YiHTANG Yeo oe 19295132 Me “pe 2013 - AER 307 F - Assignment 3 ‘Due at the beginning of class on Monday, Nov. 4 1. Consider an airfoil for which the mean camber line is given by (2 -9. 3(2) +037 (I ford< = < 0.28 2 =oos0s7(1-2) foroas<2 <1 Calculate (a) the angle of attack at zero lift, (b) the lift coefficent when a = 4°, (c) the moment coefficient about the quarter chord, and (d) the location of the center of pressure in terms of ep /c when a = 4°. 2. Lwent to fly a kite with my niece in Quebee City once upon a time, I noticed that when she started running to pull on the kite’s string, the powdered sugar from the donut had that morning was lifted from my chin to my nose by the starting vortex, which made me sneeze. How fast were the sugar grains reaching my nose if they were traveling at the same speed as the air? Assume the kite ean be approximated as a 2D flat plate with a cord length of 1 m and modelled with classical thin airfoil theory. Since my niece is pretty quick, we c ane she started running at 3 m/s instantaneously, while I held the kite with an angle of attack of 5° such that the starting vortex was 0.2 m in front of my nose. Neglect the wind speed, 3. Use XFoil to calculate the C,, Cp and Chea versus a curves for a NACAQOLO, with and without. viscosity turned on (use a Reynolds number of 107). Compare to the results from thin airfoil theory. Repeat the above for Re = 10° and 10°, and for a NACAOO18 and NACA0O26 at 107 only. Discuss your results with respect to the assumptions used to derive the thin airfoil theory and how it may (or may not) be useful as a design tool. Be clear and concise. (Hint: if you write much more than 200 words, you are definitely not being concis 4. Consider a wing with AR = 6 made from a NACAQOIO with no geometrical twist. Assuming that the NACAOOIO can be modelled using thin airfoil theory, what is the lift slope and Cp, (in terms of a) if the wing has a linear taper stich that the cord at the wing tips is 65% of the cord at the root. Solve using 14 terms in the series. Compare to your result with that given in Figure 5.20 in Anderson's book (5th edition).YIN TANG YEO AER307 Probie Sed 3 999245132 z _ $+ a5[ (BP -05 (EPs 009 S)] te oc c0.3 = = 0.08059 (1- %) for 08 Sey MH. as[a(%y-1 Eton] gy 04 8¢023 #. ~008053 fr 0.2368) perform orange of vandbies suchthot x* 9 Leos 8) $25] 3 AY (r-cosey? - 41-0086) 4009 ] = a5 [% (120086 + cos*6) - 4 +4 c0se+017] 2 2.5 [0-95 -1.5 e088 40.35 c0s49 - 05 4050594007] = 2.5 [0.41 ~ 1.00058 40.45¢0s%6) = 1.05-25¢056 41-875c0s70 for 0 $B 60.3 2 Og $U-cosb) {0.33 © £ t-c0s6 < O46 06 8¢ Mead = -0.08083 for ting. § 8 < Trad Knowshat IW slope cemans 20 regardless of Cambered / uncomocred only tne %iz0 #0 for AA Uncambered airPoit tuo? Sy = Coos 8-19 d6 o aff. (1.08-2.5 0056 +1935 cos'@)Ceos®- 1) 46 + JF (908089) Cons8-1) 46] bbefoce conhving integration Jcosbdb = one cus bsm 6 ant Sosteae + 4 Jccosrer de = 4 [4802070] = 4 [cosbsmos6] Scos56 de = J c0socose = J (i-smeyeos6de = fur Be seus 6m + [u- au] duz cos8.a8 > mop enyconhave evaluahng ip , gy tee ffir 48 Bee “HSS ene 11815 C080980— Secor enemy 4" (0.08057 -0.°8059c080 )40 ] 2-H [-1050)+ 385smo], - 4375H)Levsesme+6)], + 1.895[ ang -$ santo}, + 0090836)" — 0.08057sm0]"] =e [7105 4 2.98722 ~ 3.182 + 1.20537 4019285 4 0.063393] = ~0.006rad- — (=.3.66°) » us 2m duo) 4 dey 0.0648 cad. Cy > an (0.0648 - t-0.063%b)) = 0.0 © moment about ¢/4 —— Crmery= mAs) | oz 2S) FR c0sn0 46 A, = AT! (os =2.5c088 41.835¢03"6) e058 aot J" ~9080seos0 48 } = 3[ 088354 - 1.8183) 41 208364 4 0 067199] 0.21543, I Raz RSD Meoszede = 4 fH (200879 -1) 40 | 2 FL J) 05-2505 849.835 cosy )(2605°0-48 + | S7_© 0.080599 (2c08%9-1) 40 LeostOde= SA ceurowsdes “yf [oor re +2con204 Ja - - = & S000 +4 420082041] do | > LG 8ineG+ emo 4 20) = HL sms +8smr9 +120){ $1 cos - 5 0053p 4 3.95.c0s%8 ~1.05-42-5 usb -1.895c08%0 0 + J) (0.08059 ~ ori iseoste)de } « [0.225 (4){eos8am0+6)', - 5 (smb-fan6), +3.75( 51) (an 4orgemso+ne)} © = 1.05015 42-52mb lg. + 6.08053 8% = oy6ir4 (2)(cosbame+0) ] = FL OVbSO4B ~ 3.20432 4 9.19003 -1.05+2.103699 40. (q28¥8- (0.25808 6.192) = 0.13344 y | Comes % (A-As) = 3 (013349 - 0.21543) = ~0. 