Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Thomas J. Mueller
to be presented at the
RTO AVT/VKI Special Course on
Summary Nomenclature
Symbols
A description of the micro-air vehicle (MAV) con- $5 full-span aspect ratio
cept and design requirements is presented. These vehicles &' drag coefficient (3D)
are very small and therefore operate at chord Reynolds section drag coefficient (2D)
&G
numbers below where very little data is avail- &/ lift coefficient (3D)
able on the performance of lifting surfaces, i.e., airfoils &O section lift coefficient (2D)
and low aspect-ratio wings. This paper presents the re- &/m or &Om lift-curve slope
sults of a continuing study of the methods that can be used
&
/
&' endurance parameter
to obtain reliable force and moment data on thin wings in pitching moment coefficient about
&P
wind and water tunnels. To this end, a new platform force the quarter chord
and moment balance, similar to an already existing bal- &Pm slope of pitching moment curve
ance, was designed and built to perform lift, drag and mo- / ' lift-to-drag ratio
ment measurements at low Reynolds numbers. Balance 0 resolution of A/D converter
characteristics and validation data are presented. Results 5HF or 5H root-chord Reynolds number
show a good agreement between published data and data
obtained with the new balance. Results for lift, drag and
8 freestream velocity
D lift-curve slope
pitching moment about the quarter chord with the exist- D 2D lift-curve slope
ing aerodynamic balance on a series of thin flat plates E wing span
and cambered plates at low Reynolds numbers are pre- F root-chord length
sented. They show that the cambered plates offer better H4 quantization error
aerodynamic characteristics and performance. Moreover, V$5 semi-span aspect ratio
it appears that the trailing-edge geometry of the wings
W wing thickness
and the turbulence intensity up to about in the wind m angle of attack
tunnel do not have a strong effect on the lift and drag zero-lift angle of attack
m&/
for thin wings at low Reynolds numbers. However, the mVWDOO stall angle of attack
presence of two endplates for two-dimensional tests and ~ Glauert parameter
one endplate for the semi-infinite tests appears to have
an undesirable influence on the lift characteristics at low Subscripts
Reynolds numbers. The drag characteristics for thin flat- max maximum
plate wings of aspect ratio greater than one do not appear min minimum
to be affected by the endplates. The effect of the endplates
on the drag characteristics of cambered-plate wings is still Abbreviations
under investigation. It is known, however, that endplates 2D two-dimensional (airfoil)
do have an effect on the drag and lift characteristics of a 3D three-dimensional (wing)
cambered Eppler 61 airfoil/wing. A/D analog-to-digital
TE trailing edge
UND-FB1 old Notre Dame aerodynamic force balance
UND-FB2 new Notre Dame aerodynamic force balance
o
Copyright c 1999 by Thomas J. Mueller. Published by RTO with
permission.
1
Introduction
1.E+06
There is a serious effort to design aircraft that are
as small as possible for special, limited-duration military
1.E+05 B747
1.E+04
and civil missions. These aircraft, called micro-air ve-
1.E+03
hicles (MAVs) (Davis et al, 1996; Ashley, 1998; Wilson
Mass (kg)
1.E+02 Cessna 210
1998; Dornheim, 1998; Mraz, 1998; and Fulghum, 1998), MAV
1.E+01
are of interest because electronic surveillance and detec- 1.E+00
tion sensor equipment can now be miniaturized so that 1.E-01
Pheasant
the entire payload mass is about 18 grams. The advan- 1.E-02
tages of a MAV include compact system transportable by 1.E-03
Butterfly
a single operator, rapid deployment, real-time data, low 1.E-04
radar cross-section, difficult to see and very quiet. The 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
potential for low production cost is also an advantage. Reynolds Number
The primary missions of interest for fixed wing MAVs
include surveillance, detection, communications, and the Figure 1: Reynolds number range for flight vehicles
placement of unattended sensors. Surveillance missions
include video (day and night) and infrared images of bat-
tlefields (referred to as the “over the hill” problem) and
urban areas (referred to as “around the corner”). These one considers the diversity of possible applications for
real-time images can give the number and location of op- micro-air vehicles. The MAV must be designed as a
posing forces. This type of information can also be use- system consisting of airframe, propulsion, payload and
ful in hostage rescue and counter-drug operations. Be- avionics. Although much smaller than currently opera-
cause of the availability of very small sensors, detection tional UAVs, electrically powered MAVs will have ap-
missions include the sensing of biological agents, chemi- proximately the same weight fractions, that is, for
cal compounds and nuclear materials (i.e., radioactivity). the airframe,
for the engine,
for the battery,
MAVs may also be used to improve communications in for the payload, and
for avionics and miscellaneous
urban or other environments where full-time line of sight items. Minimum wing area for ease of packaging and
operations are important. The placement of acoustic sen- pre-launch handling is also important. Figure 2 presents
sors on the outside of a building during a hostage rescue the payload mass versus wingspan for MAVs and other
or counter-drug operation is another possible mission. larger UAVs.
The requirements for fixed wing MAVs cover a wide
range of possible operational environments including ur-
ban, jungle, desert, maritime, mountains and arctic envi-
ronments. Furthermore, MAVs must be able to perform
their missions in all weather conditions (i.e., precipita-
tion, wind shear, and gusts). Because these vehicles fly
at relatively low altitudes (i.e., less than P) where
2
3. Loiter over target area
3
confidence that the operational vehicle will perform as effects caused by laminar separation with transition
designed is important in all applications. to turbulent flow. Also below chord Reynolds num-
bers of about , the free shear layer after lami-
Flow problems nar separation normally does not transition to turbu-
lent flow in time to reattach. Near the upper end of
Although design methods developed over the past this range, the critical Reynolds number can be de-
35 years produce efficient airfoils for chord Reynolds creased by using boundary layer trips. Thin airfoil
numbers greater than about
, these methods are sections (i.e., less than thick) at the upper end
generally inadequate for chord Reynolds numbers below of this regime can exhibit reasonable performance.
