Preparation of Papers for AIAA Technical Conferences

Bird, John1,Gimenez, Alfredo2, Herbert, Allen3, Lake, Troy Jr.4

Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 67260-0044

The WSU 3 by 4 foot wind tunnel was used to study the aerodynamic
characteristics of body positions associated with superheroes. Tests were conducted
across a range of angles of attack and in two body configurations: arms held
forward, and arms held back. Additionally, tests will be conducted for the arms
forward configuration both with and without a cape. Lift, drag, and pitching
moment data were gathered for all configurations. This data was used to determine
speed and power required for human flight, and the sustainability of flying body
positions. Testing revealed that level flight was possible for reasonable speeds and
angles of attack and without injury for humans.

Nomenclature2
CL = Lift Confident
CD = Drag Coefficient
CM = Pitching Moment Coefficient
= Model Value
t = t Statistic
s = Standard Deviation
n = Number of Data Points
SSxx = Sum of Squares of x Values
S = Reference Area
L = Lift Force
q = Dynamic Pressure
ρ = Density of Air

I. Introduction

T he portrayal of humans flying is a staple of comics and movies. Superheroes are depicted soaring in to save the
day flying as easily as birds. While it makes for good fiction, there is little information on the viability of such a
mode of flight for humans. There exists a body of work on the aerodynamics of human bodies for skydiving
configurations, but these typically focus on much higher angles of attack and their primary concern is the terminal
velocity of the configuration. The authors have been unable to find any information on the viability of the human
body as an aerodynamic vehicle for level flight.
The objective then, of this work is to determine the viability of human flight by determination of the velocity and
then power required to maintain level flight at a range of angles of attack, and to then determine the power required
for that condition. Additionally a brief examination of the biomechanics of human flight was conducted to determine
its feasibility.

1
Student, Aerospace Engineering.
2
Student, Aerospace Engineering.
3
Student, Aerospace Engineering.
4
Student, Aerospace Engineering.

1
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
 II. Objectives and Technique
The goal of this test was to achieve an understanding of the behavior of humans in flight. Specifically we
investigated the characteristics of the human body as an aerodynamic vehicle in symmetric flight at low angles of
attack. Lift, drag, and pitching moment were determined across an angle of attack range of -10 to 20 degrees in
increments of two degrees. The ultimate goal of this experimental series was to determine the thrust, power, and
speed required to maintain level flight. We also determined the approximate loads on the shoulder joint of the model
due to aerodynamic force when the arms are held in a forward position in order to assess whether such
configurations are realistically possible for humans to sustain.
Secondary objectives of this experiment were to determine the effect of capes on the flight of humans and to
characterize the longitudinal stability of humans in flight in a variety of configurations. Additionally tufting was
used to visualize the flow-field surrounding the body and detect flow phenomena associated with the quantitative
results.
In order to meet these objectives two models were used to allow testing both in an “arms forward” and an “arms
back” configuration for comparison of the loads on the shoulder. All models were tested at an angle of attack range
from -10 to 20 degrees angle of attack and a dynamic pressure of 25 psf. The dynamic pressure was selected to
maximize the forces generated by the model. The “arms forward” model was additionally tested with the cape on to
assess its effect.
Due to the small size of the models used in this test, there was some concern about the reliability of the data
produced. To address this, several repeats were conducted for each configuration to gather enough data to establish
the quality of the measurements. These repeats were conducted some time after the initial run to asses any long-term
changes in the test or model condition.

III. Apparatus
The two models utilized were both 12-inch wooden artists’ mannequins, with joints fixed by glue to hold the
models rigid in the test. These two models had identical body configurations except for the location of the arms. One
model had the shoulder joints fixed with the arms held flat back against the body, whereas the second model had the
arms fixed forward in the classic “superman” configuration.
The models were held in the tunnel by means of an aluminum structure, which attached to the balance. This
structure was composed of a center channel with two plates extending downward. These plates attached to the chest
of the model by means of all-thread through model aircraft control horns that attached to the chest of the model. The
models were also attached at the rear by another control horn, which was fixed by a second length of all-thread
running up to the support fixture.
In addition to the basic model a cape was also constructed which could be attached to the back of the model by
means of screws. In order to prevent tearing of the cape from separating it from the model the cape was reinforced
with a small piece of plastic at the point of attachment.
In order to visualize the flow field surrounding the body, tufts were attached to the surface during two runs and
photographed throughout the angle of attack range.

