Final Aero Wingtip Project 1

Abstract
The main aim of this present report is to investigate the aerodynamics performance
of a semi-span NACA 0015 symmetric airfoil with and without wingtip sails. A 3D
wing model was built and the wingtip sails were attached to it at different dihedral
angles. Set of experiments were carried out to obtain those aerodynamic
characteristics. The study basically aims to optimize the L/D parameter. The tests
that were carried out showed an improvement in the L/D and a reduction in the
overall induced drag. Different graphical figures and tables have been plotted to
display the obtained result.
The sails which are stuck outboard of the wing increases lift with the help of the
upwash velocity component and freestream velocity. The combination of both the
vectors produces the resultant velocity component to which lift is perpendicular. The
lift and thrust components which are generated can be increased or decreased
depending on the incidence angle of the sails.
[i]
1
Table of Content
Nomenclature…………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Literature Survey …………………………………………………………………………………..7
Industrial application of the wingtip sail…………………………………………..8
Scope of the Project ………………………………………………………………………………9
Theoretical background ………………………………………………………………………………11
Wing theory………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
NACA airfoils ……………………………………………………………………………11
Nature of the local flow near wings (pressure, shear, lift, drag) ………..12
General information on coefficients vs. α …………………………...14
Prandtl lifting line theory …………………………………………………………….17
Wingtip devices………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Difference between planar & non-planar……………………………………… 24
Effect of wingtip devices on vortices…………………………………………….. 25
Experimental Procedure ……………… ………………………………………………………………34
Instrumentation………….. ………………………………………………………………………34
Wind tunnel…………………………………………………………………………….. 34
VDAS (versatile data acquisition system) ………………………………………38
VDAS software…………………………………………………………………………. 38
Wind tunnel limitations ………………………………………………………………40
Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………42
2
Procedure for wind tunnel setup ………………………………………………….43
Procedure for turning off the wind tunnel …………………………………….46
Wind tunnel model design & consideration ……………………………………………46
Model design……………………………………………………………………………. 47
Raw material ……………………………………………………………………………..48
Dimensions ……………………………………………………………………………….48
AutoCAD diagrams…………………………………………………………………… 51
Fabrication techniques ……………………………………………………………….54
Cost ………………………………………………………………………………………….54
Errors made while fabricating……………………………………………………… 54
Model Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………….55
Results and Discussions …………………………………………………………………………………56
Analyses ……………………………………………………………………………………………..58
Analyses of base wing ………………………………………………………………...58
Analyses & comparison of base wing vs. wingtip sail wing ……………....65
Comparison ………………………………………………………..……………………………………….82
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………..88
Future Plans………………………………………………………………………………………..88
Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………89
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………..90
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………………….102
References………………………………………………………………………………………………….103
3
Nomenclature
α / AoA = Angle of attack
αi = Induced angle of attack
Di = Induced drag due to lift
𝐶𝐷 = Drag coefficient
𝐶𝐿 = lift coefficient
CLmax = Maximum lift coefficient
𝐶𝐷 𝑖 = Induced Drag Coefficient
𝜌 = Density
S = Surface Area
Re = Reynolds Number
V∞ = Freestream Velocity
L/D = Lift-to-Drag-ratio
bw = Base Wing Span
btip = Tip Sail Span
Γ =Dihedral Angle of the Tip Sail
4
1. Introduction
As the aircraft moves forward its wing experiences negative pressure on the
upper surface and positive pressure on the lower surface. This unequal pressure
creates lift across the upper surface which causes the aircraft to leave the ground and
fly. Unequal pressure, however, also causes air at each wingtip to flow outward along
the lower surface around the tip, and inboard along the upper surface producing a
whirlwind of air called a wingtip vortex. These vortices generated by the aircraft‟s
wingtip results in increased drag and reduced lift. Due to its hazardous effects on flight
safety, vortices continue to be of concern to aviation industry and aircraft
manufacturers.
As the aerospace industry has matured, interest in new ideas and concepts to
improve flights has revived. Of particular interest, has been the wingtip device that was
meant to improve the cruise performance of the aircrafts. The analysis and design of
wingtips still remains a subject which is partly related to arts and partly to science.
Although the design of a simple airfoil section and basic planform geometry is well
developed, the tip region requires more detailed consideration. This is especially
important because of the strong impact of the wingtip flow on the wing drag. Although
the tip region constitutes a small portion of the wing, its affect on drag can be significant.
For a given lift and speed, the Di of a wing is inversely proportional to the square of wing
span. Thus with a small change in effective span, a considerable change is obtained for
the Di.
In the mid-to late 1970‟s, Whitcomb1 presented the idea of attaching a device to
the conventional wing, called winglets. The purpose of the winglets was to improve the
aerodynamic performance and reduce Di. Through his work, Whitcomb1 wanted to show
that wingtip devices could increase an aircraft‟s range as much as 7% during cruise and
improve L/D efficiency by 15 to 40%, if they are designed as an integral part of the wing.
After the success of Whitcomb‟s wingtip design, various tip devices were proposed
to minimize the strength of the trailing vortex and to reduce the Di. Several of these
concepts include the spiroid, blended winglets, wing-grids, wingtip sails, endplates and
5
many other inventions (Figure 1). Wingtip sails minimize the impact of vortex generated
by producing thrust and lift components which increase the aerodynamic efficiency of an
airplane. Wing-grids is the future drag reduction device. There can be a minimum of two
that are arranged at a distal end of the main wing. A blended winglet is intended to
reduce interference drag at the wing/winglet junction. Sphiroids eliminates concentrated
tip vortices by gradually shedding it away from the trailing edge. Major concern of
installing this device is fluttering of the wings.
Winggrid
Wingtip sails
Winglets
Spiroid Endplates
2
Figure 1 . Different wingtip devices
This paper extends the concept of the wingtip sails technology that was initiated
by Spillman3. Wingtip sails are small lifting surfaces that are attached to the tips of the
6
base wing in order to have the same span and aspect ratio. The idea has been inspired
by looking at the flying characteristic of the soaring birds. It does not reduce the tip
vortices, instead it increases the lift with the help of the slight thrust produced that
offsets the Di and the extra weight of the tip sails.
The main aim of this report is to study the use of wingtip sails technology to
improve the L/D while minimizing the impact of vortices formed at the trailing edge and
thus reducing the Di.
The contents are mainly the analysis and results of the self-conducted
experiments which have been shown graphically and explained theoretically. The
results will then be compared with the findings of the other wingtip device technology.
1.1. Literature Survey
Man has always been impressed with the aerodynamics of the birds during its
flight. Fascinated by the ability of birds to continuously move and adapt to different flight
conditions, people tried to replicate almost every structural detail of its body and carried
out numerous experiments in order to develop an understanding of the impact of such
small details on the nature of the flow around a flying body. There tip feathers are one of
the many features that have attracted the attention of aerodynamicists for many years
and are of primary interest to this research. Many researchers have investigated the
behavior of such distinctly arranged set of feathers and accordingly designed various
wingtip devices in the hope to improve the flight performance of Commercial and
General-Aviation aircraft.
The first investigation was done by Whitcomb1 in the mid 1970s. Experiments
which were conducted on the winglets showed that if properly designed, winglets could
improve the aerodynamic efficiency by reducing Di. After Whitcomb's success, various
wingtip designs were proposed by many researchers.
In 1978, John Spillman3 carried out a series of experiments on wingtip airfoils

that he called wingtip sails. Tip turbine effectiveness was also examined by James
Patterson4 in 1985. Many other wingtip devices that were discussed above, such as
7
spiroid, blended winglets, wing-grids, wingtip sails, endplates were also designed,
analyzed and experimented in wind tunnels all around the world.
A review of published papers on the subject of wingtip sails reveals numerous

experimental and numerical data on the behavior of this technology. The theory that has
been presented in this report involves the understanding of other wingtip devices. These
devices were read from the research papers which were published and analyzed by
various researchers such as Vance A. Tucker5, D. P. Coiro6, John E. Yates7, Paul
Bogataj8, Toshifumi Fujiwara9, Cosin. R10, Andrew Shelton11, etc.
Studies and experimental investigations presented in these papers provided a

variety of wingtip designs. In addition, as mentioned previously, almost all suggested
that well designed wingtip devices could lead to reductions in Di and hence the total
drag of an aircraft. However, most of these papers included only a brief review of the
wingtip sails concept. Due to incomplete or conflicting opinions in predicting the
behavior of wingtip sails, the concept of the technology's effectiveness on the aircraft
performance remains a mystery till date.
1.1.1. Industrial Application of the Wingtip Sail Technology
Wingtip devices in general are used to reduce the strength of the D i generation
during flight. Another approach to reduce the Di strength is to increase the aspect ratio
of the wing. But this method comes with a compromise in the structure of the airplane.
Recently studies have showed that Di can be reduced with the application of
aerodynamic devices at the tip of the wing. One such device is the wingtip sail.
Following are the industrial application of the wingtip sail technology:
 So far this approach of Spillman3 has been applied to a Paris business jet which proved
that this device is highly effective at low speeds during takeoff and landing when Cl was
the highest (drag is directly proportional to Cl The flight test result showed a 21%
increase in the overall L/D.
 Rotary wing aircrafts such as helicopters are capable of flight in the vertical direction as
well as horizontal flight direction, and also remain stationary while in air. It does so by
generating thrust with the help of rotor assemblies which consists of aerodynamically
8
shaped blades. The thrust which is generated helps in propelling the aircraft in the
forward direction. In the processing of generating thrust there is a pressure difference
between the upper and lower surface of the blade similar to the wing of an airplane.
This pressure difference causes vortices to be generated at the trailing edge of the
blade which leads to undesirable effects such as noise and vibration. To overcome this
problem wingtip sail was attached to the tip of the blade. An actuator which is controlled
by a control system is connected to the sail. The control system commands the actuator
to move the sail in a direction which is suitable to the rotor blades operating conditions.
1.2. Scope of the Project
Following are the objectives of the experiments which were carried out by the
aerospace project 1 team:
 Calculating L/D of the airfoil without tip sails technology.
 Calculating L/D of the airfoil with tip sails technology (Figure 3).
 Comparing the results of L/D of the airfoil with tip-sails and without tip sails.
 Comparing the results of the wingtip-sails experiment with the results of the wing-
grid technology (Figure 2).
 Introducing the engineering students to the real world of aeronautical engineering

project.
 Achieving a project experience for a career in aerospace industry.
 Accumulating research skills for postgraduate studies.
 Encouraging the students to work in teams to build up group skills.
9
Figure 3. Sails attached on a semi
Figure 212. Wing grids attached on
span wing tip. This model was
the wing‟s tip.
prepared by the project team.
The first two objectives of this project were achieved at velocities ranging
between 15 to 30m/s and the angles were increased from 0 to 26 degrees. During the
experiments conducted by the team, the velocities were increased by increments of
5m/s, while the α was changed in increments of 2 degrees.
At the end of the experiments the team compared the results of L/D to find out
whether the experimental results agreed with the theory which claims that with the
installation of the tip sails, L/D will increase as compared to a wingtip without the device.
Comparison of the wingtip sails technology with wing-grids was done for namely two
reasons.
 Since, the airfoil chosen for both sets of the project has the same airfoil NACA 0015,
the forces and moments such as Lift, Drag and pitching moment should be nearly the
same for the airfoil models without the tip devices installed.
 Since, both the technologies claim to increase L/D of the wing, a comparison
between the results of the two devices can possibly show which device is more
effective in achieving its purpose.
10
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Wing Theory
2.1.1. NACA airfoils:
Figure 4. shows a wing cross section called an airfoil. Lines drawn above and
below the airfoil indicate how the air flows around it. The shape of the airfoil and the
pattern of airflow around it have profound effects on the aerodynamic forces generated
on the wing. Aircraft designers choose a particular airfoil shape for a wing in order to
optimize its lift and drag characteristics to suite the requirements for a particular
mission. It is essential that an aircraft designer understands the changes that occur in
the air as it flows past a wing creating lift and drag, and the influence of the airfoil shape
on generating the aerodynamic forces.
Streamlines
Airfoi
l
13
Figure 4 . Flow field around an airfoil
In the early 1930s, NACA-the forerunner of NASA, embarked on a series of

definitive airfoil experiments using airfoil shapes that were constructed rationally and
symmetrically. NACA identifies different airfoil shapes with a logical numbering system.
There are three families of NACA airfoils;
 The four digits series (e.g. NACA 0012, NACA 0015)

