0077
0.1764

Cn0
Cn
Cnp
Cnr
Cna

0
0
0
0.0398
0

0
0
-0.4555
-0.0023
0

0
0.0196
-0.004
-0.0056
-0.0006

Table 6: Aerodynamic Stability and Control Derivatives

Longitudinal
lateral
CD
-0.1364 CY
-0.1324
CL
4.539
CY p
0.0508
CLq
4.414
CY r
0.0391
Cm -0.4166 Cl
-0.0165
Cmq
-1.904
Clp
-0.5613
CLe 0.7645
Clr
0.054
CDe 0.0066
Cn
0.0185
Cme -0.0933 Cnp
-0.0325
Cnr
-0.005625
CY a -0.0044
Cla
0.1765
Cna 0.0006

From tables 4, 5 and 6 some observations have been made:

1. The pitching moment coefficient derivatives are seen to be smaller compared to a conventional
statically stable aircraft with tailplane like the Ultra Stick 25e (data available in the nonlinear
simulation provided on the laboratory website), AMT-200S motor glider [3] and Navion aircraft
[4]. However, the values of lift coefficient derivatives are comparable. This is due to lack of a
horizontal stabilizer which plays a major role in defining the pitching moment characteristics of
any aircraft.
2. The derivative of the side-force coefficient (CY ) is also on the smaller side. This is due to
lack of a large vertical fin which is a common feature for conventional aircraft configurations.
3. Control derivatives show a similar trend, where pitching moment coefficient derivative (with
respect to elevator, Cme ) is small, while lift coefficient derivative (CLe ) and rolling moment
coefficient derivative (with respect to ailerons, Cla ) are comparable to standard values.

Conclusion
The aerodynamic analysis carried out using XFLR-5, although basic in nature, provides a good starting
point for contructing a nonlinear model simulation. Although the drag model is inacurate, this
primarily affects the estimation of thrust requirements only and can be improved using flight data
from glide tests. Overall, the values of the aerodynamic derivatives obtained seem to be reasonable
and agree with the physics of flight dynamics. The data estimated through this analysis will be
updated after obtaining flight data from flight testing and carrying out system identification.

References
1. Brian Taylor, BFF Center of Gravity Testing
2. Aditya Kotikalpudi, Swing Tests for Estimation of Moments of Inertia
3. Brian Taylor, AMT-200S Motor Glider Parameter and Performance Estimation, NASA/TM2011-215974
6

4. E. Seckel and J. J. Morris, The Stability Derivatives of the Navion Aircraft Estimated by Various
Methods and Derived from Flight Test Data
5. Burnett E., Atkinson, C., Beranek, J., Sibbitt, B., Holm-Hansen, B. and Nicolai, L., NDOF
Simulation model for flight control development with flight test correlation, AIAA Modeling
and Simulation Technologies Conference, Vol. 3, Toronto, Canada, 2010, pp. 7780-7794.
6. Brian Taylor, BFF Laser Scan and Outer Mold Line
7. Website for download: http://www.xflr5.com

Appendix A
Graphs here show the data used to generate the functions for stability and control derivatives, along
with the curve generated by the functions. Only those graphs are shown which have non-zero slopes
i.e. derivatives which were found to be constant across are not shown. All the derivative values
along Y axis are in rad1 .

10

11

12