You are on page 1of 17

Wind Tunnel Testing on 2D-Airfoil NACA 4415

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Objective

The purpose of this experiment is to determine the angle of attack at which stall occurs
as well as the relationship of lift coefficient with different angle of attack, α. This experiment
also intended to probe the pressure gradients on the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil at
different α and to compare the aerodynamics characteristics with different Reynolds number.

1.2 Significance of experiment

The earliest serious development in designing an airfoil was in 1799 by Sir George
Cayley. He built a whirling arm apparatus which is to investigate rotating wing sections of
various form in the stairwells. Thus this experiment had lead him into the development of
cambered airfoil, airfoil that asymmetry between the top and the bottom surfaces.

The wind tunnel testing began in 1871 by Frank H. Wenham when he successfully
designed and operated the first wind tunnel by installing 12 feet long and 18 inches’ square
trunk in the test section to test the aerodynamics characteristics of the trunks. The history of
development of an airfoil continued in 1884 where H.F. Philips invents a series of airfoil
shapes.

In 1941, the largest wind tunnel was built in respond of world war two which located
in Ohio by United States to test full scale of large aircraft model. Because of lagging to those
wind tunnel built by the Germans, United States construct begins on construction of wind
tunnels at universities and military sites during post world war two.

The airfoil shape basically to generate lift by creating difference velocity of free stream
on top of the airfoil and the below part of the airfoil. According to Bernoulli, the differ in
velocity on the surface of airfoil produced difference pressure, where velocity on top of the
airfoil is higher than below. The consequences of this phenomenon yield higher pressure on
the below part, thus generate lift on the airfoil.

Thus it can be said that the primary attribution toward lift on an airfoil is the shape of
an airfoil and its angle of attack, angle between the chord line and flight direction. When airfoil
deflected the oncoming air, it generates force opposite to the direction of deflection and this is
known as aerodynamic force and its occurred at aerodynamic centre of an airfoil. Aerodynamic

1
force can be resolved into lift and drag. Lift is component of force that act perpendicular to the
velocity flow while drag act parallel to the direction of motion. This aerodynamic force
produced pitching moment which lead the airfoil to flip backwards when positive degree angle
of attack is applied.

This experiment is conducted by using UTM-LST Low Speed Wind Tunnel to measure
the pressure distribution along the surface of NACA 4415 airfoil at certain speed with variable
angle of attack, which adjusted manually. The chosen airfoil has chord of 200mm. NACA 4415
airfoil has 4 percent camber at 0.4 of the chord from the leading edge and is 15 percent thick.
The leading edge radius taken as 2.48 percent of the chord, gives the value of 4.96mm and its
length in a span wise direction is 450 mm. Table 1 below show the position of coordinates in
x and y directions for NACA 4415.

Table 1: Position of coordinates in x and y directions for NACA 4415

Station (x) Upper surface coordinate (y) Lower surface coordinate (y)
0.0 0.00 0.00
2.5 6.14 -3.58
5 8.34 -4.96
10 11.48 -6.54
15 13.82 -7.42
20 15.68 -7.96
30 18.54 -8.36
40 20.50 -8.30
50 21.84 -7.96
60 22.50 -7.50
80 22.50 -6.50
100 21.06 -5.44
120 18.60 -4.28
140 15.26 -3.10
160 11.10 -2.06
180 6.16 -1.14
190 3.34 -0.72
200 0.00 0.00

2
Figure below is the schematic diagram of the airfoil NACA 4415 and the following
table show the position of each tapping along the chord line.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of NACA 4415

Table 2: Position of pressure taps

Taps x(mm) x/c Taps x(mm) x/c


1 0 0 12 20 0.1
2 16 0.09 13 44 0.22
3 32 0.16 14 68 0.34
4 48 0.24 15 92 0.46
Upper Surface

5 64 0.32 Lower surface 16 116 0.58


6 80 0.40 17 140 0.70
7 96 0.48
8 112 0.56
9 128 0.64
10 144 0.72
11 160 0.80

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Theory of wing section from pressure distribution

When a body is immersed in a flowing fluid, the body will experience both pressure
and viscous forces. As stated before, the sum of the forces that acts normal to the free stream
direction is lift, while sum of the act parallel to the free stream direction is the drag.