 The five digits series (e.g. NACA 23012)
 The six digit series (e.g. NACA 65-218)
11
Many of the NACA airfoils, from all the above mentioned families are commonly
used for the experiments performed at low speed wind tunnel.
2.1.2. Nature of the local flow near wing (Pressure, Shear, Lift, and Drag):
In order to explain the nature of the flow over an airfoil, i.e. how it generates lift
and experiences drag, the continuity (equation 1) and Bernoulli's equation (equation 2)
may be used.
𝜌1 𝐴1 𝑉1 = 𝜌2 𝐴2 𝑉2 [Equation 1]
1 1
𝑃1 + 2 𝜌𝑉1 2 = 𝑃2 + 2 𝜌𝑉2 2 = 𝑃𝑜 [Equation 2]
Consider a steady, inviscid, incompressible air flow over an airfoil as shown in Figure 5.
1 2a
Airfoi
l
2b
14
Figure 5 . Flow past an airfoil
The entire flow field is not shown in Figure 5. Only two stream tubes are shown.
One which passes above the airfoil and the second which passes below it. At Station 1,
which is far upstream of the airfoil, the flow is one-dimensional. As the flow moves
downstream, the orientation of the airfoil causes more of an obstruction to the flow
above it than it does to the flow below it. This obstruction to the flow causes the stream
tube above the airfoil to be constricted. On the other hand, the stream tube below the
airfoil keeps a nearly constant cross-sectional area all along its length. It can also be
said that the stream tube below the airfoil expands slightly as it approaches the
underside of the airfoil leading edge. The continuity equation (Equation 1) for the
12
incompressible flow (i.e. a flow where the density is constant) requires that the flow in
the upper stream tube must accelerate to get past the airfoil while the flow in the lower
stream tube does not necessarily pass and at times it may even decelerate.
Furthermore, based on the Bernoulli‟s principle, when the velocity in a flow

increases, the pressure it exerts decreases and vice- versa. Hence, a pressure
imbalance on the bottom and top surface of the airfoil is generated (Figure 6).
15
Figure 6 . Surface Pressures on an airfoil
Figure 6 shows the pressure distribution using arrows drawn perpendicular to the
surface of the airfoil. Arrows drawn outward from the surface indicate pressures lower
than free stream static pressure, while arrows drawn in toward the surface indicate
pressures higher than free stream static pressure.
The pressure imbalance and the shear stresses exerted parallel to the body
surface due to the viscosity (resistance to flowing) of the fluid results into a net force. In
the case of the flow around the airfoil, this net force can be referred as the aerodynamic
force.
The lift is an aerodynamic force component which is perpendicular to the V∞ and

the drag is an aerodynamic force component which is parallel to the V∞. Figure 7
13
illustrates the above definition of the aerodynamic forces in a diagrammatic format along
with pressure and shear stresses, lift, drag on an airfoil.
Lift Total Aerodynamic Force

(Sum of Pressure and Shear)

V Airfoil
Drag
16
Figure 7 . Pressure, shear & total aerodynamic force on airfoil
2.1.3. General information on Coefficients vs. α
The aerodynamic forces and moments generated due to the flow around an
airfoil depend on many factors such as:
1. The V,
2. Flight altitude
3. Size of the aerodynamic surface (for airplanes it is normally referred as the S)
4. 
5. Shape of the airfoil
The relation between the above mentioned parameters and the forces can be
summarized in the following equations which are considered to be the most important
relations in applied aerodynamics.
𝐷
a) 𝐶𝑑 = [Equation 3]
𝑞 ∞ ∗𝑆
14
𝐿
b) 𝐶𝑙 = [Equation 4]
𝑞 ∞ ∗𝑆
1
Where, 𝑞∞ = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ 2 ; Dynamic Pressure
2
Let  and V be the density and the velocity, respectively, in the free stream, far
ahead of the body and S to be the reference area. The typical variation of Cl and Cd with
 for a symmetric airfoil is sketched in Figure 8. At low to moderate , Cl varies linearly
with  and the Cd changes very gradually with increasing .
The rate of change of Cl with  on this part of the curve is called the lift curve
slope. In this region, the flow moves smoothly over the airfoil and is attached over most
of the surface. The presence of friction in the adjacent flow to the airfoil causes shear
stress at the surface, which in turn contributes to the aerodynamic drag of the body
which is called skin friction drag. Basically skin friction drag is caused by the actual
contact of the air particles against the surface of the airfoil. This is the same as the
friction between any two objects or substances.
cl
cd
cl (c)
max
.01 1.0
(b)
c
l
(a)
10 10
 
 stall
Figure 8 . Cl and Cd vs. 

17
15
However, at high α, the flow field tends to separate from the top surface of the
airfoil creating a large wake of relatively dead air behind the airfoil as shown in Figure 9.
The separated flow has a smaller pressure difference compared to the pressure that
would exist if it was attached. Hence, for the separated flow, the pressure difference
around the airfoil will push the airfoil more towards the trailing side creating more drag.
The drag created due to the difference between the pressures is called the pressure
drag. This phenomenon also causes the Cl to increase more slowly with α and
eventually causes it reach a maximum value. At the point of maximum C l on the lift
curve, further increase in α results in less lift generation.
18
Figure 9 . Flow separation
This phenomenon is called stall (Figure 9), and the α for maximum Cl is called
the stall angle of attack (stall). This is the point where the flow starts to separate from
the surface making a sudden drop in the lift.
Parasite drag is simply the mathematical sum of pressure drag and skin friction drag.
Parasite Drag = Pressure Drag + Skin Friction Drag [Equation 5]
The total drag is the sum of parasite and induced drag.
Total Drag = Parasite Drag + Induced Drag [Equation 6]
16
The airplane's total drag determines the amount of thrust required at a given
airspeed. Thrust must equal drag in steady flight. As a final note to this section, it should
be stated that the fundamental difference between flows over finite wings as opposed to
infinite wing which will be explained later in the report.
On a wing of finite span, due to the pressure difference between the upper and
lower surfaces, there is some tendency for the air to leak around the wingtips from the
high to low pressure side. This flow called wingtip vortex, establishes a circularity
motion that trails downstream of the wing. The tip vortices induce a small downward
component of the air velocity behind of the wing itself. This downward component is
called downwash () (Figure 10). The downwash velocity component is used in
Prandtl‟s lifting line theory to derive the Cl and Cdi coefficients.
19
Figure 10 . Wingtip vortex
2.1.4. Prandtl20 lifting line theory; calculating Di and lift for a finite wing
Lifting line theory also known as Prandtl‟s theory is used for calculating finite
wing characteristics. The theory says that a vortex filament of strength Γ which is bound
to a fixed location will undergo a force, 𝐿′ = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ Γ , from Kutta-Joukouski21 theorem
which says that for a two-dimensional body of any shape will experience lift per unit
span of 𝐿′ = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ Γ. Replacing the finite wing with a bound vortex line, it can be said
that two vortices are trailing downstream from the edges of the bound vortex, to infinity.
These vortices take the form of a horseshoe vortex which induces a downwash velocity
17
component along the bound vortex. Therefore, the bound vortex can be expressed in a
form of downwash velocity component as:
Γ –𝑤 (𝑦 𝑜 )
𝑦 = − [Equation 7]
4𝜋 𝑉∞
And since αi depends on the downward velocity component (downwash), it can

be expressed as:
–𝑤 (𝑦 𝑜 )
𝛼𝑖 𝑦𝑜 = [Equation 8]
𝑉∞
In terms of circulation, αi can be written as:
𝑏 𝑑𝛤
1 𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑦
𝛼𝑖 𝑦𝑜 = 2
𝑏 [Equation 9]
4𝜋𝑉∞ − 𝑦 𝑜 −𝑦
2
𝑏 𝑏
Where & − 2 are the limits of the length and yo is a point on the bound vortex
2
line y. since downwash varies along the span, effective α (αeff) also varies. Therefore,
𝐶𝐿 = 𝑎𝑜 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑦𝑜 − 𝛼𝐿=0 = 2𝜋 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑦𝑜 − 𝛼𝐿=0 [Equation 10]
where ao is the local section lift slope.
For the local airfoil section at yo,
𝐿′ = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ Γ(yo ) [Equation 11]
2𝛤(𝑦 𝑜 )
𝐶𝐿 = [Equation 12]
𝑉∞(𝑦 𝑜 )
Substituting equation 12 into equation 10 gives,
𝛤(𝑦 𝑜 )
𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓 = + 𝛼𝐿=0 [Equation 13]
𝜋𝑉∞𝑐(𝑦 𝑜 )
Since αeff=α-αi [Equation 14]
18
Substituting Equations 9 and 13 into equation 14 gives the fundamental equation of
Prandtl‟s lifting line theory:
𝑏 𝑑𝛤
𝛤(𝑦 𝑜 ) 1 𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑦
𝛼 𝑦𝑜 = + 𝛼𝐿=0 𝑦𝑜 + 2
𝑏 [Equation 15]
𝜋𝑉∞𝑐(𝑦 𝑜 ) 4𝜋𝑉∞ − 𝑦 𝑜 −𝑦
2
Equation 15 gives the relation Γ=Γ(yo) which can be stated in the total lift distribution
formula as:
𝐿 = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ 2
𝑏 Γ y dy [Equation 16]
−
2
Therefore,
𝑏
2
𝐶𝐿 = 2
𝑏 Γ y dy [Equation 17]
𝑉∞𝑆 −
2
𝐷𝑖′ = 𝐿𝑖 ′𝛼𝑖 [Equation 18]
Integrating the previous equation yields,
𝐷𝑖 = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ 2
𝑏 Γ y 𝛼𝑖 y dy [Equation 19]
−
2
Therefore,
𝑏
2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 2
𝑏 Γ y 𝛼𝑖 y dy [Equation 20]
𝑉∞𝑆 −
2
19
Compared to an infinite wing, for a finite wing the tip vortices modify the airflow
around the wing by tilting the total aerodynamic force rearwards, hence producing more
drag and reducing the effectiveness of the wing. Figure 11 shows how the tilting of the
total forces and the induced drag affect the Cl vs. α curve for a finite and infinite wing.
0.8 Finite Wing (3D)

