You are on page 1of 77

EFFECT OF TRAILING EDGE FLAP ON THE LIFT

AND DRAG OF KLINE FOGLEMAN AIRFOIL


A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by

PREM ANAND.T.P
RAJAVANNIAN.R
SREEKANTH.A
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in

AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

RAJALAKSHMI ENGINEERING COLLEGE


ANNA UNIVERSITY:CHENNAI -600025
APRIL 2011

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report EFFECT OF TRAILING EDGE


FLAP ON THE LIFT AND DRAG OF KLINE FOGLEMAN
AIRFOIL is the bonafide work of

PREM ANAND.T.P (21107101034)


RAJAVANNIAN.R (21107101037)
SREEKANTH.A (21107101049)

During the year 2010-2011 in partial fulfillment for the award of the
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING degree in AERONAUTICAL
ENGINEERING at RAJALAKSHMI ENGINEERING COLLEGE.

Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sinha

Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sinha

Associate Professor,

Head of the Department,

Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering,

Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering,

Rajalakshmi Engineering college,

Rajalakshmi Engineering College,

Rajalakshmi Nagar,

Rajalakshmi Nagar,

Chennai 602105.

Chennai 602105.

CERTIFICATE OF EVALUATION
COLLEGE NAME: RAJALAKSHMI ENGINEERING COLLEGE
BRANCH

: AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

SEMESTER

: 8th SEMESTER

S.NO

NAME OF THE

TITLE OF THE

NAME OF THE

STUDENT

PROJECT

GUIDE

PREM ANAND T.P


(21107101034)

EFFECT OF
TRAILING EDGE

RAJAVANNIYAN.R

FLAP ON THE

Mr.YOGESH

(21107101037)

LIFT AND DRAG

KUMAR SINHA

OF KLINE

SREEKANTH.A

FOGLEMAN

(21107101049)

AIRFOIL

The report of the project are submitted by above students in partial


fulfillment for the award of Bachelor of Engineering in Aeronautical
Engineering of Anna University were enabled and confirmed to be
the report work done by the above students and then evaluated.

(INTERNAL EXAMINER)

(EXTERNAL EXAMINER)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are sincerely grateful to our guide, Mr.Yogesh kumar sinha for guiding us
throughout the course of our project work.

We also thank other faculty members of the Department of Aeronautical


Engineering who have helped us during the review of the project.

PREM ANAND.T.P
RAJAVANNIAN.R
SREEKANTH.A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO

1.

2.

3.

TITLE

PAGE NO

ABSTRACT

LIST OF FIGURES

ii

LIST OF TABLES

iii

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 NEED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY

1.3 PRESENT STUDY

LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 KLINE FOGLENAN AIRFOIL

2.3 HIGH LIFT DEVICES

2.4 TRAILING EDGE FLAP

KFm AIRFOIL MODEL FABRICATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3.2 MODEL FABRICATION

4.

5.

WIND TUNNEL AND EXPERIMENT

11

4.1 LOW SPEED WIND TUNNEL

11

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

12

4.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

13

4.3.1 AIRFOIL WITHOUT FLAP

13

4.3.2 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 15

16

4.3.3 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 25

19

4.3.4 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 30

22

4.3.5 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 35

25

ANALYSIS SOFTWARES AND RESULTS

29

5.1 CATIA

29

5.2 GAMBIT

31

5.2.1 PREARING THE MODEL

31

5.2.2 MESHING

32

5.3 FLUENT ANALYSIS

33

5.4 FLUENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

40

5.4.1 AIRFOIL WITHOUT FLAP

41

5.4.2 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 15

43

5.4.3 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 25

46

5.4.4 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 30

49

5.4.5 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 35

52

5.5 QUALITATIVE RESULTS

56

5.5.1 PRESSURE CONTOURS FOR 15 AND 25

56

5.5.2 PRESSURE CONTOURS FOR 30 AND 35

60

6.