IV. Results
After testing, it was necessary to interpolate the test Variation of Average CL with Angle of Attack for all Configurations at
data to a consistent set of test points in order to include q = 25 psf
tares and compare runs. This was required as the test 1.2

points taken in the wind tunnel were not exactly at the 1

desired test angle. After interpolation, the static tares 0.8

were used to remove weight effects, then the data was 0.6

non-dimensionalized with the dynamic pressure and

Lift Coefficient

0.4

frontal area of the model, the dynamic tares were then 0.2
Arms Forward, Cape On
Arms Forward, Cape Off

removed in order to arrive at solely the model effects. 0

Arms Back, Cape Off

Examination of the results shows several results.

-0.2
First, the drag was impacted only slightly between the
arms forward and arms back cases, but was dramatically -0.4

increased by the addition of the cape. In some cases -0.6

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

addition of the cape doubled the drag coefficient. There is Angle of Attack (degrees)

an interesting “bucket” in the drag at negative attack for Figure 1: Plot of Lift Coefficient

2
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
the caped configuration where the drag substantially decreases, although it remains higher than the un-caped drag.
The lift experienced the most surprising impact from the cape. The cape simultaneously steepened the lift curve
and shifted it downward. This was unexpected as it was thought that the cape would serve to simply decrease the lift
generated. The steepening effect was significant enough that at higher angles of attack the caped configuration
actually generated more lift than most of the un-caped arms forward runs. The other surprising result in lift was that
the model never stalled. Even at 20 degrees angle of attack the lift continued to increase with a relatively constant
trend with angle of attack. This is likely because there exists large regions of separated flow at all angles of attack so
there is no separation-induced stall.
The moment data showed that positioning the arms in a forward position causes the instability, reversing the
slope of the moment coefficient versus alpha plot from
slightly negative with the arms back, to positive with the
arms forward. The cape changed the slope somewhat,
especially at negative angles of attack, but its greatest
impact was incrementing the entire curve upward
substantially. The moment plots are located in the
appendix.
Examination of the photos taken of the tufts show
highly separated regions of flow at all angles of attack
and in all configurations. The flow tends to separate
within a short distance from contacting the model,
typically by the mid-torso region of the model. More
violently separated flow can be seen at higher angles of
attack and with the cape on. Photography of the cape Figure 2: Showing Regions of Separated Flow
revealed it to be highly unstable, at times wrapping
entirely around the legs of the model. The tufts also revealed that for many angles of attack the flow around the un-
caped configuration would flow around the body in a direction back into the incident flow, likely indicative of
separation and reduced lift. The caped configuration on the other hand, showed flow around the body in a more
expected manner, as if it were a cylinder, this could be related to the differences in lift between the caped and un-
caped configurations.
There was some interference between the model and the mount as can be seen in Figure 1. At angles of attack of
-4, 6, and 10 perturbations can be seen in the data that are constant across all configurations. It is thought that at
these angles of attack the model is interfering with the mount or vice-versa.

V. Statistical Validation of Data

Once the data had been reduced and the nondimensionalization had been performed, a statistical analysis of the
runs was performed using the program StatGraphics. The analysis was done using a polynomial regression, from
which a model, prediction limits, and confidence limits for each coefficient in each configuration was determined.
The prediction limits were determined by using Equation 1 and the confidence limits were determined by using
Equation 2:

(Equation 1)

(Equation 2)

The is the estimate of the mean value at a value of x, which in this case is the model equation at the given
value of angle of attack. The is the t value at the point of interest, which was determined by taking the expected
Type I error divided by two. From this, a value from an iterated table is chosen that matches the number of data
points minus two. The n value is the total number of data points for the sample size. The is the difference
between the model’s value at the point of interest and the value of the test data at the same point. The final
term, , is the sum of squares for the difference of each point and the model point for the entire model range. An
R-Squared value, P-Value, and F-Ratio were also determined for each data set using the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) feature in the software.

