You are on page 1of 26

aI

VISION 1500 AERODYNAMICS

Caleb Handal, Irati Arburua , Carles Fortuny


CONTENT
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Airfoil definition ......................................................................................................................................... 3
3 Theoretical Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 AIRFOIL E335 ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Camber line ............................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2 Zero Lift Angle ........................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.3 Constants .................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.4 CM at C/4 ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.5 CM LE .......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.6 Ideal Angle ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1.7 Center of Pressure (Xcp) ............................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Finite wing Theory ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2.1 Induced Angle and Induced Velocity.......................................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Oswald Factor ......................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Slope comparison .................................................................................................................... 11
4 XFLR5 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Geometrical Approximation............................................................................................................. 12
4.2 Cl vs Alpha ....................................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Local Lift Distribution (Wing) ........................................................................................................... 13
4.4 Local Lift Distribution (UAV) ............................................................................................................. 14
4.5 𝑪𝑴 𝒗𝒔 𝜶 ......................................................................................................................................... 14
4.6 𝑪𝑳/𝑪𝑫 𝒗𝒔 𝜶.................................................................................................................................... 15
5 ANSYS Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 10M/S Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 15
5.1.1 Geometry of the system .......................................................................................................... 15
5.1.2 Mesh employed ...................................................................................................................... 16
5.1.3 Obtained Results ..................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 13m/s Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 20
6 Analysis comparison................................................................................................................................. 21
6.1 Airfoil............................................................................................................................................... 21
6.1.1 CL ............................................................................................................................................ 21
6.1.2 CM ........................................................................................................................................... 23
6.2 Wing ................................................................................................................................................ 23
6.2.1 CL ............................................................................................................................................ 23
6.2.2 CD ............................................................................................................................................ 24
6.2.3 CDi ........................................................................................................................................... 25

1|P age
1 INTRODUCTION
Vision 1500 is a Flying Wing UAV that has as principal mission the one of terrain recognition. Its
estimated cruise weight will be of 2.1kg. the power unit will be a propeller based engine that will work
with one Li-Po battery of high Capacity 4S 8000mAh to achieve the maximum range. With the
knowledge acquired in different courses, the UAV must have all the required design inputs to achieve
an efficient and stable flight. Hand Calculations of the aerodynamics have been made for a conceptual
design. To pass to the phase of the preliminary design, Software as XFLR5, ANSYS Fluent, and ANSYS
Static Structural have been employed to guarantee a stable, efficient and safe flight. General
Specifications of the Flying Wing:

Span 1.5 𝒎
Surface (Wing) 𝑺𝑾 0.42 𝑚2
Surface (UAV) 𝑺𝑼𝑨𝑽 0.578 𝑚2
Aspect Ratio (Wing) 3.429
Aspect Ratio (UAV) 3.893
Taper Ratio (Wing) 0.75
Plane Mass 2.1 𝑘𝑔
Wing Loading 49.05 𝑁
Root Chord 0.4 𝑚
MAC 0.352 𝑚
Tip Twist -3°
Dihedral Angle 3°
Sweep 40.64°
Aerodynamic Center (AC) 0.480 𝑚
Neutral Point (NP) 0.413 𝑚
Efficiency at Cruise (XFLR5 data) 1.025
Airfoil (Reflex) E335
This preliminary design was achieved by modeling it in CATIA V5. Later this design was tested with the
software mentioned before. In Figure 1 can be appreciated the dihedral angle needed for the UAV to
be stable. Figure 2 shows the twist of the wing and Figure 3 the sweep angle.

Figure 1

Figure 2

2|P age
40.64°

Figure 3

 The purpose of this report will be to make find the distribution of weight in the UAV to make
it stable.

2 AIRFOIL DEFINITION
Wing modelling world is huge and there is not a ‘one’ perfect flying airfoil. Since our UAV is a tailless
model, we have made a research of which type of wing would be the best for flying.

When flying the UAV, as it is a tailless model, it is important to maintain the induced drag at reasonable
levels throughout the whole flight envelop to have a wide operating range. For this aim, the wing
should have just little twist or not any twist. With this the angle of attack should not vary because the
wing would not create a big variation in moment coefficient. In the case of plank wing, even an airfoil
with a positive moment coefficient is necessary to avoid upward deflection flaps under trimmed flight
conditions. Such airfoils usually have a reflexed camber line.