Infinite Wing (2D)
0.7
C-l
0.6
C-L
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
22
Figure 11 . Finite vs. Infinite
20
2.2. Wingtip Devices
Ever since man started to think about flying, he has striven to imitate the shape
and structure of a bird‟s wing. The birds perform many flying characteristics, such as;
taking off, soaring, landing and many other maneuvers. Studies by biologists on birds
with significant soaring capabilities specify that the source of their remarkable
endurance is the existence of few feathers extending from the tip, called regimes, that
adjust with changing flight conditions and helps them soar at higher altitudes. Biologists
also found that the pin feathers worked to reduce drag during gliding flight. These
feathers are also used to provide roll control, in the same manner as the ailerons do on
aircraft.
23
Figure 12 . Bird‟s feather compared to an airfoil
21
For better explanation soaring birds spread their wings fully to maximize its L/D
and maintain a low energy and long endurance flight. In order to maximize its speed in a
dive, it will bring its wings closer to the body to minimize drag. These feathers spread
out both horizontally and vertically to form tip slots that are thought to reduce
aerodynamic drag. All soaring birds make „slots‟ and with slotted tips they display
vertical separation between the tip feathers suggesting that these feathers reduce drag
by acting as winglets. The primary feathers of many birds that soar over land bend
upwards and separate vertically during flight. Wing theory explains that the feathers that
form the tip slots can reduce Di by spreading vortices horizontally along the wing and by
acting as winglets, which are used on aircraft to make wings non-planar and to spread
vortices vertically.
Tip Slot
Figure 1324. Bird tip slot
22
The size of the wing of the bird is also what determines how much lift is created.
The angle at which the wing approaches the air affects lift. An increase in angle
increases the air speed over the wing and produces more lift. Larger birds have a
harder time getting into the air. They need strong wind and land on cliffs so they can
leap off to begin the next flight. Another task for the bird is to end its flight slowly. First,
the bird slows its wing beats. Next, gravity begins to pull the bird down. Then the bird
twists its wing to increase the surface area and generates more lift to slow the birds
landing. At the same time, the whole wing is moved slightly at the shoulders to increase
the angle of landing which also makes more lift as the speed is reduced. This prevents
the bird from dropping too fast and lastly, the tail is spread open and lowered to act as a
brake.
After many hours of watching birds in flight led the Wright brothers to conclude
that birds “re-gain their lateral balance, when partly over-turned by a gust of wind, by a
torsion of the tips of the wings.”25 This led to one of the most important discoveries in
the aviation history. Therefore, birds are nothing but natures perfect flying machine!
26
Figure 14 . Model of a feathered wing
23
2.2.1. Difference between planar and non-planar wing
There are two types of aircraft wings, the planar wings and the non-planar
wings. Planar wings have a trailing edge that is a straight line between the wingtips.
Non-planar wings have a trailing edge that is a curved line where the wing bends
upwards or downwards between root and tip. A planar wing spreads vorticity only
horizontally along the trailing edge, but a non-planar wing can spread vorticity both
horizontally and vertically. To see the difference between the two wing types, consider a
wing moving through the air horizontally. If the wing feels a vertical root to tip bend, it is
non-planar. Projecting it on a vertical plane creates a curve and this curve sweeps out a
non-planar surface as the wing moves. On the other hand, planar surfaces will be
straight from tip to tip, letting the trailing edge sweep out a plane. All this information
signifies that attaching tip sails to a planar wing makes it a non-planar wing which is
desired.
Di and profile drag are the common traits among the two types of wings that were
discussed above, but a non-planar wing has less Di than a planar one. This is due to the
distribution of the vertical vortex. Bird feathers form tip slots if its wings are bent
vertically in flight giving it a non-planar wing characteristic (Figure 15). The planar
characteristic will be more prominent upon the clipping of the wings. But this changes
the wing span, wing area and pitching equilibrium of the bird.
Figure 1527. Non-planar bird wing
24
2.2.2. Effect of wingtip devices on vortices.
Wingtip studies in the wind tunnel showed that the vortex like flow, which is
also associated with rolled-up vortex sheet, exists behind the trailing edge creating a
wingtip. Circulatory flow generated by proper vortex strength is an explanation for lift
generated by a finite wing; therefore a properly sited vortex filament can possibly imitate
the wing. According to Prandtl20, this is called a lifting line or the bound vortex (which
has been discussed with equations in section 2.1.4). When lift is dropped to zero at the
wingtips, the bound vortex does not disappear, it instead continues into the fluid
producing actual free vortex in the fluid at the wingtips. These trailing vortices on actual
aircraft are a point of concern since they may be hazardous to a trailing aircraft and are
responsible for the induced drag.
Di can be easily reduced by increasing the span of the wing instead of using
wingtip devices. A 20% increase in the span, reduces the vortex drag by 17%. But this
does not seem to be a sensible choice since the issue of weight and cost plays in.
Therefore, the idea of wingtip devices needs to be applied in majority of the cases.
The most common wingtip device used is the winglet. The winglet takes the
advantage of the vortex flow by using it to produce forward thrust. The extra thrust
reduces drag. It is cambered and twisted that helps the rotating vortex flow at the tip to
create lift on the winglet. It was recognized that a series of winglets at the wingtip could
use the spiral nature of wingtip vortex to improve performance of one winglet.
Another wingtip device of importance is the sails (Figure 16). The use of sails
suppresses the spiraling flow and weakens the vortex, hence reduce drag. A wing with
no sails has two distinctive oppositely rotating vertical systems. The upper one rotates
counterclockwise whilst the lower one rotates clockwise when viewed from the
downstream. With sails added, it is noticed that the vertical systems are broken into
more than two vortices. The wingtip sails have the ability to break down and reduce tip
vorticity behind the wing they have been attached to.
25
Figure 1628. Wingtip sails model
Comparatively, the vorticity of the broken vortices are less than that of the one
with no sails. This can clear the fact that the sails diffuse the tip vortices. After the
addition of the sails, the upper vortex moves outward because the sails increase the
wing span.
The vortex drag of a large commercial aircraft is the cause of approximately 40%
of the cruise drag and therefore these concepts of wingtip sails and winglets have been
applied to help reduce the 40% of the drag. This on the whole has significant effect on
the fuel consumption and its weight.
Any physical body being propelled through the air has drag associated with it
which must be overcome by thrust in order to achieve forward motion. To overcome the
pressure drag, it‟s suggested to streamline the wingtip. Since skin friction drag is an
interaction between a solid (airfoil) and a gas (air), the magnitude of skin friction drag
depends on the properties of both the solid and the gas. For the solid part, skin fiction
drag can be reduced and airspeed can be increased somewhat, by keeping the surface
of wingtip and the sails highly polished and clean.
26
To relate the theory of different drags with the drag around the wingtip sails,
random test results showed that all the configurations of wing with sails had greater C d
compared to wing without sails at Cl below 0.4. This, however, was not the case at
higher Cl where lower Cd was recorded for the wings with tip sails. These results are
expected, as the plan area of the wing with sails is greater than that of the wing without
sails. Greater plan area increases the skin friction drag that was more significant at low
Cl and this explains the drag reduction at the higher Cl.
It is also noted that a sail with a significant camber at the root is likely to have
root separations from the undersurface of very small wing incidences because the angle
between the local flow direction and the chord of the sails can be too large and
negative. In this case the drag of the sail would be significantly increased. As the wing‟s
incidence angle increased, the root flow would attach to the undersurface and the drag
would decrease. Thus results show that, more number of tip sails reduce the drag.
Moreover, attaching the sails in a pitch down direction increases the zero L/D
and reduces the induced drag factor. It is also known that the reduction in Di factor in
the un-separated zone is always higher than the reduction in the separated zone. This
is expected because the sails which are separated have the ability to tackle the tip
vortices compared to the separated sails.
Other results showed that the addition of more sails further reduce the Di. Similar
results were reported by Spillman3 where the sails caused a reduction in the Di by 12%
for one or two sail and by 28% for three sails. In principle, the effectiveness of Di
reduction improves with increasing the number of sails.
In addition, at the wingtips there is a swirl where the high-pressure air bleeds
around the wing towards the low-pressure on top of the wing. The circulation formed
around the tips of the wing must be continuous along the entire wing, which means the
air on the top of the wing moves faster than the air on the bottom of the wing. (This
comes from the Prandtl-Lifting Line theorem, which states, “a vortex line cannot start or
stop within a fluid,” which is true for any fluid without viscosity). The circulation deflects
the flow downward behind wing. The downwash causes a virtual decrease in the angle
27
of attack of the wing, and because lift is perpendicular to the flow, the lift vector is
canted backward. The lift vector pointing slightly backward means that part of the lift is
causing a drag on the airfoil. The Di is always present when a three-dimensional body
is generating lift. For conventional wings the existence of Di is evident by noting a
spiraling flow generated at the wingtips.
Direction of Flow Circulation caused by Wing vortices
29
Figure 17 . Figure illustrating the downwash and upwash
velocity components of the vortex
28
Although Di always exists for a three-dimensional lifting body, it is possible to
mitigate its effects. The swirling vortices at the wingtips are nearly vertical and not in the
direction of the flow. Putting small wing like protrusions on the tips of the wings, i.e. the
wingtip sails, in the direction of this secondary flow could be used to generate thrust.
This thrust is less than the total drag on the airfoil; however, it could be large enough to
exceed the total induced drag on the aircraft. In the case of a bird wing, the upward flow
at the wingtip passes through the slotted primaries. The primary feathers are canted
slightly downward so they create a lift in the thrust direction of the wing.
The free vortices in the wake of the wing cause the flow near the wing (the local
flow) to have a downward velocity component (downwash) between the wingtips.
Downwash causes the drag on the wing. Local flow with an upward component
(upwash) may reduce drag or even generate thrust .Flapping wings and propellers
produce thrust by this means. Spillman3 (1987) describes how wingtip sails have
reduced drag because they extend into upward local flow at the ends of a wing that
produces lift. This local flow arises because the pressure beneath the wing is greater
that that above, and air flows upwards around the end of the wing.
A real wing has greater drag than predicted by wing theory because of the
viscosity of air. The upwash at the end of the base wing and the resulting large base
wing effect on the feathered tip reduce the drag of the entire wing. Upwash increases
the L/D of the tip and the increase does not increase the drag of the base wing.
The wingtip sails not only generate thrust from side wind like the sails on a sail
boat, but also „comb‟ or straighten the spiraling air flow from the wingtip into uniform
flow, like fixed blades. Furthermore, they are more effective than the winglets in
dispersing the wingtip vortices.
Therefore, it has been observed that the use of wingtip sails at the end of the
base wing produces a forward thrust with an increase in lift that also helps in reducing
the overall drag produced at the wingtip.
29
It has also been noticed that the wingtip sails are only efficient if they are
attached to the base wing in an appropriately calculated manner, else the sails will not
produce enough thrust, and on the contrary it will increase Di.
However, the direction of the flow field near the wingtip is highly variable; if only
one wingtip sail is installed, its camber and twist must be carefully designed to
accommodate the wide range of local flow deflection angles, otherwise, its aerodynamic
benefits cannot be fully achieved. The wingtip sails are installed at different positions of
the wingtip according to the characteristics of the local flow field, hence improving the
aerodynamic efficiency (Figure 18).
Figure 1830. Sails at different angles
Since the streamlines at the wingtip are in the form of spirals, the sails must be
positioned according to the spiraling streamlines (Figure 19). The angle between two
sails should be chosen to be as large as possible. As each sail does not only produce
lift but also its own downwash, the spiral angle should not be small that one sail is
30
submerged in the downwash of the other sails. Not doing so will result in reduced lift,
increased drag and also flow separation over the sail.
31
Figure 19 . Flow field around wingtips, where the dotted lines are
streamlines without sails and the solid lines are streamlines with sails
Even the length of the wingtip sails is of great concern when it comes to
efficiency. If the sail is too long, portions of the sail may be outside the disturbance flow
field. In such cases, the sail not only produces no additional lift, it also contributes part
of its frictional drag. The length of the sail is generally determined by the α of the wing.
For large α, the length should be around 0.41 times the wingtip chord length. For small
α, it should be approximately 0.3 times or to be precise 0.24 times the wingtip chord
length.
In addition to the length, the type of airfoil should also be kept in consideration. A
high-lift, low-drag airfoil should be chosen for the sails. This provides good aerodynamic
performance and prevents flow separation. To ensure flow separation does not occur,
the airfoil shape near the sail tip should have little or no camber. The camber should
rather increase towards the base of the sail.
31
Wingtips sails can either be flat (Figure 20) or tapered (Figure 21). A tapered
wingtip sail has a much shorter tip section than root section. As the wing tapers, lift
produced by the shorter outboard sections [tip] is less because they have less surface
area to support lift. Air approaching the outboard portion of the wingtip is deflected by
the low pressure on top of the larger inboard wingtip that is still generating a large
amount of lift only a short distance away. The close proximity of that low pressure to the
outboard wing causes the flow to be pulled upward additionally over the outboard wing.
Hence, the smaller outboard sections operate with higher upwash. This enhances the
amount of lift that they produce but does not make up for the loss of area. Thus, using
tapered wingtip sails can help increase the overall speed giving a better lift distribution
and is structurally more efficient.
32
Figure20 . Flat wingtip sail
32
33
Figure 21 . Tapered wingtip sails
Flight tests in England showed that by installing one sail on each side reduced
the Di by 9 %, and when three sails on each side were installed, the induced drag
reduced by 29%. The pilot also noticed a substantial increase in the climb rate during
take-off. But with increasing number of sails, there was no change in the role-damping
control of the flap.
Random tests were conducted of trapezoidal shaped sails with lengths of sails to
be 0.41 times the wing‟s chord (long sails) and 0.24 times the wing‟s chord [short sails].
The twist angles of the sails were respectively 12 degrees for long sails and 7 degrees
for short sails. The test results indicate that by installing four sails on the wind tunnel
model, the slope of the lift curve increased by 9%. The CL max increased by 5%. The
maximum L/D increased by 9.7% and the Di decreased by 20%.
In short, the wingtip sails are another variant of the winglets, consisting of
multiple, high aspect ratio lifting elements attached to the wingtip at several dihedral
angles. Wingtip sails have been considered as a major part in aviation study and
investigation. Due to their value for aerodynamically reducing drag or Di, creating thrust
and increasing the performance of flight vehicles.
33
3. Experimental Procedure
3.1. Instrumentation
This section describes in detail the instruments used for carrying out the
experiments for the project. Before starting with the experiments, the group did a careful
study on the following topics:
3.1.1. The Wind Tunnel facility.