3
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
 From the model equation, predicted values for the entire angle of attack test range were determined. They were
then used in determining the power required for level flight and the shoulder dislocation force values.
All of the certainties and the prediction limits use a 95% confidence level, because it is the most common level
used in engineering (It was discovered after a discussion with engineering statisticians that most engineering data
has a Type-I error of approximately 5%). A Type-I error is a false positive error, which means that a positive
reading will show up when in reality the reading is negative.
The models were all second order polynomial fits. A second degree polynomial was chosen because the P-Value
of the first coefficient in the model was zero out to four decimals, and the P-Value of the model was less than five
percent. This means that the order of the polynomial used for the model is sufficient, and should not be changed.
The P-Value and the R-Squared value for each set of data is a test for how well the model fits the experimental data.
The P-Value is a determined quantity that tells the likelihood that the null hypothesis will not be rejected by the test
data. This does not mean that null hypothesis is correct, but rather that it cannot be ignored. So, the smaller the P-
Value is, the better the fit it is, and the null hypothesis can be rejected from consideration from the data.
The R-Square value is the relation ratio of the model’s sum of squares with the total corrected sum of squares.
The model’s sum of squares is the square of the difference between the test data value and the model’s value at the
same point. The total corrected sum of squares is the sum of squares for the model added to the sum of squares
residuals. Therefore, the smaller the residual, the closer the R-Square value is to one, which means the model is an
accurate representation of the test data.
The F-Ratio is the ratio of the mean square of the model over the mean square of the residuals of the model and
the test points. This is another way to determine if the null hypothesis will hold, or if the test hypothesis is true. The
higher the value, the less likely the null hypothesis is acceptable.
The standard deviation from the data collection software was larger than the values that were measured, but the
data itself was deemed to be repeatable due to the repeat runs being consistent with previous runs. Therefore, the
standard deviation was deemed to have been showing lots Configuration Coefficient F-Ratio P-Value R-Squared Model Equation
2
0.6257 + 0.00142839*α + 0.000706272*α
of scatter with the testing points, but not a crucial Arms Back, C 268.65 0.0000 0.94879 D
2
C 373.4 0.0000 0.96262 0.21004 + 0.0267222*α + 0.000897658*α
L
examination point. Cape Off
C 90.41 0.0000 0.861788 0.8118-0.00810304*α + 0.000353168*α
M
2

In Table 1, the values for the F-Ratio, P-Value, and R- Arms C 1120.41 0.0000 0.966779 0.578116 + 0.0060799*α + 0.000515297*α
D
2

Square value are listed, as well as the model equation for Forward, C 38.58 0.0000 0.500498 0.169295 + 0.0174293*α + 0.000621779*α
L
2

Cape Off C 210.09 0.0000 0.845124 0.796721 + 0.00235562*α + 0.000176302*α 2

the drag coefficient, lift coefficient, and pitching moment M
2
Arms C 286.62 0.0000 0.903823 1.06515 + 0.0209433*α + 0.00031312*α
D
coefficient for all three configurations. This table shows Forward, C 428.35 0.0000 0.93353 (-0.114561) + 0.0383526*α + 0.000321672*α
L
2

that the models are sufficient to describe the test points for Cape On C 78.01 0.0000 0.718923 1.26596 + 0.00594127*α + 0.000155174*α
M
2

all of the cases (with the exception of the lift coefficient Table 1: Statistical Models
for the arms forward, cape off configuration). In The Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Arms
Forward, Cape On Configuration at a q of 25 psf
this case, there were two runs that deviated from 1.2

the trends of the other runs within that

1
configuration. The two runs were Run 13 and Run
101 from the test matrix. Run 101 followed the lift 0.8

lines of the previous and following runs until an 0.6

angle of attack of 10 degrees, when an increase on 0.4

Lift Coefficient

approximately two-tenths occurred and stayed two- 0.2 Model

tenths higher the rest of the run. In Run 13, the lift Predicted Limits
Confidence Limits
0
line followed the same trend as Run 101, but was Measured Values

shifted up approximately two tenths. No cause was -0.2

able to be attributed to these phenomena; therefore, -0.4

they were included in the statistical analysis. These -0.6

model equations are only to be used for the range -0.8

of the test data, which was from -10 to positive 20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack (degree)
degrees angle of attack.
It was determined that because of the quality of Figure 3: Statistical Evaluation of Lift Coefficient - Arms
Forward, Cape On
the fit of the models, the data was of usable value.
Therefore is was acceptable to continue with the succeeding tasks with confidence in the values determined for the
power required as well as the force in the shoulder.
In Graph 1, plots of the lift coefficient model with the prediction and confidence limits for the cape on
configuration are shown. The values determined from this graph are for estimation purposes only, and the exact

4
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
values should be determined using the exact equations. Lift, drag and pitching moment model, prediction limits, and
confidence limits for the remaining test points are provided in Appendix 1.