Figure 2: The geometric and dynamic parameters of airfoils

3
Figure 1 above is the geometric and
dynamic characteristics of airfoils. Due to
the velocity of the flow over the top of the
airfoil is greater than the free stream
velocity, the pressure over the top is
negative. This is being verified by the
Bernoulli’s equation. Same goes to the
velocity along the underside of the airfoil
is less than the free stream velocity, thus
the pressure there is positive. Hence, both
the negative pressure over the top and the
Figure 3: Pressure distribution on airfoils
positive pressure along the bottom
contribute to the lift.

Figure 2 show the typical pressure distribution and its projection on the airfoil. There
is various of ways to measure lift. In this experiment, the lift force, L, on the airfoil is
determined by integration of the measured pressure over the airfoil’s surface. The pressure
distribution on the airfoil is expressed in dimensionless form by the pressure coefficient, Cp;

𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃∞
𝐶𝑃 =
1 2
2 𝜌𝑉∞

Where pi is the surface pressure measure at the location i on the surface, p∞ is the pressure in
the free stream, ρ is the air density, and V∞ is the free stream velocity given by;

2(𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑃∞ )
𝑈∞ = √
𝜌

Where the pstagnation is the stagnation pressure measured at the tip of the pitot tube. The lift force
is expressed as a dimensionless lift coefficient per unit span length

2𝐿
𝐶𝐿 = 2 𝑏𝑐
𝜌𝑈∞

Where L is the lift forces on the airfoil obtained by integration of the measured pressure
distribution over the airfoil’s surface, b is the airfoil span, and c is the chord of the airfoil.

4
3.0 Experiment Procedures, Materials, and Method

3.1 Apparatus

1. 0.457m x 0.457m x 1.27m UTM- Low Speed Wind Tunnel with axial fan driven by
15kW DC motor. Atmospheric intake approximately 1m x 7m.
2. Airfoil NACA 4415.
3. Multi-tube manometer transducer system to measure the gauge pressure distribution
along the chord.
4. Electronic Auto-Zeroing Pressure Scanner (FlowKinetics LLC FKP5 30DP) to
compute the pressure distribution along the chord.
5. Desktop computer installed with Aerolab UTM Wind Tunnel Testing software (Data
Acquisition Program in LabVIEW) to record data.
6. Digital anemometer to measure the airspeed.
7. Protractor to adjust the airfoil at desired angle of attack.

3.2 Figures of the experiment

Figure 4: Side view of wind tunnel

5
3.3 Procedures

1. The model of NACA 4415 airfoil being installed inside test section of UTM-Low Speed
Wind Tunnel.
2. The 17 pressure sensor tube labelled from 1 to 17 that is mounted along the airfoil is
connected to the pressure scanner (FlowKinetics LLC FKP5 30DP).
3. The associated pressure scanner is connected to the computer and the Aerolab UTM-
Low Speed Tunnel software is being run.
4. By using protractor that attached outside the test section, the angle of attack is set to 0
degree.
5. The pressure distribution when the wind tunnel is not operated is recorded.
6. The wind tunnel is switched on under supervision of technician and the speed is
adjusted until digital anemometer display 20 ms-1.
7. The angle of attack is adjusted to -10 degree.
8. After approximately 10 seconds, the pressure reading is taken through the software.
9. Step 7-8 is repeated for -5, 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25-degree angle of attack.

Before the experiment is conducted, there is a few assumptions must be taken into account
in other to analyse the data obtained from experiment. Firstly, the airflow in the wind to be
incompressible due to the speed did not exceed Mach 0.3 (maximum limit of wind tunnel is
Mach 0.25). Secondly, it is assumed that the flow is viscous. This means that the boundary
layer will be formed on the surface of the model thus created velocity gradient. Next
assumption is the flow is assumed to be adiabatic because there was no heat transferred between
airfoil model and the airflow as it assumed at the same temperature and environment.