CONCLUSION

64

7.

REFERENCES

65

ABSTRACT

Present study focuses on the effect of a trailing edge Plain flap on


the lift and drag of Kline Fogleman airfoil. Experiments were conducted in
the Low Speed Wind tunnel with the trailing edge plain flap at different
deflection angles degrees with varying angle-of-attack. The test is conducted
at a velocity of 30m/s. Pressure contours had significant variation for the
deflection of flap as against without flap has been observed from the
results. The deflection of flap shows that the area under the pressure
contour diagrams are larger than without deflecting the flap which indicates
the corresponding higher lift coefficient. Result shows that the deflection of
flap increases the maximum lift coefficient by 50% and stalling angle got
reduced for the tested flow velocity. The meshing of the KFm model had
been done in GAMBIT software and it is imported to FLUENT 6.2.16
software. The simulations in FLUENT yielded the best correlations to the
experimental data.

LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE

PAGE.NO

Figure 2.1

CL vs AOA curve for all types of flaps

Figure 2.2

Plain flap

Figure 2.3

Effect of trailing edge flap on stalling angle

Figure 3.1

3d view of airfoil

Figure 3.2

Photograph of model

10

Figure 4.1

Low speed wind tunnel

11

Figure 4.2

Model setup in the wind tunnel

12

Figure 5.1

Kline fogleman airfoil in CATIA workbench

30

Figure 5.2

Kline fogleman airfoil with flap in CATIA

30

FIGURE NO

Workbench
Figure 5.3

Meshing around airfoil

ii

32

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO

TITLE

PAGE NO

EXPERIMENTAL
Table 4.1

CL and CD for airfoil without flap

13

Table 4.2

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 15

16

Table 4.3

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 25

19

Table 4.4

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 30

22

Table 4.5

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 35

25

THEORETICAL
Table 5.1

CL and CD for airfoil without flap

41

Table 5.2

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 15

44

Table 5.3

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 25

46

Table 5.4

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 30

49

Table 5.5

CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 35

52

iii

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION

Ever since the beginning of first flight by mankind there has been a
constant endeavour to enhance the wing performance by various means such
as improvement and refinement of wing design, addition of auxiliary lifting
devices, using light weight materials, Laminar Flow Control (LFC) and other
flow optimization methods. The usage of auxiliary lifting surfaces such as
flaps, slats, leading edge slots has gained prominence in the designing of
wings for aircrafts nowadays along with other developments in wing
designs. The usage of a trailing edge plain flap in a wing enables the wing
to operate at higher angles of attack in situations like landing and take-off
without losing lift.

1.2 NEED FOR PRESENT STUDY

The usage of high lift devices has become a common phenomenon


in the design and developments of aircrafts operating at high angles of
attack. The traling edge devices such as plain, split flap etc are used at
high angle of attack to increase the CLmax are vital during landing and takeoff for aircrafts which essentially operate at shorter runways and it reduces
the stalling speed of aircraft which means that aircraft can fly safely at
lower speeds. The effect of trailing edge device at different deflection
angles on the airfoil performance needs to be investigated and the angle-ofdeflection of flap needs to be determined so as not to increase the drag and
1

also to achieve highest possible CLmax without stalling. Besides the stand
alone configuration of Kline Fogleman airfoil with trailing edge flap has not
been reported in the literature.

1.3 PRESENT STUDY

The present study focuses on the effect of a trailing edge plain flap
on the lift and drag of a Kline Fogleman airfoil. The focus is on finding
out the lift coefficient and study the effect of plain flap on the lift and
drag of an airfoil by deflecting the flap to different deflection angles at a
flow velocity of 30m/s and varying angles of attack. The study aims at
finding the maximum lift coefficient for different angles of deflection of
flap and thereby finding the maximum lift coefficient at the stalling angle of
attack of Kline Fogleman airfoil.

