19 views

Original Title: Aero Lab

Uploaded by Olabode George Brown

- Aircraft Final 2
- AIAA-2011-1916
- Han 2009
- AERODYNAMICS 1-AE 2251 Lesson Plan
- 20050019364_2005009835
- 20101536_SafetyFirst-11-Toconsult
- 19 MacCormack Technique
- Norwegian Hydrofoils
- IJMET_08_01_004.pdf
- hoffman mae561 hw2 narrative
- Thin Airfoil Theory
- Two Dimensional Tests of GA(W)-1 and GA(W)-2 Airfoils
- guiaLabSustentacionArrastre_folioSimetrico
- Experimental Study on Laminar Separation Bubble by Means of Surface Oil Flow Over an Airfoil
- WDC Aerodynamics Module v20110118
- R/C Soaring Digest - Jul 2010
- Drag of marine vehicles
- PILOT’S HANDBOOK of Aeronautical Knowledge AC61-23C
- Pou40Q42010
- Mathematics in Structural Engineering, Course, Dr.colin Caprani

You are on page 1of 17

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Olabode Brown, Lab Group D1, Olabode.Brown.1@city.ac.uk

Abstract

The study of pressure distribution is a vital part of the field of

Aerodynamics. Efficient aerodynamic design is a big factor is creating

efficient aircrafts and vehicles. Aerofoils are shapes of wings that produce

aerodynamic force very well, as they can create pressure differences

between their upper surface and their lower surface. The angle of attack

an aerofoil is set at can influence how much lift the aerofoil generates.

Varying pressure acts normal to the surface of an aerofoil. The amount of

pressure depends on the angle of attack and the design of the aerofoil, or

perhaps the symmetry of the aerofoil. This then determines how much lift

the aerofoil produces. The objective of this experiment was to

investigative how pressure varies across a symmetrical aerofoil at

different angles of attack and how this affects the amount of lift the

aerofoil will produce. This will be done by mounting a symmetrical aerofoil

in a wind tunnel and measuring the pressure at different point on the

aerofoil using pressure tappings connected to a manometer. The

recordings will then be used to plot graphs that tell how the pressure

varies across the aerofoil at different angles of attack, and ultimately tell

the variation of lift with different angles of attack. The results appeared to

be coherent with assumptions and predictions, although the experiment

could have been improved in terms of the reproducibility of the recordings

as well as various human errors.

Introduction

The aim of this experiment was to determine the pressure distribution

around a symmetrical aerofoil. This should then lead to determining the

normal resultant force acting on the aerofoil and hence, outline a lift-curve

slope. It was expected that the angle of attack of 0 on a symmetrical

aerofoil should generate a minimal lift of approximately equal to zero and

the stalling angle of a symmetrical aerofoil should be between 7 and 12.

This study of aerodynamics is essential in the fields of aeronautics and

motorsport; as this enables engineers to find angles of attack that would

produce maximum lift and minimum drag, which leads to lower fuel

consumption on an aircraft or a Formula 1 car. Of course, this does not

only apply to fighter planes and Formula 1 cars, as trains and consumer

cars for example also benefit from findings in this area of study. The basic

principle of lift generation is due to a pressure difference between the

suction surface of an aerofoil, and the pressure surface. The suction

surface is the surface which air is travelling at a higher velocity relative to

the pressure surface and hence according to Bernoullis equation, a lower

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 1 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

pressure is being exerted on it. The net result of the pressure distribution

results in an upwards force that acts normal to the chord of the aerofoil,

which is known as Lift. (Leishman et al, 2006) In aeronautics the suction

surface is the top surface and in motorsport, the suction surface is the

bottom surface. The occurrence of a pressure difference between the top

and bottom surface of an aerofoil can also be explained with Newtons

second law of motion, which is based on the principle of conservation of

momentum. If an aerofoil was set at an arbitrary angle of attack, which is

the angle between the chord of an aerofoil and the direction of flow of the

fluid, the fluid flow will separate at the leading edge; so in order to

conform to Newtons second law, the two points in their respective

streamlines will have to meet at the same point at the same time at the

trailing edge. For this to happen, the streamline at the top surface would

have to accelerate while the streamline at the bottom surface would have

to decelerate. This can then be related to Bernoullis equation to explain

the generation of lift.

