Professional Documents
Culture Documents
W
i
0
Nomenclature
A
AR
a0
a2
B
b
CD
CD;i
CD;0
Cd
Cd;0
CL
CL
Cl
Cl
Cl;0
c
D
Di
e
ei
ev
k
k
ki
kv
L
q
Re
S
Sd
U
u0
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
weight
geometric angle of attack
increase in angle of attack due to induced drag
angle of attack (difference from at L 0)
power-law exponent
boundary-layer thickness
small parameter for inviscid wing efciency
kinematic viscosity
I. Introduction
HE foundations of aeronautics are laid on steady ows around
xed bodies at moderately high values of Reynolds number
(Re Uc=, where U is a mean ight speed, c is a mean ightwise
chord length, and is the kinematic viscosity). Reynolds numbers
for various aircraft components (wings, tail, and fuselage) are given
in [1], for example, and on aerodynamic surfaces, range from
approximately 2 106 (vertical tail of the Cessna Stationair 7 at
sea level, aps down) to 80 106 (wing of the Boeing 747-200B,
at maximum cruise speed, 10 km height). At these Reynolds
numbers, the boundary-layer thickness is on the order of 10 mm
(=c 3 104 ), and at low angles of attack , the elegant analyses
of thin-airfoil theory apply very well, in which various geometric
approximations and the prescription of zero normal velocity to the
surface, together with the Kutta condition at the trailing edge, lead to
closed-form solutions for circulation distributions on thin airfoils and
simple numerical solutions for arbitrarily shaped bodies.
II.
A.
CD;i
CL2
AR
(1)
for the special case of an elliptically loaded wing. The induced drag
coefcient CD;i Di =qS is normalized by the planform area S and
dynamic pressure q U2 =2, where is the air density. Similarly,
the lift coefcient CL L=qS, where L is the lift force normal to the
direction of mean ight speed U. (Sectional, or 2-D, coefcients of
120
121
lift and drag are denoted as Cl and Cd , respectively, and now L and D
are normalized by qc, rather than qS, and so their coefcients
have units of normalized force per unit span.) In Eq. (1), AR is the
aspect ratio, dened either as AR b2 =S or b=c. The experimental
verication of the variation of CD;i with 1=AR was provided by
Prandtl [2]. For wings that are not elliptically loaded, Eq. (1) may be
written [3]
CD;i
CL2
1
AR
(2)
CD CD;0
(4)
where Cd;0 and Cl;0 are the drag and lift values at minimum drag (so
Cd;0 Cd;min ). Then the total drag of a wing of nite span can be
written
C2
CD CD;0 kCL2 L 1
AR
(5)
The third term on the right-hand side derives from Eq. (3); it is the
induced drag multiplied by the correction for nonelliptic loading.
The rst term on the right-hand side is a minimum constant drag
and its value is usually indistinguishable from the two-dimensional
equivalent (see Fig. 1), and so we may set CD;0 Cd;0 . The second
term has k from Eq. (4), which gives the quadratic rise in Cd with
Cl Cl;0 . Two simplifying assumptions are made in Eq. (5): rst,
that Cl Cl Cl;0 , and second, that the same k can be used for 2-D
and 3-D wings. This is equivalent to requiring that the reduction in
due to induced drag is small, so that i . Because CL2 appears
in the last two terms in Eq. (5), one can also nd this equation in the
literature (e.g., [1,4]) expressed as
(6)
where
e 1=1 kAR
(7)
(3)
CL2
ARe
CL2
ARe
(8)
which is quite different from Eq. (6). Here, e is only the correction for
nonelliptic loading, as introduced in Eq. (3), and it does not contain
any implicit information about the variation of Cd with Cl . Instead,
the value of Cd is read from drag polars for the appropriate , which
should be corrected for i. Von Mises [6] introduced an apparently
similar formulation as
CD A
CL2
B
(9)
kW 2
2Sd U
(10)
where the factor k accounts for tip losses and nonuniformities over
the ideal actuator disc. This formulation is also used [8] in applying
the actuator disc model to the ight of birds. Because Pi UDi and
Sd b2 =4,
Di
kW 2
qb2
(11)
kW 2
q Sb2
(12)
CD;i
CD;i
kL2
kCL2
q S AR AR
2 2
(13)
Equation (13) agrees with Eq. (3) for the lifting-line model of the
xed wing, if k 1=e as it is used there. This is the usual inter-
122
Practical Calculations
D.