0643} 8) mp: $Uit & amd] © ashy. > 233 (see Ow) Hee A Lie By ( 0.218434 0.13399)) = O-3266 _ xp 1s af 32.667, chore location 2. Starting vortex ‘airspeed = ? 2D Flat plate of cherd tery Vm S\acmg vorten 04 0.2m ofan! of vbserver imho velocity 3s Ongje of attack 5° —s = mR ai a wire Plat ple = aymmetne orf cus and 2 In (0.08423 rad) = 0.5483 Lis tgivte C= poo ye Ty 4 Gos) (im) 0.5¥83= Ty Te 6.82245m%/si eo is | Ths Bs geveah i x I 2 Mev \ omeay \ ou <=) I 0.82045mi/5= 20 0.2m(v) | Vs 0.6545 m/s. he sugar grams ore haveing at ObS4S mys.® Lift coefficient: In an inviscid analysis, the Reynolds number does not influence the lift slope, as seen from NACAoo10 inviscid analysis, this agrees with the thin airfoil theory that says Cl is not a function of Re . However, a thicker airfoil has a higher lift slope: NACA0026 (0.1328/deg) compared to the predicted (2pi/rad = 0.109/deg) using the thin airfoil theory, as the thickness of the airfoil has to be taken into account when it becomes too thick. The divergence of the result from the thin airfoil theory becomes significant as the angle of attack increases, as the small angle approximation assumption is no longer valid. Thin airfoil theory mostly irrelevant in a viscous analysis, as the linearity of Cl-alpha breaks down in the stall regime. It also does not predict that a thicker airfoil will stall later and more gently than a thinner airfoil, but achieves a lower ‘maximum lift coefficient. At lower Re numbers, the lift generated is lower and the airfoil stalls quickly as lower Re = more laminar flow and earlier flow separations. This shows that thin airfoil theory can predict lift quite accurately only when the airfoil is outside of its stall regime, at lower angle of attack, and at high Reynolds number. Lift coefficient ‘Angle of attack (deg)Drag coefficient: In an inviscid analysis, which is used as an assumption in the thin airfoil theory, the only form of drag measured is pressure drag which depends on the shape of the airfoil. As seen below, pressure drags are negative for all NACA0o10, NACAoox8, and NACA0026 airfoils. However, in a viscous analysis, the skin friction drag is the dominating factor. For symmetric airfoil they look like a parabola, and increases drastically beyond the stall angle. These phenomena ate not predicted through the thin airfoil theory or any inviscid analysis. Therefore, iscid assumption cannot be used when estimating the drag of an airfoil Drag Coefficient © NACAOO10 nic at Re eS ‘© NacAoo0 inviscid at Re 106 . d NacAGO10 inviscid at Re te? . d © NACAOOIO vse at Re 185 : © NACKOOIO vise at Re 06 © NACAODI0 vise a Re 167 . (¢> NacAgoat inviscid at Re 107 2 NACAOOIE vis at Re 107 . © NACAOO26 nic at Re 1e7 12 NACAOORE vse at Re 187 Angle of attack (deg)Quarter chord moment coefficient: According to thin airfoil theory, at the quarter chord location, the moment of a symmetric airfoil is always zero at the quarter chord location regardless of angle of attack. However, in the diagram seen below, the pitch moment coefficient is very low (bounded by 0.075 from -10 to 20 degrees angle of attack). For inviscid analysis, the coefficient has a linear relation, diverting more as angle of attack increases as the small angle approximation starts to break down at high angle of attack. Outside of the stall region of the viscous analysis, the result matches the outcome of thin airfoil theory