Effect of the length of a winglet on the

lift of an aerofoil

Jason Andr Dias

Candidate Number: 000040-0062

Physics
United World College Of South East Asia
May 2014

Supervisor
Frazer Cairns

Word Count: 3996

Acknowledgements
This Extended Essay would not have been at all possible without the guidance and
counsel of my supervisor, Fraser Cairns. His support and help throughout the process
was of great help. Furthermore my thanks extend to the Design & Technology
department for their generous support, especially to Carl Waugh for his guidance in
the construction of the wind tunnel, and his provision of department resources. My
thanks also go to my family, who were very encouraging throughout. Id like to also
thank my father, for his passion of aviation he passed down to me, inspiring me to
write my extended essay in this field.

ii

Abstract
This paper poses the question, how does winglet length effect lift? The purpose of
this investigation was to determine the enhanced lift that could be achieved through
varying winglet length thereby increasing efficiency. To further investigate the
outcomes, the lift data was compared to theoretically determined lift with identical
wingspan variation. This assessed the appropriateness of winglet use in the future
development of larger yet spatially suitable aircraft.
A constructed NACA 0015 aerofoil was placed within a homemade wind tunnel,
which operated at a tunnel velocity of 5.05 m s-1 and Reynolds number of around
32477. The aerofoil had a chord length of 100 mm and was analysed with, 0, 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 centimetre winglet attachments. A constant angle of attack of 8
was controlled.
It was determined that lift was increased with an increase in winglet length. The initial
relationship was linear with some reduction in lift at greater winglet lengths. When
comparing lift due to winglet length variance in comparison to wingspan variance it is
clear that winglets are at their most effective in increasing effective wingspan at lower
winglet lengths. The study concludes that the use of winglets can increase effective
wingspan making winglet length an important design factor for large aircraft that
brink airport wingspan regulation.

Word Count: 219

iii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iii
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5
2. Aerodynamic Theory ............................................................................................... 6
2.1 Size Effects on Lift ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2 The Lift Equation ............................................................................................................. 6
2.3 The Lift Coefficient.......................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Reynolds Number ........................................................................................................... 7
2.5 The Downwash Effect ...................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Winglets ........................................................................................................................... 9

3. Apparatus & Instrumentation .............................................................................. 10

3.1 Wing Design ................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Wind Tunnel Design ...................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Winglets ......................................................................................................................... 13

4. Procedure ................................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Apparatus Set Up ............................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Method ........................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Variables ........................................................................................................................ 16

5. Experimental Results ............................................................................................. 17

5.1 Table of Results.............................................................................................................. 17
5.2 Graph showing the relationship between lift and winglet length ................................... 17

6. Validity Analysis .................................................................................................... 19

6.1 Calculating the Reynolds Number ................................................................................. 19
6.2 Calculating CL ................................................................................................................ 19
6.3 Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Results................................................... 20
6.4 Error Analysis ................................................................................................................ 21

7. Comparison of variance in wingspan against variance in winglet length......... 22

7.1 Effective Wingspan by Winglet Length ......................................................................... 22
7.2 Calculating lift by wingspan .......................................................................................... 22
7.3 Comparison of lift in winglet & wingspan variance ...................................................... 23

8. Results & Discussion .............................................................................................. 25

8.1 Winglet length and lift .................................................................................................... 25
8.2 Lift comparison of winglet length & wingspan variance ............................................... 26

9. Limitations & Errors ............................................................................................. 27

9.1 Winglet ........................................................................................................................... 27
9.2 Aerofoil .......................................................................................................................... 27
9.3 Wind Tunnel................................................................................................................... 27

10. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 28

11. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 29
11. 1 Nomenclature .............................................................................................................. 29
11.2 Table 1 NACA 0015 aerofoil coordinates ................................................................... 30
11.3 Table of Results............................................................................................................ 31