6
4.0 Result and Discussion

4.1 Result and Discussion of pressure coefficient, CP versus x/c

Table 3:Calculation of data for alpha -10

Angle of attack = -10o


x/c
Taps (mm) Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp
1 0 -370.065 2.166396 1.519312
2 0.08 -145.472 3.554431 0.60827
3 0.16 -236.506 0.693614 0.968163
4 0.24 -297.811 -0.12672 1.215038
5 0.32 -314.904 1.637572 1.292005
6 0.4 -342.876 6.791396 1.427213
7 0.48 -327.564 1.163317 1.341743
8 0.56 -328.535 1.14756 1.345643
9 0.64 -325.075 1.39139 1.332515
10 0.72 -319.049 3.215228 1.315362
11 0.8 -303.419 1.13824 1.243091
12 0.1 -620.119 1.491121 2.537183
13 0.22 -437.627 0.141381 1.786808
14 0.34 -366.777 2.498227 1.507245
15 0.46 -330.389 0.975171 1.352505
16 0.58 -300.501 -0.00711 1.226507
17 0.7 -295.604 0.268608 1.207645

Graph 1: Graph of Cp versus x/c for -10o

7
Table 4:Calculation of data for alpha -5

Angle of attack = -5o Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c


x/c Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp
Taps (mm) 2.5
1 0 -95.6633 2.17932 0.399358 Upper surface
2 0.08 -267.338 3.567355 1.105735
3 0.16 -339.437 0.706538 1.388343 2 Lower surface
4 0.24 -384.112 -0.1138 1.56734
5 0.32 -384.892 1.650496 1.577724
6 0.4 -398.703 6.80432 1.65513 1.5
7 0.48 -373.434 1.176241 1.529021

Cp
8 0.56 -364.728 1.160484 1.493424
9 0.64 -354.073 1.404314 1.450929 1
10 0.72 -343.499 3.228152 1.415212
11 0.8 -323.662 1.151164 1.325767
12 0.1 -493.631 1.504045 2.020959 0.5
13 0.22 -363.922 0.154305 1.486025
14 0.34 -319.288 2.511151 1.313468
15 0.46 -298.328 0.988095 1.2217 0
16 0.58 -277.177 0.005813 1.131358 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
17 0.7 -292.598 0.281532 1.195428 x/c
Graph 2: Graph of Cp versus x/c for -5o

Table 5: Calculation of data for alpha 0

Angle of attack = 00 Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c


x/c Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp
Taps (mm) 2.5
1 0 -2.81751 2.3074 0.020918
Upper surface
2 0.08 -435.654 3.695435 1.793262
3 0.16 -465.03 0.834619 1.901488 2
Lower surface
4 0.24 -482.545 0.01428 1.96963
5 0.32 -457.64 1.778577 1.875178
1.5
6 0.4 -465.933 6.932401 1.930064
Cp

7 0.48 -415.704 1.304322 1.702076


8 0.56 -406.919 1.288565 1.666155 1
9 0.64 -387.284 1.532395 1.587007
10 0.72 -359.257 3.356232 1.480054
11 0.8 -327.617 1.279245 1.342432 0.5
12 0.1 -338.634 1.632126 1.38884
13 0.22 -297.061 0.282386 1.213645
14 0.34 -276.125 2.639232 1.137813 0
15 0.46 -264.083 1.116176 1.082445 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
16 0.58 -253.975 0.133893 1.037179
17 0.7 -288.875 0.409613 1.180754
x/c
Graph 3: Graph of Cp versus x/c for 0o

8
Table 6:Calculation of data for alpha 5

Angle of attack = 50 Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c


x/c Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp
Taps (mm) 3
1 0 -56.0395 2.362715 0.238376 Upper surface
2 0.08 -638.448 3.75075 2.62122 2.5
3 0.16 -590.23 0.889934 2.412734 Lower surface
4 0.24 -586.854 0.069595 2.395606 2
5 0.32 -538.647 1.833891 2.206045
6 0.4 -526.966 6.987716 2.179401

Cp
1.5
7 0.48 -453.715 1.359637 1.857447
8 0.56 -430.853 1.34388 1.764068
9 0.64 -403.22 1.58771 1.652275 1
10 0.72 -368.692 3.411547 1.51879
11 0.8 -327.764 1.33456 1.343259 0.5
12 0.1 -206.024 1.687441 0.847801
13 0.22 -217.211 0.3377 0.887955
0
14 0.34 -218.526 2.694547 0.902943
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
15 0.46 -221.406 1.17149 0.90848 x/c
16 0.58 -222.473 0.189208 0.908825
17 0.7 -262.016 0.464928 1.07135
Graph 4: Graph of Cp versus x/c for 5o

