Sports Eng (2011) 13:195204 DOI 10.

1007/s12283-011-0064-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Engineering the race car wing: application of the vortex panel numerical method
Pascual Marques-Bruna

Published online: 1 April 2011 International Sports Engineering Association 2011

Abstract This study examined aerodynamic properties and boundary layer stability in ve cambered airfoils operating at the low Reynolds numbers encountered in motor racing. Numerical modelling was carried out in the ow regime characterised by Reynolds numbers 0.82 1.29 9 106. The design Reynolds number of 3 9 106 was used as a reference. Aerodynamics variables were computed using AeroFoil 2.2 software, which uses the vortex panel method and integral boundary layer equations. Validation of AeroFoil 2.2 software showed very good agreement between calculated aerodynamic coefcients and wind tunnel experimental data. Drag polars, lift/drag ratio, pitching moment coefcient, chordwise distributions (surface velocity ratio, pressure coefcient and boundary layer thickness), stagnation point, and boundary layer transition and separation were obtained at angles of attack from -4 to 12. The NASA NLF(1)-0414F airfoil offers versatility for motor racing with a wide low-drag bucket, low minimum prole drag, high lift/drag ratio, laminar ow up to 0.7 chord, rapid concave pressure recovery, high resultant pressure coefcient and stall resistance at low Reynolds numbers. The ndings have implications for the design of race car wings. Keywords Airfoil Boundary layer Race car Reynolds number Validation Vortex panel method Abbreviations c Chord (m) cd Prole drag coefcient
P. Marques-Bruna (&) Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP, UK e-mail: Marquesp@edgehill.ac.uk

cl cl =cdmax cm a/c cp i, j n ni PR v/V V? Re Rex Rexcr T Sj x, y xcr xsep xstag a a0 bi cj d hij l? q?

Lift coefcient Maximum lift/drag ratio Pitching moment coefcient about the aerodynamic centre Pressure coefcient Control point/panel designation Panel number Unit vector Resultant pressure coefcient Surface velocity ratio Free-stream velocity (m/s), car velocity (km/h) Chord-related Reynolds number Boundary-layer Reynolds number Critical Reynolds number Air temperature (Kelvin) Panel length (m) Cartesian coordinates/distance from origin Boundary-layer transition (critical) point (x/c) Boundary-layer separation point (x/c) Boundary-layer stagnation point (x/c) Geometric angle of attack () Zero-lift angle of attack () Angle between V? and ni () Vortex strength at panel j (m2/s) Boundary layer thickness (mm) Angle between panels i and j () Air viscosity [kg/(m s)] Air density (kg/m3)

1 Introduction Motor racing requires the application of principles of aeronautical engineering for the design of downforce-generating

196

P. Marques-Bruna

wings. A wing is a three-dimensional lifting surface of nite span (Fig. 1) composed of one or more two-dimensional airfoil sections of theoretical innite span [1]. The Reynolds number (Re) characterises the uid ow regime over objects of geometric similarity [2] and the lowest Re used in airfoil design for aviation has typically been 3 9 106 [35]. Airfoil data based on very low Re are also available in the open literature. Data obtained at Re as low as 0.17 9 106 are reported by Katz [6] and the lift (cl) and prole drag (cd) coefcients and boundary layer development are different to those observed in full-size aircraft. Simons [7], in his rare work on model aircraft aerodynamics and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also provides aerodynamic data for airfoils of small chord (c) functioning at very low Re (0.02 B Re B 0.25 9 106). However, race car wings operate in the low-Re ow regime ([0.5 9 106). Airfoils belonging to different periods in the history of aerodynamics, ranging from early-design to natural laminar ow (NLF) airfoils, feature in contemporary race cars [6]. However, there is limited information regarding aerodynamic properties and, particularly, boundary layer stability of small-chord airfoils originally designed for aviation but operating at the low Re encountered in motor racing. It is well known that the performance of airfoils designed for Re [ 0.5 9 106 deteriorates considerably at very low Re due to the formation of a separation bubble immediately aft of the minimum pressure point [7, 8]. At high a, the adverse pressure gradient is severe, the bubble bursts and the airfoil stalls. Laminar separation bubbles are likely to cause signicant departures of cl and cd from theoretical predictions [7, 8]. In large aircraft, laminar ow rarely persists far behind the leading edge because the Re is high and transition occurs without separation. Similarly, race car wings operate at Re [ 0.5 9 106 and the literature

