ISI-1b HJ

Journal of Fluids Engineering.
Received February 17, 2013;

Accepted manuscript posted January 31, 2014. doi:10.1115/1.4026618
Copyright (c) 2014 by
ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Experimental Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Compound Wing in

Ground Effect
Ma
nu
sc
rip
Shuhaimi Mansor
Department of Aeronautical Engineering,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti TeknologiMalaysia (UTM),
Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 75535845
E-mail: shuhaimi@fkm.utm.my
tN
ot
Co
py
ed
Adi Maimun Abdul Malek

Marine Technology Center,
Tel.: +60 755 35707
E-mail: adi@fkm.utm.my
ite
d
Saeed Jamei1
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
Tel.: +60 75535957
E-mail: jsaeed2@live.utm.my, jaameisa@yahoo.com
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Nor Azwadi Che Sidik

Department of Thermo Fluids,
Tel.: +60 75534718
E-mail: azwadi@fkm.utm.my
Saeed Jamei, Marine Technology Center, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), jsaeed2@live.utm.my
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
ite
d
Agoes Priyanto
Tel.: +60 75534744
Tel.: +60 75534744
E-mail: agoes@fkm.utm.my
ed
ABSTRACT
Co
py
Wing configuration is a parameter that affects the performance of wing-inground effect (WIG) craft. In this study, the aerodynamic characteristics of a new
tN
ot
compound wing were investigated during ground effect. The compound wing was
rip
divided into three parts with a rectangular wing in the middle and two reverse taper
nu
sc
wings with anhedral angle at the sides. The sectional profile of the wing model is
NACA6409. The experiments on the compound wing and the rectangular wing were
Ma
carried to examine different ground clearances, angles of attacks and Reynolds
ed
numbers. The aerodynamic coefficients of the compound wing were compared with
pt
those of the rectangular wing, which had an acceptable increase in its lift coefficient at
Ac
ce
small ground clearances and its drag coefficient decreased compared to rectangular
wing at a wide range of ground clearances, angle of attacks and Reynolds numbers.
Furthermore, the lift to drag ratio of the compound wing improved considerably at small
ground clearances. However, this improvement decreased at higher ground clearance.
The drag polar of the compound wing showed the increment of lift coefficient versus of
drag coefficient was higher especially at small ground clearances. The Reynolds number

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
had a gradual effect on lift and drag coefficients and also lift to drag of both wings.
Generally, the nose down pitching moment of the compound wing was found smaller
but it was greater at high angle of attack and Reynolds number for all ground clearance.
The center of pressure was closer to the leading edge of the wing in contrast to the
ite
d
rectangular wing. However, the center of pressure of the compound wing was later to
the leading edge at high ground clearance, angle of attack and Reynolds number.
Co
py
ed
KEYWORDS: Aerodynamic characteristics; Compound wing; Wind tunnel; Wing-inground effect.
tN
ot
INTRODUCTION
rip
The idea of using ground effect to improve lift was introduced as early as 1930. Initial
nu
sc
experimental and computational techniques used special body shapes in ground

proximity to calculate lift and more information can be found in the references [1-3].
Ma
The results included pressure distribution and lift coefficients for any shape in two or
ed
three dimensional bodies [4, 5]. There are several review papers on different WIG crafts
pt
that discuss their performance and design conception [6, 7]. Many researchers have
Ac
ce
worked to develop WIG crafts that could fly near the ground. Initial research in the
development of WIG crafts was carried out in Finland, Russia, Sweden and the United
States. Ollila (1980) [6] wrote a paper that reviewed experimental and proposed designs
over the course of time. Another paper, which investigated the history and development
of WIG crafts, was written by Rozhdesvensky [8]. Many countries are currently working
on WIG crafts because of the advantages of these crafts offer in terms of fuel economy

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
and high travel speeds when compared to other water transport vehicles. The study
reviews the experimental and theoretical configuration of WIG crafts used, which
improve the aerodynamic performance. Lift was improved when the flow of air
underneath the wing body and around stagnation point on the pressure surface (lower
ite
d
surface of body) was trapped. This created high pressure on the lower surfaces and low
ed
pressures on the upper surfaces and provided a high lifting force (Ram effect).
Co
py
Research into the influence of ground effect on streamline around the wings
began in the 1920s [9, 10]. Rozhdestvensky [11] described the flow of air over the
tN
ot
airfoils at different edges including the leading, trailing and side edge. Airflow can be
rip
streamlined by reducing the downwash angle that causes the efficient angle of attack to
nu
sc
rise. This will improve the lift force and reduce drag force. Wieselsberger [12] used
Prandtls Lifting Line theory to develop the aerodynamic characteristics required by
Ma
airplanes for takeoff and landing. His numerical results agreed with the experimental
ed
data. As a result, longer landing strips for airplanes were introduced to take advantage
pt
of existing dynamic air cushions under the wings. The wind tunnel investigations
Ac
ce
conducted by Recant [13] showed that ground effect does not affect maximum lift but
flaps do cause a reduction in the maximum lift in proximity to the ground.
Chawla et al. [14] employed a moveable flap, detachable end and center plates
in the wind tunnel test for their wing model. They showed that the wing experienced
ground effect at ground clearances (h/c) below 1. The influence of endplate on the lift to