Table 7:Calculation of data for alpha 10

Angle of attack = 100 Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c


x/c Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp 4
Taps (mm) Upper surface
3.5
1 0 -267.532 2.394717 1.101744
2 0.08 -813.592 3.782752 3.336224 3 Lower surface
3 0.16 -697.487 0.921936 2.850648
4 0.24 -653.4 0.101597 2.667354 2.5
5 0.32 -574.898 1.865893 2.354138
Cp

2
6 0.4 -543.383 7.019718 2.246541
7 0.48 -464.887 1.391639 1.903179 1.5
8 0.56 -428.083 1.375882 1.752893
9 0.64 -385.277 1.619712 1.579168 1
10 0.72 -341.264 3.443549 1.406968 0.5
11 0.8 -296.768 1.366562 1.216876
12 0.1 -117.433 1.719442 0.486337 0
13 0.22 -158.492 0.369702 0.648417 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
14 0.34 -174.824 2.726548 0.724696 x/c
15 0.46 -188.321 1.203492 0.773569
16 0.58 -197.368 0.22121 0.806487
17 0.7 -259.355 0.49693 1.060621 Graph 5: Graph of Cp versus x/c for 10o

9
Table 8:Calculation of data for alpha 15

Angle of attack = 150 Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c


x/c Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp 4
Taps (mm)
1 0 -657.975 2.538726 2.695974 3.5 Upper surface
2 0.08 -919.637 3.926761 3.769646
3 0.16 -715.137 1.065944 2.923278 3 Lower surface
4 0.24 -619.134 0.245605 2.528079
2.5
5 0.32 -500.475 2.009902 2.050957

Cp
6 0.4 -408.468 7.163727 1.696458 2
7 0.48 -353.058 1.535648 1.447319
8 0.56 -344.549 1.51989 1.412524 1.5
9 0.64 -345.335 1.76372 1.416728
1
10 0.72 -351.671 3.587558 1.450036
11 0.8 -352.567 1.51057 1.445214 0.5
12 0.1 -67.7737 1.863451 0.284233
13 0.22 -122.219 0.513711 0.500949 0
14 0.34 -148.687 2.870557 0.618602 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
15 0.46 -170.221 1.347501 0.700279
x/c
16 0.58 -187.293 0.365219 0.765952
17 0.7 -273.133 0.640938 1.117445
Graph 6: Graph of Cp versus x/c for 15o

Table 9:Calculation of data for alpha 20

Angle of attack = 200

Taps
x/c
(mm)
Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c
1 0 -334.659 2.361484 1.375593 2
2 0.08 -430.611 3.749519 1.772899 1.8
3 0.16 -427.738 0.888703 1.749496 1.6
4 0.24 -427.782 0.068364 1.746329
5 0.32 -433.387 1.83266 1.776406 1.4
6 0.4 -443.597 6.986485 1.839117 1.2
Cp

7 0.48 -443.014 1.358406 1.813764 1


8 0.56 -448.577 1.342649 1.836407 Upper surface
0.8
9 0.64 -455.252 1.586479 1.864649
0.6 Lower surface
10 0.72 -461.73 3.410316 1.898533
11 0.8 -459.949 1.333329 1.882784 0.4
12 0.1 -75.4405 1.68621 0.314803 0.2
13 0.22 -127.692 0.33647 0.522565
0
14 0.34 -157.034 2.693316 0.651946
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
15 0.46 -184.382 1.17026 0.757356
16 0.58 -208.149 0.187977 0.850354 x/c
17 0.7 -305.585 0.463697 1.249179
Graph 7: Graph of Cp versus x/c for 20o

10
Table 10:Calculation of data for alpha 25

Angle of attack = 250


Graph of Coefficient Cp versus x/c
x/c Pstatic (Pa) P∞ (Pa) Cp
Taps (mm) 2.5
1 0 -542.168 2.169473 2.221785 Upper surface
2 0.08 -448.531 3.557508 1.845259 2 Lower surface
3 0.16 -436.218 0.696691 1.783326
4 0.24 -434.719 -0.12365 1.773859
5 0.32 -440.678 1.640649 1.805382 1.5