In other words, a reflex airfoil automatically tends to stay in its neutral position in case of decreasing
angle of attack; this is because the airfoil has its tail turned upwards. That is because to have a fast
and safe flying, the center of pressure of the airfoil moves forward, almost excluding collapse. The
pitching moment induced by the reflex airfoil increases angle of attack.

The shape of an airfoil can be composed of two parts: camber distribution and a thickness distribution.
The only way to achieve a positive moment coefficient and the needed amount of lift to fly in a tailless
plane is to use a reflex airfoil. But this type of airfoils are usually not used on conventional aircrafts
because they are very sensitive to changes in Reynolds number.

The rear part of the camber line has a big influence in the moment coefficient and adjusting the shape
of the trailing edge we can obtain nearly any desired moment coefficient. In the next picture, we can
see that the moment coefficient can be controlled depending on the amount of reflex.

Figure 4

3|P age
Reflex airfoils solve the problem of the moment coefficient but as we increase the twist of trailing
edge the lift-drag-ratio reduces. So, the maximum lift coefficient also decreases and has a higher stall
and landing speeds. To compensate these losses, we must move the location of the maximum camber.
This has not a big impact in the lift-drag-ratio but it has a big influence in the moment coefficient. In
the next picture, we can see the influence of the location of the camber on the moment coefficient.

Figure 5

In the picture above we can see that moving the camber location gives more negative values of the
moment coefficient. So, to compensate the lift losses by an increased amount of camber is necessary
to concentrate the camber in the first quarter of the chord length. Increasing the camber will also
increase the velocity on the upper surface and decrease the speed on the lower surface. The enclosed
are of positive lift in the front of the airfoil also increases, contributing to the lift.

3 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

3.1 AIRFOIL E335


3.1.1 Camber line
The camber line was extracted with excel plotting the profile and then doing a mean polynomial line
of degree 6 to approximate it.

E335
0.1

0.05

0
Z

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1


-0.05

-0.1
X
Profile Camber
y = -2.2264x6 + 7.2548x5 - 9.3329x4 + 6.3037x3 - 2.4442x2 + 0.4464x - 0.0011

Figure 6

4|P age
𝑧 = −2.2264𝑥 6 + 7.2548𝑥 5 − 9.3329𝑥 4 + 6.3037𝑥 3 − 2.4442𝑥 2 + 0.4464𝑥 − 0.0011
𝑑𝑧
= −13.358𝑥 5 + 36.274𝑥 4 − 37.332𝑥 3 + 18.911𝑥 2 − 4.888𝑥 + 0.4464
𝑑𝑥
Transformation

𝑐
𝑥 = ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃))
2
5 4 3
𝑑𝑧 𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
= −13.358 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 36.274 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 37.332 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃))
𝑑𝑥 2 2 2
2
𝑐 𝑐
+ 18.911 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 4.888 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 0.4464
2 2

3.1.2 Zero Lift Angle


1 𝜋 𝑑𝑧
𝛼𝑧𝑙 = − ∫ (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 − 1)𝑑𝜃
𝜋 0 𝑑𝑥
5 4 3
1 𝜋 𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
𝛼𝑧𝑙 = − ∫ (−13.358 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 36.274 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 37.332 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃))
𝜋 0 2 2 2
2
𝑐 𝑐
+ 18.911 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 4.888 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 0.4464) (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 − 1)𝑑𝜃
2 2

1
𝛼𝑧𝑙 = − (18.93𝑐 5 − 56.09𝑐 4 + 64.14𝑐 3 − 37.13𝑐 2 + 11.52𝑐 − 1.4 )
𝜋
𝛼𝑧𝑙 (𝑐 = 0.325) = −0.021267 𝑟𝑎𝑑 = −𝟏. 𝟐𝟏𝟖⁰

 With the zero lift angle the CL was plotted assuming the slope of the lift coefficient is 2π.

