# Aero 307-02 - Lab 2 Survey of a NACA-4412 Airfoil

Chris D. Rasmussen and Mathew L. Thomas California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93410 February 10, 2010

1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

At a speed of 20m/s. The reason for doing this test was to find the lift and drag. Figure 1: Water tunnel flow visualization 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . with a max thickness of 0. Then Cd and Cl values were calculated based on that data. panel length free stream velocity angle between pressure and lift vector of panel i I. and 25 degrees. To do this a scale model with a 10" chord is mounted across the test section of the wind tunnel with a rake of 20 pitot tubes positioned behind the airfoil. the airfoil has 0. 8. Introduction T he purpose of this report is to find Cp. 16. The first 4 is the max camber in (1/100)*c. Nomenclature Cd Cl Cp c d di l li P P∞ Pi q∞ Re Si U∞ θi = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = drag coefficient per unit span. lift coefficient per unit span.04c max camber at 0.4c. The goal of the experiment is to measure C p. and Cl of a NACA-4412 airfoil.The objective of this report is to present the results from a wind tunnel test of a NACA-4412 airfoil. The results show no separation occurs at 0 and 8 degrees. some separation at 16 degrees. This trend can be seen in the images below. These measure the velocity distribution of the wake flow behind the airfoil. pressure coefficient. Lift and drag values were found at angles of attack of 0. C p values were taken at angles of attack of 0. In addition. 16. the second 4 is the location of max camber in (1/10)*c and the 12 is the max thickness in (1/100)*c. Cd. and complete separation along the upper surface at 25 degrees. To do this a model of the NACA-4412 airfoil with a 10" chord is placed along the width of Cal Poly's 3ft x 4ft low speed wind tunnel. and 25 degrees. 20 pressure ports mounted on the center plane of the airfoil measure the pressure distribution on the upper and lower surfaces. including the pressure and profile drag. 8. Cd.12c. So. and Cl. The 4412 in the airfoil name represents the airfoil shape. airfoil chord drag per unit span drag at panel i lift per unit span length of panel i pressure free stream static pressure pressure at panel i free stream dynamic pressure Reynolds number.

c is the chord length. sources. The formula used to calculate drag on the airfoil from the pressure coefficient data is: ∑ Where Cd is the drag coefficient. The C p is applied to the panel method to find the lift coefficient and pressure drag coefficient. the airfoil surface is conceptually replaced by panels. P∞ is the free stream static pressure. and c is the chord length of the airfoil. q∞ is the free stream dynamic pressure. the rake data is used along with the momentum method. and Reynolds number. Analysis In order to calculate the drag and lift of the airfoil due to pressure forces using the panel method. Then vortices. The angle is taken from the normal to the chord and then we used θ i = (90o – the measured angle) to find the angle between the surface normal and the lift vector for an angle of attack of 0. The panel construction figure used is shown on the next page. In order to calculate the lift coefficient of the airfoil. the momentum method is used to find the total drag coefficient and the skin friction coefficient. Then Cp can be used to simplify the drag and lift coefficient calculations. The lift vector of the airfoil is perpendicular to the free stream velocity vector pointing in the upward direction. ∑ ( ) ∑ In order to calculate the total drag on the airfoil. Then. ∆y is the distance between rake pressure sensors. II. the equation can be simplified by noticing that . which in turn depends on airfoil shape. and θ i is the angle from the normal to the airfoil surface to the lift vector of the airfoil. The airfoil lift produced by skin friction is negligible. Also. In the panel method. When the angle of attack was not zero. the pressure coefficients from the wind tunnel data are used. The momentum method drag calculation will include both the pressure drag and viscous drag of the airfoil. To do the analysis on the airfoil. you have the surface Cp and this in turn gives you lift and pressure drag. si is the length of panel I. However. the pressure coefficients from the wind tunnel test are used along with the following formula: ∑ The lift coefficient equation used is very similar to the drag calculation except that the cosine of the angle between the lift vector and surface normal is taken. The normal to the airfoil surface at panel 1 is labeled P1. q∞ is the free stream dynamic pressure. 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Pi is the pressure on panel i. or sinks on the panels are adjusted until the airfoil surface becomes a streamline and the Kutta conditions are satisfied.The airfoil lift below stall is primarily dependent on surface pressure. a panel method is used. the angle of attack was added to θi. In order to calculate the drag on the airfoil conservation of momentum is used as follows: ∑ √ Where qi is the dynamic pressure at port i. angle of attack.