Objectives
III. Experiments
The lift and drag of an Eppler 387 wing with an aspect ratio of 6
were measured in a low-turbulence wind tunnel, where u0 =U
0:025% for U 10 m=s from hot-wire surveys of the test section
with the wing and support removed. The wing span (21 cm) was
small compared with the octagonal test section width (1.37 m) and no
special tunnel corrections were applied to the data. The wing was
milled on a computer-controlled mill with 0.0125 mm resolution,
then sanded and painted at black. The planform was rectangular,
with no rounding of the edges at the tip. Two-dimensional experiments were conducted by enclosing the same wing between two end
plates suspended by thin cables and with less than 0.3 mm between
the wing and the plate. The end plates were aligned carefully with the
mean ow and checked for alignment by observing particle traces
when the ow was seeded for particle image velocimetry (PIV)
experiments. We denote the end-plate condition as 2-D (the basic
mean ow conguration is two-dimensional) and the nite aspect
ratio case as AR6.
Lift and drag forces were measured with a custom cruciformshaped force balance that was loaded with four strain gauges on each
of the four arms. The measurements were averages of a long time
signal (up to 8 s), and the random additive electrical noise in the
system allows the effective number of bits in an average measurement to be increased (the 12-bit analog-to-digital converters
have an effective number of bits 18:5 through oversampling of the
noisy data) so that forces of 0.05 mN could be resolved. The balance
was damped with a parallel dashpot arrangement so that highfrequency mechanical vibrations were not signicant, and static
calibrations were performed from 0 to 40 mN in 4 mN steps, with a
precision of 0.01 mN. At the lowest Re 104 , one may anticipate
drag forces from 0.8 to 5 mN for 0 deg 20 deg, and so the
direct calibration data are sparse. Because there was no evidence of
nonlinearity over the calibration curve, a linear interpolation back to
the origin was used to determine the smallest forces.
The geometric angle of attack was varied between 10 to 20 deg
in steps of 1 deg. Tests were performed for increasing and decreasing
. Repeatability checks were conducted over different days, with
new calibrations between days. In the subset of data shown here,
the uncertainty of each measurement, as measured by the standard
deviation of repeated tests, is approximately given by the symbol size
in the graphics. The Reynolds number was varied by changing the
tunnel ow speed U. Separate tests, not discussed here, checked the
same Reynolds number from different combinations of wing chord
c and ow speed U. Reynolds numbers shown here are Re
10 103 , 20 103 , 30 103 , and 60 103 .
More detailed and extensive results from PIV experiments will be
discussed elsewhere, but selected velocity and spanwise vorticity
elds will be shown, taken from vertical slices aligned parallel with
the mean ow and intersecting the wing at midspan. The velocity
elds were estimated using algorithms [14,15] that have been
shown to give accurate reconstructions of gradient quantities, and
the spanwise vorticity is used to show the ow structure. In these
123
IV.
A.
Results
The liftdrag polars of the E387 (in common with many other
smooth airfoils) are quite well known for the appearance of unusual
features when Re < 105 [13,16]. These features are usually documented as Reynolds number falls from higher values, but it is also
instructive to view the polars with Reynolds number increasing from
below. Figure 2 shows the liftdrag polars for Reynolds number
increasing from 10 103 to 60 103 for 2-D and AR6 cases. In the
gure, the range of angle of attack varies slightly from series to
series, but is nominally from 10 to 20 deg in increments of 1 deg.
Each angle has two data points for increasing and decreasing .
