A1 Lab Template

This template for must be used A1 lab.

The margins must be kept as in this original template file i.e. Top, Bottom, Left and Right margins
are 2.54cm
The font type used should be Times New Roman. Section headings are to be 14pt size and other text
and figure/table labels should be of size 12pt for all writing.
Line spacing is 1
Keep to the size limits on each section given in the template. Quantity of writing is not evidence of
quality. Learning to deliver a message succinctly is an important skill. Students who wrote
excessively long reports in past years often obtained low marks because their reports were rambling
and did not correctly analyse the experiment. (Top marked report in 09/10 was half the size of the
report getting lowest mark!) This is the reason for the new template this year. Marks will be
deducted if you do not stick to section limits and material in excess of the limits will not be marked.
The references are to be given as a numbered list in the last section of the report. Refer to them by
number as appropriate in the main body of the report. For website references include the title of
the article and date accessed.
Ensure any diagrams, figures and tables are clearly labelled with appropriate titles and numbers.
Discuss the physics as the first priority and reference the graphs second, not the other way around.

Make the sure the introduction really does introduce the experiment, and the conclusion really does
summarise the conclusions.

Remember this page must be deleted before you submit your report.
The report must be submitted electronically via the Blackboard site. Reports are plagiarism scanned
against reports, web materials; other students work from this and previous years etc and given a
percentage score. Do not copy and if using, or quoting from references, do this in the appropriate
manner.







Chordwise Pressure Distribution on an Aerofoil
with a Flap




Tsang Justin Pui Meng
University of Bristol
Bristol, England

Lucy Berthoud (Tutor)































Date of Experiment: 29th of November, 2013
SUMMARY

A NACA five digit series aerofoil with adjustable flap has been installed in a subsonic
open non-return wind tunnel to study the chord wise pressure distribution in different
incidences and flap settings. Although flap deflected downwards have shown that lift is
increased, the exact behaviour of the airflow around the aerofoil is not known in these
situations. Experimental data is collected at Reynolds number of 3

with a free stream

velocity of Mach 0.07.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Experiments are carried out to investigate the coefficient of pressure around an
aerofoil at different incidences and flap settings, to facilitate our understanding of the effects
of pressure gradient on flow behaviour. The change in pressure along the aerofoil represents
the change in velocity of the airflow near the surface. The knowledge of how pressure
gradient affects the transition as well as the recovery of an attached boundary is a valuable
tool to evaluate the potential performance of an aerofoil, particularly during landing.

An engineers ideal aerofoil will exhibit high coefficient of lift, low coefficient of
drag and moment. By understanding the potential effects of favourable and adverse pressure
gradient, it opens up the possibility to fine tune or reverse engineer an aerofoil with better
performance. This method has proved its value in the development of the 5 digit NACA
series as well as the Natural-Laminar-Flow series. The high camber near the leading edge
provides a favourable pressure gradient for the NACA 23015 to achieve high coefficient of
lift, while the NLF aerofoils are designed with a favourable pressure gradient along the chord
to prevent boundary layer transition.


INSTRUMENTATION
In a 2ft x 2ft non-return wind tunnel, a NACA 23015 aerofoil with 30% hinged flap
was positioned in a free-stream flow of 25m/sec and Reynolds number of 3

. Pressure
taps on both aerofoil surfaces were measured by an electric pressure transducer. A computer
was used to control a scanivalve that logged the data from each pressure tapping in turn.
Power to the wind tunnel fan is continuously altered to keep the wind speed constant as the
drag of the model changes.

The pressure distribution of a zero-flap-angle aerofoil were obtained over an
incidence of -5 to 25 using a 5 interval at low angles. At high angles when non-linearity
was observed, 2 degrees or less intervals were used. In order to investigate the effects of
different flap deflection, results with flaps angles of -10,10,20,40 and 60, all for an
incidence of 100 were obtained.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION



Effects of Wing Incidence



Fig 1. Pressure profile along the chord length for both 10 & 20 incidence.