Fig. 1 A rear wing assembly with variable incidence settings, a Gurney tab and side ns mounted on a Grand Touring sports car

[68] suggests that the boundary layer makes a natural unforced transition, therefore aerodynamic coefcients may be obtained by calculation. Also, Simons [7] has explained that in thicker laminar ow airfoils favourable ow conditions are preserved over a greater range of cl. In fact, the minimum drag is higher; however, the low drag bucket is wider in thicker airfoils. A similar effect is caused when lowering the Re, whereby the minimum drag is slightly higher but the bucket is wider. This is because the relative viscosity of air at low Re is greater compared with density, velocity and chord factors and the boundary layer is laminar for a greater distance, which widens the bucket. Thus, the low drag bucket of laminar ow airfoils is expected to vary according to prole thickness and Re. The vortex panel method assumes an ideal ow (inviscid, incompressible [4]) and eliminates the restrictions of thin airfoil theory, limited to airfoils of thickness B12% at geometric angles of attack (a) below the stall [9, 10]. The vortex panel method permits the computation of lift, since vortices have circulation [1]. However, the Kutta condition must be satised [2], whereby ow from the upper and lower airfoil surfaces joins smoothly at the trailing edge producing vortex strength of zero. Boundary layer stability may be examined using aerodynamics theory [1, 1113]. Boundary layer thickness (d) can be approximated using equations for low-speed incompressible laminar ow and the corresponding equations for turbulent boundary layers [4]. The d grows parabolically with distance from the leading edge, whereby turbulent layers grow at a faster rate than laminar layers [2]. Laminar-turbulent transition occurs at a point downstream the leading edge where the laminar boundary layer becomes unstable and microscopic bursts of turbulence begin to form [5]. Thus, the vortex panel method and boundary layer equations may be used in the theoretical analysis of airfoil aerodynamics. The vast majority of experimental airfoil data have been obtained using Re C 5 9 106 intended for aircraft [3, 5, 1418]. Several studies have revealed the complexity of boundary layer stability in model aircraft and UAVs that function at very low Re [7, 8]. However, reports of airfoil aerodynamics in the low-Re ow regime characteristic of race cars are sparse [6]. Also, it remains to be shown whether laminar ow airfoils are superior to earlier types when operating at low Re. Thus, this study aimed to examine aerodynamic properties and boundary layer stability in ve airfoils originally designed for aviation but operating at low Re. It was hypothesised that: H1the aerodynamic properties of airfoils deteriorate and the boundary layer tends to destabilise when operating at off-design Re and H2laminar ow airfoils possess superior aerodynamic properties than earlier types in the ow regime that applies to race car wings. The ndings have implications for the design of high-downforce wings

Race car wing engineering

197
chord line NACA 2412 Camber: 2.00% 0: - 2 mean camber line

that allow the race car to take the corners at high speed and accelerate and brake effectively, thus enhancing car performance and safety. 2 Method 2.1 Description of the airfoils Five airfoils representative of different periods in the history of aerodynamics [3, 14] of c = 0.3 m were examined. These included four National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) airfoils of the 4, 5 and 6-series (designations NACA 2412, 23012, 64206 and 651-412) and one National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) airfoil with extensive NLF (designation NLF(1)-0414F). Airfoil ordinates [3, 15, 18, 19] were reconstructed using Delcam PowerSHAPE-e 8080 computer-aided-design (CAD) software (Fig. 2). The airfoils zero-lift a (a0) is also shown in Fig. 2. The NACA 2412 and 23012 are classical early-design airfoils, the NACA 64206 and 651-412 have a small-radius leading edge [3, 18] and the NACA 651-412 and NLF(1)-0414F possess advanced laminar ow characteristics [7, 18, 20]. 2.2 Numerical analysis Aerodynamics variables were obtained using AeroFoil 2.2 software [21], which uses the vortex panel method [4, 10] and integral boundary layer equations [1, 11, 13, 22]. The vortex panel method is based on the philosophy of covering the airfoil surface with a vortex sheet of such strength that the airfoil surface becomes a streamline of the ow (Fig. 3; based upon Anderson [4]). The airfoil geometry is reconstructed using a series of vortex panels. The vortex panel method is governed by the equation [4, 10] n X cj Z ohij V1 Cosbi dsj 0; 2P oni j1
j

