University of Southern California

Effects of Fanwinging Design on Airfoil Performance

AME 441, Group 39 Submitted to Tony Maxworthy on October, 7 2009 Douglas A. Rieck & Geoff E. Larson

Abstract Fanwings have been affectionately described by some hobbyists as flying lawnmowers. The similarity is because fanwings utilize a tangential fanthat resembles a push-mowermounted along their leading edge to artificially accelerate air rearwards over their upper camber. This experiment monitored lift and drag forces on a fanwing and compared the results to a conventional airfoil. Results showed that as the angular momentum of the fan was increased, the overall lift force increased. In addition to providing lift, the fan generated a small thrust force as it accelerated air toward the trailing edge of the airfoil. The most striking result was that the fan inhibited stall at high angles of attack, increasing the maximum lift coefficient and reducing the minimum required airspeed for sustained flight by over 40%.

University of Southern California

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.0 5.1 5.2 Theoretical Overview Lift Generation Stall Inhibition Airfoil and Fanwing Construction Testing Procedure Lift Generation Stall Inhibition and Lift Generation (Ctd.) Thrust Production Pressure Effects and Reynolds Number Lift Generation Stall Inhibition Thrust Production Implications of Results Improvements for Future Research

Experimental Technique

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

University of Southern California |1

1.0

Introduction 1.1 Theoretical Overview

When a fanwings tangential fan rotates, it flow speed over its upper camber is increased. An increase in flow speed correlates to a reduction in pressure per Bernoullis principle, which states:
1 2

2 + + =

(1)

where is the fluid density, V is the relative velocity, and p is the static pressure. The term
1 2

2 is the dynamic pressure. In the case of an airfoil, the hydraulic head term, gz, is zero.

Therefore, Eq.(1) simplifies to

1 2

2 + =

(2)

The static pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces generates lift. For a symmetrical airfoil, at a positive angle of attack, airflow over the top surface moves faster than over the bottom surface. From equation (2), it follows that p is higher on the bottom surface than on the top surface. This static pressure differential between the surfaces is what generates lift. To increase the pressure differential, the air must be moved faster over the upper camber, slower over the bottom camber or some combination of the two. This is the basis for fanwing design, which increases flow speed over the upper camber. To see why it is detrimental to reduce the flow speed over the lower camber a comparison can be made to a rotating cylinder.

University of Southern California |2

1.2

Lift Generation
V

Consider a cylinder with an angular velocity about its longitudinal axis. When the cylinder is exposed to airflow perpendicular to its axis of rotation, skin friction pulls

Figure 1: flow past a rotating cylinder

the air along in the direction of rotation. As a result, the velocity of the air over the top half of the cylinder is increased, while the velocity over the bottom half is reduced. Consequently, a pressure differential occurs, resulting in lift. This is the so called Magnus effect. However, when skin friction slows air on the bottom half of the cylinder it also increases the local drag. It would be beneficial to receive the lift inducing benefits of the upper surface without any of the detrimental effects due to the lower surface. Fanwings accomplish this by shielding the bottom half of the fan. By generating lift without additional drag from the bottom portion of the fan, fanwings may attain superior lift over drag ratios (CL/CD) when compared with traditional airfoils. 1.3 Stall Inhibition
Figure 2: fanwings shield the 1 bottom surface of the fan

In addition to increasing lift, fanwings inhibit stall at high angles of attack. Stall is caused by flow separation at surface of an airfoil, resulting in a sudden increase in drag and loss of lift. For obvious reasons, this is undesirable in aircraft. Fanwings can inhibit stall by delaying a phenomenon known as flow reversal in the boundary layer.

University of Southern California |3

2.0

Experimental Technique 2.1 Airfoil and Fanwing Construction

Both a fanwing and a control airfoil were constructed for testing in the USC Biegler Hall wind tunnel. The fanwing required the design and construction of an airfoil with an appropriately shaped cutout to accommodate the fan into its leading edge. High density polyurethane foam core was obtained and, using a hot wire cutting technique, the foam core was shaped into the desired NACA0015 airfoils. Hot wire cutting was performed by guiding a heated wire around the perimeter of wooden templates adhered to the foam core. For strength, fiberglass was applied to the surfaces of the foam airfoils.
Figure 3: Wooden templates of the airfoil profiles are shown in the top image. In the bottom Image, the upper surface of the airfoil has already been cut to shape.