3.1.2. Versatile Data Acquisition system.
3.1.3. Versatile Data Acquisition system software.
3.1.4. Wind tunnel limitations.
3.3.1. Wind Tunnel
34
Figure 22 . Wing Tunnel Model
34
Experiments for the wing prototype were carried out in an Af100 subsonic wind
tunnel facilty avaliable in the aerodynamics laboratory in college. Wind tunnel is an
apparatus which tests the scaled models of the original design which is considered for
future production. It replicates the atmospheric conditions that a model will face in real
scienarios. The apparatus gives the experimentalists a reasonable estimate of all the
forces and moments due to the forcres that act and are produced by the structure.
Only after obtaining the values from the wind tunnel a designer can decide whether
his/her design is a success or if it has failed to achieve its purpose.
a) Wind tunnel operation.
Detailed operation of the wind tunnel used for the experiments is described
below in detail with a step by step approach.
 First the air enters the wind tunnel through an effuser (cone) that accelerates the flow
linearly.
 Then it enters the test section and passes through a grill before moving to the diffuser
and then to the variable speed axial fan.
Test section.
Figure 23. Shows the test section of the wind tunnel

along with the uninstalled model
35
 The function of the diffuser is mainly to ensure smooth flow across the test
section and make the wind tunnel as efficient as possible.
 The grill protects the fan from damage by loose objects.
 The air leaves the fan and pass through the silencer unit and then out to the
atmosphere.
Silencer unit.
Diffuser.
Figure 24. Shows the location of the silencer unit and diffuser of the wind tunnel.
The instrumentation unit which controls the speed of the axial fan consists of
manometers and electrical outlets to supply electrical power to other connected
instruments. The test section of the wind tunnel has a rectangular area with sides made
of transparent glass for visual observation.
Wind tunnel has a balance attached to the test section which has a protractor
and model holder to support and accurately adjust the angle of the model installed.
Pitot static tube and a traversing pitot tube are fit on the upstream and
downstream of the model respectively.
36
Load cell.
Drag measurement
device.
Protractor
.
Figure 25. Balance of the wind tunnel consisting of various components
The tubes are then connected to the manometers which are in turn connected to
the instrument unit. It can be seen that the wind tunnel rests on a metal frame; the
frame serves the function of holding the apparatus so that it does not move while being
operated.
b) Wind tunnel type, dimension, manufacturer and maximum velocity.
The type of wind tunnel used is Af100 subsonic equipment which can go up to
33m/s as its maximum speed. It has been manufactured by TecQuipment Ltd, Bonsall
Street, Nottingham, United Kingdom. The structure is supported on a frame which
includes lockable brakes for convenient mobility. Sensors can be connected to the wind
tunnel instrumentation unit which allows real accurate, real- time data capture,
monitoring, display and also calculates the desired parameters.
Operating condition for the available wind tunnel at the laboratory ranges between 5C°
to 40C°. The specifications for the wind tunnel are given in the Table next page.
37
Table 1. Specifications of the wind tunnel used for the experiments conducted by the project
team.
Dimensions of the wind tunnel (as an 3.7m x 1.065m and the height 1.9m,
assembly) weight 317 kg
Test section dimensions 30.5 cm x 30.5 cm, 60 cm long
Air velocity From zero to 33 m/s, around 0.1 mach
3.1.2. and 3.1.3. VDAS (Versatile Data Acquisition System) and software.
VDS software screen

shot.
Figure 26. Shows the VDS software screen shot on a

computer.
VDAS is software which displays the measurements of lift, drag and moment on
a computer monitor. It does so with the help of a transducer which is a device that
converts physical quantities into electrical quantities. It does so with the help of a
Wheatstone bridge.
38
Wheatstone bridge is a series- parallel circuit which has four resistors connected
to the output voltage. The circuit operates under two circumstances, under balanced
and unbalanced conditions. The balanced condition is when the output voltage is zero
and the ratio of voltages across the resistors is equal. The unbalanced condition occurs
when the output voltage does not read zero. This happens when two of the strain gauge
are under compression and the other two are under tension. If the bridge is balanced at
a known point then the amount of deviation from the unbalanced condition indicates the
amount of change in the parameter being measured. This change appears as a change
in output voltage. This output voltage is digitized and amplified using an amplifier
because the actual voltage obtained is very small and in order to improve the accuracy
of the data, the output value should be amplified to a certain degree.
The electromechanical transducer used in our wind tunnel application is

connected to a strain gauge. It is a device that exhibits a change in resistance when it is
compressed or stretched by the effect of the external load (in our case the loads acting
on the model).
Load cells
Figure 27. Strain gauges are found in the

load cells shown in the picture
39
As the resistance of the strain gauge changes, the balanced bridge becomes
unbalanced. This misbalancing causes the output voltage to change from zero to a non-
zero value. It happens because strain gauge is highly sensitive to slight changes that
occur due to load application.
Change in resistance depends on whether the wire is being compressed or

stretched. Under compression the change in resistance decreases, whereas under
tension the change in resistance increases. Due to its sensitive nature, strain gauge
must be installed properly to avoid error. Strain gauges along with transducers are an
assembly which is called a load cell, which converts the force to milli volts.
After amplification an analogue to digital converter converts the amplified signal

to a force, drag, pitching moment and other required values. These are the values which
are of interest to the team.
3.1.4. Wind tunnel Limitations
As the project group advanced with the experimental data collection, it was found
that the experimental model could have been tested in many ways and could have an
improved bigger design model if only the wind tunnel did not pose the following
limitations:
 Model could not be tested for a speed above 33m/s since it is the maximum
speed of the wind tunnel.
 The test section has only one hole due to which the tested model cannot be
placed elsewhere for further aerodynamic experiments. For instance if the effect
of boundary layer of the wind tunnel on the airfoil needs to be examined, then it
cannot be done because the installation hole is found only at the center of the
test section.
 Due to the small size of the test section, it cannot accommodate large models.
 It cannot accommodate weights above 1.5 kg.
 Wall effect: Due to the effects of viscosity and the boundary layer of the wind
tunnel, flow constriction is found at the corners of the test section. This
40
constriction of air could make the flow turbulent. For this reason the model should
be kept at a small distance away from the walls of the test section. The inner
facing walls of the test section are made as smooth as possible to reduce surface
drag and turbulence that could impact the accuracy of the testing values. But
even smooth walls induce some drag into the airflow, and so the object being
tested is usually kept near the center of the tunnel, with an empty buffer zone
between the object and the tunnel walls.
Figure 28. The figure shows the model inside the test section
41
3.2. Methodology
The group carried out the experiments by installing the model in the following way:
 The balance locks are tightened.

 The protector is set to a zero mark.
 Window of the test section is unscrewed.
 The model is installed such that it is 152.5 mm above the base of the test
section.
 The locks are loosened up before turning on the wind tunnel.
Figure 29. A picture illustrating loosening of the

balance locks to uninstall the model.
42
3.2.1. Procedure for wind tunnel set up.
 Electrical isolator on the control and instrumentation frame is turned on.
 Speed control is set to zero position (completely anticlockwise).
 Press the green start button.
 The speed control is turned clockwise to a desired speed.
Figure 30. A picture illustrating the electrical isolator control unit

which controls the wind tunnel operation.
a) Methodology for carrying out the experiments.
The experiments were carried out and repeated for two types of airfoils one with
sails and the other without sails. Since the method of doing the experiments differ
slightly from each other, the explanation will be divided into two parts. The first part of
the experiment was to obtain data for an airfoil without sails. The process of doing so is
as follows:
1) Install the model as described in section 3.
43
2) Turn on the wind tunnel by following the procedure for its set up as mentioned in
subsection 3.1.
3) Record the required data from the VDAS software for 0 angles and 0 velocities.
4) Change the angle to 2 degrees and record the data.
5) Step 4 is repeated until an angle of 26 degrees is read from the protractor.
6) Steps 3, 4 and 5 are repeated for velocities ranging between 15 to 30m/s.
Figure 31. Wind tunnel model without sails

installed in the test section.
b) Process of doing the experiment with wingtip sails:

1) Remove the model without tip sails and replace the model cover with small sails
(length of 3.6 cm).
2) Steps from 1 to 4 of the experiment without sails are repeated until an angle of 6
degrees is read on the protractor.
3) Once the data for 6 degrees is recorded, the wind tunnel is turned off.
44
Figure 32. Small sails cover being
screwed to the airfoil model.
1) Uninstall the model and remove the cover with small sails.
2) Replace the cover with large sails and install it in the wind tunnel test section.
3) Data from the software is recorded from 8 degree onwards until 26 degrees for
all the velocity ranges.
4) The data is used on the excel sheet for plotting graphs which were used for data
analysis.
Figure 33. Airfoil model with large sails at an angle above 15 degrees.
45
3.2.2. Procedure for turning off the wind tunnel:
Once the wind tunnel facility is used it should be turned off by:
 Turning the speed control completely anticlockwise.

 Then press the red stop button.
The project was divided into several phases which lead to its ultimate completion.
In the first phase of the project a lot of time was devoted in understanding the basic
concept of the project topic. This involved a lot of internet research on how it achieves
its purpose. After obtaining theoretical knowledge about the topic, further papers were
referred in order to understand how the model of tip sails is designed. This was done so
that the team could shape their own model with reference to the information already
provided in research papers available online.
Finally AutoCAD software was used to make the 2D and 3D drawings of the
model which was handed to the workshop for fabrication. The final stage was to carry
out the experiments, analyze the results and present it in a graphical format using Tec
plot.
3.3. Wind Tunnel Model Design and Consideration
It took the team about one month to surf various websites and read PDF files
available online to not only understand the theoretical background of J.J. Spillman‟s
technology but also to understand the design of the device in order to accurately
configure one for the group‟s prototype.
The group had two options either to attach a cylinder which resembled a fuel tank
and attach sails to it or make an airfoil with sails attached to its wingtip. Out of the two
options the group opted for the airfoil with sails attached to it because the idea could be
closely related with the airplanes.
The latter idea which was opted for was not as simple to prepare as it appeared
why deciding among the two designs. Installing sails on the cover of the wingtip was
46
another issue which needed to be dealt with. While doing so the team had the following
options:
1) Attach sails permanently on the semi span wingtip.

2) Make a cover which has many holes on it so that the team could change the sails‟
angle of attack with respect to the wing whenever desired.
3) Make three covers for the semi span wingtip:
a. A cover without sails.
b. A cover with small sails.
c. A cover with large sails.
Each option had a problem when it came to implementing it. Implementing the
first option meant that the airfoil could not be tested for Lift, Drag and Cm without sails
which meant another airfoil had to be made for calculating L, D and Cm.
The second option would not give accurate results on the more it would have
made the experiments messier, least reliable, and time consuming.
The third option turned out to be the best among the three stated above because
it gave the project team more options with neater results.
3.3.1. Model Design
After the decision was made for a model with three covers, the group now
decided on the dimensions and the type of airfoil to be used. Not that the group was not
sure about any of the geometry before detailed design phase but it was during this
phase of the project that all the dimensions were finalized for the workshop to
manufacture the desired model.
By now the group had decided on many factors that have a direct impact on the
model design, such as the number of sails, dihedral angle between the sails, rod
location with respect to the wing and the cover dimensions. The dimensions will be
stated precisely in the coming sub sections.
47
3.3.2. Raw Material.
The material used in making NACA0015 airfoil is aluminum and the rod is made
out of steel. The sails both big and small were made out of aluminum just like the airfoil.
3.3.3. Dimensions of the model.
Model type was chosen to be NACA 0015 because it has relatively more thickness then
NACA 0012 airfoil and also it can be related to the actual 3D flow over an airfoil of a
wing. Other then these factors there are not any other obvious reason for choosing
NACA 0015 airfoil. The new wing configuration with the attachment of the tip sails (the
model) was designed and built using the indication obtained previously from the tests
and experiments that have been carried out by other researchers.
Each time the design team finalized the dimensions there were issues to solve.
Some of the difficulties the team faced while selecting and installing the sails were:
 Calculating the right place of installing the device.

