Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R. Lisazo
Institut Suprieur de lAronautique et de lEspace
31500 Toulouse, France
Abstract
2. Methods
3. Results
The data obtained were plotted to enable visual
comparison. A curve of CX as a function of CZ was
generated to illustrate their relative performance.
Position
()
Cx
0.5c
30
0.22
0.6c
30
0.21
0.7c
30
0.21
0.8c
30
0.21
0.5c
60
0.26
0.6c
60
0.26
0.7c
60
0.26
0.8c
60
0.24
0.5c
90
0.28
0.6c
90
0.27
0.7c
90
0.27
0.8c
90
0.27
6. Recommendations
Though it may seem attractive to use the highest
values of Cx, the more refined question is to what
degree these configurations jeopardize the structure.
Further analyse on the effects caused by the
aerodynamic surfaces on the structure should be
carried out before certifying the chosen
configuration.
7. References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4. Discussion
The results show that a remarkably strong drag
coefficient is obtained for deflections over 60. In
fact, it reaches a maximum of 0.28 for a 90
deflection of a spoiler located at 0.5. Nevertheless,
this phenomenon decreases for higher values and
stabilizes as previously stated. Indeed, the difference
between two deflections of 60 and 90, in terms of
drag coefficient for the same spoiler location, is less
than 2%.
While the values of deflection cover the range
between 60 and 90, the stall created by this device
tends to exceed the acceptable, thereby leading to
structural instabilities on the model. This results in
an undesired variability of the data, as shown in
figures 1 to 5.
5. Conclusion
This paper has examined, separately as well as
regrouped, the effects of both the position and
deflection of a spoiler situated on the upper surface
(suction side) of an Ultralight aircraft called Nynja.