Each Reynolds number is represented by only one series of data
points, but the symbol size has been chosen to represent one-half of
the maximum standard deviation of repeated independent experiments over one week. For Re 10 103 and 20 103 , Cl Cd ,
curves in Fig. 2a have a c shape, but Cl;max is less than 0.8, about
half of a typical value of Cl;max for moderately thick airfoils at
Re 5 105 (see [4,5,13,17] for numerous examples). For
Re 30 103 , Cl jumps abruptly at 10 deg, rising from about
0.7 to 1.2, with no accompanying change in Cd . Cl then remains
1.4
0.8
0.6
B.
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
2D E387
0.4
Re10k
Re20k
Re30k
Re60k
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
a)
1.2
(14)
0.4
AR6 E387
0.2
Re10k
Re20k
Re30k
Re60k
0
-0.2
-0.4
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
b)
Fig. 2 Liftdrag polars for a) 2-D E387 airfoil section and b) aspect
ratio 6 wings.
124
0.5
0.5
CL
Cl
0
-0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
-0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
CL
Cl
0
-0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1.5
1
0.5
CL
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-0.5
0.3
1.5
Cl
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
-0.5
0.3
1.5
1.5
Cl
0.5
CL
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
-0.5
0.3
CD
Cd
Liftdrag polars for 2-D (left column) and AR6 (right column) E387 for Re 10 103 , 20 103 , 30 103 , and 60 103 from top to bottom.
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
CD
Cd
Fig. 3
0.1
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
CD
Cd
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
CD
Cd
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.1
0.1
0
0.5
1
2
Cl
Fig. 4
1.5
CD
Cd
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
1.5
CL
Plots of Cd Cl2 for 2-D airfoil (left) and CD CL2 for AR6 wing (right) for Re 10 103 , 20 103 , 30 103 , and 60 103 from top to bottom.
125
Re (10 )
10
20
30
60
AR6
a0
a2
a0
a2
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.34
0.30
0.14
0.05
C.
e
1
0:22
1 6 0:24
1
C2
ARe L
(15)
(16)
Taking a2;3D 0:34 and a2;2D 0:24 from Table 1, both for
Re 20 103 , then e 10=AR 0:53. This is much lower
than the inviscid result in which 0:046 and e 0:96 for a
rectangular nonswept wing of AR 6. It is also lower than
commonly reported for higher Reynolds number aeronautical
applications. Its inverse, the induced-power factor in actuator disc
models, is 1.9, which is considerably higher than commonly
assumed values of about 1.2.
One may object that such ts are unduly inuenced by rather poor
ts through data at higher , when they are not well approximated by
a simple quadratic. Then the procedure can be repeated for the linear
ts to Cd Cl2 for low shown in Fig. 4. Table 2 shows these results.
Again using the Re 10 103 example, the value of e from
Eq. (7) uses the tting constant k 0:14 from Table 2, which gives
e 0:27. The difference between coefcients in AR6 and 2-D cases
is 0.07, and then the value of e in the sense of Eqs. (3), (8), and (16) is
0.76. These values of e are closer to one than the previous estimates,
but are still very low compared with the usual higher Reynolds
number examples.
Inspection of Table 2 shows that subtracting 2-D from 3-D tting
coefcients is difcult to do at low Reynolds numbers (one subtracts
two numbers for which the difference is comparable with the
experimental uncertainty) and completely impractical at higher
Reynolds numbers, when the result can be negative. An alternative
method for selecting the inviscid part of the e calculation is to take the
entire Cd curve and shift it by CD;i CL2 =ARe, as in Eq. (8).
Figure 5 shows the result for a range of plausible values of e from 0.5
to 1. The t depends only weakly on e over this range. The reasonable
agreement between the measured AR6 data and the 2-D data
incremented by CDi suggests that the major difculty in deducing the
inviscid part of e is in estimating it from approximate curve ts with
low k in the original Cl Cd polars.