NACA 23012 Camber: 1.83% 0: - 1

NACA 64206 Camber: 1.12% 0: - 3

NACA 65 1-412 Camber: 2.14% 0: - 3

NASA NLF(1)-0414F Camber: 2.70% 0: - 4

y/c

x/c

Fig. 2 The ve airfoils with their corresponding maximum camber, a0, and chord and mean camber lines

(a)

(b)

where V? is the freestream velocity, bi the angle between V? and ni, i the control point at which the vortex strength is being calculated, n the panel number, j the panel which is inducing some vortex at i, cj the vortex strength at j, ni the unit vector normal to the ith panel, sj is the length of panel j, and hij is given by yi yj hij tan1 xi xj where x and y are the coordinates of the control points at panels i and j, respectively. Boundary layer thickness (d) for low-speed incompressible laminar ow was approximated using the software [21] which utilises the equation [4, 22]

Fig. 3 Distribution of a a vortex sheet and b a series of vortex panels over the surface of an airfoil

5:0x d p; Rex where x is distance from the airfoil leading edge and Rex is the boundary-layer Reynolds number. For turbulent boundary layers, the corresponding equation is [4, 22] 0:37x d p: Re1:5 x Location of the transition point (xcr), in effect a nite transition region, was calculated using the software [21]

198

P. Marques-Bruna

based upon air viscosity (l?), air density (q?) and the experimentally determined critical Reynolds number Rexcr at which transition occurs [1, 13]. xcr l1 Rexcr : q1 V1

3 Results 3.1 Validation of the numerical method Calculated and published experimental data were in very good agreement (Fig. 4). RMSEs for cl and cd (Table 1) were smaller than the changes in the magnitude of these coefcients associated with sampling at a = 1 intervals. The cp RMSEs for the NLF(1)-0414 were slightly greater in upper surface calculations. 3.2 Drag polars, cl =cdmax and cm
a/c

2.3 Validation of the numerical method Validation tests of AeroFoil 2.2 software were carried out using drag polars, pressure coefcient (cp) and pitching moment coefcient about the aerodynamic centre (cm a/c) at Re of 2, 3 and 3.1 9 106 and using the ve airfoils. Agreement between the numerical method and wind tunnel experimental data [3, 5, 18, 20] was determined using root mean square error (RMSE) values. The mean RMSE values for cl, cd and cm a/c for -4 B a B 12, at 1 intervals, were calculated. The mean cp RMSE values of the NLF(1)-0414F upper and lower surfaces were calculated at a0 ? 2 and a0 ? 8. 2.4 Aerodynamics variables It was determined that race car wings operate typically in the ow regime of 0.82 B Re B 1.29 9 106. For example, International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) thermodynamic conditions of q? = 1.225 kg/m3 and l? = 17.89 9 10-6, car V? = 200 km/h (55.6 m/s) and c = 0.3 m yield Re = 1.14 9 106; obtained using [2] Re q1 V1 c ; l1

Theoretical drag polars are presented in Fig. 5. The partial stall of the NACA 23012 at low Re and of the NACA 651-412 at the design Re is shown (i.e., a sudden decline in cl accompanied by increasing cd, at high cl settings). All airfoils show decreased aerodynamic efciency at low Re, typied by lower peak cl and generally greater cd for a given cl. The thin-prole NACA 64206 produces very low drag at cl = 0, but shows a narrow range of effective cl at

where l? was calculated using standard air temperature (T) in Kelvin, thus 288.15 K, as follows:   T 1:5 6 l1 1:458 10 : T 110:4 The following variables were calculated for each airfoil (at 0.82 B Re B 1.29 9 106 and -4 B a B 12 at 1 intervals): cl, cd, maximum lift-to-drag ratio cl =cdmax ; a for cl =cdmax ; cm a/c, surface velocity ratio (v/V) distribution, cp distribution, d distribution, ow stagnation point (xstag), xcr, and ow separation point (xsep) [2, 4, 6, 11, 15, 17, 20]. The v/V is the surface ow velocity relative to V?. Drag polars were constructed, including drag polars for a simulated design Re of 3 9 106 [3]. The v/V, cp and d distributions, xcr and xsep were obtained for both surfaces. The v/V, cp and d distributions at a0 ? 2 and a0 ? 8 were selected to display airfoil aerodynamics at low and high a and plotted against c. The cp was integrated over each airfoil surface and the resultant cp for the complete airfoil (PR) calculated at a0 ? 2 and a0 ? 8.

