You are on page 1of 250

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work
and it has been written by me in its entirety.
I have duly acknowledged all the sources of
information which have been used in the thesis.

This thesis has also not been submitted for any
degree in any university previously.

___________________
Koh Fu Hai Alan
July 2013

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express appreciation to the late Associate Professor

Luo Siao Chung and Professor Chew Yong Tian for their valuable guidance

as supervisors.

Many thanks also go to the staff of the NUS fluid mechanics laboratory and

workshop, especially to Mr James Ng for machining the small parts of the

model and Mr Looi Siew Wah for fixing the old computer for the load cell.

II

TABLES OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY .................................................................................................. VII

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... IX

LIST OF SYMBOLS..................................................................................... XII

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Mechanism of Ground Effect................................................................. 1

1.2 History .................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Literature Review .................................................................................. 7

1.3.1 Analytical Methods ......................................................................... 8

1.3.1.1 Flat Ground, Image Method, 3D .............................................. 8

1.3.1.2 Wavy Ground, Image Method, 3D ......................................... 13

1.3.2 Computational Methods ............................................................... 14

1.3.2.1 RANS, Moving Ground, 2D ................................................... 14

1.3.2.2 Vortex Lattice Method, 3D ..................................................... 15

1.3.3 Experimental Methods ................................................................. 18

1.3.3.1 Image Method, 3D ................................................................. 18

1.3.3.2 Flat Plate, 3D ........................................................................ 23

1.3.3.3 Flat Plate, 2D, Pressure Distribution...................................... 27

1.3.3.4 Moving Ground, 3D, Pressure Distribution ............................ 34

1.4 Objectives ........................................................................................... 38

1.5 Scope and Organisation of the Thesis ................................................ 39

2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

2.1 Wind Tunnel ....................................................................................... 40

2.1.1 Velocity Profile in the y-z plane .................................................... 41

2.2 Flat Plate ............................................................................................ 42

2.3 Caution in Simulation of the Ground in Ground Effect Experiments .... 43

III

2.4 Definition for h/c .................................................................................. 47

2.5 Investigated range of α and h/c........................................................... 47

2.6 Temperature, Dynamic Pressure and Reynolds Number .................... 47

2.7 Model .................................................................................................. 48

2.8 Measurement of lift ............................................................................. 50

2.9 Measurement of drag .......................................................................... 50

2.10 Measurement of pressure ................................................................. 52

2.11 Load Cell .......................................................................................... 52

2.12 Manometer ....................................................................................... 54

2.13 Challenges in Measurement ............................................................. 55

2.13.1 Drift in Load Cell Datum ............................................................. 55

2.13.2 Downstream Pressure Gradient ................................................. 55

2.13.3 Blockage Effects ........................................................................ 56

3. RESULTS

3.1. Pressure Distribution.......................................................................... 57

3.1.1 Reynolds number Effect on Aerodynamic Coefficients ................. 57

3.1.2 Aerodynamic Coefficients at Reynolds number of 200000 ........... 60

3.1.3 Pressure Distribution at α = 0O and 2O ......................................... 67

3.1.4 Pressure Distribution at α = 4O to 8O ............................................ 71

3.2. Lift and Drag ...................................................................................... 77

3.2.1 Datum 3D Lift and Drag ............................................................... 78

3.2.2 Lift and Drag coefficients from Pressure Distribution .................... 80

3.2.3 Effect of α on Lift and Drag coefficients vs. h/c............................. 81

3.2.4 Effect of h/c on Lift and Drag coefficient vs. α .............................. 84

3.3 Uncertainty ......................................................................................... 86

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Effective camber ................................................................................. 92

IV

1 Concluding Remarks.. 96 4.......................2 Effects of a Flat Stationary Ground on lift and drag . 99 4........................... 138 F Summary of Experimental Data from Kwang.... 104 APPENDICES A Summary of WIG Vehicles ............................... 98 4...................................7 Changes in Lift and Drag for a Finite Wing in Ground Effect ....... 165 K Load cell Characteristics ...........................................................................................................6..........................2 Effective angle of attack ...5 Drag ...... 101 5... Takasaki and Kohama149 I Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number .................................... 145 H Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed............ 135 E Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma ..... 97 4................... 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................. 108 B Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 . 153 J Calculated Lift and Drag of finite NACA 4415 wing .. 200 V ............................... 100 5...................................................... 93 4...................................... 192 M Downstream Pressure Profile......... 125 D Summary of Experimental Data from Chawla.............6 Changes in Lift and Drag for a 2D airfoil in Ground Effect ........................ 4...................................................... Ho and Hee .........................................................4 Ground effect on circulation on a wing .........6...................... Edwards and Franke .................................. 95 4...................................................................................... CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.............................. 196 N Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile ........................................................ 117 C Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 ..................................................................................................................................................3 Behaviour of Air below the wing ............2 Recommendations ..................................................... 142 G Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed ... 170 L Drawings of the Model ..................... 94 4.......1 Effects of a Flat Moving Ground on lift and drag ....................

......... 229 U Preparation of Model ................. 232 X Corrections to Data ............................................................................................................... 209 Q Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure ............................ 227 T Preparation of Wind Tunnel Test Section .................................................................................................................................................. 231 W Formulas .......................................................... 210 R Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force ..............O Wind Speed and Effect of Tube Length...................................... 230 V Preparation of Other Equipment......................... 236 VI .. .................................................................................. 208 P Approximating the Leading Edge Pressure Reading from Pitot Reading ............ 220 S Uncertainty in Force Measurements.............................................

ground effect over a flat plate. suction reduced on the upper surface when in ground effect than without ground effect and air was slowing down under the wing. large-scale commercial production of ground effect vehicles has not taken place. Only one recent work used the moving belt method to simulate the ground. wind tunnel experiments were carried out with a flat plate simulating the ground. As the wing approached the ground. Due to limited laboratory resources in this study. The resulting higher pressure developing under the wing was the main cause of improved lift at all angles of attack as ground clearance decreased. lift and drag forces were obtained from a finite wing of NACA 4415 section with aspect ratio 2. This beneficial effect has been harnessed for development of ground effect vehicles since in the early 1900s. The circulatory lift contribution decreased slightly due possibly to smaller effective camber as streamlines straightened out about the wing. Pressure distributions. The literatures consists of investigations reporting ground effect with increased lift and reduced drag. However. the effect of the ground on circulation about the wing is still debatable. Most ground effect research was carried out with the image method or the flat plate method to simulate the ground. VII . The experiments were carried out at positive angles of attack from 0O to 8O in ground effect.SUMMARY Ground effect is the increase of lift and reduction of drag. on a lift generating body in flight at heights of one chord or less above the ground.51. Generally. without a moving belt facility for ground simulation. To date. Drag reduction was mainly due to suppressed formation of wing tip vortices. but do not discuss the mechanisms behind changes in lift and drag. which reduced the induced drag component. translated the CL-α curve upward and CD-α curve downward.

...1 Comparing estimated cl to Abbott and Doenhoff data for similar α at various Reynolds number .............................LIST OF TABLES Table 3.... 63 VIII .................................

... ...........14 CD vs............. 20 Figure 1.... 22 Figure 1....... .............. .....16 CL vs...................2 Changes in WIG vehicles’ Cruising Speed................... α (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section..........20 CD vs...................13 CL vs... 17 Figure 1..........19 CL vs.... 27 Figure 1. . 17 Figure 1...........................8 Effect of ground proximity on CL of rectangular wings...... ... h/c (varying α) for wing with USA 27 section.. α (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. ......................21 L/D vs............................................... 21 Figure 1......... 22 Figure 1....................... 13 Figure 1.. 28 Figure 1.................................3 Measured and calculated drag polar curves near the ground.................................................... α (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section................... ............. 9 Figure 1.. h/c (varying α) for wing with NACA 6409 section.... 4 Figure 1.........23 cd vs.... α (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section......... α (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section.........6 Variation of CL with CDi...................... α (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section......... . α (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section...... ...5 Variation of CL|α=0 and ∂CL/∂α with respect to h/b....... 11 Figure 1...... h/c (varying α) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section........ ..11 CD vs.............. .... 26 Figure 1.........18 L/D vs...... 24 Figure 1................. 23 Figure 1........... 20 Figure 1........17 CD vs............... ...... α for a 2D flat plate airfoil in ground effect...........10 CL vs...............4 Gradient of Lift coefficient vs...........22 cl vs...... h/c (varying α) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section....... 25 Figure 1................................ α (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section........ ........................15 L/D vs.......... α (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section........... 27 Figure 1............. ...........12 L/D vs. 5 Figure 1.............. α (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section.... 29 IX .......LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1..... 12 Figure 1.....9 Lift to DragINDUCED ratios for rectangular wing of maximum 4% camber........................................ 25 Figure 1.. ... 16 Figure 1............... ........... .............. ............................7 Span wise loading of a planar wing (aspect ratio 4) at 3 sweep angles....... induced drag.............1 Changes in WIG vehicles’ Gross Weight......

.. ..9 Checking the load cell in the x direction for force...........2 Section cd vs.......24 l/d vs.... .. 35 Figure 1..............8 CP (lower) vs......... α for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 200000........... ..... ....................... 30 Figure 1............................. . h/c and cd vs..... .......7 Determining the drag of the supports..Figure 1............ x/c vs..... ... 54 Figure 3......... .. x/c at various h/c for α = 0O.....4 3D Plots of cp vs...........7 CP (upper) vs........... ..................... h/c for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section. α for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box)............. ................ at h/c 0.................. 53 Figure 2......5 3D Plots of cp vs............. 59 Figure 3....... 37 Figure 2....................................................... ................. 29 Figure 1.. ...26 A small pocket of suction on the lower surface at α = 0O........ 32 Figure 1..... α for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 400000.... 49 Figure 2.. 65 Figure 3... ..............28 Pressure distribution for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section..................... 31 Figure 1...................... α for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 600000.. .........1 Section cl vs..............6 Streamwise pressure tap location along center line...... h/c (varying α) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section.. h/c and cd vs.. 53 Figure 2............... ........02 to 0.10 Checking the load cell in y direction for torque....................... x/c at various h/c for α = 0O............3 Horizontal velocity profile obtained at 1 position on each sidewall42 Figure 2..... .....2 Vertical velocity profile obtained at 4 positions....1 Schematic of wind tunnel............ x/c vs...........5 Overall wing and straight wing tips...........29 cl vs....... ...... 49 Figure 2.......... x/c vs....... ........80..... at h/c 0.......... 62 Figure 3... 40 Figure 2........8 Checking load cell in the z direction for force.... . .. 64 Figure 3.... 51 Figure 2.........5O....... 66 Figure 3.............25 Ram pressure on the lower surface at α = 7........... 43 Figure 2....... ...27 cl vs. 41 Figure 2........... 69 Figure 3.......................... h/c for a wing with NACA 4412 section.......................................4 Desired velocity profile at the ground................30 Pressure distribution for a wing with NACA 4412 section................ 34 Figure 1....6 3D Plots of cp vs.... 58 Figure 3...............3 Pressure distribution curves at approximately the same α but at various Reynolds number............... cl for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box)... 70 X ...................................015...............

.......21 cl vs.24 Percentage change in CD compared to relative uncertainty in CD vs.......................... h/c and CL vs............. 90 Figure 4.....10 CP (lower) vs....... x/c at various h/c for α = 4O.........51 NACA 4415 wing without ground effect....17 Expected CL and CD vs....... h/c ..... 74 Figure 3.. 86 Figure 3...........................Figure 3...................... ......................... 84 Figure 3.............................. x/c at various h/c for α = 2O....... 83 Figure 3. 77 Figure 3........................... .51 NACA 4415 wing without ground effect................. x/c at various h/c for α = 6O......12 CP (lower) vs................. α and CL vs....... α curve for AR 2.... .......... .. ..................................................16 CP (lower) vs...................... 80 Figure 3. x/c at various h/c for α = 2O........................... 70 Figure 3..................................... 89 Figure 3. α and CD vs............... 73 Figure 3. 74 Figure 3........................18 Expected L/D for AR 2..................... h/c at various α.............................11 CP (upper) vs.........19 cl vs. h/c at various α.......... 73 Figure 3.................... .. x/c at various h/c for α = 8O...... ...........2 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a flat plate.... h/c............................. 82 Figure 3..... .20 cd vs..... h/c ............................. 79 Figure 3........... ......... α at various h/c......................................... ........ x/c at various h/c for α = 8O... ....... ...... .......................... 76 Figure 3.23 Percentage increase in CL compared to relative uncertainty in CL vs...22 Graphs of cd vs..... h/c and CD vs... 89 Figure 3.... ..................... α at various h/c........... .................... x/c at various h/c for α = 6O................. 99 Figure 4...............1 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a moving belt... x/c at various h/c for α = 4O.. 71 Figure 3....9 CP (upper) vs.14 CP (lower) vs...................................... 100 XI .....................13 CP (upper) vs......25 Percentage increase in L/D compared to relative uncertainty in L/D vs................15 CP (upper) vs.

h/b ratio of height to span. A.B.LIST OF SYMBOLS English symbols a0 Gradient of 2D incompressible lift coefficient vs angle of attack acomp Gradient of 3D compressible lift coefficient vs angle of attack AoA Angle of Attack (used only in figures) AMF Model frontal area ATS Cross sectional area of test section. h/c ratio of height to chord also referred to as ground clearance. k Coverage factor M∝ Free stream Mach number XII . used for highly swept wings.X General symbols for measured or calculated quantities AR Aspect ratio b wing span c wing chord cl 2D lift coefficient cd 2D drag coefficient CD 3D drag coefficient CDi 3D induced drag coefficient CL 3D lift coefficient cp 2D pressure distribution CP 3D pressure distribution D 3D drag L 3D lift l/d 2D lift to drag ratio L/D 3D lift to drag ratio h height of wing above ground measured from trailing edge.

y coordinate on axis perpendicular to the wing’s chord Greek symbols α Angle of Attack δf refers to the 3 trailing edge flap settings.n Parameter that determines the type of probability distribution N Number of samples U∝ Free stream speed x coordinate on axis parallel to the wing’s chord x Tolerance x/c chord wise station. δle refers to the leading edge flap setting. εt Blockage correction ν Kinematic viscosity σ standard deviation XIII . ∆F General symbol for measured force ε ratio of h/c OR relative uncertainty only in uncertainty analysis. normalised by c.

The local resultant force tilts aft due to reduced effective angle of attack.1. Down wash deflects the oncoming air downward. which a wing experiences when flown within the height of a wing's chord above ground. When a wing is flown within ground effect.1 MECHANISM OF GROUND EFFECT In flight without ground effect. Reduction of the local effective angle of attack is less and the local resultant force contributes a smaller rearward component. These two changes deliver a higher lift to drag ratio. drag on a finite wing at subsonic speed arises from three sources. Concurrently. INTRODUCTION 1. the formation of wing-tip vortices is suppressed as the wing gets close to the ground. causing down wash behind and ahead of the wing. hence greater aerodynamic efficiency when flying in ground effect. which is the induced drag. from pressure differences about the wing and from induced drag. Above a certain angle of attack. as the local effective angle of attack reduction is less across the whole wing. which lowers the overall drag of the wing. reducing the local effective angle of attack. This resultant force contributes a rearward component to drag. Improvements to lift also increase induced drag. Ground effect is about increased lift with reduced drag. the wing generates more lift. The resulting local induced drag component is reduced. Consequently. the oncoming flow deflects downward by a smaller extent. Drag arises from skin friction. The finite span of a wing causes wing- tip vortices to form. Additional lift may also be generated via ram pressure at small clearances from the ground. the lower surface of the wing and the ground form a “2D convergent passage” with a small gap at the 1 . as the down wash reduces.

This avoids the “throat” area. swamps or open waters in North America. Such suction below the wing offsets the total suction found above the wing and decreases the lift. which increases flow velocity but reduces pressure. Ader. Ollila [1] mentioned that the Wright brothers were gliding in ground effect about a foot off the ground. Scandinavia and Russia. the idea of harnessing ground effect for transportation of military and civilian cargo captured the attention of transport planners. C. Such wings are usually designed with a flatter lower surface to avoid creating a “2D convergent and divergent passage” between a wing's lower surface and the ground. By 1980. 1. Unfortunately. the later success of large-cargo-plane developments reduced interest in larger WIG vehicles. This causes the moving air below the wing to slow down and generate corresponding higher pressure.trailing edge. Another contemporary aviation pioneer was Frenchman. A discussion on 2 .2 HISTORY Wing in Ground (WIG) effect has been studied since the time of the Wright brothers’ maiden flight. The passage under the wing can be described as 2D since the variation across the span caused by down wash has minimised. who experimented unsuccessfully with his “Avion-3” winged launches around 1900. In 2006. marshes. Rozhdestvensky’s [2] review contained a detailed section on potential military applications for WIG vehicles. fuelled by the energy crisis. Ollila [1] observed that early efforts to utilize ground effect were motivated by development of vehicles for skimming across open country covered in snow. Interest in WIG vehicles revived again in 1970s.

A large vehicle with a large cargo space is expectedly heavy. al. At about the same time. payload fraction and fuel fraction are dependent on construction materials and these 3 . However. Both reviews credit the Finnish engineer Toivo Kaario for developing the first WIG vehicle. The remaining details are in the appendix. Toivo Kaario wanted to design a high-speed snow sledge and this vehicle was the first successful attempt that deliberately used ground effect to go faster. The weight can be used as a reasonable indicator of the overall size of the WIG vehicle. His efforts paid off when he successfully built his ram wing. an American doctor. [4]. Kaario’s “Aerosani No. Missing details of speed or weight were gleaned from Sinitsyn & Maskalik [3]. A simple summary of selected WIG projects that resulted in at least a fully developed experimental vehicle is presented in Figures 1 and 2. Yun et. The vehicle’s ram wing enabled the vehicle to skim over snow in the Finnish Lapland.R. Dr W. These were selected for comparison against the year of development or design [Figure 1. Bertelson wanted to visit homebound patients in his rural area of practice. Advance Research Projects Agency (ARPA) Wingship Investigation volume 1 and 3 [5]. The first design in 1935 carried a single crew at 12 knots using a 16-hp reciprocating engine.8” was ready and carried a crew of 2 at 43 knots. GEM-3 carried 4 crewmembers at 70 knots using a 150-hp reciprocating engine. Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) and All Up Weight are sufficiently similar weight definitions.1]. By 1962. Gross Weight.classification and certification of WIG vehicles by various regulatory authorities was also carried out. GEM-3 in 1963.

A sustainable high Continuous Cruising speed also indicates that the power plants selected for WIG vehicles have been adapted sufficiently for continuous sea level operation in a marine environment.2]. China MARIC. Germany Hanno Fischer. Russia 1.0E+03 RE Alexeev. China 1. Finland Dr A Lippisch.0E+04 Techno Trans. Russia HoverWing 20 (IMO cert.fractions improve as material advances take place.0E+05 Toivo Kaario.1 Changes in WIG vehicles’ Gross Weight. Japan CLST. Germany Prof Syozo Kubo. hopefully faster than current large ocean going vessels or at efficiencies similar to current large transport aircraft. 1 4 .0E+02 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Figure 1. An increase of cruising speed can approximately indicate that the WIG vehicle’s design is increasingly aerodynamically efficient for the same engine thrust. Stronger and lighter materials have the potential to decrease the empty weight fraction. Cruising speed of the vehicle was also selected for comparison with its year of development or design [Figure 1. Russia Gen D Synitsin. Germany 1.) 1.0E+06 CSSRC. Weight changes over the years for Fully Developed Vehicles & Concepts within the same development group Weight [kg] 1.) WSH-500 (IMO cert.

2 Generally. The data is divided into groups of related designs. by greater range or by fuel efficiency. These claim to improve maritime transport either by increased speed. Each successful group of WIG vehicles grew from a single crew to small-crew vehicles. Japan CLST. Germany 300 Techno Trans. Halloran and S. Clearly. and to presently large WIG vehicle concepts. Russia’s Spasatel for rescue work in open sea is probably the largest (approximately 400 ton) vehicle that is close to production. O'Meara [6].) 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Figure 1. Russia 200 Gen D Synitsin. Russia 100 HoverWing 20 (IMO cert. China 500 MARIC.) WSH-500 (IMO cert. China Toivo Kaario. other benefits of large WIG vehicles include improved 5 . WIG technology to date is predominantly experimental and is only beginning to demonstrate potential commercial viability in small passenger ferries. but is likely still incomplete [4]. An examination of the developments listed above also shows a fast shift from small WIG craft to numerous conceptual large WIG vehicles.2 Changes in WIG vehicles’ Cruising Speed. Russia RE Alexeev. Only 3 Orlyonok vehicles were in service with the Russian navy as reported by M. Germany Hanno Fischer. Across most designs. there are no large and fast (approximately 500 km/h) passenger or cargo/payload WIG vehicles in the production stage [Figures 1 and 2]. Speed changes over the years for Fully Developed Vehicles & Concepts within the same development group Cruising Speed [km/h] 600 CSSRC. Germany Prof Syozo Kubo. Finland 400 Dr A Lippisch.

This may subsequently reduce the high power take-off power requirement.stability in rough weather since the WIG vehicle’s chord length being larger than the variations in wave heights [5. among other things. Volume 3 of [5] elaborated on several technical hurdles. The main culprit is hump drag. concluded that large WIG vehicles are able to handle rough sea states better and automatic feedback in stability and control are crucial for long duration flights. In May 2011. This drives up the fuel fraction. The high take-off power necessitates more engines for takeoff than for cruising. the overall costs are similar to available heavy airlift transport. 6 . In 1994. A fully built Hoverwing 20 (20 passengers and 3 crewmembers) prototype has completed successful sea trials and certification by Germanischer Lloyd's as a commercial WIG craft Type A about the same time.6]. The two IMO registered designs however have reached the threshold of commercial production. experienced when getting out of the water. High lift wing sections and plan forms that can sustain high loading at low speed in ground effect may enable WIG vehicles to avoid hump drag by getting out of contact with water at low speed. Volume 1 of [5]. This design of WIG vehicle has gained interest in the Indonesian market [8]. reduces the payload fraction and increases the drag. ARPA Wingship investigation [5] discussed the feasibility of very large military WIG vehicles. a 91% completed WSH-500 prototype (47 passengers and 3 crewmembers) was granted certification by Lloyd's Register with IMO number 9590436. The military potential of WIG vehicles has not gone unnoticed. This translates to more consistent height above “ground” and more consistent aerodynamic gains. However. This project hopes to find a potential customer in the Greek ferry market [7].

offering little confirmation of the feasibility of such large WIG designs. Volume 3 of [5] does not consider aerodynamics or flight control and stability as developmental areas. is about 10 times heavier than Spasatel.3 LITERATURE REVIEW As commercial development of WIG vehicles rests mainly on the improved lift to drag ratio obtainable from flight in ground effect. 1. Halloran and O’Meara [6] writing for the DSTO in 1999. which is heavier. Interestingly. There are also no intermediate size WIG vehicles between the current large WIG vehicles and the 5000-ton design. They also suggested that the first achievable benefit might be a WIG vehicle faster than conventional sea vessels. such as the C-5 galaxy transport plane. computationally and experimentally.The size of WIG vehicle which the military considers more useful than the current technology. larger control forces and a strengthen hull against waves. Previous works have attempted to describe ground effect analytically. the mechanisms behind improved lift and reduced drag were investigated. Large WIG vehicle development is sandwiched between perceived high developmental cost and uncertain operational cost and performance. citing foreseeable maturity of CFD codes to simulate ground effect and maturity in flight controls as found in X-31 experimental plane. 7 . reaching 5000 tons. noted that the improved ift to drag ratio may be eroded by a necessary larger tail.

These equations demonstrated reduced local downward deflection of the on-coming air when a wing is flown near the ground.3]. The calculated drag polar in ground effect compared favorably to the experimental data obtained near ground for a monoplane model with fuselage and tail [Figure 1. with one wing on each side of the ground. composed of many elementary vortices. After integrating the local effects. 3D Wieselsberger [9] investigated ground effect in 1921. There was no assessment of the suitability of 8 . Subsequently.1.1 Analytical Methods Analytical methods used to describe ground effect fall into two groups. The experiment was carried out at only this height above the ground.3.1. went out from the trailing edge of this wing. wanting a more accurate determination of drag that airplanes experienced during their take-off and landing phases.2. A set of simple equations was developed to calculate the ground effect drag polar curve using the drag polar curve in normal flight. The span-wise lift distribution was considered elliptical. Image Method. The method of images was used to simulate the ground. h/c.2. 1. the effect of a wavy ground was incorporated into the analysis.3. The ratio of height- above-ground to chord.1 Flat Ground. The presence of this vortex band affected only the vertical component of the on-coming air. giving the on-coming air a downward velocity component. Initially. A vortex band. was 1. the wing experienced less induced drag. as WIG vehicles began to be considered as a possible maritime transport. the wing was modeled as flying over a flat ground. Measured and calculated CL and CD in ground effect agreed till CL=1. The induced downward velocity component at any span wise station on the wing was the integral of the downward contribution by each elementary vortex.

changes in lift and drag caused by other sources were not considered. where the airfoil thickness was small compared to the ratio of height to chord. Figure 1. ε=h/c and α/ε. Widnall and Barrows [10] proposed an analytical solution for a two- dimensional and a three-dimensional wing in ground effect. Figure reproduced from [9] with highlights and labels added. The method of images was used to set up the “ground” in 9 . a “channel flow”. 3 In 1970. they used a simplification stating that when an airfoil is flown very close to the ground. Drag reduced when in ground effect. By casting the perturbations in appropriate powers of angle of attack.3 Measured and calculated drag polar curves near the ground. Their solution was confined to flat and thin airfoils. the two-dimensional flow between the ground and airfoil becomes effectively one-dimensional. In developing their two dimensional analytical solution. height to chord ratio.the method of images used to simulate the ground in the experiment. α. Drag polar for unlimited space is included for comparison. they proceeded to solve the ground effect problem using the method of matched asymptotic expansions for the velocity potential of the flow. Apart from less induced drag.