2-D
AR6
10
20
30
60
0.14
0.13
0.08
0.05
0.21
0.17
0.09
0.03
Effects of Viscosity
(17)
Re = 10k
0.2
Cd , CD
Using Eq. (7) to calculate e, the Oswald efciency factor, note that
1 and
kAR, and so may be neglected, and thus for
AR 6,
Re (103 )
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
126
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Cl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-5
10
15
20
25
a)
V. Discussion
1
0.8
CL
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-5
10
15
20
25
b)
Fig. 6 Plots of a) Cl 0 for 2-D E387 and b) CL 0 for AR6 wing with
the same section. Re 10 103 , 20 103 , 30 103 , and 60 103 for
circle, square, diamond, and triangle.
Cl , CL 2
ei 1=1
0.8
0.7
2D
AR6
0.6
Re
10
Fig. 7 Slopes dCl =d and dCL =d from the previous gure, for 2-D and
AR6 data, respectively, and 0 5 deg.
(20)
0.9
0.5 4
10
(21)
127
VI. Conclusions
When corrections to a basic model are on the order of 10% or
less, they do not necessarily subvert the model basis itself, and
uncertainties in the values of the corrections themselves may not be
of great concern. Here, we see that for xed-wings operating at
Re < 105 , not only can the corrections be large in magnitude, but
there is uncertainty in the formulation of the corrections themselves.
This is perhaps a sign that new theoretical models are required for
airfoils in which viscosity cannot be neglected, even at low angles
of attack. Such theories could at rst be empirically based, if the
supporting high-quality data were available. In the long term, more
fundamental improvements in formulations that predict both lift
and drag would be highly desirable. These advances would have
immediate impact in application to the ight performance of various
small-scale ying devices.
References
Fig. 8 Four snapshots of the spanwise vorticity eld over the E387 at
7 deg. Re 11:7 103 . The image window size x, z 2:7 and
1:3c. The mean ow is from left to right. The shape of the contours
immediately next to the wing outline is stepped due to the limited spatial
resolution there.
[1] Lan, C.-T. E., and Roskam, J., Airplane Aerodynamics and
Performance, DARCorporation, Lawrence, KS, 1997.
[2] Prandtl, L., Applications of Modern Hydrodynamics to Aeronautics,
NACA TR 116, 1921.
[3] Glauert, H., The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, U.K., 1948.
[4] McCormick, B. W., Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics,
Wiley, New York, 1995.
[5] Anderson, J. D., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGrawHill, New
York, 2007.
[6] von Mises, R., Theory of Flight, McGrawHill, New York, 1945.
[7] Leishman, J. G., Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, U.K., 2006.
[8] Pennycuick, C. J., Modelling the Flying Bird, Academic Press, London,
2008.
128
[9] Traub, L. W., Analytic Drag Prediction for Cambered Wings with
Partial Leading-Edge Suction, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 1,
2009, pp. 312319.
doi:10.2514/1.38558
[10] Ellington, C. P., The Aerodynamics of Hovering Insect Flight, 5: A
Vortex Theory, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 305, No. 1122, 1984,
pp. 115144.
doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0053
[11] Ellington, C. P., The Aerodynamics of Hovering Insect Flight, 6: Lift
and Power Requirements, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 305, No. 1122,
1984, pp. 145181.
doi:10.1098/rstb.1984.0054
[12] Bomphrey, R. J., Taylor, G. K., Lawson, N. J., and Thomas, A. L. R.,
Digital Particle Image Velocimetry Measurements of the Downwash
Distribution of a Desert Locust Schistocerca Gregaria, Journal of the
Royal Society Interface, Vol. 3, No. 7, 2006, pp. 311317.
doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0090
[13] Lyon, C. A., Broeren, A. P., Giguere, P., Gopalarathnam, A., and Selig,
M. S., Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Vol. 3, Soartech, Virginia
Beach, VA, 1997.
[14] Fincham, A. M., and Spedding, G. R., Low-Cost, High Resolution
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]