You are on page 1of 29

Arnab Roy Chengzhi Qi

Wing Design Process

High Wing
Geometry. Increases the dihedral effect.

It makes the aircraft laterally more stable. (fuselage will also make contribution) Eases and facilitates to maintenance. Rolling landing/Rolling take-off: Rotor blade and ground interactions

Cl vs alpha
Clmax: Required stall speed mainly governs the Clmax (

Clmax gives

Cd, but Clmax gives better flight envelope) s: stall angle ( : 12 - 16 flight safety ) 0: Zero lift angle of attack ( {more negative value}: Leaves the capacity for more lift at 0 AOA) Cl0: Cl at zero angle of attack ( : Implies we can create more lift at 0 AOA) Cl: Affects the transition ( : Less power used in the rotor) Cli : Ideal lift coefficient (Clcruise should be close to this to have minimum drag) Stall Behavior: An airfoil with a gentle drop in lift after the stall is more desired

Cl vs alpha (Continued)
Req & Assumption:
Cl max around 1.3

zero lift angle of attack (negative, with flag should around - 5-10 degree)
stall angle > 12 degree better around 15

zero angle of attack, no requirement, but as good as high it goes.

Cm1/4 Vs. & Cmac Vs.


The slope of Cm Vs. alpha at chord relates to the

stability of the airplane (a reasonable negative slope is required) Size of the tail, elevators are governed by Cm value. More negative Cm results in larger tail = Higher drag, heavier aircraft, higher costs. Req & Assumption: Cm vs alpha slope is negative Cm at AC is around -.02 to -.05

Cd vs Cl
Cd minimum as low as possible, reduce fuel required At minimum slope: (Cd/Cl)min = (Cl/Cd)max During 240 knots (Cruise): Cl should be Cl (ideal) During 180 knots (loiter): Cl should be Cl (design)

Req & Assumption: Cdmin about .003 to .006

Thickness
Lift curve slope :Cla=1.8*pi*(1+0.8tmax/c) Strength to support torque by rotors Storing fuels Enough space for rotation motion of the rotor Reduce flutter

Req & Assumption: t/cmax is about 15% to 20%

Airfoil Selection Criteria

Comparison of airfoils

Airfoils Choices:
NACA 43018: Sm 701: NACA 64(4) 421: NACA 65(3) 218:

ATR 42 High Lift Airfoil Fokker F-27 Airtech Cn-235

Airfoil Design Objectives


Airfoil Stall 0 (More Angle negative (12-16) exp.-2) 15 15 -3.2 -5.0 -2.95 -1.8 Clmax Clideal Clcruise .85 .8 .55 .2 Cl Stall Cm Vs. Cl Cm Vs. Behavior Smooth Not Smooth Smooth Smooth -.017 -.137 -.078 -.041 + + (Cl/Cd ) 155 150 130 80
Thickness

NACA 43018 Sm 701

2.0 1.8 1.22 1.0

.108 .12 .06 .075

18.02% 15.99% 20.96% 18%

NACA 18.5 64(4)421 NACA 65(3)218 13.5

Evaluation of the performance


Design Objectives Stall Angle (12-16) 0 (More negative ex.-2) Clmax(High, assumed 1.3) Clideal Clcruise Cl (High) Stall Behavior Cm Vs. Cl (Low const Cm) Cm Vs. WEIGHT 10% 4% 15% 7% 10% 10% 12% 7% NACA 43018 8.5 8.5 10 10 9 9 10 0 Sm 701 8.5 10 9.5 9 10 2 4 0 NACA 64(4)421 10 7.5 8 6 7 10 8 10 NACA 65(3)218 6 6 7 4 8 10 9 10

High (Cl/Cd)
Thickness Total Score

10%
15% 100%

10
9 8.74

9.5
8 7.135

8
10 8.58

6
9 7.7

NACA 43018

SM 701

NACA 64(4) 421

NACA 65(3) 218

Final Airfoil: NACA 43018

Aspect Ratio Justification:

Upcoming Analysis Using XFLR 5:

Questions:

Elevator Defection
Airfoil Section Area of Elevator Deflection vs. V CL of design elevator

NACA 0009 vs. NACA 0012


Airfoil NACA 0009 Thickness Cm Clmax Cl/Cd Stall Angle

9%

0.04

1.2

77

13

NACA 0012

12%

0.027

0.7

34

NACA 0009

Area of Elevator

Elevator Chord
Se/Sh= .254 Assumed be/bh = 1 Ce/Ch=.254 Ce=.86 ft

Elevator Deflection vs. V

NACA 0009 with design elevator

Questions?

You might also like