where Cm at ¢/4 oscillates about ©. Similar to Cl, thin airfoil theory can predict the Cm at ¢/4 quite accurately at small angle of attack outside the stall region, espetony de Minne ei whee Ahe eames tt ow trough ‘he orbilon be oppmamuled tobe pawivel ty Ane cherding Pitch Moment Coefficient @ ¢/4 1 NAcADDIOinviecid ate 305 ‘Angle of attack (deg) 2 NACAOOIO vie a Re 15 © NACAODIO sc at Re 206 (© NACADOIO vic te 167 © NACADDLR ivitcid st Re 307 © nacavoat vic ate 167 (© NACADORS iii at e307 © NACADDRG vic t Rete?SETTING UP THE PROBLEM From lecture, derived that: sinndy sin, isin + @1-9(0) +) n4y Given that NACA 0010 is a symmetric, uncambered airfoil: a,.o(6) = 0 Given that there is no geometric twist: a(8))=a which is a constant It is also given that the Aspect Ratio (AR) = 6 Given that this is a tapered wing, the chord length, (theta) is not a constant. To calculate the value of b/e(theta), we need: AR=02/S, Let Cy be root chord and Cr be tip chord which is 065C,. 1 a ~ (Ca + Cr)b = 5(1 + 0.65) gb = 0B25C gb | , 4.95 5 2 Using the fact that AR = 6, therefore b/Cy = 4.95 Without losing generality, assume Cy=1 and Need 14 terms, therefore has to split the wing into 14 different sections starting from @=0 to @=n. However, due to the sine term in the denominator, it is not possible to have @=0 and @=m as part of the equation. Therefore, instead of going to exactly 0 and m, will use an extremely large number to force it very close to 0 and m, as seen in the MATLAB code. 14 different chord distribution will therefore be obtained. Each chord length is related to the root chord by this function C()=C,(1— 0.38 abs(cos4)) . To verity, at @=0 and @=z, C(0)=065Cy=C(n). At 0=n/2, C()= Cy as expected.MATLAB CODE TO SOLVE SYSTEM OF LINEAR EQUATIONS neq=14; Fo B= zeros(n_eq,n_eq) = 1000000000; f Since tts = ta = Linspace(pi/n, (n-1) *pa/ (n) ,n_eq) ; ¢ = 1-abs (cos (theta) )#0.35; D = ones(n_eq,1); @x (1, ol] for (244.95/ (pite(i))+3/sin (theta (i))) #ain ((3#theta(4))) ; end A= B(-1) 4D; delta = 0; for i=2:n_eq delta = delta + i*(A(i)/A(1))°2; end RESULTS AL 0.244936 C, = AR xm x Ay = 6n(0.2449)a = 4.6160 a2 9.000000 Lift slope = 4.616 a3 0.016576a Compared with VLM solver which gives a M 0.000000 Lift slope of 4.33, the error is 6.6%, AS 0.008379 which is fairly decent. a6 0.000000 Ge i = 1.15350? AT 0.001396. Soinduced = ey ARTS) « 5 etoaccen The constant before the quadratic AD O.v0vsee relation using Vit solver is 0.8278 e difference is 39.35%, which is Bie ge otone considerably huge. Clearly, the larger all 0.000135 CL value from the previous calculations A12 0.000000 has exerted a “squared” influence on al3 0.001383 a the CD,ind, further increasing the ala 0.000000 percent difference between the two. Delta 0.0204 _ tpored _ 06s “tre tentoook defines topty rahes TERRE D lootmg ot F920 wth taper 0-65 mel AR 6, the valves of 8 ig mane range of ~ 0.02, wuhich agrees be dhe calculated $= 0.0204Verification of calculations using XFLR5 Vortex Lattice Method (Inviscid Solver) moh: is 1 a Re Lit cofficient a 0 7 co ane ee ace 0.5 _[o,0oe7aests|o.osea0e12 | let siope= 4.33 7 }.017459295 | 0.07690530 1.5 0.026179939 | 0.1151809 7 2 ho.osesoeses[o.1sisz39] 7.5 [aqoasesaza | Octe1ezse || 5 fo.osrassere[ o.m0087] 3.5 [o.oenasasze| 0.260245 @ fo. o¢9e1317 [0.3003537 se eee ie [uomsntposais] oo foes = [0-0e726ee6s | 0.307255 3:5 [0-09ss5a105 | 0.200085 Induced reg Coatziaient 6 [0.104719755 | 0.457018 NACAOOIO Wing with AR=6, Taper ratio= 1.54 S.5_[ortueseaor | o-aasasen || saem ae 0 0 7__|0.i22173048 | 0.5327961 ss 7.5 _[0.130899694 | 0.5700785 esa 8 | 013962634 | 0.6071933 ed 0 0 0 o 8.5 | 0.140352986 | 0.6441424 9 | 0.157079833 | 0.6a09119 ane 9.5 | 0,165806279 | 0.7174917 ce mak als 2 as oom a 10 | 0.174532925 | 0. 7538722 sei ot aac