Fig. 4 Experimental (Exp) cl and cd data and calculated values obtained using AeroFoil 2.2 software (AF) for two selected airfoils Table 1 RMSE for aerodynamic coefcients cl NACA 2412 3.1 9 106 NACA 23012 3 9 106 NACA 64206 3 9 106 NACA 651-412 3 9 106 NLF(1)-0414F 3 9 10
6

cd 0.0004 0.0004 0.0009 0.0016 0.0008 0.0013

cm

a/c

cp

0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05

0.009 0.005 0.005 0.018 0.011 0.007 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.10

NLF(1)-0414F 2 9 106 NLF(1)-0414F 3 9 106 a0 ? 2 Upper a0 ? 2 Lower a0 ? 8 Upper a0 ? 8 Lower

Race car wing engineering

199

Fig. 5 Drag polars at low Re (0.82 and 1.29 9 106) and the design Re of 3 9 106

low Re as it stalls abruptly at cl & 0.40.5. The NACA 651-412 stalls abruptly in the vicinity of cl = 0.9 at Re = 0.82 9 106; however, it reaches cl = 1.3 before stalling abruptly at Re = 1.29 9 106. In the NACA 651-412 and NLF(1)-0414F the low-drag bucket becomes narrower at low Re. The NLF(1)-0414F attains very low cd (minimum cd = 0.0036 at cl = 0.425, design Re) and shows stall resistance. Outside its low-drag bucket there is a steep linear increase in cd with cl at Re = 0.82 9 106. The cl =cdmax declines with decreasing Re in all airfoils (Table 2). The highest cl =cdmax is attained by the NLF(1)0414F in any ow regime. However, a for cl =cdmax increases

in some airfoils but decreases in others with changes in Re. The NACA 651-412 yields the highest cm a/c, with a sudden increase in cm a/c at the stall (a & 6; Fig. 6). A similar pattern is observed for the other airfoil with a sharp leading edge, NACA 64206, where a more gradual increase in cm a/c at the stall (a & 3) occurs. 3.3 v/V, cp and d distributions Figure 7 shows v/V, cp and d distributions at Re = 1.29 9 106 only, since data at Re = 0.82 9 106 were similar. At a0 ? 2, peak upper surface v/V occurs at 0.2c in the

Table 2 cl =cdmax and the a at which it occurs

Re = 0.82 9 106 cl/cd NACA 2412 NACA 23012 NACA 64206 NACA 651-412 NASA NLF(1)-0414F 90 83 46 86 119
max

Re = 1.29 9 106 cl/cd 98 93 60 95 125

max

Design Re = 3 9 106 cl/cd 98 110 83 125 156

max

a () 5 7 2 2 6

a () 6 7 3 3 5

a () 4 8 4 3 3

200

P. Marques-Bruna

Fig. 6 cm

a/c

at low Re for the ve airfoils

NACA 2412, nearer the leading edge (0.1c) in the NACA 23012, late in the 6-series airfoils (0.5c in the NACA 64206 and 0.6c in the NACA 651-412) and as late as 0.7c in the NLF(1)-0414F. Over most of the upper surface, the NACA 2412 and 23012 show an adverse pressure gradient and the NACA 64206 a at gradient. However, the NACA 651-412 and NLF(1)-0414F are capable of maintaining a favourable cp gradient up to 0.6c and 0.7c, respectively. The lower surface cp distribution contains regions of negative pressure in all airfoils. At a0 ? 8, there is rapid acceleration of the upper surface ow around the leading edge in all airfoils, and more prominently in the NACA 64206 (v/V = 0.74). In the NACA 64206 and 651-412, xcr occurs immediately aft of their sharp leading edges. The NACA 651-412 shows increased pressure recovery from &0.8c and the NLF(1)-0414F shows the rapid concave pressure recovery from 0.7c characteristic of NLF airfoils. The d distribution displays a logarithmic development of the boundary layer (Fig. 7). A thick turbulent boundary layer develops over the upper surface of the NACA 23012, reaching 2.3 mm (a0 ? 2) and 2.8 mm (a0 ? 8) at xsep. Interestingly, in the NACA 651-412, d is greater on the lower surface than on the upper surface (at a0 ? 2), and in the NLF(1)-0414F there is a sharp increase in d from 0.7c. Table 3 shows integrated cp and the PR. The NACA 651-412 attains a high PR at a0 ? 8, whereas the NLF(1)0414F yields high PR at any a. 3.4 xstag, xcr and xsep The xstag migrates aft of the leading edge as a deviates from 0 (Fig. 8). For a [ 0, xstag is observed to migrate farther downstream in the airfoils with a small-radius leading edge (NACA 64206 and 651-412). Figure 9 shows xcr and xsep as a function of a and Re. For xcr, only data at Re = 0.82 9 106 are shown, since data at Re = 1.29 9 106 were similar. In contrast, xsep was