III. Once the equipment has been checked. The bottom curve is the pressure coefficient distribution along the bottom of the wing. The top line is the pressure coefficient distribution on the top of the wing. 16. which indicates that there is no separation of the boundary layer. Apparatus and Procedures The procedure for this experiment starts with documenting and checking all of the test equipment. pressure values are recorded for both the airfoil and the rake. We can see that there are not any flat areas on the graph. IV. Once the stagnation point is found. the airfoil is set to zero angle of attack. and 25 degrees and surface pressure around the airfoil. a rake of pitot tubes is mounted roughly in the center of the wake flow. Also. This is done with a speed controller made by Square D(model #altivar) and an incline manometer made by Meriam(model #40HE35). The least significant reading (LSR) for the manometer was 1mm and the tare reading is zero. 4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . the wind tunnel is set to a speed of 20 m/s. Then the airfoil is adjusted to angles of 8. The next step is to level the airfoil and then rotate it until the leading edge pressure port is at the stagnation point. Figure 2: Pressure coefficient distribution at 0 degree angle of attack The Cp axes on Figure 2 have the negative values on the upper portion so that the upper curve will represent the upper surface of the wing. Results and Discussion Figure 2 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution along the wing at an angle of attack of 0 degrees from our wind tunnel test data. and the pressure readings for the rake are recorded. Figure 3 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution for an angle of attack of 0 degrees from the CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) data. For zero angle of attack.

There are no signs of stagnation because there are no regions of flat Cp.2. The stagnation point is still at the leading edge of the airfoil and the pressure coefficient at the trailing edge is 0. Comparing this with the pressure coefficient plots leads us to conclude that there is no boundary layer separation at an angle of attack of 0 degrees. Figure 5 below shows the CFD velocity distribution in the flow around the airfoil. Figure 4: Water tunnel flow visualization at 0 degrees angle of attack Figure 4 clearly shows that there is no boundary layer separation because the red dye follows the surface smoothly over the entire wing.Figure 3: Pressure coefficient distribution from CFD data From Figure 3 the graph is a similar shape. Figure 4 below is a picture taken of the water tunnel flow visualization at an angle of attack of 0 degrees. 5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . and the trends are the same.

Also the top surface of the wing has much more negative pressure coefficients than at 0 degrees angle of attack. The velocity defect region is small. Also there is a velocity defect area directly behind the airfoil represented by the green and blue colors coming off the trailing edge. Again. Figure 6 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution from our wind tunnel test data at an angle of attack of 8 degrees.Figure 5: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 0 degrees angle of attack from CFD data It can clearly be seen in Figure 5 that the velocity is higher along the upper surface of the wing. which leads us to believe that more lift is being produced 6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Figure 6: Pressure coefficient distribution at angle of attack of 8 degrees Figure 6 indicates that there is no boundary layer separation due to the fact that there are no flat areas of pressure coefficient that would indicate separation. represented by the redder colors. the top curve corresponds to the top surface of the wing. and the bottom curve corresponds to the bottom surface of the wing.