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
drag ratio was higher at lower ground clearances. Ahmed and Goonaratne [15] studied
the growing lift of thick airfoils with small aspect ratios (AR). They found that there was
a relationship between lift and drag coefficients with respect to increasing angles of
attack. For example, the lift coefficient increased and drag coefficient decreased when
ite
d
the wing reached a 2 angle of attack of for various angles of flap. Ahmed [16]
investigated the influence of camber on performance of different airfoils. He discovered
ed
an acceleration of flow, at the rate of 50% and 30%, occurring on NACA 4415 and NACA
Co
py
0015 airfoils. The lowest level of acceleration was for the NACA 6415 airfoil because of
low suction on its upper surface. The intensity of turbulence over NACA 0015 airfoil at
tN
ot
low ground clearance was greater than other NACA airfoils. Ahmed illustrated the
rip
narrow wake region and small turbulence intensity behind the trailing edge of NACA
nu
sc
6415. He also showed the development of a boundary layer on thick airfoils that left the
suction surface at the trailing edge and reattached to the ground surface near the
Ma
trailing edge of airfoils at small ground clearances. This phenomenon caused a
ed
substantial reduction in velocity and subsequently a large dropping momentum, which
pt
increased the turbulence intensity. The reduction of velocity and rising of turbulence
Ac
ce
intensity was increased when the angle of attack was increased. The reattachment of
the boundary layer did not appear at higher ground clearances.
Ahmed et al. [17] studied the aerodynamic characteristics of NACA4412 airfoil

sections in a low turbulence wind tunnel with a moving ground model. They measured
the pressure distribution, velocity and wake region of the flow over the airfoil surface,

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
lift and drag forces. A reduction of suction on the upper surface was shown when the
airfoil approached the ground for all pitch angles. For a small angle of attack (<6), the
lift force was reduced when the ground clearance decreased, although it increased for
greater angles of attack by improving the pressure distribution on the pressure side. A
ite
d
few researchers have worked on the influence of endplates on wing performance near
the ground [18, 19]. Fink and Lastinger [18] studied the aerodynamic characteristics of
ed
thick and highly cambered wings with respect to different aspect ratios. Two wings with
Co
py
mirror arrangement were employed to simulate the ground effect. Accordingly, lift force
was enhanced, induced drag decreased and the lift to drag ratio increased. They
tN
ot
suggested that static longitudinal stability improved at the nose up angle of attack
rip
because of constant pressure distribution on the lower side of the wing, even though it
nu
sc
was reduced at nose down angle. They also demonstrated that the reduction of induced
drag at low ground levels was not affected by wing profile. Based on their experiments,
Ma
a considerable enhancement in lift to drag ratio had been reported when air was
ed
trapped on the lower side of a wing due to endplate use.
ce
pt
Abramowski [20] proposed the following a formula (Eq. 1) for lift coefficient
Ac
according to chord dominated ground effect:

CL ground= CL (h/c)-0.11
(1)
where CL and h/c are the specify lift coefficient in free stream and non-dimensional
height of the wing from ground (ground clearance) respectively. The 2D viscous flow
around the NACA/Munk M15 with a flat bottom was solved using Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes Equation. The second-order upwind discretization technique and

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
SIMPLE algorithm for the coupling of velocity and pressure were used in the finite
volume method. The moving ground was used to better demonstrate ground effect.
+
Based on the theory of flat-plate flow [21] the y on wing was estimated around 100 as
shown below in Equation 2.
y+ = 0.172 (y/l) Re0.9
ite
d
(2)
ed
where y and Re are the height of first mesh on wing and local Reynolds number of flow,
Co
py
respectively. The incompressible flow was assumed according to its Mach number of
0.1.
tN
ot
Using a Canard wing as a replacement for a tail wing is an alternative design
rip
parameter used for creating stability in WIG craft [22, 23]. Li et al. [23] showed that the
nu
sc
Canard wing caused the aerodynamic center to shift to the leading edge of the main
wing without changing the relationship between the centers. This is an advantage when
Ma
locating the center of gravity. The weak point of the Canard wing was reported on
ed
height stability, although it behaved well in terms of pitching stability. Li et al.
pt
established that the drag force of a Canard wing was less than tail wing that caused
Ac
ce
higher efficiency for WIG crafts. Lee et al. [24] examined the aerodynamic characteristics
of rectangular wings with anhedral angles and endplates when different angles of attack
and ground clearances were used. Three configurations were examined, clean wing,
wing with endplate and wing with anhedral angle. The lift to drag ratio of wing with
anhedral angle was in the middle and its height static stability performed satisfactorily
for all angles of attack and ground clearances. They explained that the variations of lift

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
coefficient for wings with anhedral angle versus Reynolds numbers was the smallest and
the drag coefficient was the largest when compared to other models.
Wing planforms are a challenge when designing WIG craft [25, 26]. Yang et al.
ite
d
[25] analyzed two different WIG craft configurations. One of the configurations used an
airplane concept and another configuration used the Lippisch concept. The main wing of
ed
airplane concept was a rectangular wing and a reverse forward swept wing was used for
Co
py
the Lippisch concept craft. In terms of aerodynamic forces and static height stability,
they found that the performance and stability of the Lippisch concept WIG craft was
tN
ot
better than the airplane concept WIG craft. A higher lift coefficient and lower drag
rip
coefficient were found for the Lippisch concept craft at different ground clearances and
nu
sc
angles of attack. In terms of pressure distribution and the wing planform, the tip vortex
of the airplane type craft was stronger. The Lippisch concept WIG craft could fly in and
Ma
out of ground effect with acceptable height static stability. Yang [27] et al. showed that
ed
the aerodynamic centers of Forward Swept (FS) Wings and Reversed Forward Swept
pt
(RFS) Wings were nearer to the leading edge of the wings unlike the aerodynamic center
Ac
ce
of a rectangular wing. The performance (L/D) of rectangular wings was lower than the
RFS wing but greater than the FS wing in terms of extreme ground effect. They revealed
the static stability of the 3D model of the wings was higher than 2D model. They also
illustrated that endplates were not suitable for static height stability because they
moved towards 2D with increased ground clearance.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Wing configuration is the greatest challenge facing researchers attempting to