affected by Re. With increasing a, xcr shifts forward on the upper surface and aft on the lower surface. In the NACA 64206, xcr migrates rapidly on both surfaces as a increases from -1 to 4 and the airfoil stalls. The NACA 651-412 is capable of restraining the upper surface xcr migration (up to a = 2) and the lower surface migration (from a = 0). Similarly, in the NLF(1)-0414F, xcr remains near 0.7c for a B 5 (upper surface) and for a C -1 (lower surface). Increased Re (1.29 9 106) had the effect of delaying and even preventing separation, thus higher a was required for separation to occur (Fig. 9). When separation did occur, it took place nearer the trailing edge. The NACA 64206 experiences a rapid shift in upper surface xsep from a = 0 at Re = 0.82 9 106 and from a = 4 at Re = 1.29 9 106. This is the only airfoil that shows lower surface separation near the leading edge, which occurs at -4 B a B -1. The other airfoil with a small-radius leading edge (NACA 651-412) also experiences a rapid shift in upper surface xsep (from a & 6 at Re = 0.82 9 106 and from a & 9 at Re = 1.29 9 106). In the NLF(1)-0414F, the upper surface xsep shows some to-and-fro migration at a beyond the upper boundary of the low-drag bucket, but remains at &0.8c. At Re = 0.82 9 106, the lower surface xsep migrates towards the trailing edge at a outside the low-drag bucket. However, at Re = 1.29 9 106 there is late (C0.8c) lower surface separation for -3 B a B 1.

4 Discussion 4.1 Validation of the numerical method The calculated coefcients showed very good agreement with experimental data [3, 5, 18, 20] This suggests that the accuracy of the numerical method [21] is acceptable for the analysis of airfoil aerodynamics (Fig. 4). Accuracy was lowest in the calculations for the NACA 651-412 and the upper surface cp distribution for the NLF(1)-0414 (Table 1); due perhaps to the complex geometry and subtle viscous effects in these two airfoils [8, 19, 20]. 4.2 Drag polars, cl =cdmax and cm
a/c

When operating at cl within its low-drag bucket, the NLF(1)-0414F is the most efcient airfoil (Fig. 5). This is due primarily to its rearward position of the minimum pressure that decreases cd [4, 5]. All airfoils are less efcient at low Re. This is expected, as Abbott et al. [5] and Bertin [2] reported that cf and cd decline with increasing Re up to Re & 20 9 106. The airfoils with a small-radius leading edge, NACA 64206 and 651-412, have a narrow range of operational cl below the stall and may be used as stabilisers [2, 14]. In off-design conditions, the two laminar

Race car wing engineering

201

Fig. 7 v/V, cp and d distributions over the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil (Re = 1.29 9 106). xcr (white circles) and xsep (black circles)

ow airfoils show higher minimum drag, in agreement with previous observations [7, 8]. However, the low-drag bucket shrinks with decreasing Re, which differs from previous

experimental data obtained at very low Re (\0.5 9 106 [7, 8]) and very high Re (3 B Re B 9 9 106 [5]). In the NLF(1)-0414F, the rapid increase in cd beyond the upper

202 Table 3 Integrated cp and PR (Re = 1.29 9 106)

P. Marques-Bruna

a0 ? 2 cp Upper NACA 2412 NACA 23012 NACA 64206 NACA 651-412 NASA NLF(1)-0414F -0.29 -0.29 -0.24 -0.33 -0.38 cp Lower -0.07 -0.06 0.00 -0.12 -0.04 PR -0.22 -0.23 -0.24 -0.21 -0.34

a0 ? 8 cp Upper -0.68 -0.67 Stall -0.86 -0.80 cp Lower 0.24 0.21 Stall 0.24 0.24 PR -0.92 -0.88 Stall -1.11 -1.04