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 33

iv

1. Introduction
In an increasingly competitive market, the aviation industry has been extending the
frontiers of flight. Ever rising fuel costs, as well as escalating environmental concerns
have pushed the industry to further improve fuel efficiency. Airlines and aircraft
manufacturers alike are paying millions of dollars in research to reduce fuel costs.
The research in this paper focuses on adjusting elements of the wings aerodynamic
properties to enhance lift, thus creating a more fuel-efficient aircraft. Airport
regulations are a limiting factor in the size of future aircraft. The wingspan
regulations do vary across airports however the largest allowed wingspan is currently
imposed under F category 65m up to but not including 80m (Coorperate
Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness (COSCAP) 1999,
17). By further investigating the effect that winglet length has on lift and how this
determines effective wingspan, we may be able to overcome airport regulations.
The wingtip is the structure furthest from the fuselage of the aircraft, it is situated at
the very tip of the wing. Its main purpose is reducing the downwash effect. This is
caused by the vortices, which occur due to air escaping around the edge of a wing
from a region of high pressure under the wing to a region of low pressure on top of
the wing (NASA 2008). The effect of this is a reduction in lift. It is approximated that
during the climb phase 80-90% of the total reduction is caused by this effect, whilst
40% of the reduction in lift is caused by this effect during cruise. (Ning and Froo
2008). The result of this is known as the downwash effect (NASA 2008).
The outcome of years of research in this field in the optimization of winglets to most
efficiently reduce the lift reduction component produced by the wingtips has led to
more efficient fuel consumption as well as giving aircraft manufacturers the ability to
produce much larger aircraft. A good example is the Airbus A380, which in fact needs
a wingspan of around 90 m to be most efficient. However the design of the wing tip
fences (providing a similar effect as wingtips) allows the A380 to generate enough lift
placing it within the airport regulations of 80m.) The design of the wingtips allowed
the aircraft to achieve an effective wingspan equal to 90 m whilst physically only
having a wingspan of 80 m (Burns and Novelli 2008).
This paper focuses on the optimization of these winglets in an attempt to understand
how they can be modified for optimum efficiency. My research question is:
How does the length of a wingtip effect the lift of an aerofoil?
In order for this experiment to be carried out, a wind tunnel, aerofoil and winglets
with varying length will need to be constructed. By measuring the change in mass of
an aerofoil when winglet length is varied the lift force can be calculated. For the
calculation and analysis of factors, Newtons Laws will be applied as well as other
more complex aerodynamic theories including the downwash effect, Reynolds
number calculation and Coefficient of Lift calculations. These will be discussed in
sections to follow.

2. Aerodynamic Theory
2.1 Size Effects on Lift
In order to analyse the outcome of winglets, and their benefit on air travel, a constant
for the relationship between lift and the wingspan needs to be established. From this
we can determine the lift produced based on the span of the wing. Theory states:
Lift is directly proportional to the area of the object (NASA: C 2010)
As we are only analysing the lift produced by an aerofoil, we are only observing the
lift that is created by the planform area1. This can be shown:
Where:
L is Lift (N)
S is Planform area (m2)

L S

(1.1)

OR
Defined by a constant

L = k S

(1.2)

In defining k, we will be able to determine the lift associated with varying wingspans.

2.2 The Lift Equation

Lift is dependent on a variety of different factors including atmospheric conditions
such as air density, viscosity and compressibility as well as object characteristics
including the speed at which the object travels, the shape of the body, and its
inclination. Some of the more complex aerodynamic factors are included in the Lift
Coefficient (CL). Lift is defined be NASA as the following equation (NASA: A 2010)
Where:
L is Lift (N)
is Air density (kg m-3)
v is True airspeed (m s-1)
S is Planform area (m2)
CL is the Coefficient of Lift

L=

1
vSC L
2

(1.3)

The planform area is defined as, the area of the wing as viewed from above the wing. It is
a flat plane, and is not the total surface area (top and bottom) of the entire wing (NASA: C
2010)

2.3 The Lift Coefficient

The lift coefficient encompasses the more complex dependencies on the flow
conditions of lift. Mathematically it is a simple rearrangement of the lift formula.
(NASA: B 2009)

CL =

L
1 2
v S
2

(1.4)

Using a wind tunnel and an aerofoil, the velocity, air density and planform area will
be controlled to measure the lift produced. From this we are able to determine the lift
coefficient.

2.4 Reynolds Number

Reynolds number represents the interactions between an object that moves through
the atmosphere and the atmosphere itself. The aerodynamic forces that are generated
are dependent on speed, shape, mass and the compressibility and viscosity of the gas.
These are dependent on various factors including altitude and relative humidity.
The Reynolds number is given by the formula:
Where:
Re is Reynolds Number
l is Characteristic Linear Dimension2 (m)
is Dynamic viscosity (m2 s-1)
k is Kinematic viscosity (kg m s-1)

Re =

vl vl
=

(1.5)

(NASA: A 2009)

Typically the chord length of an aerofoil is used

2.5 The Downwash Effect

The effect investigated is known as the downwash effect. The basis of this effect is
that when a wing experiences lift, the pressure on above the wing is smaller than the
pressure below the wing. At the tip of the wings the air is free to move between these
two regions, shown in Figure 1.0 below.

Figure 1.0 The Downwash Effect (NASA 2008)

The blue lines illustrate the flow that results from the exchange of air between the
area of high pressure below the wing and low pressure above the wing, where the
arrowheads show the direction of the flow. The vortices that are formed rotate toward
the wing root, and the line marking the centre of the wing tip vortices are known as
vortex lines. The downwash that is created from these vortices cause a reduction in
the lift of the aerofoil (NASA 2008)

2.6 Winglets
Winglets were designed for the purpose of eliminating the vortices, therefore reducing
the effect of the reduction of lift. The study conducted will investigate what effect if
any; changing the length of the winglet will have on minimizing the downwash effect
and maximising lift of the aerofoil.