improve aerodynamic behavior by finding the optimal configuration for wings in terms
of ground effect. Several concepts have been tried, such as flap, endplate, and multielement wings. The aim has been to bring about improvement by modifying the
ite
d
performance of WIG crafts by increasing their flight range and reducing their
environmental impact. This paper experimentally investigated the aerodynamic
ed
characteristics of a new compound wing configuration in terms of ground effect, which
Co
py
this wing has numerically examined by Jamei et al [28]. This compound wing was
composed of three parts; a rectangular wing in the middle and two reverse taper wings
tN
ot
with an anhedral angle at each side. Increasing the aerodynamic performance of the
rip
wing is the main idea. In this study, two wings were used in wind tunnel test, a
nu
sc
compound wing and a rectangular wing. The tests were performed to examine different
ground clearances, angles of attacks and Reynolds numbers. The results, such as lift and
Ma
drag coefficients, lift to drag ratio, pitching moment and centre of pressure of the
Ac
ce
WIND TUNNEL
pt
ed
compound wing were compared with the rectangular wing results.
The aerodynamic characteristics, specifically the ground effect, of the new compound
wing were investigated in a low speed wind tunnel at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM-LST). This wind tunnel was able to deliver a maximum airspeed of 80 m/s (160
knots or 288 km/hr) inside the test section. The size of test section was 2.0 meters wide,
1.5 meters height, and 5.5 meters long. The flow inside the wind tunnel was of good

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
quality, with a flow uniformity < 0.15%, temperature uniformity < 0.2%, flow angularity
uniformity < 0.15%, and turbulence < 0.06%. UTM-LST had high-quality facilities that
allow for accuracy and repeatability of experiment results.
The size of test model and the magnitude of the force measurements required
ite
d
that the wind tunnel was equipped with different balance systems for measuring
ed
aerodynamic forces and moments. In this study, a JR3-50M31A3 sensor was used for
Co
py
force measurements. This sensor is a 6- axis force and toque transducer with internal
tN
capacities of this sensor are shown in Table 1.
ot
electronics. The diameter of the sensor was 50 mm and it was 31 mm thick. The
nu
sc
rip
WING MODEL
The experiments were carried out on a rectangular and a compound wing as shown in
Ma
Figure 1. The compound wing was composed of three parts; a rectangular wing in the
ed
middle and two reverse taper wings with an anhedral angle at the sides. The NACA 6409
ce
pt
airfoil section was selected because it suitable for low speed flights when the airspeed
Ac
was between 25.5-40 m/s. The principal dimensions of both wings are shown in Figure 2
and summarized in Table 2.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND SET-UP
In the wind tunnel, aerodynamic force measurements were carried out for a range of
ground clearances (h/c) and angles of attacks (), from h/c= 0.015 to h/c= 0.405 and
ite
d
from = 0 to = 10. Ground clearance (h/c) was defined as the distance ratio between
the wing trailing edge center and ground surface (h) to root chord length (c) of the wing.
ed
The range of the angles of attack is small because of touching wing to ground for some
Co
py
ground clearances.
In this study, the floor of wind tunnel was used as a fixed flat ground as shown in
tN
ot
Figure 3. The wing was mounted in the test section of the wind tunnel with a strut
rip
(Figure 3). The position of the strut was at the quarter-chord length from the leading
nu
sc
edge of the wings. The strut was adjusted and then the height of the wings was fixed at
the ground clearances. The wing could rotate about an axis at the quarter-chord length
ed
Ma
from the leading edge of wings.
pt
The Frontal area ratio wing and test section was small, resulting in a negligible
ce
blockage ratio for the wings related to side and roof walls of the wind tunnel. In this
Ac
study, all experiments were performed with three freestream velocities, 25.5, 30 and 40
m/s. Based on theses freestream velocities and the chord length of the wings (c) the
6
6,
correspond Reynolds numbers (Re) were 0.34910 , 0.41110 , 0.54810 respectively.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
REPEATABILITY OF THE EXPERIMENT
One way to check the setup of the model and accuracy of the data is to repeat the
experiment. Figure 4 shows the lift and drag coefficients of two different occurrences of
ite
d
the model and wind tunnel test under the same conditions present at the Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia low speed wind tunnel (UTM-LST). As shown below, there was an
Co
py
ed
acceptable level of repeatability for this experiment.
ot
COMPARISON OF AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN COMPOUND AND

RECTANGULAR WINGS
tN
Figures 5-10 show comparisons of aerodynamic coefficients of the rectangular and the
rip
compound wings respect to the ground clearance (h/c), angle of attack () and
nu
sc
Reynolds number (Re).
ed
Ma
Lift Coefficient
pt
The lift coefficient of the rectangular wing and the compound wing are shown in Figure
Ac
ce
5. The lift coefficient of the compound wing was substantial higher than the lift
coefficient of the rectangular wing at a low ground clearance of 0.1 for an angle of
attacks of 4 as a shown in Figure 5 a-c. At small angle of attack resulted in a lower lift
coefficient for the compound wing but this was not a drawback because the angle of
incidence in WIG crafts is greater than 4. When the ground clearance increased, the
difference between rectangular and compound wing lift coefficients decreased. There