However, there are some cases where theoretically, zero lift should be

generated on an aerofoil. In this experiment, the pressure distribution was

investigated around a symmetrical aerofoil; which is an aerofoil of equal

curvature at the top and bottom surface along its longitudinal axis. In this

case of a symmetrical aerofoil, the chord is the line joining the leading

edge and the trailing edge. Because of this, separated fluid flow will have

to travel the same distance to the trailing edge at an angle of attack of 0,

so no difference in pressure is created and hence, no lift is generated. (City

University London, 2012) Contrast to this is a cambered aerofoil, which is

in laymans terms, an asymmetrical aerofoil. Even at an angle of attack of

0, a cambered aerofoil will still generate lift, although minimal, due to its

asymmetry. Lift should increase for both aerofoils as the angle of attack

increases until the lift reaches a peak; the corresponding angle is known as

the stalling angle, and this is the angle of attack where drag becomes

significant. (Anderson, 2001) Cambered aerofoils will stall at a lower angle

of attack relative to symmetrical aerofoils but will generate a higher lift

coefficient at the same angle of attack as a symmetrical aerofoil.

(Leishman et al, 2006)

Theory

As it has already been established, lift is generated due to the pressure

distribution on the aerofoil. In fact, shear stresses act on the aerofoil as

well due to viscous effects. When a fluid moves past a body, viscosity of

the fluid causes it to stick to the body; this is known as the no-slip

condition, which is where the velocity of the fluid is zero relative to the

boundary at the boundary layer. (Garratt et al, 1994) This creates a

velocity gradient which results in viscous shear stresses according to

Newtons law of viscosity. These stresses are parallel to the chord of an

aerofoil and is what causes drag on an aerofoil but not much light will be

shed on this as the objective of this experiment is based around the lift

generated on an aerofoil.

Olabode Brown

Page 2 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

coefficient of pressure, which is non-dimensional. This can be determined

by:

C P=

PP

1/2 U 2

(1)

of the free stream fluid and U is the free stream velocity. The coefficient of

pressure can also be expressed in terms of head. This can be derived from

equation 1 to give:

C P=

hh s

ha h s

(2)

where h s and ha are the static pressure in the working section and the

atmospheric pressure respectively in terms of head, and h is the

pressure at the point being investigated. (City University London, 2012)

The coefficient of pressure can also be stated in terms of velocity with the

use of Bernoullis equation to give:

V

V

C P=1

(3)

where V is the velocity of the point in interest and V is the velocity

of the free stream fluid. (Leishman et al, 2006) The coefficient of pressure

essentially describes the relative pressure throughout the flow field. The

equations above are only valid for incompressible fluids; other parameters

would have to be considered for compressible flows. Although air, the fluid

in use in the experiment, is not an incompressible fluid, it can be

considered so as it will be travelling at relatively low speeds, (< Mach 0.3).

For incompressible fluids, the coefficient of pressure cannot exceed 1;

when the coefficient of pressure is equal to 1, this means the pressure in

interest is equal to the stagnation pressure, which is the highest possible

pressure experienced by the body. At this point the velocity of the fluid will

be 0. In this case of the coefficient of pressure being 0, the pressure in

interest will be equal to the atmospheric pressure. The only time the

coefficient of pressure will exceed 1 is in the case of compressible fluids.

(White, 2011)

Olabode Brown

Page 3 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

until a certain point, known as the stalling angle. This is due to a

separation point occurring on the aerofoil, which is where the boundary

layer parts from the surface of the aerofoil (Mathieu, 2000). Vortices and

eddies start to form in the fluid flow past the separation point. Past the

stalling angle, if the angle of attack is further increased, the separation

point moves up towards the leading edge. The lift can also be represented

as a ratio known as the coefficient of lift, which is defined as:

C L=

L

1/2 U 2

(4)

Just like how force is an integral of pressure, the coefficient of pressure can

also be integrated to give the coefficient of lift; this is expressed as:

x

c

C P d ()

C L =

(5)

This basically states that the coefficient of lift is the cyclic integral of

coefficient of pressure. The coefficient of lift can also be expressed as the

integral of the difference of the coefficient of pressure between the upper

and lower surface of an aerofoil.