Figure 1 shows that at a higher incidence, the aerofoil exerts a higher net negative
pressure, thus explains the higher lift coefficient at high incidence. As the airflow continues
to flow over the surface of the aerofoil, it continues to lose energy due to viscous effect.
Coupled with an adverse pressure gradient that slows the airflow down, the boundary layer
separates from the surface to infuse with the higher energy free stream flow. In this local
separated region, energy exchange takes place as local eddies that neutralise the region to a
constant pressure. This is evident at 20 incidence. Separated flow is a condition that
dramatically increases skin friction drag. For a 2D aerofoil, skin friction drag can be
calculated from the measurements of a force balance, as long as the form drag is known from
pressure distribution.


-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Cp
X/C
Pressure distribution along the chord
10 deg incidence & 0 deg flap
20 deg incidence & 0 deg flap
At 20 deg incidence, the upper
rear surface is has a constant Cp
Separated flow on the
upper surface
A steep negative pressure gradient,
decelerates air flow

Effects of Flap Deployment

Camber has the effect of increasing the lift coefficient for a set incidence. While an
aerofoil can be geometrically cambered, effective camber can also be increased by deflecting
the trailing edge downwards. The latter is particularly useful in landing, achieving maximum
lift at low speed and allows a lower angle of attack to provide pilot visibility.


Since the free stream velocity is subsonic, pressure fields are able to propagate from
downstream to upstream. Figure 2 shows that the deflection of the flap affects the pressure
distribution over the whole of the aerofoil, not just the flap portion. When an aircraft deflects
its ailerons in opposite direction on each wing to provide a rolling moment, one wing
generates more lift than the other. As a result of a differential induced drag, a yawing moment
is generated. In order for a pilot to enter a turn by banking, the controls for aileron, elevator
and rudder to correct the yawing moment must be coordinated.

Because of boundary layer growth and separation, the lift increment does not increase
linearly with the angle of flap deflection as shown in figure 3. The second adverse pressure
gradient after the flap hinge leads to boundary layer separation. The separation point of the
boundary layer starts from near the trailing edge and moves towards the leading edge as flap
deflection increases the adverse pressure gradient, this increases the proportion of separated
flow. Figure 4 shows that lift is still generated at stall, when the boundary layer breaks away
from the upper surface. However, most often the lift generated at stall is insufficient to
maintain level flight due to the low airspeed. Further explaination is given at section 4.4.


Fig 2. Pressure profile along the chord length for both 0 & 10 flap deflection at 5
incidence.
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Cp
X/C
Pressure distribution along the chord
5 deg incidence & 0 deg flap 5 deg incidence & 10 deg flap
30% chord flap
2nd adverse pressure
gradient region
1st adverse pressure
gradient region

Fig 3.The effect of different flap settings on the coefficient of lift across a range of incidence.


Fig 4. The effect on the pressure profile before and after the stall
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Cl
Incidence in degrees
The variation of the coefficient of lift against
incidence
0 deg flap
20 deg flap
40 deg flap
55 deg flap
-7.0
-6.0
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Cp
X/C
Pressure distribution along the chord
15 deg incidence, 40 deg flap
20 deg incidence, 40 deg flap
Lift increment ceiling
from flap deflection
The pressure distribution
before and after the stall of 40
deg flap is shown on fig 4.
Peak negative pressure is near the leading edge.
Stall the upper surface
has a constant Cp.
Also shown in figure 3 is that there is an adverse pressure gradient limit that the
airflow is able to flow against and remained attached. As demonstrated in Figure 1 and 2,
both incidence and flap deflection increases the coefficient of pressure near the leading edge
and form a steeper negative pressure gradient. Therefore, any combination of incidence and
flap deflection that promotes a steep negative pressure gradient beyond the limit of the
boundary layer would leads to a stall. This explains why stall incidence decreases with
increasing flap deflection and that there is a maximum lift coefficient.