We can also see that the stagnation point is very near the leading edge. Figure 7: Pressure coefficient distribution at 8 degrees angle of attack from CFD data From Figure 7 we can see that the stagnation point is indeed on the underside of the wing very near the . There are no flat areas of Cp which indicates that there is no boundary layer separation. Figure 8 below shows the water tunnel flow visualization at 8 degrees angle of attack. 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . However the flow does not separate from the surface of the wing leading to the conclusion that the boundary layer stays attached over the entire wing. Figure 7 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution along the wing at an angle of attack of 8 degrees from the CFD data. at Figure 8: Water tunnel flow visualization at angle of attack of 8 degrees In Figure 8 the flow is clearly turbulent.because there is a larger pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing. if possibly a bit back on the lower surface of the wing. Figure 9 below shows the velocity distribution around the airfoil from CFD data at 8 degrees angle of attack. front.

86 0 5 10 15 20 25 Pitot tube Figure 10: Wake flow velocity profile from experimental data at 8 degrees angle of attack Figure 10 clearly shows that there is a velocity defect region behind the airfoil centered at the 14 th pitot tube in the wake array.04 1. AoA 8 degrees 1. This velocity defect area indicates that the airfoil is producing drag. Also there is again a velocity defect area directly behind the trailing edge of the airfoil represented by the blue region.94 0.9 0. Figure10 below shows √ for the wake flow data taken by the rake. the velocity is higher which leads to a lower pressure due to Bernoulli’s principle.02 1 0. This velocity defect area is also rather small. especially near the leading edge.98 0. Figure 11 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at an angle of attack of 16 degrees from our wind tunnel test data.Figure 9: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 8 degrees angle of attack from CFD Data Along the upper surface of the wing.92 0.96 sqrt(q/q_inf) 0. 8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .88 0.

5 and continues until the trailing edge. Also there is a clear area of flat Cp starting at about and continuing to the trailing edge. Clearly the boundary layer has separated and we have a stagnant region near the trailing edge of the wing. Figure 12: Pressure coefficient at 16 degree angle of attack from CFD data Clearly there is a region of flat pressure coefficient which means that there is stagnation and boundary layer separation. Also the stagnation point has moved back to .Figure 11: Pressure coefficient distribution at angle of attack of 16 degrees The stagnation point has moved from the front to slightly back and on the underside of the wing and is slightly further back than where it was at 8 degree angle of attack. Figure 13 below shows the water tunnel flow visualization at an angle of attack of 16 degrees. Figure 12 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at an angle of attack of 16 degrees from the CFD data. At the leading edge the boundary layer is still attached. 9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . This region starts at around x/c = 0.

The transition to turbulent flow has also moved further towards the leading edge. The separated region is clearly visible due to the low velocity of the stagnant flow which is shown by the blue region on the back of the upper surface of the airfoil. Also the velocity 10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .Figure 13: Water tunnel flow visualization at 16 degree angle of attack Figure 13 clearly shows that there is boundary layer separation which seems to occur around the midpoint of the airfoil. although they are now concentrated along the leading edge of the airfoil. Figure 14: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 16 degrees angle of attack from CFD data Figure 14 shows that there is once again higher velocities along the upper surface. Figure 14 below shows the velocity distribution around the airfoil at 16 degrees angle of attack.

The reason could be that the iteration scheme did not converge to a value for either lift or drag and the algorithm could be having trouble with the flow field from leading edge separation. Figure 17 below shows the water tunnel flow visualization at 25 degree angle of attack. leading to the conclusion that there is more drag on the airfoil at 16 degrees angle of attack because more momentum is being lost.defect area following the trailing edge is significantly larger than at either 0 or 8 degrees angle of attack. Figure 16 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack from the CFD data. Figure 15 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack from our wind tunnel test data. Figure 16: Pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack from CFD data Figure 16 is not nearly as smooth as our wind tunnel test data. 11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Figure 15: Pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack Figure 15 clearly shows that there is leading edge boundary layer separation because the entire wing has a flat Cp distribution which indicates a stagnation region.