The channel flow region shrank while the leading and trailing edge flow solutions almost overlapped. α curves as h/c reduced [Figure 1. cl has replaced CL. The product of the gradient of lift vs. As h/c decreased. A) The outer flow above the wing. The velocity potential of each region was determined and matched to the adjacent region at large distances from the wing. As h/c increased. clε/α was plotted against h/c. 10 . B) The channel flow below the wing. D) The flow around the trailing edge. The final velocity potential surrounding the wing was used to determine the pressure distribution on both upper and lower surfaces of the wing. C) The flow around the leading edge.two-dimensional flow. where the disturbance caused by the wing is minimal. These curves show clear increases in the gradient of the cl vs. The cl curves agreed better with the numerical linearised thin airfoil solution when higher-order terms are included in velocity potential. The flow surrounding the airfoil was divided into the following 4 regions. As this analysis is 2D. based on velocity potential to the third order. was in good agreement with the numerical linearised thin airfoil solution which used the Glauert series with 6 terms and 19 down wash control points. The pressure distribution.4]. angle of attack and height to chord ratio. the agreement improved. the analytical solution gave slightly more lift. creating a slightly higher- pressure region.

gradient of cl-α is less than 2π. While this analytical solution compared sufficiently well with a numerical solution. to first order. The CLε/α vs. In 1979. These methods predict steeper cl-α curves as h/c reduces indicating cl gains in ground effect. the wing’s planform was confined to an elliptical half with straight trailing edge. Coe and Thomas [11] investigated theoretically and experimentally 11 . but do so at higher angles of attack to compensate for lower speed. there was no comparison with experimental results obtained via the method of images. gives a good lift prediction compared to the numerical linearised thin airfoil solution.Figure 1. Aircraft with such designs still transit the low speed regime during take-off and landing. Widnall and Barrows [10] also did not assess the suitability of method of images in simulating the ground. In regions away from the edges. the three dimensional solution. In the quest for efficient supersonic flight. an aircraft’s wing design typically has a low aspect ratio and is highly swept to keep within the Mach cone. h/c curves show similar result as in the 2D case. α for a 2D flat plate airfoil in ground effect. Figure reproduced from [10].4 Gradient of Lift coefficient vs. 4 In the analytical solution for 3D flow. Below the free stream limit.

5 In predicting the reduction of induced drag. for a given h/b. δle O = 30 . the theoretical and experimental data showed only similar overall trends. CL increases as h/b reduces.3.the ground-induced effects on low-aspect ratio highly swept delta wing. the theoretical model showed greater reduction in induced drag than the experimental results [Figure 1. The unified subsonic. WB: model with wing body configuration. Figure reproduced from [11]. δle refers to the leading edge flap setting. δf refers to the 3 trailing edge flap settings.6]. The theoretical 12 . When h/b < 0. WB. Height above ground has been normalized against span instead of chord.5]. Their results showed excellent agreement between theoretical CL and experimental CL until a ground clearance of 30% of wingspan (h/b>0. as this is a highly swept delta wing. supersonic vortex lattice method was used to obtain their theoretical results. O O O Figure 1.3) and at various angles of attack [Figure 1. The highly swept wing was modeled by a planar vortex lattice representation and the method of images was used to simulate the ground.5 Variation of CL|α=0 and ∂CL/∂α with respect to h/b. δf = 20 /20 /20 . transonic. This was similarly observed for the total drag.

model incorporated 100% leading edge suction to prevent flow separation.6 Variation of CL with CDi. similar to Widnall and Barrows [8]. δle = 30 .1. Induced drag reduces as h/b reduces. O O O O WB. Wang [12] used the method of matched asymptotic expansions to study a wing in very close proximity to a curved or wavy ground instead.3.2 Wavy Ground. determined for theoretical model. 6 1. implying a flat ground. Figure 1. while only 70% suction was present at the leading edge of the experimental model. induced drag. The planar representation of the fuselage also contributed to variation between theoretical and experimental results. 3D Theoretical models tend to consider that the clearance between the WIG vehicle and the ground as constant. Image Method. Figure reproduced from [11]. The flow surrounding the aerofoil was divided into 4 regions. δf = 20 /20 / 20 . Velocity 13 .

3. more lift was generated over the upper surface of the airfoil.3. 2D In 2007. Compressibility effects were neglected. The coefficient of pressure plots of the airfoil showed increasing suction over the upper surface. as Mach number was 0. Fluent to investigate the viscous flow surrounding a 2D airfoil.3. The free stream speed was 30m/s with Reynolds number 2. Comparisons to Widnall and Barrows [8] are outside the scope of this present work. The computationally intensive Navier Stokes equations can be solved efficiently for simplified cases such as 2D flow over an airfoil with today’s computational power.potential was determined for each region and the solutions expanded to 3rd order. the simpler vortex lattice method is quick and still equally effective in describing even the 3D flow over a wing. resulting in an airfoil with a flat bottom. As minimum cp decreased. On the other hand. at approximately x/c = 0. This airfoil was a combination of NACA 0015 on the upper surface and a Munk M15 on the lower surface.1 RANS. 14 .2 Computational Methods Computational methods used also fall into two main groups. Moving Ground. 1. as h/c decreased. Abramowski [13] used a commercial numerical software.2. A second order up wind discretisation of the SIMPLE algorithm was applied to couple velocity and pressure. The equations were applied over finite volumes from a grid of unstructured quad elements. There was no discussion on drag experienced by this 2D airfoil in ground effect.1. improvements in L/D ratios were not examined. However. The ground was set to move at the same speed as the free stream flow. The 2D Reynolds Average Navier Stokes (RANS) equations were used with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model to describe the flow.1x106. 1.

Lastly. The wake surface and wing surfaces were described by panel methods.2.2 Vortex Lattice Method. The nonlinear vortex lattice method formed the core of the hydro- aerodynamic sub-model. unsteady hydro-aerodynamics. For example. aerodynamics in the ground effect. Hydrodynamic and aerodynamic inputs were determined from the nonlinear equations of motion and VLM.1. Kornev and Matveev [14] used a commercial software AutoWing to simulate the aerodynamic performance of a small WIG vehicle. The favorable range of center-of- gravity positions relative to aerodynamic centre at altitude. AutoWing’s code comprised many sub-models such as hydrodynamics of transition in water. to height and to pitch was also determined. the Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) was selected as the trade off between accuracy and computational effort. The WIG vehicle’s gust response was also investigated. in a given range of height and WIG vehicle pitch. 3D In 2003. the stable and unstable flight regimes were identified. to aerodynamic centre in pitch. wind wave effects and the simulation of motion. and fed into stability analysis. These inputs were built on aerodynamic coefficient values derived from VLM applied to a WIG 15 . planing on a stepped surface.3. The authors assessed that panel methods were sufficiently robust to handle critical design problems and subsequently. These results taken together indicated a range of control inputs for safe handling. Kornev and Matveev [14] began with a mathematical model describing the 3D motion of the WIG vehicle with nonlinear equations. thrust inputs when transiting from hydroplaning to ground effect was presented. Stability analysis identified a range of parameters and regimes for safe and unsafe handling.

In 2011. 7 16 . They applied the Vortex Lattice Method to a thin wing flying close to the ground. there was no comparison of AutoWing’s computational output with experimental data. 2y/b = 0. Figure 1. This numerical approach produced results that compared well with other numerical and experimental data. the simulation of ground was not specified.7 Span wise loading of a planar wing (aspect ratio 4) at 3 sweep angles.7]. However. compared to experimental results from Katz [16]. At centre of wing. Figure reproduced from [15]. Jung and Ho [15] proved in limited fashion that CFD and experimental data compared favourably. The collocation points were located at third-quarter chord of each panel. The wing’s surface was divided into panels with vortex rings were distributed over the panels. However. The span wise lift loading for swept wings were computed and compared well with Katz’s [16] experimental results which was based on automotive lifting surfaces [Figure 1. The leading segment of each bound vortex was located on the quarter chord point of each panel. Freely moving vortex rings represented the wake. Suh.vehicle.

Figure 1.9]. from code VSAERO applied to a Glenn Martin 21% thick. Figure reproduced from [15]. 9 17 . Figure reproduced from [15]. non symmetrical airfoil [Figure 1.8 Effect of ground proximity on CL of rectangular wings. compared to experimental results from Fink and Lastinger [17] and numerical results from Maskew [18].The computed lift coefficient. compared to numerical results from Day and Doctors [19]. at various aspect ratios was then compared with Fink and Lastinger’s [17] experimental results and Maskew’s [18] numerical results. Figure 1.9 Lift to DragINDUCED ratios for rectangular wing of maximum 4% camber. 8 Lift to induced drag ratios were compared with numerical results of Day and Doctors [19] [Figure 1.8].

3 Experimental Methods Experimental methods in this literature review fall into three groups. CL increased.3. Their results indicated that lift determined from CFD came close to experimental values within the confines of Suh et.3. consisting of 2 identical wings. The next ground simulation was the image method. The ground plane was imaginary. Two methods to simulate the ground were studied. al.Experimentally. 3D In 1921. The moving belt is the most faithful replication of flight in ground effect. a DHMTU wing was tested in a wind tunnel with a fixed flat plate that simulated the ground. Only data from Martin 2 and USA 27 airfoils 18 . The wing moved in the vertical direction to vary the ground clearance. only lift coefficients from their own experimental work were compared to their theoretical work. namely the image method. allowing planes to reduce their landing speeds. The image method incurs no energy is loss to skin friction as compared to the stationary flat plate method. 1. Three wings with the following airfoil sections were used. and the moving belt method.1 Image Method. As the ground clearance reduced. one reflecting the other in the ground plane. Initially. and taken to move at close to free stream speed between the wings. composed of air. and an approximate USA 27. 1. RAF 15 Special. the flat plate method. the results were considered less practical. However. The ground and the free stream move together at free stream speed. a flat plate was used but since the plate was stationary with respect to the wing. The flat plate method involves an elevated plate that sets up mostly free stream flow below the wing or airfoil but with only a thin boundary layer. which are the Martin 2.3. Raymond [20] noted that the proximity of the ground led to increased lift coefficient. The image method uses two models mirrored in the ground plane. [15].

0. both the flat plate and image method gave similar increases in CL curve. The remaining details are in the appendix. till high angles of attack. The flow was 3D and the Reynolds number was approximately 64000. The greatest CL increase was at small angles of attack (4O to 8O) [Figure 1. since it was tested at 8O to 16O. as these airfoils were of similar thickness to the NACA 4415.5. 19 . At h/c = 0.A. CD decreased the most [Figure 1. depending on the airfoil.were examined in this work.10]. At high angles of attack (12O).0. However. each method gave a different CD curve. drag values at small α were not available and at 16O.25 to 2. 27-section wing. CL increased across the tested range of angles of attack. At h/c 2. The tests were conducted at angles of attack from –4O to 16O and at h/c from 0. The CL values obtained from image method and flat plate method generally increased consistently across the whole range of tested angles of attack for the U. causing much higher drag. and CL tapered off as angle of attack increased.S. but reduced drag was still observed h/c decreased. From the USA 27 wing used in the image method. However. where likely trailing vortices disturbed the plane of symmetrical airflow between the wings. the airfoil was considered as tested Outside of Ground Effect (OGE). The Martin 2 wing also showed similar trends in CL and CD.11]. the symmetrical flow was likely disturbed. and h/c was set to OGE.

50 0.4 0.75 1.6 OGE 1.25 0.10 CL vs. α (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section.75 0.00 0. 10 CD vs alpha USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c 0.3 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AoA [deg] Figure 1. OGE refers to h/c = ∞. Data reproduced from [20].06 h/c 0.04 1.01 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AoA [deg] Figure 1.03 0.7 h/c 0. 11 20 . Data reproduced from [20].5 1.02 0.50 CD 1.25 0. OGE refers to h/c = ∞.50 0. CL vs alpha USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c 0.75 0. α (varying h/c) for wing with USA 27 section.05 OGE 1.00 0.75 0.11 CD vs.50 CL 0.

3 onwards. No pressure distributions were presented in NACA TN67.75 2. As this present work involves a wing of aspect ratio of 2.0. Fink and Lastinger [17] tested thick highly cambered rectangular plan form wings with various aspect ratios in ground effect. 12 For both wings with Martin 2 and USA 27 sections. with the model at angles of attack from –8O to 12O and h/c from 0.25 1. L/D vs h/c USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 22 20  18 AoA 4 AoA 8 AoA 12 L/D 16 OGE 4 OGE 8 OGE 12 14 12 10 0. The flow was 3D and Reynolds number was 490000. Tests were conducted using the image method.50 1.12]. OGE refers to h/c = ∞.042 to 1.50 0. maximum L/D was obtained at small angles of attack and near the ground [Figure 1.51. h/c (varying α) for wing with USA 27 section. CL-α slope 21 . In 1961. All wings had Glenn Martin 21 airfoil section but with a modified bottom from x/c 0. Data reproduced from [20]. As the wings approached the ground. The chord was 30cm.75 1.25 0.00 h/c Figure 1. only the results from aspect ratio 2 and 4 Glenn Martin 21 wings at positive angles of attack were examined further.12 L/D vs.00 1. The flow between the models of the image method was not checked to see if it was at free stream velocity at the “ground plane”.00 0.

1 but contrasts clearly with Raymond [20].10 0. 14 22 . The CL curves from aspect ratio 2. CD reduced the most at high angle of attacks.500 0.4 AoA [deg] Figure 1.increased and CL values increased [Figure 1. This observation follows the analytical models in section 1.14]. where there was no sign of the gradient of CL vs.6 1. α curves increasing when using the image method.0 0. indicating that the induced drag contribution has reduced [Figure 1. at various h/c.660 CD 0.170 0.55 on the CL vs.000 0.12 0.13].340 0.4 0.660 CL 0.16 OGE 0. α (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section.1. Data reproduced from [17]. α (varying h/c) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section.170 0.835 0.3.06 0. Especially near the ground.835 0.13 CL vs.2 OGE 1. CL = 0.340 0.02 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 AoA [deg] Figure 1.2 0.8 0.080 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -0. 13 CD vs AoA Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c h/c 0.000 0.080 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.500 0.6 0.4 1.04 0. Data reproduced from [17]. α plot.18 0. rotated about α = 0O. CL vs AoA Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c 1.08 0. CD reduced gradually to almost the minimum possible CD.0 1.14 1.14 CD vs.

While the image method was selected to avoid the boundary layer build up on a flat plate. h/c (varying α) for wing with modified Glenn Martin 21 section.8 0.0 0. Chawla.3O and the trailing edge was straight. No pressure distribution readings were presented in NASA TN D926.2 Flat Plate. Edwards and Franke [21] tested a wing of aspect ratio 2. assuming an ambient temperature of 25OC.9 1.0 h/c Figure 1. The wing’s leading edge was swept backwards 17.7 0.15 L/D vs. 15 For a wing with a Glenn Martin 21 modified section. 1.3 0. maximum L/D was also obtained at small angles of attack and near the ground [Figure 1. The mechanism by which CL and CD changed was also not examined.1 0. flow between models of the image method was not checked to see if it was at free stream velocity at the “ground plane”. Data reproduced from [17].3.3. From the test data with endplates and mid plates mounted on the airfoil. 3D In 1990 .5 0.4 0.6 0.33 with NACA 4415 airfoil section. estimated data for a clean airfoil was obtained by reducing the data from endplates and mid plate by the ratio of coefficients between clean airfoil to 23 .2 0.15]. The flow was 3D and Reynolds number was approximately 400000. L/D vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 22 20  18 0 16 2 4 L/D 14 6 12 8 10 10 8 6 0. A flat plate simulated the ground.

16 24 .60 2.80 0. The maximum L/D was found at α = 0O with at h/c 0. CL increases [Figure 1. Pressure distributions obtained showed the complete upper surface seeing more suction.90 0.20 0.50 0.30 0. while the lower surface seeing increased pressure as the ground approached.35 1.16 CL vs.3.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 AoA [deg] Figure 1.33 | Re 402000 | Various h/c 1. α (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section.00 0.5 [Figure 18].25 0.16] while CD increased gradually [Figure 1. with little change in L/D as h/c reduced.airfoil with endplates and mid plate. This occurred for all tests made.40 0.1). Data reproduced from [21].3.50 0.70 h/c 0.17]. where CD reduced. CL vs AoA (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat plate method | AR2. It was shown that as h/c decreased. in section 1.00 CL 0. Fink and Lastinger [21].10 0. Their finding on drag is directly opposite of the two previous works (Raymond [20].

0 2. Ho and Hee [22] investigated a wing with NACA 6409 section of various aspect ratios. these drag changes were not examined further. In 2008. α (varying h/c) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section. CD vs AoA (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat plate method | AR2.0 20 25 3.0 2.0 0.15 0.35 1.30 2.50 0.05 0.54 deg) | Re 402000 | 0-25 deg 7.0 0.10 0.00 CD 0.35 h/c 0.50 0. However.0 1.20 0. The flow was 3D and at Reynolds number 25 .0 6.5 2.40 0.0 5 10 15 4. h/c (varying α) for swept wing with NACA 4415 section.33 (sweep 17. 18 A possible reason for the increased drag is that the flow is made almost 2D by the end and mid plates. The induced drag is already reduced to a minimum and ram pressure build up below the wing increases the drag.5 1.25 0. Data reproduced from [21].17 CD vs. Kwang.5 h/c Figure 1.25 0.0  0 5.33 | Re 402000 | Various h/c 0. Data reproduced from [21].00 0 5 10 15 20 25 AoA [deg] Figure 1.45 0.18 L/D vs. 17 L/D vs h/c (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR2.

50 0. CL vs AoA NACA 6409 | Flat plate method | AR2 | Re 340000 | Various h/c 0. α (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section.025 0.20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] Figure 1. The mechanism by which CL and CD changed was also not examined in detail.050 0. al.150 0. The CD values reduced at all tested angles of attack. Only the data from aspect ratio 2 wing without end plates was analyzed further in this work.200 CL 0.100 0.60 0. 19 26 . These observations are similar with previous works cited.80 h/c 0.70 0.20]. indicating that the induced drag component is vanishing [Figure 1.340000. A flat plate simulated the ground. The airfoil was tested at angles of attack from 0O to 8O in 2O steps and h/c from 0.90 0.40 0.19 CL vs. the largest reduction at 8O.250 0. except Chawla et. Data reproduced from [24].30 0.19] as h/c decreased. At all tested angles of attack.300.025 to 0.300 0. CL increased gradually and the CL curves generally translated upwards with almost the same slope [Figure 1.

similar to previous works except Chawla [21]. Pressure Distribution In 2004.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] Figure 1.30 h/c Figure 1.150 0.04 0.15 0.20 CD vs.03 0.3 Flat Plate.025 0. Data reproduced from [24].200 CD 0.07 h/c 0. NACA 0015 at Reynolds number 240000. This implied L/D improvements were mainly from increased cl and no possible contribution from reduced induced drag. 1.3.3. This airfoil was 27 .20 0.08 0. h/c (varying α) for wing with NACA 6409 section. 21 The maximum L/D was obtained at low ground clearance and small angles of attack [Figure 1.300 0.250 0.05 0.05 0.050 0.02 0. Ahmed and Sharma [23] investigated a symmetrical airfoil. 2D. Data reproduced from [24]. The flow was 2D as the airfoil spanned the tunnel walls. α (varying h/c) for wing with NACA 6409 section. Kwang and co-workers also carried out smoke trace visualization that showed the wing tip vortices could not form fully when near the ground.100 0.06 0. 20 L/D vs h/c NACA 6409 Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Re 340000 | Various AoA 30  25 0 2 L/D 20 4 6 8 15 10 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.21]. CD vs AoA NACA 6409 | Flat plate method | AR2 | Re 340000 | Various h/c 0.21 L/D vs.

600 0.10 0. cl vs alpha NACA 0015 | Flat plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c 1. noting that this work is 2D and that this airfoil has no camber [Figure 1.200 0. the greatest drop in cd occured at 10O. cl improved as h/c is reduced.23].800 0. cl improved by 50% to 90%.2 [Figure 1.400 1. the overall trend being surprisingly similar to [20] NACA TN 67 and [17] NASA TN D 926. As h/c reduced. α (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section.70 0. Ground clearance varied from 0. While cd decreased across the tested range of angles of attack [Figure 1. The improvement in cl was largest below h/c 0.000 0.5O at h/c 0. the cl–α slope translated upwards. in contrast to the smaller α in previous works.200 h/c 0.24].30 0. A flat plate simulated the ground. At these tested angles of attack.083. cl increased 20 times as h/c reduced to 0.5O steps.8.40 0.60 0. At other angles of attack. 22 h/c 28 .400 0.50 cl 0. At zero α.22 cl vs.000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AoA [deg] Figure 1. since this was 2D flow. Data reproduced from [23].083 to 0.tested at angles of attack from 0O to 10O in 2.80 1.22].05. The maximum l/d occurred at α = 7.20 0.

since the airfoil is 29 .018 0.0 10 0 0.024 0. h/c (varying α) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section. 23 l/d vs h/c NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various AoA 80 70  60 0. without ground effect.0 0.6 0.26].5 0.0 50 2.24 l/d vs.8 h/c Figure 1.50 cd 0. cd vs alpha NACA 0015 | Flat plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c 0.022 0. Data reproduced from [23].4 0.40 0.3 0.23 cd vs.70 0. Also at small angles of attack.012 0.80 0.020 0.008 0 2 4 6 8 10 AoA [deg] Figure 1.5 20 10.60 0. α (varying h/c) for airfoil with NACA 0015 section.2 0. a small pocket of suction was found at the narrowest point in the passage under the airfoil [Figure 1.0 30 7.014 0. At small α and low ground clearances.30 0.25]. 24 From pressure distributions in [23].20 0.010 0.7 0. Data reproduced from [23].1 0. the pressure distributions on the lower surface become similar to the upper surface pressure distribution.5O) and this pressure increased when closer to the ground [Figure 1.5 l/d 40 5. the lower surface generally experienced ram pressure once above moderate angles of attack (about 7.10 0.016 0.

4 0.symmetrical [Figure 1.8 0. Airfoil with NACA 0015 section.02 to 0.7 0.80 0.02 -1. Upper surface pressure distribution almost collapses into a single curve. cp vs x/c NACA 0015 | Flat plate | 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 7. 25 30 .0 0.0 lower 0.05 cp -0. Data reproduced from [23].2 0. at h/c 0.25 0. Ground effect caused only a small gain in upper surface suction near the leading edge [Compare maximum suction on upper surfaces in Figure 25 and 26].9 1. As the airfoil approached the ground.0 upper 0.5 1. the shape of the upper surface pressure distribution did not change [Figures 25 and 26]. At all angles of attack. the wing and the flat ground set up a 2D passage under the airfoil that converges then diverges. Ahmed and Sharma [23] gave the following explanation for the pocket of suction under the airfoil.6 0.3 0.05 upper 0. However these were not explained further.80 upper 0.5 lower 0.25 0.02 lower 0.26].5 0.5 h/c lower 0.0 upper 0.0 -1.0 O Figure 1.5deg | Various h/c x/c -2. The flow accelerates and a pocket of suction is set up below the wing.25 Ram pressure on the lower surface at α = 7. cp is positive over the complete lower surface.5 . Ahmed and Sharma [23] suggested the leading edge stagnation point shifted towards the lower surface and the resulting higher pressure below the airfoil moved more air around the leading edge to the upper surface. In a certain range of angle of attack.1 0.80.

9 1.05.2 0.250 0.3 0. Airfoil with NACA 0015 section. However.5 lower 0.6 0.150 upper 0. caused by small angles of attack.150 cp 0.085 -0. showed that the forward stagnation point was at x/c 0. Data reproduced from [23]. Luo and Chen [24] also investigated the pressure distributions about a wing.4 0. At h/c 0.80.872x105.250 lower 0.5 upper 0.0 lower 0. cp vs x/c NACA 0015 | Flat plate | 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0.26 A small pocket of suction on the lower surface at α = 0 . Luo and Chen’s [24] work showed more clearly that the leading edge stagnation point moved onto the lower surface as the angle of attack increased. There was no vortex attached to the ground plate since no other stagnation points were detected.015. the mechanism by which cl and cd changed was not examined in detail.850 1.8 0. 31 .0 O Figure 1. A pocket of suction occurred where the gap was narrowest.5 h/c -1. Their experiments were also conducted in ground effect.1 0. upper and lower surface pressure distribution are similar. The existence of a convergent divergent passage was seen in the pressure distribution on the flat plate. The upper surface pressure distributions were shown to be mainly dependent on angle of attack and h/c reduction caused only small gains in suction. The flow was 2D at Reynolds number 1.850 0.0 lower 0.0 0. confirming the observations made by Ahmed and Sharma [23].0 upper 0.0deg | Various h/c x/c -1. with NACA 0015 section. at h/c 0. The pressure distributions at various h/c and at angle of attack 12O.5 0. 26 In 2012.085 upper 0.7 0.