Figure 1.1 The effect of a winglet (National Geographic 2012)

As seen above in Figure 1.1, the vortices that usually occur without the use of
winglets are not apparent when winglets are used. In this case, the winglets block the
ability for the high pressure air to escape from the underside of the wing to the lower
pressure area on top of the wing. This minimizes the air that is able to escape around
the end of the wing minimizing the downwash effect and therefore decreasing any
reduction of lift.
From this and the previously mentioned downwash effect, we can infer that as we
increase the length of the winglet more vortices will be blocked. We can predict that,
an increase in the length of the winglet will lead to an increase in the lift produced.
This relationship is yet to be established.

3. Apparatus & Instrumentation

3.1 Wing Design
In order to create a realistic test for finding the most efficient length of the winglet a
realistic model aerofoil was constructed. The University of Illinois Applied
Aerodynamics Group Aerofoil Data site (University of Illinois 2013) was used for
realistic real world aerofoil plotting coordinates.
This particular aerofoil was chosen specifically for its stability. Stability was
important as the materials used in this experiment were not of high-grade quality and
therefore stability was favoured to reduce vibrations and other movements of the
aerofoil to reduce error. Furthermore the symmetrical nature of the aerofoil reduced
complexity in construction.
For this investigation a NACA 0015 aerofoil was utilized, developed by The National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (Jacobs, Ward and Pinkerton 1933)
For experimentation a 0.1 m chord aerofoil will be used where =8.0 0.5

Figure 1.0 NACA 0015 (University of Illinois 2013)

10

In order to construct the aerofoil coordinates for the NACA 0015, aerofoil data
coordinates were used in Adobe Illustrator (Adobe 2012). Five wooden templates of
thickness 5 mm were printed and attached to a plywood shaft to form the framework
of the aerofoil of span 0.105 m. (All measurements are seen in Table 1.0 below).
Following this the wood was wrapped in a card, to provide a smooth finish. This can
be seen in Figure 2.1 below.

Chord Length c (m) 0.001 m

Span s (m) 0.001 m

Planform Area S (m2) 0.002 m2

0.100

0.105

0.011

Table 1.0 Table of measurements for aerofoil

100 mm

105 mm

Figure 2.1 Diagram of aerofoil chord length and photo of completed aerofoil showing span of 105 mm

100mm

11

3.2 Wind Tunnel Design

For construction, a number of materials were used including:

Plywood
Acrylic Plastic Sheets
Thick Drinking Straws
Styrofoam

To ensure that there was laminar flow passing through the wind tunnel a honeycomb
structure of straws was produced which acted as a diffuser. This ensured that the air
produced by the blower flowed in straight lines before it made any interactions with
the aerofoil. Sown in Figure 2.2 below.3
Styrofoam blocking
escapable air

Acrylic Sheets
700 mm x 115 mm

Hole in plywood 10 mm

Plywood Base
700 mm x 110 mm x 5 mm

Diffuser - Diameter of
each straw: 10 mm.

Figure 2.2 Wind Tunnel Finished Construction

(Labelled)

Many of the design ideas implemented for this construction came from an online video,
found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q0nx0_Dgc (Punsiri Dam-o 2010).

12

3.3 Winglets
The winglets were of very simple design, made from recycled cardboard and cut
using a cardboard knife and ruler. The design simplicity is shown in Figure 2.3 below
displaying an example of an 80 mm winglet attached to the NACA 0015 aerofoil.

80 mm

Figure 2.3 Plan diagram of 80 mm winglet attached to the NACA 0015 aerofoil.

A final constructed version of the above aerofoil is shown in Figure 2.4 below. As
seen this is the aerofoil with 80 mm winglets attached.

80 mm

Figure 2.4 Constructed aerofoil example with 80 mm winglets attached

13

4. Experimental Procedure
4.1 Apparatus Set Up
The equipment was set up as shown in Figure 3.0 below.

Figure 3.0 Experimentation setup

As seen in Figure 3.0 above, a mass balance was set up directly below the aerofoil
testing area. The base of the aerofoil structure rested on the weighing scale and
measured changes in mass readings.
The aerofoil was attached to the pole, with the base lying on the weighing scale where
= 8.0 0.5. The tunnel velocity was set to 5.05 m s-1 0.01 m s-1. The diffuser
represented in Figure 3.0 above is shown photographically in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 Photograph showing straw diffuser

14

4.2 Method
Once the air blower was turned on the mass reading was observed for 30 seconds
before the air was turned off again. It was the experimenters duty to perceive the
correct value and note what error existed during the fluctuations that occurred. This
was to be done 6 times for each winglet. The winglet length was varied through 0 mm
and 100 mm with 10 mm increments.

