Professional Documents
Culture Documents
XFLR 5
The model
The analysis has been run with and without the body, using either LLT, 3D panels or VLM methods
Revision 1.1 Copyright A. Deperrois October 2009
CL CD Cm Cy Cl Cn
ref area ref length SWing SWing SWing MAC SWing SWing MAC SWing MAC
axis system stability axis stability axis stability axis A/C axis A/C axis A/C axis
1.00
1 FMe Meas ure V=40 Meas ure V=40 0.75 Cl - VLM2 - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels with body - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels No Body - XFLR5_V4.09 0.5 CL
0.75
0.50 CL
0.25 FMe Meas ure V=20 Meas ure V=20 5 10 Cl - VLM2 - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels with body - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels No Body - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - LLT - XFLR5_V4.09
0.25
0.00 -5 -0.25 0
0 -5 -0.25 0 5 10
-0.50 ()
-0.5 ()
o All methods LLT, VLM and Panels predict correctly the value of the zero-lift angle, in this case ~-1.25 o The LLT is the method which fits best the non-linearity of the lift curve o All methods tend to underestimate the decrease in lift at high a.o.a. ; the LLT is the method which gives the most realistic trend
1.00
0.75 FMe V=20 V=20 V=20 Cl - VLM2 - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels with body - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels No Body - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - LLT - XFLR5_V4.09 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100
0.75 FMe V=40 V=40 V=40 Cl - VLM2 - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels with body - XFLR5_V4.09 Cl - Panels No Body - XFLR5_V4.09 0 -0.25 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
0.50 CL
0.25
-0.50 CD
CD
o All methods, LLT, VLM and Panels tend to underestimate the total drag o It is difficult to tell which of the induced or viscous drag is underestimated, but my guess would be that it's the viscous part o This could be due to several causes : the conditions in the wind tunnel are not as laminar as expected, the flow transitions from laminar to turbulent at some point along the wing's chord inadequate values for NCrit are used in XFoil when building the foil polar mesh The 3D interpolation of 2D viscous results underestimates the viscous drag
Revision 1.1 Copyright A. Deperrois October 2009
o All methods, LLT, VLM and Panels predict correctly the moment coefficient Cm 0 at zero lift, and the lift coefficient Cl0 at zero-moment except for the model which includes the body o Except for the Panel method with body, all methods give an adequate trend for the slope Cm = f() o The modeling of the body seems to generate considerable numerical noise ; this could be due to the difficulty to model connections between wing and body
Revision 1.1 Copyright A. Deperrois October 2009
The rolling moment, yawing moment and lateral force coefficients are issued from the non-viscous part of the VLM and Panel analysis, hence are the same for all speeds; experimentally though, a difference has been measured which would tend to show that the viscosity influences the distribution of pressure forces
-0.02 -0.04
10
20
o Lateral force prediction is satisfactory although not as precise as lift coefficient prediction
0.10
0 -20 -10 -0.02 Measure Cl V=20 Measure Cl V=40 GRm - VLM2 GRm - 3D Panels -0.08 () -0.04 -0.06 0 10 20
0.00 -20 -10 -0.05 Measure Cl V=20 Measure Cl V=40 GRm - VLM2 GRm - 3D Panels 0 10 20
Cl
-0.10
-0.15 ( )
o Sideslip generates a rolling moment ; this is the basis of 2 axis rudder-elevator flight o For this particular plane with no dihedral, this moment is low and thus difficult to predict
Revision 1.1 Copyright A. Deperrois October 2009
0.30
0.20
Cn
0.00 0 10 20
General conclusions
The VLM analysis is precise enough for most applications LLT is useful where precise lift curves are required, especially to account for viscous effects The 3D Panel method does not improve notably the accuracy of the results All methods tend to underestimate the drag probably its viscous part The simulation of the body is more a nuisance than a help