2 0.600 0. This work was conducted at Reynolds number 2.4 0.0 1.27 cl vs.3 0.27].5 10.800 1. Data reproduced from [25]. Ahmed [25] also conducted experiments on a NACA 4415 airfoil in ground effect using a flat plate for ground simulation.0 7.035 h/c 0.8 h/c (b) cd vs. above which cl values increased with decreasing h/c. h/c and cd vs.600 h/c 1.7. h/c Figure 1.200 2.5 0.025 5.4 0.In 2005.0 0.400 0. The watershed h/c where ground effect became clearer was below h/c 0.5 cd 0.2 0.030 0 2.1 0.7 0.400 0.5 0.3 0. Both cl and cd values increased as angle of attack increased and h/c decreased [Figure 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0. there was a watershed angle of attack α = 2.000 7. 27 32 .6 0.800 0. In general.010 0.5 0.020 10 0.040 0. cl vs h/c NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 1.4x105 and flow was 2D since the airfoil spanned wall to wall within the wind tunnel.5O.0 1.8 h/c (a) cl vs.5 cl 5.015 0. h/c for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section.7 0. h/c cd vs h/c NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 0.

small angles of attack with low h/c give maximum L/D ratios. angles of attack must be greater than 2. resulting in little change in cl. To gain a favorable l/d. 2D flow investigations (section 1. The cp results were presented for α = 0O to 10O in steps of 2.7 for a 2D wing over a flat plate ground. the approaching ground caused pressure to rise on the lower surface and increased suction over the upper surface. For a 3D flow.5.3. However. when approaching a ground simulated by the flat plate method. There was no induced drag in this experiment and cd values remained relatively constant as h/c decreased till 0.28]. above 5O. there was little change in pressure profile. but is not conclusive about cd.5O and below. The CL-α curves generally translate upwards while CD-α shifts downwards.Below α = 2.3. from x/c = 0 to 0. Results obtained with the image method of ground simulation generally increased the 33 . On the upper surface.5O and h/c below 0.3. 5O.1 and 1. Pressure could reduce since a convergent–divergent passage was formed below the wing at α ≈ 3O and less. the largest increase in CL took place at smaller angles of attack.2).5O. On the rearward half of the upper surface. On the lower surface.2.3. as h/c decreased.3. both lower and upper surfaces saw reduced pressure when the ground approached. However.3) also report increases in cl. and the largest reduction in CD took place at larger angles of attack (section 1. suction always increased uniformly at all angles of attack as ground clearance decreased. generating clear increases in cl. From the experimental works review to this point. pressure increased as h/c decreased for α = 5O and above [Figure 1. Once below h/c = 0. pressure decreased for α = 2.2. cd clearly increased.3.

Similarly. Since the flow was effectively 2D.28 Pressure distribution for a airfoil with NACA 4415 section. Pressure Distribution In 2007. Ahmed.5 O (b) Pressure distribution for α = 7.1). Takasaki and Kohama [26] experimentally investigated a finite wing of NACA 4412 section with end plates.3.3.0x105 and the 2D flow was intentional. The Reynolds number was 3. Figures taken from [25].slope of CL-α curves (section 1.3.5 Figure 1.3.4 Moving Ground. operating in ground effect over a moving belt. 28 1.1). 3D. This gave the wing effectively a 2D flow over a moving ground. 34 . pressure coefficient would be denoted by cp. O (a) Pressure distribution for α = 2. Analytical methods using the image method also give steeper cl-α curves (section 1. The end plates extended forward and rearward of the wing and also till almost touching the moving belt. the lift and drag coefficients obtained would be denoted by cl and cd instead of CL and CD.3.1.

cl vs h/c NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (end plates) | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 1.29 cl vs. 29 From 0O to 6O.7 0.5 0. there was loss in suction over the upper surface. which was not fully compensated by rise in pressure on the lower surface. Data reproduced from [26].400 0.3 0.015 4 cd 6 0.3 0. h/c Figure 1.8 h/c (b) cd vs.6 0. However.200 2 1.6 0.010 8 0. h/c and cd vs.025 h/c 0. above which cl increased when h/c decreased [Figure 1.400 0 1.6.7 0.1 0. below which ground effect became clearer and a watershed angle of attack α = 6O.020 0 2 0. as h/c decreased. there seemed be a watershed ground clearance. as α increased from 0O to 6O.200 0.600 h/c 1.4 0.8 h/c (a) cl vs.0 0.005 10 0. h/c cd vs h/c NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (end plates) | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 0. h/c for a wing with NACA 4412 section.000 0.2 0.2 0.29]. h/c = 0. the increasing lower 35 .5 0. at each α.4 0.000 4 cl 0.0 0.From the cl values obtained.600 8 10 0.800 6 0.1 0.

The cd increased for all angles of attack as h/c decrease. On the lower surface. Noting that this flow is almost 2D due to the end plates. There was no favourable l/d gain from ground effect as drag increased with h/c.30]. Above α = 6O. 4O. Eventually. On the upper surface. drag increases came mainly from the combination of skin friction drag and increased pressure under the wing. and that airfoil sections are different. As there was effectively no induced drag in this experiment. as h/c decreased. decreasing h/c gives overall increased lift at each angle of attack. this loss in suction over the upper surface contrasted with Abramowski [13]. whose simulation showed increased suction on the upper surface of a wing in ground effect over a moving ground. as h/c decreased. The pressure profile is determined mainly by α and to a smaller extent. giving overall increase of lift. h/c [Figure 1. The lift increases shown were insufficient for this wing to obtain a favourable l/d gain when operating in effectively 2D flow.surface pressure rise eventually equally compensated the loss in suction on the upper surface by α = 6O. 36 . The cp results were presented for α = 0O. the extent of pressure increase on the lower surface compensated the reducing suction of the upper surface. suction decreased. 8O and 10O. pressure increased and also by larger amounts as α increased from 0O to 10O. The loss of suction on the upper surface was more than compensated by pressure rise on the lower surface.

and pressure arises from several sources. 37 . the consistent mechanism that causes greater lift in both moving ground and stationary ground experiment is the increase in lower surface pressure. while h/c decreased. Figures taken from [26]. the flat plate method and the moving belt method produced clearly different changes in cp.UPPER over the upper surface. a moving ground and a fixed ground caused cp. O O (a) Pressure distribution for α = 4 (b) Pressure distribution for α = 8 O (c) Pressure distribution for α = 10 Figure 1. A moving ground caused less suction over the upper surface. it is not a straight forward to deduce the flow physics. 30 In terms of experimental methods in the above recent works. while a fixed ground caused more suction. As the airfoils are different. However. On the lower surface.30 Pressure distribution for a wing with NACA 4412 section.LOWER to rise.

the final lift contribution is the combined effect of the forward stagnation point movement. the pressure distribution changes and ground effect were not explained together. for small angles of attack without leveling off. As a fuller explanation of the mechanism behind the flow surrounding a wing flying in ground effect is lacking. Ahmed [25] and Ahmed.Since the above cp plots vary smoothly from x/c = 0.4 OBJECTIVES This work aims to suggest a more comprehensive explanation for the changes in lift and drag when a finite wing with NACA 4415 section operates in ground effect. The upper surface is exposed to free air. This makes it impossible to determine the contribution of each factor from the cp plots. The geometry change from converging-diverging passage to converging passage alone does not determine the lower surface’s lift contribution. 1. Though previous works used finite wings. 38 . it is reasonable to identify the causes of lift and drag changes in ground effect and study how the type of ground simulation affects the flow around a wing. there is no flow separation over the upper surface for the range of angles of attack examined. The absence of an additional solid boundary nearby leaves a flow structure similar to that in the free air case. the build up of ram pressure as the ground approached and the changes in circulation.0 to 1. seen from pressure distributions of the upper surface from Ahmed and Sharma [23]. Takasaki and Kohama [26]. The main changes are reduction or increase in suction on the upper surface. taking into account the effect of ground simulation. Luo and Chen [24]. On the lower surface.0.

from the obtained experimental data. 1.To that end. due to laboratory resource constraints. an experiment. 39 . In particular. A flat plate simulated the ground. lift and drag of a finite aspect ratio NACA 4415 wing in ground effect. taking into account the type of ground simulation used. being kept approximately constant. In chapter 4. The selected positive linear range of angles of attack is from 0O to 8O. the discussion examines possible underlying mechanisms behind the ground effect and suggests possible explanations for the increase in lift and drag in ground effect. It can be determined. The results would focus on the changes caused by ground effect.5 SCOPE AND ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS Chapter 2 describes the experimental methods used to obtain pressure distributions. The experiments will be conducted at only positive angle of attacks in the linear region of the NACA 4415 section aerodynamic data. and at various angles of attack with the other parameters. such as Reynolds number. In chapter 3. the experimental results are compared to existing data to demonstrate the validity of the experimental setup. possible causes for change in lift and drag of a finite span wing of NACA 4415 airfoil section when in ground effect. with a finite span wing of NACA 4415 airfoil section was flown in ground effect to demonstrate the above. Lastly. chapter 5 gives the concluding remarks and some recommendations for improving the conduct of the experiment. the ground is simulated by a flat plate.

2. However.1 Schematic of wind tunnel. This fan is simply mounted and there is no recorded attempt at balancing the fan to reduce vibrations. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 2. Adjusting the frequency used in the process of conversion of AC to DC current controls this DC motor’s operating speed. The motor and fan part of the wind tunnel is relatively heavy and rests on dampers to isolate the motor and fan from the ground.1 WIND TUNNEL The wind tunnel used in this set of experiments was of a no-return suction type design (EMF0511. 31 40 . Figure 2. prolonged usage has reduced the damping effectiveness of the dampers. Some vibrations are transmitted to the test section when the wind tunnel is in operation. located at Fluid Mechanics Laboratory at ground level of NUS workshop 2). The suction fan was located at the exhaust end and was mounted directly to a DC motor.

Considering the condition of the wind tunnel.0m long with a constant rectangular cross section of 1.0m width by 0. Vertical Velocity Profile 60 50 Distance from Floor [cm] 40 Position S-CL Position P-CL 30 Position S-WT Position P-WT 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 U velocity [m/s] Figure 2.6m height.4m by 1.3].1 Velocity Profile in the y-z plane The velocity profile in the y-z plane was obtained by moving a pitot static tube across the tunnel to measure wind speed.0m by 0. 32 41 .5m [Figure 2. The contraction section begins at 2.2 Vertical velocity profile obtained at 4 positions.6m rectangle (width by height) and blending gradually to a circle of diameter 2m before the motor and fan section. 2 near the tunnel centre line (CL) and 2 at the wing tips (WT). a maximum speed of about 20m/s was used in this set of experiments.The down stream suction fan section expands over a distance of 12m.1.1]. 2.0m by 0. S-starboard.46m at the intake. P-port side. starting from a 1.6m in 3.2 and 2. reducing smoothly to 1. The test section is 2. The velocity profile shows a relatively uniform flow in the free stream region [Figure 2. Further details are in the appendix for velocity profile.

since the boundary layer build up is thin by the end of the model. However. PS-port side. The board extended one chord length ahead and behind the wing. following the set up in Ahmed [25]’s work. 33 2. The leading and trailing edges for the plate were chamfered with the slanted sides facing away from the model. The main contention with the flat plate method is that the adjacent layer of fluid on the plate is not drawn away with the plate. compared to the moving belt method. This reduces the possibility of separated flow at the leading edge of the flat plate. Horizontal Velocity Profile 100 90 Distance from PS wall [cm] 80 70 60 location SB 50 location PS 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 U velocity [m/s] Figure 2. the flat plate was left at horizontal.3 Horizontal velocity profile obtained at 1 position on each sidewall. This ground board can be tilted away from the model to account for the displacement caused by the boundary layer. as the streamlines are able to more smoothly pass over and under the leading edge.2 FLAT PLATE The flat plate was a large sheet of Perspex with holes cut for the wing’s support. A better alternative for the flat plate’s edge is an elliptical edge with the major axis aligned to the flow direction. 42 . SB- starboard.

except that a second model is required and both models need to be re-positioned identically at every change in ground clearance and angle of attack. the ideal experimental set up has a ground that moves at the same velocity as the free stream. Since the wind tunnel air also flows around the models.3 CAUTION IN SIMULATION OF THE GROUND IN GROUND EFFECT EXPERIMENTS In studying ground effect. as the ground clearance decreases. the flow between the models does not always resemble uniform flow at the free stream speed at the centre line dividing both models. Equally complicated is blowing 43 . as in natural flight conditions [Figure 2. This limits the validity of the results as ground clearance decreases. This approach is practically simple.4 Desired velocity profile at the ground.2.4]. this solution is technically complex and a few other simpler solutions have been sought instead. To this end. Figure 2. However. It was inspired by potential flow where a solid boundary can be represented by a mirror image. Another more complicated approach relies on suction to remove the boundary layer buildup. the moving belt method provides the most faithful replication of this situation. 34 An initial simple idea is the image method. the flow between the model resembles flow into a converging passage. Suction removes the lower speed flow of the boundary layer leaving only the uniform free stream flow. However.

the velocity profile is uniform till the belt surface. almost replicating the desired flow condition. This plate starts a suitable distance ahead of the model such that the flow is uniform before reaching the model and the final boundary layer build up at the end of the model still remains small. ground clearance decreases to a small gap. The extraction of energy by suction or addition by blowing alters the total energy content of the flow and possibly changes the flow structures around the wing or airfoil. The belt’s speed is matched to the free stream speed. [32]. It does give uniform flow almost to the plate surface since the boundary layer is thin. A typical moving belt system consists of suction before the moving belt. This method is technically simpler than the image method. for example. The belt is set to move at free stream speed. However when. the final velocity profile at the ground may not faithfully replicate natural flow conditions. using a motor with fine speed control taking with inputs from a pitot static tube connected to 44 . A thin board is placed underneath the model. this thin boundary layer does affect the aerodynamic behaviour of the airfoil. suction or blowing. The practical difficulties are obtaining correctly applied suction or blowing and the complexity of the vacuum or blowing system. al. Other methods have been used by Fago et. Another simpler method is the use of a flat plate or elevated ground. Suction removes the thin boundary layer that has built up. parallel to the free stream flow. The constraint that the flat plate method poses on the streamlines between the model and plate is not the same as that by the moving belt method. Consequently. not affected by the end of the plate. The plate ends at a suitable distance aft of the model such that the flow returns to uniform velocity profile.additional air to speed up the flow near the ground to achieve uniform flow. Once again.

[33] used a commercial solver CFX4 to determine the flow field around a 2D NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect. A) The image method. They reported that the next best method is the elevated ground. Fago et. They implemented four different ground conditions under the airfoil. although there are some exceptions. The Van Leer higher order scheme was used for discretisation. al.an electronic pressure transducer. The Continuity and Navier Stokes equations were closed with the RNG k-ε turbulence model. 45 . Therefore. where zero shear stress and zero normal velocity were enforced on the ground plane. In studying ground effect via computational efforts. Lift results varied between the methods from 5 to 45 mm above ground. [32] highly recommend the moving ground method but noted the technically complexity attending it. in their experimental set up. the moving ground at free stream speed. The above mentioned ground simulation methods have been used by various works which have reported good agreement between experimental and on road tests. al. which produced similar drag results to the moving ground down to a height of 25 mm above ground. Other issues are maintaining the belt flat with suction while running the belt at high speed over the rollers. [32] have noted the controversy in discussions about ground simulation methods. Barber at. clearly the effects from the type of ground simulation are present in the flow when ground clearance reduce. al. D) Lastly. Fago et. This condition gives an almost consistent velocity profile at the ground plane but this speed may not be the free stream speed. C) The stationary ground as in the experimental elevated ground. especially so when the lift forces arise from circulation about the airfoil and ram pressure below the airfoil. which is the same as the experimental one mentioned earlier. B) The "slip" condition.

2 to 0. the stationary ground already gives clearly different cl and cd values.2. From h/c 0. Therefore in a 2D simulation. a further experimental look into the flow surrounding a wing in ground effect over a stationary elevated ground is recommended. when h/c is smaller than 0. 46 . Concurrently.05. Since these comparisons were made with 2D simulations.The cl values obtained from all four simulations with different grounds were very similar till h/c 0.0.2. The drag values were about 50 times smaller than lift and the difference in cd from each ground simulation would greatly affect the subsequent l/d ratio.25. Overall. all cl values were greater than the free air case. the stationary ground cl tapered off and decreased.2. only the stationary ground cd continued to decrease. Before moving further. There was neither inference into the actual flow conditions under the airfoil nor an explanation how well these calculations reflect the actual flow under the airfoil. The cd from other ground simulations increased relatively quickly back to almost the same value at h/c 1. these changes in cl and cd are more due to ram pressure under the wing and not a reduction in induced drag.25. it is useful to note that an agreement between methods has not been achieved.25. From h/c 1. the simulated stationary ground - equivalent to the elevated ground. compares well to the simulated moving ground in lift until the ground clearance reduces till h/c 0.0 to 0. The technically simpler elevated ground compares well with the more complex moving ground for drag until the ground clearance reduces till h/c 0. Lower than h/c 0. Therefore. The other ground conditions gave cl values that increased by similar amounts. cd decreased gradually as the ground approached.

The linear portion of this range of positive angles of attack was selected to simplify the analysis. In the linear portion.3 have shown beneficial ground effect taking place clearly in the positive range of angles of attack. The investigated range of h/c is from 0.0. 2. Young and Okiishi [35].6 TEMPERATURE. This definition has been used on works discussing wings or airfoils with straight trailing edges. an expected difference in water column height (on a manometer) was calculated and the tunnel speed was adjusted till the pitot and static manometer tubes 47 . The density of air was determined from the ambient temperature and the equation of a curve fitted to the air density values found in Munson. In this present work.2. the selected linear range of positive angles of attack is from 0O to 8O. In order to maintain a narrow range of Reynolds number. The dynamic pressure used at each experimental run varied with temperature. The ratio of h/c is then ground clearance to chord.5 INVESTIGATED RANGE OF α AND H/C The prior works reviewed in section 1. 2. DYNAMIC PRESSURE AND REYNOLDS NUMBER This set of experiments was conducted in a workshop environment with no temperature control.05 to 1. conversion of 2D aerodynamic data to 3D aerodynamic data is possible. Kinematic viscosity was determined in a similar way.4 DEFINITION FOR H/C Ground clearance has been defined by most researchers as the height of the trailing edge above the ground. Ambient temperature was determined from a simple wall mounted thermometer.

This gave a range of Reynolds number between 202000 to 210000. The wing was straight with taper ratio one.077m2 (0. The plan form area was fixed at S = 0. In this present work. The middle section came in two halves. The Reynolds number Re in this work is defined as: U ∞c Re = ν where U∝ is the free stream velocity. 48 . The Reynolds number range in these experiments was between 202000 to 210000.5(b)]. 2. top and bottom. The main limitation was the wind tunnel safe operating speed.175m and finite span of 0.5(a)]. only straight wing tip attachments were used [Figure 2. The wing was constructed from light softwood. with the free stream speed at about 20m/s and ambient temperature of about 30OC. The dynamic pressure was then determined from the pressure difference represented by the actual difference in height of water column. This airfoil has been studied extensively and allows efficient comparisons of the results.44m [Figure 2. which was about 20m/s. c is the chord of the wing and ν is the fluid kinematic viscosity.7 MODEL The wing studied in this present work has the NACA 4415 section with chord of 0.175m by 0.440m).gave a very close reading to the expected difference in water column height. There are wing tip attachments accommodating winglets of a few different cant angles.

8 on both upper and lower surfaces [Figure 2. b) Right and Left straight wing tips. Rubber tubings connected the pressure taps to an external bank of manometers.6].6 Streamwise pressure tap location along centerline. Figure 2. Figure 2.5 Overall wing and straight wing tips. a) Complete wing with straight wing tips. 36 49 .1 from x/c 0 to 0. Pressure taps ran along the centre line at intervals of 0. 35 A pair of supports below the wing rigidly connected the wing to the load cell for force and torque measurements.

Abbott and Doenhoff [27]’s 2D data at Reynold’s number 3x106 was adjusted for a lower Reynolds number range of about 200000 and the finite span of the wing in this present work.8 MEASUREMENT OF LIFT The Lift on the wing was measured in two methods. The load cell method gave the 3D-drag coefficient. The area enclosed within the pressure distribution vs. From the pressure taps along the centre line of the wing. However. The load cell method gave the 3D- lift coefficient while the pressure distribution method gave the 2D-lift coefficient. The x-axis of the load cell was aligned parallel to the free stream flow. the pressure distribution vs. x curve was obtained. the drag measured 50 .The finite span enabled an investigation into the 3D effects of flow around a wing in ground effect while the pressure taps gave insight into changes in circulation and the effects of ram pressure on the wing. The coefficient of lift was determined from both lift measurements methods and normalised against dynamic pressure and reference area. 2. The model and its supports were mounted only onto the load cell. The load cell then measured directly this component of the aerodynamic resultant force as the lift on the wing. The lift was then read directly from the load cell’s z-direction output.9 MEASUREMENT OF DRAG The drag on the wing was also measured by the same two methods. 2. Both these coefficients were then compared against the 3D CL derived from Abbott and Doenhoff [27]’s 2D data. with the load cell and calculated from the pressure distribution. x plot was the lift force. similar to lift. The z-axis of the load cell was aligned perpendicular to the free stream flow.

7 Determining the drag of the supports. The drag of the supports was determined with the ground board at various heights [Figure 2. 51 . the drag of the supports were determined by measuring the drag experienced by only the supports in the free stream flow. However. Figure 2. owing to the complexity of the additional fixtures that must be hidden inside the original supports. 37 The drag on the wing was then determined by removing the drag of the supports and applying buoyancy correction. The drag of the support was found to be very consistent and independent of the ground board height. The drag contributed by the supports should ideally be determined with the wing mounted close to the supports but not touching the supports. This buoyancy correction is due to stream wise pressure differences about the wing and not density difference in the vertical direction. Hence the drag of the wing cannot be determined with certainty in view of the interference between the wing and the support.in the x-direction included the drag experienced by the supports below the wing.7]. This maintains the interference effect between the wing and supports.

The pressure values are calculated from the height of the liquid in the columns of the manometer. The masses were placed directly on the load cell in the z-direction check [Figure 2.8].10 MEASUREMENT OF PRESSURE Pressure readings also provided a way to detect changes in circulation about a wing. 2. Static pressure readings were obtained from the pressure taps along the wing’s centre line. Despite the difference between drag from pressure measurements and force measurements. This allowed one to differentiate the lift contribution made by circulation and lift from ram pressure below the wing. The pressure distribution on the wing is the difference between these wing static pressure readings and the free stream static pressure. both were converted into drag coefficients and compared against the 3D CD derived from Abbott and Doenhoff [27]. The area enclosed within the pressure distribution vs. 52 . 2. against applied masses and found to give a relatively consistent gradient value close to 1.Drag was also determined from the pressure distribution.11 LOAD CELL A Gamma model load cell from ATI Industrial Automation was used to measure force and torque readings. The 3D CD was derived with the same considerations as CL. They were also an alternative source of lift and drag data. The load cell’s force outputs in x and z directions were checked individually. y plot was the 2D drag that does not factor in skin friction drag.

Figure 2.9 Checking the load cell in the x direction for force.8 Checking load cell in the z direction for force. 39 Torque–Y (pitching) readings were checked by loading masses onto an end of a beam.9]. which was placed on its side to suspend the load cell on its side. which was the first mass [Figure 2. the load cell was mounted on a stiff platform. which was mounted on the load cell. Masses were hung on the load cell via a holder.10] 53 . [Figure 2.Figure 2. 38 In the x-direction check.

25% of the applied force. Since the measured forces in the z and x directions were close the corresponding applied forces. Torque readings were recorded to monitor that the amounts of roll. only readings in the z and x direction were taken for further calculation. yaw and pitch the model experienced were acceptable.Figure 2.56% of the applied force. 40 In the z direction.12 MANOMETER An inclined manometer of 40 tubes was used to measure pressure readings from the pressure taps. As the model was regularly taken out of the wind tunnel for adjusting the angle of attack. Of the three force readings. a more efficient method was sought to 54 .10 Checking the load cell in y direction for torque. the measured force was on the average 101. In the x direction the measured force was on the average 102. 2. None of the torque readings were used for further calculation. no further correction was carried out on the measured forces.

a test reading where the wind tunnel was running and a second baseline reading.2 Downstream Pressure Gradient As this wind tunnel test section had a constant rectangular cross section from start to end. all carried out over the shortest practical duration. phasing was maintained. a boundary layer gradually built up on each wall. the drift in baseline could be considered linear with time between baseline readings.13. The final baseline used was a value between both baseline readings. Phasing the tube location with the tube number on the manometer was a tedious task. each reading was taken over 2 minutes or 7500 samples according to the load cell’s data acquisition program. 2. The pressure gradient was determined by measuring the static 55 .13.disconnect the 38 tubes from the pressure taps. Greater differences in baseline readings were found when the measurement cycle was long and that contributed to the difficulty in determining the baseline for the measurement. Readings were taken over a short duration to reduce the effect of a drifting datum. The free stream flow sped up to maintain continuity. Eventually. Fortunately.1 Drift in Load Cell Datum The load cell used had no clear temperature compensation capability. especially when the time difference is small. A typical cycle of measurement consisted of taking a baseline reading. Further details on the checks carried out on the load cell and its specification are in the appendix.13 CHALLENGES IN MEASUREMENT 2. Tubes from the model were connected to a multi-tube quick-disconnect joint then to the manometer. Since the two halves of the quick-disconnect joint could only be aligned in a fixed manner. reducing the free stream cross sectional area. 2.

Rae and Pope [34].22 of [34] was used instead. 1 AMF εt = 4 ATS where εt is the blockage correction. the free stream speed that the model experienced has increased. This pressure gradient was used with buoyancy correction.pressure along the wall. much difficulty surrounded measuring the actual CD value of the model. 56 . Further details are in appendix for downstream pressure profile and appendix for corrections. An approximate blockage correction method equation 10. The blockage correction was the percentage increase applied to the free stream speed. AMF is the model’s frontal area and ATS is the test section cross sectional area. However. The flow speeds up around the model and its supports to maintain continuity in the wind tunnel. As a result.13. make adjustments to the CD values of the model tested. causing a corresponding increase in the free stream dynamic pressure. according to the method in Barlow.3 Blockage Effects Maskell’s methods found in [34]. This blockage correction method accounted for a small flow speed increase due to the part of the flow being blocked by the model and its supports. 2.

The corresponding pressure 57 . this data described incompressible 2D flow.1].0x106 to 9. coincided for –20O ≤ α ≤ 0O. cd and cp represent the 2D coefficients.0x106. CL. Effectively. The published pressure distributions about a NACA 4415 airfoil at Reynolds number between 200000 to 3x106 were then compared to determine a suitable datum pressure distribution at Reynolds number 200000. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION Due to the limitation of the wind tunnel.0x106 and 9.17.1 Reynolds number Effect on Aerodynamic Coefficients Data for the NACA 4415 airfoil section was available from Abbott and Doenhoff [27] at Reynolds number 3. the cl curves fanned out very gradually till α = 8O [Figure 3.46% when accounting for compressibility. giving the experimental data a Reynolds number range of 202000 to 210000. it is reasonable to infer that cl was independent of Reynolds number over the linear section for each curve for Reynolds number from 3. the free stream speed was about 20m/s. RESULTS 3. Once α > 0O.0x106. This datum was used to establish the validity of the pressure distribution data obtained at h/c 1. α curves. uppercase letters.1. 4O and 8O. CD and CP indicate 3D coefficients and lowercase letters cl. Since the differences between the cl curves were very small. obtained at these 3 Reynolds number. The cl vs. These were obtained at a maximum Mach number of 0.3. To distinguish between 3D coefficients and 2D coefficients. 6.1. which would reduce the cl-α gradient by only 1.0x106. 3.0 at Reynolds number 200000 at angles of attack 0O.