To conduct accurate wind tunnel tests on an airfoil, the setup must simulate an infinite wing. One way to accomplish this is to install endplates, which reduce induced drag by limiting wingtip vortices. After conducting research on the optimal size for endplates, it was determined that a height of 7.2 inches would be sufficient to reduce the induced drag. Steel endplates were cut to the appropriate size and installed on both airfoils.

University of Southern California |4

Figure 4: Diagram of a LTG TA-40/300/24V Tangential Fan2

An LTG TA-40/300/24V tangential fan was selected for several reasons: With a diameter of 40mm, the LTG fan fit comfortably in the leading edge of our airfoil leaving approximately 50% exposed to accelerate air rearwards. The height of the Biegler Hall wind tunnel is 18 inches. To provide enough space for the motor to mount on top of the airfoil, a 12 inch fan was selected. Control of the fans angular velocity was accomplished through adjusting the voltage. With a DC motor, the angular velocity of the fan could be adjusted with a linear potentiometer wired in a voltage divider circuit. This way the speed could be manually adjusted as needed during each trial. Online purchasing of two LTG TA-40/300/24V tangential fans cost only $20.00.

The LTG TA-40/300/24V tangential fan was installed within the leading edge of the fanwing. In order to mount the fans motor and bearing, thin wooden profiles were cut and attached to the fanwings ends. To allow for accurate comparison, the same wooden cutouts were attached to the control airfoil, although these served no functional purpose.

University of Southern California |5

Because the fanwing is larger than most airfoils tested in Biegler Hall, an adapter was necessary to mount it to the force balance. The adapter was designed in SolidWorks and 3D printed. The airfoils were then mounted to the force balance in the Biegler Hall wind tunnel.
Fig. 5: Standard and Exploded views of the fanwing apparatus. The wooden cutouts, steel endplates, and the force balance mounting adapter can be clearly seen from these views.

2.2

Testing Procedure

Using LabVIEW data collection software, lift and drag profiles were gathered for both the fanwing and the control airfoil. First, the control airfoil was placed in the Biegler Hall wind tunnel and data was gathered for airspeeds of 4, 6, 8 and 10 meters per second. At each velocity, the software was designed to vary the angle of attack from -4 to 30 degrees and collect lift and drag forces at each angle. Testing of the fanwing required one additional variable, fan speed. Once again, data was gathered for 4, 6, 8, and 10 meters per second. The fan speed was then set to a specific angular velocity where it was actively adjusted to maintain a constant value as the angle of attack was varied. After each trial, the fan speed was set to a new rpm and the process was repeated. After taking data for a full range of constant rpms, the fan speed was set to maximum power without any active adjustment. For these trials, data was also collected for each of the 4 airspeeds.

University of Southern California |6

3.0

Results 3.1 Lift Generation

Lift profiles were plotted in order to observe the behavior of the lift coefficient for increasing airspeeds. Four of these profiles are depicted below, including one for the control airfoil and three for constant fan speeds. In each of the fanwing plots, the lift coefficient maintains an upward trend with few fluctuations. The traditional airfoil experienced stall between 11 and 15 degrees, depending on the free-stream velocity.
2.5 2
2.5 2

1.5

1.5

C_L

1
0.5 0

C_L
0 5 10

1
0.5 0

-5
-0.5

15

20

25

30

-5
-0.5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 7: Lift vs. Angle of Attack; Fanwing with Angular Velocity = 2,000RPM

Fig. 6: Lift vs. Angle of attack; Control Airfoil

2.5 2

2.5 2 1.5

1.5

C_L

C_L
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1
0.5 0

1 0.5 0

-5
-0.5

-5 -0.5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 8: Lift vs. Angle of Attack; Fan Speed = 2,500RPM

Fig. 9: Lift vs. Angle of Attack; Fan Speed = 3,000RPM

University of Southern California |7

Figure (6) shows the conventional airfoil with V=4m/s entering a stall at 11 , with total loss of lift occurring by 12 . For airspeeds of 6 and 8 m/s, stall is delayed until 15 , where the lift coefficient begins a steady downward trend. However, a total loss of lift never occurs at these higher airspeeds. By =20 , all three have begun a steady upward trend in lift coefficient. With the exception of a single dip in the 8m/s trial, the trend continues through the entire range of angles.