, especially for very thin airfoils. In relation to
q At Reynolds numbers above and below
the airfoil boundary layer, important areas of concern are
the separated regions which occur near the leading and/or , extensive laminar flow can be obtained and
trailing edges and transition from laminar to turbulent therefore airfoil performance improves although the
flow if it occurs. It is well known that separation and laminar separation bubble may still present a prob-
transition are highly sensitive to Reynolds number, pres- lem for a particular airfoil. Small radio controlled
sure gradient, and the disturbance environment. Transi- model airplanes fly in this range.
tion and separation play a critical role in determining the q Above 5HF of
, airfoil performance im-
development of the boundary layer which, in turn, affects proves significantly and there is a great deal of ex-
the overall performance of the airfoil. The aerodynamic perience available from large soaring birds, large ra-
characteristics of the wing and other components in turn dio controlled model airplanes, human powered air-
affect the static, dynamic and aeroelastic stability of the planes, etc.
entire vehicle. Therefore the successful management of
the sensitive boundary layer for a particular low Reynolds Laminar separation bubbles occur on the upper sur-
number vehicle design is critical. face of most airfoils at Reynolds numbers above about
The survey of low Reynolds number airfoils by
. These bubbles become larger as the Reynolds
Carmichael (1981), although almost two decades old, is number decreases, usually resulting in a rapid deteriora-
a very useful starting point in the description of the char- tion in performance, i.e., substantial decrease in / '.
acter of the flow over airfoils over the range of Reynolds In principle the laminar separation bubble and transition
numbers of interest here. The following discussion of can be artificially controlled by adding the proper type of
flow regimes from 5HF
is a modi- disturbance at the proper location on the airfoil. Wires,
fied version of Carmichael’s original work. tape strips, grooves, steps, grit, or bleed-through holes in
4
4. Because the critical quantities measured in wind tun-
nel experiments are very small, what is the level
of accuracy needed to improve design and analysis
methods?
(Cl /Cd)max
Preliminary experiments
5
(a) m p (a) m p
p
p
(b) m
(b) m
(c) m p
(c) m p
Figure 8: Smoke flow visualization on Pfenninger 048
Figure 7: Smoke flow visualization on Eppler 61 airfoil airfoil at 5HF
(Burns, 1981)
at 5HF
(Burns, 1981)
6
Both wind tunnel and water tunnel experiments were per-
( FP d FP) test section, pictured in Figure 10,
formed in an attempt to acquire 2D airfoil and finite low was used. The water tunnel is also located in the main
aspect ratio wing data. Studies of the effect of two end- laboratory of the Hessert Center. Water velocities up to
plates on the results for 2D configurations and one end-
I W VHF ( FP VHF ) can be obtained in the test
plate for semi-span or half models were also made. section. A freestream turbulence intensity of less than
has been reported by the manufacturer of the water
tunnel.
Apparatus and procedures
Wind tunnel
2
3
4
The Hessert Center for Aerospace Research is 5
equipped with two similar, horizontal, subsonic open-
1
circuit wind tunnels. Each indraft tunnel has a contrac-
9
tion ratio of 20.6:1. The cross-sections of the entrance 6
and test section are square. The largest test section is
two feet by two feet ( FP by
FP). The contraction KEY:
7
(
FP ). The test sections used are six feet (1.82 me-
ters) in length. All wind tunnel experiments presented in Flow visualization techniques
this report were conducted in one of these subsonic wind
tunnels. The range of velocities required for tests up to A qualitative visual examination of the flow as it
5HF
could easily be obtained. In general, the passes an airfoil is key in understanding its quantitative
minimum velocity for force balance measurements was aerodynamic characteristics. In the wind tunnel, two dif-
kept above P V ( I W V). Figure 9 is a schematic of ferent methods can be used to generate smoke for this
the wind tunnel used. The freestream turbulence intensity flow visualization. With the first method, smoke is gen-
was approximately
over the range of interest. erated by a device which allows kerosene to drip onto
electrically heated filaments; the smoke is then funneled
2’ 1’’ to a smoke rake. The rake has a filter bag and cool-
Exhaust Fan
9’ 8’’ 4’ 7’’ 6’ 0’’ 2’ 8’’ 12’ 6’’ ing coils which reduce the smoke temperature to approxi-
2’ 0’’
4.2°
mately ambient before passing through the anti-turbulence
screens and into the test section. With the second method,
Air Flow
7
Description of the UND-FB1 balance
8
Designation Chord (LQ) Span (LQ) V$5 Thickness (LQ) Camber (%)
C8S4 7.973 3.998 0.5 0.155 0
C8S8 7.973 8.003 1.0 0.154 0
C8S12 7.985 12.01 1.5 0.157 0
C4S8 3.999 8.019 2.0 0.077 0
C4S12 4 12.014 3.0 0.077 0
C8S4C 7.975 3.995 0.5 0.156 4
C8S8C 7.983 8 1.0 0.156 4
C8S12C 7.908 12.013 1.5 0.156 4
C4S8C 3.995 8 2.0 0.078 4
C4S12C 3.936 11.998 3.0 0.079 4
C8S12E 7.969 12.011 1.5 0.156 0
C8S12CE 7.931 12.011 1.5 0.157 4
Endplates were mounted in the wind and water tun- Before measuring any aerodynamic force and mo-
nels. The plates could be removed to simulate either a ment with either balance, the amplifier gains were ad-
semi-infinite model or a finite model. All wings tested justed to maximize the output signals that were expected
were held at the quarter-chord point and the sting was cov- during a given set of experiments. The balance was then
ered by a streamlined sting covering in the wind tunnel calibrated using known masses. The lift, drag and mo-
and a cylindrical covering in the water tunnel. The gaps ment axes were all independent.