12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Also there is a lot of slow moving flow along the upper surface of the airfoil which means that not much lift is being produced compared to the lower angles of attack.Figure 17: Water tunnel flow visualization at 25 degree angle of attack Figure 17 clearly shows that there is leading edge boundary layer separation and that some of the flow from the lower surface is being sucked onto the upper surface. Figure 18: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 25 degrees angle of attack from CFD data Figure 18 clearly shows that there is leading edge separation when the angle of attack is 25 degrees. Figure 18 below shows the velocity distribution around the airfoil at 25 degrees angle of attack. The velocity defect region coming off the trailing edge is also much larger than the 16 degree angle of attack airfoil meaning that even more drag is produced.

Tso. V. However. References 1 Tso. Also a rake of pitot tubes was placed behind the airfoil to measure the wake flow properties to allow for the calculation of the profile drag of the airfoil. There is also a large velocity defect area in the wake. At 8 degrees angle of attack. At 25 degrees angle of attack the lift coefficient was and the pressure drag coefficient was . 2010. there was boundary layer separation at which led to a stagnation area on the back half of the wing and a significantly larger velocity defect area in the wake. The calculated experimental error for the pressure coefficient was 0. At an angle of attack of 16 degrees.38% and the calculated experimental uncertainty for the lift coefficient was at 8 degrees angle of attack and for 25 degrees angle of attack. These differences indicate that at 25 degrees the airfoil is post stall while the airfoil at 8 degrees has not stalled.At 8 degrees angle of attack. San Luis Obispo: Aerospace Engineering Department. San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly. there was no boundary layer separation along the wing and the velocity defect area behind the wing was small. Jin. Jin. The difference between the profile drag coefficient and the form drag coefficient is the viscous drag coefficient or skin friction drag. the lift coefficient is high and the drag coefficient is low compared to the airfoil at 25 degrees angle of attack which has a much smaller lift coefficient and a much larger drag coefficient. At the final angle of attack of 25 degrees. there is leading edge separation and a stagnation area along the entire airfoil. It is clear that at 25 degrees angle of attack the airfoil is in post stall because the lift coefficient has dropped dramatically because the flow has separated. Print. Lecture 2 13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . there is a fair amount of experimental uncertainty in our calculations due to the number of pressure ports on the wing and in the wake region. Also the readings from the pressure ports and pitot tubes are not perfect so the experimental uncertainty must be accounted for. The momentum data is not needed for the lift coefficient because lift is negligibly affected by viscous forces. "Lab 2: Survey of a NACA-4412 Airfoil" Aero 307 Class Lecture. 1 Feb. Pressure ports on the airfoil surfaced were connected to a scanivalve apparatus to record the pressure at 20 different locations along the airfoil. When the airfoil was at low angles of attack. Experimental Aerodynamics. Conclusion A 10 inch NACA 4412 airfoil was surveyed in the Cal Poly low speed wind tunnel. the lift coefficient was and the pressure drag (form drag) coefficient was the profile drag coefficient from the rake data calculations was these results indicate that the airfoil has not stalled. From the data gathered from the surface pressure ports and the wake rake the lift and drag coefficients of the airfoil can be calculated. 2009. Also the drag coefficient has increased dramatically due to the large separated region.