CHAPTER-2
LITREATURE SURVEY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The investigation of Kline Fogleman airfoil performance was first
performed by NASA in the year 1960 by Richard KLINE & Floyd
FOGLEMAN wherein he established the CL vs angle of attack (alpha) curve
for various velocities. It was established that the maximum C L is found to
be 0.742 at angle of 9 degrees and stalling angle is 9 degrees.
The
demonstrated

possibility
in

late

of

using

1919

by

the

auxiliary

NACA

lifting

where

they

device
tested

is

first

various

configurations of leading and trailing edge devices. Handley page in 1920


explored the possibility of using a trailing edge plain flap with a NACA
0009 airfoil to maximize its lift at lower angles of attack. It was found out
that the lift coefficient value increased by 40% at lower angle of attack and
the stalling angle decreased.
The tandem usage of leading and trailing edge lifting device was
performed on NACA 23012 airfoil with leading edge slot and plain flap in
1920s by Wensinger. He found in the case of cambered airfoil not only
stalling angle is increased but also lift curve slope is increased.
The flaps were found to be ineffective at higher angles of attack due
to increase in drag and the stalling of airfoil was found out from various
wind tunnel investigations of different airfoils forced the deflection of flaps
at lower angle of attack to achieve higher lift coefficient at landing and
take-off conditions.
3

The airfoil and the location of flaps are fabricated on the basis of coordinates

given

for

Kline

Fogleman

airfoil

in

the

website

Airfoil

Investigation Database and Theory of Wing Section by Abbot and Von


Doenhoff.
The flow visualization pattern around the airfoil is found out by
placing the airfoil in the mid-section of Hele Shaw apparatus and the
streamline pattern is observed.
2.2 KLINE FOGLEMAN AIRFOIL
The Kline Fogleman airfoils are airfoil shapes for aircraft wings
developed by Richard KLINE and Floyd FOGLEMAN. The Kline Fogleman
airfoil is an airfoil design with single or multiple steps induced along the
length of the wing. Primarily located on the top or bottom side of the wing
to assist with greater lift and stability during flight. The KFm uses the
concept of vortex, which attaches itself to the airfoil behind the step and
becomes part of the airfoil.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The KFm airfoils are thicker for the first 50% of the chord which
produces more lift.
2. It is thinner for the rest of the chord portion for travelling faster.
3. It has a much greater range for center of gravity.
4. It requires zero degree reflex which reduces the drag.
5. It is capable of flying without stabilizers and rudders.
6. It requires no dihedral for stability.
4

2.3 HIGH LIFT DEVICES


The study of high lift devices for enhancing the performance of wings
have been on the fore since the beginning of aviation. The type of
operation for which an airplane is intended has a very important bearing on
the selection of the shape and design of the wing for that airplane. Slots,
slats, spoilers, speed brakes and flaps are additions to the wing that perform
a variety of functions related to control of the boundary layer, increase of
the plan form area and reduction of aircraft velocity during landing and
stopping conditions.

Fig 2.1 CL vs AOA for all types of flaps

2.4 TRAILING EDGE FLAP


Trailing edge flaps are movable aerodynamic devices used on
airplanes. Flaps were first developed by Handley-Page in 1920.
Flaps are hinged surfaces on the trailing edge of the wings of the
aircraft. Extending the flaps increases the camber of the wing airfoil, thus
raising the maximum lift coefficient. This increase in maximum lift
coefficient allows the aircraft to generate a given amount of lift at lower
speeds. Therefore, extending the flaps reduces the stalling speed of aircraft.
Extending flaps also increases the drag. This happens of the higher
induced drag caused by the distorted spanwise lift distribution on the wing
with flap extended. This can be beneficial in the approach and landing phase
because it helps to slow the aircraft
Depending on the type of aircraft, the flaps may be partially extended
during take-off and it may be fully extended during landing to give the
aircraft a lower stalling speed allowing the aircraft to land in a shorter
distance.
Plain flaps when fully deflected increases the wing camber and the
wing area which results in increased lift and drag at a given angle of
attack and increases the maximum CL.
Wings with the flaps deflected usually stall at lower angle of attack
than wings without flaps. This is due to the fact that the pressure gradients
at the CLmax for the cases are roughly equal.