Separation bubble


Fig 5. Re-attachment of the laminar boundary layer at the range critical Reynolds number


A separation bubble forms when a laminar boundary later detaches and thickens by
becoming turbulent. (Fig 5) The thickened turbulent boundary layer then reattach with the
surface, forming a bubble underneath the boundary layer. The length of the bubble shrinks as
incidence increases. At the critical Reynolds number of 3

, the laminar boundary layer

separates and reattaches. Below the critical Reynolds number, the separation bubble does not
reattach and stalls at low incidence. Above the critical Reynolds number the boundary layer
turns from laminar to turbulent naturally without a separation and performs well. Each
aerofoil has a different critical Reynolds number but most applications of an aerofoil are in
the supercritical range.

-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Cp
X/C
Pressure distribution along the chord
5 deg incidence & 0 deg flap
A region of constant pressure as well as an
attached boundary layer leaving the trailing
edge is the sign of a separation bubble.
Hysteresis


Figure 6 demonstrates that the behaviour of the airflow also depends on previous flow
conditions. If an aerofoil is stalled, even if it is brought back slightly below the incidence that
the stall occurred, the boundary layer remains to be partly detached. In the event of a stall, it
is common that one wing stalls before the other, leading to a rapid rolling and yawing
moment due to loss of lift and drag rise respectively. This is known as a spin, which requires
pilot skills and aircraft altitude to regain control. Therefore, stall during the landing phase is
particularly dangerous as there is insufficient airspeed and altitude to recover from the dive
and spin, which is a common cause for fatal accidents.


Aerodynamic Centre
Figure 2 shows that flap deflection alters the pressure distribution. The location of the
aerodynamic centre with flap deflected is calculated to compare with the theoretical 25%
chord for a plate from potential flow theory.

It is shown in Fig 7 that the coefficient of moment varies linearly with incidence even
with different flap deflection. Whereas the gradient is negative when the moment is taken at
leading edge, a positive gradient would be the result if moment is taken at the trailing edge.
The aerodynamic centre, defined as a location where the rate of change of Cm taken at that
point to incidence is zero, must therefore exist within the linear lift/incidence region. Flap
deflection is shown to only increase the coefficient of moment about the aerodynamic centre
but does not change its location.

Fig 6. The dependence of flow behaviour base on previous history
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cl
Incidence in degrees
The variation of the coefficient of lift against incidence
0 deg flap

Fig 7.Constant Cm to incidence gradient
** Coefficient of pitching moment shown is taken at the leading edge **



Balance of moments:

()

In terms of coefficient:

( )

Differentiate with respect to and using the definition

We get:

) (

)

Substitute values from = -5 to 5 and flap of 0, 10, 20, 40 and 55.

Flap 0 10 20 40 55
A.C. 0.258 0.241 0.256 0.264 0.265
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-10 0 10 20 30
Cm
Incidence in degrees
The variation of the coefficient of pitching
moment against incidence
0 deg flap
10 deg flap
20 deg flap
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Y
/
C

X/C
NACA 23015
Lift

M
ac
M
leading
X

CONCLUSIONS

Tests conducted demonstrate the importance of allowing a favourable pressure
gradient on the upper surface of an aerofoil. The results suggest that a less steep adverse
pressure gradient is beneficial to delaying stall and increasing maximum coefficient of lift.
This allows the pilot to have a higher stall margin during landing, or to improve the short
landing capability of the aircraft in the expense of pilot visibility.

Corrections to account for wind tunnel blockage effect due to the models frontal area
and the wind tunnel walls can be obtained through potential flow simulations. This would
improve the accuracy of the data for an aircraft in free flight. In this report, drag data is not
presented as it is decided that foam drag data alone is not representable enough. A more
comprehensive account could be made if viscous drag data is collected through a force
balance.

The next stage of work would be to investigate the effect on pressure distribution with
different leading edge radius, leading edge devices, and vortex generator.



REFERENCES

Abbott, I. H., & Doenhoff, A. (1960). Theory of Wing Sections. Dover Publications Inc.
Anderson, J. D. (2010). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics . McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Jr, J. D. (1999). A History of Aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press.
Simon, M. (1978). Model Aircraft Aerodynamics. Argus books.
Stinton, D. (1998). Anatomy of the Aeroplane. Wiley-Blackwell.
Stinton, D. (2001). Design of the Aeroplane. Wiley-Blackwell.