Cl vs Alpha
2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
CL

0.5

0.0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5

-1.0
ALPHA

Figure 7

5|P age
3.1.3 Constants
1 𝜋 𝑑𝑧
𝐴0 = 𝛼 − ∫ 𝑑𝜃
𝜋 0 𝑑𝑥
5 4 3
1 𝜋 𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
𝐴0 = 𝛼 − ∫ (−13.358 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 36.274 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 37.332 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃))
𝜋 0 2 2 2
2
𝑐 𝑐
+ 18.911 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 4.888 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 0.4464) 𝑑𝜃
2 2

2103885𝑐 5 − 6347950𝑐 4 + 7466400𝑐 3 − 4538640𝑐 2 + 1564160𝑐 − 285696


𝐴0 = 𝛼 − ( )
640000

𝐴0 (𝑐 = 0.325) = 𝜶 − (−𝟎. 𝟎𝟗𝟗𝟒𝟏𝟏𝟗)


2 𝜋 𝑑𝑧
𝐴1 = ∫ (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝜋 0 𝑑𝑥
5 4 3
2 𝜋 𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
𝐴1 = ∫ (−13.358 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 36.274 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 37.332 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃))
𝜋 0 2 2 2
2
𝑐 𝑐
+ 18.911 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 4.888 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 0.4464) (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)𝑑𝜃
2 2

𝑐(701295𝑐 4 − 203134𝑐 3 + 2239920𝑐 2 − 1210304𝑐 + 312832)


𝐴1 =
128000
𝐴1 (𝑐 = 0.325) = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟑𝟗𝟎𝟗𝟓

2 𝜋 𝑑𝑧
𝐴2 = ∫ (𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝜋 0 𝑑𝑥
5 4 3
2 𝜋 𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
𝐴2 = ∫ (−13.358 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 36.274 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 37.332 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃))
𝜋 0 2 2 2
2
𝑐 𝑐
+ 18.911 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) − 4.888 ( (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃)) + 0.4464) (𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜃)𝑑𝜃
2 2

𝑐(−100185𝑐 3 + 253918𝑐 2 − 223992𝑐 + 75644)


𝐴2 =
32000
𝐴2 (𝑐 = 0.325) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖𝟔𝟓𝟕𝟏𝟑

3.1.4 CM at C/4
𝜋
𝐶𝑀𝑐 = (𝐴 − 𝐴1 )
4 4 2
𝜋
𝐶𝑀𝑐 = (0.0865713 − 0.239095) → 𝐶𝑀𝑐 = −𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟗
4 4 4

6|P age
3.1.5 CM LE
After finding all the constants and the moment at one quarter of the chord we can find the moment
coefficient at the leading edge. The complete data can be seen in Annex 1 (Sheet Cm vs Cl).
𝐶𝐿 𝜋
𝐶𝑀𝐿𝐸 = − + ∗ (𝐴1 − 𝐴2 )
4 4

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-5 -4 -3 -2 -0.05
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.10
CM

-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
-0.35
-0.40
-0.45
-0.50
ALPHA

Figure 8

3.1.6 Ideal Angle


𝐴0 (𝑐 = 0.325) = 𝛼 − (−0.0994119)
𝐴0 = 0 → 𝛼 = 0.0994119 = 𝟓. 𝟔𝟗𝟓°

3.1.7 Center of Pressure (Xcp)


The center of pressure is defined as the point where there is no resulting moment caused by the
difference in pressures.
𝑐 𝜋(𝐴1 − 𝐴2 )
𝑋𝐶𝑃 = +
4 4𝐶𝐿

25

20

15

10
ALPHA

0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-5

-10
X

Xcp Chord

Figure 9

7|P age
As it can be seen, the center of pressure can be outside of the chord of the airfoil. When approximated
to small CL, the center of pressure approaches to infinite. At high CL in out profile the center of pressure
does not varies too much.

3.2 FINITE WING THEORY


As described in the first part of this project, our wing has sweep angle, dihedral angle and twist. To
simplify the calculations, we ignored the twist and the dihedral angle. the sweep angle was used to
calculate the forces acting on the wing. They were computed with the component of velocity
perpendicular to the leading edge.

 Parameter used:

Angle (0 lift) -1.218°


Tip Chord (Ct) 0.3m
Root Chord (Cr) 0.4m
Span (b) 1.2m2
∆y 0.012m
∆θ (0<θ<π/2) 0.031 rad
The wing was divided in 50 panels, each panel with its respective chord since the chord changes with
respect to the span distance. Since we are dealing with a symmetric load the addition of the even
constants are equal to zero. We only use the addition of the odd constants. The system of equations
was solved in matrix form using excel. The complete matrix can be seen in Annex 1 (Sheet Finite Wing
Constants). After finding al the constants, we use them to find the CL and the CDi of the wing.