Deflection of trailing edge flaps increase the lift at constant geometric


angle of attack, it will also move the CP rearwards and increase both
parasite and induced drag.

Fig 2.2 Plain Flap

Fig 2.3 Effect of trailing edge flaps on stalling angle

CHAPTER-3
KLINE FOGLEMAN AEROFOIL MODEL FABRICATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The NACA airfoil are generally preferred because the symmetric
airfoil works better in small angle of attack and the cambered airfoil works
better in higher angle of attack. But the usage of Kline Fogleman airfoil
compensates

for

this

disadvantage

and

increases

the

maximium

lift

coefficient when it is used with flaps at the trailing edge. The Kline
Fogleman airfoil has been used only in a paper airplane. The airfoil was
chosen with trailing edge flap for its inherent advantages and ease of
fabrication.

3.2 FABRICATION
The Kline Fogleman airfoil model with trailing edge flap whose
deflection angle can be varied has been fabricated from Balsa wood with
the following specifications.
Chord

: 10 cm

Span

: 25 cm

Flap location

: 20 % of chord (from trailing edge)

Flap

: one trailing edge plain flap

Flap deflection : Four different deflection angles (15,25,30 and 35)

The model is designed in CATIA using the co-ordinates for the Kline
Fogleman airfoil with the trailing edge plain flap being located at 20% of
the chord whose deflection angle can be varied. The angle of attack of
model can be changed by raising and lowering the rod inside the pipe fitted
with screw. A 3d view of model is given in the following figure 3.1.

Fig 3.1 3d view of airfoil

The fabricated model is shown below the figure

Fig 3.2 Photograph of model


The fabricated model has the location of flap positioned at 20% of
chord from the trailing edge whose deflection angle can be varied and the
AOA of the airfoil model can be changed from -8 degrees to +22 degrees.

10

CHAPTER-4
WIND TUNNEL AND EXPERIMENT RESULT
4.1 LOW SPEED WIND TUNNEL
Experiments are performed in the subsonic wind tunnel of test section
Size 30cm length * 30cm width * 30cm height with a maximum speed of
50m/s at a drive speed of 720 rpm as shown in figure 4.1 Wind tunnel is
fitted with a drive panel incorporating various accessories for the speed
control of the fan using the speed control unit, and it also consists of lift,
drag, side force and velocity indicators.

Fig 4.1 Low speed wind tunnel

11

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP


The investigation of the effect of the trailing edge flap on the lift and
drag of the Kline Fogleman airfoil is computed for the configuration of the
flap

deflection

angles

of

15, 25, 30 and 35

degrees. For

these

four

configurations lift and drag are found out in a flow velocity of 30m/s. The
experiments were repeated for different angles of attack (-8 degrees to +20
degrees).

Fig 4.2 Model setup in the wind tunnel

12

4.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS


4.3.1 AIRFOIL WITHOUT FLAP
ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-4

0.008341

-2

0.0960

0.00776

1.2616

0.2917

0.0070

4.226

0.3486

0.0073

4.851

0.4766

0.0079

6.0909

0.5763

0.0088

6.6393

0.6332

0.0097

6.5925

7.5

0.6154

0.0101

6.1785

0.5940

0.0126

4.7715

10

0.5514

0.0177

3.1632

Table 4.1 CL and CD for airfoil without flap at different angles

13

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Cl

0.3
Cl

0.2
0.1

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

0
-2-0.1 0

10

12

-0.2
Angle of Attack

Fig 4.3 CL vs Angle of attack

CD vs Angle of Attack

Cd

0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0

-15

-10

-5

Cd

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.4 CD vs Angle of Attack

14

10

15

L/D vs Angle of Attack


8
7
6
5
L/D

4
3

L/D

2
1
0
-15

-10

-5

-1

10

15

-2
Angle of Attack

Fig 4.5 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil without flap is 0.6332 and the
stalling angle is found to be 13 degrees.