between the wing and the endplates were adjusted to ap- For tests looking at the aerodynamic characteristics
proximately LQ ( PP). Mueller and Burns (1982) as a function of angle of attack, the tunnel velocity was
p to yield the desired
showed that gap sizes varying between PP and adjusted with the model at m
PP are usually acceptable and do not affect the re- nominal Reynolds number. The angle of attack was then,
p . Data was taken for angles
sults. Furthermore, Rae and Pope (1984) suggest that the in general, set to m b
gap be less than dVSDQ
. For a LQ ( FP) span of attack up to a large positive angle by an increment of
model, this corresponds to a maximum gap size of LQ p . The wing was then brought back to m p by an
( PP), which is larger than the gap used in the cur- increment of b p in order to see if hysteresis was present.
rent investigation. All 2D tests (or infinite wing/airfoil Offset readings were measured for all four data acquisi-
tests) were performed with both endplates present. For tion channels before the tunnel was turned on with the
semi-infinite wings (denoted by the semi-span aspect ra- model at m p . At the end of the run, the tunnel was
tio symbol V$5 ), the bottom plate was removed. Finally, turned off with the model at m p and drift readings
for finite wing tests (denoted by the aspect ratio symbol were obtained for all channels. The offset voltage for a
$5 ), both endplates and the sting covering were removed. given channel was subtracted from all the voltage read-
ings for that channel. A percentage of the drift was also
Data acquisition system with UND-FB1 balance subtracted from all the readings. A linear behavior was
assumed for the drift. This means that if Q angles of at-
Signals from the strain gauges were measured with dGULIW
tack were tested with the tunnel running, Q was
very sensitive instrumentation. The strain gauges were dGULIW
subtracted from the first point, Q was subtracted
configured in a full Wheatstone bridge. An excitation from the second point, and so forth. Other procedures re-
voltage of 9 was used for all the strain gauge bridges. lated to specific applications will be presented in the text
The bridge signals were read with an instrumentation am- when appropriate.
plifier circuit, with available gains from 1 to 8,000. The
amplified analog signals were sent to the computer where Measurement uncertainty with balance UND-FB1
they were then converted using a four-channel, 12-bit A/D
converter from United Electronic Industries (UEI). Four
data channels (lift, drag, moment and dynamic pressure) Uncertainties in the measurements were computed
could be measured. All the data was acquired using a PC- using the Kline-McClintock technique (Kline and Mc-
based data acquisition system running the LABVIEWU Clintock, 1953) for error propagation. The two main
5 graphical programming language. The angle of attack sources of uncertainty were the quantization error and
was controlled manually with the UND-FB1 balance. the uncertainty arising from the standard deviation of
9
a given Kmean output voltage.
L The quantization error is
5DQJH LQ YROWV
H4
0 , where 0 is the number of bits
Cl, CL
uncertainty from the quantization error will be reduced 0.0
because the quantization error is a fixed value (a function
of the range and the resolution of the A/D converter). -0.5
The ratio of the quantization error to the mean voltage
2D
will then be smaller if a larger gain is used and a larger -1.0
sAR= 1.5
balance output mean voltage is obtained.
The uncertainty in the angle of attack was deter- -1.5
called the drag platform, by two vertical plates that flex 0.00
only in the lift direction. The lift and drag platforms
d d
-0.05
are also connected with a LQ LQ LQ
( PP d PP d PP) flexure with bonded
-0.10
-0.15
foil strain gauges mounted on it. The drag platform is
-0.20
supported by two vertical plates that flex only in the
-0.25
drag direction and hang from two more vertical flexi- -20 -10 0 10 20 30
ble plates attached to the base platform of the balance.
α (degrees)
The base and drag platforms are also connected by a
d d LQ ( PP d d PP) Figure 15: Uncertainties in pitching moment coefficient
LQ LQ PP
flexure with strain gauges mounted on this drag flexure. for cambered plates at 5HF with UND-FB1
Both flexures act like cantilever beams when loads are
applied to the balance.
10
Incidence gear Moment sensor
Lift Servomotor
platform
Lift platform
Calibration
pulley Balance Strain
gauges Drag flexure
Drag platform
Base
Base
Positive lift
Water Sting Sting
calibration level covering
Drag platform
LIFT Wing
DRAG 18in
(45.7 cm) Endplates 3/100" (0.8mm)
Gap
Model
U∞
U∞
11
the electronic circuitry used. UND-FB2 UND-FB1
Positive lift 1
1
c c
Bridge balancing adjustment
(if needed) +6V
+5V +5V Moment 1 FP 1 FP
+6V 10kΩ
2kΩ +6V
Table 2: Maximum force/moment balance specifications
5kΩ
1kΩ AD624
AD526
2kΩ
Manometer IN
(channel 4 only)
20kΩ
Force Balance Strain
Offset
attack, and also the motor of the water tunnel when water
gauges -6V
adjustment tunnel tests were performed. A low-pass Butterworth
filter with a cut-off frequency of + ] and of order
5 was used. A study on the effect of the filter and its
order showed that the mean voltages were basically not
+5V affected, but the standard deviations of the means were
greatly reduced. It was discovered during preliminary
AD7825
Specifications
0.5
With motor OFF
Since the force/moment balance includes very sensi- 0.4 With motor ON (no isolation)
Standard deviation (volts)
tive flexures and strain gauges, the applied forces and mo- With motor ON (with isolation)
ment cannot exceed certain limits. These limiting forces 0.3
and moment were determined conservatively and are listed
in Table 2. The limiting forces and moment for the UND- 0.2
FB1 balance are also included for comparison (see Huber,
1985). In order to be able to move the balance and mount 0.1
the models without permanently deforming the flexures,
locking pins are used to restrain the balance. These lock- 0.0
12
Calibration
Lift (N)
the upper plate by running a string over the calibration
pulley aligned with the axis to calibrate (for lift and drag) 0
or perpendicular to the torque applicator (pin connected
GAIN= 2000
to the sting used to apply a known torque) for the mo- -2 Slope= -1.079
ment calibration. For this moment calibration, the lift and
drag locking pins were used to prevent movement in the
-4
lift and drag direction as a moment was applied to the -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
sensor. Several calibrations were performed to look for
Calibration voltage (volts)
repeatability and linearity. Figures 20 through 22 show
examples of the calibration curves that were repeatedly Figure 20: Lift calibration for the new balance
obtained.