 The length of each sail.
 Dihedral angle between each sail.
 How to set the sails according to the chosen angles.
After thorough research the dimensions given in Table 2 were finalized.
Figure 34. Picture of the airfoil attached to its rod.
48
Table 2. Illustration of the dimensions of the model.
Dimensions of the Model (cm)

Airfoil
Chord 14.5
Span 14.5
Thickness 2.25
Rod
Diameter 1.19
Length 22
Sails
Base chord 2.4
tip chord 1.2
Relative thickness 0.36
Long Sails
Length 6.15
Degrees 8
Small Sails
Length 3.6
Degrees 6
Some other geometric consideration of the model are as follows:
 The dihedral angle between the first and second sail is 25 degrees and -25
degrees between second and the last sail.
 The horizontal distance between the two sails starting from the center of each
was supposed to be 2.5 cm but due to manufacturing errors it‟s almost zero.
 The vertical distance between the sails is 0.6 cm.
49
 The first sail was placed at 30% of the chord, the second sail at 46.6% of chord
and the third sail is placed at 63.3% of chord length.
For the experiments two sets of sails were used with slightly varying dimensions.
Each set consisted of three sails. Although there size varied but the airfoil type is the
same for both the sets of sails.
Cover with long sails.
Cover with small sails.
Cover without sails.
Figure 35.Three covers showing different

sails configurations.
Although the sails are NACA 0015 its maximum thickness is not at 30%of the
chord length instead it has a maximum thickness at the center of the airfoil.
50
3.3.4. AutoCAD diagrams which were prepared for the workshop.
Figure 36.The figure above shows the location of aerodynamic center which is 3.75 cm from the leading
edge. This is where the rod was attached to the airfoil becasue the moments are zero at the aerodynamic
center of the airfoil.
Figure 37.Once the airfoil dimensions were set the cover to which the sails are attached was designed to
have the given thickness and length.
Figure 38.This figure illustrates the incidence angle of each sail with respect to the wing. The leading
edge sail has a 20 degrees incidence angle, the center sail is at 10 degrees and the trailing edge sail has
no incidence angle.
51
Figure 39. The diagram shows the complete set of cover and sail dimensions. The tip chord and root
chord of both the sets of sails is the same. 1.2cm tip chord and 2.4 cm root chord.
Figure 40.This figure illustrates the length of each small sail to be 3.6 cm.
Figure 41.The length of each long sail is set as 6.15 cm.
52
Figure 42. The figure show the top view of the cover with long sails
Figure 43.The figure show the top view of the cover with small sails
Figure 44.The figure shows rod and airfoil assembly at the aerodynamic center.
53
3.3.5. Fabrication techniques.
The workshop chosen for the fabrication is ALICO-glass and aluminum company,
Sharjah. After the model was handed over to the group, the group met the workshop
engineers and asked them about the techniques which they used in order to
manufacture the design model.
The airfoil and the rod is made using CNC machine (machining). They welded
the tip sails to the covers, threaded the hole for the rod and filed the covers of the semi
span wing to give a smooth surface.
3.3.6. Cost
The model fabrication cost the group approximately AED 2500 which included
reshaping the airfoil and the rod because the first time it was fabricated the rod was
tapered due to which it could only be half installed in the balance hole. And also due to
its high weight the airfoil was made lighter by the manufacturers by drilling holes within
the half wing in order to reduce weight. This was done in order to prevent the balance
from damaging due to extra weight.
3.4. Errors made while fabricating the model.
It took three weeks to get the model from the fabrication company, Alico. Before
handing over the AutoCAD diagram of the model, one of the group representatives met
the engineers in Alico to get a rough estimate of how long it will take them to prepare
the design model. The period assigned for fabrication was decided to be two weeks.
The model was made in two halves; first the rod was made and given for testing
its size to see if it fitted in the test section hole of the wind tunnel. Upon insertion it was
found that the rod made was slightly tapered. It was thin for the first 6 cm and thick for
the remaining 16cm. This was the first fabrication mistake.
54
After the rod diameter was fixed, the complete set of model was handed to the
group. Upon supervision by the supervisor, it was found that the model was made
heavier than what the wind tunnel could accommodate. This problem was fixed by
drilling holes in the airfoil in order to remove extra material.
Third error encountered in the design was the shape of the sails. As mentioned in
the AutoCAD diagram, each sail should have had the maximum thickness at 25% of the
leading edge, rather at the center which the fabrication workshop did. Again this matter
was consulted with the supervisor who suggested that since the size of sails is anyway
very small a small change in maximum thickness would not have a noticeable impact on
the results. Finally the project group was ready for conducting the experiments after four
weeks of testing and trying the model for optimum design.
3.5. Model limitations.

 Only three sails were installed because the chord was not big enough to support
more than three sails.
 There is a small gap between the cover and the airfoil after screwing the two
together. Although this gap was covered with the help of cello tape, but this can
be regarded as a source of error.
Figure 45. This picture shows a fabrication Figure 46. The trailing edge of the semi
error. At the trailing edge after screwing the span wing is taped in order to avoid
two surfaces there is a gap which can lead flow separation.
flow separation which is not desired.
55
4. Results and Discussions
In order to be able to examine the effectiveness of the wingtip sail design

concept, the team decided to conduct a set of experiments for the two configurations
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Configurations Used in the Experiments
Configuration Airfoil type

Base Wing NACA-0015
Base Wing with Tip Sails Symmetric airfoil (with relative thickness of 0.36 cm)
The experiments conducted for these configurations enabled the team to observe
the changes of the aerodynamic characteristics of a base wing with to the addition of
the tip sail devices.
To determine the aerodynamic properties such as the aerodynamic force

coefficients, the following specifications were used.
Table 4. Specifications of the Configurations
Half
Chord Wing Aspect
Configuration Wing-
Length Area Ratio
Span
1. Base Wing 0.0225
0.15 m 0.15 m
m2 1
2.1 Base Wing with Short Tip 0.027
0.03 m 0.15 m
Sails(Short Sails, used for small ) m2 1.16
2.2 Base Wing with Long Tip Sails
0.05 m 0.15 m 0.03 m2 1.31
(Long Sails, used for high )
56
Guan Ruizhang35 claimed that if wingtip sails are too long, portion of them may be
outside the disturbance flow field, in this case, the sails will not only produces no
additional lift, it will also contribute to skin friction drag. Furthermore, he suggested that
in order to avoid this problem, it would be useful to use short tip sails for small  (<=10
degree) and long tip sails for high  (>10 degree). Hence, the two configurations (2.1)
and (2.2) were decided by the team. Note that the span for the configuration (2.1) and
(2.2) was calculated by adding the projected component of b Tip to the bw .
𝑏𝑇𝑖𝑝 ,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑏𝑇𝑖𝑝 𝑋 cos 𝛤 [Equation 21]
𝑏𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑏𝑇𝑖𝑝 ,𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 + 𝑏𝑤 [Equation 22]
(bTip Γtip sails (15 degree)

p)
The
(bw) Projected
Component
of (b Tip)
(btotal)
36.
Figure 47 Span of the Base Wing with Tip Sails configuration
57
4.1. Analysis
Measurements of lift and drag for the two configurations were taken for four
different Re numbers, which are tabulated in the Table 5. Moreover, it should be
mentioned that the presented results in this section are a small subset of the results
obtained. The full data sets obtained via experiment conducted in the aerodynamic lab
of Emirates Aviation College, can be found in appendix A.
Table 5. Re Numbers used for the experiment
Air Speed (V) Re

15 m/s Re: 1.54X105
20 m/s Re: 2.05 X105
25 m/s Re: 2.57 X105
30 m/s Re: 3.08 X105
4.1.1. Analysis of the base wing alone
The first set of experiments was performed to measure the aerodynamic forces
of a 3D wing model of a NACA-0015 airfoil. Using the equations 3 and4, the Cl and Cd
were calculated and the results are plotted in the Figure 48 and 49.
𝐷
𝐶𝑑 = [Equation 3]
𝑞 ∞ ∗𝑆
𝐿
𝐶𝑙 = [Equation 4]
𝑞 ∞ ∗𝑆
58
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
C-L
0.4
0.3
5
Re: 1.54x10
5
0.2 Re: 2.05x10
Re: 2..57x105
Re: 3.08x105
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
Figure 48. CL vs. AoA comparison for different Re
Figure 48 shows that the behaviour of the lift coeffienct curve for the base wing,
is the same as the theory stated earlier. As the  increases, the lift produced by the
wing increases linearly reaching a maximum value, for which the angle of attack is
called the stall. At this point the flow starts to separate from the surface and causes a
sudden drop in the lift. All of this would lead into formation of a nonlinear behavior that
can be seen clearly in Figure 48. Table 6 summarizes the main points obtained from
the first set of experiments.
59
Table 6. Main Points Of The Lift Curve
Re CL max Stall (deg) Pressure recovery (deg)

Re: 1.54X105 0.63 ~19 23
Re: 2.05 X105 0.66 17 ~23
Re: 2.57 X105 0.67 ~17 21
Re: 3.08 X105 0.69 16 22
Maximum value of CL along with the Stall is presented for each Re. Moreover, as
the theory previously mentioned, it can be observed that as the Re increased, the value
of CL max increased while the Stall decreased.
0.6
0.5
Re: 1.54x105
Re: 2.05x105
0.4 5
Re: 2.57x10
Re: 3.08x105
C-D
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
Figure 49. CD vs. AoA comparison for different Re
60
Figure 49. shows the drag versus the  comparison for different Reynolds
number. It is expected that the increase in  would result in an increase of the solid
blockage caused by the wing, i.e. the surface area of the wing blocking the flow will
increase. This would lead into formation of a wake behind the wing, thus an increase in
pressure drag and hence the total drags. This can be seen for each curve representing
any Re number in Figure 49.
Figure 50 .change in Solid Blockage with 

37
61
Figures 51 and 52 represent the L/D and Drag Polar of the wing base.
10
9
5
Re: 1.54x10
8 Re: 2.05x105
Re: 2.57x105
5
7 Re: 3.08x10
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
Figure 51. L/D vs. AoA comparison for different Re
Table 7. L/D of different Re
Reynolds Number L/D max L/D stall

5
Re: 1.54x10 ~3.40 ~10 ~19
5
Re: 2.05x10 5.60 ~8 17
5
Re: 2.57x10 ~4.20 ~8 ~17
5
Re: 3.08x10 ~7.60 ~7 16
62
As the Re increases, the L/D curve moves higher in the graph, i.e. the L/D
increases with increasing airspeeds or Re, meaning that the aerodynamic performance
have improved. This can be explained using the following equation.
1
𝐿= 𝜌𝑉 2 𝑠 𝐶𝑙 [Equation 23]
2
The lift is directly proportional to the Re. Hence, as a result of an increase in Re,
the lift produced by the wing also increases. However, it has to kept in mind that the D i
is also directly proportional to the lift (Equation 24-26), thus as the lift increases the Di
also increase.
𝐶𝐷𝑖
𝐷𝑖 = [Equation 24]
𝑞∞ 𝑆
𝐶𝐿 2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 = [Equation 25]
𝜋 𝑒 𝐴𝑅
𝐶𝐿 2
𝐷𝑖 = [Equation 26]
𝜋 𝑒 𝐴𝑅 𝑞 𝑆
In addition, Figure 51 shows that as the Re raises the L/D, the  for maximum L/D
becomes progressively lower as the Re is increased, leading to a better overall cruise
performance (L/D) at lower  for higher Re.
For the higher Re presented in Figure 51 the best L/D occurs at an  equal to 6~7
degree while for the lower Re it is almost equal to 8~10 degrees.
63
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
C-L
0.4
0.3
5
Re: 1.54x10
0.2 Re: 2.05x10
5
Re: 2.57x105
Re: 3.08x105
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
C-D
Figure 52. Drag Polar comparison for different Re numbers
64
4.1.2. Analysis and Comparison of the Base Wing vs. Wing with Wingtip Sails
Once the test results of the experiments for the base wing were collected, a
second set of tests was performed on the wing with the three-wingtip sails. The result
obtained for the lift coefficient for this new configuration is shown in Figure 53.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
C-L
0.8
0.6
5
Re: 1.54x10
0.4 Re: 2.05x105
Re: 2.54x105
5
Re: 3.08x10
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
Figure 53. CL vs. AoA For Different Re Numbers
The behavior of the lift curves shown in Figure 53, is similar to that of a base
wing alone configuration. For low , there is a linear increase in CL until the max
amount of lift is achieved for which the  would be equal to the stall. After this point, any
further increase in  results in a sudden drop in lift produced that is shown as the
nonlinear behavior of the curve after the stall. This sudden drop of lift is related to the
flow separation and the formation of the wake behind the wing at high .
65
The summery of the main points for the lift curves presented in the Figure 53, is
tabulated in the Table 8.
Table 8. Main Point for Lift Curve (Figure 53)
Reynolds number CL max Stall (deg)
Re: 1.54x105 1.00 ~17