Cp
6 0.4 -451.079 6.794474 1.868872
7 0.48 -448.612 1.166394 1.835828 1
8 0.56 -452.371 1.150637 1.85111
9 0.64 -456.632 1.394467 1.869497
10 0.72 -459.103 3.218305 1.887024 0.5
11 0.8 -450.715 1.141317 1.84431
12 0.1 -35.0416 1.494198 0.149126 0
13 0.22 -86.4904 0.144458 0.353612 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
14 0.34 -119.03 2.501304 0.496045
15 0.46 -148.346 0.978248 0.609486 x/c
16 0.58 -174.885 -0.00403 0.713799
17 0.7 -300.262 0.271685 1.226669 Graph 8: Graph of Cp versus x/c for 25o

Graph 1 until 8 is the graph of CP versus x/c at angle of -10o until 250. Graph 1 which
the angle of attack at -100 show that at the initial part of the airfoil, the pressure is higher at the
bottom than the upper surface. However approximately at x/c =0.5, the different of pressure
distribution between upper and lower surface did not show so much different. The trend quite
the same for angle of attack -50 where at the early part of airfoil, the lower pressure is higher
than the upper surface. But starting at 00 angle of attack, the pressure distribution starts to have
significant different between upper and lower surface. Based on graph 3, it is observed that the
upper surface pressure distribution is higher than the lower surface of the airfoil. This trend is
the same with the following angle of attack which 00, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 angle which
where upper surface has higher pressure distribution than the lower surface.

11
4.2 Result and discussion of lift coefficient versus angle of attack

Table 11:coefficient of lift obtained from the Cp graph

No Angle of attack (0) Coefficient of lift


1 -10 0.386953

2 -5 0.17175

3 0 0.439574

4 5 0.8287

5 10 1.060037

6 15 0.989712

7 20 0.76532

8 25 0.868861

Graph 9: Graph of coefficient of lift versus angle of attack

12
Based on the graph 9, it can be observed that the coefficient of lift increase as the angle
of attack increase. The CL simply can be obtained by integrating the graph of CP versus x/c
which means the CL is actually the area under the graph of CP versus x/c. Thus if we refer to
graph 2 until 6, we can see the area of the region covered by graph significantly increase as
increase the angle of attack. For the graph 7 and 8, it is observed that the pressure distribution
on the upper surface start to decrease. However, the highest CL obtained in this experiment is
1.06, where it can be called as CL,max, or critical angle of attack. This is where the speed starts
to stall due to flow separation and significantly reduce the CL. In general, the greater the angle
of attack will create more lift. However, when the angle of attack reaches its critical angle, the
amount of lift generated drop as we can see the CL at angle of attack 150. This is because the
flow of air separates from the airfoil which will cause its can no longer effectively generate lift.
At the critical angle of attack, separated flow is so dominant that additional increases in angle
of attack produce less lift and more drag.

4.3 Effect of Reynolds number on coefficient of lift

First and foremost, the Reynold number is important to determine the flow is laminar
or turbulent. Reynold number can be calculating by using this formula;

𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜈

Where,

ρ = Density

V= Velocity of the free stream airflow

D= Length of the airfoil

ν = Kinematic viscosity of the air

Difference between laminar and turbulent flow is in laminar flow, the particle of the
fluid follow the path smoothly which in result, the velocity of the fluid constant at any point of
the fluid while turbulent flow is irregular flow that is characterized by a tiny whirlpool regions
which will cause the velocity in the fluid not constant at every point.

Reynold number is important to predict the amount of lift can be obtained because as
long as the flow is laminar, the CL,max is increase correspond with the increase of Reynold

13
number. However, if the flow become turbulent, the maximum lift coefficient begins to drop
and so does the overall lift coefficient.

Graph 10: Graph of CL versus alpha at different α and different stream velocity
However, based on this experiment, the obtained CL,max for low Reynold number which is for
speed 10 ms-1 is higher than CL,max with high Reynold number. This might be due to some
error that hard to avoid. For example, during conducting the analysis for high Reynold number,
the wind tunnel starts to operate with uneven speed which some time drop until 18 ms-1. This
will definitely decrease CL,max for analysis at speed 20ms-1. Another factor is the analysis is
being done with large interval which is 50 which significantly reduce the accuracy of data
obtained. But still, both speed produce same behaviour or trend on how the CL increase as the
angle of attack increase.