2.0
UND-FB2 performance
GAIN= 2000
Once the new balance and its electronics were built 1.5
Slope= 0.4301
and calibrations had been performed, it was tested to see
if the results compared to published data. All results pre-
Drag (N)
sented in this paper have been corrected for solid block- 1.0
age, wake blockage and streamlined curvature using tech-
niques presented by Pankhurst and Holder (1952) and Rae
and Pope (1984). A series of two-dimensional tests were 0.5 Calibration data
conducted on different models. Curve fit
0.0
Models -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Calibration voltage (volts)
In the balance validation phase, two circular cylin-
ders were tested. The diameters of the two cylinders were Figure 21: Drag calibration for the new balance
LQ ( FP) and
LQ ( FP) and they both had
a length of
LQ ( FP). An Eppler 61 airfoil model,
( FP) and a chord of LQ (
FP). 0.10 Calibration data
Curve fit
Cylinder results 0.05
Moment (Nm)
13
10 2.0
Cl
1 0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.1 -1.0
1e+3 1e+4 1e+5 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Re α (degrees)
Figure 23: 2D drag coefficient of two circular cylinders Figure 24: 2D lift coefficient on the Eppler 61 airfoil in
with UND-FB2 the wind tunnel with UND-FB2
0.7
were obtained in the wind tunnel and the water tunnel for
several Reynolds numbers. Figures 24 and 25 show the Re= 42,000
0.6 Re= 46,000
two-dimensional lift and drag coefficients respectively in Re= 62,300
the wind tunnel for different nominal Reynolds numbers, 0.5 Re= 87,000
i.e., values used to adjust the velocity in the tunnel with
the model at m p.
0.4
Cd
in &O at m { 0.0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
Althaus (1980) and shown in Figure 26. Althaus used
α (degrees)
a strain gauge balance arrangement to measure lift and a
wake rake to measure drag. A drawback of using a wake Figure 25: 2D drag coefficient on the Eppler 61 airfoil
rake will be addressed later. Althaus did observe a small in the wind tunnel with UND-FB2
hysteresis loop at low Reynolds numbers. No apparent
hysteresis was observed in the current study.
The sharp rise in &O at low Reynolds numbers is what happened for 5HF
and 5HF
, as
believed to be the result of a laminar separation bub- shown in Figure 27. The drag coefficient appears to be
ble on the upper surface of the wing. O’Meara and less affected, within the uncertainty of the measurements.
Mueller (1987) showed that the length of the separation Figure 28 shows the &G curves obtained in the water
bubble tends to increase with a reduction in 5HF . A re- tunnel for the Eppler 61 airfoil.
duction in the turbulence intensity also tends to increase Figures 29 through 31 show comparisons of the cur-
the length of the bubble. The lift-curve slope is affected rent Eppler 61 results with published data. There is, in
by separation bubbles. A longer bubble is usually associ- general, a good agreement between the current data and
ated with a decrease in the lift-curve slope (Bastedo and published data. The most significant difference is in the
Mueller, 1985). This is the kind of behavior observed stall angle; there appears to be a p difference in mVWDOO .
with the Eppler 61 airfoil in this investigation. Flow
visualization by Mueller and Burns (1982) showed the Measurement uncertainty with UND-FB2
presence of a separation bubble on the Eppler 61 airfoil
at 5HF . Uncertainties in the measurements were computed
In the water tunnel, the turbulence intensity is larger using the Kline-McClintock technique (Kline and Mc-
than in the wind tunnel. Therefore, the smaller &Om and Clintock, 1953) for error propagation. As indicated ear-
sharp rise in &O observed in the wind tunnel for p lier, the two main sources of uncertainty were the quanti-
m p might not be present at all in the water tunnel zation error and the uncertainty arising from the standard
data for the same Reynolds numbers. This is exactly deviation of a given mean output voltage. The quantiza-
14
2.0
Re= 42,000
1.5 Re= 46,000
1.0
Cl
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees)
Figure 27: 2D lift coefficient on the Eppler 61 airfoil in
the water tunnel with UND-FB2
0.7
0.3
0.2
tion error, described earlier, was smaller with the NIDAQ
0.1
card than with the UEI card due to the better resolution
of the A/D converter (16 bits compared to 12 bits). The 0.0
uncertainty in the angle of attack was determined to be on
the order of p p . The error from the encoder was
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
b α (degrees)
negligible. The encoder offered an excellent resolution
Figure 28: 2D drag coefficient on the Eppler 61 airfoil
of 2,000 counts per degree, which gave an uncertainty of
d b . Figures 32 and 33 show a comparison of wind in the water tunnel with UND-FB2
tunnel and water tunnel results for the Eppler 61 airfoil
at 5HF
. Error bars indicate the uncertainty in
&O and &G when the NIDAQ card is used. The average Results for thin wings
uncertainties for &O and &G in the range of angles of at-
tack tested are approximately in the water tunnel and This section will present results for thin flat and
in the wind tunnel. cambered wings. Some additional issues associated with
determining aerodynamic characteristics as a function of
The new balance in itself is also more sensitive than Reynolds numbers will also be addressed. Accurate mea-
the old balance. This allows experiments at smaller ve- surements of &O and &G with endplates and small aspect-
locities in the water tunnel. As of now, results with dif- ratio models are difficult to obtain at low Reynolds num-
ferent wings have shown a high degree of repeatability for
Reynolds numbers as low as . A major challenge
bers because of the interaction between the thick bound-
the minimum drag can be as low as 1 , which corre-
of the model. This must be kept in mind when examining
the following results.