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
was a slightly higher lift coefficient for the rectangular wing at ground clearance of
h/c0.2 (Figure 5 g-p) that means at high ground clearance had more effect on lift
coefficient. The compound wing configuration had a higher ram pressure at low ground
clearance as compared with rectangular wing. This creates an advantage for WIG craft
ite
d
water takeoffs by reducing the hydrodynamic resistance because there is higher lift and
then wetted surface of WIG craft hull decreased. There was an increment in lift
Figure 5 shows that the lift coefficient was
Co
py
was higher for the compound wing.
ed
coefficient for both types of wings when ground clearance decreased but this increment
enhanced when the Reynolds numbers had a higher value at all ground clearances. In
tN
ot
most cases, varying the Reynolds numbers had little effect on the gap between the lift
nu
sc
rip
coefficients of the rectangular and the compound wings.
Ma
Drag Coefficient
ed
The great advantage of a compound wing configuration is related to its drag coefficient.
pt
Figure 6 illustrates that the drag coefficient of the compound wing was lower than the
Ac
ce
drag coefficient of the rectangular wing at all ground levels and Reynolds numbers. This
reduction of drag was associated with the smaller distance between the wingtip and the
ground and a smaller wingtip cross section area, which created a weaker tip vortex. The
reduction of drag on the compound wing as compared with rectangular wing became
more beneficial at lower ground levels and angles of attack of 2 (Figure 6 a-i). The
distance between the plots of the wings reduced when the ground clearance

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
augmented because the effects of side parts of the compound wing reduced (Figure 6 jp). The drag coefficient of both wings dropped when the wings approached the ground.
According to the drag coefficient plots, power requirement and then fuel consumption
of WIG craft with the compound wing will reduce. Both wings experienced a slight
ite
d
reduction in drag coefficient when the Reynolds numbers increased because the friction
drag, due to the viscose effect in higher Reynolds numbers, was smaller. Typically, the
ed
gap between the drag coefficient of rectangular and compound wings were reduced
Co
py
with increments of Reynolds number at all ground clearances.
tN
ot
Lift to Drag Ratio
rip
The most important performance parameter for a wing is defined by its lift to drag ratio
nu
sc
(L/D). The efficiency of a wing is referred to its lift to drag ratio. The comparison of lift to
Ma
drag ratio between the rectangular and the compound wing is shown in Figure 7. The lift to
drag ratio for both wings was enhanced when the ground level dropped. The lift to drag
pt
ed
ratio of the compound wing increased considerably compared to the rectangular wing at
ce
low ground clearances of 0.1and 0.15 for all Reynolds numbers (Figure 7 a-f). The lift to drag
Ac
ratio of the compound wing was moderately augmented at a ground clearance of 0.2 and an
angle of attack of approximately >2 (Figure 7 g-i). The angle of incidence in WIG crafts is
greater than 4 then at this ground clearance level, the performance of the compound
wing still improved. However, the performance of compound wing had nor more
increment at higher ground clearances (h/c=0.3) as shown in Figure 7 m-p. Also, at free

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
stream (ground clearance around 1.5), angle of attack of 4 and Re1, the lift to drag ratio
was recorded around 5.2 and 6 for the compound wing and the rectangular wing
respectively, these magnitudes were near the plots of Figure 7m that could be explained
the advantages of the compound wing exits at ground clearance lower than 0.3. Figure 7
ite
d
reveals the increase in Reynolds number created by a gradual enhancement of lift to
ed
drag ratio for both compound and rectangular wings for all ground clearances. The gap
Co
py
between the plots of wings has small variation respect to Reynolds numbers. The effect
ot
of Reynolds number was higher for both wings at lower ground clearances (Figure 7 a-f).
rip
tN
Drag Polar
nu
sc
The correlation between the drag coefficient and the lift coefficient is called the drag
Ma
polar. Figure 8 a-f (h/c0.15) shows the average drag polar plots for the compound
wing, which was noticeable upper than the drag polar plots for the rectangular wing.
pt
ed
This meant that for certain drag coefficients the lift coefficient for the compound wing
ce
was higher. The gap between the rectangular and the compound wing decreased rapidly
Ac
especially at ground clearances greater than 0.15 (Figure 8 g-p). The increment of
Reynolds number made a slight shifting up on drag polar plots of both wings. However,
the distance between the plots of wings generally reduced when Reynolds number
enhanced.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Moment Coefficient
The pitching moment is a parameter that affects the longitudinal stability of WIG crafts.
The moment coefficient for the compound and rectangular wings is shown in Figure 9.
ite
d
Figure 9 shows that there was a steady reduction in the moment coefficient for both
wings when the height dropped, although there was an increase in the moment
ed
coefficient at high angles of attack and high Reynolds numbers that could be because
Co
py
changes of pressure distributions on the surface of the wings (Figure 9 c, f, i, l, p). At a
ot
low ground clearance of 0.1 (Figure 9 a-c) the different between the plots of the
tN
rectangular and the compound wing was small, while for higher ground levels, the
rip
moment coefficient of the rectangular wing was slight greater that of the compound
nu
sc
wing. However, the moment coefficient of the compound wing was greater than that of
the rectangular wing in high Reynolds numbers and high angles of attack (Figure 9 c, f, i,
Ma
l, p). At all ground clearances, slope of the plots of both wings averagely decreased
ed
when Reynolds number enhanced where it was negative for the rectangular wing at
ce
pt
high Reynolds number and ground clearances of 0.25 and 0.3 (Figure 9 l, p).The moment
Ac
coefficients of both wings decreased slightly when the Reynolds numbers increased, but
this reduction was larger at high ground clearances especially for the rectangular wing
(Figure 9 l, p). Generally, the gap between the plots of both wing gradually decreased
respect to increment of Reynolds number.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Centre of Pressure
The center of pressure of the wing is another parameter that plays an important role in
the longitudinal stability of WIG crafts. The distance between the leading edge and
ite
d
center of pressure on the wing is defined as Xcp. Figure 10 shows the center of pressure
position for the rectangular and the compound wing. In general, the position of center
Co
py
ed
pressure of compound wing was a little nearer to leading edge, compared to the
rectangular wing, except at ground clearance greater than 0.15 and high Reynolds
ot
numbers where the center of pressure of the rectangular wing was nearer to leading
tN
edge (Figure 10 i, l, p) . The center of pressure for both wings moved slightly to the
rip
leading edge as the Reynolds numbers increased, especially for angles of attack of
nu
sc
greater than 6. Typically, the center of pressure shifts to the leading edge as ground
clearance is reduced, however at high Reynolds numbers (Re3) and ground clearances
Ma
greater than 0.15, this center shifted to trailing edge. The gap between the plots of both
Ac
ce
CONCLUSION
pt
ed
wings commonly had slight reduction versus Reynolds number.
This study experimentally investigated the aerodynamic characteristics of a new ram