15

4.3.2 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 15


ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-4

0.149

0.0953

1.567

-2

0.263

0.0853

3.083

0.430

0.0889

4.84

0.508

0.0924

5.5

0.584

0.1003

5.822

0.747

0.1152

6.686

0.839

0.1351

6.210

0.784

0.1387

5.656

10

0.777

0.1479

5.256

Table 4.2 CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 15

16

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Cl

0.5
0.4

Cl

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-10

-5

10

15

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.6 CL vs Angle of Attack

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
Cd

0.1
0.08

Cd

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-10

-5

5
Angle of Attack

Fig 4.7 CD vs Angle of Attack


17

10

15

L/D vs Angle of Attack


8
7
6

L/D

5
4
L/D

3
2
1
0
-10

-5

10

15

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.8 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 15 is 0.839 and the
stalling angle is found to be 11 degrees.

18

4.3.3 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 25


ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-6

0.3813

0.0544

7.006

-4

0.3984

0.0562

7.088

-2

0.4695

0.0569

8.25

0.5442

0,0586

9.272

0.7385

0.0718

10.277

0.8544

0.0758

11.660

0.9597

0.0853

11.241

0.9782

0.0928

10.536

10

0.9986

0.0946

10.563

11

1.0138

0.0964

10.516

12

0.9676

0.1006

9.611

Table 4.3 CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 25

19

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
1.2
1
0.8
Cl

0.6
Cl

0.4
0.2
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.9 CL vs Angle of Attack

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.14
0.12
0.1
Cd

0.08
0.06

Cd

0.04
0.02
0
-10

-5

10

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.10 CD vs Angle of Attack

20

15

20

L/D vs Angle of Attack


14
12
10
L/D

8
6

L/D

4
2
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.11 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 25 is 1.0138 and the
stalling angle is found to be 10 degrees.

21

4.3.4 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 30


ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-6

0.5165

0.0114

4.594

-4

0.5485

0.0116

4.818

-2

0.6054

0.0119

5.157

0.7449

0.0146

5.183

0.9156

0.0149

6.247

0.9939

0.0160

6.321

1.011

0.0182

5.661

1.059

0.0196

5.494

10

1.075

0.0209

5.231

12

1.055

0.0224

4.753

14

0.988

0.0240

4.196

Table 4.4 CL and CD for airfoil with flap deflection at 30

22

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
1.2
1
0.8
Cl

0.6
Cl

0.4
0.2
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.12 CL vs Angle of Attack

CL vs Angle of Attack
0.03
0.025

Cd

0.02
0.015
Cd
0.01
0.005
0
-10

-5

10

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.13 CD vs Angle of Attack

23

15

20

L/D vs Angle of Attack


7
6
5

L/D

4
3

L/D

2
1
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.14 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 30 is 1.075 and the
stalling angle is found to be 9 degrees.

24

4.3.5 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 35


ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-6

0.7506

0.2276

3.296

-4

0.8039

0.2241

3.587

-2

0.8445

0.2312

3.652

0.9050

0.2419

3.741

0.9391

0.2454

3.826

1.004

0.2575

3.900

1.0014

0.2646

3.838

1.0053

0.2717

3.874

10

0.9569

0.2774

3.448

12

0.7648

0.2860

2.674

Table 4.5 CL and CD for airfoil at flap at 35

25

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
1.2
1
0.8
Cl

0.6
Cl
0.4
0.2
0

-8

-6

-4

-2

10

12

14

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.15 CL vs Angle of Attack

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.35
0.3
0.25

Cd

0.2
0.15

Cd

0.1
0.05
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.16 CD vs Angle of Attack


26

10

12

14

L/D vs Angle of Attack


4.5
4
3.5
3
L/D

2.5
2

L/D

1.5
1
0.5
0
-10

-5

10

15

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.17 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 35 is 1.0053 and the
stalling angle is found to be 7 degrees.