Re: 2.05x105 1.10 16
Re: 2.57x105 1.20 ~15
Re: 3.08x105 1.24 15
The findings from the experiments turned out the way it has already been
mentioned in theoretical background (section 2). The results are in agreement with the
predicted improvement of the wingtip configuration in term of the Di, lift generation and
aerodynamic performances due to the upwash. These results can be seen more clearly
in the following figures plotted below which show the comparison of the two wing
configurations; the base wing alone and the wing with wingtip sails. Different figures
have been plotted for different Reynolds number.
Moreover, the Tables below the figures summarize the results for the tested
configurations. The aerodynamic force coefficients and the Oswald factors presented in
the Tables 11-14 were also calculated for the two wings configuration. Oswald efficiency
factor (e) of the wing at a given lift coefficient is defined as ratio of the wing's induced
drag coefficient and induced drag coefficient of the equal aspect ratio elliptic wing at that
same lift coefficient. To get the Oswald factor:
𝐶𝐿 2
𝑒= [Equation 27]
𝜋 𝐴𝑅 𝐶𝐷𝑖
Where, 𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 𝐶𝐷 − 𝐶𝐷𝑜 [Equation 28]
66
1.6
1.4 Wing With Tip Sails

Wing Alone
1.2
1
C-L
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Figure 54. CL vs. AoA for Re: 1.54x10
Table 9. Comparison of the Aerodynamic Characteristic for Re: 1.54x105
Configuration CL max Stall (deg) Pressure recovery (deg)
Wing Alone ~0.62 ~19 22
Wing with Tip sails ~0.98 ~17 23
67
1.6
Wing With Tip Sails

1.4 Wing Alone
1.2
1
C-L
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Wing Alone ~0.64 ~19 ~22
Wing with Tip sails ~1.1 ~16 ~23
68
1.6
Wing With Tip Sails

1.4 Wing Alone
1.2
1
C-L
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Wing Alone ~0.66 ~17 20
Wing with Tip sails ~1.2 ~15 21
69
1.6
Wing With Tip Sails

1.4 Wing Alone
1.2
1
C-L
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Wing Alone ~0.68 ~16 21
Wing with Tip sails ~1.22 ~15 ~21
70
All the figures shown above indicate that the new configuration of wing with
wingtip sails increases the amount of lift produced. This would also lead to a decrease
in Stall.
Apart from the indication of improved efficiency of the aerodynamic coefficients,

from the graphs and tables shown above, there is a pressure recovery parameter too.
Overall, the curves of the figures shows a definite recovery of the pressure at around 21
to 24 degrees . To be accurate, the pressure for the wing with tip sails starts
recovering a little later than it does for the base wing alone. In general, attaching the
wingtip sails to the base wing does not make the wing lose its pressure recovery
characteristics. Rather, the value of pressure recovery is almost the same for both wing
types. The following graphs (Figure 58-61) will show the comparison of L/D for both
configurations:
71
10
8 Wing With Tip Sails

Wing Alone
7
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Figure 58. L/D vs. AoA for Re: 1.54x10
Table 13. Comparison of the Aerodynamic Characteristic for Re: 1.54 x105
Configuration L/D max L/D Percentages increase of Average

L/D
Wing Alone ~3.6 10

39%
Wing with Tip sails ~5 ~16
72
10

Wing Alone
8
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5

L/D
Wing Alone ~5.6 8

30%
Wing with Tip sails ~7.3 ~13
73
10

Wing Alone
8
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5

L/D
Wing Alone ~4.2 8

40%
Wing with Tip sails ~5.8 ~14
74
10

Wing Alone
8
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Percentages increase of Average

Configuration L/D max L/D
L/D
Wing Alone ~7.6 ~7

6%
Wing with Tip sails ~8 11
75
The aerodynamic performance has increased up to 30-40% at lower speeds.
However, it can be noted that as the airspeed was increased to 3.08x105, the efficiency
of the winglet device was drastically reduced leading to the increase in the aerodynamic
performance only by a small amount. This could be explained by the presence of the
additional surfaces, i.e. the tip sails. Apparently, their presence has increased the
amount of drag and hence resulted into an insufficient and rather an unsatisfactory
increase of L/D.
Figure 62-65. Show the comparison of CDi for both configurations. As it will be
noticed in the following graphs, the wingtip sail design configuration provides less
amount of CDi for the same lift coefficient at higher . However the design did not
appear to be very effective at low . Therefore, the percentage reductions in CDi
presented in the following tables are calculated using the values of average CDi for high
, where the wingtip design seems to be more effective. These results clearly indicate
that the use of wingtip sail design at high  is very effective.
76
0.25
0.2
0.15
C-Di
0.1
Wing With Tip Sails

Wing Alone
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
C-L
5
Figure 62. CDi vs. AoA for Re: 1.54x10
Configuration % reduction in CDi Average (e)
Wing Alone 0.42

-17%
Wing with Tip sails 0.82
77
0.25
0.2
0.15
C-Di
0.1
0.05
Wing With Tip Sails
Wing Alone
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
C-L
5
Wing Alone 0.64

-18%
78
0.25
0.2
0.15
C-Di
0.1
Wing With Tip Sails

Wing Alone
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
C-L
5
Wing Alone 0.56

-28%
79
0.3
Wing With Tip Sails
Wing Alone
0.25
0.2
C-Di
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
C-L
5
Wing Alone 0.63

-17%
80
The results of the experiments showed that the added extension to the wing
resulted into a decrease in the overall drag by reducing the Di . The obtained results of
reduced Di can be related to the theory that was discussed before, which stated that the
reason for the reduction is the ability of the wingtip sails to produce slight forward thrust
that over shadows the effect of the drag and hence enhances lift.
It can be concluded that using this technology at low speeds results in an

increase of the L/D, almost up to 30-40% and a reduction of Di by approximate 17%,
which is quite small. Moreover, at higher airspeeds, although the tip sails did not
improve the performance by a big amount, yet, they managed to reduce the Di by
almost 17-28%. As small as these values might be, in aviation industry however, they
can be considered useful. Therefore, using wing-extension could help the aircrafts
improve their performance during cruise and at low α.
81
5. Comparison
In mid 1990's, la-Roche38 developed another concept for wingtip device called
the Wing-grid. Similar to the wingtip sail design, the wing-grid also consists of a set of
multiple wing extensions added to the base wing. But unlike wingtip sails, the
extensions of the wing-grid neither have any incidence nor dihedral angle.
Both devices had been designed to serve the same purpose that is to reduce the
Di by using the flow properties generated by the concentrated vortices near the wingtip.
Since both concepts were tested in the same experimental facility and under the same
flow conditions, it was decided to compare the results obtained from both the
experiments. The reference area chosen for calculations of aerodynamic force
coefficients and Oswald efficiency factor did not agree in the two experiments.
Therefore, it was decided that comparison should be focused only on the L/D.
The results in the tables show that both design concepts have improved the
aerodynamic performance. This can be shown by the increase in L/D. Moreover, it is
observed that the wing-grid design achieved this improvement while being able to
maintain the same stall, while the tip sail design experienced a decrease in the stall.
Furthermore, it can be noticed that the wingtip sail design is more effective at
high , while the wing-grid design is more effective at small . This behavior could be
due to the structural configuration of the wing-grids, which causes more solid blockage
at higher  and results into more drag due to the wake generated, compared to the tip
sail design.
Table A9 – A12 in Appendix present the data obtained for the wing-grid
configuration at higher Re. It can be seen that this configuration produces more lift
compared to the base wing configuration. However, this increase in lift is accompanied
by an increase in drag, which is more than the drag produced by the wingtip sail design.
Hence, the L/D curve for the wing-grid configuration does not show much improvement
and remains close to the L/D curve of the base wing configuration, however it should be
noted that the wing-grid configuration manages to delay the stall or  for the CLmax.
82
Therefore, it is concluded that at high Re, the wing-grid design configuration is
not very efficient compared to the wing tip sail configuration. This has been shown in the
following Figure 67, 68 and 69. Figures 66-69 show the comparison of the L/D curves
obtained for the base wing, wing with tip sails and wing with grids.
Wing Alone
Wing With Grids
4
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Figure 66. L/D vs. AoA for different wing concept at Re:1.54x10
Table 21. Aerodynamic performance of different concepts at Re:1.54x105
Configuration L/D max stall
Base Wing ~3.4 19

Wing with Tip Sails ~5 ~17
Wing with Grids ~5 ~19
83
10
9 Wing Alone
Wing With Tip Sails
Wing With Grids
8
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Figure 67. L/D vs. AoA for different wing concept at Re: 2.05x10
Table 22. Aerodynamic performance of different concepts at Re: 2.05x105
Base Wing ~5.6 19

Wing with Tip Sails ~7.4 ~16
Wing with Grids ~5.4 ~20
84
10
9 Wing Alone
Wing With Tip Sails
Wing With Grids
8
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Base Wing ~4.2 17

Wing with Grids ~5 ~18
85
10
9 Wing Alone
Wing With Tip Sails
Wing With Grids
8
6
L/D
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
AoA
5
Base Wing ~7.7 16

Wing with Grids ~6.8 ~17
86
6. Conclusion
Experiments have been performed to examine the efficiency of the multiple