The Reynolds number, which is the ratio of inertial forces and viscous

forces acting on the aerofoil, will also need to be determined. This can be

done using:

=

Uc

(6)

Where U is the tunnel speed, c is the chord length in metres and is the

kinematic viscosity of air. However in order to calculate this, the tunnel

speed first needs to be determined. This can be using:

1/ 2 U 2= m g ( hsha ) sin

(7)

Where and m are the densities of air and the manometer fluid

respectively. The density of air may be determined from the equation of

state which is:

Olabode Brown

Page 4 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

P

RT

(8)

the gas constant for air, which is 287 kJ/kgK.

Experimental Arrangement

For this experiment, a lift-curve slope will be determined from the

coefficient of pressure taken at 15 different points on the symmetrical

aerofoil. The aerofoil will be mounted in the working section of a wind

tunnel with a fan located at the outlet of the wind tunnel. A motor powers

the fan to suck air from the inlet to flow past the aerofoil. This is so that a

situation in where disturbed flow occurs due to the fan blowing air at the

aerofoil can be prevented. The contraction at the inlet of the working

section enables the flow to be throttled before reaching the aerofoil.

Pressure tappings are located at the 15 points to be investigated; which

include points at the leading edge, the top and surface, and the trailing

edge. These pressure tappings will then be connected to an inclined

manometer via hypodermic tubes. The use of an inclined manometer

increases the resolution in the changes of pressure; which means that the

manometer will be sensitive to small changes in pressure. The manometer

is inclined at 30.9 to the horizontal. 2 other pressure tappings will be

connected to the inclined manometer, which will be measuring the local

static free stream pressure and the atmospheric pressure. The pressure

readings will be taken at 5 different angles of attack: -5, 0, 5, 10 and

16. The fluid used in the manometer is an alcohol spirit, with a density of

around 830 kg /m3 . The pressure tappings are placed normal to the aerofoil

as pressure acts normal to the surface of an aerofoil. While the experiment

is running, a rise in fluid in the manometer should indicate a decrease in

pressure tapping at the point corresponding to the tube number. The

manometer readings were taken in inches.

The pressure reading of the 5 different angles of attack are then tabulated

in order plot graphs of the pressure distributions of the top and bottom

surface of the aerofoil for the angles of attack. The coefficient of pressure

will be plotted against the ratio of the distance from the pressure tapping

to the leading edge against the chord length; this can be denoted as x/c.

In order to comply with the direction in which the lift and down force acts,

the y-axis will be flipped over so that negative coefficients of pressure are

plotted on top of positive coefficients of pressure. A graph plotting the

coefficient of lift against the angles of attack will then be generated from

the coefficient of pressure-versus-x/c graphs. This is due to the fact that

the coefficient of lift is an integral of the coefficient of pressure; so this will

be done by finding the area underneath (and above) the coefficient of

pressure curves. An alternative version of the trapezium rule will used in

finding the coefficient of lift at the varying angles of attack. This is

because the strips within the curves are not equal. The expected stalling

Olabode Brown

Page 5 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

angle should be between 7 and 12. Therefore, a line of best fit should be

drawn for the angles of attack that have linear coefficient of lift. The

gradient of this should be equal to the theoretical value of 2 radians.

Wind

Tunnel

Outlet

(a

)

Wind

Tunnel

- Inlet

Working

Fan

section

Figure 1 (a) Experimental arrangement. Flow is throttled past an aerofoil in

Inclined

order to measure pressure at different point on an aerofoil with an inclined

Manomet

manometer. (b) Closer view of the working section; pressure tappings are

er

connected to the inclined manometer via hypodermic tubes.

Symmetrical Aerofoil

Olabode

Brown tubes

Hypodermic

Page 6 of 17

(b

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Figure 3 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 0.

Figure 5 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 10.

Figure 6 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 16.

Results

Olabode Brown

Page 7 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

The dashed line represents the line of best fit in Figure 7 with the equation

of the line also being depicted. The speed of the wind tunnel during the

experiment was determined to be 27.1m/s; therefore the Reynolds number

was determined to be 1.58 x 105 . The calculations of the tunnel speed and

the Reynolds number can be found in Appendix C.