University of Southern California |8

3.2

Stall Inhibition and Lift Generation (Ctd.)

An alternate way of organizing the data is to group it by airspeed and plot profiles for a variety of angular velocities on a single chart. By doing this, the lift benefits of each successive increase in angular velocity can be more clearly recognized. This is particularly useful for comparing the stall characteristics of the traditional airfoil to those of the fanwing.
3

Fig. 10: Coefficient of Lift vs. Angle of Attack; Free-stream Velocity V = 4 m/s

2.5
2 1.5 1 0.5 0

C_L
-5

0 -0.5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 11: Coefficient of lift vs. Angle of Attack; Free-stream Velocity V = 6 m/s

3 2.5
2 1.5 1 0.5 0

C_L
-5

10

-0.5

15

20

25

30

Fig. 12: Coefficient of lift vs. Angle of Attack; Free-stream Velocity V = 8 m/s

2.5 2
1.5 1 0.5 0

C_L
-5

0 -0.5

10

15

20

25

30

University of Southern California |9

In Figures 10-12, the fanwing lift was higher than the lift of the control airfoil in every situation. In addition, the fanwing showed consistent increases in lift as the rpm was increased. The drag profile shown below, was also plotted for both the control airfoil and for the fanwing at various angular velocities. This data can also provide useful insight into the stall characteristics of the fanwing. For clarity, error bars were only included with the 2,000rpm trial. The single set of error bars is sufficient to draw conclusions about drag and stall performance.
0.8

0.6

Control

C_D

0.4

2000 RPM 2500 RPM

0.2

3000 RPM

-5
-0.2

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 13: Coefficient of Drag vs. Angle of Attack; Free-stream Velocity V = 6 m/s

When the velocity was maintained at 6m/s, changes in fan rpm did not contribute to, nor reduce the overall drag coefficient. However, the fanwing maintained a drag coefficient that was higher than the control airfoil. At angles of attack less than 16 degrees, the drag of the fanwing was more than double the drag of the control airfoil.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 10

3.3

Thrust Production

One of the effects of accelerating airflow toward the trailing edge is that a small thrust component is generated. Thrust causes asymptotic behavior in CL/CD.
30 25 20 15 10

C_L / C_D

4 ms 6 ms
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

5 0 -5 -5
-10

8 ms

-15 -20 -25

-30

Fig. 14: CL / CD vs. Angle of Attack; Angular Velocity = 2,000 RPM

30 25 20 15
10

C_L / C_D

5 0 -5 -5
-10

4 ms 6 ms
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

8 ms

-15 -20 -25

-30

Fig. 15: CL / CD vs. Angle of Attack; Maximum Angular Velocity

For each plot of CL / CD, asymptotic behavior occurred and the theoretical value of the lift to drag ratio approached infinity. At higher airspeeds, the asymptotes occurred closer to = 0. At lower airspeeds, the asymptotes were delayed until the angle of attack

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 11

approached the stall point for the conventional airfoil. At a given air speed, increasing the fans angular velocity also delayed the inflection point. 4.0 Discussion 4.1 Pressure Effects and Reynolds Number

Figure (6) shows the conventional airfoil with V=4m/s entering a stall at 11 , with total loss of lift occurring by 12 . For airspeeds of 6 and 8 m/s, stall is delayed until 15 , where the lift coefficient begins a steady downward trend. However, a total loss of lift never occurs at these higher airspeeds. By =20 , all three have begun a steady upward trend in lift coefficient. With the exception of a single dip in the 8m/s trial, the trend continues through the entire range of angles. In order to make accurate conclusions about the data collected during this experiment, it was imperative to take the increasing lift coefficientsat high into account. As mentioned in section 2.1, the fanwing setup was larger than many of the airfoils previously tested in the Biegler Hall wind tunnel. Its longer than average chord caused the airfoil to begin interacting with the sidewall of the test section
Fig. 16: Top view of the test section

at angles of attack greater than 20 . A buildup in pressure between the bottom surface of the airfoil and the wall can then contribute to the lift force measured by the force balance. For the purposes of lift and stall analysis during open air flight, these pressure effects must be taken into account. Since data was gathered for a control airfoil, the difference in CL between the control and the fanwing can still provide useful data.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 12

