REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

[R1] Summary of low-speed airfoil data v3

Author: Christopher A. Lyon, Andy P. Broeren, Ashok Gopalarathnam, and Michael S. Selig

[R2] High-Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design

Author: Michael S. Selig and James J. Guglielmo

[R3] Tests of NACA 0009, 0012 and 0018 airfoils in the full scale tunnel
NACA report #647

1 FUSELAGE
The fuselage airfoil has been selected on basis of the following criteria:
18% < thickness ratio < 20% : this value has been chosen as a compromise to limit total
wetted area for a given payload (thus drag), while keeping sufficient lever arm for pitch and
yaw authority.
Symmetrical airfoil no pitching moment
Max thickness located at ≈ 30% chord
Not a laminar airfoil, since the discontinuities between the large front hatch and the fuselage
upper skin make it impossible to keep extensive laminar flow. Anyway, the flight at low
altitude would generate leading edge contamination, leading to early boundary layer
transition and significant increase of drag.

The two airfoils below meet the above conditions:

NACA 0018 has been preferred over Joukovsky airfoil, since its thicker trailing edge provide more
space to house rear motors. Lift curve and drag polar have been characterized by tests in full-scale
tunnel (see [R3]), thus providing reliable data for the Reynolds number of the fuselage during cruise
(≈ 3.106)
Alexandre Fichant & Arnaud Landuré
1
Airfoil selection of ALFA Cargo Drone
2 WING
Airfoil has been selected on basis of 6 criteria, by order of importance:
Lift to drag ratio > 75 for Re = 3.105 in order to maximize endurance
Data (lift curve, drag polar) available from real tests performed at low Re (2.105 to 4.105)
Maximum lift at max lift to drag ratio > 1 (value determined after several iterations)
Thickness ratio > 13% in order to reduce weight of the wing spars
Low moment coefficient (in order to minimize trim drag)
Moderate change of lift to drag ratio with lower lift coefficient (in order to maximizes
performances for lower weight payload missions)

Following an in-depth analysis of ref. [R1] and [R2], a short-list of 4 airfoils has been retained:
SG6040

S8037

FX-63137

M-06-13-128

The following table sums-up their prime characteristics:

Alexandre Fichant & Arnaud Landuré

2
Airfoil selection of ALFA Cargo Drone
Although the two last feature the best performances (CL/CD > 88!), they’ve been eliminated for the
following reasons:
FX-63137 : incomplete test data and excessive moment coefficient (-0,2)
M-06-13-128 : excessive drag increase with change of lift coefficient ( highly efficient only
at CL = 1,4). Such a behavior, which is illustrated by the figure below, means that change of
maximum take-off weight :

SG6040 has been eventually chosen as the best compromise. Its drag polar below illustrates that this
airfoil is perfectly adapted to low Reynolds cruise:

Alexandre Fichant & Arnaud Landuré

3
Airfoil selection of ALFA Cargo Drone