VI. Flight Requirements

At the outset of this investigation it became apparent that determining the power required for Superman to
maintain level flight is a key aspect of the analysis of his flight characteristics and by proxy the level flight
characteristics of humans as a whole. Several key factors are integral to this analysis. Namely the drag and lift
coefficients, the reference area, as well as the height and weight of the full scale Superman.
Using the statistical model determined previously for each configuration, arms forward with and without cape
and arms back without cape, the lift and drag coefficients were determined for angles of attack ranging from
negative ten to positive twenty degrees in increments of one degree. In order to nondimensionalize the lift and drag
values for an adult human male, the wind tunnel model needed to be scaled appropriately. Given that the model is
one foot long and proportional to an actual adult male, a scaling factor could be selected. Using the assumption that
Superman, the idealized test subject, is six foot five inches and 225 pounds, the scaling factor was determined to be
6.4. The next key term to be determined in order to perform the nondimensionalization was the reference area. We
selected the frontal area of the head and shoulders as the reference area for this investigation. In an examination of
literature pertaining to human aerodynamics, several unique reference areas were found, including height, width,
and volume ratios. However no discernable consensus was found on the appropriate reference area of a human. Thus
the selection of the head and shoulder frontal area was made in order to simplify the analysis. This area was
determined on the wind tunnel model then increased according to the scaling factor determined previously. Further
analysis regarding the degree of appropriateness for this reference area would be recommended in further
investigations. However, given this method an area of .95 square feet was determined to be the approximate area of
the frontal area of human head and shoulders.
Once the aerodynamic coefficients were determined using the statistical model, minimum flight speed values for
the typical adult male could be determined. This of course was highly dependent upon the minimum dynamic
pressure required to attain as well as maintain level flight. This was done by solving the lift equation for dynamic
pressure, given in the following equation:
(Equation 3)
The dynamic pressure was then converted to a Variation of Velocity Required for Level Flight with Angle of Attack
velocity in order to determine the minimum flight 3000

speed. The assumption of sea level conditions was

made, allowing for analysis of the optimum case for 2500

maintaining level flight. As stated earlier Superman,

our idealized model, was assumed to weigh 225 2000
Velocity Required (ft/s)

pounds, thus requiring at least this much lift for level

flight. These values were, for each model 1500 Arms Forward, Cape On
Arms Forward, Cape Off

configuration, compared against the full range of Arms Back, Cape Off

angles of attack. It should be noted that for the Arms 1000

Forward, Cape On configuration, below positive three

degrees alpha negative lift is generated, thus requiring 500

inverted flight.
The results of this portion the analysis allowed 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

for a determination as to the most efficient flight Angle of Attack (degrees)

condition for superman and as a result humans as a Figure 4: Velocity Required for Level Flight
whole. Largely to dramatically increased drag, despite
slight lift improvements, the Arms Forward Cape On configuration showed the greatest required minimum velocities
in regions of positive lift for all but the highest angles of attack tested. At negative angles of attack a more complex
comparison is required. Assuming inverted flight is maintained, the Arms Forward Cape On configuration is the
ideal flight mode below negative two degrees angle of attack. However above negative two degrees, significant
reductions in required velocity can be obtained in either cape free configuration. Independent examination of the
cape free configurations reveals that below negative five degrees angle of attack the Arms Forward Cape Off
configuration becomes more efficient than the Arms Back Cape Off configuration. However for all other flight
conditions the Arms Back Cape Off configuration is more efficient. It is also the only stable flight configuration,
thus making it the desired configuration when velocity is the sole selection criteria, with a minimum required

5
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
velocity of 424.7 ft/s (289.56 miles per hour). In comparison the Arms Forward Cape On configuration, at 20
degrees alpha requires a minimum velocity of 504.79 ft/s (344.17 miles per hour) to maintain level flight and the
Arms Forward Cape Off configuration requires a velocity of 509.56 ft/s (347.42 miles per hour) at twenty degrees
angle of attack.
With the variations in minimum velocity required determined, the remaining analysis focused primarily on
determining the power required for all flight configurations and angles of attack. Of primary concern was the drag
produced in level flight. Unfortunately very few details could be determined regarding the unique sources and
components of the resultant drag. However an accurate model of the thrust required was attainable using thrust equal
to drag. Of course the same minimum dynamic pressures required for level flight were used in determining the drag
forces on the body. Upon determining the thrust required, power required could then be obtained. Again a simplified
model was selected, largely due to unknown factors regarding the aerodynamic efficiency of the human body. Thus
the power required was set equal to the thrust multiplied by the velocity, divided by 550 ft*lb/s. Dividing by 550
ft*lb/s allowed for compression of the results into units of horsepower, a more tangible and familiar unit.
(Equation 4)