ALPHA CL CDI
-2 -0.05409 0.00028
-1 0.015078 0.00002
0 0.084243 0.00067
1 0.153408 0.00221
2 0.222573 0.00466
3 0.291738 0.00801
4 0.360903 0.01226
5 0.430068 0.01741
6 0.499232 0.02345
7 0.568397 0.03040
8 0.637562 0.03825
9 0.706727 0.04700
10 0.775892 0.05665
11 0.845057 0.06720
12 0.914222 0.07866
13 0.983387 0.09101
14 1.052552 0.10426
15 1.121717 0.11841
16 1.190882 0.13346
17 1.260047 0.14942
18 1.329212 0.16627
19 1.398377 0.18402
20 1.467542 0.20268

8|P age
Cl & Cdi
Cl Cdi

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 3 8 13 18
-0.2

Figure 10

3.2.1 Induced Angle and Induced Velocity


The flow has a tendency to ‘leak’ around the tips of the wing and this has an important effect in the
aerodynamics of the wing. This flow creates a circulation that trails downstream of the wing, it creates
a trailing vortex at each wing tip. The wing tip vortices downstream of the wing induced a small
downward component of the air velocity in the section of the wing itself and tend to drag the air
around with them; and this movement induces a small velocity component in the downward direction
at the wing. The presence of downwash and its effect on inclining the local relative wind in the
downward direction, has important effect on the local airfoil section as the local lift vector is aligned
perpendicular to the local relative wind, and hence in inclined behind the vertical induced angle.

So there is a component of the local lift vector in the direction of the freestream velocity that id the
drag created by the presence of downwash; this drag is defined as induced drag.

In the analysis of the aerodynamics it is important to analyze also this induced factors. To obtain the
induced angle value, apply the equation:
𝑛
sin(𝑛𝜃)
𝛼𝑖 (𝜃) = ∑ 𝑛𝐴𝑛
sin(𝜃)
1

Introducing all n and An values:

𝛼𝑖 (𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑠𝑒) = 0.0492𝑟𝑎𝑑 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟐°

𝜔𝑖 = 𝛼𝑖 𝑉∞ = 0.0492 ∗ 13 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑𝟗 𝒎/𝒔


In the next picture we can see the effect of the induced velocity taken from ANSYS.

9|P age
Constant induced angles where calculated by using the equation below:
𝐶𝐷𝑖
𝛼𝑖 =
𝐶𝐿

𝜶 𝜶𝒊 𝝎𝒊
-2 -0.29164 -0.06617
-1 0.0813 0.018446
0 0.454235 0.103063
1 0.82717 0.187679
2 1.200105 0.272295
3 1.573039 0.356911
4 1.945974 0.441528
5 2.318909 0.526144
6 2.691844 0.61076
7 3.064779 0.695376
8 3.437714 0.779993
9 3.810649 0.864609
10 4.183584 0.949225
11 4.556519 1.033841
12 4.929454 1.118458
13 5.302389 1.203074
14 5.675324 1.28769
15 6.048258 1.372306
16 6.421193 1.456923
17 6.794128 1.541539
18 7.167063 1.626155
19 7.539998 1.710771
20 7.912933 1.795388

10 | P a g e
3.2.2 Oswald Factor
The Oswald factor depends on the constants calculated before:
𝑁
𝐴𝑛 2
𝛿 = ∑𝑛( ) = 0.01365
𝐴1
2

1
𝑒= = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟖𝟔𝟓𝟑
1+𝛿
The full calculation can be seen in Annex 1 (Finite Wing Constant). This Oswald factor was used to fin
the induced drag the UAV produces.

3.2.3 Slope comparison


As learned, the slope of the lift coefficient should be less than the one of the airfoil.

𝑎0 = 2𝜋
𝑑𝐶𝐿 𝑎0
=𝑎= = 𝟑. 𝟗𝟔𝟐𝟖𝟔 𝒓𝒂𝒅−𝟏
𝑑𝛼 𝑎0
1+( ∗ (1 + 𝛿))
𝜋𝐴𝑅
𝑎 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑𝒂𝟎
As proved with the calculations, the slope of the wing is 63% of the slope of the airfoil. The graphical
comparison can be seen below.