wing concept called a compound wing. The compound wing was composed of three
parts. The middle part was a rectangular wing and two side parts were reverse taper
wings with an anhedral angle. Based on the experimental force measurements, the lift
coefficient for the compound wing improved at low ground clearance compared to the

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
rectangular wing, which can decrease takeoff distance. The anhedral angle of a
compound wing shifts the stagnation point towards the lower side of the wing and
modifies the pressure distribution on the pressure surface leading to a higher
augmentation in lift force at low ground clearances. The drag coefficient of the
ite
d
compound wing was reduced compared to the rectangular wing, especially for low
ground clearances. The distance between the wing tip of the compound wing and
ed
ground was smaller which meant that the tip vortex and downwash velocity were
Co
py
weaker. Consequently, the induced drag of the compound wing decreased. According to
lift and drag force, the lift to drag ratio for the compound wing was enhanced for a wide
tN
ot
range of ground clearances. The substantial improvement in lift to drag ratio for the
rip
compound wing in extreme ground effect identifies it a good performing and efficient
nu
sc
WIG craft. The moment coefficient of the compound wing was smaller than for the
rectangular wing, although at a high angle of attack and Reynolds number, the moment
Ma
coefficient for the compound wing was greater. Comparably, the center of pressure for
ed
the compound wing shifted slightly towards the leading edge, which can affect the
pt
longitudinal stability of a WIG craft. A suitable tail out of the ground effect is one
Ac
ce
method to modify the longitudinal stability of WIG craft. In the future, an investigation
into the aerodynamic characteristics of a complete WIG craft model will be tested in the
UTM wind tunnel.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation
(MOSTI) Malaysia for funding this research.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
NOMENCLATURE
anhedral angle
wing Span
bm
middle wing span
chord length
ct
tip chord length
CL
lift Coefficient
CD
drag Coefficient
drag Force
height of trailing edge above the ground
h/c
ground clearance
characteristics length
lift force
L/D
lift to drag ratio
Re
Reynolds number
XCP
center of pressure
height of first mesh
ed
Co
py
ot
tN
rip
nu
sc
Ma
ed
pt
ce
Ac
y+
ite
d
non-dimensional wall distance
angle of attack
taper ratio (c/ ct)

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
REFERENCES
[1] Davis, J. E., and Harris G. L., 1973, Nonplanar wings in nonplanar ground effect,
Journal of Aircraft, 10(5), pp. 308-312.
[2] Barrows, T. M., 1973, The ram air cushion-advanced fluid suspension for tracked
levitated vehicles, ASME Paper No. 73-ICT 14.
ite
d
[3] Widnall, S. E., and Barrows, T. M., 1970, An analytic solution for two and three
dimensional wings in ground effect, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 41(4), pp. 769-792.
ed
[4] Rubbert, P. E., and Saaris, G. R., 1972, Review and evaluation of a three-dimensional
lifting potential flow analysis method for arbitrary configurations, AIAA Paper 72-188.
Co
py
[5] Johnson, F. T., and Rubbert, P. E., 1975, Advanced panel-type influence coefficient
methods applied to subsonic flow, AIAA Paper 75-50.
tN
ot
[6] Ollila, R. G., 1980, Historical review of WIG vehicles, Journal of Hydrodynamics,
14(3), pp. 65-76.
rip
[7] Ando, S., 1990, Critical review of design philosophies for recent transport WIG effect
vehicles, Trans. Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 33(99), pp. 28-40.
nu
sc
[8] Rozhdestvensky, K. V., 2006, Wing-in-ground effect vehicles, Journal of Aerospace

Science, 42, pp. 211-283.
Ma
[9] Raymond, A., 1921, Ground influence on airfoils, NAC Technical Note 67.
pt
ed
[10] Reid, E., 1927, A full scale investigation of ground effect, NACA Technical Report
265.
Ac
ce
[11] Rozhdestvensky, K. V., 2000, Aerodynamics of a lifting system in extreme ground