Referring back to figure (6), the angle of attack where stall begins, critical, and its corresponding lift coefficient, CLmax increases with free-stream velocity. This result was predictable because, with any symmetrical airfoil, these two quantities increase with Reynolds number (Re). Normally, a difference of a few meters per second wouldnt be enough to affect the lift curve, but at airspeeds of 10m/s or less small differences in airspeed corresponded to high percentage increases in Re, 20%50%. 4.2 Lift Generation

Interestingly enough, the fanwing appears to follow the same principle of increasing lift coefficient with Re, but only up until critical. As the fanwings angle of attack approaches critical, the lift coefficients converge and then reverse dominance. This can be seen most clearly in figure 9. The 6 and 8m/s lines have a positive lift coefficient when =0, because the airflow passing over the upper camber is accelerated, generating lift even without a positive angle of attack. As the flow speed is reduced to 4m/s, the fanwing ceases to generate lift at =0. This result is likely due to the small vectored thrust term which the fan provides when it is not exposed to an oncoming airflow. The fan pushes air primarily
Fig. 17: Air extinguished upwards and toward the rear appears to generate a vectored thrust force component in the downward direction. The effect is most noticeable as V approaches zero.

toward the rear of the wing, but a small component is accelerated upwardsaway from the upper camber. This accelerated air appears to generate a small thrust force that is forward and down. The principles behind this are not fully understood, but suffice it to say the fanwing does not effectively generate lift when the airspeed approaches zero.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 13

Although fanwing effectiveness was reduced at lower airspeeds, its lift coefficient was consistently higher than the conventional airfoil. At 4m/s, the fanwings CL was between 0.5 and 1.0 higher than the control depending on angular velocity and angle of attack. Higher angular velocities produced greater increases in CL over the control, an expected outcome of Bernoullis principle. The increases in CL for the fanwing mean it can generate an identical lift force to the conventional wing at a much lower airspeed. Figure (18) shows that a lift coefficient of 1 is achieved at 10m/s with the conventional airfoil compared to only 4m/s for the fanwing. This is a dramatic decrease in required airspeed, especially considering the fact that the fanwing is being operated at only 2000 rpm.

Airfoil Type (deg.) Lift Coefficient Airspeed (m/s) Fanwing (2000 rpm) 12 1 4 Conventional 12 0.9 10
Figure (18): A comparison of airspeeds required for similar CL.

In addition, because fanwings can operate at higher angles of attack than conventional airfoils, they can continue to generate higher lift coefficients if is increased. The same is not true for the conventional airfoil, which will stall if is increased much beyond 12 degrees. Another interesting pattern emerged when analyzing CL benefits below the control airfoils critical angle of attack. When the fan speed was set to 2000 rpm, the difference in CL between the control and the fanwing was greatest at low angles of attack. At angles of attack nearing, but not exceeding critical for the control, there was little benefit to the fanwing. This can be explained by examining the blade speed of the tangential fan.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 14

Fanwings function by increasing the velocity of air over the upper camber, so they provide the greatest benefits when their blades are moving faster than the air would have already been traveling on a conventional airfoil. Since the velocity over the upper camber of an airfoil increases naturally as angle of attack is increased, fanwings provide less of a boost at higher angles of attack. This observation was limited to angles of attack below stall for the control airfoil. After stall occurred in the control airfoil, the benefits of the fanwing became more obvious. 4.3 Stall Inhibition

In addition to producing lift, accelerating air over the upper surface of the airfoil also inhibits stall. Figure (11) has many characteristics that are indicative of stall inhibition. The curve for the conventional airfoil has a positive linear slope, followed by a sharp drop in at =16 . The fanwing profiles continue their linearity up to a higher , and have no sudden decreases like the conventional airfoil. In some of the lower fan speed cases, the fanwing did undergo gradual decreases in lift at high angles of attack. Stall for a conventional airfoil also results in a sudden increase in drag. Figure (16) demonstrates this for the control airfoil as it passes critical at 16 . By contrast, the drag of the fanwing maintains a higher overall value but has no sudden increases. Based on these observations, fanwings stall performance can be described by two key characteristics. First, the fan reduces the suddenness of stall onset when it occurs. Second, the fanwing increases the magnitude of critical. To explain these findings, it is necessary to look at what happens in the boundary layer during stall.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 15