00965 3.02259 0.17E-05 1.58121 30 -0.00818 0.71104 9 -0.86E-05 0.000332 1.028202 38 -0.83E-05 0.12417 0.04236 0.13931 0.37E-05 0.84434 25 -0.292477 16 -0.00809 0.003265 38 -0.000945 0.591661 32 -0.05897 0.26E-05 Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp 1 -0.023936 37 -0.932858 23 -0.5602 11 -0.01657 8.05759 0.08711 0.04412 0.04908 0.00866 0.73986 5 -0.69894 10 -0.35E-05 -5.594828 28 -0.001092 0.000387 1.000458 0.006146 -0.0006 0.72E-05 1.021469 32 -0.00954 0.000631 0.65577 7 -0.01389 0.001043 0.01024 0.13644 13 -0.01557 0.000881 -0.37E-05 0.000553 -0.22E-05 1.833665 32 -0.44E-05 1.583856 31 -0.00793 0.45135 7 -0.74E-05 0.00814 3.372309 16 -0.031227 22 -0.01419 0.022125 31 -0.02424 4.55E-05 1.294405 21 -0.00891 6.000487 -2.55E-05 -0.40E-05 0.00889 9.00163 -0.00783 0.000645 1.000498 -2.01663 6.84E-05 1.029161 27 -0.92E-05 1.00802 5.00811 4.57E-05 0.06232 0.03594 5.888944 36 -0.203665 15 -0.026358 25 -0.67E-05 0.001014 1.05029 0.000119 -0.01794 0.696894 36 -0.03285 26 -0.29574 17 -0.1097 8 -0.033 5.01663 4.000693 1.696112 23 -0.05455 0.512527 3 -0.026092 39 -0.02285 0.00776 0.987587 28 -0.57574 3 -0.01212 6.920674 27 -0.25654 19 -0.11439 0.12146 12 -0.13262 11 -0.000262 0.000405 0.488121 18 -0.922505 20 -0.034473 41 -0.606098 33 -0.67069 11 -0.50272 7 -0.000924 0.02056 0.639276 34 -0.000298 -3.777169 33 -0.001583 -0.018814 34 -0.000659 0.33E-05 0.000974 0.806978 2 -0.74E-05 1.00857 0.02285 0.000791 0.000553 1.00793 0.00791 4.03121 7.960541 1 -0.00869 5.049409 15 -0.20147 0.769341 18 -0.00813 4.730426 37 -0.028921 23 -0.02211 0.026007 24 -0.002881 -0.584042 29 -0.112419 13 -0.06233 0.04616 0.76E-05 0.009739 29 -0.00796 3.049876 14 -0.3408 4 -0.33139 10 -0.00763 0.10463 0.46E-05 0.000672 1.59256 13 -0.670814 24 -0.00807 0.801028 39 -0.77549 34 -0.00818 0.59276 12 -0.00885 0.00065 -5.42102 6 -0.01819 0.031062 36 -0.97438 30 -0.01909 0.70E-05 -0.000308 -0.0006 1.908477 31 -0.52E-05 -1.14383 0.000965 0.0212 0.42E-05 0.003834 -0.009316 0.000782 0.000639 0.06725 0.000834 0.875431 24 -0.01434 0.96E-05 1.021 0.00027 -2.00989 5.38169 18 -0.010058 0.13019 0.21809 0.000215 1.000852 0.000339 -1.4358 8 -0.14052 16 -0.019006 29 -0.000737 -4.966822 19 -0.001062 0.82755 9 -0.00876 5.00803 4.000763 -1.697432 19 -0.001062 0.01927 8.800003 35 -0.4948 42 -0.19705 0.85E-05 0.001044 0.06388 0.60807 6 -0.20E-05 0.007808 21 -0.542519 17 -0.000648 0.000675 1.12597 0.01466 7.23258 0.980247 22 -0.12E-05 1.00074 0.02065 0.04618 7.00929 0.00046 -4.11149 14 -0.04238 0.01E-05 1.652279 35 -0.51E-05 0.01324 0.034492 40 -0.007599 20 -0.01906 0.15063 0.06495 0.205731 15 -0.029659 39 -0.00775 0.84513 4 -0.01566 0.963092 37 -0.008 0.028973 40 -0.000326 -2.22163 0.04E-05 -1.00785 5.3451 17 -0.00064 0.000178 0.72E-05 0.04291 7.03257 0.02294 0.000552 -4.57E-05 1.633221 26 -0.00101 0.016119 4 -0.Appendix 0 degrees angle of attack 8 degrees angle of attack 16 degrees angle of attack Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp 1 -0.82166 9 -0.07307 0.19351 0.23542 2 -0.02637 6.026911 28 -0.000589 -5.01309 0.02995 5.874779 41 -0.00785 0.02049 30 -0.002248 -0.981555 21 -0.000123 0.59E-05 0.04016 0.960541 41 -0.01703 0.0158 7.01001 4.757549 38 -0.608744 27 -0.000111 -1.003447 -0.001085 0.04753 6.22E-05 -0.01994 0.02249 0.09356 0.01122 0.025994 35 -0.01165 0.00812 0.000713 -5.79499 12 -0.09517 0.09985 0.00902 6.00042 -1.01278 7.03561 5.10E-05 14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .06878 0.00013 42 -0.000603 0.00053 0.66712 3 -0.000513 1.000191 -2.04841 0.56E-05 0.00785 4.000126 -0.17492 5 -0.4948 2 -0.03916 4.04244 9.722937 22 -0.030792 33 -0.02202 0.77E-05 1.000263 1.000134 -2.82073 8 -0.857141 26 -0.110501 14 -0.000482 0.00112 -0.00804 4.01149 7.96E-05 0.05317 0.007107 -0.07331 0.40E-05 0.000446 1.05786 20 -0.23542 42 -0.97839 6 -0.649633 25 -0.000492 0.842234 40 -0.000409 0.00735 -0.04355 0.00011 -1.02604 0.99E-05 0.54228 10 -0.179 5 -0.005811 -0.01027 8.08129 8.06984 7.