27

COMPARISON OF CL FOR ALL DEFLECTION ANGLES

Comparison of CL
1.2
1
0.8
WITHOUT FLAP
0.6
Cl

WF15
WF 25

0.4

WF 30
WF 35

0.2
0
-15

-10

-5

0
-0.2

10

15

Angle of Attack

Fig 4.18 Comparison of CL

28

20

CHAPTER-5
ANALYSIS SOFTWARES AND RESULTS
5.1 ANSYS
CATIA (Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) is a
multi-platform CAD/CAM/CAE commercial software suite developed by the
French company Dassault Systems and marketed worldwide by IBM. Written in
the C++ programming language, CATIA is the cornerstone of the Dassault
Systems product lifecycle management software suite.

The software was created in the late 1970s and early 1980s to develop
Dassault's Mirage fighter jet, and then was adopted in the aerospace, automotive,
shipbuilding, and other industries.

CATIA competes in the CAD/CAM/CAE market with Siemens NX,


Pro/ENGINEER, Autodesk Inventor and Solid Edge.

Commonly referred to as a 3D Product Lifecycle Management software


suite, CATIA supports multiple stages of product development (CAx), from
conceptualization, design (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and engineering (CAE).

CATIA can be customized via application programming interfaces (API).


V4 can be adapted in the Fortran and C programming languages under an API
29

called CAA. V5 can be adapted via the Visual Basic and C++ programming
languages, an API called CAA2 or CAA V5 that is a component object model
(COM)-like interface.
CATIA is widely used throughout the engineering industry, especially in the
automotive and aerospace sectors. CATIA V4, CATIA V5, Pro/ENGINEER, NX
(formerly Unigraphics), and SolidWorks are the dominant systems

Fig 5.1 Kline Fogleman airfoil in CATIA workbench

Fig 5.2 Kline Fogleman airfoil with plain flap in CATIA workbench
30

5.2 GAMBIT
5.2.1 PREPARING THE MODEL
The model is prepared in the GAMBIT software by importing the coordinates as a dat file and the geometry is created around the model to
make it a valid CFD model.
An important thing in this is creating the mesh surrounding the object.
This needs to be extended in all the directions to get the physical properties
of the surrounding fluid. The mesh and the edges must also be grouped in
order to set the necessary boundary conditions.

31

5.2.2 MESHING
An environment consisting of 2 squares and 1 semicircle surrounds the
KFm airfoil. The mesh is constructed to be very fine at regions close to the
airfoil. For this airfoil a structured quadratic mesh was used. The grid size
of the mesh is given as 0.20.

Fig 5.3 Meshing around the airfoil

32

5.3 FLUENT ANALYSIS


Start Fluent 2D and load the mesh file as follows:

File Read Case Grid fin.

Grid Check.

33

Define Models Solver Segregated, 3D, Absolute, Cell-Based, Implicit,


Steady, Superficial Velocity.

Models Energy equation OFF.


34

Models Viscous model Invisid

Models-Materials-Create/Change-Density-Constant(1.2256kg/m3)-Close

35

Operating Conditions-Operating Pressure-Constant(101325 pa)

Boundary Conditions-Velocity Specification Method-Components-Set x and


y values

36

Solve-Control-Solution-PRESTO under Pressure-Second Order Upwind


under Momentum

Solve-Initialize-Initialize-Inlet under Compute from-ok

37

Solve-Monitors-Residual-Set Convergence value-Ok

Solve-Monitors-Force-Give values for lift and drag-Apply

38

Report-Reference Values-Compute from-Inlet-Ok

Solve-Iterate.