15

4.3 Variables
Independent: Winglet length this will increase from 0 mm to 100 mm with 10 mm
increments
Dependent: Mass reading of aerofoil
Controlled:
The airspeed needs be kept constant throughout all experiments as this has a
direct effect on the lift that is produced. At higher airspeeds more lift is
produced by an aerofoil, as such a Frederikson Air Blower will be used which
is capable of maintaining a wind speed within an error of 0.01 m s-1. For this
experiment the fan controller was set to a constant airspeed of 5.05 m s-1
0.01 m s-1.
Another variable that had to remain constant was the temperature due to its
direct effect on the Reynolds number. If varied, there would be a significant
effect on the lift produced by the aerofoil. This variable was hard to control
however a temperature probe indicated 23.0 C 0.5 C which remained
constant throughout experimentation.
The planform area was another factor that had to remain constant throughout
experimentation, it has a direct impact when calculating CL as well as having
an effect on the measured lift that is produced on the aerofoil. A single
aerofoil was used for all experiments keeping the planform area constant
throughout. A planform area of 0.011 m2 0.002 m2 was maintained. The span
and chord length of the aerofoil determined this.
The different characteristics of an aerofoil such as chamber size and general
shape has great effects on the lift. As such a symmetrical NACA 0015 aerofoil
was used for all experiments which provided great stability where lift was 0
when = 0.
The angle of attack must also remain constant throughout experimentation as it
affects the lift that is produced by the aerofoil. The total angle considering the
angle of the pole and the angle of the aerofoil attached to the pole is measured to
be 8.0 0.5. It was also checked after changing winglets of the aerofoil to
ensure that this angle was maintained.

16

5. Experimental Results
5.1 Table of Results
Winglet Length (m) Average Change in Mass (kg)
0.001 m
0.000
0.0036 0.0002
0.010
0.0041 0.0002
0.020
0.0046 0.0002
0.030
0.0051 0.0002
0.040
0.0055 0.0002
0.050
0.0061 0.0003
0.060
0.0068 0.0003
0.070
0.0076 0.0004
0.080
0.0069 0.0004
0.100
0.0050 0.0004

Lift (N)
0.035 0.002
0.040 0.002
0.045 0.002
0.050 0.002
0.054 0.002
0.060 0.003
0.067 0.003
0.075 0.004
0.068 0.004
0.049 0.004

Wind speed (m s-1)

0.01m s-1
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05

Table 3.0 Averaged Results and calculated Lift

Table 3.0 above shows processed experimental data for all attached winglets as well
as the lift force, which was calculated afterward. Due to the nature of the final two
results, they will not be included in any graphical representations. This will be
evaluated in section 8.3 Limits and Errors.

5.2 Graph showing the relationship between lift and winglet length
As seen in Figure 4.0 below, a linear relationship is present between winglet lengths,
0 m and 0.06 m. We can note, that the graph is linear, and has increasingly large error
bars. The size of the errors increased due to a corresponding increase in the vibrations
and movement when the winglet lengths increased. This was due to air being
deflected by the winglets upward and rebounding off the wind tunnel lid causing
greater fluctuation in the measurement of mass readings. The effect of this will be
assessed in the Limits & Error section.

17

6. Validity Analysis

The purpose of the following section is to identify the validity of the results
produced through the comparison of the experimental CL and a theoretically
modeled CL. Along with experimental data that was recorded, there were a varie
additional recordings that were required for further calculations, especially for
calculation of the Reynolds Number for the wind tunnel. The figures noted in Ta
4.0 show various climatic and geographic measurements for UWCSEA, Dover o
15th June 2013. (Date of Experimentation)
Air Pressure hPa 0.5
Temperature (C) 0.5
Elevation above Sea Level (m) 3
Relative Humidity % 0.5

1006.0
23.0
23
72.0

Table 4.0 Weather /Geographic Conditions for Singapore 15/06/13\ (Weather

Underground 2013)

6.1 Calculating the Reynolds Number

Re =

vl vl
=

(1.5)

Calculation fo

dry =

(1.18)(5.05)(0.1)
Re =
(1.8348E 5)

p
RT

dry =

R e = 32477.65 0.02

100600
287 296

dry = 1.18 0.0

As seen from the calculations above the Reynolds number for the wind tunnel c
stood at the nominal value of 32477.65.