Discussion

In Figure 2, the stagnation point, which is where the maximum pressure on

the aerofoil occurs, was at the upper surface close to the leading edge. It

was 0.05 inches away from the leading edge. The coefficient of pressure

was +0.75. The boundary layer does not part from the surface of the

aerofoil until it reaches the trailing edge; this implies that a minimal

amount of drag occurs on the aerofoil at this angle of attack. The peak

suction, which is the maximum negative of the coefficient of pressure the

aerofoil experiences at this angle of attack, is -2.14. This occurs at the

lower surface near the leading edge. The value of the coefficient of

pressure at the trailing edge is -0.14; this suggests that a suction force is

acting here. In Figure 2 the angle of attack is -5.

In Figure 3, the aerofoil is now angled at 0. The stagnation pressure has

now increased; this suggests a decrease in lift. The coefficient of pressure

for the stagnation point was +0.81 and was located at the leading edge.

As this angle of attack is at 0, the separation point seems to be at the

trailing edge. The peak suction has however now decreased to a

coefficient of pressure of -0.84. This sharp decrease in coefficient of

pressure draws a parallel to the lift. This occurs at the lower surface of the

aerofoil around the centre of the chord. The value of the coefficient of

pressure at the trailing edge was -0.08; this value is also lower than the

value obtained from Figure 2, which implies a decrease in the net force

exerted on the aerofoil.

In Figure 4, the stagnation point has decreased to a coefficient of pressure

value of +0.65. It would appear that lift on the aerofoil has increased. This

is also located at the leading edge. The separation point at this angle of

attack again seems to occur at the trailing edge of the aerofoil. The peak

suction now increases to -1.27 on the upper surface 0.18 inches away from

the leading edge of the aerofoil. This suggests that the lift has been

increased relative to the aerofoil with an angle of attack of 0. The value of

the coefficient of pressure at the trailing edge is now -0.11, which also

supports the impression of the lift increasing on this angle of attack.

In Figure 5, the aerofoil is now at an angle of 10. The stagnation point has

increased to a coefficient of pressure value of +0.73, which is located at

the lower surface of the aerofoil, near the leading edge. The flow

separation point is still located at the trailing edge, meaning that the lift

coefficient is still linear with the angle of attack. The peak suction of the

Olabode Brown

Page 8 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

-2.51, which occurs at the lower surface of the aerofoil, near the leading

edge. The coefficient of pressure at the trailing edge has further increased

to -0.19.

In Figure 6, the aerofoil has an angle of attack of 16. The stagnation point

now reaches a maximum from all the angles of attack of a value of

coefficient of pressure of +0.83. This is located at the lower surface of the

aerofoil, near the leading edge. A flow separation point is now present at

this angle of attack. This occurs at the upper surface of the aerofoil 1.23

inches from the leading edge. This suggests that the stalling angle has

either been reached or exceeded at this angle of attack. The peak suction

of the aerofoil at this angle of attack has a coefficient of pressure value of

-1. The coefficient of pressure at the trailing edge is -0.46, which is the

minimum relative to all angles of attack.

Based on the areas within the curves of the coefficient of pressure-versusx/c graphs, it would seem the greatest lift achieved from all the angles of

attack was at 10; suggesting that the peak lift was close to this angle.

Generally, it seems that the region on the aerofoil that contributes to the

most lift is around the leading edge. This is because that the region where

the peak suction generally occurred at all the angles of attack. This could

be due to the stagnation point also generally being around the leading

edge. Theoretically, the coefficient of pressure should be equal to +1 at

the stagnation point but due to factors such as boundary layers, the actual

values obtained at the various angles of attack vary, all falling under the

theoretical value, which could be due to viscous effects. It can also be

seen that as the angle of attack was increased, the stagnation point

lowered. The boundary layer separating from the surface of the aerofoil

can be seen on the graphs where the coefficient of pressure becomes

constant. This differs from a shock wave which would be depicted as a

sharp drop or an expansion wave which would be depicted by a sharp rise.