39

5.4 FLUENT ANALYSIS RESULTS


5.4.1 AIRFOIL WITHOUT FLAP

ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-8

0.095

0.0314

3.025478

-6

0.156

0.0354

4.40678

-4

0.21

0.037

5.675676

-2

0.287

0.0388

7.396907

0.35129

0.039927

8.798307

0.4482

0.0477

9.291405

0.55

0.0588

9.353741

0.6088

0.0735

8.282993

0.7051

0.0932

7.565451

10

0.891

0.11533

7.023324

12

0.81

0.1442

6.178918

14

0.9769

0.1751

5.579098

16

1.056

0.20869

5.060137

18

1.1296

0.2446

4.618152

20

1.2037

0.2829

4.25486

40

22

1.281

0.33

3.881818

23

1.346

0.366

3.677596

24

1.329

0.42

3.164286

25

1.296

0.452

2.867257

26

1.25

0.47

2.659574

27

1.222

0.48

2.545833

Table 5.1 CL and CD for airfoil without flap


GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Cl

0.8
Cl

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10 -8

-6

-4

-2

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.4 CL vs Angle of Attack

41

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.6
0.5

Cd

0.4
0.3
Cd

0.2
0.1
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.5 CD vs Angle of Attack

L/D vs Angle of Attack


10
9
8
7
L/D

6
5
4

L/D

3
2
1
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.6 L/D vs Angle of Attack


The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil without flap is 1.346 and the
stalling angle is found to be 23 degrees.
42

5.4.2 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 15

ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-8

0.5143

0.06

8.571667

-6

0.6521

0.0641

10.17317

-4

0.8682

0.0789

11.0038

-2

0.9654

0.0845

11.42485

1.1009

0.0895

12.30056

1.1841

0.09355

12.6574

1.2585

0.12095

10.40513

1.3228

0.15087

8.767813

1.3753

0.18248

7.536716

10

1.4147

0.21504

6.578776

12

1.441

0.247

5.834008

14

1.4574

0.2951

4.938665

16

1.4609

0.3111

4.695918

18

1.4709

0.3446

4.268427

19

1.458

0.3468

4.204152

43

20

1.4125

0.3782

3.734796

21

1.3782

0.3923

3.513128

22

1.3502

0.4235

3.188194

Table 5.2 CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 15

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Cl

0.8
Cl
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

-10

-5

10

15

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.7 CL vs Angle of Attack

44

20

25

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Cd

0.25
0.2

Cd

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.8 CD vs Angle of Attack

L/D vs Angle of Attack


14
12
10
L/D

8
6

L/D

4
2
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.9 L/D vs Angle of Attack


The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 15 is 1.4709 and the
stalling angle is found to be 18 degrees
45

5.4.3 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 25


ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-6

0.956

0.1345

7.107807

-4

1.056

1.456

7.252747

-2

1.258

0.1678

7.49702

1.4512

0.1799

8.066

1.5165

0.1822

8.3232

1.5735

0.2143

7.342

1.6234

0.2524

6.431

1.6745

0.2915

5.743

10

1.712

0.3297

5.192

12

1.7338

0.3675

4.717

14

1.7418

0.4039

4.312

16

1.7418

0.4417

3.944

17

1.7423

0.4601

3.782

Table 5.3 CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 25

46

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl

1
Cl

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.10 CL vs Angle of Attack

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

Cd

0.3
0.25
Cd

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-10

-5

10

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.11 CD vs Angle of Attack


47

15

20

L/D vs Angle of Attack


9
8
7
6
L/D

5
4

L/D

3
2
1
0
-10

-5

10

15

20

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.12 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 30 is 1.7418 and the
stalling angle is found to be 14 degrees

48

5.4.4 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 30


ANGLE OF
ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-6

0.9651

0.1043

9.253116

-4

1.0954

0.1186

9.236088

-2

1.268

0.1296

9.783951

1.6195

0.1479

10.94997

1.6605

0.183

9.07377

1.6955

0.2195

7.724374

1.7267

0.2578

6.697828

1.739

0.2966

5.863115

10

1.7472

0.332

5.262651

12

1.7157

0.361

4.752632

Table 5.4 CL and CD for airfoil with at 30

49

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl

1
0.8

Cl

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

10

12

14

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.13 CL vs Angle of Attack

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.4
0.35
0.3

Cd

0.25
0.2
Cd

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.14 CD vs Angle of Attack


50

10

12

14

L/D vs Angle of Attack


12
10

L/D

8
6
L/D
4
2
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

10

12

14

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.15 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 30 is 1.7472 and the
stalling angle is found to be 10 degrees.