41 However. drag polar even while cl values did not differ much across these 58 .distributions were also inferred as independent of Reynolds number in the same range. Figure 3. though similar. the 2D drag polar (cd vs. Figure reproduced from [27]. α for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box).1 Section cl vs. cl) curves from Abbott and Doenhoff [27] showed that the flow at each Reynolds number produced its own.

42 The coefficients obtained in Abbott and Doenhoff [27] were from 3-ft width by 7. As Reynolds number decreased.Reynolds numbers [Figure 3.5-ft height wind tunnel. cl for NACA 4415 airfoil (in box). cl and cd values need to be extrapolated to the smaller Reynolds number as a datum for comparison. Figure reproduced from [27].10x105. As the present work was carried out at approximately Reynolds number 2. Figure 3. so pressure distributions. 59 .2].2 Section cd vs. each drag polar shifted higher (more drag).02x105 to 2.

Since the investigated range of angles of attack is 0O to 8O.0x105 in the present work.5x105 to 1. Three works studying the NACA 4415 airfoil section at lower Reynolds number ranging from 3.0x106.0x106 were used to determine the validity of extrapolating Abbott and Doenhoff’s [27] cl values to Reynolds number 2.2 Aerodynamic Coefficients at Reynolds number of 200000 From Abbott and Doenhoff [27]. Compared to cl values from Abbott and Doenhoff [27].1. the pressure distributions were obtained at Mach number 0. These works were used to show that the 2D pressure distributions about NACA 4415 airfoil were similar at various Reynolds numbers at similar angles of attack [Figure 3. Coefficient of Drag was not estimated from these pressure distributions. can be used at Reynolds number 200000 for conversion to 3D coefficients. Once the pressure distribution about the NACA 4415 airfoil can be determined to be similar from Reynolds number 3. the 2D coefficients from Abbott and Doenhoff [27]. which were considered acceptable. The area enclosed was the 2D lift coefficient and it was sufficiently similar [Table 1]. At α = 0O. NACA TR 60 . The flow was still considered incompressible and was 2D.4219. since the main difference in experimental setups was the height above the airfoils [Table 1].3 and Reynolds number 1.3.0 x106. there were some differences. as the skin friction components were absent. 4O and 8O and between Reynolds number 200000 to 3.0x106 down to 200000.0x106 to 3. From NACA TR 832 [28].0x106 were selected for comparison. implying that the pressure distribution about the airfoil varied little as Reynolds number decreased from 9.3]. cl was independent of Reynolds number. the cl (from area enclosed) based on pressure distribution was estimated (by Trapezium rule) to be 0. the pressure distributions at 0O.

For α = 0O.2% to 14.358 as Reynolds number increased from 3. The cl values are 10.3].5x105 to 9.0x105. The flow in this present work was 3D with a maximum Mach number of 0.0x105. The lower cl values indicate that small 3D effects were present.5x105.2. the pressure distribution curves enclosed areas of 0. NASA TM X-2225 [29] presented the pressure distributions for NACA 4415 section wing at three Reynolds numbers. approximately 3.341 to 0.25x105 and 9. Similar analysis was done for α = 4O and α = 8O. 61 . but overall the flow at that part of the wing is sufficiently 2D.6% lower. The wing was mounted on a fuselage and measurements were taken near the fuselage. Data from NACA TR 832 [28] was analysed the same way for α = 4O and α = 8O.25. respectively than Abbott and Doenhoff’s [27] cl = 0. These plots at three different angles of attack showed that at each similar α the pressure distributions were not dependent on Reynolds number [Figure 3.832 [28] reported a test section height to chord ratio of 7 while Abbott and Doenhoff [27] used a ratio of 3. 5. Experimentally pressure distributions from this present work were also included for comparison.400. Pressure distributions from NACA TR 832 [28] and NASA TM X-2225 [29] at similar α and varying Reynolds number were plotted together.

2 0.5 EXPT 200.8 0.8 0. EXPT 200.000.191 0.148 U 895.5 U 1.1 0. -2.073 0.5 1.013 -1.073 EXPT 200.000-Pressure distributions from this present work.4 0.9 1.7 0. AoA 4 deg | Various Re x/c -2.2 0.148 -1.000 -1.3 0.000 -1.5 L 537. Data reproduced from NACA TR 832 [28] and NASA TM X-2225 [29].560 0.191 -0.013 cp L 537.0 O (b) α = 4 cp vs x/c NACA 4415 | approx.9 1.0 L 1.388 0.000 0.0 U 895.945 -1.560 U 342.000 -1.6 0.0 U 345.0 0.000 1.0 L 1. AoA 8 deg | Various Re x/c -2.558 -0.000 L 895.000 0.0 U 342.5 U 537. L-lower surface.444 0.5 L 895.5 Re no.4 0. AoA 0 deg | Various Re x/c -2.0 O (c) α = 8 Figure 3.5 U 538.000 U 1.0 L 345.000.2 0.0 0.0 U 894.5 Re no.3 0.7 0.5 1.5 Re no.6 0.558 cp U 892. cp vs x/c NACA 4415 | approx. -2. 43 62 .000 L 894.1 0.965 0.945 cp L 538.965 0.5 0.1 0. -2.5 0.388 -0. U-upper surface.0 U 345.0 L 1.3 0.000.000.000.9 1.5 0.7 0.5 U 1.8 0.0 L 892.3 Pressure distribution curves at approximately the same α but at various Reynolds number.0 O (a) α = 0 cp vs x/c NACA 4415 | approx.6 0.444 EXPT 200.000.0 U 537.4 0.0 L 345.0 0.

0x105.00 1.00 0.0x105 to 2.4.200 Abbott & Doenhoff 6000000 0.00 0. 63 .1 Comparing estimated cl to Abbott and Doenhoff[27]’s data for similar α at various Reynolds number.00 0. As the diagrams were in presented in 3D perspective.714 8.00 1.51 0.743 7. Reference Reynolds α cl α cl α cl number Abbott & Doenhoff 9000000 0.00 1.31 1.19 1.00 0.200 Abbott & Doenhoff 3000000 0.097 NASA TM X-2225 890000 0.060 NASA TM X-2225 350000 0.793 8.422 4.00 0.10 0. As Reynolds number decreased from 6.985 8.400 4. the shape of pressure distribution curves showed only small variations.00 0.16 0. The pressure distributions from this third work agree sufficiently well with the above two.850 8.00 0.400 4.81 1.00 0.352 4.6].359 4.850 8. On the lower surface.719 8.00 1. 3.17 0. values could not be read off without incurring obvious errors.02 0.342 4.5. 3.Table 3. Efstratios [30] also showed suction on the upper surface.056 NASA TM X-2225 540000 0. with the suction peak moving to the leading edge as angle of attack increased from 0O to 8O.400 4.070 Efstratios [30] studied the pressure distribution over the NACA 4415 airfoil over a large range of angles of attack and Reynolds number [Figure 3.175 NACA TR 832 1000000 0.850 8.76 0. the positive pressure region started at the trailing edge and extended to cover the whole lower surface as the angle of attack increased.06 0.

x/c vs. 44 64 . α for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 200000.4 3D Plots of cp vs.Figure 3. Figure reproduced from Efstratios [30].

45 65 . α for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 400000. Figure reproduced from Efstratios [30].5 3D Plots of cp vs.Figure 3. x/c vs.

α for the Lower (a) and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section and Re = 600000. with the peak suction 66 . 46 From the comparison of the three works above. as Reynolds number decreased. at the same angle of attack. Figure reproduced from Efstratios [30]. x/c vs.8 < x/c < 0.9. A large region of suction existed on the upper surface. stretching from the leading edge to 0.6 3D Plots of cp vs. the pressure distribution curves were still similar in shape.Figure 3.

The cl values obtained from pressure distributions were also close to the values from Abbott and Doenhoff [27] as Reynolds number decreased from 3. using the 2D coefficient values from Abbott and Doenhoff [27] as a basis to determine the 3D coefficients values at about Reynolds number 200000 is reasonable.UPPER and the pocket of suction below the wing 67 . The similarity of the pressure distributions’ shape is a reasonable basis to suggest that there would be small changes in cl values as Reynolds number decreases from 3.1.2. Moving from the leading edge to the trailing edge. This was done in section 3.0 compared only partially well with Figure 43 α = 0O in section 3. Suction on the upper surface contributed majority of the lift.0 < x/c < 0.1.1. a positive pressure peak existed from leading edge to x/c = 0. since the flow structure was actually similar. The pressure distribution obtained at α = 0O and h/c 1.3 and 3.2.0x106 to 3.4.5x105.3 Pressure Distribution at α = 0O and 2O At α = 0O the wing’s lower surface and the stationary flat plate formed a converging diverging passage.5x105.1. Only the shape of the CP. At higher angles of attack. lower surface pressure contributed some lift.1.2.0x106 to 3. In addition.3. The pressure distributions determined in this section will form the datum for comparing the experimentally obtained pressure data in section 3. 3. the pressure peak reduced relatively quickly to suction when angles of attack were small or reduced to lower pressure when angles of attack were larger.found between 0. On the lower surface.

0 compared better with Ahmed [25]. In this work. the test section height to chord ratio was 3. The corresponding h/c value was effectively infinite and no ground effect was present or “wall” effect was present.0 on the upper surface at about x/c 0.3 and a very similar pocket of suction spanning about half of the lower surface of the wing at α = 0O and h/c 0. This pressure distribution obtained at α = 0O and h/c 1. The higher suction peak in this work cannot be accounted for. The suction peak that would have developed near x/c 0. the changes caused by reduction in h/c proceed from a valid starting point. The experimental set up used to obtain the data in Figure 43 were designed for 2D flow over narrow-span airfoils with large distances from the wind tunnel ceiling and floor that allow a more natural expansion of streamlines about the airfoil.matched in Figure 43 α = 0O. indicated by the pocket of suction covering a large part of the lower surface.5. the streamlines under the airfoil could not expand as naturally as in the case with no ground effect.43. This allowed the upper surface pressure distribution to match that in Figure 43 α = 0O. The test section height to chord ratios were 3.8. Ahmed [25] reported a pressure distribution with a suction peak with CP = 1.25 to 10. Since the pressure distribution at α = 0O and h/c 1. In this present work. the lower surface was at a height of one chord from the ground and the effect of the convergent-divergent passage caused the flow to speed up along the entire lower surface.1 was absent.0 compare sufficiently well to the literature. 68 . Since the ground was close by.

On the upper surface, a suction peak was found at x/c 0.2. Pressure gradually

rose again, moving towards the trailing edge. As h/c reduced, the shape of

the CP,UPPER curve remained generally the same but the peak suction

occurring at x/c 0.2 gradually reduced and pressure increased from x/c 0.8

onwards [Figure 3.7]. The reducing suction peak indicated that circulation

reduced with reduction in h/c. Since the passage under the wing is

convergent-divergent, flow speed reduced when moving towards the trailing

edge, as seen in the higher pressure at x/c 0.8 [Figure 3.8]. For the upper

surface and lower surface flows to form the wake smoothly, the flow in the

upper surface also slowed down from x/c 0.8 onwards.

CP upper AoA 0 deg

x/c
-1.1

-1.0
h/c
-0.9
1.00
-0.8 0.80
-0.7 0.60
0.40
-0.6
0.30
-0.5 0.20
-0.4 0.10
0.05
-0.3

-0.2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1

O
Figure 3.7 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for α = 0 . 47

On the lower surface, apart from positive higher pressure from x/c 0.0 to 0.1,

the remainder of the lower surface experienced suction till near the trailing

edge [Figure 3.8]. As h/c reduced, the suction pocket reduced but pressure

remained negative, indicating faster flow still existed due to the converging-

diverging passage. Pressure became positive only after x/c 0.8.

69

CP lower AoA 0 deg

x/c
-0.4

h/c
-0.3
1.00
0.80
-0.2 0.60
0.40
0.30
-0.1 0.20
0.10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.05
0.0

0.1

O
Figure 3.8 CP (lower) vs. x/c at various h/c for α = 0 . 48

At α = 2O the wing’s lower surface and the stationary flat plate below formed a

more gradual converging diverging passage under the wing. On the upper

surface, the pressure distribution is similar to that at α = 0O, however the

suction peak is higher than that in α = 0O. As h/c reduces, the shape of the CP,

UPPER curve remained generally the same but with gradual increase in

pressure [Figure 3.9].

CP upper AoA 2 deg

x/c
-1.2
-1.1
h/c
-1.0
1.00
-0.9
0.80
-0.8
0.60
-0.7 0.40
-0.6 0.30
-0.5 0.20
0.10
-0.4
0.05
-0.3
-0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1

O
Figure 3.9 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for α = 2 . 49

On the lower surface, apart from positive higher pressure between x/c 0.0 to

0.1, the remainder of the lower surface experienced suction till near the

trailing edge [Figure 3.10]. As h/c reduced, the suction pocket reduced till

70

pressure becomes positive over the whole lower surface. This pocket of

suction reduced gradually till h/c 0.4. Lower than h/c 0.4, the suction pocket

quickly disappears by h/c 0.05 [Figure 3.10].

CP lower AoA 2 deg

x/c
-0.200

h/c
-0.100 1.00
0.80
0.60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.40
0.000
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.100 0.05

0.200

O
Figure 3.10 CP (lower) vs. x/c at various h/c for α = 2 . 50

3.1.4 Pressure Distribution at α = 4O to 8O

At α = 4O, the wing’s lower surface and the stationary flat plate formed a

gradual converging passage. The pressure distribution obtained at α = 4O and

h/c 1.0 compared only partially well with Figure 43 α = 4O, section 3.1.2. Only

the shape of the CP,UPPER generally matched Figure 43 α = 4O. On the lower

surface, the data in Figure 43 α = 4O showed positive pressure, while the

lower surface in this present work saw slight suction from x/c 0.2 to the trailing

edge. As mentioned in section 3.1.3, in terms of test section height to chord

ratios, the experimental set ups used to obtain data in Figure 43 were similar

to this present work. This caused the upper surface pressure distribution to

retain a very similar shape but with overall higher pressure. Pressure

increased since the 3D effects of finite wing span were present. Lift reduced

across the span of the wing due to down wash. The local pressure distribution

along the centre line enclosed a smaller area and the upper surface

experienced less suction.

71

The lower surface was at a height of one chord from the ground and the effect

of the gradually converging passage caused the flow to speed up gradually

along the entire lower surface. As mentioned in section 3.1.3, the streamlines

under the airfoil did not expand as naturally as in the case with no ground

effect. The suction peak that would have developed near x/c 0.1 was also

absent.

This obtained pressure distribution did not compare well with Ahmed [25] who

reported positive pressure distribution spanning most of the lower surface of

the wing at h/c 0.8 for α = 2.5O. Ahmed’s [25] set up is 2D while the flow in

this present work is 3D. At similar h/c, the flow under the airfoil in Ahmed’s

[25] set up can only exit under the trailing edge, while the flow under the wing

in this present work is free to move towards the wing tips. This caused faster

flow under the wing than in Ahmed’s [25] set up, resulting in slightly negative

pressure.

After accounting for the differences in pressure distribution at α = 4O and h/c

1.0 and the literature, the changes caused by reduction in h/c were examined.

On the upper surface, positive pressure is present at the leading edge and

quickly dropped to a suction peak at about x/c 0.2 before gradually rising

again near the trailing edge. This suction peak is higher than that in α = 2O.

As h/c reduced, the shape of the CP,UPPER curve remained generally the same

but with gradual increase in pressure [Figure 3.11].

72

CP upper AoA 4 deg

x/c
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 h/c
-1.1 1.00
-1.0
0.80
-0.9
0.60
-0.8
0.40
-0.7
0.30
-0.6
0.20
-0.5
-0.4 0.10
-0.3 0.05
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0

O
Figure 3.11 CP (upper) vs. x/c at various h/c for α = 4 . 51

On the lower surface, positive higher pressure is present from x/c 0.0 to 0.2

and the remainder of the lower surface experienced suction till near the

trailing edge at h/c 1.0 [Figure 3.12]. As h/c reduced, the suction pocket

became a higher-pressure patch over the whole lower surface. As h/c

reduced, positive pressure increased rather uniformly over the complete lower

surface, indicating that flow clearly has slowed down under the wing [Figure

3.12]. The increase in pressure became clearer at h/c 0.4 and lower.

CP lower AoA 4 deg

x/c
-0.100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 h/c
0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300

0.400

O
Figure 3.12 CP (lower) vs. x/c at various h/c for α = 4 . 52

At α = 6O the wing lower surface and the stationary flat plate still formed a

converging passage. On the upper surface, the upper surface pressure

73

20 -0.9 1 h/c 0.4 h/c -1.0 to the trailing edge at h/c 1.2 0.5 -1.4 0. CP lower AoA 6 deg x/c -0.1 0.1 0.14].14 CP (lower) vs. CP upper AoA 6 deg x/c -1. x/c at various h/c for α = 6 .0 0.2 1.6 0.80 0.0 O Figure 3.00 -1. As h/c reduced.100 0 0.3 -1. positive pressure increases slightly more over the aft lower surface.05 0.60 0.400 O Figure 3. x/c at various h/c for α = 6 .1 0. positive higher pressure is present from x/c 0.7 0.20 0.3 0.30 -0. indicating that the flow has slowed down under the wing [Figure 3.4 0.2 -0.6 0.13].40 -0.10 -0.0 [Figure 3.300 0.0 0.4 0.9 1.14].10 0.0 0.200 0.9 0. The suction peak is higher than that in α = 4O. As h/c reduced.5 0.6 0.6 -1.5 0.8 0.3 0. 54 At α = 8O the wing lower surface and the stationary flat plate form a converging passage.30 0.40 0.60 -0.2 0.8 -0.05 -0.13 CP (upper) vs.7 0.80 -1. The pressure distribution obtained at α = 8O and at h/c 74 . the shape of the CP.UPPER curve remained generally the same but with gradual increase in pressure [Figure 3.5 0.3 -0. 53 On the lower surface.7 0.8 0.distribution is similar to that at α = 4O.100 0.1 0.00 0.000 1.

There was less lift across the span of the wing due to a stronger down wash. while positive pressure was found only on the forward half of the lower surface in this present work.1. On the lower surface.3. as just in section 3. section 3. Only the shape of the upper surface experimental pressure distribution generally matched Figure 43 α = 8O. On the rearward half of the lower surface.1.8 for 7. However. except the obtained pressure peak on the upper surface in 75 .0 compared only partially well with Figure 43 α = 8O. there is a little more room for streamline expansion and the pressure distribution on the forward half of the lower surface match that in the literature as seen in Figure 43 α = 8O. streamlines were still constrained to give a faster flow. the overall pressure on the upper surface is higher than that at α = 4O. The similarity of test section height to chord ratios in the experimental set ups used to obtain data in Figure 43 and also in this present work accounted for the upper surface pressure distribution retaining a very similar shape. with the wing tilting upwards at α = 8O. This obtained pressure distribution compared sufficiently well with Ahmed [25] at h/c 0. the data in Figure 43 α = 8O showed positive pressure on the entire lower surface.2. The lower surface was at a height of one chord from the ground but this angle set up a faster converging passage causing the flow to speed up near the trailing edge. The constraint on the streamlines under the airfoil against natural expansion still existed compared with the case of no ground effect. At greater angles of attack. At α = 8O.1.5O. the 3D effects of a finite wing span caused more down wash. The local pressure distribution along the centre line enclosed an even smaller area and the upper surface experienced lesser suction.

would have no down wash to reduce the lift and decrease the corresponding suction peak on the upper surface.16].80 -1. Ahmed’s [25] work. As h/c reduced. 55 On the lower surface. which offset the higher suction peak a by a small amount.0 0. CP upper AoA 8 deg x/c -1.20 -0.8 -0. and at a slightly smaller angle of attack.0 till the trailing edge at h/c 1.10 -0. the changes caused by reduction in h/c were examined.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.15 CP (upper) vs.2 -0. the upper surface pressure distribution is similar to that at α = 6O.1 0.0 0.60 -0.15].2 1.6 0.4 0. positive higher pressure is present from x/c 0. On the upper surface.40 -0.5 0. Ahmed’s [25] data is from an orientation closer to a fixed ground. with the largest increases near the 76 . being 2D.1 0. the shape of the CP curve remains generally the same but with gradual increase in pressure [Figure 3. which gave a higher suction peak on the upper surface. the positive pressure increased over the whole lower surface.30 -0.0 0. As the differences in pressure distribution at α = 8O and h/c 1.8 0.2 0. x/c at various h/c for α = 8 .3 -1.5 0.this experiment is too low.05 -0.4 0.9 0.5 -1.3 -0.9 1.0 O Figure 3.1 0. The suction peak is higher than that at α = 6O.4 -1.00 -1.0 and the literature were adequately explained.6 -1.0 [Figure 3. As h/c reduced.

indicating that the flow has clearly slowed down under the wing before the trailing edge [Figure 3.80 0. CP lower AoA 8 deg x/c 0 0. As h/c reduced.300 0. x/c at various h/c for α = 8 . the faults observed remained as h/c decreased.16 CP (lower) vs. the following were observed.20 0.3 and 3.000 h/c 0.1.7 0.4 and below.2.2 0. Looking at only the changes caused by angle of attack and h/c. indicating that they do not vary with h/c.3 0.200 0.6 0.8 0.60 0.4.16].05 0.400 0.9 1 0.5 0.1 0.30 0.10 0. the 2D lift and drag coefficients were extrapolated from Reynolds number 3x106 to 200000 and converted to 3D drag coefficients before useful comparisons were made. 56 From the pressure plots in section 3.trailing edge.100 1.40 0.1. 3. giving increased lift.500 O Figure 3. LIFT AND DRAG Since this experimental set up was limited to Reynolds number 200000.4 0. As angle of attack increased. The pressure increases over the lower surface became clearer at h/c 0. but the increase in pressure on the lower surface over-compensates. circulatory lift reduced slightly.00 0. lift increased by increasing suction over the upper surface and increasing pressure on the lower surface. 77 .

independent of aspect ratio. the zero-lift α remains the same. There was no formula for converting the stall region to 3D values so the shape of the 2D curve was retained and scaled down by 54% so that it would join the linear region of the lift CL-α slope smoothly. As Mach number was required. This slope was converted to 3D CL-α slope. the CL-α slope is half that of cl- α. A polynomial curve was fitted so that interpolation could be used to get CL values at 1O intervals if needed. the linear region of cl vs.3. First. The flow speed was set at 20m/s. Based on Anderson’s [31] figure 2.1. using the low aspect ratio finite wing formula in Anderson’s [31] equation 2.1. since the pressure distribution about the airfoil was shown to be similar throughout this range of Reynolds number. α curve was obtained [Figure 3.2.0x106. With Mach number and aspect ratio specified.23. The original data came in 2O intervals.18b. can be extrapolated to Reynolds number 2. α curve was identified and its slope.2 reasoned that Abbott and Doenhoff’s [27] 2D data for NACA 4415 airfoil at Reynolds number 3. The following CL vs. 30OC. obtained. the speed of sound was determined at the average ambient temperature of the workshop environment.0x105.1 and 3. 78 . acomp. a0 acomp = 1 − M + [a0 (πAR )] + a0 (πAR ) 2 2 ∞ where M∞ was the free stream Mach number and AR was the aspect ratio. where the wind tunnel operated. The expected 3D aerodynamic coefficients for the NACA 4415 section wing in this work was derived using the approach in Anderson’s work [31].17]. a0.1 Datum 3D Lift and Drag Sections 3. following the average speed of the wind tunnel.

e. The remaining details are found in appendix for expected CL and CD. was determined to be 0. As the induced drag portion is large compared to the 2D- drag contribution. 57 Since Abbott and Doenhoff’s [27] 2D drag data was valid at Reynolds number 200000. Wing CL & CD vs AoA 1. was calculated by Anderson’s [31] equation 2.9755 from Anderson [31].0 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -0. CD Linear (CL) 0. α curve for AR = 2. The lift coefficient was determined from the CL vs. CDi. this data was converted to 3D drag data by adding induced drag.51 for NACA 4415 wing without ground effect. α curve in Figure 57. CL 0.8 y = 0. the amount being proportional to angle of attack.2]. it can be reasonable to not further analyze or adjust the 2D- drag contribution to a slightly higher value before adding induced drag. This approach established the expected aerodynamic characteristics of the 3D 79 .17 Expected CL and CD vs. C L2 C Di = πeAR The span efficiency factor.2 est. Lower Reynolds number flows gave slightly larger 2D drag [Figure 3.6 CL 0.4 AoA [Deg] Figure 3. The induced drag at each angle of attack from 0O to 8O was calculated and compared to the 2D drag at the same angle of attack.4 CD est.2072 0.0518x + 0.0 0. The percentage increases were in the range of 74% to 448%.2 -0.30. The induced drag contribution from down wash due to wing tip vortices was added to the 2D drag polar. The induced drag contribution.