Although this means that the coefficient of pressure line should be flat, it

does not seem so on the graphs; this is due to the pressure trying to

maintain equilibrium.

In the lift coefficient-versus-angle of attack graph, the lift coefficient

increases with the angle of attack until it reaches a limit stall point; just

as expected. The lift coefficient should have a value of zero at an angle of

attack of 0, but it is slightly lower than 0. This could be due to offset

errors when placing the aerofoil in the working section, or even the surface

of the aerofoil exhibiting warping as the aerofoil is made of wood.

Downwash could also be an explanation to this. These factors seem to be

the cause behind the reason that a minimal amount of lift is generated at

an angle of attack of 0, according to the graph. Because of this, it seems

that no lift is generated at an angle of attack of about 1.5. According to

the graph, the stalling angle, which is where the lift coefficient is at a

maximum, is around 12-13. After the stall point, the lift coefficient is

supposed to decrease quite significantly, however the graph depicts the

lift coefficient being constant. This is due to lift coefficient being measured

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 9 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

between these two angles of attack. The gradient of the linear line of best

fit taken from angles of attack of -5 to 10 comes to 0.0983 per degree.

This compares to the theoretical value of 0.1097 per degree as having an

error of 10%. This deviation could be due to the offset errors stated before.

Reynolds number was calculated to be 1.579 x 105 . Compared to the

Reynolds number of full-scale aerofoils, which is around 3050 x 10 6 , this

is quite insignificant. Reynolds number plays a big role in determining

turbulent flow. Laminar flow occurs at Reynolds number less than or equal

to 3.2 x 105 /m , which the Reynolds of the aerofoil is well under. At Reynolds

numbers of full-scale aerofoils, viscous forces are insignificant relative to

inertial force, primarily due to the chord length of the aerofoil.

Error Analysis

A certain amount of errors were recognized from the experiment. In terms

of reading the measurements off the manometer, several factors could

have influenced the recording of the results. Firstly, due to capillary action,

the top of the alcohol spirit in the manometer exhibits a concave

meniscus. Because of this, some measurements were taken from the

bottom of the meniscus and some from the top, which led to inconsistent

results. Errors could have also resulted from parallax error while recording

results from the manometer. Other errors in the experiment originated

from the offset error that occurred while placing the aerofoil in the working

section. One set of measurements were chosen in calculating the

percentage uncertainty of the coefficient of pressure; in this case, Tapping

No. 6 was chosen. The percentage uncertainty were the following: 1.58%

at AoA of -5, 1.52% at AoA of 0, 1.53% at AoA of 5, 1.61% at AoA of 10

and 1.43% at AoA of 16. The uncertainty of the coefficient of lift and the

lift curve slope were estimated from error bars on their respective graphs

based on the uncertainties of the coefficient of pressure. These can be

found along with the calculations of the percentage uncertainties of the

coefficient of pressure of one reading at the various angles of attack in

Appendix .

Conclusions

The aim of the experiment was to determine the pressure distribution

around a symmetrical aerofoil in order to determine the lift at varying

angles of attack. It was expected that no lift was to be generated on the

aerofoil at an angle of attack of 0. But in the results, it seems like lift was

generated at the stated angle. This could be an error due to an error of

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 10 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

degree when mounting the aerofoil in the working section. The gradient of

the linear region of the lift coefficient-versus-angle of attack also deviates

from the theoretical value to possible errors and viscous effects acting on

the aerofoil. An improvement to the experiment could be taking readings

more than once. This could improve the results in terms of accuracy. Other

improvements that could be made to the experiment could be taking

measurements at finer angles as this created vagueness in the graph. The

reproducibility in this experiment could also be questioned. Perhaps a

more accurate means of recording data could be implemented if the

experiment was to be repeated.