0901 0.000227 -1.07717 0.35E-05 0.66998 35 -0.08053 13 -0.07325 0.97148 26 -0.01784 7.73293 34 -0.294891 16 -0.06562 0.25 degrees angle of attack Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp 1 -0.000683 -0.49822 37 -0.09507 4 -0.000994 -0.01E-05 1.06959 9 -0.84958 32 -0.08416 8 -0.47709 42 -0.96886 27 -0.06775 0.00023 -1.09159 12 -0.00862 0.01572 6.07736 0.07753 0.04151 8.07705 0.784156 21 -0.914776 19 -0.001124 -0.09739 7 -0.00805 6.69E-05 0.000966 -0.08975 5 -0.03932 6.000216 -1.000222 -1.03E-05 0.000229 -1.0551 0.001028 -0.05198 0.06946 0.31834 39 -0.04485 0.000207 -1.719739 18 -0.06355 0.000646 -0.07374 0.47709 2 -0.07681 0.000944 -0.20834 40 -0.98022 22 -0.27E-05 0.94199 29 -0.07761 0.07742 0.000844 -0.0548 8.04837 0.000206 -1.07669 0.07779 0.03181 8.05E-05 15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .000922 -0.40383 14 -0.57229 36 -0.07177 0.000236 -1.07375 0.07715 0.07358 0.000907 -0.08359 11 -0.49789 17 -0.07338 0.000232 -1.41294 38 -0.10142 41 -0.07381 0.000262 -1.0007 -0.07347 0.000149 -1.066543 15 -0.000643 -0.000784 -0.97502 23 -0.91983 30 -0.000885 -0.07077 0.01143 7.000225 -1.965 28 -0.000752 -0.97982 24 -0.88956 31 -0.000234 -1.0725 0.79782 33 -0.06034 0.0579 0.01752 20 -0.98193 25 -0.02E-05 0.10286 6 -0.000645 -0.08122 0.42E-05 0.000874 -0.000986 -0.02514 7.07328 10 -0.48E-05 -0.20728 3 -0.000895 -0.001021 -0.