Variation of Power Required for Level Flight with Angle of Attack

The results above indicate similar results those 5000

attained determining the minimum required velocities. 4500

The power required to maintain flight with the Arms 4000

Forward Cape On configuration is significantly larger 3500

than that of either of the alternate configurations. It Power Required (HP)

3000
should be noted that as with the required flight speeds,
below negative four degrees angle of attack the Arms 2500 Arms Forward, Cape On
Arms Forward, Cape Off

Forward Cape Off configuration is preferable in 2000 Arms Back, Cape Off

regards to the propulsive requirements; however 1500

considering the instability of this flight configuration, 1000

once again the Arms Back Cape Off configuration is

500
the optimum flight mode. The overall minimum power
required for the investigation was determined to be an 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

astonishingly low value of 147.48 HP. This is far less Angle of Attack (degrees)

than was anticipated at the outset of the investigation Figure 5: Power Required for Level Flight
and is indeed well within the capabilities of modern propulsion systems. The difficulty however with mounting a
functional propulsion system lies in the immense additional weight associated with the necessary fuel and control
systems. In comparison the Arms Forward Cape Off configuration requires 246.32 HP at the same angle of attack,
and the Arms Forward Cape On configuration needs nearly double the amount of power required for the arms
forward configurations, 425.42 HP at this angle of attack. Thus in considering the optimum flight configuration for
Superman and thus humans as a whole, the Arms Forward, Cape Off configuration is the most aerodynamically
efficient as well as the most stable of the tested flight configurations.

VII. Biomechanics
The focus of the biomechanical portion of this investigation was the Glenohumeral (shoulder) joint, as it is the
joint subject to the most variation in loading in superhero modeled flight. The main objective was to determine if
level flight may be maintained without dislocating the shoulder, additionally it was desired to determine the limiting
velocity causing shoulder dislocation.
The analysis began by making the assumption that force differences between the arms forward and back
configurations acted on the shoulder joint. This resultant force is referred to as the dislocating force. The assumption
was also made that the shoulder is an axisymmetric ball and socket, able to rotate with the pitching moment so that it
will not cause dislocation of the joint. Lastly, the maximum dislocation force the Glenohumeral joint is able to take
is one point five times the body weight.
Defining the maximum dislocation velocity as the maximum velocity a human body may reach at a given angle
of attack before dislocation occurs, the velocity was solved for from the dynamic pressure equation, with dynamic
pressure sized to achieve maximum dislocation force, and once again the atmosphere was taken to be at standard sea
level conditions. The equations required are illustrated below.
] (Equation 5)
(Equation 6)
6
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
 (Equation 7)

As superman is six foot five and 225 lb, and the tested model was one foot in length, the linear scale factor
was 6.5, and the maximum dislocation force 337.5 lb. The results indicate that in the caped configuration, a body
may fly up to the maximum tested 20 degrees angle of attack and down to -7 degrees angle of attack without issue.
At -8 degrees angle of attack, the shoulder dislocates at 412 pounds of force. In the un-caped configuration,
however, the results showed again that dislocation did not occur at 20 degrees angle of attack, but at -9 degrees
angle of attack, the shoulder dislocates at 383 pounds of force. In either configuration decrease in angle of attack
beyond the limiting negative value, that is more negative angles of attack, would cause exponentially greater
shoulder forces. Analysis of the maximum velocity in arms forward, caped configuration showed that a body in
level flight in is capable of reaching in the most limiting case, 939 mph at 20 degrees angle of attack before the
Glenohumeral joint dislocates.

VIII. Conclusion
It is concluded from the result of this experimental series that level flight using the human body as an
aerodynamic vehicle is possible at reasonable velocity is possible if sufficiently high angles of attack are attained.
Further it is concluded that for angles of attack and velocities required for flight that there are no concerns with
dislocation of the shoulder joint. In fact shoulder joint dislocation does not occur until supersonic speed has been
attained. It was also seen that the power required to maintain flight, while high, was not so unreasonable as to
prohibit flight of the human body. Perhaps the largest obstacle seen was the longitudinal instability of the human
body during flight for all but the arms back configuration.
Examination of the effects of the cape reveal that while it increases one performance metric, the lift-curve
slope, it adds such a substantial drag increment as to render the cape unsuitable for use in flight. At times the cape
doubled the drag of the baseline configuration, requiring substantially more power to fly. In fact, of the
configurations tested, the arms back had the best performance and best suitability as a body configuration for human
flight.