6.2 Calculating CL
For a NACA 0015 air foil without winglet modification

CL =
CL =

L
1 2
v S
2
0.035
1
(1.18)(5.05)2 (0.011)
2

CL = 0.21 0.04
This value obtained when:
Re = 32477.65 0.02
= 8.0 0.5

6.3 Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Results

In order to validate the structural design implementation of both the wind tunnel and
the NACA 0015 aerofoil the Coefficient of Lift will be compared under the
conditions:
=8.0 0.5
Re = 32477.650.02
AR = 1.00 4
0.001 (m)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070

Experimental

Theoretical

CL
0.21 0.05
0.24 0.05
0.27 0.06
0.30 0.07
0.33 0.07
0.36 0.08
0.40 0.09
0.45 0.1

CL
0.210
-

Table 4.1 Comparison of theoretical and experimental values

As seen in Table 4.1 above, our final calculation for the lift coefficient value when
= 8.00.5, and no winglet is attached is 0.21 0.04. The theoretical value
calculated using the JavaFoil (Hepperle 2006) software under the same conditions
was 0.210. This means that the experimental value for the lift coefficient of the
NACA 0015 lies within the theoretical value that was calculated using the software.5
From this comparison we are able to accept that the data collected was valid and
actually reflected theoretical calculations for the NACA 0015 aerofoil.
A random error of 22% was calculated which originated from fluctuations in mass
readings, error on climate data, wind speed and measurement errors on the planform
area. A 22% error is quite significant, where the largest part of the error was due to
measurement inaccuracy, causing 18% error. This error could have been reduced by
increasing the scale of the aerofoil produced, by increasing the size of the aerofoil
there would be a reduction in the percentage error calculated. The nature of the
experimentation meant however that very high-grade materials and construction
techniques would need to be used to minimize error. For example, a completely
isolated wind tunnel with no gas seepage, as well as 10 different constructed aerofoils
with their winglets constructed as one rather than interchangeable ones. The errors
that were confronted in experimentation were very difficult to avoid given available
resources.

4
5

2
AR given by the formula s

This software enabled us to set, Aspect Ratio, wing size, kinematic viscosity, air density,
and vary the Reynolds Number. The aerofoil could be modelled directly into the software
using the data coordinates as such enabling us to create an identical wind tunnel situation as
the experimentation carried out in the lab. (JavaFoil - Analysis of Airfoils 2006)

20

6.4 Error Analysis

R - % Error on R

R Absolute Error on R

6.4.1 Multiplication & Division of measured quantities

Error Propagation on the calculation of CL

L
1 2
v S
2

L
v
S
CL =
100 + 100 + 100 + 100

L
v
S

CL =

(1.4)

0.001
0.01
0.01
0.002
CL =
100 +
100 +
100 +
100

0.035
1.18
5.05
0.011

C L = 22.08%

6.4.2 Multiplication with a constant

(1.0)

L = mg
L = g m
L = 9.81 0.0002
L = 0.001

The errors calculated in this section will be evaluated in the, Limits and Error Section.

21

7. Comparison of variance in wingspan against variance in winglet

length
7.1 Effective Wingspan by Winglet Length
By increasing the winglet length, we have increased the effective lift that the wing can
produce. In order to compare the effect that increasing winglet length had, it will be
compared to lift increases resulting from an increase in wingspan. As such, we will be
able to analyse the effective wingspan through increase in winglet length.

7.2 Calculating lift by wingspan

L = k S
0.035
k=
0.011

(1.1)

k = 3.18
From this we have calculated our constant in the relationship between the lift
produced by our wing and its planform area. Through this we are able to calculate the
Lift produced by increasing planform area through the exclusive increase of
wingspan. This is shown in Table 4.2 below.
Where chord length (c) is constant at 0.1m.
Wingspan s (m)
Planform Area (S) m2
0.11
0.011
0.13
0.013
0.15
0.015
0.17
0.017
0.19
0.019
0.21
0.021
0.23
0.023
0.25
0.025

Lift (N)
0.035
0.041
0.048
0.054
0.060
0.068
0.073
0.080

Table 4.2 Lift caused by increase wingspan (s)

22

7.3 Comparison of lift in winglet & wingspan variance

In Table 4.3 below we are able to more easily compare the lift produced at different
wingtip lengths and different wingspans.
Varying Winglet Length
0.001 (m)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070

Lift (N)
0.035 0.002
0.040 0.002
0.045 0.002
0.050 0.002
0.054 0.002
0.060 0.003
0.067 0.003
0.075 0.004

Varying Wingspan (Theoretical)

s (m)
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.25

Lift (N)
0.035
0.041
0.048
0.054
0.060
0.068
0.073
0.080

Table 4.3 Comparison of Lift in winglet & wingspan variance

As seen in Table 4.3 above, the increase in lift with increased winglet length varies
similarly to the increase in lift by increasing wingspan. This can be observed in
Figure 5.0 below.