effect, 1st edition, Springer-Verlag.
[12] Wieselsberger, C., 1922, Wing resistance near the ground, NACA TM. 77.
[13] Recant, I. G., 1939, Wing-tunnel investigation of ground effect on wing with flaps,
NACA TN. 705.
[14] Chawla, M. D., Edwards, L. C., and Franke, M. E., 1990, Wind-tunnel investigation
of wing-in-ground effect, Journal of Aircraft, 27(4), pp. 289-293.
[15] Ahmed, N., and Goonaratne, J., 2002, Lift augmentation of a low-aspect-ratio thick
wing in ground effect, Journal of Aircraft, 39(2), pp. 381-384.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
[16] Ahmed M. R., 2004, Flow over thick airfoils in ground effect- an investigation on
the influence of camber, proc. 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences,
29 August- 3 September, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1-10.
[17] Ahmed, M. R., Takasaki, T., and Kohama, Y., 2007, Aerodynamic of NACA4412
airfoil in ground effect, AIAA Journal, 45(1), pp. 37-47.
ite
d
[18] Fink, M. P., and Lastinger, J. L., 1961, Aerodynamic characteristics of low-aspectratio wings in close proximity to the ground, NASA TN D 926.
ed
[19] Carter, A. W., 1961, Effect of ground proximity on the aerodynamic characteristics
of aspect-ratio 1 airfoils with and without endplate, NASA TN D 970.
Co
py
[20] Abramowski, T., 2007, Numerical investigation of airfoil in ground proximity,

Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 45(2), pp. 425-436.
[21] Schlichting, H., 1968, Boundary Layer Theory, New-York: McGraw-Hill.
tN
ot
[22] Li, Y., Yang, W., and Yang. Z., 2010, Numerical study on wing in ground effect of
canard configuration, Aeronautical Computing Technique, 40(4), pp. 27-30.
nu
sc
rip
[23] Li, Y., Yang, W., and Yang. Z., 2010, Numerical study on static longitudinal stability
of canard wig craft, Flight Dynamics, 28(1), pp. 9-12.
Ma
[24] Lee, J., Han, C. S., and Bae, C. H., 2010, Influence of wing configurations on
aerodynamic characteristics of wings in ground effect, Journal of Aircraft, 47(3), pp.
1030-1040.
ce
pt
ed
[25] Yang, Z., Yang, W., and Li, Y., 2009, Analysis of two configurations for a commercial
wig craft based on CFD, Proc. 27th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 22 - 25
June, San Antonio, Texas, pp.1-9.
Ac
[26] Ying, C., Yang, W., and Yang, Z., 2010, Numerical simulation on reverse forward
swept wing in ground effect, Computer Aided Engineering, 19(3), pp. 35-39.
[27] Yang, W., Yang, Z., and Ying, C., 2010, Effects of design parameters on longitudinal
static stability for wig craft, International journal of Aerodynamics, 1(1), pp. 97-113.
[28] Jamei, S., Maimun, A., Mansor, S., and Azwadi, N., and Priyanto, A., 2012,
Numerical Investigation on Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Compound Wing in
Ground Effect, Journal of Aircraft, 49(5), pp. 1297-1305.

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Figure Captions List

Fig. 1
(a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing
Fig. 2
Sketch of (a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing
Fig. 3
Experimental setup in the low speed wind tunnel at the Universiti
Repeatability of experimental test (a) Lift coefficient and (b) drag
ed
Fig. 4
ite
d
Teknologi Malaysia
Fig. 5
Co
py
coefficient
Lift coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack
Drag coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack
tN
Fig. 6
ot
() for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)
Lift to drag ratio of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack
nu
sc
Fig.7
rip
() for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds numbers (Re)
() for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)

Drag polar of rectangular and compound wing for different ground
Ma
Fig. 8
Moment coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of
pt
Fig. 9
ed
clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)
Fig. 10
Ac
(Re)
ce
attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds numbers
Center of pressure of rectangular and compound wings versus angle of

attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds numbers
(Re)

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Table Caption List

Load capacities of JR3 sensor
Table 2
Principal dimensions of the wings
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
rip
tN
ot
Co
py
ed
ite
d
Table 1
ed
ite
d

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
(b)
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
rip
tN
ot
Co
py
(a)
Ac
ce
Fig. 1 (a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing
Co
py
ed
ite
d

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
rip
tN
ot
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 Sketch of (a) Rectangular wing and (b) Compound wing
ot
Co
py
ed
ite
d

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
rip
tN
Fig. 3 Experimental setup in the low speed wind tunnel at the Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.60
0.50
CL
0.40
0.30
0.20
ite
d
0.10
0.00
2
(a)
tN
ot
0.05
0.04
CD
rip
0.03
nu
sc
0.02
Ma
0.01
0.00
pt
ed
10
Angle of attack
(b)
Ac
ce
10
Co
py
Angle of attack
ed
Fig. 4 Repeatability of experimental test (a) Lift coefficient and (b) drag coefficient

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
2
10
12
ip
t
nu
sc
r
(b) Re2, h/c=0.1
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
(a) Re1, h/c=0.1
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
tC
0.30
No
0.30
ed
0.50
op
y
0.50
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
CL
0.60
Compound wing
CL
CL
0.60
Rectangular wing
ite
d
Rectangular wing
0.10
0.00
10
12
(c) Re3, h/c=0.1
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
(e) Re2, h/c=0.15
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(d) Re1, h/c=0.15
10
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(f) Re3, h/c=0.15
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
(h) Re2, h/c=0.20
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(g) Re1, h/c=0.20
10
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(i) Re3, h/c=0.20
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
(k) Re2, h/c=0.25
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(j) Re1, h/c=0.25
10
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(l) Re3, h/c=0.25
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
2
10
12
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(p) Re3, h/c=0.3
(n) Re2, h/c=0.3
10
12
Lift coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds number (Re)
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Fig. 5
Ma
nu
sc
r
(m) Re1, h/c=0.3
10
0.30
No
tC
Compound wing
ip
t
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
Rectangular wing