4.3 v/V, cp and d distributions The classical NACA 23012 has its maximum camber far forward on the airfoil (Fig. 2). This explains the pressure peak near the leading edge (Fig. 7) and the extensive region of adverse pressure gradient [5]. The small leading edge radius of the NACA 64206 helps achieve low drag and suppress leading edge negative cp peaks at low a. However, at high a the sharp leading edge causes a large cp peak due to centripetal forces turning the air molecules around the leading edge [5, 18, 20]. The large cp peak generates a steep pressure gradient just aft of the leading edge, immediate transition [22] and early ow separation (at 0.2c). This escalates form drag [2] and leads to an abrupt stall. The thick turbulent boundary layer over the upper surface of the NACA 23012 increases the airfoils effective camber, which generates more lift at the expense of greater prole drag [7]. The effects of the greater thickness of the NLF(1)-0414F (14%) are evident at a0 ? 2 (Fig. 7), including high maximum v/V and a long favourable cp gradient, based upon Abbott et al. [5]. However, its thin rear end (see CAD-generated prole; Fig. 2) produces an inection point in the v/V curve at &0.7c and subsequent rapid adverse cp gradient. This is suggestive of high dynamic instability [13, 19] and explains the sudden thickening of the boundary layer in this region. However, the concave-type pressure recovery used in the NLF(1)-0414F helps lessen the severity of turbulent separation [18]. The high PR of the NACA 651-412 and NLF(1)-0414F at large a (Table 3) indicates the greater capacity of the laminar ow airfoils to generate downforce. 4.4 xstag, xcr and xsep Migration of xstag from the leading edge (Fig. 8) adversely affects pressure gradients and boundary layer stability [19, 20]. To control xstag migration, airfoils with a sharp leading edge may be tted with a small-chord (0.100.15c) trailing edge ap of the same airfoil geometry as the main element. A ap helps trade lift due to a for lift due to ap deection by loading the aft section of the main airfoil [15, 17, 19, 20]. Thus, high cl can be achieved while still keeping

Fig. 8 Migration of xstag with a

boundary of the low-drag bucket at low Re (Fig. 5) can be attributed to its thick prole (14% [3]), moderate camber (2.70%; Fig. 2) and steep aft pressure recovery at high cl [5, 18]. Nonetheless, the NLF(1)-0414F is stall resistant at high a due to a thicker leading edge than typical for NLF airfoils [20]. Both laminar ow airfoils retain acceptable aerodynamic properties at low Re, provided that they operate at cl within their low-drag bucket. The cl =cdmax drops with decreasing Re (Table 2). However, the ndings suggest that the NLF(1)-0414F is specially suited for low-Re operation. At low Re, the earlydesign NACA 2412 shows a higher cl =cdmax than the 5 and 6-series airfoils, which is not the case at high Re [5]. In particular, the NACA 64206 attains a very low cl =cdmax at Re = 0.82 9 106 despite its thin prole. The NACA 651-412 shows sizeable pitching tendency (up to cm a/c = -0.10 at the stall at a & 6; Fig. 6), mainly due to its considerable maximum camber (2.14%) [5]. Large cm a/c tends to cause geometric twist, which decreases a and can reduce downforce [6, 7]. Thus, a wing with NACA 651-412 sections should be constructed with sufcient torsional rigidity (Fig. 1) to prevent geometric twist. The analysis unveils the greater versatility (wide low-drag bucket, low minimum cd, high cl =cdmax and stall resistance) of the NLF(1)-0414F for motor racing.

Race car wing engineering

x cr

203

x cr

x sep

x sep

x sep

x sep

Fig. 9 xcr (top) and xsep (middle and bottom) as a function of a and Re

xstag near the leading edge. This maintains favourable cp gradients on both surfaces and delays both transition and separation. Particularly, the NACA 651-412 shows early transition at a0 ? 8 (Fig. 7) which can be delayed using the ap. Given the thick leading edge of the NLF(1)0414F, the use of a small ap should inhibit xstag migration and widen the low-drag bucket, based on Vicken et al. [18, 19]. In the NACA 2412, 23012 and 651-412, xcr moves upstream with increasing a (Fig. 7). However, the copious interchange of momentum within the turbulent boundary layer allows the layer to remain attached despite increased Rex and d [5]. Increased Re also helps delay and even prevent separation (Fig. 9), since high Re is favourable to

the development of turbulence which energises and adds stability to the boundary layer [5, 11, 13]. Interestingly, in the NACA 651-412, xcr occurs earlier in the lower surface than in the upper surface at a0 ? 2 (Fig. 7), which is uncommon at high Re [14]. According to Murri et al. [20], the onset of upper-surface trailing-edge separation for the NLF(1)-0414F is a = 4 (Re = 2 9 106). At lower Re, ow separation is observed at any geometric a (Fig. 9). In agreement, Murri et al. [20] predicted turbulent ow separation in the pressure recovery region to occur at offdesign conditions for the NLF(1)-0414F, unless a boundary layer energiser is used. Installation of a spanwise row of vortex generators at 0.6c may improve lift and reduce drag [20]. However, the effect of vortex generators on boundary