Cl Wing Vs Cl Airfoil
Cl Airfoil

2.5

y = 0.1096x + 0.1335
2

1.5

1
y = 0.0692x + 0.0842

0.5

0
-2 3 8 13 18

-0.5

Figure 11

11 | P a g e
4 XFLR5 ANALYSIS

4.1 GEOMETRICAL APPROXIMATION


Since XFLR5 geometrical design is by phases, to approximate the part of the fuselage of our Flying
wing, we created phases with the chords of the fuselage per each 50mm. the same Twist, Dihedral
and Sweep angle where used.

4.2 CL VS ALPHA

Figure 12

12 | P a g e
It can be see that because of the inefficiency of the wing caused partly because of the reflex airfoil and
partly because of the induced drag created in the wing tip. Because of the reduction from the fuselage
chord to the root chord we generate induced drag in the root too. The yellow dot gives us the results
of the Stability Analysis done in XFLR5. The C L at flight is 0.329 at cruising speed of 13.31m/s.

4.3 LOCAL LIFT DISTRIBUTION (WING)

Figure 13

The lift distribution of the wing is compared with the elliptical distribution. As observed it produces
more lift than an elliptical wing. This is caused because of the design parameters the wing has.
Recalling the wing parameters that gives its lift distribution are:

Tip Twist -3°


Dihedral Angle 3°
Sweep 40.64°

13 | P a g e
4.4 LOCAL LIFT DISTRIBUTION (UAV)

Figure 14

When compared the elliptical distribution with the lift distribution of the hole UAV, we can see a loss
in efficiency compared to the wing distribution. This is because of the geometry of the fuselage-like
geometry. In that part, we have a decrease on lift distribution caused by creation of induced drag.

4.5 𝑪𝑴 𝒗𝒔 𝜶

Figure 14.1

This graph shows us the Cm with the configuration of the masses mentioned before in this report. The
slope is negative as needed. It reaches static stability when the line crosses the axis. The yellow dot is
given by the Stability Analysis. It is different because in this analysis considers A CRUISE VELOCITY OF
13.31m/s.
𝒅𝑪𝑴 0.058 − (−0.04) 0.058 − (−0.04)
= = = −0.5616/𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝒅𝜶 0 − 10 0 − 0.1745

14 | P a g e
4.6 𝑪𝑳 /𝑪𝑫 𝒗𝒔 𝜶

Figure 14.2

CL/CD can be used as the measure to find the most efficient flight angle, where the wing produces less
drag for the highest lift. The highest CL/CD of the UAV is 14.26 at 8°. At cruise speed the UAV is flying
at CL/CD=14.28 that is represented by the yellow dot in Figure 7. It is higher that the C L/CD at 10m/s
because of the increase in cruise speed (13.31m/s).

5 ANSYS ANALYSIS

5.1 10M/S ANALYSIS


5.1.1 Geometry of the system
To understand better the obtained results, it is important to know the geometry and the boundaries
of our system. First of all we generated half of the UAV (this includes half of the fuselage and one
wing) just after the origin of the Cartesian frame of reference. Then we generated an enclosure with
a rectangular cross-sectional area of 3 meters of height, 6 meter of base and 3 meters depth. The
following picture illustrates what we have defined:

15 | P a g e
Being the square right face the inlet plane and the one in the left part the outlet plane of the flow. The
first rectangular plane is a symmetry plane and the rest of them (top, left and bottom planes) are wall
planes (with a specified wall shear stress of 0 in each direction of the Cartesian frame of reference).

To analyze the lift and the drag in each interested angle of attack, we have kept this geometry
untouched but rotating the half body around the z-axis (by the amount of: 2-18 degrees). With this
geometry, we want to simulate the conditions of a wind tunnel.

5.1.2 Mesh employed


Other important concept to understand in a better wat the obtained data is by knowing how we have
meshed our system. The following picture describes it:

This unstructured mesh contains 5267422 nodes and 31229051 elements and it is obtained by using
automatic tetrahedron method to mesh and increasing the number of elements by inserting a sizing
with a sphere of influence of radius 1,2 meters and an element size of 0,01 meters.