80 . with gradual changes.0 0. the force measurements produce a more consistent set of coefficient values. The calculated cl and cd values were determined from area enclosed when pressure was plotted against x and y respectively at each angle of attack and h/c.0 -10. these were examined together with coefficients from force measurements to demonstrate that both measurements are indicating the same phenomena. the skin friction component is small and was considered constant in all cases. As there is no separation of flow about the model.0 10.0 AoA [Deg] Figure 3. This does not interfere with effect ground effect on the wing.51 NACA 4415 wing without ground effect. The expected L/D ratios are shown in the figure below [Figure 3.18].2.finite wing used in this present work. Overall.18 Expected L/D for AR = 2.2 Lift and Drag coefficients from Pressure Distribution While pressure measurements gave only 2D coefficients since only pressure at the mid-span was recorded.0 -20.0 15.0 5. 58 3.0 -15. CL / CD vs AoA out of Ground Effect 20. It is also affected by the goodness of fit of the curve that passes through the pressure values when pressure was plotted against the y-coordinate.0 Lift/Drag -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -5. The pressure-based cd from this did not include skin friction drag.

the area enclosed after x/c 0. the pressure field about a wing is continuous. From the cl calculation perspective.2. certain partially obstructed pressure taps were found.0 agreed with the other works used to establish the datum pressure distribution in section 3. The affected readings showed similar changes as their neighbours and an average reading from the neighbors replaced them. Since the upper and lower surface pressure must be equal at the trailing edge. The trapezium rule was used to determine area enclosed with respect to y to obtain cd.8 on the pressure vs. 3. The y coordinates corresponding to each x coordinate on the airfoil section profile was obtained by iteration. This triangle’s contribution to the area enclosed by the pressure curves was small. With pressure taps close to each other and taking an average reading incurred only a small error. the pressure readings obtained from them responded with changing h/c.8 for simplicity. the value of trailing edge pressure does not matter.2. x plot is a triangle.Polynomial curves were passed through the pressure values and the area enclosed was determined by integration with respect to x to obtain cl.3 Effect of α on Lift and Drag coefficients vs. h/c Lift coefficient 81 .1. the pressure was arbitrarily defined as the average of the upper and lower surfaces’ pressures at x/c 0. In the absence of separated flow. However. In view of long re-setup time. For calculating cd. the above approach was deemed suitable to estimate cl and cd based on the pressure distribution. Since only the shape of the pressure distribution and its changes in shape with varying h/c is sought. Furthermore. the experiments continued. the overall shape of the pressure distribution at h/c 1. During the conduct of experiments.

4 0. h/c at various α for the test model.1 0.8 0. From the force measurements. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 0.50 0. for α = 4O.40 0. h/c Figure 3.3 0. both 2D and 3D lift coefficients showed clear increases.19 cl vs. CL at α = 0O and 2O showed smaller steady increases. the decrease in drag coefficients became clearer.20]. From pressure measurement at same angles of attack.19].60 0.90 0.20 0.5 0.At h/c 0. 6O and 8O [Figure 3.70 0.10 0.60 4 6 0.00 h/c (b) CL vs.80 0. especially for α = 4O. cl showed larger increases.30 0.2 and below. h/c and CL vs. cl vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.80 AoA 0.0 h/c (a) cl vs.70 0 2 cl 0. the drag force measurements shown were almost consistent till h/c 0.6 0.4 and below.50 0. indicating that while induced drag reduced. ram pressure on the lower surface contributed a force 82 .00 0.40 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 1.1 and below.70 2 CL 4 0.40 0.30 0. h/c CL vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.60 6 8 0.80 0 0.90 AoA 0. At α = 6O and 8O.50 8 0. 59 Drag coefficient At h/c 0.00 0.9 1.30 0.7 0. as the ground approached.2 0.0 0.90 1. 6O and 8O [Figure 3.

09 0.05 0.7 0.05 4 6 0. h/c Figure 3.02 0.04 8 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 0.40 0.4 0.9 1.06 0. resulting in an overall drop in drag.2 0.08 0.10 0 0.80 0.12 0. By h/c 0. h/c and CD vs.00 0.10 0.0 0. which likely indicated that induced drag reduced and there is less drag contribution from ram pressure.1.with a small component to drag.01 0. it is likely that induced drag is close to minimum and the reduction is more than the ram pressure’s contribution to drag.11 AoA 0.07 0.03 0.00 h/c (b) CD vs.20 cd vs. h/c CD vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.07 AoA 0 0.50 0.6 0.5 0.30 0.20 0.06 2 CD 0.60 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 0. the pressure-based cd does not indicate drag reduction. 60 83 .90 1. cd vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. At α = 4O.3 0. drag force reduction is gradual as h/c reduced. At other smaller angles of attack.08 6 8 0.09 2 cd 4 0. h/c at various α for the test model.8 0. The force-based CD shows drag reduction except at α = 0O.0 h/c (a) cd vs.70 0.1 0.

80 0. α Lift coefficient Both groups of lift coefficient vs.2072 0.10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] (b) CL vs. indicating a gain in lift.40 0.80 0.60 0.30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] (a) cl vs. at approximately 0.00 0.90 1.17] in section 3. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 1.05 per degree.2. is a clear but slight translation of the lift coefficient-angle of attack curves upwards. cl vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.00 0. α and CL vs. (CL values without ground effect indicated by h/c = OGE.30 OGE 0.30 0.80 1.60 y = 0.90 h/c 0. α CL vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.) 61 84 .20 0. which could be due to the assumed span wise lift distribution on a finite span wing.00 h/c 0.40 CL 0.80 0.05 0.10 0.21 cl vs.50 0.40 0. 200000 | at various h/c 0.3.2. The effect of h/c decreasing. which is closed to the calculated expected gradient [Figure 3.2 in all the cl values. α Figure 3.60 cl 0.40 0. α at various h/c.4 Effect of h/c on Lift and Drag coefficient vs. There was a clear offset of about 0.50 0.20 0.05 0.60 0.20 0.1.10 0.70 0.70 0.0518x + 0. angle of attack curves [Figure 3.30 0.21] showed similar gradients.

There was a slight translation of the drag coefficient-angle of attack curves downwards. cd. There were clear differences between the drag coefficients from pressure. indicating a reduction in drag. At this location. the drag reduced to zero. On moving to the wing tips. 85 .17] in section 3. The drag coefficient derived from pressure was based on the pressure distribution along the wing’s centre line. The coefficient of drag.22] followed only the shape of the expected drag polar curve [Figure 3.2.Drag coefficient Both groups of drag coefficient-angle of attack curves [Figure 3. CD. Overall drag across the whole wing was measured for force measurements. drag was the highest. The coefficient of drag. derived from force measurements was closer to the calculated CD. based on these pressure distributions was always greater than the overall drag.1. The small additional drag could be contributed by the difficulty in determining the drag contribution of the supports. Even with the differences. the effect of h/c reduction is a clear drop in drag. force and calculation.

80 0. (CD values without ground effect indicated by h/c = OGE.10 0.08 1.06 0.00 0.60 0. α and CD vs.05 0.40 cd 0.11 1.09 h/c 0.02 0.22 Graphs of cd vs. cd vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.10 0.00 0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] (b) CD vs.30 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 0. The percentage changes in CL and in CD were compared to the relative uncertainty in the CL and CD values across the tested range of angles of attack.12 h/c 0.08 0.20 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] (a) cd vs.30 0. α CD vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 0O to 8O and ground clearances.07 0. α Figure 3. α at various h/c. The definition of standard uncertainty and the law of propagation of uncertainty was taken from the Evaluation of Measurement data – Guide to 86 .05 0.05 OGE 0.40 CD 0.09 0.10 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.60 0.) 62 3. This comparison showed how significant were the gains in lift and reductions in drag forces in ground effect. 200000 | at various h/c 0.06 0.80 0.03 0. h/c 0.3 UNCERTAINTY Only uncertainties in force measurements were determined as force measurements were used to obtain the lift and drag values.05 to 1.0.

the tolerance was defined as half the smallest division on the scale used. For measurements involving lengths such as height of water in a manometer column or span of the wing. n = 3 for the rectangular distribution and n = 6 for the triangular distribution. x is the tolerance. The standard uncertainty in the force readings was determined from the standard deviation using the following formula. only the tolerances of the instruments were available. σ was the standard deviation and N was the number of samples. Χ = Α ± Β . The rectangular probability distribution means all readings within the interval were probable while the triangular probability distribution concentrated the probabilities of the measured values at the mean. The following simplified laws of propagation of uncertainties were used for independent quantities. the absolute uncertainties were added. larger amount of uncertainty in the final outcome. x ∆Χ = n where X is the measured length. This document was updated from the International Organisation of Standardisation (ISO) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. 87 . The n value was set to 3 to reflect a more conservative. When the tolerances were not available. σ ∆F = N where ∆F represented the measured force. For addition and subtraction. The standard uncertainties for the tolerances were calculated from the following formula.the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [36].

Χ = Α m . The percentage changes in CL were plotted with the relative uncertainties in CL. Χ = ΑΒ or Χ = Α B . the percentage increase in CL at all tested angles of attack exceeded the relative uncertainty in CL. the relative uncertainties were added.23]. 2 2 ∆Χ  ∆Α   ∆Β  =   +  Χ  Α   Β  For terms raised to powers. for reducing h/c [Figure 3. ∆Χ = ∆Α 2 + ∆Β2 For multiplication and division. At h/c < 0. The coverage factor is taken as 2 for a significance level of 95%.3. 88 . Therefore the increase in CL did not arise from randomness. Expanded uncertainty of X = k∆Χ where k is the coverage factor. ∆Χ m∆A = Χ A where m is the power The expanded uncertainty was obtained from the final absolute standard uncertainty by the following.

60 0.3. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 20% 15% 10% AoA 5% 0 Percentage 2 0% 4 0.00 -5% 6 8 -10% Relative Uncertainty in CD -15% -20% -25% h/c Figure 3.40 0.10 0.50 0.00 -2% -4% h/c Figure 3.10 0.20 0.90 1.80 0.80 0. the percentage drag reductions exceeded the relative uncertainty of CD. 63 Percentage changes in CD were plotted with the relative uncertainties in CD. 64 89 .00 0.60 0.24 Percentage change in CD compared to relative uncertainty in CD vs. % Increase in CL (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. Subsequent L/D ratios were also affected.50 0.00 0. % Increase in CD (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.30 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 16% 14% 12% AoA 10% 0 Percentage 8% 2 4 6% 6 4% 8 2% Relative Uncertainty in CL 0% 0. For 2O ≤ α ≤ 6O and h/c ≤ 0.40 0. h/c.90 1. for reducing h/c [Figure 3.30 0. Experimental were present but these were not repeated for improved data.24].70 0.23 Percentage increase in CL compared to relative uncertainty in CL vs.20 0. h/c.70 0. Measured drag values were small and the data obtained at α = 0o was not smooth as h/c decreased.

25 Percentage increase in L/D compared to relative uncertainty in L/D vs.40 0. h/c.20 0.00 0. 65 90 . Only below h/c 0.5 did the percentage increase in L/D exceed the relative uncertainty in L/D.10 0.30 0.70 0.00 -5% -10% h/c Figure 3. % Increase in L/D (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 40% 35% 30% AoA 25% 0 Percentage 20% 2 4 15% 6 10% 8 5% Relative Uncertainty in L/D 0% 0.90 1.50 0.80 0.25].Percentage changes in L/D were plotted with the relative uncertainty of L/D for reducing h/c [Figure 3.60 0.

after factoring the effect of down wash. Another factor that could have changed with decreasing ground clearance is also the effective camber. which will be explained in section 4. In the 2D cases examined in the literature review.1. This showed that induced drag has reduced and concurrently the effective angle of attack should have increased to the geometric angle of attack. DISCUSSION Lift on a wing depends on circulation distributed over its span.2. angle of attack.3 showed observable reduction in drag [Figures 60.4.2. shape. However. free stream speed. chord length. Circulation in turn depends on the shape. In this discussion.4). 91 .3 and 3. attention is focused on the effect of h/c on camber and angle of attack. camber. chord length.1. the effectiveness of camber is reduced.2 and 3.1. A pocket of higher pressure develops from air slowing down below the wing as seen in increasing pressure on the lower surface (sections 3. when the air is unable to follow this curved path. The camber of an airfoil causes air to take a curved path around the airfoil. 62] with decreasing h/c. sections 3. The presence of the ground is closely related to two additional effects. The effective angle of attack is the local angle of attack that the on-coming air makes with the chord line of the airfoil. free stream speed. In the 3D cases in this present work. The only factor that could have changed with decreasing ground clearance was the effective camber. and span-wise location. and span were considered constant. except in a few h/c and α configurations possibly due to experimental errors. the lack of wing tip vortices means the angle of attack was not affected by reducing down wash. The other variables.

In the 2D moving ground case. the moving belt is increasingly drawing away air below the wing. The 2D stationary ground case saw air slowing down below the wing.3.3.30]. for 2D cases. in ground effect studies. 4. [26] showed that a moving ground caused circulatory lift to reduce.The ground may increase or reduce circulation as the wing approaches the ground. especially air following the upper surface. inferred from increasing suction on the upper surface [Figure 1. a stationary ground caused more circulation.3. Ahmed et. al. Wind tunnel testing experience on 2D models spanning the tunnel also points out that the stationary walls of a wind tunnel restrain the natural expansion of streamlines about a model [34]. Circulation over the wing was observed to decrease as inferred 92 . The constrained wind tunnel streamlines impart more curvature or impart more camber to the model. inferred from the small decrease in suction on the upper surface [Figure 1. Likely this increased the effective camber hence circulation. Each factor is examined in further detail in the following sections.4. In this present 3D work.3. as the wing approached the moving belt. However. pressure distribution was used to infer changes in circulation. The streamlines were constrained to curve even more around the wing. the effect of the ground on the camber is deliberately encountered. resulting in less effective camber. In section 1. Streamlines could be less constrained and less curved about the airfoil. hence less circulation.3.1 EFFECTIVE CAMBER In section 1.28].

as the ground approached. The flow becomes more 2D. streamlines are less curved so the wing experienced less effective camber and circulation reduced instead.1. 51. 55 in section 3. Ram pressure that built up under a wing in ground effect could have a similar effect as the pressure under a wing without ground effect.2 EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF ATTACK Looking at the 3D flow around the wing. In the stream wise vertical plane. In this present work. Similar to this 3D experiment over a fixed ground. This reduction in down wash or reduced dΓ/dy begins at the mid span. there is no constraint on the expansion of streamlines. it is possible that the reducing effective camber is the main driver for less circulation. and spreads to the wing tips. especially sideways. In the limit when 93 . 53. While ram pressure can build up. a reduction in down wash causes smaller changes in circulation along the wing span.3 and 3. Based on Prandtl’s lifting line theory.1. Consequently.from the reducing suction over the upper surface as the ground approached at all angles of attack tested [Figures 47. there is no constraint to keep the slower air only within the space under the finite span wing. 49. Therefore. 4. air that slowed down under the wing moved out under the trailing edge and concurrently towards the wing tips. in causing span wise flow outwards to the wing tips. the wingtip vortices were constrained. the flow under the finite NACA 4412 wing was not fully constrained under the wing since the moving belt drew air down stream. Ahmed [26] also reported reducing suction on the upper surface for a NACA 4412 airfoil over a moving belt experiment.4]. The smaller vortices caused less down wash ahead and behind the wing. compared to the 2D case.

53.1. It is possible that while the effective angle of attack increased. The whole wing experiences 2D flow. 52.1. So as h/c reduced. the higher-pressure pocket of air existed under the wing at all tested angles of attack as the ground is approached [Figures 48. Geometrically. a convergent passage is set up below the wing. 56]. leading to the pressure rise. 54. the effective angle of attack should increase to the geometric angle of attack. there is no indication of increased circulation [Figures 47. causing a smaller pressure rise [Figures 48 and 50]. Air slowed down when funneled through the narrow gap between the trailing edge and the ground.approaching the ground. The effective angle of attack is now the same along the span but since down wash vanishes. the effective angle of attack has increased to the same angle as the geometric angle of attack. and greater lift from circulation should result.4]. 49. other effects are competing or the change in effective angle of attack has only a small effect on the pressure distribution.3 and 3.1. Below α = 3O. 50. wingtip vortices vanish all together.4. 4. air still slowed down. In this present work. However. at α ≥ 3O. When the effective angle of attack increased to the geometric angle of attack.3 BEHAVIOUR OF AIR BELOW THE WING In section 3. circulation 94 .1. the resultant aerodynamic force rotated through only a small angle and increased the lift force by only a small amount. 51. from the upper surface pressure distributions at all tested angles of attack. 55 in section 3.3 and 3. Circulation also leads to pressure build up below the wing.

These improvements come with introducing more energy into the existing flow. In this present work from sections 3. As long as air is made to follow the curvature of the wing. resulting in higher pressure. In the literature reviewed and this present work. the trailing edge was the closest to the ground and saw slower than free stream flow under the wing since CP near the trailing edge was positive.4 GROUND EFFECT ON CIRCULATION ON A WING As circulation is key to generating lift.1. This indicated that the combination of convergent geometry with reducing h/c was the main cause for air to slow down under the wing. circulation improves.4) or moving (section 1. 3. various forms of circulation enhancements have been investigated such as the circulation control wing mentioned in Bertin [37] where a well adjusted pressured jet of air was made to follow the round trailing edge of a wing. the trailing edge stagnation point still stayed on the trailing edge within the wake region of slower flow.1.reduced with decreasing h/c. higher pressure air below the trailing edge tending to push the trailing edge stagnation point upstream along the upper surface to induce circulation to increase is not possible.4).4. On the upper surface.3 and 3.3 and 3.3. 4.3. the flow near the trailing edge was closer to free stream conditions since CP was close to zero. this higher-pressure region always developed when circulation increased or decreased or when the ground was stationary (section 1.3.1. Since a real viscous fluid was used.3. So pressure increases on the lower surface do not arise from increases in circulation. 95 . The possibility of a layer of slower.3.1.

Considering a rotating cylinder in free stream flow. the slowed air contributed directly to higher pressure below the wing and was unable to affect circulation. in the case of the wing in ground effect. as h/c reduced. it is not likely that this higher pressure pocket of air would re-organize itself to move against the free stream to assist circulation by providing flow from below the wing to above it. lift can also be generated by externally causing air to circulate around the cylinder without the cylinder rotating. 4. moving round the leading edge. This pocket of higher- pressure air existed when air slowed down under the wing. which generates its own lift by imparting circulation to the fluid surrounding it. In ground effect.1.2.5 DRAG In this 3D work. However.On the lower surface. drag generally reduced [Figure 60 and 62]. cd derived from pressure depended on the fitted polynomial curve to determine area under the curve and had no skin friction contribution. When the wing was very close to the ground. pressure measurements showed drag dipping then rising again. while force measurements showed a gradual reduction in drag for a 3D wing. a decrease in drag was then due to the reduction of induced drag. For lift generation. circulation draws air against the free stream from under the wing. Without additional energy inputs. When deriving the datum 3D drag polar in section 3. it is unlikely to cause changes in circulation. 96 . However. Since this pocket of higher-pressure air does not directly affect the trailing edge stagnation point. induced drag was the largest component. the pocket of higher-pressure air peaked at the forward stagnation point and reduced towards the trailing edge.

Air from the upper and lower surfaces can only join to from the wake. On a wing immersed in real fluid at a small positive angle of attack. no more additional drag resulted from more circulatory lift. buoyancy and drag of supports were treated as constants in measured drag. circulation is set up around the airfoil to keep the rear stagnation point at the trailing edge and the strength of circulation adjusts so that the Kutta condition is maintained. leaving the 97 . 4. Since drag decreased. Looking at CD from force measurements. air from the lower surface does not accelerate round the trailing edge to the upper surface. any increased drag from pressure under the wing must be small compared to reduced induced drag. Close to the ground. Thus the mechanism behind changes in drag was primarily reducing induced drag. Due to the sharp trailing edge.6 CHANGES IN LIFT AND DRAG FOR A 2D AIRFOIL IN GROUND EFFECT Based on the Kutta condition. viscosity generates a region of slower fluid adjacent to the wing surface (the boundary layer) and so establishing the Kutta condition at the trailing edge. This causes circulation to adjust and results in lift. air from the upper surface does not go round the trailing edge to the lower surface. Likewise. Any increased pressure on the lower face of the airfoil when air was slowing down between the wing and the stationary ground increased drag but this was small compared to reduction of induced drag in a 3D wing. the flow is becoming 2D with some 3D effects remaining. Since there was no increase in circulation.Therefore fluctuations in cd were expected. thus their removal did not affect the observation of reducing drag as h/c reduced.

These 2D pressure distributions would be interpreted in terms of changes in circulation and used to explain the flow over the middle of the wing for this present 3D case. While the lift contribution from circulation 98 . reducing the effective camber of the airfoil. [25. Consequently. The further movement of the stagnation point downstream along the lower surface and air diverting to the upper surface were used to account for the changes in lift.airfoil together. al. Ram pressure below the airfoil was noted to increase lift with h/c reduction. 4. al. Ahmed et. the effective angle of attack is the same as the geometrical case since there was no down wash. 26] did not distinguish lift caused by circulation and lift caused by ram pressure below the airfoil when discussing the effects of reducing h/c on lift.1 Effect of a Flat Moving Ground on lift and drag In 2D flow over a moving ground. In both the moving and fixed ground cases. 26] provided insight into the flow over the middle portion of a finite wing.6. resulting in less curvature of streamlines about the wing. the 2D pressure distributions in Ahmed et. The rear stagnation point must remain or is maintained on the trailing edge. As the wing approached the moving ground. This reduced the restraint on streamline expansion under the wing. [25. However. changes in suction on the upper surface were not explained based on circulation about the airfoil. the leading edge stagnation point moved around and up the nose of the airfoil. air slowed down and is also increasingly drawn downstream out from under the wing by the moving ground. The resulting circulation that can develop about the wing is less than that without ground effect. This reduced circulation is shown in reduced suction on the upper surface. but these were also not explained based on circulation about the airfoils tested.

increasing their curvature and the effective camber of the airfoil.reduced.1]. Drag also increased due to higher pressure under the wing [Figure 4.1 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a moving belt. Air under the wing is not drawn downstream by the ground but instead is squeezed through the narrow gap between the trailing edge and ground. The increased ram pressure also caused more drag [Figure 4.6. The slower air also developed a higher-pressure region under the wing . While lift improved with increased suction on the upper surface. it was compensated by increased ram pressure below the wing. the effective angle of attack is the same as the geometrical case since down wash is absent When ground clearance narrowed.2 Effects of a Flat Stationary Ground on lift and drag In 2D flow over a fixed ground. 66 4.2]. Figure 4. The streamlines are then constrained under the wing. seen in higher cp values on the lower surface. higher pressure on the lower surface also contributed to lift.The overall increase in circulation from more effective camber resulted in more suction on the upper surface and downward movement of the forward stagnation point. the flow under the wing slowed down. 99 .

6. the effective angle of attack increases due to reducing down wash from impeded formation of wing tip vortices. Drag reduces due to a smaller induced drag component. 100 . the overall lift increases. the lift to drag ratio improves. since the other variables were constant.6.2 Circulation about an airfoil in ground effect over a flat plate. There is less curvature of streamlines (in the stream wise vertical plane). Building on the explanations for 2D flow in section 4. Overall. reducing the effective camber of the airfoil. Based on the experimental results discussed in section 4. where circulation was shown to have decreased.7 CHANGES IN LIFT AND DRAG FOR A FINITE WING IN GROUND EFFECT The previous explanations for 2D flow about a wing in ground effect discussed only the effects of the effective camber. As the ground approaches. Air also slows down under the wing. The final effect is less circulatory lift.Figure 4. However due to the higher pressure under the wing.1 and 4. reducing effective camber has a greater effect on reducing circulation than increasing effective the angle of attack has on increasing circulation. 67 4. Since this air is not fully constrained to flow under the trailing edge. this present work proposes the following explanation for the 3D flow when a finite wing operates in ground effect over a stationary flat plate. this reduces the restraint on the expansion of streamlines under the wing. This air moves out under the trailing edge and is also free to move towards the wing tips.1.2. causing higher pressure.

101 . air slowed down under the wing. The larger percentage gains in L/D ratios came from the wing at α = 2O to 6O and h/c below 0. The loss of lift from reduced circulation was more than compensated by lift from higher-pressure air below the wing. The effect of h/c reduction was a translation of the CL-α curve upwards. At the same time. the experimental data showed drag decreasing and a translation of the CD-α curve downwards as h/c reduced. primarily due to reduction of induced drag. circulatory lift reduced as h/c was reduced. Streamlines close to the wing were still free to expand. Pressure build-up under the wing contributed only toward a small amount of drag. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5. The experimental data showed overall conclusive lift increases. Overall. Drag reduced at all angles of attack when h/c reduced. as the wing approached the ground. Since a moving belt was not used to simulate the ground.5. The increase in lift came mainly from higher pressure below the wing.3. reducing the effective camber of the wing. This set of experimental data showed that α = 4O gave the largest percentage L/D gains. developing a pocket of higher-pressure air.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS For a 3D wing tested at a constant angle of attack over a stationary flat plate.3 for angles of attack 0O to 8O. The presence of the ground near the wing did not directly increase circulation about the wing. most likely due to reducing effective camber. the flat plate’s ground effect on the streamlines did not represent the actual flow. especially when below h/c 0.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that future experiments be carried out in a wind tunnel with

a moving belt facility, which would replicate actual flow conditions faithfully.

Care must be taken to immerse the model in the region of flow unaffected by

the tunnel walls. The belt needs to be sufficiently wide to accommodate a

reasonably sized model. The model should be supported from the aft half of

the upper surface (x/c 0.5 to 1.0) preferably by a single strut or sting mounted.

A single attachment point reduces the challenge of constructing two identical

struts to reduce generation of forces acting sideways. The strut should be

streamlined to reduce its contribution to measured drag and to improve the

sensitivity of drag measurement.

To improve the drag measurement, the strut must fulfill several functions. It

must support the model and allow for changes in angle of attack. The strut

must not rotate, so that the strut’s drag contribution is kept consistent. The

support must hide all tubes running to pressure taps and be sufficiently rigid

to transfer the lift and drag forces to the load cell faithfully. The strut must also

hold another secondary support, completely shielded, that holds the model

unattached to the main strut. This facilitates measurement of only the drag

contribution of the support, while keeping the flow conditions at its ends

consistent with the model mounted close by, even at the same angles of

attack. The strut, when extended into the tunnel behind the model, reduces

complicating the flow over the model should leakage into the tunnel be a

problem.

102

The hinge mechanism for adjusting the angle of attack should be securely

bolted at each pivot point once the desired angle is obtained. This ensures

that any force is transferred fully through the effectively stiff non-rotating

joints. Since the model of a wing is slender, pivot points are best positioned

outside the model and covered by the strut to improve access and ease of

adjustment.