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0
10
12
ed
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(c) Re3, h/c=0.1
(b) Re2, h/c=0.1
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(a) Re1, h/c=0.1
10
0.04
No
op
y
0.03
tC
0.03
0.05
ip
t
0.04
ite
d
0.05
CD
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CD
CD
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0
10
12
ed
0.03
ip
t
No
op
y
0.03
tC
0.04
ite
d
0.05
(e) Re2, h/c=0.15
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(d) Re1, h/c=0.15
10
CD
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CD
CD
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(f) Re3, h/c=0.15
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0
10
12
ed
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(i) Re3, h/c=0.2
(h) Re2, h/c=0.2
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(g) Re1, h/c=0.2
10
0.04
No
op
y
0.03
tC
0.03
0.05
ip
t
0.04
ite
d
0.05
CD
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CD
CD
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0
10
12
ed
0.03
ip
t
No
op
y
0.03
tC
0.04
ite
d
0.05
(k) Re2, h/c=0.25
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(j) Re1, h/c=0.25
10
CD
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CD
CD
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(l) Re3, h/c=0.25
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0
10
12
ed
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(p) Re3, h/c=0.3
(n) Re2, h/c=0.3
10
12
Ma
nu
sc
r
(m) Re1, h/c=0.3
10
0.04
No
op
y
0.03
tC
0.03
0.05
ip
t
0.04
ite
d
0.05
CD
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CD
CD
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Fig. 6 Drag coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds numbers (Re)

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
12
12
10
10
10
ed
4
Rectangular wing
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
10
12
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
12
(c) Re3, h/c=0.1
(b) Re2, h/c=0.1
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(a) Re1, h/c=0.1
10
No
tC
ip
t
Compound wing
op
y
L/D
12
ite
d
14
L/D
14
L/D
14
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
12
12
10
10
10
ed
4
Rectangular wing
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
Compound wing
op
y
(e) Re2, h/c=0.15
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(d) Re1, h/c=0.15
10
L/D
12
ite
d
14
L/D
14
L/D
14
6
4
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
12
(f) Re3, h/c=0.15
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
12
12
10
10
10
ed
4
Rectangular wing
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
10
12
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
12
(i) Re3, h/c=0.2
(h) Re2, h/c=0.2
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(g) Re1, h/c=0.2
10
No
tC
ip
t
Compound wing
op
y
L/D
12
ite
d
14
L/D
14
L/D
14
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
12
12
10
10
10
ed
4
Rectangular wing
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
Compound wing
op
y
(k) Re2, h/c=0.25
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(j) Re1, h/c=0.25
10
L/D
12
ite
d
14
L/D
14
L/D
14
6
4
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
12
(l) Re3, h/c=0.25
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
12
12
10
10
10
ed
4
Rectangular wing
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
10
12
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0
12
(p) Re3, h/c=0.3
(n) Re2, h/c=0.3
10
12
Lift to drag ratio of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and
Reynolds number (Re)
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Fig.7
Ma
nu
sc
r
(m) Re1, h/c=0.3
10
No
tC
ip
t
Compound wing
op
y
L/D
12
ite
d
14
L/D
14
L/D
14
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.10
ed
0.20
Rectangular wing
Rectangular wing
0.10
Compound wing
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.10
Compound wing
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
CD
(c) Re3, h/c=0.1
(b) Re2, h/c=0.1
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(a) Re1, h/c=0.1
0.08
0.20
CD
No
CD
0.04
tC
0.00
0.30
ip
t
0.00
Compound wing
op
y
0.20
0.30
CL
0.70
ite
d
0.70
CL
CL

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.08
0.10
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.30
Rectangular wing
0.10
ed
0.20
Rectangular wing
0.10
Compound wing
op
y
0.20
0.30
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.06
CD
ip
t
No
CD
0.04
(e) Re2, h/c=0.15
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(d) Re1, h/c=0.15
0.08
tC
0.02
0.30
0.20
Rectangular wing
0.10
Compound wing
0.00
0.00
CL
0.70
ite
d
0.70
CL
CL

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
Compound wing
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
CD
(f) Re3, h/c=0.15
0.08
0.10

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
CD
(i) Re3, h/c=0.2
(h) Re2, h/c=0.2
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(g) Re1, h/c=0.2
0.08
0.30
CD
No
CD
0.04
op
y
0.10
tC
0.20
Compound wing
ip
t
0.20
ed
0.30
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
0.30
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.08
0.10

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.06
CD
ip
t
No
CD
0.04
op
y
0.20
(k) Re2, h/c=0.25
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(j) Re1, h/c=0.25
0.08
tC
0.20
ed
0.30
0.10
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
0.30
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
0.70
Rectangular wing
Compound wing
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
CD
(l) Re3, h/c=0.25
0.08
0.10

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.70
0.70
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.02
0.06
CD
ip
t
No
CD
0.04
op
y
0.20
(n) Re2, h/c=0.3
0.10
Compound wing
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
CD
(p) Re3, h/c=0.3
Ma
nu
sc
r
(m) Re1, h/c=0.3
0.08
tC
0.20
ed
0.30
CL
0.50
ite
d
0.50
0.30
Rectangular wing
0.60
Compound wing
0.50
CL
CL
0.60
0.70
Rectangular wing
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Fig. 8 Drag polar of rectangular and compound wing for different ground clearances (h/c) and Reynolds number (Re)