winglets mounted at certain Γ to improve the performance of a wing in a subsonic flow.
The results were obtained after conducting the experiment for different airspeeds and/or
Re numbers. In order to determine the level of uncertainty, the experiments were
conducted two times. Thus, the average uncertainty level was calculated during the
measurement phase and it turned out to be almost ± 0.2% for C L and ± 0.4% for CD.
This could have been due to human error like, an error while setting the angle of attack
or a due to slightly improper installation of the model.
However, the obtained results from the experiments that were carried out for the
two-wing configuration were satisfactory. Therefore, the suggested structural change to
the base wing, i.e. addition of the wingtip sails, did result in an improvement of the
aerodynamic characteristics by 15-39% and a reduction in induced drag (drag
generated due to lift) by 7-20%.
To conclude, the team had successfully achieved the set objectives of the
experiment and was able to present it in a report form, thus proving the overall
efficiency of the wingtip sails on aircraft‟s base wing.
6.1. Future Plan
The information presented in this paper was the result of studies and
experiments conducted for the actual airflow around the geometry of wingtip devices
and their comparison with the flow around the wing alone. The results were satisfactory.
Hence, the team has decided to take the research one-step further by choosing the
following parameters and studying their effect on the flow in the near future. The
parameters are as follows:
 Changing the dihedral angle of the sails, keeping the Re number constant
 Changing the position of the wingtip sails relative with the wingtip chord
 Changing the local incidence angle of the sails
87
6.2. Recommendations
Certain things were noticed while the experiment was being conducted by the
team. The points are as follows:
1) In order to avoid placing the sail outside the disturbance flow fields and producing an
opposite effect, i.e. in order to avoid the reducing lift and increasing drag effect, it is
recommended that at high , long sails should be used and vice-versa.
2) Airfoils span for both the base wing and the winglet devices should not be increased to
an extent that it would enter the boundary layer of the test section while changing the
.
3) Two different multi-winglet concepts were examined, wingtip sails and wing-grids.
Wingtip sails were manufactured out of aluminium while the wing-grids were made out
of wood. It was observed that the wing-grids compared to wingtip sails, gave higher
values for drag for the same  for almost all the Re. There is a possibility that the
material has a role to play in the difference found in the drag values. Although it is not a
proven fact that this increase in drag is due to the material used, however it is
recommended that the model should be manufactured in a way such that it has a
smooth surface in order to eliminate any source of error in the experiment.
4) Keeping a horizontal distance between the tip sails is recommended so that the
downwash produced by the vortices around each sail does not interact with the flow of
the next/following sail and make a stronger vortex.
5) The sails should be symmetric in order to avoid an early or undue flow separation.
88
7. Appendix
Table A1: Wing Alone, Experiment Results, Re: 1.54X105
Wing Alone
Re: 1.54X105
AoA (deg) L D CL CD CL2 CDi e L/D
0 0 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.25 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.07 1.79
4 0.46 0.21 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.14 2.19
6 0.72 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.30 3.13
8 0.99 0.31 0.32 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.39 3.19
10 1.25 0.36 0.40 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.52 3.47
12 1.48 0.45 0.48 0.15 0.23 0.13 0.56 3.29
14 1.68 0.63 0.54 0.20 0.29 0.19 0.50 2.67
15 1.72 0.65 0.55 0.21 0.31 0.19 0.51 2.65
16 1.8 0.7 0.58 0.23 0.34 0.21 0.51 2.57
17 1.85 0.73 0.60 0.24 0.36 0.22 0.52 2.53
18 1.89 0.75 0.61 0.24 0.37 0.23 0.52 2.52
19 1.95 0.79 0.63 0.25 0.40 0.24 0.53 2.47
20 1.71 0.82 0.55 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.39 2.09
21 1.68 0.84 0.54 0.27 0.29 0.25 0.37 2.00
22 1.64 0.85 0.53 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.35 1.93
24 1.85 0.91 0.60 0.29 0.36 0.28 0.41 2.03
26 2.1 0.94 0.68 0.30 0.46 0.29 0.51 2.23
89
Table A2 : Wing Alone, Experiment Results, Re: 2.05 X105
Wing Alone
Re: 2.05 X105
0 0 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.55 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.58 3.93
4 1.14 0.23 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.63 4.96
6 1.59 0.33 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.66 4.82
8 2.13 0.38 0.39 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.97 5.61
10 2.54 0.54 0.46 0.10 0.21 0.08 0.87 4.70
12 2.88 0.65 0.52 0.12 0.27 0.10 0.89 4.43
14 3.14 0.77 0.57 0.14 0.32 0.12 0.86 4.08
15 3.28 0.87 0.60 0.16 0.35 0.14 0.82 3.77
16 3.42 1 0.62 0.18 0.38 0.16 0.76 3.42
17 3.49 1.27 0.63 0.23 0.40 0.21 0.61 2.75
18 3.54 1.39 0.64 0.25 0.41 0.23 0.57 2.55
19 3.63 1.39 0.66 0.25 0.43 0.23 0.59 2.61
20 3.2 1.4 0.58 0.25 0.34 0.23 0.46 2.29
21 3.11 1.56 0.56 0.28 0.32 0.26 0.39 1.99
22 3.05 1.65 0.55 0.30 0.31 0.28 0.35 1.85
24 3.41 1.83 0.62 0.33 0.38 0.31 0.39 1.86
26 3.84 1.98 0.70 0.36 0.49 0.34 0.46 1.94
90
Table A3: Wing Alone, Experiment Results, Re: 2.57 X105
Wing Alone
Re: 2.57 X105
0 0 0.21 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.98 0.53 0.11 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.11 1.85
4 2.2 0.62 0.26 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.44 3.55
6 3.1 0.75 0.36 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.66 4.13
8 3.61 0.86 0.42 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.74 4.20
10 4.28 1.1 0.50 0.13 0.25 0.10 0.76 3.89
12 4.98 1.4 0.58 0.16 0.33 0.14 0.77 3.56
14 5.38 1.52 0.62 0.18 0.39 0.15 0.82 3.54
15 5.52 1.58 0.64 0.18 0.41 0.16 0.82 3.49
16 5.69 1.63 0.66 0.19 0.44 0.16 0.84 3.49
17 5.75 1.78 0.67 0.21 0.45 0.18 0.78 3.23
18 5.61 2.24 0.65 0.26 0.42 0.24 0.57 2.50
19 5.44 2.38 0.63 0.28 0.40 0.25 0.50 2.29
20 5.32 2.85 0.62 0.33 0.38 0.31 0.40 1.87
21 5.41 2.97 0.63 0.34 0.39 0.32 0.39 1.82
22 5.57 3.12 0.65 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.31 1.79
24 5.78 3.74 0.67 0.49 0.45 0.47 0.31 1.55
26 6.34 3.81 0.74 0.51 0.54 0.49 0.36 1.66
91
Table A4: Wing Alone, Experiment Results, Re: 3.08 X105
Wing Alone
Re: 3.08 X105
0 0 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 1.65 0.31 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.37 5.32
4 3.46 0.55 0.28 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.71 6.29
6 4.75 0.64 0.38 0.05 0.15 0.04 1.11 7.42
8 5.8 0.75 0.47 0.06 0.22 0.05 1.37 7.73
10 6.6 1.06 0.53 0.09 0.28 0.08 1.19 6.23
12 7.8 1.46 0.63 0.12 0.40 0.11 1.17 5.34
14 8.29 2.73 0.67 0.22 0.45 0.21 0.68 3.04
15 8.53 3.01 0.69 0.24 0.47 0.23 0.65 2.83
16 8.7 3.76 0.70 0.30 0.49 0.29 0.53 2.31
17 8.62 4.12 0.69 0.33 0.48 0.32 0.48 2.09
18 8.5 4.59 0.69 0.37 0.47 0.36 0.41 1.85
19 8.21 4.87 0.66 0.39 0.44 0.38 0.36 1.69
20 7.98 5.39 0.64 0.43 0.41 0.42 0.31 1.48
21 7.72 5.48 0.62 0.44 0.39 0.43 0.29 1.41
22 8.12 5.61 0.65 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.31 1.45
24 8.91 5.97 0.72 0.48 0.52 0.47 0.35 1.49
26 9.37 6.42 0.76 0.52 0.57 0.51 0.36 1.46
92
Table A5: Wing with Wingtip sails Experiment Results, Re:1.54 X105
Wing with Wingtip sails