The model and support needs to be as small as possible to reduce mass and

inertia, which affects the force and moment readings by the load cell.

Consequently, the load cell usually sits just outside and above the wind

tunnel. In this position, the load cell should also be placed on a more massive

support that damps out vibrations from external sources such as the wind

tunnel fan motor.

The pressure taps concentrated at the fore half (x/c 0.0 to 0.5) of the upper

and lower surface would more readily pick up the movement of the stagnation

point and the movement of the suction pocket on the upper surface. This

indicates how ground effect affects circulatory lift contribution.

While alternating between pressure only measurements and force only

measurements, a more efficient way to connect and disconnect multiple thin

tubes, while maintaining tube phasing is ideal in saving wind tunnel running

time. This connect would look similar to a multi-pin electrical connector that

connects in only one way.

103

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. R.G. Ollila, Historical Review of WIG Vehicles, Journal of Hydronautics,

Vol.14, No.3, pp 65–76, 1980.

2. K.V. Rozhdestvensky, Wing in Ground Effect Vehicles, Progress in

Aerospace Sciences, Vol.42, pp 211–283, 2006.

3. D.N. Sinitsyn and A.I. Maskalik, The First Commercial Ekranoplan

“Amphistar” and Prospects for the Development of Passenger

Ekranoplans, NATO Research and Technology Organisation, Meeting

Proceedings 15-24, 1998.

4. L. Yun, A. Bliault, J. Doo, WIG craft and Ekranoplan Ground Effect Craft

Technology, Chapter 2, pp 38, 43, 47, 60, 64-65, 66, 68, 79, 82, 84, 92,

Springer, 2010.

5. ARPA, Wingship Investigation Volume 1 Final Report, and Wingship

Investigation Volume 3 Technology Roadmap, 1994.

6. M. Halloran and S. O'Meara, Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review, DSTO-

GD-0201, 1999.

7. Wingship Technology Corp., WSH-500 (Hoverwing 50).

https://sites.google.com/site/hoverwingwigcraft/curriculum-vitae 04/17/

(accessed Apr 17, 2012)

8. Fischer Flugmechanik, Hoverwing 20,

https://sites.google.com/site/hoverwingwigcraft/conferences, (accessed

Apr 18, 2012)

9. C. Wieselsberger, Wing Resistance Near the Ground, NACA-TM-77,

1922.

10. S.E. Widnall and T.M. Barrows, An Analytic Solution for Two- and Three-

Dimensional Wings in Ground Effect, Journal of Fluid Mechanics Vol.41,

Part 4, pp 769–792, 1970.

104

11. P.L. Coe and J.L. Thomas, Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of

Ground-Induced Effects for a Low-Aspect Ratio Highly Swept Arrow-Wing

Configuration, NASA TP 1508, 1979.

12. Q.X. Wang, Flow Around Unsteady Thin Wing to Curved Ground, Journal

of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.226, pp 175–187, 1991.

13. T. Abramowski, Numerical Investigation of Airfoil in Ground Proximity,

Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Vol.45 pp 425–436, 2007.

14. N. Kornev and K. Matveev, Complex Numerical Modeling of Dynamics

and Crashes of Wing-In-Ground Vehicles, 41st Aerospace Sciences

Meeting and Exhibition, AIAA 2003–600, 2003.

15. S.B. Suh, K.H. Jung, H.C. Ho, Numerical and Experimental Studies on

Wing In Ground Effect, International Journal of Ocean Systems

Engineering, Vol.1, no.2, pp 110–119, 2011.

16. J. Katz, Calculation of the Aerodynamic Force on Automotive Lifting

Surface, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol.107, pp 438–443,

1985.

17. M.P. Fink and J.L. Lastinger, Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low Aspect

Ratio Wings in Close Proximity to the Ground, NASA TN D926, 1961.

18. B. Maskew, Program VSAERO, A Computer Program for Calculating the

Nonlinear Aerodynamic Characteristics of Arbitrary Configurations, NASA

CR 166476, 1982.

19. A.H. Day, and L.J. Doctors, A Study of the Efficiency of the Wing-In-

Ground-Effect Concept, Proceedings of Workshop on 21st Century Flying

Ships 1-22, 1995.

20. A.E. Raymond, Ground Influence on Airfoils, NACA TN 67, 1921.

21. M.D. Chawla, L.C. Edwards and M.E. Franke, Wind Tunnel Investigation

of Wing-in-Ground Effects, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.27, No.4, 1990.

105

22. H.J. Kwang, H.C. Ho and J.K. Hee, Experimental Investigation of Wing In

Ground Effect with a NACA 6409 Section, Journal of Marine Science and

Technology, Vol.13, pp 317–327, 2008.

23. M.R. Ahmed and S.D. Sharma, An Investigation on the Aerodynamics of a

Symmetrical Airfoil in Ground Effect, Experimental Thermal and Fluid

Science, Vol.29, pp 633–647, 2004.

24. S.C. Luo and Y.S. Chen, Ground effect on a Flow Past a Wing with a

NACA 0015 Cross Section, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,

Vol.40, pp 18–28, 2012.

25. M.R. Ahmed, Aerodynamics of a Cambered Airfoil in Ground Effect,

International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol.32, No.2, pp 157–

183, 2005.

26. MR Ahmed, T. Takasaki, Y. Kohama, Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412

Airfoil in Ground Effect, AIAA Journal, Vol.45, No.1, pp 37–47, 2007.

27. I.H. Abbott, A.E.V. Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Sections, Dover, 1959,

Appendix IV, pp 490, 491.

28. D.J. Graham, G.E. Nitzberg and R.N. Olson, A Systematic Investigation of

Pressure Distributions at High Speeds over Five Representative NACA

Low-Drag and Conventional Airfoil Sections, NACA TR 832, 1945.

29. A.W. Carter, Pressure Distributions on a Wing having NACA 4415 Airfoil

Sections with Trailing Edge Flaps set at 0O and 40O, NASA TM X 2225,

1971.

30. S. Efstratios, The Aerodynamic Performance of the NACA 4415 Airfoil

Section at Low Reynolds Numbers, MSc(Research), Department of

Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow, 1988.

31. J.D. Anderson, Aircraft Performance and Design, Chapter 2 pp 81, 87,

109, 110, McGraw Hill, International Edition 1999.

106

Okiishi.32. 1999.38. J. W. T. J. Mahrenholtz.B. D. JCGM 100:2008. and R. 2013).org/en/publications/guides/gum. GUM 1995 with minor corrections. 36.H. 2002. Pope. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. Fago.R Munson.html (accessed Jul 4.D.H. Barlow. Chapter 13. http://www. 107 . pp 831. pp 47–57. Rae and A.J Bertin. Prentice hall. 35. Barber. T. E. B. Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing. The Effect of Ground Simulation on the Flow Around Vehicles in Wind Tunnel Testing. Chapter 9 pp 350–353. 4th Edition.bipm. B. Leonardi. 2002. Vol. Aerodynamics for Engineers. 4th edition.J. Evaluation of Measurement data – Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). 3rd Edition Wiley Interscience. Causes for Discrepancies in Ground Effect Analyses. 833. pp 513. pp 653–667. Chapter 10 pp 374. The Aeronautical Journal. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. 1991. Archer. H Lindner and O. 37. 2002 Wiley. 34.F. 33. Young. Appendix B Physical Properties of Fluids.

Appendix A. Germany 1995 27 Germany Techno Trans 2006 onwards 28 Japan Tottori University canard WISE project 2005 29 Japan Tottori University canard WISE project 2005 30 Japan Tottori University canard WISE project 2005 31 Japan Tottori University canard WISE project 2005 32 Japan Prof Syozo Kubo. Russia 1973 41 Russia (Soviet) Central Laboratary of 1973 42 Russia (Soviet) Rescue Techniques 1973 43 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin Marine Passenger Ekranoplans 1993 44 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin Marine Passenger Ekranoplans 1993 45 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin Marine Passenger Ekranoplans 1993 46 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin Marine Passenger Ekranoplans 1993 47 Russia (Soviet) Gen D Synitsin. 2011 38 Russia (Soviet) B Blinov Moscow Aviation Institute 1965 39 Russia (Soviet) Bartini Taganrog Aviation Construction Complex 40 Russia (Soviet) CLST. Russia Technology & Transport 1995 108 . Finland 1935 13 Finland Toivo Kaario 1962 14 France J Bertin Company 1969 15 France J Bertin Company 1973 16 Germany Dr A Lippisch. Japan Tottori University 1988 33 Japan Prof Syozo Kubo Tottori University 1988 34 Japan Prof Syozo Kubo H Akimoto 2001 35 Japan Kawasaki Corp 1963 36 Korea Govt project 2005 37 Korea WingShip Technology Corp Hanno Fischer is Technical advisor. Summary of WIG Vehicles Country of Main Designer Main Designer / SN Partnering Designer / Manufacturer Year or Manufacturer Manufacturer 1 China CSSRC. Germany 1970 17 Germany Dr A Lippisch. Germany FischerFlugmechanik 1988 22 Germany Hanno Fischer FischerFlugmechanik 1990 23 Germany Hanno Fischer design Airfoil development GmbH 2000 24 Germany Hanno Fischer design Airfoil development GmbH 2002 25 Germany Hanno Fischer design Airfoil development GmbH 2011 26 Germany Techno Trans. Germany Collins Radio Company 1963 18 Germany Dr Alexander Lippisch RheinFlugzeugBau RFB 1970 19 Germany Dr Alexander Lippisch RheinFlugzeugBau RFB 1980 20 Germany Gunter Jorg 1976 21 Germany Hanno Fischer. China 1980 8 China MARIC Qiu Sin shipyard 1997 9 China MARIC Qiu Sin shipyard 1997 10 England Ronald Bourn HFL seaglide 1976 11 EU SEABUS-HYDAER (HYDrodynamics/AERodynamics) 1997 12 Finland Toivo Kaario. China 1996 reported 2 China China 1996 reported 3 China Ship 1996 reported 4 China Scientific 1996 reported 5 China Research 1996 reported 6 China Centre 1996 reported 7 China MARIC.

Russia Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1970s 50 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1961 51 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1962 52 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1962 53 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1963 54 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1964 55 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1972 56 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1963 57 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1967 58 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1969 59 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1973 60 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1987 61 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1977 62 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1985 63 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1970s 64 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1995 65 Sweden I Troeng 1938 66 Switzerland H Weiland 1964 67 USA Boeing Company 1965 68 USA Research Affiliates 1965 69 USA Research Affiliates 1965 70 USA Water Research Company 1974 71 USA DE Calkins University of California 1975 72 USA Lockheed Georgia 1977 73 USA Douglas Aircraft 1977 74 USA Northrop Aircraft 1993 75 USA Boeing Company Phantom Works 2002 76 USA Aerocon 1990 77 USA Dr WR Bertelson 1963 109 . Appendix A. Summary of WIG Vehicles Country of Main Designer Main Designer / SN Partnering Designer / Manufacturer Year or Manufacturer Manufacturer 48 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau 1970s 49 Russia (Soviet) RE Alexeev.

high speed transocean transport 17 Fully Developed Experimental 18 Fully Developed Experimental Improvement from X-112 19 Fully Developed Experimental Improvement from X-113. high speed transocean transport 16 Concept Only High load. 4 times larger 20 Fully Developed Experimental Travel across water and only calm water 21 Fully Developed Experimental Maritime sports vehicle 22 Fully Developed Experimental Maritime sports vehicle 23 Fully Developed Experimental Maritime sports vehicle or passenger 24 Concept Only Passenger 25 Fully Developed IMO certification before Production. Passenger (most likely but still unconfirmed) 26 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger (aims to build a 80 pax vehicle) 27 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger (aims to build a 80 pax vehicle) 28 Concept Only Passenger Transport 29 Concept Only Passenger Transport 30 Concept Only Passenger Transport 31 Concept Only Passenger Transport (2 crew vehicle) 32 Fully Developed 33 Fully Developed 34 Fully Developed Passenger Transport 35 Stopped. Dynamic Air cushion ship. Appendix A. Experimental 36 Concept Only Cargo Transport 37 Fully Developed IMO certification before Production. Passenger Transport 38 Concept Only High load. high speed transocean transport 15 Concept Only High load. 110 . high speed transocean transport 39 Fully Developed Experimental Use GE to provide contact free take off and landing 40 Fully Developed Experimental Water borne rescue at sea 41 Fully Developed Experimental Water borne rescue at sea 42 Fully Developed Experimental Water borne rescue at sea 43 Concept Only Passenger Transport 44 Concept Only Passenger Transport 45 Concept Only Passenger Transport 46 Concept Only Passenger Transport 47 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport. No Reason. Summary of WIG Vehicles Fully Developed / SN Experimental / Production phase Motivation Concept Only 1 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport 2 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport 3 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport 4 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport (Total 9 developed models) 5 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport 6 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport 7 Fully Developed Experimental Amphibious WIG 8 Fully Developed Experimental Amphibious WIG 9 Fully Developed Experimental Amphibious WIG 10 Fully Developed Experimental Multi roles in civilian and military 11 Concept Only 12 Fully Developed Experimental High speed snow sledge 13 Fully Developed Experimental High speed snow sledge improved 14 Concept Only High load.

high speed transocean transport 72 Concept Only High load. high speed transocean military transport 77 Fully Developed Experimental Cross rural countryside efficiently to visit patients 111 . high speed transocean military transport 76 Concept Only Deemed unfeasible in 1994. Experimental Travel across water 66 Concept Only High load. Passenger Transport. 64 Partially Developed. Unstable. Supposed military use 60 Fully Developed Experimental Missile carrier 61 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 62 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 63 Fully Developed Experimental Passenger Transport. high speed transocean transport 67 Concept Only High load. High load. Summary of WIG Vehicles Fully Developed / SN Experimental / Production phase Motivation Concept Only 48 Concept Only Passenger Transport 49 Fully Developed Possibly in commercial phase. Dynamic Air cushion ship. Dynamic Air cushion ship. high speed transocean transport 68 Concept Only Long range Naval missions 69 Concept Only Short range Naval missions 70 Concept Only High load. high speed transocean military transport 74 Concept Only High load. high speed transocean transport 71 Concept Only High load. high speed transocean military transport 75 Concept Only High load. Concept needs proving. Appendix A. Water borne rescue at sea 65 Stopped. high speed transocean transport 73 Concept Only High load. 50 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 51 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 52 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 53 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 54 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 55 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 56 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 57 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 58 Fully Developed Experimental Supposed military use 59 Fully Developed Production limited.

8 Ram wing 2 500 kg 14 Cygne 10 Flying wing 1000 tons 15 Cygne 14 Flying wing 1400 tons 16 Aerofoil boat Ram wing 300 tons 17 X-112 Ram wing 1 330 kg 18 X-113 Ram wing 1 345 kg 19 X-114 Ram wing 6 1850 kg 20 TAB VII-5 Tandem flying wing 740 kg 21 AirFish FF1/FF2 Ram wing 2 No weight mentioned 22 AirFish-3 Ram wing 4 2.) Ram wing 17.1 tons 9 Swan-II or AWIG-751G Power augmented ram No weight mentioned 10 SEABEE Ram wing 3 502 kg 11 Sea Bus project 500 tons 12 No specific name given Ram wing 1 13 Aerosani No.132 tons 38 Blinov Flying wing Flying wing 550 tons No weight mentioned 39 VVA-14 52 tons 40 ESKA-1 Ram wing 2 450 kg 41 An-2E Ram wing 12 7000 kg 42 CLST 2-seat ekranoplan Ram wing 2 1460 kg 43 MPE-100 80-100 tons 44 MPE-200 180-210 tons 45 MPE-300 300-350 tons 46 MPE-400 Power augmented ram 450 400 tons 47 Aquaglide-5 Power augmented ram and air cushion.5 times of FF1/FF2 23 FlightShip-8 (FS-8 or Airfish-8) 8 2325 kg 24 FlightShip-40 40 pax/5 tons 25 HoverWing 20 (IMO cert. 2720 kg 112 .5 ton 35 KAG-3 Flying wing 2 590 kg 36 No name Korean Govt Project 300 tons 37 WSH-500 (IMO cert. Summary of WIG Vehicles Crew / SN Vehicle Designation Some Ground Effect Specifics Weight / Mass Payload 1 XTW-1 950 kg 2 XTW-1S 1700 kg 3 XTW-2 Ram wing 3600 kg 4 XTW-3 Ram wing 4000 kg 5 XTW-4 Ram wing 20 6000 kg 6 XTW-5 25000 kg 7 AWIG-750 Power augmented ram 745 kg 8 Swan-I or AWIG-751 Power augmented ram 8.3 tons 28 WISES60 Wing with canard 60 23 tons 29 WISES80 Wing with canard 80 31 tons 30 WISES140 Wing with canard 140 56 tons 31 WISES2 Wing with canard 2 400 kg 32 mu sky-1 1 295 kg 33 mu sky-2 Flying wing 2 No weight mentioned 34 "8 seater flying wing" Flying wing 2.) Ram wing and air cushion 9500 kg 26 Hoverwing 2VT / hydrowing vt-01 2 812 kg 27 Hydrowing-06 2. Appendix A.

3 tons 55 SM-6 Power augmented ram 26. 90 31 tons 50 SM-1 Tandem flying wing 2.3 tons 57 SM-8 Power augmented ram 8. Appendix A.83 tons 51 SM-2P Power augmented ram 3.6 5000 tons 77 GEM-3 Ram wing 4 1140 kg 113 .1 tons 58 KM Power augmented ram 550 tons 59 Orlyonok 120 tons 60 Loon / Lun 400 tons 61 SM-9 1.5 tons 56 SM-5 Power augmented ram 7.2 tons 63 Volga-2 Power augmented ram and air cushion. 2.7 tons 64 Spasatel 400 tons 65 Aeroboat Flying wing 1 600 kg 66 Weiland Large Craft Tandem flying wing 3000 909091 kg 67 low boy Flying wing 125 tons 68 RAM-1 Flying wing and air cushion vehicle 22000 kg 69 RAM-2 Flying wing and air cushion vehicle 4990 kg 70 WSEV-C Ram wing 1000 tons 71 Hybrid airship Flying wing 1000 tons 72 WIG transport Power augmented ram 700 tons 73 DAW-S Power augmented ram 910 tons 74 Northrop Wingship 1.4 tons 53 SM-4 Power augmented ram 4.20 tons 52 SM-3 Ram wing 3.6M 725 tons 75 Pelican No weight mentioned 76 Dash 1.75 ton 62 SM-10 2.8 tons 54 SM2-P7 Power augmented ram 6. Summary of WIG Vehicles Crew / SN Vehicle Designation Some Ground Effect Specifics Weight / Mass Payload 48 Vikhr-2 Dynamic air cushion 250 No weight mentioned 49 Raketa-2 Power augmented ram and air cushion.

874 kW Piston propellor Rozhdestvensky 35 21-32 knots cruise 80 hp Out board motor Ollila 36 250 km/h Rozhdestvensky 37 175 km/h 2x1400 hp Turbo prop Wingship Technology Corp webpages 38 215 knots 6xTurbo prop Ollila 39 760 km/h 2xD-30M turbo fan Rozhdestvensky RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25 40 60 knots cruise 30 hp Piston propellor Ollila RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25 41 190 km/h cruise (AN-2) 1000 hp Piston propellor Ollila RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25 42 no speed info 210 hp Piston propellor Ollila RTO-015-24 RTO-015-25 43 380 km/h Rozhdestvensky 44 400-430 km/h Rozhdestvensky 45 450 km/h Rozhdestvensky 46 500 km/h Rozhdestvensky 47 150 km/h Rozhdestvensky 114 . 6000rpm Rozhdestvensky 8 130 km/h 2x275 kW + 210 kW Ducted propellors Rozhdestvensky 9 No speed mentioned Rozhdestvensky 10 <100 knots 130 hp Turbo fan Ollila 11 120 knots Rozhdestvensky van Beek 12 12 knots cruise 16 hp Piston propellor Ollila 13 43 knots max 50 hp Piston propellor Ollila 14 200 knots 8x15000 hp Turbo prop Ollila 15 260 knots 8x25000 hp Turbo ducted fan Ollila 16 300 knots 6x50000 hp Turbo prop Ollila 17 68 knots cruise 25 hp Piston propellor Ollila Yun L 18 76 knot max 40 hp Piston propellor Ollila 19 70 knots cruise 200 hp Turbo fan ducted Ollila 20 54 knots 70 hp Piston propellor Ollila 21 100 km/h cruise Propellors Rozhdestvensky Yun L 22 120 km/h cruise Propellors Rozhdestvensky Yun L 23 160 km/h cruise 330 kW Propellors Rozhdestvensky 24 225 km/h cruise 1000 kW Propellors Rozhdestvensky 25 140 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky 26 120 km/h cruise 90 kW Piston propellor Rozhdestvensky 27 125 km/h cruise 210kW Rozhdestvensky 28 170 knots 2x1380 kW Turbo prop Akimoto 29 130 knots 2x1520 kW Turbo prop Akimoto 30 140 knots cruise 2x3046 kW Turbo prop Akimoto 31 166 km/h Akimoto 32 82 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky 33 no internet data Rozhdestvensky 34 150 km/h 2x183. Summary of WIG Vehicles Next Next SN Speed Powerplant and Propulsion Reference Reference Reference 1 100-130 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 2 130-150 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 3 150-180 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 4 144 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 5 150 km/h cruise 2 x PWC PT6A-15AG Rozhdestvensky Yun L 6 300 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 7 130 km/h 2x30 hpThruster DT-30. Appendix A.

Appendix A. Kubo. Progress Report on Aerodynamic Analysis of a Surface Piercing Hydrofoil-Controlled Wing-In-Ground Effect SEABUS Configuration... AIAA (1998) van Beek C. S. V. 14.M. (2006) pp. J. S. WIG Craft & Ekranoplan Ground Effect Craft Technology Ch 2 (2010) RTO-015-24 NATO RTO Meeting Proceedings-015-24 The first commercial ekranoplan “Amphistar” and prospects for the development of passenger ekranoplans (1998) RTO-015-25 NATO RTO Meeting Proceedings-015-25 A view of the present state of research in aero and hydrodynamics of ekranoplans (1999) Filippone A. M. Summary of WIG Vehicles Next Next SN Speed Powerplant and Propulsion Reference Reference Reference 48 No internet data Rozhdestvensky 49 180 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L Filippone 50 250 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 51 250 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 52 160 km/h cruise Yun L 53 200 km/h cruise 10x98100 N Turbo fan Rozhdestvensky Yun L 54 250 km/h cruise Yun L 55 300 km/h cruise Yun L 56 200 km/h cruise Yun L 57 200 km/h cruise Rozhdestvensky Yun L 58 430 km/h cruise 8x98100 N (takeoff) + 2x98100 N (cruise) Rozhdestvensky Yun L 59 350-400 km/h 2x98100 N + 156960 N static thrust Rozhdestvensky Yun L Filippone 60 450 km/h 8x127530 N static thrust turbo fan Rozhdestvensky Yun L Filippone 61 120 km/h Yun L 62 120 km/h 63 120 km/h cruise Turbo fan ducted Rozhdestvensky 64 450 km/h Rozhdestvensky 65 no speed info 60 hp Piston propellor Ollila 66 no speed info Turbo prop. Vol 42.76 Akimoto Akimoto. (1980) pp. G. 211 . Bliault A. 1. van Beek. Vol. Vol.. 1. and Kanehira. Doo J. pp. Aerodynamics. Data unavailable Rozhdestvensky K. Oskam and G. Fantacci. Int.3–17. Journal of Hydronautics. Filippone. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. Historical Review of WIG Vehicles.3. Wing in Ground Effect Vehicles. Ollila.. (2010) ‘Wing in surface effect ship with canard configuration’. No. Power uncertain. Rozhdestvensky.283 Ollila R. M. NLR-TP-98510 (1998) 115 . 65 . H. Selig Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings for Wing-Ships. Ollila 67 160 knots 4xTurbo fan Ollila 68 86 knots cruise 2000 hp Turbo fan Ollila 69 250 knots max 3000 lb Turbo jet Ollila 70 215 knots 180000 hp Turbo fan ducted Ollila 71 150 knots 2x35000 hp Turbo fan ducted Ollila 72 262 knots 4x95600 lb Turbo fan Ollila 73 no speed data Rozhdestvensky 74 no speed data Rozhdestvensky 75 240 knots (Wiki) Rozhdestvensky 76 400 knots Rozhdestvensky 77 70 knots cruise 150 hp Piston propellor Ollila key Data uncertain even after search on internet. No. B. Yun L Yun L.

Russia 1. Germany Hanno Fischer. China MARIC. Summary of WIG Vehicles Weight changes over the years for Fully Developed Vehicles & Concepts within the same development group 1. Germany Techno Trans. China 500 Toivo Kaario. Finland 1.0E+06 CSSRC. Germany 300 Prof Syozo Kubo.0E+05 Take Off Weight [kg] Dr A Lippisch.) WSH-500 (IMO cert. Germany 400 Hanno Fischer. Russia Gen D Synitsin. Russia HoverWing 20 (IMO cert. Appendix A. Germany Techno Trans.) WSH-500 (IMO cert. Japan CLST.0E+03 RE Alexeev. Russia 100 HoverWing 20 (IMO cert. China MARIC. Japan CLST.0E+04 Prof Syozo Kubo. Russia 200 Gen D Synitsin.0E+02 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Speed changes over the years for Fully Developed Vehicles & Concepts within the same development group 600 CSSRC. Russia RE Alexeev. Germany 1. Finland Cruising peed [km/h] Dr A Lippisch. China Toivo Kaario.) 1.) 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 116 .