References

Anderson J.D. (2001) Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 3rd Edition, New York:

McGraw Hill

City University London (2012) Engineering Laboratory Instruction Booklet,

(Unpublished), pp15-18

Garratt J.R., Dessler A.J., Houghton J.T., Rycroft M.J., (1994) The

Atmospheric Boundary Layer Cambridge Atmospheric & Space Sciences

Series No. 5, New York: Cambridge University Press

Leishman J.G., Rycroft M.J., Shyy W. (2006) Principles of Helicopter

Aerodynamics Cambridge University Aerospace Series No. 12, 2nd Edition,

New York: Cambridge University Press

Mathieu J., Scott J. (2000) An Introduction to Turbulent Flow, New York:

Cambridge University Press

White F. M. (2011) Fluid Mechanics, 7th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill

Olabode Brown

Page 11 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Appendices

Appendix A Tabulation of Data

inches

Tapping

No.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Tube

No.

2

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

x

(inches

)

0

0.05

0.18

0.53

1.23

1.75

2.45

3.15

0.09

0.26

0.88

1.49

2.1

2.8

3.5

ha

hs

-5

8

4.5

6

7.3

8.2

8.2

8.2

7.9

14.9

13

11.9

10.8

9.8

8.5

7.7

3.6

7.2

0

4.4

6.9

8.9

9.2

9.3

9.7

8.8

8.2

10

10.3

10.5

10

9.6

9

7.7

3.7

7.4

Olabode Brown

5

4.9

11.1

12

11.8

10.2

9.8

9

8.2

6.4

7.9

9.1

9.1

9

8.5

7.7

3.6

7.3

10

9.9

16.3

15.4

12.2

10.5

9.8

8.7

8.1

4.3

5.9

7.6

8

8.2

7.9

7.7

3.3

7

16

8.7

11.6

11.8

11.4

10.9

10.8

10.5

10

4.3

5.4

7.3

7.8

8.4

8.5

9.6

3.6

7.7

Page 12 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Table 1 Tabulation of data recorded during

experiment

Tappin

g No.

Tube

No.

x in

-5

Pressure Coefficient

0

5

10

x/c

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

14

2

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

16

0.00

0.05

0.18

0.53

1.23

1.75

2.45

3.15

3.50

-0.22

0.75

0.33

-0.03

-0.28

-0.28

-0.28

-0.19

-0.14

0.81

0.14

-0.41

-0.49

-0.51

-0.62

-0.38

-0.22

-0.08

0.65

-1.03

-1.27

-1.22

-0.78

-0.68

-0.46

-0.24

-0.11

-0.78

-2.51

-2.27

-1.41

-0.95

-0.76

-0.46

-0.30

-0.19

-0.24

-0.95

-1.00

-0.90

-0.78

-0.76

-0.68

-0.56

-0.46

0

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0.00

0.09

0.26

0.88

1.49

2.10

2.80

3.50

-0.22

-2.14

-1.61

-1.31

-1.00

-0.72

-0.36

-0.14

0.81

-0.70

-0.78

-0.84

-0.70

-0.59

-0.43

-0.08

0.65

0.24

-0.16

-0.49

-0.49

-0.46

-0.32

-0.11

-0.78

0.73

0.30

-0.16

-0.27

-0.32

-0.24

-0.19

-0.24

0.83

0.56

0.10

-0.02

-0.17

-0.20

-0.46

Leading

Edge

Upper

Surface

Trailing Edge

Leading

Edge

Lower

Surface

Trailing Edge

coefficient of lift.

0.00

0.01

0.05

0.15

0.35

0.50

0.70

0.90

1.00

Total

0.00

0.02

0.02

-0.03

-0.04

-0.06

-0.05

-0.02

-0.15

0.00

0.03

0.07

0.25

0.43

0.60

0.80

1.00

Total

Cl +

Cl Cl

-0.03

-0.09

-0.26

-0.20

-0.15

-0.11

-0.05

-0.89

-1.04

0.74

-0.74

and graphs with error bars of coefficient of lift and lift curve slope

% Uncertainty:

||

C p h6 + h s ha + h s

=

+

x 100

Cp

h6 + h6

ha +h s

AoA: -5

Olabode Brown

-5

16

Page 13 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

=

+

x 100=1.58

Cp

8.2+7.2

3.6+ 7.2

AoA: 0

||

=

+

x 100=1.52

Cp

8.8+7.4

3.7+7.4

||

AoA: 5

C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05

=

+

x 100=1.53

Cp

9+7.3

3.6+ 7.3

||

AoA: 10

C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05

=

+

x 100=1.61

Cp

8.7+7

3.3+7

||

AoA: 16

C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05

=

+

x 100=1.43

Cp

10.5+7.7

3.6+7.7

||

coefficient of pressure

Figure 8 Graph-3.0

displaying errors bars of lift

coefficient at AoA of -5

-2.0

Cp

coefficient at AoA of 0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/c

Olabode Brown

Page 14 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

1.00

f(x) = 0.1x - 0.21

0.50

Coefficient of Lift CL

0.00

-5

0

10

15

-0.50

-1.00

Angle of Attack a

-3.0

-2.0

Cp

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/c

-3.0

-2.0

Cp

-1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/c

Olabode Brown

Page 15 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

Cp

0.0

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/c

-3.0

Figure 10 Graph displaying errors bars of lift

-2.0of 5

coefficient at AoA

coefficient at AoA of 10

-1.0

Cp

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x/c

Tunnel Speed

FigureFirstly,

12 Graph

displaying

of lift

the

densityerrors

of airbars

was

determined Figure

using equation

8. This came

out of lift

13 Graph displaying

errors bars

coefficient at AoA of 16

curve slope

to be:

5

1 x 10 Pa

=1.17 kg m3

1 1

( 0.287 kJ kg K )(298 K)

This then density was used in equation 7 to determine the tunnel speed.

This came out to be:

U=

=27.1 m s1

3

1.17 k g m

This was then used in equation 6 to determine the Reynolds Number of the

aerofoil; which came out to be:

=

(27.1 ms1)(0.0875m)

=1.58 x 105

5 2 1

1.5 x 10 m s

Olabode Brown

Page 16 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

pressure and the static pressure in the free stream can be expressed as:

P=ghsin

(9)

And:

P= gh s sin

get:

1

2

PT = U + gz + Ps

2

(10)

Gravitational influences can be ignored as there are negligible changes in

elevation, giving:

1

PT = U 2 + P s

2

Equation 1 & 10 can be substituted into the equation and rearranged to

make the coefficient of pressure the subject, giving equation 2.

Olabode Brown

Page 17 of 17

- Aircraft Final 2Uploaded byYogesh Raikwar
- AIAA-2011-1916Uploaded byRamaleela Kannan
- Han 2009Uploaded byVishal Antil
- AERODYNAMICS 1-AE 2251 Lesson PlanUploaded bykevintsubasa
- 20050019364_2005009835Uploaded bybambsoe
- 20101536_SafetyFirst-11-ToconsultUploaded bydeltaserrapapa
- 19 MacCormack TechniqueUploaded bykkkraja
- Norwegian HydrofoilsUploaded byncharala
- IJMET_08_01_004.pdfUploaded byIAEME Publication
- hoffman mae561 hw2 narrativeUploaded byapi-245259852
- Thin Airfoil TheoryUploaded byAli Al-hamaly
- Two Dimensional Tests of GA(W)-1 and GA(W)-2 AirfoilsUploaded byVincenzo Praturlon
- guiaLabSustentacionArrastre_folioSimetricoUploaded bymogrotelli
- Experimental Study on Laminar Separation Bubble by Means of Surface Oil Flow Over an AirfoilUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- WDC Aerodynamics Module v20110118Uploaded byShirat Mohsin
- R/C Soaring Digest - Jul 2010Uploaded byAviation/Space History Library
- Drag of marine vehiclesUploaded byAmeer Bakry Zulkiffli
- PILOT’S HANDBOOK of Aeronautical Knowledge AC61-23CUploaded bysnewman2020
- Pou40Q42010Uploaded byMoi le Sage
- Mathematics in Structural Engineering, Course, Dr.colin CapraniUploaded bymexces
- ShirtsUploaded byAngela Wolfe
- Aerodynamics Experiment a1 m[1].o.hyjaniUploaded byJuan Nightstand
- crane ATF-1000XL.pdfUploaded byTrươngPhi
- DFIG Based Wind Turbine Contribution to System Frequency ControlUploaded byHazrul_Mohamed_Basri
- ass fluid3.docxUploaded byFaraLee
- A Computational Study of the Flow Around an Isolated Wheel in Contact With the GroundUploaded byVyssion
- Calculation of Wing LoadsUploaded byJony Oliver Lazo Ramos
- Pitch StabilityUploaded bySelwheezie
- 1999 Detached-Eddy Simulation past a Circular Cylinder.pdfUploaded byRaman Deep
- NasaUploaded byrejishmar30