sponds to a load of approximately 2 grams. A fine drag
calibration of the balance showed that 1 gram was suf- Flat-plate wings
ficient to deflect the drag flexure and yield a reasonable
output voltage. However, this deflection is often on the Some results for the flat-plate models (two endplates
order of signal noise. for 2D tests and one endplate for semi aspect-ratio tests)
15
Re= 42,000
2.0
2.0
Wind tunnel
1.5 Water tunnel
1.5
1.0
1.0
Cl
0.5
Cl
0.5
0.0
0.0
Re= 46,000 (wind tunnel) -0.5
-0.5 Re= 46,000 (Burns, 1981)
Re= 40,000 (Althaus, 1980)
-1.0
-1.0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees)
α (degrees)
Figure 32: Comparison of the 2D lift coefficient on the
Figure 29: Comparison of 2D lift coefficient on the Eppler 61 airfoil in wind and water tunnels with UND-FB2
Eppler 61 airfoil and published data with UND-FB2
Re= 42,000
Re= 46,000 0.7
0.7
Wind tunnel
0.6
Current investigation Water tunnel
0.6
Burns (1981)
0.5
0.5
0.4
Cd
0.4
Cd
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees)
α (degrees)
Figure 33: Comparison of the 2D drag coefficient on the
Figure 30: Comparison of 2D drag coefficient on the Eppler 61 airfoil in wind and water tunnels with UND-FB2
Eppler 61 airfoil and published data with UND-FB2
0.5
Re= 46,000 Equation 1 from Anderson (1991) was used to estimate
0.0 Re= 40,000 (Althaus, 1980) the theoretical values of &/m :
D
-0.5 & /m D
{
e$5
b D c
~
(1)
$5
-1.0
where D is the 2D lift-curve slope in 1/degrees, is
$5 e V$5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Cd the aspect ratio of the full wing ( ) and ~
is the Glauert parameter (equivalent to an induced drag
Figure 31: Comparison of 2D drag polar for the Eppler factor) varying typically between 0.05 and 0.25. The 2D
61 airfoil and published data with UND-FB2 value D was determined to be D . This GHJ
corresponds to the average of all the slopes &/m (for all
16
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
Cl, CL
Cl, CL
0.0 0.0
2D
-0.5 -0.5 sAR= 3
sAR= 1.5
2D
sAR= 1
-1.0 sAR= 3 -1.0 sAR= 0.5
sAR= 1
-1.5 -1.5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees) α (degrees)
Figure 34: Lift coefficient on flat plates at Figure 37: Lift coefficient on flat plates at
5HF
with UND-FB1 5HF
with UND-FB1
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 2D
2D
sAR= 3
sAR= 3
0.5 0.5 sAR= 1.5
sAR= 1.5
sAR= 1
sAR= 0.5
0.4 0.4
Cd, CD
Cd, CD
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees) α (degrees)
Figure 35: Drag coefficient on flat plates at Figure 38: Drag coefficient on flat plates at
5HF
with UND-FB1 5HF
with UND-FB1
0.25 0.25
0.20 2D 0.20 2D
0.15 sAR= 3 0.15 sAR= 3
sAR= 1.5 sAR= 1.5
0.10 0.10 sAR= 1
0.05 0.05 sAR= 0.5
Cm/4
Cm/4
0.00 0.00
-0.05 -0.05
-0.10 -0.10
-0.15 -0.15
-0.20 -0.20
-0.25 -0.25
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees) α (degrees)
Figure 36: Pitching moment coefficient on flat plates Figure 39: Pitching moment coefficient on flat plates at
at 5HF
with UND-FB1 5HF
with UND-FB1
17
of the sting alone, which dominated the total wing-sting
0.16 drag, was not zero and was subtracted from the wing-sting
a0 values to get the &' of the flat-plate wing alone.
a= Re= 200,000
a0 *57.3
(1 + τ )
Re= 180,000
0.14 1+
πAR Re= 160,000
Re= 140,000
0.12 AR = 2* sAR Re= 120,000
CL 1/deg)
No measurable difference was encountered in the range In general, when investigators try to determine how
p m p.
b &/PD[ and &'PLQ vary with Reynolds numbers, they deter-
Finally, Figures 36 and 39 show the pitching mo- mine &/PD[ and &'PLQ from &/ vs m and &' vs m curves
ment at the quarter chord. Both figures indicate a slightly at different Reynolds numbers. It has been observed in
positive slope &Pm around m p , even when consider-
this investigation that the values obtained do not always
ing the uncertainty. This would imply that the flat-plate match the expected trend for drag because of the difficulty
models were statically unstable around m p . Increas-
involved in measuring the very small drag forces. A slight
ing the Reynolds number from to
tended offset in one &/ vs m or &' vs m curve can lead to jagged
&/PD[ vs 5HF or &'PLQ vs 5HF curves. A better tech-
to reduce the slope of &P . The model with a semi-
span aspect ratio of 3 indicated an irregular behavior at nique was found to obtain &'PLQ vs 5HF (the values of
for &P ; the pitching moment was not &/PD[ vs 5HF are of lesser importance because micro-air
p . This case
5HF
zero at m will have to be repeated. vehicles will rarely fly at &/PD[ ). For this technique, the
angle of attack was fixed to the angle yielding the lowest
Aerodynamic characteristics as a function of &' in a &' vs m curve, and measurements were taken for
Reynolds number: a different method a series of increasing and decreasing Reynolds numbers
without stopping the tunnel. Results obtained with the
For tests without endplates, another balance arrange- new balance UND-FB2 using this technique on a finite
ment, denoted arrangement number 3, was used and is wing of aspect ratio $5 in the wind tunnel, pre-
presented in Figure 41. The lift and drag forces measured sented in Figures 42 and 43, are promising and the trends
by the balance were for the wing-sting combination. The obtained matched the expected reduction in &'PLQ with
lift on the sting was basically zero. However, the drag increasing Reynolds numbers.