4.4 Calculation of Reynolds number

Calculation of the Reynolds number can be done by using this formula;

𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜈

Where, V=20 ms-1

D= 0.2 m

ν= 1.5803 x 10-5 m2/s

20 𝑥 0.2
𝑅𝑒 = = 2.5 𝑥 105
1.5803 𝑥 10−5

14
4.5 Experimental validation

In other to validate the result obtained from this experiment, XFOIL had been used to
compare the result. XFOIL is an interactive program for the design and analysis of a subsonic
isolated airfoils. Thus XFOIL can calculate the pressure distribution on the airfoil as well as
the lift and drag just by setting the number of Reynolds number and the type of airfoil that been
used. In the XFOIL, the Reynolds number is being set to 200000, quite different with practical
Reynold number which is 250000 but it is accepted in order to verify the data obtained.

Graph 11: Graph of CL versus α obtained Graph 12: Graph of CL versus α from the
for XFOIL database experiment

Based on graph 11 and graph 12, it can be observed that the CL,max for both graph is
quite far from accurate. The error can be calculated as below;
1.35 − 1.06
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥100 = 21.48 %
1.35
Basically there is two main sources of error that contribute such an error in this experiment
which is random error and systematic error.
Random error simply can be addressed by simply taking a lot of data. As discussed
before, the interval between the angle of attack is five which is quite big. If the interval is
considering to be small, more accurate CL,max can be obtained.
Another error that can be consider is the systematic error. This error must be taking into
account because the motor that run the wind tunnel is quite old and the rotation sometime not
so stable.

15
5.0 Conclusion
This experiment is about to test and study the behaviour of the flow as well as the
aerodynamics properties of an airfoil, NACA 4415 when move along a free stream at certain
speed with variable angle of attack. First of all, the pressure distribution at almost half of the
chord at negative angle of attack show that the pressure distribution on the lower surface of the
airfoil is higher than the upper surface. This must be a reason why at low angle of attack, the
airfoil only created very little of lift. As the angle of attack increase from zero to 100, the airfoil
experience increase in pressure distribution thus create more lift on airfoil until its reach stall
angle which is maximum lift that can be create by airfoil, that’s is the point where stall occur.
Due to flow separation, even the angle of attack is increase from 100 to 250, the airfoil loss
ability to create more lift. Also observed in Cp versus x/c graph, pressure distribution increase
as the angle of attack increase, and when stall occur, the lower surface of the airfoil started to
experience more pressure which this in significant reduce the power of the airfoil to create lift.
This experiment also being done at different Reynolds number to study the relationship of its
with coefficient of lift that created and as conclusion. Theoretically, as the Reynolds number
increase, the critical coefficient of lift also increases. But, in this experiment, the theory can’t
be proving because the CL,max for high Reynolds number is lower than the one with low
Reynold’s number. This might be due to some of error occur that that can’t be neglect. In other
to improve the quality of the result obtained, there is a few recommendations that can be done.
For example, the variety angle of attack with small interval need to be used to increase the
accuracy of CL,max obtained. Other thing that can consider is the motor of the wind tunnel need
to be service in other to create more accurate and consistence speed of free stream. Thus the
objective of this experiment is successfully achieved.

16
6.0 References

1. DeSena, G. (2017). Pressure Distribution on an Airfoil. Academia.edu. Retrieved 15


March 2017, from https://www.academia.edu/
2. Willett, K. (2017). Wind Tunnel Uncertainty. Biketechreview.com. Retrieved 15
March 2017, from http://biketechreview.com/
3. A.F. Mills (2004). Error Analysis of Experiments. Retrieved 14 March 2017, from
University of California
4. Cao, Ning (2010). Effects of turbulence intensity and integral length scale on an
asymmetric airfoil at low Reynolds number. Electronic These and Dissertations.
Paper 177
5. Jain, S., Sitaram, N., & Krishnaswamy, S. (2015). Effect of Reynolds Number on
Aerodynamics of Airfoil with Gurney Flap. International Journal Of Rotating
Machinery, 2015, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/628632
6. Selig, M. & Guglielmo, J. (1997). High-Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design.
Journal Of Aircraft, 34(1), 72-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/2.2137

17