51

5.4.5 AIRFOIL WITH FLAP DEFLECTION OF 35


ANGLE OF ATTACK

CL

CD

L/D

-6

1.054

0.1329

7.930

-4

1.2143

0.1471

8.254

-2

1.456

0.1598

9.111

1.7234

0.1691

10.1916

1.7726

0.2066

8.579

1.8128

0.2433

7.450

1.8367

0.2853

6.437

1.8475

0.3248

5.688

1.8461

0.329

5.445

10

1.8432

0.3435

5.365

Table 5.5 CL and CD for airfoil with flap at 35

52

GRAPH

CL vs Angle of Attack
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Cl

1
0.8

Cl

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

10

12

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.16 CL vs Angle of Attack

CD vs Angle of Attack
0.4
0.35
0.3

Cd

0.25
0.2
Cd

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.17 CD vs Angle of Attack

53

10

12

L/D vs Angle of Attack


12
10

L/D

8
6
L/D
4
2
0
-8

-6

-4

-2

10

12

Angle of Attack

Fig 5.18 L/D vs Angle of Attack

The maximum lift coefficient for airfoil with flap at 35 is 1.8475 and the
stalling angle is found to be 8 degrees

54

COMPARISON OF CL FOR ALL DEFLECTION ANGLES

Comparison of CL
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

WF15
without flap

Cl

1
0.8

WF25

0.6

WF 30
WF35

0.4
0.2
0
-10

-5

10

15

Angle of Attack

55

20

25

5.5 QUALITATIVE RESULTS


This table shows the different contour outputs from the simulations.
Inviscid models of airfoil with flap at different deflection angles are
compared in separate column
5.5.1 PRESSURE CONTOURS OF 15 AND 25

ANGLE
OF
ATTACK

15

25

56

57

58

10

12

59

5.5.2 PRESSURE CONTOURS FOR 30 AND 35


ANGLE
OF
ATTACK

30

35

60

61

62

10

12

63

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The usage of flaps at different deflection angles reveal that the
flap deflection does alter the lift and drag on the airfoil and compared to
the 15, 25 and 30 deflection, the 35 deflection does not contribute favorably
on the stalling angle due to the flow separation and resulting in excessive
drag. The optimal deflection of flap is found to be within the 15, 25 flap
deflection which yields maximum lift coefficient at lower angles of attack
and higher stalling angle compared to the other deflection angles in the
experiment.
The result reveals that the deflection of flap increases the
maximum lift coefficient by nearly 50% and reduced the stalling angle by 4
degrees respectively.

64

CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
1. Aerodynamic performance of an airfoil with step-induced vortex for
lift augmentation by Fathi Finaish, journal of Aerospace engineering,
vol no.11, 1998.
2. Kline-Fogleman airfoil comparison study
airslanes by Rich Thompson, Feb 15, 2008.

for

scratch-bulit

foam

3. Design of the low-speed NLF(1)-0414F and the high-speed


HSNLF(1)-0213 airfoils with high-lift systems by J.K.Viken, 1983.
4. Introduction to flight by J.D.Anderson, Edition 3. McGraw-Hill
publishers, 1989.
5. Aerodynamics, Flight mechanics and Stability by Mac cormick,
McGraw-Hill publishers, 1998.
6. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John.D.Anderson, Edition 4.
McGraw-Hill, 2007.

65