18
Results at the angle of attack for ' /
PD[ (m
b c p ) also {
show an increase in &/ and a decrease in &' with in-
0.5
creasing Reynolds number. The results of Figure 42 at
m p are smaller than the lift coefficient presented in
0.4 Figure 34 for a model with V$5
because of the lack
of an endplate. For a given model, adding an endplate
0.3 α= 0° leads to an increase in lift compared to the case without
α= 3° an endplate, as shown in Figure 44. Adding one end-
CL
0.2 α= 10° plate did not have a significant effect on &' , as shown
in Figure 45. The wing used for this series of tests had a
0.1
nominal chord F
LQ and span E
LQ [C8S12].
0.0
0.19
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Re 0.18
CL
0.15 No endplate
0.14
0.055
0.050 0.13
α= 0°
1328
. *2
0.045
α= 3° CD = 0.12
0.040 Theory Re
0.035 0.11
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
0.030
CD
0.025 Re
Figure 44: Lift coefficient variation with Re (C8S12)
0.020
0.015 with UND-FB2 at m p
0.010
0.005
0.000 0.07
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
0.06 1 endplate
Re
p and p
No endplate
0.05
(a) m
0.04
CD
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.16
0.14 0.01
0.12 0.00
0.10 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
CD
0.08 Re
Figure 45: Lift coefficient variation with Re (C8S12)
0.06
α= 10° with UND-FB2 at m p
0.04
0.02
0.00 At an angle of attack m p , adding one or two
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
endplates did not affect &/ for 5HF ! ; it re-
Re mained basically around the expected value of zero, as
(b) m p shown in Figure 46. Moreover, adding endplates did not,
once again, have a measurable effect on &' , as presented
in Figure 47. Since Figure 47 is for m p , it represents
Figure 43: Drag coefficient variation with 5H for &'PLQ versus Reynolds number for flat-plate wings. Ex-
$5
flat-plate wing with UND-FB2 S
perimental results are also compared to theory (Blasius:
&'PLQ e
5H) and CFD results in Figure 47.
19
The CFD results were computed by Greg Brooks (Air
Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force 0.055
Cd, CD
0.030 COBALT (Brooks, 1999)
of data indicate the same trend. The experimental data
0.025
was always larger than theory and the CFD results. This
0.020
could have been caused by surface roughness, imperfect
0.015
flow conditions, and so forth. Since all wind tunnel tests
0.010
with the flat and cambered wings are usually conducted
at Reynolds numbers greater than
, the results pre-
0.005
0.20
$5
2 endplates
0.15 1 endplate for the plate and no difference was obtained,
No endplate as shown in Figure 48. For aspect ratios greater than
0.10 one, the minimum drag coefficient is then independent
of model size and the presence of endplates. For lower
Cl, CL
0.05
aspect ratios, preliminary tests indicated a larger &'PLQ .
More work is in progress to fully understand the behavior
0.00
of &'PLQ as a function of Reynolds numbers for the very
-0.05 low aspect-ratio wings ( $5
). Similar tests will also
0.055
Results were also obtained for cambered-plate mod-
0.050
els using the balance arrangement with one or two end-
2 endplates
0.045 1 endplate plates (semi-infinite or 2D tests). In general, camber
0.040
No endplate led to better aerodynamic characteristics due to an in-
Blasius solution
0.035 COBALT (Brooks, 1999)
crease in lift, even though drag also increased. Figures 49
through 54 show some results for the cambered plates at
Cd, CD
20
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
Cl, CL
Cl, CL
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5 2D
2D sAR= 3
sAR= 3 sAR= 1.5
-1.0 -1.0
sAR= 1.5 sAR= 1
-1.5 -1.5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees) α (degrees)
Figure 49: Lift coefficient on cambered plates at Figure 52: Lift coefficient on cambered plates at
5HF
with UND-FB1 5HF
with UND-FB1
0.7 0.7
2D 2D
0.6 0.6
sAR= 3 sAR= 3
sAR= 1.5 sAR= 1.5
0.5 0.5
sAR= 1
0.4 0.4
Cd, CD
Cd, CD
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees) α (degrees)
Figure 50: Drag coefficient on cambered plates at Figure 53: Drag coefficient on cambered plates at
5HF
with UND-FB1 5HF
with UND-FB1
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20 2D
2D
sAR= 3
0.15 sAR= 3 0.15
sAR= 1.5
sAR= 1.5
0.10 0.10 sAR= 1
0.05 0.05
Cm/4
Cm/4
0.00 0.00
-0.05 -0.05
-0.10 -0.10
-0.15 -0.15
-0.20 -0.20
-0.25 -0.25
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees) α (degrees)
Figure 51: Pitching moment coefficient on cambered Figure 54: Pitching moment coefficient on cambered
plates at 5HF
with UND-FB1 plates at 5HF
with UND-FB1
21
0.16
a0 Re= 200,000
a=
a0 *57.3 Re= 180,000
0.14 1+ (1 + τ )
πAR Re= 160,000 1.50
Re= 140,000
0.12 AR = 2* sAR Re= 120,000
1.25
CL (1/deg)
max
Theory: τ= 0.05
Cl , CL
0.08
Theory: τ= 0.25 0.75
max
*
×*
0.06
0.50
2D
0.04 sAR= 1.5
0.25
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 sAR= 1
1/sAR 0.00
Figure 55: Lift-curve slope for cambered-plate models 0 50000 100000 150000 200000
in wind tunnel with UND-FB1 Rec
0.03
Cd , CD
22
1.5
30
2D 1.0
25 sAR= 3
sAR= 1.5 0.5
sAR= 1
20
Cl, CL
(CL /CD)max
0.0
15
3/2
0.7
Reynolds numbers. The first two models had a tapered 0.6 2D: sharp TE
trailing edge, while the other two models had an ellipti- 2D: elliptical TE
0.5 sAR= 1.5: sharp TE
cal trailing edge. Results were obtained for infinite mod- sAR= 1.5: elliptical TE
els (2D case) and models with a semi-span aspect ratio
V$5
0.4
C d, C D
p , even
the moment coefficient &P . For a sharp trailing edge, 0.1
&Pm often appeared to be positive around m 0.0
with the uncertainty considered (error bars in &P are -20 -10 0 10 20 30
about the size of the symbols). With the elliptical trailing
edge, the 2D cases at 5HF
showed a stable α (degrees)
negative value of &Pm , as shown in Figure 62. For a Figure 61: Trailing-edge geometry effect on drag
coefficient at 5HF
on flat plates in the
p . Flow visualization to be performed later may
semi-span aspect ratio of 1.5, &Pm was basically zero at
m wind tunnel with UND-FB1
explain this phenomenon.