The statistics of the mesh are the following:

Average element quality: 0,85464

Average skewness: 0,20154

16 | P a g e
5.1.3 Obtained Results
Here we show some pictures of the obtained data from ANSYS analysis:

Figure 15: Pressure contours for 0 degrees

Figure 16 and Figure 17: Pressure and velocity contours for 2 degrees

Figure 18 and Figure 19: Velocity contours and streamlines for 6 degrees

Figure 20 and Figure 21: Velocity contours and streamlines for 10 degrees

17 | P a g e
Figure 22 and Figure 23: Dynamic pressure and velocity streamlines for 14 degrees

Figure 24 and Figure 25: Static pressure and velocity streamlines for 18 degrees

Cl
1.200

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
-2 3 8 13 18

-0.200

Cl Ansys 10m/s

Figure 26

18 | P a g e
In the above graph we see the lift coefficient versus the angle of attack data obtained in the ANSYS
analysis for 10 m/s. There are several facts to remark, the first one is the negative lift coefficient
obtained for zero degrees of angle of attack is due to the addition of some camber to the airfoil. Other
thing to remark is that the function represented seems to be (almost) linear, except for the little
downgrade that suffers around 13 degrees of angle of attack, this linear tend of the function is because
ANSYS does not consider the stall in its calculations. So this graph it is not very accurate because it
says that the lift still increasing while increasing the angle of attack.

Cd
0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Cd Ansys 10m/s

Figure 15

In this graph, we observe the drag coefficient versus the angle of attack. It can be appreciated that
this coefficient increases very slowly between values of 0-5 degrees, from that it increases faster
between 5-15 degrees but from that value it increases even faster (we are focusing our attention in
the slope of the curve). It can be said that from 0-15 degrees it produces only a 33,33% of total drag.

If we take into account these two graph seriously (forgetting about the stall angle), we would take the
15 degrees as our angle of attack due to it generates a great amount of sustentation with very low
impact in the drag coefficient. But as we will see later, this cannot be true.

19 | P a g e
5.2 13M/S ANALYSIS
The same geometry was used for this analysis varying only the velocity. The forces obtained by the
analysis can be seen below. The yellow dot represents the analysis at stability angle and velocity given
by XFLR5. It was done to compare data.

Half Wing Full Wing Coefficients


Angle X Force [N] Y Force [N] X Force [N] Y Force [N] Cd ANSYS Cl ANSYS
0 0.18093 -2.55847 0.36186 -5.11694 0.006 -0.082
2 0.161182 1.61202 0.322364 3.22404 0.005 0.051
4 0.237835 5.5255 0.47567 11.051 0.008 0.176
6 0.40732 9.52134 0.81464 19.04268 0.013 0.304
8 0.659701 13.5087 1.319402 27.0174 0.021 0.431
10 0.992152 17.3759 1.984304 34.7518 0.032 0.554
12 1.44505 21.49 2.8901 42.98 0.046 0.685
14 1.98342 25.3792 3.96684 50.7584 0.063 0.809
16 2.5312 28.7241 5.0624 57.4482 0.081 0.916
18 3.1991286 32.16484 6.3982572 64.32968 0.102 1.026
20 3.8771378 34.971642 7.7542756 69.943284 0.124 1.115

Cl
1.200

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
-2 3 8 13 18
-0.200

Cl Ansys 13m/s Cl Ansys 13m/s

Figure 28

20 | P a g e
Cd
0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Cd Ansys 13m/s

Figure 29

6 ANALYSIS COMPARISON

6.1 AIRFOIL
6.1.1 CL
The airfoil analysis was done with a theoretical approach and then with XFLR5. The program is working
with a panel method that gives and approximation of the stall angle of the airfoil. The theoretical
approach gives a good approximation to the linear part of the curve. The both curves have a similar
slope until stall. The both methods also give the same zero lift angle being 1.22⁰ the given by XFLR5
and 1.218 given by the theoretical analysis. Note that the Cl vs alpha varies with the Reynolds number
in XFLR5, so the Reynolds used for its analysis was of Re=3.2*105. The stall angle that the program give
us is at 12⁰ with a CL of 1.342.