204

P. Marques-Bruna 5. Abbott IH, von Doenhoff AE, Stivers LS (1945) Summary of airfoil data. NACA ACR No. L5005, pp 1266 6. Katz J (2006) New directions in race car aerodynamics: designing for speed. Bentley Publishers, Cambridge 7. Simons M (2002) Model aircraft aerodynamics. Special Interest Model Books Ltd, Dorset 8. Mueller TJ, DeLaurier JD (2003) Aerodynamics of small vehicles. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 35:89111 9. Ahmed NA (2005) Demonstration of the effectiveness and limitations of thin airfoil theory in the aerodynamic study of airfoil characteristics. Int J Mech Eng Edu 32(4):271282 10. Katz J, Plotkin A (1991) Low-speed aerodynamics: from wing theory to panel methods. McGraw-Hill Inc., London 11. Marvin JG (1983) Turbulence modelling for computational aerodynamics. Am Inst Aeronaut Astronaut J 21(7):941955 12. Anderson JD (1995) Computational uid dynamics: the basics with applications. McGraw-Hill Inc., London 13. Viken JK (1986) Boundary-layer stability and airfoil design. NASA N88-23738, pp 130 14. Anderson JD (1997) A History of aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 15. Wenzinger CJ (1938) Pressure distribution over an NACA 23012 airfoil with an NACA 23012 external-airfoil ap. NACA Report 614:115 16. McGhee RJ, Beasley WD (1976) Effect of thickness on the aerodynamic characteristics of an initial low-speed family of airfoils for general aviation applications. NASA TM X-72843, pp 149 17. Smith AMO (1975) High-lift aerodynamics. J Aircr 12(6):501530 18. Viken JK, Campbell RL, Viken SA, Pfenninger W, Morgan HL (1987) Design of the low-speed NLF(1)-0414F and the highspeed HSNLF(1)-0213 airfoils with high-lift systems. NASA CP 2487:637671 19. Roskam J, Williams K, Williams B (1984) Design considerations of natural laminar ow airfoils for medium-speed regional aircraft. NASA CR 190348, pp 1264 20. Murri DG, McGhee RJ, Jordan FL, Davis PJ, Viken JK (1987) Wind tunnel results of the low-speed NLF(1)-0414F airfoil. NASA N90-12541, pp 673696 21. Reid D (2004) AeroFoil, a 2-D airfoil design and analysis program. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22. Schlichting H (1968) Boundary-layer theory, vol 6th. McGrawHill Book Co., New York

layer stability at low Re needs further investigation. Both H1 and H2 were accepted, since airfoil aerodynamic properties deteriorate and the boundary layer tends to destabilise at off-design Re. Also, the laminar ow airfoils, in particular the NLF(1)-0414F, possess superior aerodynamic properties than early-design types when functioning at low Re.

5 Conclusions Thin-prole 6-series airfoils, such as the NACA 64206, may only be used as stabilisers, unless tted with a smallchord ap to control xstag migration and prevent high cp peaks. A wing with an airfoil of the NACA 651-412 family should be constructed with sufcient torsional rigidity to prevent geometric twist and preserve downforce. In contrast, the analysis indicates that laminar ow airfoils of moderate thickness with extensive NLF are versatile at low Re. Specically, the NLF(1)-0414F presents a wide low-drag bucket, low minimum cd, high cl =cdmax ; laminar ow up to 0.7c, rapid concave pressure recovery, high PR and stall resistance. Thus, the race car wing may be designed using NLF(1)-0414F airfoil sections to attain high downforce and thus enhance car performance and safety.

References
1. Milne-Thomson LM (1973) Theoretical aerodynamics. Dover Publications Inc., New York 2. Bertin JJ (2002) Aerodynamics for engineers. Prentice Hall, New Jersey 3. Abbott IH, von Doenhoff AE (1959) Theory of wing sections. Dover, New York 4. Anderson JD (2007) Fundamentals of aerodynamics. McGrawHill, London