23

Lift Winglet Length

Lift - Wingspan

Figure 5.0 Comparison of Lift in Winglet & Wingspan Variance

24

8. Results & Discussion

8.1 Winglet length and lift
As seen in Figure 3.0 there is a linear relationship between the length of the winglet
and lift (force) that was produced. We note that as we increase winglet length, there is
a corresponding increase in the lift produced. As discussed previously, the winglets
purpose is to reduce the downwash effect, increasing the wings capable lift. As seen
in the graph, we are able to partially accept this hypothesis given the results. What we
can infer from this is that as the tips lengthen they are able to block part of the
vortices produced, which in turn reduces the induced lift reduction causing lift to
increase. As a result we can confirm that as the winglet length increases it reduces the
downwash effect therefore reducing the reduction in lift caused.

Lift (N)

We may assume that a certain optimum point exists when no more seepage of air
from below the wing to the top of the wing is occurring and increasing the winglet
length will have no further effect. In Figure 3.0 we do note that, at increased winglet
lengths there is tendency for there to be some reduction in the lift as the relationship is
not entirely linear. Unfortunately this is not entirely clear due to increasing error.

Winglet Length (m)

Figure 5.1 Assumed Curve

A representation of the assumed curve is shown above in Figure 4.1. At first there is a
linear relationship, where lift increases proportionally to increases in winglet length
up to a certain point. After this point there is a plateau suggesting that increases in
winglet length no longer provide a corresponding increase in lift.

25

8.2 Lift comparison of winglet length & wingspan variance

Through further data processing, we graphed the theoretical lift caused by an increase
in wingspan. Graphing this in Figure 4.0 above we note a linear relationship with
gradient k, as calculated to be 3.18. This constant is used to graph the points to
observe an increase in lift as the wingspan increases. Graphed with this, we have
added the points of lift against an increase in winglet length. Through this we are able
to determine the effective wingspan that an aerofoil has, with a particular winglet
length attached. Each red point plotted illustrates lift due to winglet variance and
correlates to a blue point showing lift due to wingspan variance. As seen, the gaps
between winglet length and corresponding wingspan increase as we increase in the
winglet length.

26

9. Limitations & Errors

9.1 Winglet
The winglets required better construction as the use of recycled cardboard resulted in
extrusions on some winglets, which effected vibration and movement of the entire
aerofoil that could not be accounted for. This contributed to the 22% random error
that was propagated and originated from the initial fluctuations in lift reading that was
recorded. The error on mass readings only transmitted a 2.86% error, this comprised
of errors originating from the aerofoil and winglets, wind speed frequency, and wind
tunnel combined.

9.2 Aerofoil
The aerofoil used in experimentation was accurately constructed. It was produced
using the Design Technology Laser cutter. The card was carefully pasted tightly to
the aerofoil frame to create a smooth surface. Unfortunately where the pole was
attached to the aerofoil, there will have been some disturbance in the air flow over
this area and therefore caused some error on readings and again would have
contributed to the error calculated due to mass fluctuation. Measuring the aerofoil
proved to generate the largest error. An 18% error was calculated from the calculation
of planform area. To avoid this problem, one of two things could have been done, a
more accurate measuring device could have been used, or a larger wing should have
been used. By increasing the scale of the aerofoil model, percentage errors begin to
decrease although absolute errors remain the same.

9.3 Wind Tunnel

The wind tunnel propagated most error on readings when using longer winglet
lengths. The problems originated from the size of the wind tunnel, due to the
increasing length of the wing tips. As length increased, the winglets neared the ceiling
of the wind tunnel. Increasing vibrations were observed as the length of the winglet
increased as air travelled along the edge of the winglet toward the ceiling and
rebounded back causing down force as well as movement. This can be seen clearly in
Figure 3.0 above, where the error bars increase as the length of the winglets increases.
The error was generated from the increasing fluctuations on the weighing scale
increasing the random error produced. As mentioned above, (shown in Table 2.0) the
final two results were heavily affected by this phenomenon causing reductions in the
lift rather than increases. Furthermore, the airspeed produced by the air blower caused
further fluctuations of mass due to slight variances in wind speed. More concise
construction of the wind tunnel, paying close attention to reducing random, lateral
movements would have eliminated mass fluctuation on the readings.