- 2 Materials Charts 2009Uploaded bynandhamech25
- Linear_Motion_Handbook_2016.pdfUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- ABS M4 ManualUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- The Reduction of Slip of Rubber Crutch Tips on Wet Pavement, Snow and Ice - A Kennaway.pdfUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- Manufacturing Methods Coursebook v1-1213Uploaded byOlabode George Brown
- i PratingUploaded bySergio Olvera G
- A123_AMP20_battery_Design_guide.pdfUploaded byKenneth Schleich
- LaTeX SymbolsUploaded bytamgiang
- SKM_C224e17101912270Uploaded byOlabode George Brown
- FEM CODESUploaded byRaturi Deepankar
- Sl Pb 78205130 hUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- Automation Component -mechanical Fast- Handbook.pdfUploaded byFidel Silassie
- 20110606092353_HEVUploaded byjungdjudf
- Introduction to Internal Combustion EnginesUploaded byRazeenKhan
- Market ResearchUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- EX1001 OverviewUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- MainUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- LinksUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- FSAE ECU Seminar Day 1 to Print v3 optimisedUploaded byakshay3232
- T2 - ReportUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- ANSYS CWUploaded byOlabode George Brown
- IC Engine Coursework 2016Uploaded byOlabode George Brown
- Engine Management Advanced TuningUploaded bys7uk
- 225955911 How to Tune and Modify Automotive Engine Management SystemsUploaded byRafael Lazaro
- CharacteristicsUploaded byOlabode George Brown

- 1981_OTC_4067_Palmer.pdfUploaded bysuzilamatsalleh
- Heat and Mass Transfer 2 Marks All 5 UnitsUploaded byAshok Pradhan
- 853_eUploaded bywandadwilestari
- Dolomite drilling fluidUploaded byShahnawaz Mustafa
- CementingUploaded byLeo Doe
- RheologyUploaded bySilver Clairee
- Fillers sUploaded byibayraktar775208
- cmechUploaded bydaskhago
- 1-s2.0-S0038092X13000558-mainUploaded byWageeh El-Askary
- Designation: E2510 − 07 (Reapproved 2013)Uploaded byLupita Ramirez
- Reveal CompleteUploaded byeechzaan1233475
- 2. Fluids Basics and ConceptsUploaded byharoldalconz
- V257 - MonitorEmulsions Morphology via Simultaneous Rheometry and FTIR SpectroscopyUploaded byAlejandra Cáceres Zúñiga
- Course of Multiphase FlowUploaded byArindam Dey
- Hydraulic Structures II ExamplesUploaded byBona Hirko
- Numerical DiffusionUploaded byKenny Mustapha
- 1-s2.0-S014070071630189X-main.pdfUploaded byMushini Nagabhushan
- Loss Audit of a Turbine StageUploaded bynascosannascosan
- 6-Chapter6Uploaded byjrobert123321
- Cobem2011 Viv ArticleUploaded byRaphael Bacchi
- numerical investigation of laminar flow of a wateralumina nanofluid.pdfUploaded byAnonymous jy6m5YM
- Effect of inclined magnetic field on unsteady MHD flow of an incompressible viscous fluid through a porous medium in parallel plate channelUploaded bycompmathsjournalws
- modeling arterial blood flow with navier-stokesUploaded byapi-358127907
- DXIAMETER Emulsion FormulaUploaded bysandersperfumes br
- TDS_SUPER GEL-XUploaded byFabián Alejandro Araya Hernández
- Wp Diesel Fuel Flow Measurement Avoid PitfallsUploaded bypaulomarcal
- Naturelle S2 Wire Rope Lubricant a TDSUploaded byJohn Mithu
- Important Facts About Spark Erosion EnUploaded byrandzimm
- Chapter 12Uploaded byHermogenes Lapinig Mejia Jr.
- Mixing ModelUploaded byVizay Kumar