With the cambered plates, there was basically no
difference between a sharp trailing edge and an elliptical
0.25
trailing edge at 5HF , as shown in Figures 63 0.20 2D: sharp TE
through 65. Results with the cambered plates seem to 0.15
2D: elliptical TE
sAR= 1.5: sharp TE
agree with Laitone (Laitone, 1996 and 1997), who showed 0.10 sAR= 1.5: elliptical TE
that at low Reynolds numbers, a sharp trailing edge is not 0.05
as critical as for larger Reynolds numbers.
Cm/4
0.00
The influence of the leading-edge geometry was also -0.05
investigated by looking at the lift and drag characteristics
of a flat-plate model in 2D and V$5
configurations
-0.10
0012 airfoil (the sharp trailing edge was facing the flow). moment coefficient at 5HF on flat plates
Further tests will be conducted in the wind tunnel at larger in the wind tunnel with UND-FB1
Reynolds numbers on flat-plate and cambered-plate wings
to complete this study of the leading-edge geometry effect
23
1.5 on the aerodynamic characteristics of thin wings/airfoils.
1.0
Effect of freestream turbulence
0.5
Mueller et al. (1983) showed that an increase in
Cl, CL
0.00
-0.05
Table 3: Turbulence screen data
-0.10
(Pohlen, 1983; and Brendel and Huber, 1984)
-0.15
-0.20
No measurable differences were observed in the re-
-0.25
sults for different turbulence intensities at 5HF
-20 -10 0
α (degrees)
10 20 30
on the V$5
flat-plate model, as shown in Fig-
ures 66 and 67. Only a slight increase in &/PD[ and an
Figure 65: Trailing-edge geometry effect on pitching
increase in &' for large angles of attack was noticed
moment coefficient at 5HF on cambered plates for the case with the fine mesh and with the strawbox.
in the wind tunnel with UND-FB1 All other cases gave the same results. Therefore, the ef-
fect of turbulence intensity appeared to be minimal in the
wind tunnel for the models tested. Similar results were
24
1.5
1.0 U∞
0.5
CL
0.0
No screen, no strawbox
-0.5
No screen, with strawbox
Fine mesh, with strawbox
-1.0 Medium mesh, with strawbox
Coarse mesh, with strawbox
-1.5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
α (degrees)
Figure 66: Freestream turbulence effect on lift coefficient
at 5HF
in the wind tunnel for the V$5
flat-plate model with UND-FB1 Figure 68: Schematic of corner flow on wing
0.7
No screen, no strawbox flow over the wing. This phenomenon of the corner
0.6 No screen, with strawbox flow has been investigated by several authors, including
Fine mesh, with strawbox Hawthorne (1954) and Barber (1978) who looked at the
0.5 Medium mesh, with strawbox
Coarse mesh, with strawbox flow around struts near a wall.
0.4 In order to verify the effect of the endplates on the
CD
0.3
aerodynamic characteristics of the Eppler 61 airfoil, a
3-piece Eppler 61 model was used. With this setup, a
0.2 section of an Eppler 61 model was free to move between
two other sections of the same airfoil. These two other
0.1
sections were fixed to the endplates in the wind tunnel,
0.0 as shown in Figure 69, at the same angle of attack as
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 the middle section. A small gap was present between the
α (degrees) end models and the center piece connected to the force
Figure 67: Freestream turbulence effect on drag balance. Figure 70 shows the three pieces of the 3-piece
coefficient at 5HF
in the wind tunnel for the Eppler 61 model.
V$5
flat-plate model with UND-FB1 The angle of attack of the 3-piece Eppler 61 model
was adjusted to a certain value and the velocity in the
tunnel, hence the Reynolds number, was varied. The be-
havior of &G and &O was measured. From the previous
obtained at in the wind tunnel, and at 2D results on the Eppler 61 airfoil, it was determined
p and the angle for zero lift
5HF
25
Lift platform
Balance Strain
gauges Drag flexure
Drag platform
Base
Sting Sting
covering
U∞ Gap
Eppler 61
wing
3/100 in (0.8mm)
24in Endplates 8in Gap
(61cm) (20.3cm)
U∞ 4.906in
(12.5cm)
24in (61cm)
Lower piece Upper piece
Figure 69: New-balance arrangement for 3-piece
Eppler 61 airfoil tests in wind tunnel Wing
26
0.25
0.70
3-piece airfoil
0.65 1-piece airfoil 0.20
Althaus (1980)
0.60 de Vries et al. (1980) 0.15
0.55
3-piece airfoil
Cl
0.10
1-piece airfoil
Cl
0.50
Althaus (1980)
0.45 0.05
0.40
0.00
0.35
-0.05
0.30 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Re
Re
(a) Lift coefficient
(a) Lift coefficient
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06 0.07
0.05 0.06
Cd
Cd
0.04 0.05
0.03
3-piece airfoil 0.04
3-piece airfoil
0.02 1-piece airfoil 1-piece airfoil
Althaus (1980) 0.03
Althaus (1980)
0.01 de Vries et al. (1980)
0.02
0.00 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
Re
Re
(b) Drag coefficient
(b) Drag coefficient
27
Figure 73: Drag polar for SD6060 airfoil at Figure 75: Drag polar for SD6060 airfoil at
5HF
(Selig et al., 1995) 5HF
(Selig et al., 1995)
Figure 74: Drag polar for SD6060 airfoil at Figure 76: Drag polar for SD6060 airfoil at
5HF
(Selig et al., 1995) 5HF
(Selig et al., 1995)
28
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
3-piece airfoil
Cl
-0.04 1-piece airfoil
-0.06 Althaus (1980)
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
Cd
0.06
0.05
b
teresting to note the significant increase in &O just before
instead of m 5HF
. This larger lift coefficient at Reynolds
zero-lift angle of attack, as shown in Figure 78. numbers greater than
was mentioned earlier when
For the full model, it was determined that / ' PD[
occurred at m { p . The 3-piece model was then tested looking at the behavior of &O with angle of attack for dif-
29
1.5 ary layer growing on the endplate and the flow around the
wing. The presence of endplates at low Reynolds num-
1.4 bers reduces the 2D lift and increases the 2D drag that
1.3
would normally be obtained with a truly infinite model,
according to tests on the Eppler 61 airfoil. Furthermore,
1.2 for a given model, adding one endplate leads to an in-
Cl
30
Bastedo, W. G. Jr., and T. J. Mueller. “The Span- Jackson, Paul, ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft.