1921 Expt Martin 2 3D Speed 13.50 image method 8 0.25 0.0624 10.25 image method 16 0.16 0.75 image method 12 0.5397 0.7500 0.25 no ground effect 12 0.75 1.40 0.75 image method 8 0.0712 10.0315 19.00 image method 8 0.0606 10.50 image method 16 0.6750 0.00 1.6603 0.59 0.0788 9.5574 0.7500 0.00 image method 12 0.0871 9.5500 0.E Raymond.25 image method 12 0. Ground influence on aerofoils.84 1.00 image method 12 0.30 0.50 image method 16 0.85 2.92 0.7353 0.50 0.5515 0.7338 0.0871 8.0782 9.40 (h/c=∞) NA 0.57 2 no ground effect 0.6588 0.25 image method 16 0.7412 0.23 1.0624 10.25 image method L/D vs h/c Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 20 18 AoA 8 16 AoA 12 AoA 16 14 No Ground Effect 8 12 No Ground Effect 12 No Ground Effect 16 10 8 0.30 1.6618 0.0565 11. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.90 0.0424 12.09 2.6676 0.90 2.50 image method 12 0.0418 13.7972 0.75 2.25 image method 12 0.7500 0.45 1.5397 0.23 1.80 0.54 1.5500 0.6074 0.50 image method 12 0.0435 12.83 0.0435 12.0447 15.6603 0.75 image method 16 0. Appendix B.0376 14.57 (h/c=∞) NA 0.75 1.50 1.69 1.00 image method 8 0.6603 0.0747 9.0409 13.0771 9.25 no ground effect 16 0.0871 8.0806 9.38 1.6632 0.61 0.7329 0.25 0.25 1.0794 9.0559 11.0871 8.13 1.5485 0.25 image method 8 0.0488 13.0624 10.5397 0. NACA TN 67.50 image method 8 0.61 (h/c=∞) NA 0.7329 0.6588 0.20 1.6971 0.39 1.00 h/c 117 .00 image method 16 0.54 0.7500 0.6588 0.00 image method 16 0.0435 12.25 no ground effect 8 0.0518 12.5444 0.5735 0.75 image method 12 0.75 image method 16 0.0353 16.61 2 no ground effect 0.75 image method 8 0.40 2 no ground effect 0.7329 0.0762m Re 63871 AR 6 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 8 0.4112m/s Chord 0.00 0.0535 12.0400 13.57 0.0588 11.0388 14.

E Raymond. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.00 1.50 0.25 1.25 0. NACA TN 67.08 0.0762m Re 63871 AR 6 CL vs h/c Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 0.75 1.7 AoA 8 AoA 12 AoA 16 No Ground Effect 8 No Ground Effect 12 0.25 1.04 0.07 AoA 8 AoA 12 AoA 16 0.25 0.03 0.00 h/c CD vs h/c Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 0.09 0.00 1.05 No Ground Effect 16 0.75 2. 1921 Expt Martin 2 3D Speed 13.5 0.4112m/s Chord 0. Appendix B.00 h/c 118 .50 1.06 No Ground Effect 8 No Ground Effect 12 0.00 0.6 No Ground Effect 16 0.50 0.00 0.75 1.8 0. Ground influence on aerofoils.50 1.75 2.

5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 AoA [deg] CD vs alpha Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c 0.50 0.06 1. Ground influence on aerofoils.03 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 AoA [deg] 119 .00 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.E Raymond.00 1.08 No Ground Effect 0.75 0. NACA TN 67.4112m/s Chord 0. 1921 Expt Martin 2 3D Speed 13.8 No Ground Effect 0.07 2. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.7 2.50 CD 0.00 0.09 0.75 0.6 0.00 1. Appendix B.50 CL 1.0762m Re 63871 AR 6 CL vs alpha Martin 2 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c 0.50 0.

50 image method 12 0.57 0. Ground influence on aerofoils.50 image method 8 0.6544 0.0459 14.0506 12.75 2.25 0.45 1.0365 13.4112m/s Chord 0.87 1.25 image method 12 0.5191 0.57 1.75 image method 8 0.0241 14.66 1. NACA TN 67.25 image method 8 0.0215 17.3853 0.25 no ground effect 8 0.0241 14.18 1.50 image method 12 0.00 image method 12 0.0324 16.57 1.25 image method 4 0.70 0.48 0.75 image method 4 0.5088 0.25 no ground effect 4 0.70 (h/c=∞) NA 0.6294 0.3588 0.75 no ground effect 0.66 1. Appendix B.01 1.75 no ground effect 0.0206 18.25 1.0762m Re 63870.25 image method 12 0.6294 0.0335 15.57 (h/c=∞) NA 0.75 image method 8 0.25 image method L/D vs h/c USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 22 20 AoA 4 18 AoA 8 AoA 12 16 No Ground Effect 4 14 No Ground Effect 8 No Ground Effect 12 12 10 0.43 1.3500 0.5029 0.5750 0.0521 12.3559 0.6426 0.75 1.50 image method 8 0.0394 12.6632 0.0241 14.55 0.70 1.0371 13.00 image method 4 0.75 image method 12 0.0294 19.3632 0.46 0.75 no ground effect 0.0588 10.6500 0.84 AR6 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 4 0.4956 0.0588 10.00 1.00 0.0394 12.3544 0.75 image method 12 0.0226 15.4956 0.50 1.50 image method 4 0.0429 15.5059 0.6794 0.0359 14.82 0.52 0.51 (h/c=∞) NA 0.4176 0.E Raymond.0550 11. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.0482 13.55 0.85 1.5353 0.6412 0.75 image method 4 0.71 0.3500 0.0229 15.71 1. 1921 Expt USA 27 3D Speed 13.00 h/c 120 .05 1.6294 0.0224 16.47 1.0194 21.51 1.5132 0.6471 0.3500 0.4956 0.00 image method 8 0.57 0.0588 10.33 0.50 0.0221 16.25 image method 8 0.50 image method 4 0.0350 14.0535 12.51 0.0394 12.3721 0.25 no ground effect 12 0.

E Raymond.25 1.50 1.00 h/c 121 .25 0.25 0.84 AR6 CL vs h/c USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 0. 1921 Expt USA 27 3D Speed 13.7 0.75 1.04 AoA 8 AoA 12 No Ground Effect 4 0.25 1.3 0.01 0.0762m Re 63870.50 0.6 AoA 4 AoA 8 AoA 12 0.00 0.75 1.03 No Ground Effect 8 No Ground Effect 12 0. Appendix B. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.00 0.50 1.02 0.00 h/c CD vs h/c USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various AoA 0.05 AoA 4 0.4 0.50 0.00 1.5 No Ground Effect 4 No Ground Effect 8 No Ground Effect 12 0.75 2.00 1.4112m/s Chord 0.75 2. Ground influence on aerofoils. NACA TN 67.06 0.

75 0.7 0.4112m/s Chord 0.84 AR6 CL vs alpha USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c 0.03 0.25 0. Appendix B.04 1.01 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AoA [deg] 122 .6 No Ground Effect 1.06 0.02 0.25 0.50 0.E Raymond. NACA TN 67.0762m Re 63870.50 CL 0.3 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AoA [deg] CD vs alpha USA 27 | Image method | AR6 | Re 64000 | Various h/c 0.50 0.75 0.00 0.4 0.05 No Ground Effect 1. 1921 Expt USA 27 3D Speed 13.75 1. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.5 1.00 0.75 0. Ground influence on aerofoils.50 CD 1.

55 (h/c=0.4912 0.50) flat plate method 8 0.0159 5.2000 0.50) flat plate method -4 0.50) image method -2 0.38 (h/c=0.04 (h/c=0.0612 11.50) flat plate method 4 0.4735 0.6676 0.0415 11.50) flat plate method 14 0.0459 14.0276 19.0335 16.0212 18.0171 11.3353 0.0174 6.3529 0.50 (h/c=0.0259 18.95 (h/c=∞) NA 0 0. Ground influence on aerofoils.50) flat plate method 10 0.0509 11.0153 15.50) image method -4 0.31 (h/c=0.5957 0.2574 0.5471 0.18 (h/c=∞) NA 4 0.18 (h/c=0.2794 0.1765 0.0135 24.5314 0.09 (h/c=0.4112m/s Chord 0.6329 0.0141 12.18 (h/c=0.7000 0.6400 0.1118 0.50) flat plate method 6 0.73 (h/c=0. NACA TN 67.0112 23.84 (h/c=∞) NA 10 0.24 (h/c=0.0259 13.50) image method 8 0.50) flat plate method -2 0.50) flat plate method 2 0.1206 0.4235 0.0135 13.0612 10.78 (h/c=0.3971 0.50) image method 6 0.44 (h/c=0.3176 0. 1921 Expt USA 27 3D Speed 13.0194 2.0382 16.0176 18.32 (h/c=0.4735 0.50) flat plate method 0 0.42 (h/c=∞) NA -2 0.0138 8.50) image method 0 0.00 (h/c=0.50) image method 4 0.0394 16.30 (h/c=0.72 (h/c=∞) NA 2 0.1765 0.0332 12.0335 17.50 (h/c=∞) NA 123 .E Raymond.84 AR6 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation -4 0. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.50) image method 14 0.74 (h/c=∞) NA 8 0.4088 0.03 (h/c=0.50) image method 12 0.34 (h/c=∞) NA 14 0.0224 21.77 (h/c=0. Appendix B.50) image method 10 0.6871 0.50) flat plate method 12 0.0197 14.0547 11.0724 9.5676 0.0882 0.75 (h/c=0.0471 0.56 (h/c=0.6414 0.0762m Re 63870.6186 0.2353 0.22 (h/c=0.50) image method 2 0.64 (h/c=∞) NA 6 0.0212 19.16 (h/c=∞) NA 12 0.

Appendix B.5 0.5 CL No Ground Effect 0.4 CD Image h/c=0.5 CL Flat h/c=0.2 0.1 0.3 CD No Ground Effect 0. Ground influence on aerofoils.5 CD Flat h/c=0.4112m/s Chord 0.84 AR6 Image & Flat Plate Method Comparison with CL & CD USA 27 | AR 6 | Re 64000 0.0 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AoA [deg] 124 .5 CL Image h/c=0.0762m Re 63870. 1921 Expt USA 27 3D Speed 13. Summary of Experimental data from NACA TN 67 A.7 0.E Raymond. NACA TN 67.6 0.

6000 0.046 image method 0 0. NASA TN D926.196 image method -2 0.106 image method -2 0.052 image method -4 0.366 image method -2 0.5714 (h/c=∞) NA -6 0.604 image method -8 0.0425 8.1000 0.3750 0.6667 1.4400 0.5000 0.0500 0.6667 (h/c=∞) NA -8 0.0300 1.712 image method -4 0.200 without ground effect -4 0.2050 5.1300 0. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.0500 8.0300 4.092 image method -2 0.0000 0.4350 0.3500 0.913 image method -6 0.0300 -3.0325 2.3000 0.4286 0.3333 0.0300 3.3600 0.0400 5.0350 6.9000 0.1000 0.0300 -10.0650 8.3077 0.861 image method -2 0.0350 3.0525 8.8182 0.2400 0. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.000 image method 0 0.0350 6.0750 0.8462 0.3333 (h/c=∞) NA 12 1.835 image method 0 0.3077 1.0450 7.660 image method 0 0.3333 0.0400 7.2350 0.1250 (h/c=∞) NA 16 1.P.0400 0.887 image method -4 0.2300 0.4286 0.104 image method -8 0.7778 0.578 image method -6 0.1100 0.0300 4.0325 5.0350 6.0550 7.0500 1.444 image method -8 -0.3175 (h/c=∞) NA -8 0.8571 0.0650 8.5610 (h/c=∞) NA 14 1.0500 0.3333 0.764 image method -8 0.3400 0.0650 8.0300 1.170 image method 125 .0350 -1.7143 0.0300 1. Appendix C.3150 4.6786 (h/c=∞) NA 18 1.0400 8.0600 9.1250 0.078 image method -6 0.5400 0.3077 0.2800 4.418 image method -6 0.4300 0.3077 0.274 image method -8 -0.4450 0.200 without ground effect 0 0.2250 0.738 image method -6 0.5600 0.0350 6.1100 0.4615 0.8333 0.200 without ground effect -6 0.1200 0.4300 0. Fink and J.132 image method -4 -0.3450 0.8000 0.1429 0.0769 0.1400 0.2000 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 2 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation -10 0.5400 0.3250 0.3300 0.6000 (h/c=∞) NA -2 0.526 image method -2 0.6923 0.0400 8.5000 0.500 image method 0 0.248 image method -6 -0.939 image method -8 0.3333 1.0350 6.0650 1.0325 3.3333 0.4300 0.0650 8.0450 7.6667 0.0450 7.2400 0. Lastinger.1150 0.0325 -3.6667 0.552 image method -4 0.3300 0.2353 0.0450 8.2857 0.392 image method -4 0.2300 0.2400 5.0450 1.026 image method -2 0.1400 0.1400 0.200 without ground effect -2 0.L.5500 0.0300 3.340 image method 0 0.1000 0.5400 0.8182 1.3200 0.686 image method -2 0.2300 0.0650 8.0350 6.2400 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.3c to TE 3D Speed .Chord 0.6667 0.0500 8.0550 9.0300 3.5400 0.066 image method -2 0.0500 8.0500 8.3077 (h/c=∞) NA 0 0.1900 0.3100 0.184 image method -6 0.0350 1.5400 0.3333 (h/c=∞) NA -4 0.158 image method -4 0.4300 0.8571 1.5400 0.222 image method -4 0.200 without ground effect -8 0.8571 0.3500 0.

9524 0.0000 0.530 image method 10 1.1000 7.0550 20.7500 0.8400 0.200 without ground effect 4 0.210 image method 10 1.262 image method 6 1.1350 7.1200 1.002 image method 8 0.1250 0.705 image method 10 1.200 without ground effect 6 0.0667 0.236 image method 8 1.8772 0.1429 0.288 image method 4 0.634 image method 2 0.0500 11.5625 0.L.1750 6.1100 7.757 image method 6 0.3571 0.7600 0.0925 8.5849 0.6600 0.9500 0.9100 0.3700 0.1000 0.0600 14.014 image method 4 0.1425 6.9200 0.396 image method 8 1.1675 6.7700 0.0000 0.8250 0.0950 8.1650 6.1000 13.2000 0.6900 0.092 image method 6 1.1500 9.370 image method 10 1.1075 8.200 without ground effect 8 0.2100 0.200 without ground effect 2 0.2308 0.1750 1.8800 0.0900 0.0000 (h/c=∞) NA 2 0.448 image method 4 0.1025 10.0775 8.8500 0.0000 0. Fink and J.5900 0.1100 8.1350 0.5600 0.6600 0.040 image method 2 0.028 image method 6 0.1600 0.0300 0.4200 0.608 image method 4 0.6400 0.066 image method 8 1.024 image method 10 1.870 image method 10 1.9800 0.6400 0.7000 0.3600 -0.9400 0.1111 0.896 image method 8 0.3c to TE 3D Speed .0900 9.1400 7.040 image method 126 .9259 0.054 image method 2 1.8974 0.0000 (h/c=∞) NA 10 1.1100 7.0800 8.974 image method 2 0.144 image method 2 0.6700 0.1675 6.422 image method 6 0.0450 13.9500 0.1325 9.1200 7.1667 0.8182 0.0850 10. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.783 image method 4 0.474 image method 2 0.6800 0.3077 (h/c=∞) NA 8 0.8600 0.0975 7.0000 0.1300 1.7273 0.1050 8.1650 7.8400 0.0800 14.0850 0.5672 0.731 image method 8 1.5405 0.1250 11.7600 0.1600 7.7500 0.5161 0.9500 0.0500 0.8400 0.6667 0. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.Chord 0.3750 0.948 image method 4 0.8571 0.0975 7.2500 0.0700 0.1000 1.7164 0.0000 (h/c=∞) NA 6 0.0750 9. NASA TN D926.0650 11.1875 0. Appendix C.200 without ground effect 10 1.0800 1.6061 0.0303 0.P.314 image method 2 0.809 image method 2 0.2700 0.8667 0.1425 6.0800 8.7300 0. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.3048m Re 490000 AR 2 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 0 0.922 image method 6 0.7949 0.7900 0.0800 8.556 image method 8 1.5854 0.0700 9. Lastinger.5000 (h/c=∞) NA 4 0.7059 0.1000 0.0000 0.0500 0.1400 7.118 image method 4 1.4800 0.1300 7.080 image method 0 0.582 image method 6 0.5581 0.

80 6 0.0 1. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.4 0.0 0.60 8 10 0.0 0. Lastinger. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.2 0.20 0 1.0 h/c CL vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 1.8 1.8 0. Fink and J. Appendix C.2 0.6 0.00 2 4 0.1 0.40 1.2 h/c 127 .4 0.7 0.Chord 0.5 0.00 0.P.6 0.3c to TE 3D Speed .9 1.3048m Re 490000 AR 2 L/D vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 22 20 18 0 16 2 4 L/D 14 6 12 8 10 10 8 6 0.L.40 0.20 0.3 0.60 1. NASA TN D926. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.

Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.500 0. Appendix C. Fink and J.2 -0.835 0.4 0.14 0 0.P. Lastinger.20 0.Chord 0. NASA TN D926.6 0.000 0.3c to TE 3D Speed .0 1.2 0.10 6 0.080 0.4 AoA [deg] 128 .6 0.00 0.0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.660 CL 0.2 0.170 0.06 10 0.16 0.0 1.04 0.0 0.L. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.4 0.6 1.8 0.02 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 2 CD vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.08 8 0.340 0.18 0.8 1.4 1.12 2 4 0.2 h/c CL vs AoA Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c 1.2 without ground effect 1.

06 0.660 CD 0.04 0.Chord 0.340 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.835 0.500 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 2 CD vs AoA Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR2 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c 0.14 1.16 without ground effect 0.000 0. Fink and J.P. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.L.080 0.18 0.170 0.10 0. NASA TN D926. Lastinger. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.02 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 AoA [deg] 129 .3c to TE 3D Speed .08 0. Appendix C.12 0.

7 0.308 0.600 0.5950 0.0250 12.0350 1.P.0250 16.550 image method -3.362 image method -1.7700 0.0225 20.7143 (h/c=∞) NA -3.6050 0.7 0.2500 0.0450 17.246 image method -5.8 0.857 image method -1.8600 0.0300 14.7 0.8571 0.2400 0.8000 0.6000 0.0952 0.4000 0.1400 0.7 0.6000 0.6667 0.8500 0.390 image method -3.0650 14.8 0.7 0.6 0. Fink and J.0200 -5.136 image method 2.9000 0.6667 0.4450 0.6000 (h/c=∞) NA -5.022 image method -1.966 image method 2.7 0.1050 0.220 image method -3.9600 0.0300 14.0700 0. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.8 0.6150 0. NASA TN D926.4450 0.0500 20.1111 0.8900 0.006 image method 4.062 image method 0.8 0.0250 12.200 without ground effect -3.6667 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.9300 0.8 0.306 image method 2.3900 0.466 image method 2.Chord 0.6 1.5950 0.3333 (h/c=∞) NA 2.830 image method 0.6 0.0300 14.200 without ground effect -1.0550 13.9500 0. Lastinger.0350 22.4 0.4400 0.0500 15.500 0.7 0.9900 0.1250 0.0650 13.4450 0.2700 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2500 0.0350 12.416 image method -5.4 0.0000 0.4 0.0525 14.200 without ground effect 2.0175 6.4 0.8 0.833 0. Appendix C.8 0.067 0.156 image method -3.8 0.4150 0.5000 0.0000 0.192 image method -1.774 image method 130 .0900 0.0550 1.3c to TE 3D Speed .102 image method -1.0550 17.8 0.6 0.0000 (h/c=∞) NA 4.0350 17.0400 14.0600 14.8 0.4500 0.4500 0.114 0.8 0.0250 1.0500 14.8000 0.0325 18.7 1.833 0.655 image method 0.0200 4.0750 11.939 image method 4.6 0.7700 0.7 0.267 0.6000 0.7800 0.0900 1.200 without ground effect 4.8333 0.6667 0.5850 0.455 0.0400 15.0225 10.130 image method -1.8 0.710 image method -3.7 0.736 image method -5.8571 1.0300 0.4450 0.0900 11.801 image method 2.7400 0.3150 0.8 0.046 image method 2.0600 0.522 image method -1.0400 14.6000 0.0150 18.0000 1.6 0.0400 15.0375 37.7300 0. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.0400 19.0000 1.7778 0.8500 0.0300 17.3150 0.682 image method -1.0350 12.0500 15.4 0.2900 0.1050 0.576 image method -5.3100 0.9900 0.8000 0.6000 0.846 0.4 0.0250 12.4 0.075 image method 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.2900 0.3000 0.2727 (h/c=∞) NA 0.6000 0.8 0.L.626 image method 2.8 0.165 image method 0.5714 0.0225 13.495 image method 0.4 0.0750 14.7300 0.6250 0.995 image method 0.0400 1.5300 0.7 0.4615 0.911 image method -5.8750 (h/c=∞) NA -1.3100 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 4 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation -5.0250 11.076 image method -5.0300 28.7400 0.7900 0.885 image method -3.8 -0.7 1.0250 11.0750 1.0400 28.0875 12.200 without ground effect -5.0600 15.7 0.0000 0.050 image method -3.6 1.8333 0.335 image method 0.6 1.035 image method 2.8 0.200 without ground effect 0.

3700 0.8462 0.3900 0.1650 0.1818 (h/c=∞) NA 6.323 0.9333 0.4400 0.1200 0.3c to TE 3D Speed .0675 20.7 1.1025 12.833 0.0250 6.8 1.0625 24.889 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 4 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 4. Appendix C.9 1.0500 24.2000 1.439 image method 4.3300 0.0588 (h/c=∞) NA 10.1250 11.4050 0.3333 0.252 image method 6.7 1.5000 0.2000 (h/c=∞) NA -7.200 without ground effect 6.0775 16.0400 37.8 1.5600 0.0950 14.7742 0.8182 0. NASA TN D926.7 1. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.2963 0.3600 0.9 1.9 1.1350 10.859 image method 10.7 1.6800 0.8 1.9 1.6604 0.8 1.572 image method 6.109 image method 4.0900 13.3100 0.500 0.082 image method 6.2083 (h/c=∞) NA 16.008 image method 8.8 1.560 -0.0833 0.7879 0.385 image method 8.5000 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.8 1.2300 0.1650 8.800 0.8 1.7 1.1100 1.2400 0.0800 19.199 image method 10.668 image method 12.8 1.1100 10.9756 0.3000 4.7 1.493 image method 12.7 1.200 without ground effect 10.1800 0. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.4500 0.7 1.2400 0.4900 0.6800 0.8 1.519 image method 10.1650 8.885 image method 8.5000 0.2650 0.8000 (h/c=∞) NA 14.225 image method 8.1800 9.4100 0.1100 11.9 1.8 0.720 image method 8.019 image method 6.8 1.5350 0.029 image method 12.7 1.9643 (h/c=∞) NA 8.4500 0.0800 0.4600 0.1300 10.1325 9.747 image method 6.0300 0.4100 0.1200 0.8 1.1700 1.833 image method 12.599 image method 4.333 image method 12.1125 14.1850 7.7 1.173 image method 12.1700 8.222 0.1625 9.4500 0.0925 12.3700 0.1550 8.545 image method 8.0250 1.1075 12.3158 0.8 1.200 without ground effect 12.8 1.1200 0.L.4700 0.0650 17.471 0.1600 9. Fink and J.9667 (h/c=∞) NA 131 .1300 0.8 1.3000 0.2550 0.2550 0.7 1.003 image method -10 0.1200 12.727 0.7879 0.1860 0.1700 0.1100 10.3600 0.8 1.231 0.055 image method 10.0850 14.2800 0.Chord 0.2000 7.1900 0.8 1.2000 (h/c=∞) NA 12.4900 0.279 image method 4.429 0.9 1.694 image method 10.2308 0.2400 6.8 1.9 1. Lastinger.912 image method 6.0700 15.7 1.1400 1.7 1.1400 8.4400 0.8919 0.P.7 1.200 without ground effect 8.359 image method 10.0600 18.9 1.1875 0.595 0.412 image method 6.8 1.

0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 8.20 10.0 h/c CL vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR4 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 1.0 1.6 1.8 12.8 16 12. NASA TN D926. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.7 L/D 20 8.2 0.8 1.5 0.40 4. Appendix C.2 h/c 132 .9 1.4 0.3c to TE 3D Speed .9 1.6 0.8 10.L.3048m Re 490000 AR 4 L/D vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR4 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 40 36 32 2.3 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.6 0.7 6.1 0.80 0. Lastinger.60 2.2 0.4 0.00 0. Fink and J.7 0.80 1.Chord 0. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.6 28 4.7 24 6.9 12 8 4 0.P.

080 0.L. 1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.0 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground.8 1.2 1. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.8 0.4 0.8 12.00 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.835 0.7 8.25 0.0 1. Appendix C.3c to TE 3D Speed . NASA TN D926.2 0.8 0.2 0.340 0.7 6.3048m Re 490000 AR 4 CD vs h/c Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image method | AR4 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various AoA 0.2 h/c CL vs AoA Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR4 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c 1.Chord 0.9 0.2 AoA [deg] 133 .170 0.000 1.20 2.15 4.10 10.05 0.8 1.P.500 0. Lastinger.4 0.0 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.0 0. Fink and J.660 CL 0.6 0.4 without ground effect 1.

1961 Expt Glenn Martin 21 modifed flat bottom from 0.P.02 0.170 0.04 0. Aerodynamic characteristics of low aspect ratio wings in close proximity to the ground. NASA TN D926. Lastinger.06 0.660 CD 0.12 0. Fink and J.14 without ground effect 1.08 0.500 0.080 0.3048m Re 490000 AR 4 CD vs AoA Glenn Martin 21 Modified | Image Method | AR4 | 3D | Re 490000 | Various h/c 0. Summary of Experimental Data from NASA TN D926 M.3c to TE 3D Speed .10 0.835 0.L. Appendix C.16 0.000 0.18 0.340 0.00 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 AoA [deg] 134 .Chord 0.