21 | P a g e
Cl vs Alpha
2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000
CL

0.500

0.000
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.500

-1.000
ALPHA

Theoretical Cl XFLR5 Cl

Figure 30

Alpha Theoretical Cl XFLR5 Cl


-5 -0.415 NA
-4 -0.305 NA
-3 -0.195 -0.256
-2 -0.086 -0.117
-1 0.024 0.033
0 0.134 0.194
1 0.243 0.318
2 0.353 0.447
3 0.462 0.56
4 0.572 0.692
5 0.682 0.811
6 0.791 0.906
7 0.901 1
8 1.010 1.093
9 1.120 1.184
10 1.230 1.263
11 1.339 1.32
12 1.449 1.342
13 1.558 1.262
14 1.668 1.198
15 1.778 1.12
16 1.887 1.092
17 1.997 1.044
18 2.106 1.031
19 2.216 1.001
20 2.326 0.954

22 | P a g e
6.1.2 CM
The comparison of the coefficient of moment was done with both methods too. Both coefficient of
moments are from the leading edge of the airfoil. Detailed calculations can be seen in Annex 1 (Cm vs
Alpha). The Cm calculated theoretically has the negative sole of the CL. A shown in the graph with both
coefficients, they are not similar. Some of the causes of this could be that XFLR5 is giving other
moment with respect to other point of the airfoil. We need to consider that the coefficient of moment
of our airfoil is different than normal once because is a reflex airfoil.

0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
CM

0.000
-5 -4 -3 -2-0.050
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

-0.100
-0.150
-0.200
ALPHA

Cm Leading Edge XFLR5 Cm

Figure 31

6.2 WING
6.2.1 CL

Cl Comparison
1.600

1.400

1.200

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
-2 3 8 13 18
-0.200

-0.400

Cl Ansys 10m/s Cl Finit Wing XFLR5 Cl


Cl Ansys 13m/s XFLR5 Cl Stability Cl Ansys 13m/s

Figure 32

23 | P a g e
In the graph above we can clearly compare the different CL vs α Curves. The more optimistic data is
given by the theoretical analysis represented with the orang curve. It can be appreciated that all the
analysis have a similar slope. The big difference is the zero-lift angle in all the analysis. As said before,
the Numerical analysis gave us a negative CL at angle 0° since the wing has a very small aspect ratio
crating a huge amount of induced drag. Detailed data can be seen below.

Angle Cl ANSYS 10m/s Cl ANSYS 13m/s Cl XFLR5 Cl Theoretical


0 -0.067 -0.082 -0.018 0.084
2 0.045 0.051 0.106 0.223
4 0.164 0.176 0.23 0.361
6 0.285 0.304 0.352 0.499
8 0.403 0.431 0.473 0.637
10 0.517 0.554 0.592 0.775
12 0.624 0.685 0.708 0.914
14 0.684 0.809 0.821 1.052
16 0.782 0.916 0.928 1.190
18 0.000 1.026 1.036 1.329
20 1.058 1.115 1.137 1.467

6.2.2 CD

Cd Comparison
0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Cd Ansys 13m/s Cd XFLR5

Figure 33

The total drag comparison was only possible with CFD and Numerical Method since one of the
assumptions of the lifting line theory is potential flow that doesn’t consider the viscous flow around
the wing. As it can be seen in the graph above, both CD’s are similar. The both follow a similar power
law. The data can be proved as right since is normal to have higher CD when increasing the angle of
attack.

24 | P a g e
Angle Cd ANSYS 13m/s Cd XFLR5
0 0.006 0.015
2 0.005 0.017
4 0.008 0.019
6 0.013 0.023
8 0.021 0.03
10 0.032 0.04
12 0.046 0.053
14 0.063 0.068
16 0.081 0.087
18 0.102 0.106
20 0.123 0.129

6.2.3 CDi

Cl & Cdi

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Cdi Cdi XFLR5

Figure 34

In this graph the coefficients of induced drag can be compared. The orange curve is the one calculated
by the lifting line theory. In this case, it can be observed a difference between curves. The difference
can be a cause of difference in CL given by both methods. Recalling, the lifting line theory gave a higher
CL than XFLR5. Since CDi varies to the square of the lift coefficient, the curve will vary with this same
magnitude. Other factor that can cause this difference is the Oswald Factor. The Oswald factor given
by XFLR5 is of 1.025 and the one obtained with the lifting line theory is of 0.98 approximately.

25 | P a g e

You might also like