wise Variation of Laminar Separation Bubbles on Jane’s Information Group, 1996-97.
Finite Wings at Low Reynolds Numbers.” AIAA
Paper #85-1590, July 1985. Keennon, M. AeroVironment, Private Communication,
June 1999.
Batill, Stephen M., and Thomas J. Mueller. “Visual-
ization of the Laminar-Turbulent Transition in the Kline, S. J., and F. A. McClintock. “Describing
Flow Over an Airfoil Using the Smoke-Wire tech- Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments.” Me-
nique.” AIAA Paper #80-0421, March 1980. chanical Engineering, Vol. 75, No. 1, January
1953: 3-8.
Brendel, Michael, and Arthur F. Huber II. “An Ex-
perimental Investigation of Flow Quality in an In- Laitone, E. V. “Aerodynamic Lift at Reynolds Num-
draft Subsonic Wind Tunnel Using a Single Hot
Wire Anemometer.” University of Notre Dame,
bers Below d .” AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 9,
September 1996: 1941-1942.
November 1984.
Laitone, E. V. “Wind Tunnel Tests of Wings at
Brooks, Gregory Air Force Research Laboratory, Pri-
Reynolds Numbers Below 70,000.” Experiments in
vate Communication, June 1999.
Fluids, Vol. 23, 1997: 405-409.
Burns, Thomas F. “Experimental Studies of Eppler
61 and Pfenninger 048 Airfoils at Low Reynolds McMasters, J. H., and M. L. Henderson. “Low
Numbers.” Master’s Thesis, The University of Speed Single Element Airfoil Synthesis.” Tech.
Notre Dame, January 1981. Soaring, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1980: 1-21.
Carmichael, B. H. “Low Reynolds Number Air- Miley, S. J. “An Analysis of the Design of Airfoil
foil Survey.” Volume I, NASA Contractor Report Sections for Low Reynolds Numbers.” Ph.D. Dis-
165803, November 1981. sertation, Mississippi State University, 1972.
Davis, W. R., Jr., B. B. Kosicki, D. M. Boroson, and Morris, S. J. “Design and Flight Test Results for
D. F. Kostishack. “Micro Air Vehicles for Opti- Micro-Signed Fixed-Wing and VTOL Aircraft.”
cal Surveillance.” The Lincoln Laboratory Journal,
VW International Conference on Emerging Tech-
Vol. 9, No. 2, 1996: 197-213. nologies for Micro Air Vehicles, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, February 1997:
Davis, W. R., Jr. The Lincoln Laboratory, Private
117-131.
Communication, June 1999.
de Vries, J., G. H. Hegen, and L. M. M. Boermans. Mraz, S. J. “Honey I Shrunk the Plane.” Machine De-
“Preliminary Results of Windtunnel Measurements sign, October 1998: 35-42.
at Low Reynolds Numbers on Airfoil Section E61.”
Intern Report LSW 80-5, 1980. Mueller, T. J., and T. F. Burns. “Experimental Stud-
ies of the Eppler 61 Airfoil at Low Reynolds Num-
Dornheim, M. A. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Tiny bers.” AIAA Paper #82-0345, January 1982.
Drones May Be Soldiers’ New Tool.” Aviation
Week & Space Technology, June 8, 1998: 42-48. Mueller, T. J., and B. J. Jansen, Jr. “Aerodynamic
Measurements at Low Reynolds Numbers.” AIAA
EideticsU . Operations Manual: Flow Visualization Paper #82-0598, March 1982.
Water Tunnel.
Mueller, T. J., L. J Pohlen, P. E. Conigliaro, and B.
Fulghum, D. A. “Miniature Air Vehicles Fly Into J. Hansen, Jr. “The Influence of Free-Stream Dis-
Army’s Future.” Aviation Week & Space Technol- turbances on Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Ex-
ogy, November 9, 1998: 37-38. periments.” Experiments in Fluids. Vol. 1, 1983:
3-14.
Harris, J. D. Sanders, A Lockheed Martin Company,
Private Communication, 1999.
O’Meara, M. M., and T. J. Mueller. “Laminar Sepa-
Hawthorne, W. R. “The Secondary Flow About Struts ration Bubble Characteristics on an Airfoil at Low
and Airfoils.” Journal of the Aeronautical Sci- Reynolds Numbers.” AIAA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8,
ences, Vol. 21, No. 1, January 1954: 588-608. August 1987: 1033-1041.
Huber, Arthur F., II. “The Effects of Roughness on Pankhurst, R. C., and D. W. Holder. Wind-Tunnel
an Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers.” Master’s Technique. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons,
Thesis, The University of Notre Dame, May 1985. 1952.
31
Peake, David J., and Murray Tobak. “Three-
Dimensional Flows About Simple Components at
Angle of Attack.” AGARD Lecture Series No. 121
on High Angle-of-Attack Aerodynamics, Paper No.
2, 1982.
Pelletier, Alain. “A Study of the Nonlinear Aerody-
namic Characteristics of a Slender Double-Delta
Wing in Roll.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University
of Notre Dame, April 1998.
32