27

10. Conclusion
The research that was conducted on the NACA 0015 aerofoil, had the aim:
To investigate how the length of a wingtip will effect the lift of an aerofoil
The lift was analysed and compared to theoretical data backing the reliability of the
capacity for the NACA 0015 aerofoil. The tests were done in a stable environment in
a self-constructed wind tunnel at Re 32,477 and = 8.0. It was discovered that a
linear relationship exists between the length of the winglet and the amount of lift that
is produced on an aerofoil. It was observed that as the length of the winglet is
increased, there is a corresponding increase in the lift that is produced by the aerofoil.
It was expected that the amount of lift produced by the aerofoil would level at a
maximum point, due to the vortices no longer leaking from beneath the wing to atop.
This was observed through lift reduction in longer winglets where they became less
effective.
To further investigate the capacity of increasing the winglet length, the data was
compared to data comparing lift to a corresponding increase in wingspan. It was noted
from this that at shorter winglet lengths there was comparable lift produced with a
corresponding increase in wingspan. At greater winglet lengths there was a reduction
in lift produced thus making an increase in wingspan more effective then increase in
winglet length. The data is conclusive whereby increasing winglet length, wingspan
can be reduced, with lift remaining constant.
The data is conclusive; winglet length has a linear relationship to the lift that is
produced by the aerofoil. From this, we must begin to consider the costs. Which is
more cost effective? Are the use of winglets a comparable lift enhancing mechanism
compared to the simple increase in wingspan on a construction cost standpoint?

28

11. Appendix
11. 1 Nomenclature
c

Chord

Span

True airspeed

Lift force

CL

Coefficient of Lift

Re

Reynolds number

Angle of attack

Air density

Gravity

Planform area

Dynamic viscosity

Kinematic viscosity

Characteristic linear dimension

Mass

Gravity6

Pressure

Temperature

Specific gas constant for dry air 7

Winglet length

AR

Aspect Ratio

6
7

Acceleration due to Gravity, g as 9.81 m s-2 (TheEngineeringToolBox.com 2013)

Specific Gas Constant (Dry Air) as 287 K-1 kg-1

29

11.2 Table 1 NACA 0015 aerofoil coordinates

Upper Surface
X
Y
1.000000
0.001580
0.950000
0.010080
0.900000
0.018100
0.800000
0.032790
0.700000
0.045800
0.600000
0.057040
0.500000
0.066170
0.400000
0.072540
0.300000
0.075020
0.250000
0.074270
0.200000
0.071720
0.150000
0.066820
0.100000
0.058530
0.075000
0.052500
0.050000
0.044430
0.025000
0.032680
0.012500
0.023670
0.000000
0.000000

Lower Surface
X
Y
0.000000
0.000000
0.012500
-0.023670
0.025000
-0.032680
0.050000
-0.044430
0.075000
-0.052500
0.100000
-0.058530
0.150000
-0.066820
0.200000
-0.071720
0.250000
-0.074270
0.300000
-0.075020
0.400000
-0.072540
0.500000
-0.066170
0.600000
-0.057040
0.700000
-0.045800
0.800000
-0.032790
0.900000
-0.018100
0.950000
-0.010080
1.000000
-0.001580

30

11.3 Table of Results

Trial #1

Trial #2

Trial #3

Winglet Length (m)

0.001m

Initial Mass (g)

0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.100
Winglet Length (m) 0.001 Initial Mass (g)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.100
Winglet Length (m) 0.001 Initial Mass (g)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.100

Final Mass (g)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-3.7 0.2
-4.1 0.1
-4.6 0.3
-5.0 0.2
-5.6 0.3
-6.2 0.4
-7.2 0.2
-7.8 0.3
-7.0 0.3
-5.2 0.4
Final Mass (g)
-3.5 0.3
-4.0 0.2
-4.8 0.2
-5.2 0.2
-5.4 0.1
-6.0 0.3
-6.7 0.3
-7.5 0.2
-6.8 0.1
-4.9 0.4
Final Mass (g)
-3.5 0.2
-3.9 0.1
-4.5 0.3
-5.1 0.2
-5.6 0.2
-6.2 0.2
-7.0 0.4
-7.6 0.3
-7.0 0.1
-5.0 0.4

Table 5.0 Raw experimental data Trials 1-3

31

Trial #4

Trial #5

Trial #6

Winglet Length (m) 0.001 Initial Mass (g)

0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.100
Winglet Length (m) 0.001 Initial Mass (g)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.100
Winglet Length (m) 0.001 Initial Mass (g)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.100

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Final Mass (g)

-3.6 0.3
-4.2 0.2
-4.6 0.2
-5.1 0.1
-5.5 0.2
-5.9 0.3
-6.2 0.4
-7.4 0.2
-7.3 0.2
-5.3 0.4
Final Mass (g)
-3.6 0.2
-4.3 0.1
-4.5 0.1
-4.9 0.1
-5.2 0.1
-6.0 0.3
-6.6 0.3
-7.3 0.3
-6.7 0.2
-4.7 0.4
Final Mass (g)
-3.8 0.2
-4.1 0.2
-4.4 0.3
-5.1 0.3
-5.6 0.1
-6.0 0.2
-6.8 0.1
-7.7 0.1
-7.0 0.3
-5.1 0.5