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
2
10
12
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(c) Re3, h/c=0.1
(b) Re2, h/c=0.1
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(a) Re1, h/c=0.1
10
0.04
No
tC
0.05
ip
t
0.00
ed
0.03
op
y
0.04
ite
d
0.05
CM
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CM
CM
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.03
op
y
0.04
ite
d
0.05
(e) Re2, h/c=0.15
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(d) Re1, h/c=0.15
10
CM
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CM
CM
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(f) Re3, h/c=0.15
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
2
10
12
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(i) Re3, h/c=0.2
(h) Re2, h/c=0.2
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(g) Re1, h/c=0.2
10
0.04
No
tC
0.05
ip
t
0.00
ed
0.03
op
y
0.04
ite
d
0.05
CM
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CM
CM
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.03
op
y
0.04
ite
d
0.05
(k) Re2, h/c=0.25
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(j) Re1, h/c=0.25
10
CM
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CM
CM
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(l) Re3, h/c=0.25
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.10
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
2
10
12
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
12
(p) Re3, h/c=0.3
(n) Re2, h/c=0.3
10
12
Ma
nu
sc
r
(m) Re1, h/c=0.3
10
0.04
No
tC
0.05
ip
t
0.00
ed
0.03
op
y
0.04
ite
d
0.05
CM
0.07
0.06
0.04
Compound wing
0.08
0.07
0.05
Rectangular wing
0.09
Compound wing
0.08
CM
CM
0.08
0.10
Rectangular wing
0.09
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Fig. 9 Moment coefficient of rectangular and compound wing versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.80
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
ite
d
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
0.40
(b) Re2, h/c=0.1
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(a) Re1, h/c=0.1
10
XCP/c
0.60
0.40
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
XCP/c
XCP/c
0.70
Compound wing
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(c) Re3, h/c=0.1
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.80
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
ite
d
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
0.40
(e) Re2, h/c=0.15
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(d) Re1, h/c=0.15
10
XCP/c
0.60
0.40
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
XCP/c
XCP/c
0.70
Compound wing
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(f) Re3, h/c=0.15
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.80
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
ite
d
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
0.40
(h) Re2, h/c=0.2
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(g) Re1, h/c=0.2
10
XCP/c
0.60
0.40
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
XCP/c
XCP/c
0.70
Compound wing
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(i) Re3, h/c=0.2
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.80
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
ite
d
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
0.40
(k) Re2, h/c=0.25
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
r
(j) Re1, h/c=0.25
10
XCP/c
0.60
0.40
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
XCP/c
XCP/c
0.70
Compound wing
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
(l) Re3, h/c=0.25
10
12

Copyright (c) 2014
by ASME
Fluids
Engineering
0.80
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.80
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
ite
d
0.00
0
10
12
ip
t
No
tC
0.00
ed
0.30
op
y
0.30
0.40
(n) Re2, h/c=0.3
Compound wing
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
12
10
12
(p) Re3, h/c=0.3
Ma
nu
sc
r
(m) Re1, h/c=0.3
10
XCP/c
0.60
0.40
Rectangular wing
0.70
Compound wing
0.60
XCP/c
XCP/c
0.70
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Fig. 10 Center of pressure of rectangular and compound wings versus angle of attack () for different ground clearances (h/c) and

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Table 1 Load capacities of JR3 sensor

Fy
Fz
Mx
My
Mz
100 N
100 N
200 N
5 N-m
5 N-m
5 N-m
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
rip
tN
ot
Co
py
ed
ite
d
Fx

ASME
Fluids
Engineering
Table 2 Principal dimensions of the wings

Rectangular wing
Compound wing
Total wing span (b)
25 cm
25 cm
Root chord length (c)
20 cm
20 cm
Middle wing span ( bm)
12.5 cm
Taper ratio ( = c/ ct)
Anhedral angle (a)
ite
d
Dimension
13
Ac
ce
pt
ed
Ma
nu
sc
rip
tN
ot
Co
py
ed
1.25

ISI-1b HJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISI-1b HJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Fluids Engineering.

Received February 17, 2013;

Experimental Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Compound Wing in

Adi Maimun Abdul Malek

Nor Azwadi Che Sidik

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

carried to examine different ground clearances, angles of attacks and Reynolds

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

KEYWORDS: Aerodynamic characteristics; Compound wing; Wind tunnel; Wing-inground effect.

experimental and computational techniques used special body shapes in ground

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

trailing edge of airfoils at small ground clearances. This phenomenon caused a

substantial reduction in velocity and subsequently a large dropping momentum, which

Ahmed et al. [17] studied the aerodynamic characteristics of NACA4412 airfoil

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

trapped on the lower side of a wing due to endplate use.

according to chord dominated ground effect:

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

Using a Canard wing as a replacement for a tail wing is an alternative design

height stability, although it behaved well in terms of pitching stability. Li et al.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

Wing configuration is the greatest challenge facing researchers attempting to

characteristics of a new compound wing configuration in terms of ground effect, which

compound wing were compared with the rectangular wing results.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

capacities of this sensor are shown in Table 1.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND SET-UP

from the leading edge of wings.

correspond Reynolds numbers (Re) were 0.34910 , 0.41110 , 0.54810 respectively.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

REPEATABILITY OF THE EXPERIMENT

acceptable level of repeatability for this experiment.

COMPARISON OF AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN COMPOUND AND

Reynolds number (Re).

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

Figure 5 shows that the lift coefficient was

was higher for the compound wing.

coefficients of the rectangular and the compound wings.

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

with increments of Reynolds number at all ground clearances.

Lift to Drag Ratio

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

reveals the increase in Reynolds number created by a gradual enhancement of lift to

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Journal of Fluids Engineering. Received February 17, 2013;

changes of pressure distributions on the surface of the wings (Figure 9 c, f, i, l, p). At a