Re:1.54 X105
0 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.35 0.34 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.04 1.03
4 0.64 0.46 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.09 1.39
6 1.10 0.58 0.30 0.16 0.09 0.12 0.19 1.90
8 1.66 0.61 0.45 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.41 2.72
10 2.35 0.69 0.58 0.17 0.33 0.14 0.59 3.41
12 3.21 0.75 0.79 0.18 0.62 0.15 0.99 4.28
14 3.81 0.78 0.94 0.19 0.88 0.16 1.34 4.88
15 3.97 0.80 0.98 0.20 0.95 0.16 1.41 4.96
16 4.12 0.82 1.01 0.20 1.03 0.17 1.47 5.02
17 4.22 0.85 1.04 0.21 1.08 0.18 1.48 4.96
18 3.85 0.86 0.95 0.21 0.90 0.18 1.21 4.48
19 3.54 0.89 0.87 0.22 0.76 0.19 0.99 3.98
20 3.40 0.93 0.84 0.23 0.70 0.20 0.86 3.66
21 3.22 1.02 0.79 0.25 0.63 0.22 0.70 3.16
22 3.14 1.04 0.77 0.26 0.60 0.22 0.65 3.02
24 3.65 1.18 0.90 0.29 0.81 0.26 0.76 3.09
26 3.87 1.22 0.95 0.30 0.91 0.27 0.82 3.17
93
Table 6: Wing with Wingtip sails, Experiment Results, Re:2.05 X105
Wing With Wingtip sails
Re:2.05 X105
0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 0.71 0.38 0.11 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.09 1.87
4.00 1.54 0.51 0.23 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.27 3.02
6.00 2.67 0.67 0.40 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.57 3.99
8.00 3.70 0.74 0.56 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.96 5.00
10.00 5.27 0.83 0.73 0.11 0.53 0.09 1.40 6.35
12.00 6.89 0.95 0.95 0.13 0.91 0.11 2.03 7.25
14.00 7.56 1.15 1.05 0.16 1.09 0.14 1.95 6.57
15.00 7.87 1.24 1.09 0.17 1.19 0.15 1.93 6.35
16.00 8.12 1.31 1.12 0.18 1.26 0.16 1.93 6.20
17.00 7.84 1.39 1.08 0.19 1.18 0.17 1.68 5.64
18.00 7.56 1.52 1.05 0.21 1.09 0.19 1.42 4.97
19.00 7.11 1.58 0.98 0.22 0.97 0.20 1.20 4.50
20.00 6.89 1.63 0.95 0.23 0.91 0.20 1.09 4.23
21.00 6.54 1.71 0.90 0.24 0.82 0.21 0.93 3.82
22.00 6.02 1.83 0.83 0.25 0.69 0.23 0.73 3.29
24.00 6.85 2.10 0.95 0.29 0.90 0.27 0.81 3.26
26.00 7.15 2.28 0.99 0.32 0.98 0.29 0.81 3.14
94
Table A7: Wing with Wingtip sails, Experiment Results, Re:2.57 X105
Re:2.57 X105
0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 1.15 0.64 0.11 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.11 1.80
4.00 2.94 0.96 0.28 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.36 3.06
6.00 5.12 1.42 0.50 0.14 0.25 0.11 0.63 3.61
8.00 7.12 1.72 0.69 0.17 0.47 0.14 0.96 4.14
10.00 10.21 1.94 0.90 0.17 0.82 0.14 1.41 5.26
12.00 12.27 2.11 1.09 0.19 1.18 0.16 1.84 5.82
14.00 13.46 2.25 1.19 0.20 1.42 0.17 2.05 5.98
15.00 13.85 2.46 1.23 0.22 1.50 0.19 1.95 5.63
16.00 12.98 2.78 1.15 0.25 1.32 0.22 1.49 4.67
17.00 12.52 2.95 1.11 0.26 1.23 0.23 1.30 4.24
18.00 12.31 3.22 1.09 0.29 1.19 0.25 1.13 3.82
19.00 11.97 3.54 1.06 0.31 1.12 0.28 0.97 3.38
20.00 11.26 3.85 1.00 0.34 0.99 0.31 0.78 2.92
21.00 11.04 4.05 0.98 0.36 0.96 0.33 0.71 2.73
22.00 11.54 4.12 1.02 0.36 1.04 0.33 0.76 2.80
24.00 11.97 4.77 1.06 0.42 1.12 0.39 0.70 2.51
26.00 12.35 4.89 1.09 0.43 1.20 0.40 0.72 2.53
95
Table A8. Wing with Wingtip sails, Experiment Results, Re:3.08 X105
Re: 3.08 X105
0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 4.02 0.69 0.27 0.05 0.07 0.02 1.06 5.83
4.00 7.10 0.99 0.48 0.07 0.23 0.04 1.60 7.17
6.00 10.54 1.45 0.71 0.10 0.50 0.07 1.96 7.27
8.00 13.21 1.79 0.89 0.12 0.79 0.09 2.32 7.38
10.00 16.45 2.10 1.01 0.13 1.02 0.10 2.44 7.83
12.00 18.72 2.65 1.15 0.16 1.32 0.14 2.38 7.06
14.00 19.98 3.01 1.23 0.19 1.51 0.16 2.33 6.64
15.00 20.21 3.58 1.24 0.22 1.54 0.19 1.95 5.65
16.00 19.72 3.85 1.21 0.24 1.47 0.21 1.71 5.12
17.00 19.34 4.58 1.19 0.28 1.41 0.25 1.35 4.22
18.00 19.27 5.01 1.18 0.31 1.40 0.28 1.21 3.85
19.00 18.58 5.54 1.14 0.34 1.30 0.31 1.01 3.35
20.00 18.28 5.68 1.12 0.35 1.26 0.32 0.95 3.22
21.00 18.31 5.98 1.13 0.37 1.27 0.34 0.90 3.06
22.00 18.83 6.07 1.16 0.37 1.34 0.35 0.94 3.10
24.00 19.21 6.52 1.18 0.40 1.39 0.37 0.91 2.95
26.00 19.62 7.12 1.21 0.44 1.45 0.41 0.86 2.76
96
Table A9. Wing-grid Experimental Results, Re: 1.54 X105
2
α (deg) L D CL CD CL C Di L/D
0 0.12 0.21 0.017 0.031 0 0 0.57
2 0.79 0.24 0.115 0.035 0.013 0.004 3.29
4 1.54 0.34 0.224 0.049 0.05 0.019 4.53
6 1.92 0.39 0.279 0.057 0.078 0.026 4.92
8 2.56 0.51 0.373 0.074 0.139 0.044 5.02
10 3.32 0.78 0.483 0.114 0.233 0.083 4.26
12 3.57 0.89 0.52 0.13 0.27 0.099 4.01
14 4.12 1.23 0.6 0.179 0.36 0.148 3.35
16 4.62 1.65 0.672 0.24 0.452 0.21 2.8
18 4.82 1.92 0.701 0.279 0.492 0.249 2.51
19 4.58 2.18 0.667 0.317 0.444 0.287 2.1
20 4.39 2.34 0.639 0.341 0.408 0.31 1.88
21 4.29 2.45 0.624 0.357 0.39 0.326 1.75
22 3.77 2.56 0.549 0.373 0.301 0.342 1.47
23 3.73 2.71 0.543 0.394 0.295 0.364 1.38
24 3.82 2.78 0.556 0.405 0.309 0.374 1.37
26 3.87 2.99 0.563 0.435 0.317 0.405 1.29
97
Table A10. Wing-grid Experiment Results, Re: 2.05 X105
2
α (deg) L D CL CD CL CDi L/D
0 0.27 0.23 0.028 0.024 0.001 0 1.174
2 1.45 0.31 0.151 0.032 0.023 0.008 4.677
4 2.56 0.46 0.267 0.048 0.071 0.024 5.565
6 3.63 0.65 0.378 0.068 0.143 0.044 5.585
8 4.21 0.81 0.439 0.084 0.193 0.06 5.198
10 5.21 1.15 0.543 0.12 0.295 0.096 4.53
12 5.77 1.41 0.601 0.147 0.362 0.123 4.092
14 6.21 1.65 0.647 0.172 0.419 0.148 3.764
16 6.69 2.01 0.697 0.21 0.486 0.186 3.328
18 6.97 2.15 0.726 0.224 0.528 0.2 3.242
19 6.48 2.99 0.675 0.312 0.456 0.288 2.167
20 6.43 3.25 0.67 0.339 0.449 0.315 1.978
21 5.41 3.55 0.564 0.37 0.318 0.346 1.524
22 5.35 3.54 0.558 0.369 0.311 0.345 1.511
23 5.21 3.72 0.543 0.388 0.295 0.364 1.401
24 5.31 3.83 0.553 0.399 0.306 0.375 1.386
26 5.49 3.87 0.572 0.403 0.327 0.379 1.419
98
2
0 0.45 0.46 0.03 0.031 0.001 0 0.978
2 2.43 0.58 0.162 0.039 0.026 0.008 4.19
4 3.81 0.78 0.254 0.052 0.065 0.021 4.885
6 5.32 1.06 0.355 0.071 0.126 0.04 5.019
8 6.37 1.36 0.425 0.091 0.181 0.06 4.684
10 7.63 1.71 0.509 0.114 0.259 0.083 4.462
12 9.61 2.75 0.641 0.183 0.411 0.153 3.495
14 10.34 3.12 0.69 0.208 0.476 0.177 3.314
16 10.82 3.54 0.722 0.236 0.521 0.205 3.056
18 11.21 3.72 0.748 0.248 0.559 0.217 3.013
19 10.23 4.61 0.682 0.308 0.466 0.277 2.219
20 9.98 5.42 0.666 0.362 0.443 0.331 1.841
21 9.78 5.45 0.652 0.364 0.426 0.333 1.794
22 8.65 5.58 0.577 0.372 0.333 0.342 1.55
23 8.23 5.63 0.549 0.376 0.301 0.345 1.462
24 8.45 5.69 0.564 0.38 0.318 0.349 1.485
26 8.52 6.12 0.568 0.408 0.323 0.378 1.392
99
2
0 0.57 0.44 0.026 0.02 0 0 1.295
2 3.21 0.61 0.149 0.028 0.02 0.008 5.262
4 5.98 0.89 0.277 0.041 0.08 0.021 6.719
6 8.91 1.41 0.413 0.065 0.17 0.045 6.319
8 10.14 1.69 0.47 0.078 0.22 0.058 6
10 11.65 2.39 0.54 0.111 0.29 0.09 4.874
12 13.81 3.24 0.64 0.15 0.41 0.13 4.262
14 14.76 3.77 0.684 0.175 0.47 0.154 3.915
16 15.98 4.76 0.74 0.221 0.55 0.2 3.357
17 16.45 5.01 0.762 0.232 0.58 0.212 3.283
18 15.31 5.21 0.709 0.241 0.5 0.221 2.939
19 14.82 5.65 0.687 0.262 0.47 0.241 2.623
20 14.56 5.78 0.674 0.268 0.45 0.247 2.519
21 14.23 5.85 0.659 0.271 0.43 0.251 2.432
22 13.78 5.91 0.638 0.274 0.41 0.253 2.332
23 14.13 6.12 0.655 0.284 0.43 0.263 2.309
24 14.54 6.53 0.674 0.303 0.45 0.282 2.227
26 14.77 6.76 0.684 0.313 0.47 0.293 2.185
[34]
100
8. Acknowledgment
There was much more effort on the creation of this report, than the writing of it by
the team. Therefore, the team would like to acknowledge and thank the following who
have made the completion of this Graduation Project “Wingtip Sails. External Feathers
Concept” possible.
Our professor, Dr.Kim Hwan, for helping the team at every point of the project,
be it in the laboratory or while making the report. Dr. Tawfik, for his quality time and
support. The Emirates Aviation College for allowing the team to use the laboratory when
needed.
Lastly, the team would like to pass on sincere thanks to the fellow colleagues for
their much needed cooperation and valuable suggestions.
101
9. References
[i] www.yahoo/images.com
[1] http://www.obitmag.com/media
[2]http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/737700_k62995.j
pg
[3] Spillman, J.J., “The use of wing tip sails to reduce vortex drag,” Aeronautical Journal,
Sep., 1978, pp. 387-395.
[4] Smith, H. The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics Tab Books, Inc. Pennsylvania,
1985
[5] Reduction of induced drag by wingtip slots between the primary feathers by Vance
A. Tucker (March 1993)
[6] Design of multi winglets, to improve turning and soaring characteristic of gliders by
D. P. Coiro, F.Nicolosi, F. Scherillo, U. Maisto (September 2007)
[7] Fundamental study of drag and an assessment of conventional drag-due-to lift

reduction devices, by John E. Yates and Coleman P. Donaldson(1986)
[8] How do sails work? An Article by Paul Bogataj (1995-2000)
[9] Aerodynamic Characteristic of hybrid-sail with square soft sail by Toshifumi Fujiwara,
Koichi Hirata, Michio Ueno and Tadashi Nimura ( May, 2003)
[10] Aerodynamic analysis of multi-winglets applied to light aircrafts by Cosin.R

(September 2009)
[11] Active multiple winglets for improved Unmanned-Aerial-Vehicle performance by

Andrew Shelton, Agvinesh Tomar, JVR Prasad, Marilyn J. Smith, and Narayanan
Komerath (January–February 2006)
[12] http://www.twitt.org/winggrid.jpg
[13-22] Steven A. Brandt, R.J. (2004). Aerodynamics and Airfoils. Cranfield: AIAA
[23] http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/Images/wing_diagram.gif
[24] M.J. Smith, N. Komerath, R. Ames, O. Wong, J. Pearson “Performance Analysis of

a Wing with Multiple Winglets” AIAA Paper 2001-2407
[25] http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/12/humankind-takes-flight-the-wright-
brothers-at-kitty-hawk-105-years-ago-today/
102
[26] “Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering” , volume 2, No.3, 2008,
pp.143-150.
[27] http://en.wikivisual.com/images/e/e4/Seagull_wing.jpg
[28] “AERODYNAMICS OF WING TIP SAILS “, Journal of Engineering Science and

Technology , Vol. 1, No. 1 (2006) 89-98
[29] Dr. Kim‟s e-slides
[30] J. J. Spillman “The use of Wing Tip to reduce vortex drag” Aeronautical Journal
Paper No. 618, 1978, pp. 387-395.
[31-33] http://books.google.ae
[34] Dr. Kim Hwan, Eamirates Aviation College, e-slides
[35-38] Article by Guan Ruizhang, "Test of Wingtip Sails on Y-11 Agriculture Aircraft"
103

Final Aero Wingtip Project 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Aero Wingtip Project 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abstract

Literature Survey …………………………………………………………………………………..7

Industrial application of the wingtip sail…………………………………………..8

Scope of the Project ………………………………………………………………………………9

Theoretical background ………………………………………………………………………………11

NACA airfoils ……………………………………………………………………………11

General information on coefficients vs. α …………………………...14

Prandtl lifting line theory …………………………………………………………….17

Difference between planar & non-planar……………………………………… 24

Effect of wingtip devices on vortices…………………………………………….. 25

Experimental Procedure ……………… ………………………………………………………………34

VDAS (versatile data acquisition system) ………………………………………38

Wind tunnel limitations ………………………………………………………………40

Procedure for turning off the wind tunnel …………………………………….46

Wind tunnel model design & consideration ……………………………………………46

Raw material ……………………………………………………………………………..48

Fabrication techniques ……………………………………………………………….54

Errors made while fabricating……………………………………………………… 54

Model Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………….55

Results and Discussions …………………………………………………………………………………56

Analyses of base wing ………………………………………………………………...58

bw = Base Wing Span

btip = Tip Sail Span

Γ =Dihedral Angle of the Tip Sail

1.1. Literature Survey

In 1978, John Spillman3 carried out a series of experiments on wingtip airfoils

A review of published papers on the subject of wingtip sails reveals numerous

Studies and experimental investigations presented in these papers provided a

1.1.1. Industrial Application of the Wingtip Sail Technology

1.2. Scope of the Project

 Calculating L/D of the airfoil without tip sails technology.

 Introducing the engineering students to the real world of aeronautical engineering

 Achieving a project experience for a career in aerospace industry.

 Accumulating research skills for postgraduate studies.

 Encouraging the students to work in teams to build up group skills.

2.1. Wing Theory

2.1.1. NACA airfoils:

In the early 1930s, NACA-the forerunner of NASA, embarked on a series of

 The four digits series (e.g. NACA 0012, NACA 0015)

Furthermore, based on the Bernoulli‟s principle, when the velocity in a flow

The lift is an aerodynamic force component which is perpendicular to the V∞ and

Lift Total Aerodynamic Force

2.1.3. General information on Coefficients vs. α

Figure 8 . Cl and Cd vs. 

Parasite Drag = Pressure Drag + Skin Friction Drag [Equation 5]

The total drag is the sum of parasite and induced drag.

Total Drag = Parasite Drag + Induced Drag [Equation 6]

And since αi depends on the downward velocity component (downwash), it can

In terms of circulation, αi can be written as:

𝐶𝐿 = 𝑎𝑜 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑦𝑜 − 𝛼𝐿=0 = 2𝜋 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑦𝑜 − 𝛼𝐿=0 [Equation 10]

where ao is the local section lift slope.

For the local airfoil section at yo,

𝐿′ = 𝜌∞ 𝑉∞ Γ(yo ) [Equation 11]

Substituting equation 12 into equation 10 gives,

Since αeff=α-αi [Equation 14]

𝐷𝑖′ = 𝐿𝑖 ′𝛼𝑖 [Equation 18]

Integrating the previous equation yields,

0.8 Finite Wing (3D)

Figure 1324. Bird tip slot

Figure 1527. Non-planar bird wing

Direction of Flow Circulation caused by Wing vortices

Figure 1830. Sails at different angles

3.1.1. The Wind Tunnel facility.