Table 5.1 Raw experimental data Trials 4-6

32

Bibliography
Adobe. "Adobe Illustrator." May 2012.
Airfoil Investigation Database. NACA 0015. AID. 2013.
http://www.airfoildb.com/foils/377 (accessed August 9, 2013).
Alexander, Greg, Brown Aaron, and Doug Jackson. Lift Coefficient & Thin Airfoil
Theory. Edited by Jeff Scott. 2012.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0136.shtml (accessed
August 5, 2013).
Burns, Peter M., and Marina Novelli. Tourism and Mobilities: Local-Global
Connections. Edited by Peter M. Burns and Marina Novelli. Trowbridge:
Cromwell Press, 2008.
Coorperate Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness
(COSCAP). "Aerdrome Standards." Aerodrome Design and Operations. 3.
Vol. 14. PDF. Prod. International Civil Aviation Organization. International
Civil Aviation Organization, July 1999.
Elsevier. Constants and Conversions for Atmospheric Science. Elsevier.
http://www.elsevierdirect.com/companions/9780127329512/Table%20of%20
Constants%20and%20Conversion.pdf (accessed August 8, 2013).
Frederiksen. Air Blower 230V 50Hz. Frederiksen. 2013.
http://www.frederiksen.eu/en/products/vnr/197060/?no_cache=1 (accessed
August 4, 2013).
Hepperle, Martin. JavaFoil - Analysis of Airfoils. Edited by Martin Hepperle. Martin
Hepperle. 2006. http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm (accessed
September 3, 2013).
Illinois Aviation Hall of Fame. Hall of Fame Members: William E. "Billie"
Sommerville. Illinois Aviation Hall of Fame. 2010.
http://www.ilavhalloffame.org/members_10.htm (accessed August 5, 2013).
Jacobs, N. E., E. K. Ward, and R. M. Pinkerton. The characteristics of 78 related
aifoil sections from tests in the variable - density wind tunnel. National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NACA, 1933.
Johnson, D. A., W. D. Bachalo, and F. K. Owen . Transonic Flow Past a Symmetrical
Airfoil at High Angle of Attack . Research, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics , New York : Journal of Aircraft , 1981, 14.
Megafactories: Learjet. Documentary. Produced by National Geographic. Performed
by National Geographic. Fox Networks, 2012.
Michigan State University. Error Propagation. Michigan State University.
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/labs/error/e2.htm#M (accessed August
8, 2013).
NASA: A. Reynolds Number. Edited by Tom Benson. Tom Benson. May 22, 2009.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/reynolds.html (accessed August
05, 2013).
NASA: A. The Lift Equation. Edited by Tom Benson. Tom Benson. July 28, 2010.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/lifteq.html (accessed August
06, 2013).
NASA: B. The Lift Coefficient. Edited by Tom Benson. Tom Benson. April 09, 2009.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/liftco.html (accessed August
05, 2013).

33

NASA: C. Effect of Size on Lift. Edited by Tom Benson. Tom Benson. July 28, 2010.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/size.html (accessed September
14, 2013).
NASA. Downwash Effect on Lift. Edited by Tom Benson. Tom Benson. July 11,
2008. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/downwash.html
(accessed August 2, 2013).
Ning, Andrew S., and Ilan Froo. Tip Extensions, Winglets, and C - Wings: Conceptual
Design and Opimization. PhD Thesis, Department of Aeronatics &
Astronautics, Stanford University , Honolulu: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008, 33.
Punsiri Dam-o. How to Build a Homemade Wind Tunnel? [Video]. Edited by Punsiri
Dam-o. Punsiri Dam-o. October 23, 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q0nx0_Dgc (accessed August 06, 2013).
The Physics Classroom A. Free Fall and Air Resistance. Edited by Tom Henderson.
Tom Henderson. 2013.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l3e.cfm (accessed
August 20, 2013).
The Physics Classroom B. Newton's Second Law. Edited by Tom Henderson. Tom
Henderson. 2013.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l3a.cfm (accessed
August 4, 2013).
The Physics Classroom C. Newton's Third Law. Edited by Tom Henderson. Tom
Henderson. 2013.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm (accessed
August 2, 2013).
The Physics Classroom D. Universal Gravitation. Edited by Tom Henderson. Tom
Henderson. 2013. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l3e.cfm
(accessed August 9, 2013).
TheEngineeringToolBox.com. Acceleration of Gravity & Newton's Second Law.
2013. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/accelaration-gravity-d_340.html
(accessed August 20, 2013).
University of Illinois. UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Edited by Mark Barton, et
al. University of Illinois. 2013. http://www.ae.illinois.edu/mselig/ads/coord_database.html (accessed August 5, 2013).
Weather Underground. Weather History for Singapore, Singapore. June 15, 2013.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/WSSS/2013/6/15/DailyHistory.
html? (accessed August 5, 2013).

34