Appendix

Figure 7: Caped configuration illustrating the effect of the Figure 6: Un-caped configuration illustrating the reversed
cape in maintaining stream-wise flow around the body. flow around the body without the cape. Flow is from the
Flow is from the upper right, photo taken at an angle of upper right, picture taken at 8 degrees angle of attack
attack 8 degrees.

7
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
Figure 8: The cape was highly unstable due to the separated flow field behind the body; it can be seen here wrapped
entirely around the legs of the model. This instability is thought to be a large part of the drag contribution from the cape.
The Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Arms The Variation of the Drag Coefficient with Angle of Attack for the
Back, Cape Off Configuration at a q of 25 psf Arms Forward,Cape Off Configuration at a q of 25 psf
1.4 1

0.9
1.2

0.8
1
0.7

0.8
0.6
Drag Coefficient
Lift Coefficient

0.6 Model Model

0.5
Predicted Limits Predicted Limits
Confidence Limits Confidence Limits
0.4
0.4 Mesaured Values Measured Values

0.3
0.2
0.2

0
0.1

-0.2 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack (degree) Angle of Attack (degree)

The Variation of the Drag Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Arms The Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of
Back, Cape Off Configuration at a q of 25 psf Attack for the Arms Forward, Cape Off Configuration at a q of 25 psf
1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
Pitching Moment Coefficient
Drag Coefficient

Model 0.6 Model

0.6
Predicted Limits Predicted Limits
Confidence Limits Confidence Limits
Measured Values Measured Values
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack (degree) Angle of Attack (degree)

8
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods
 The Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of The Variation of the Drag Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Arms
Attack for Arms Back, Cape Off Configuration at a q of 25 psf Forward, Cape On Configuration at a q of 25 psf
1.2 2

1.8

1
1.6

1.4
0.8
Pitching Moment Coefficient

1.2

Drag Coefficient
Model 1 Model
0.6
Predicted Limits Predicted Limits
Confidence Limits Confidence Limits
0.8
Measured Values Measured Values
0.4
0.6

0.4
0.2

0.2

0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Angle of Attack (degree) Angle of Attack (degree)

The Variation of the Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack for Arms The Variation of the Pitching Moment Coefficient with Angle of
Forward, Cape Off Configuration at a q of 25 psf Attack for Arms Forward, Cape On Configuration at a q of 25 psf
1.6 1.8

1.4
1.6

1.2
1.4
1

1.2
Pitching Moment Coefficient
0.8
Lift Coefficient

0.6 1
Model Model
Predicted Limits Predicted Limits
0.4 0.8
Confidence Limits Confidence Limits
Measured Values Measured Values
0.2
0.6

0
0.4
-0.2

0.2
-0.4

-0.6 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Angle of Attack (degree) Angle of Attack (degree)

References
1. Barlow, Rae and Pope. Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. 3rd. Walden: Wiley-Interscience, 1999.
2. Clarkson, E. Statitician. 30 April, 2010. Lake, T. Interviewer
3. Hoerner, Sighard F. and Henry V. Borst. Fluid-Dynamic Lift: Practical Information on Aerodynamic and
Hydrodynamic Lift. Ed. Henry V. Borst. 1st. Brick Town: Mrs. Liselotte Hoerner, 1975.
4. Mendenhall, William. Sincich, Terry. Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. 4th Ed. Prentice Hall. 1995.
Upper Saddle River, NJ
5. Nelson, Joshua. WSU 3X4 Wind Tunnel Director 12 April 2010.
6. Oehlert, G H and D T Higdon. Aerodynamic Trajectory Control for a Parachutist in Free Fall. Wichita State
University. Wichita, KS: Wichita State University, 1967.
7. Papaioannou. Biomechanics of Joints. Washington DC: Catholic University of America, 2006.
8. Payne, Peter R. Low-Speed Aerodynamic Forces and Moments Acting on the Human Body. Payne, Incorporated.
Washington D.C.: United States Department of Commerce, 1975.
9. Schane, William P and Dean C. Borgman. Evaluation of the Human Body as an Airfoil. U.S. Army Medical
Research and Development Command. Fort Rucker, Alabama: United States Army, 1969.
10. Schmitt, Thomas J. Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Air Loads on Human Beings. United State Department of the
Navy. Washington D.C: Unites States Navy, 1954.
11. StatGraphics. Software Package, Ver 9.0, STATPOINT TECHNOLOGIES INC. Warrenton, Virginia
12. Valliappan, T. Statistician. 1 May, 2010. Lake, T. Interviewer.

9
WSU AE-512 Experimental Methods