The boundary-layer is the region of air which passes nearest to the surface of an airfoil. At the surface, skin friction effects reduce the velocity to zero. As distance from the surface increases, the velocity increases until it reaches the maximum streamline velocity over the upper camber. Stall occurs when the boundary layer velocity has been reduced so much that pressure effects cause it to reverse direction4. On a larger scale, this causes flow separation and a loss of lift. Fanwings prevent sudden flow reversal by adding kinetic energy to the boundary layer. When separation does occur near the trailing edge, it travels up the length of the airfoil more slowly as it gradually overcomes the effects of the fan. As Figures (10-12) show, even low fan speeds are sufficient to reduce the suddenness of stall onset, while higher fan speeds can prevent stall altogether until at least =30 . A Higher CLmax means a lower minimum velocity. Vmin is governed by the equation,
=
2 ,
flow reversal

Figure 19: At the surface of the airfoil, velocity is reduced to zero. Stall occurs when an adverse pressure gradient causes flow reversal near the airfoil surface3.

(3)

Because Vmin is proportional to the root of CLmax, small increases in CLmax can have a profound effect on the minimum velocity of an aircraft. In Figure (11), maximum fan speed increases CLmax by 1.56, from 0.8 to 2.36where the first signs of stall occur. Therefore, from Equation (3), Vmin is decreased by 41%. Lower minimum velocities mean lower takeoff and landing speeds and shorter required runway lengths.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 16

4.4

Thrust Production

Section 4.2 briefly discussed the effects of thrust generated by the fanwing at low airspeeds, but did not discuss its effect on L/D. Thrust generation adds a negative component to measured value of drag, which can be computed by, = + (4). The parasite drag increases with airspeed and the induced drag increases with angle of attack, but when both quantities were small, the dominating component was the thrust and the force balance read a negative value. As the airspeed or angle of attack increased, the parasite and induced drag terms overtook the thrust and the force balance read a positive value for drag. After plotting CL/CD, asymptotes appeared at the point where CD passed through zero. Figures (14) & (15) depict the asymptotic behavior most clearly. Figure (14) shows the asymptote located at =8 for the 4 m/s trial. As airspeed was increased to 6 m/s, the parasite drag increased. Therefore, less induced drag was necessary to produce a positive total drag force and the asymptote shifted to 3 . When the airspeed was increased again to 8m/s, the parasite drag alone was enough to overcome the thrust and produce a positive reading. Since symmetric airfoils produce negative lift at negative angles of attack, there was still an asymptote but it occurred at zero degrees, where lift switched from negative to positive. When the fan speed was set to its maximum value in Figure (15), the asymptotes shifted to higher angles of attack. In this case, a larger induced drag was required to overcome the additional thrust produced by the higher fan speed. This time the parasite drag of the 8m/s trial at =0 was less than the thrust produced by the fan, causing the asymptote to move to a positive value.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 17

5.0

Conclusion 5.1 Implications of Results

The results of this experiment showed several benefits of the fanwing design. When compared with a conventional airfoil, the fanwing exhibited: Superior lift capabilities Inhibition of stall at high angles of attack Generation of thrust

The most intriguing result of this research is the capability for fanwing aircraft to perform short take-offs and landings (STOL). Because fanwings generate superior lift at lower airspeeds than conventional airfoils, fanwing aircraft could reach their required take-off velocity on shorter runways. Aircraft also take off and land at angles of attack that approach stall. Since stall would be inhibited in fanwing aircraft, they could take off at higher angles of attack. High take-offs could substitute for a high ground speed, furthering their STOL potential. Fanwing aircraft could also be useful for reconnaissance. The military has a high demand for UAVs that are capable of remaining airborne over one area for an extended period of time. Fanwings can operate at extremely low airspeeds by increasing their angle of attack beyond the capabilities of conventional aircraft. To avoid stall, conventional aircraft operate at higher airspeeds. In surveillance applications, this means conventional aircraft must waste fuel by constantly circling an area. With a decent breeze, a fanwing reconnaissance aircraft could remain stationary by pointing itself into the wind. A final possibility is to use fanwings for certain flight training applications. Most student pilot accidents are due to either accidental stall at takeoff or poorly executed landings. Fanwing training aircraft could reduce both of these accident rates. Because fanwings avoid the sudden onset of stall, student pilots would have ample time to react. Vmin is also drastically reduced for fanwings, which means landings could be executed at lower speeds, reducing fatal accidents.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 18