038786846 0.000742 37 1.03388494 0.006694 q q_inf rake span Cd_i 0.9 0.375 0.005 0.074 0.064671424 96 104 0.01 Cl_total Cd_total 1.36651914 0.169789747 0.013 0.0350565 0.150672216 0.017 -0.008098 92 0.02633775 0.018848885 92 84 0.20943951 0.0025 -0.0055 -0.123614673 106 114 0.0348765 0.191728908 0.006034734 37 45 0.178185531 0.017 0.028252125 0.057838 86 0.06465084 0.002 0.0035 0.525 0.15 0.073794503 88 80 0.75 0.10471976 0.15 0.03480025 0.007322645 53 61 0.9 0.032546 64 0.027897277 0 127 -0.026280875 0.012818 53 0.004058025 58 66 0.6 0.017983 58 0.033999 0.007044816 77 85 0.076 0.054146 77 0.04 0.113788796 89 81 0.003240248 141 133 total 0.030787125 0.003230951 127 119 0.0347815 0.0349465 0.44862328 0.038571106 89 81 0.005 0.178627618 0.03302025 0.009 0.45 0.5 0.047 0.03490659 0.10471976 0.035057125 0.1 0.034769625 0.034868375 0.1396263 0.15707963 0.78539816 0.03307265 92 100 0.01 0.005632 43 0.15 0.05760671 0.035923053 0.15707963 0.036 0.002593 89 0.125 -0.020266505 0.017983114 0.001 0.6981317 0.3 0.59341195 0.034 0.15707963 0.034218375 0.005663811 98 90 0.5061455 0.015631092 86 94 0.75 0.7504916 0.010258 141 -0.050799567 0.051127668 0.25 0.007498563 43 51 0.021 0.009361 106 -0.0005 -9.052 0.225 -0.6 0.021 0.1 0.0350015 0.1336842 0.020152 96 0.0395 -0.15 0.008975437 0.1 -0.2 0.9 0.303914 0.098963447 101 109 0.15 -0.10853E-05 0.037875 92 0.4 0.010158 89 0.003776 98 0 0.002848 89 0.015 0.8 degrees angle of attack processed data theta(measured) theta(total) panel mid panel length Cl Cd Cl/Cd signs 15 1.02 0.034893375 0.3 0.2 0.17453293 0.03012525 0.173123 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .00717864 0.004875154 15 23 0.008 -0.25 0.016371052 0.0765 -0.0735 0.03263775 0.95993109 0.059201621 port/c 0 0.15 -0.008046 88 0.018506589 0.005929 101 -0.0271115 0.005914199 64 72 0.0523599 0.2 0.12432929 89 81 0.00312186 0.080274291 0.

15 0.04 0.2 0.001 0.034 0.010698 0.539027 0.054444 -0.083714 0.008 0.008527 -0.005 53 78 0.00226 0.122323 0.018609 -0.0395 0.15 0.01 Cl Cd 0.060907 0.25 0.00344 0.052 127 102 0.034992 0.75 0.076 0.00142 0.021 64 89 0.15 0.00181 0.067125 0.00228 0.081126 0.375 0.9 0.75 0.0735 0.009 0.05255 0.026776 0.020811 0.017244 0.2 92 67 0.000475 -0.005 0.020901 -0.0035 0.0025 0.15 0.3 0.013 58 83 0.036 0.04334 -0.02 141 116 0.6 88 63 0.002665 -0.198702 0.021 0.007048 -0.9 89 64 0.0055 0.3 96 121 0.1 98 73 0.25 degrees angle of attack processed data theta(measured) theta(total) panel mid panel length Cl Cd Cl/Cd signs port/c 15 40 0.25 0.1 0.6 106 131 0.01 0.032739 0.00444 0.106334 0.525 0.014952 0.038331 0.139323 0.047 77 102 0.02655 0.1 86 111 0.0005 0.00057 0 37 62 0.0765 0.099855 0.2 92 117 0.015 0.005584 -0.002 43 68 0.4 89 64 0.017 0.007293 0.5 0.15 0.15 0.074 0.119537 0.049027 0.125 0.017 0.00076 0.225 0.9 89 64 0.505683 17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .144365 0.45 101 126 0.