5.2

Improvements for Future Research

This study focused on aerodynamic characteristics of fanwings rather than their energy consumption. Further research into fanwings must be performed to determine if their benefits justify the additional energy required to operate the fan. Future tests should monitor and analyze electrical power consumption. Since the stall performance of fanwings was one of the most intriguing aspects of this research, it would be beneficial to include flow visualization into future tests through the use of smoke or telltales. Other improvements: Installing a more powerful motor to facilitate testing at higher airspeeds. Monitoring moment forces, particularly during rapid changes in the angular velocity of the fan. Investigating the effectiveness of fans on highly cambered airfoils.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 19

Appendix A.1 Determining Fan Speed The Venom Speed Meter utilizes an inductive magnetic sensor to determine RPM. However, because the meter was designed for vehicles, the readout it provides is in mph rather than RPM. As a result, it was necessary to convert the readout from mph back to RPM. To calibrate the meter, the circumference of the vehicles wheels must be selected. For our purposes, a circumference of 10.56 inches was selected. The reasons for this will soon become apparent. 5280 12 1 1 (1) = 100 60 10.56 1 1 Therefore, the readout in miles per hour could simply be multiplied by 100 to attain RPM. For example, a readout of 20mph corresponds to 2,000RPM. By doing this, the RPM could be easily selected by adjusting the voltage input and observing the Venom Speed Meter readout. Complicated conversions were no longer necessary to perform on the spot. A.2 Lift and Drag Coefficients Measurements of lift and drag were converted into lift and drag coefficients by the following, = 1
2

2 2

(a.1) (a.2)

= 1
2

By definition, an infinite wing would have an infinite aspect ratio because, = 2 /, where b is the infinite wingspan and S is the wing area. The aspect ratio is related to the coefficient of induced drag by the following equation.
=

(a.3)

For an infinite wing, where AR, it can be seen that 0.

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 20

A.3

Uncertainty Analysis A.3.1 Fan Rotation Rate The readout on the Venom Speed Meter has a resolution of 1 mph. However,

during the course of each trial, the readout would often increase or decrease by 1 mph. The fan speed would then be manually adjusted back to its initial value by regulating the input voltage. The 1mph fluctuations of the readout and the 1mph resolution combine to give a total error of 2mph. As discussed in section A.1, the RPM of the tangential fan is 100 times the mph readout. Therefore the true RPM error is 200. A.3.2 Airspeed The airspeed was set using a dedicated LabVIEW program that could be run continuously while the wind tunnel was brought up to the correct speed for each trial. Because the free-stream velocity was never changed during the trials, it was never necessary to calibrate the pitot tube for the data acquisition program. The result was that the velocity measurements which were automatically collected at each angle of attack are off by a constant. However, they do provide us with a good indication of the standard deviation. The standard deviation was estimated using data collected from the control airfoil. It was calculated for each airspeed and yielded an average result of V= 0.2 m/s. A.3.3 Lift and Drag Uncertainty propagation can be performed by Taylor series expansion around the variables in equations (a.1 & a.2). The uncertainty for the lift and drag coefficients can be derived as follows, = =

+ +

+ +

+
2

Compared with the uncertainties in L, D and V, the uncertainty in and S are negligible. Therefore, the above equations simplify to,

U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a | 21
2 2

= =

+ +

(a.4) (a.5)

After calculating the partial derivatives, = =

2 2 2

+ +

4 3 4

(a.6) (a.7)

where L and D are the uncertainties in the force balance measurements and V is the uncertainty found in A.3.2.

1 0.8

0.6 0.4
0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Fig. 99a: drag polar

Fig. 99b: drag polar5

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

http://www.vinod.com/blog/Article_Images/fan_wing_airflow.gif http://www.ltg-inc.net/fileadmin/_temp_/downloads/dokumentationen/prozesslufttechnik/ hochleistungsventilatoren/querstrom-ventilatoren/Tangential_Fans_GA-TA-TEt_25...60-US.pdf http://www.roliv.com/images/boundary-layer-separation.jpg th Anderson, John D., Introduction to Flight, 6 edition http://www.utne.com/uploadedImages/utne/blogs/Environmentalism/Polar%20bear%20drag%20feet%281%29.jpg