0 0.0498 5.8894 2.0319 0.033 flat plate method L/D vs h/c (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR2. Edwards and M.350 flat plate method 5 0.2441 2.27 no.8536 0.8296 0.6302 0.0897 0.33 (sweep 17.0597 0.1849 4. Summary of Experimental Data from Chawla.093 flat plate method 25 0.7260 0.4318 0.9493 0. Chawla.1778 4.5155 0.5571 0.0877 0.0960 0.0853 5.2892 2.2952 0.0 6.0 2.683 flat plate method 25 0.5185 0.54 deg AoA[deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 5 0. 1990 M.2286m Re 402386 AR 2. Wind tunnel investigation of Wing-in-ground effects.25 flat plate method with end plates rest of data scaled by scaled by 83.220 flat plate method 15 0.250 flat plate method 0 0.9% 0 0.0 5 10 15 4.0853 0.2524 3.6667 0. Appendix D.243 flat plate method 20 0.806 flat plate method 15 0.870 flat plate method 10 0.3205 0.25 flat plate method without end plates 5 0.D.9295 0.1516 0.3350 0.8% 88.1699 0.7419 0.8377 0.935 flat plate method 5 0.8934 0.7977 0. Edwards and Franke.2667 3.435 flat plate method 5 0.3670 0.8456 0.0142 6.4.8438 2.4872 2.4.156 flat plate method 20 0. Journal of Aircraft vol.0 0 5.0249 6.0071 4.27 no. Journal of Aircraft vol.120 flat plate method 10 0.3378 2.2631 3.185 flat plate method 5 0.1280 4.E.7604 0.4338 2. L.16m/s Chord 0.8296 0.3164 2.306 flat plate method 15 0.8855 0.4667 0. 1990 Expt NACA 4415 adapted data 3D Speed 28.183 flat plate method 25 0.C.0 1.1209 4.33 with sweep 17.5034 0.1939 3.54 deg) | Re 402000 | 0-25 deg 7.0 20 25 3.0569 5.5 h/c 135 .743 flat plate method 20 0.0 2.5504 0.500 flat plate method 0 0.7455 0.9234 0.4707 0.1138 4.0 0.0676 5.4872 0.5 1.1991 3. Franke.370 flat plate method 10 0.5209 2.285 flat plate method 10 0.5 2.

25 0. 1990 M.5 25 CD -0.3 0.33 (sweep 17.D. Edwards and Franke.0 0.7 0.2 0. Journal of Aircraft vol.6 2. L.0 0.27 no.9 0. 1990 Expt NACA 4415 adapted data 3D Speed 28.4.0 1.5 1.27 no.0 2. Franke.C. Chawla.54 deg) | Re 402000 | 0-25 deg 1.2286m Re 402386 AR 2.E.4.4 15 CL 15 CD 0.0 25 CL 0.2 h/c CL vs AoA (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat plate method | AR2.5 2.33 | Re 402000 | Various h/c 1.54 deg CL & CD vs h/c (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR2.00 CL 0.2 20 CL 20 CD 0.33 with sweep 17.5 0. Edwards and M.35 1.8 0. Appendix D.4 0.50 0. Wind tunnel investigation of Wing-in-ground effects.6 5 CD 10 CL 10 CD 0.0 0 CL 0.8 0 CD 5 CL 0. Journal of Aircraft vol. Summary of Experimental Data from Chawla.16m/s Chord 0.1 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 AoA [deg] 136 .

1990 Expt NACA 4415 adapted data 3D Speed 28.D. Journal of Aircraft vol.E.33 with sweep 17.C. L.33 | Re 402000 | Various h/c 0.2286m Re 402386 AR 2.5 0. Chawla. Journal of Aircraft vol.2 0.1 0.4 0.4. Wind tunnel investigation of Wing-in-ground effects. Appendix D.5 0.54 deg CD vs AoA (Adapted Data) NACA 4415 | Flat plate method | AR2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 AoA [deg] 137 . 1990 M.16m/s Chord 0.4 0. Franke.3 2.25 0.35 1.27 no.3 0. Edwards and M. Summary of Experimental Data from Chawla.00 CD 0.27 no.4.50 0.1 0. Edwards and Franke.2 0.

2004 Expt NACA 0015 2D Speed 35.80 flat plate method 10.2945 0.0114 26.5891 0.0 0.10 flat plate method 10.5 0.20 flat plate method 7.50 flat plate method 5.0219 49.57 0.32 0.5 0.70 0.08 flat plate method 2.2691 0.3200 0.6618 0.7852 0.0582 0.0097 6.5 0.60 flat plate method 5.0 0.5 1.50 flat plate method 2.6000 0.95 0.7111 0.0 0.0115 26.10 flat plate method 2.05 flat plate method 5.9321 0.66 0.3673 0.05 flat plate method 138 .0109 0.0836 0.0 0.0114 27.0 0.70 flat plate method 10.5 0.0 0.8642 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma.52 0.0098 8.70 flat plate method 2.93 0.19 0.35 0.0852 0.80 flat plate method 5.67 0.0142 47.70 flat plate method 5.60 flat plate method 2.80 flat plate method 2.0148 36.50 flat plate method 0.0 0.30 flat plate method 0.30 0.93 0.0113 32. Appendix E.05 0.5 0.29 page 633-647.30 flat plate method 5.05 flat plate method 10.0164 67.50 flat plate method 10.40 flat plate method 10.0139 51.1111 0.3018 0.0177 44.60 0.0220 44.52 0.0 0.0206 56.8151 0.D.0104 1.15 0.5 0. M.0 0.63 0.3091 0.R.67 0.0116 25.0144 41.0 0.6764 0.5 0.63 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.44 0.0097 17.5 0.5345 0.5 0.0161 73.0118 22.5 0.0144 40.10m Re 240000 AR 3 AoA [deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.70 flat plate method 0.2259 0.79 0.24 0.1889 0.5 0.84 0.92 0.0 0.74 0.000m/s Chord 0.0099 3.0200 65. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol.07 0.0655 0.0211 54.3037 0.0099 2.5 0.0174 46.0 0.0 1.30 flat plate method 2.0364 0.0172 49.20 flat plate method 10.2370 0. Sharma.0 0.40 flat plate method 2.5055 0.1593 0.0116 24. An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect.87 0.0168 51.80 flat plate method 0.9811 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.23 0.40 0.0291 0.5 0.60 flat plate method 7.60 flat plate method 0.33 0.0115 27.0 1.40 flat plate method 7.48 0.0 1.5 0.0173 47.8491 0.51 0.0165 56.0098 5.0098 8.05 flat plate method 7.0836 0.20 flat plate method 0.0 0.0 0.40 flat plate method 0.0 0.30 flat plate method 7.80 flat plate method 7. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol.57 0.20 0.50 flat plate method 7.0113 44.40 flat plate method 5.25 0.0137 49. 2004.0202 70.33 0.22 0.57 0.0 0. Ahmed and S.8566 0.81 0.0169 50.9887 0.2873 0.20 flat plate method 5.1407 0.0145 38.70 flat plate method 7.06 0.92 0.10 flat plate method 7.20 flat plate method 2.4259 0.0144 39.1709 0.56 0.0204 60.75 0.0140 47.36 0.10 flat plate method 5.0097 23.10 flat plate method 0.5600 0.0214 52.0222 44.1333 0.30 flat plate method 10.3018 0.6764 0.0 0.60 flat plate method 10.8151 0.5673 0.29 page 633-647.41 0.

D. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol.5 30 10.3 0.29 page 633-647.60 1.0 50 2. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol.2 0.5 0. Ahmed and S.40 0.00 0.40 1.0 7.60 10.80 h/c 139 .29 page 633-647.10 0.80 5.50 0.40 0.60 0.20 0.00 2.7 0.0 20 10 0 0.R.10m Re 240000 AR 3 l/d vs h/c NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various AoA 80 70 60 0.1 0. 2004.0 0.5 0.0 7.30 0.20 0.70 0.4 0.8 h/c cl vs h/c NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | AoA 0 to 10 deg 1.0 0.0 1. Sharma.000m/s Chord 0.6 0.5 l/d 40 5. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma. 2004 Expt NACA 0015 2D Speed 35.5 0. An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect. Appendix E.00 0. M.20 0.

000m/s Chord 0.5 10 0.R.50 cl 0.000 0.30 0.5 5.29 page 633-647.4 1.025 0.0 0.10m Re 240000 AR 3 cd vs h/c NACA 0015 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | AoA 0 to 10 deg 0.30 0.4 0. Sharma. 2004.2 0. An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect.20 0.D.70 0.015 2. Appendix E. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma.0 0.8 0. 2004 Expt NACA 0015 2D Speed 35.70 0.29 page 633-647. Ahmed and S.80 1.40 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AoA [deg] 140 . Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol. M.020 0 0.60 0.10 0.80 h/c cl vs alpha NACA 0015 | Flat plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c 1.2 0.6 0.40 0.50 0.005 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.60 0.010 7. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol.

Ahmed and S. Sharma.10 0.008 0 2 4 6 8 10 AoA [deg] 141 . Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed and Sharma.R.014 0.50 cd 0.016 0.30 0.10m Re 240000 AR 3 cd vs alpha NACA 0015 | Flat plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c 0.29 page 633-647.70 0.80 0. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol. 2004 Expt NACA 0015 2D Speed 35.010 0.60 0.012 0.20 0.D.018 0.40 0.000m/s Chord 0.020 0. M.024 0. Experimental Thermal and fluid science vol. An investigation on the aerodynamics of a symmetrical airfoil in ground effect. 2004.022 0. Appendix E.29 page 633-647.

56 0. Journal Marine Science and Technology vol.10 0. H. Ho and J.C. 2008 Expt NACA 6409 3D Speed 25.6964 0.6818 0.7273 0.0298 16. 2008 H.3138 0.8418 0.8000 0.200 flat plate method 8 0.0532 13.0495 14.300 flat plate method 6 0.15 0.250 flat plate method 4 0. Experimental investigation of wing in ground effect with a NACA 6409 section.025 flat plate method 0 0.100 flat plate method 6 0.0506 13.8509 0.33 0.65 0.46 0.150 flat plate method 0 0.8491 0.050 flat plate method 4 0.7127 0.025 flat plate method 6 0.5000m/s Chord 0.250 flat plate method 8 0.3358 0.050 flat plate method 2 0.7527 0.100 flat plate method 0 0.4509 0.0547 15.0396 18.200 flat plate method 0 0.0466 15.0371 15.150 flat plate method 2 0.0215 15.025 flat plate method 8 0.J.0255 12.07 0.3211 0.0276 17.6491 0. Journal Marine Science and Technology vol.025 flat plate method 2 0.0356 17.0697 12.61 0.6291 0.2789 0.5727 0.0222 22.30 h/c 142 .20 0.K.8236 0.0236 27.100 flat plate method 2 0.8273 0.5091 0.64 0.95 0.300 flat plate method 2 0.0345 18.100 flat plate method 4 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Kwang.03 0.025 flat plate method 4 0.250 flat plate method 2 0.6200 0.4800 0.200 flat plate method 6 0.250 flat plate method 0 0.00 0.72 0.79 0. Kwang.63 0.0459 18.4873 0.300 flat plate method 8 0.0653 13.40 0.20m Re 340000 AR 2 AoA[deg] CL CD L/D h/c Ground Simulation 0 0.25 0.7018 0.94 0.71 0.5618 0.86 0.97 0.00 0.150 flat plate method 6 0.050 flat plate method 0 0.3266 0.05 0.40 0.4945 0.0236 14.4600 0. Ho and Hee.0712 11.89 0.150 flat plate method 4 0.6527 0.21 0.0309 14.0539 12.250 flat plate method 6 0. Appendix F.13 pg317-327.300 flat plate method L/D vs h/c NACA 6409 Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Re 340000 | Various AoA 30 25 0 2 L/D 20 4 6 15 8 10 0.050 flat plate method 8 0.06 0.0309 14.0287 22.0182 17.0185 15.3321 0.04 0.7491 0.050 flat plate method 6 0.0752 10.10 0.0382 14.0218 14.59 0.100 flat plate method 8 0.0182 29.09 0.0745 11.44 0.3138 0.200 flat plate method 4 0.0255 12.62 0.5345 0.5855 0.0280 17.300 flat plate method 4 0.39 0.26 0.13 pg317-327.0345 21. Hee.0367 15.60 0.8273 0.88 0.90 0.05 0.150 flat plate method 8 0.40 0.200 flat plate method 2 0.

Ho and Hee.06 0 0. 2008 Expt NACA 6409 3D Speed 25.13 pg317-327.30 h/c CD vs h/c NACA 6409 | Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Numerical 0.25 0.07 0.J.25 0.50 6 8 0.02 0.05 2 4 0.20 0.60 2 4 0.05 0.5000m/s Chord 0.40 0. 2008 H.13 pg317-327.70 0 0. Experimental investigation of wing in ground effect with a NACA 6409 section.30 0.05 0.00 0.C. Ho and J.04 6 8 0.80 0.15 0. Appendix F. H.10 0.20 0.20 0.30 h/c 143 . Summary of Experimental Data from Kwang.15 0.03 0.01 0. Journal Marine Science and Technology vol.10 0. Journal Marine Science and Technology vol.90 0. Hee.08 0. Kwang.00 0.K.20m Re 340000 AR 2 CL vs h/c NACA 6409 | Flat Plate method | AR2 | AoA 0 to 8 deg | Numerical 0.

5 0. Journal Marine Science and Technology vol. Journal Marine Science and Technology vol.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] CD vs AoA NACA 6409 | Flat plate method | AR2 | Re 340000 | Various h/c 0.7 0.02 0.200 CL 0.05 0. Ho and J.025 0.13 pg317-327.20m Re 340000 AR 2 CL vs AoA NACA 6409 | Flat plate method | AR2 | Re 340000 | Various h/c 0.200 CD 0.4 0.025 0.6 0.3 0.13 pg317-327. 2008 H.C.050 0.300 0. Appendix F. Ho and Hee.04 0.150 0.5000m/s Chord 0.050 0.06 0.150 0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] 144 . 2008 Expt NACA 6409 3D Speed 25.250 0. Experimental investigation of wing in ground effect with a NACA 6409 section. Kwang.250 0.100 0.J. Hee.07 0. H.03 0.300 0.08 0.100 0.K.9 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Kwang.8 0.

5525 0.30 flat plate method 2.81 0.0134 55.0234 60.82 0.0375 43.33 0.00 0.0 1.0136 34.2136 0.3627 0.0167 70.05 flat plate method 10.24 0.84 0.0133 35.86 0.0142 92.05 flat plate method 2.30 flat plate method 10.0283 57.6339 0.57 0.2542 0. International Journal of Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.3186 0.0 0.52 0.7559 0.70 flat plate method 10.0 0.33 0.0134 35.0241 61.0475 0.12 0.65 0.60 flat plate method 5.20 flat plate method 5.49 0.03 0.0175 74.0 1.29 0.0 0.7593 0.0128 53.0 1.4667 0.0141 74.40 flat plate method 10.0141 88.0102 0.3729 0.5 1.23 0.30 flat plate method 0.4847 0.0138 55.20 flat plate method 2.0138 71. 2005 Expt NACA 4415 2D Speed 35m/s Chord 0.50 flat plate method 0.19 0. 2005.20 flat plate method 7.10 flat plate method 7.36 0.0780 0.0128 53.50 0.0234 55.0175 77.7458 0.10 flat plate method 10.50 flat plate method 2.32 0.0139 32.20 flat plate method 0.47 0.0128 53.60 flat plate method 2.70 flat plate method 5.7322 0.5 1.31 0.5 0.7661 0.9661 0.0184 84.0173 69.60 flat plate method 7.80 flat plate method 0.5 0.1831 0.50 flat plate method 5.74 0.0 1. MR Ahmed.0141 80.1m Re 240000 AR - AoA [deg] cl cd l/d h/c Ground Simulation 0. Appendix G.40 flat plate method 0.5 0.30 flat plate method 7.57 0.05 flat plate method 145 .0173 72.5 1.40 flat plate method 2. Aerodynamics of a cambered airfoil in ground effect.0 0.2983 0.25 0.0131 36.7492 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0175 84.2949 0.5 1.0139 68.22 0.80 flat plate method 5.0 0.5 0.80 flat plate method 7.75 0.80 flat plate method 10.60 flat plate method 10.4564 0.0128 58.3390 0.0 1.9492 0.58 0.4667 0.1898 0.0169 70.0133 34.4678 0.7661 0.86 0.13 0.4735 0.0 1.9898 0.0139 32.40 flat plate method 5.0 1.0138 70.10 flat plate method 5.5 0.82 0.6203 0.05 flat plate method 7.4136 0.4564 0.70 flat plate method 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed.0139 35.0136 56.87 0.0244 53.1254 0.97 0.0 1.0234 58.20 flat plate method 10.0 0.0 1.80 flat plate method 2.0134 56.0 0.3085 0.83 0.50 flat plate method 10.0141 71.40 flat plate method 7.0 1.4735 0.7322 0.0142 75.4940 0.36 0. Intl J Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.25 0.4632 0.0234 57.0 0.5 0.0136 34.0 1.52 0.0 1.0136 56.26 0.7322 0.0241 64.0 0.70 flat plate method 2.5593 0.10 flat plate method 0.2271 0.83 0.5 0.60 flat plate method 0.70 flat plate method 7.30 flat plate method 5.76 0.4735 0.5 1.26 0.0 1.51 0.0 1.0 0.05 flat plate method 5.2407 0.10 flat plate method 2.5 0.99 0.50 flat plate method 7.0173 70.5 1.5 1.08 0.5 0.88 0.

0 60.80 h/c cl vs h/c NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 1.0 0.3 0.0 50.70 0.20 0.5 10.5 5.40 0.0 7.2 2.0 80. Aerodynamics of a cambered airfoil in ground effect.5 10.8 h/c 146 .6 0.6 1.0 90.0 40.6 0. Intl J Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.4 0.10 0.0 1. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed. 2005 Expt NACA 4415 2D Speed 35m/s Chord 0. International Journal of Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.0 2.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 5.8 1.0 7.30 0.8 0.1m Re 240000 AR - l/d vs h/c NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 100.2 0.50 0.0 30.5 0.4 0. Appendix G. MR Ahmed. 2005.7 0.60 0.0 70.4 0.

600 0.020 10 0.0 7.0 0.400 0 2 4 6 8 10 AoA [deg] 147 .05 0.30 0. MR Ahmed.70 0. Intl J Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.3 0.40 1. 2005.5 0.5 0.5 0. 2005 Expt NACA 4415 2D Speed 35m/s Chord 0.600 0.20 0. Appendix G.000 0.040 0.200 0.50 0.035 0.400 0.015 0.1 0.60 1. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed.2 0. International Journal of Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.4 0. Aerodynamics of a cambered airfoil in ground effect.7 0.6 0.10 0.80 1.1m Re 240000 AR - cd vs h/c NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 0.030 0 2.8 h/c cl vs AoA NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c 1.800 0.800 1.025 5.010 0.

Intl J Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2. MR Ahmed. International Journal of Fluid Mech Research vol32 n2.10 0.015 0. 2005 Expt NACA 4415 2D Speed 35m/s Chord 0.60 0.30 0.030 0.1m Re 240000 AR - cd vs AoA NACA 4415 | Flat Plate method | AR3 but 2D | Re 240000 | Various h/c 0. Aerodynamics of a cambered airfoil in ground effect.020 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed.40 0.05 0.50 0.035 0.20 0.040 0.025 0.80 0. Appendix G.70 0.010 0 2 4 6 8 10 AoA [deg] 148 . 2005.

40 moving ground method 4.0133 81.68 1. MR Ahmed.0 0.87 0.3222 0.0093 69.06 0.0109 79. AIAA J vol45 n1.0936 0.2757 0.0091 72.36 0.13 0.0130 84.0 0.76 0.30 moving ground method 10.0 1.12 0.0 0.4200 0.0092 70. 2007 Expt NACA 4412 end plates used Speed 30.6889 0.0104 83.4664 0.3736 0.0144 75.95 0.0 0.43 0.3654 0.6750 0.40 moving ground method 0.80 moving ground method 4. Takasaki and kohama.0138 79.80 moving ground method 6.30 moving ground method 8.84 0.0082 45.0217 63.0 1.0 0.15 moving ground method 4.0 0.30 moving ground method 0.05 0.0 1.00 moving ground method 4.3178 0. T Takasaki.0150 85.0936 0.80 moving ground method 10.0 1.15 moving ground method 6.0 1.00 moving ground method 10.66 0.0 1.0 0.60 moving ground method 2.32 0.0121 90.0 0.0 1.0223 62.00 moving ground method 8.15m Re 300000 AR 4 AoA [deg] cl cd l/d h/c Ground Simulation 0.76 0.99 0.0081 54.60 moving ground method 6.0080 57.8667 0.0 0.0936 0.0 0.2673 0.15 moving ground method 10.2673 0.0 1.0 1.80 moving ground method 8.0 0.3654 0.3710 0.3654 0.6556 0.17 0.0 1.0 0.40 moving ground method 10.0 0.6500 0.0 1.0091 73.0 0.8528 0.0205 66.60 moving ground method 10.0 1.36 1.00 moving ground method 6.8722 0.10 0.65 0.0 1. AIAA J vol45 n1.60 moving ground method 4.0205 66.45 0.8667 0.27 0.0 0.30 moving ground method 6.32 0.0105 83.8722 0.13 0.40 moving ground method 2.52 0.2673 0.4527 0.6417 0.77 0.0146 86.0212 64.45 0.67 1.0 1.0107 81.80 moving ground method 2.0936 0.0103 84.05 moving ground method 2.05 moving ground method 8. Appendix H.36 1.36 0.0231 61.0 0.53 0.6222 0.0095 65.0 1.0121 90.0112 75.06 0.45 0.63 0.0 1.30 moving ground method 4.4609 0.0 1.0 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed.60 moving ground method 0.0 0.05 moving ground method 10.05 moving ground method 4.63 1. Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect.0 1.0 0. 2007.0092 71.00 moving ground method 2.3654 0.30 moving ground method 2.0936 0.8m/s Chord 0.00 moving ground method 0.0 0.40 moving ground method 8.46 0.0936 0.4473 0.0080 58.0125 87.6611 0.0084 38.0081 51.0080 56.15 moving ground method 8.0091 75.0 0.0 1.60 0.2897 0.16 0.0157 82.0141 90.05 moving ground method 6.38 0.13 1.0936 0.0137 92.2673 0.14 0.40 moving ground method 6.60 moving ground method 8.0 1. Y kohama.05 moving ground method 149 .0 1.15 moving ground method 2.0137 92.4131 0.80 moving ground method 0.0208 65.67 0.3850 0.15 moving ground method 0.0164 80.0109 78.8722 0.63 0.8583 0.

1 0.8 h/c cl vs h/c NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | 3D | AR4 | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 1.3 0.000 0.7 0. T Takasaki.6 0.4 0. 2007.800 6 0.5 0.8m/s Chord 0. Appendix H.600 1.600 8 10 0.8 h/c 150 . Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect.000 2 4 0.200 0 1.1 0.200 0.0 0. 2007 Expt NACA 4412 3D end plates used Speed 30.6 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed.5 0.400 0.2 0. AIAA J vol45 n1. Y kohama.2 0.0 0.3 0. MR Ahmed.15m Re 300000 AR 4 l/d vs h/c NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | 3D | AR4 | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 100 90 80 0 2 70 4 6 60 8 50 10 40 30 0.4 0. Takasaki and kohama. AIAA J vol45 n1.400 1.7 0.

0 0.000 0.6 0.010 8 10 0.1 0. Y kohama.60 0.5 0. AIAA J vol45 n1.4 1. 2007.005 0.025 0. T Takasaki. Takasaki and kohama.015 2 4 cd 6 0. Appendix H.6 1.40 0.020 0 0.05 0. AIAA J vol45 n1.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 AoA [deg] 151 .15 0.15m Re 300000 AR 4 cd vs h/c NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (end plates) | Re 300000 | AoA 0 to 10 deg 0. Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect.4 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.30 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed.2 0.8m/s Chord 0.8 0.80 1.6 0. 2007 Expt NACA 4412 3D end plates used Speed 30.4 0.00 0. MR Ahmed.2 1.8 h/c cl vs AoA NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (with end plates) | Re 300000 | Various h/c 1.

80 0.15m Re 300000 AR 4 cd vs AoA NACA 4412 | Moving ground method | AR4 (with end plates) | Re 300000 | Various h/c 0. AIAA J vol45 n1. Takasaki and kohama. Appendix H.015 0. T Takasaki.010 0.05 0. MR Ahmed.00 0.40 0.005 0 2 4 6 8 10 AoA [deg] 152 .30 0.15 0. Y kohama.8m/s Chord 0.020 1.60 0. AIAA J vol45 n1. 2007. 2007 Expt NACA 4412 3D end plates used Speed 30.025 0. Summary of Experimental Data from Ahmed. Aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect.

Appendix I.000.450 -0.8143 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.4000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.050 -0.0355 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.350 -0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.100 -0.16 0.2429 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.0857 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.850 0.0429 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.800 0.650 -0.0357 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.800 -0.0714 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.5390 895013 153 . Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NACA TR 832 0 0.16 0.1143 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.1714 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.16 0.013 OGE 0.0E06 to 2.16 0.9143 U 1.6143 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.3143 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.050 -0.0223 L 895.025 -0.200 -0.2571 lower OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.0175 1.0429 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.6143 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.400 -0.300 -0.16 0.0571 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.16 0.0355 Lower OGE -0.2571 upper OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.4571 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.8071 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.5718 Lower OGE -0.025 -0.1000 1.4286 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.000 OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.000 0.900 0.5718 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0500 1.300 -0.5429 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.500 -0.1000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.5143 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.900 0.700 0.4000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.0714 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.0000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.2143 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 1.075 -0.3643 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.1500 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.7500 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.0000 0.200 -0.5888 Lower OGE -0.7286 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.000.0050 0.550 -0.250 -0.5888 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.750 -0.3524 Lower OGE -0.600 0.400 0.950 0.075 -0.3429 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.9777 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.5390 Lower OGE -0.700 -0.000 OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.9143 L 1.750 0.6571 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.7000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.3524 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0100 1.1714 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.650 0.500 0.000 0.2571 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.6126 Lower OGE 0.7714 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.1429 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.150 -0.150 -0.350 -0.1143 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.600 -0.250 -0.100 -0.850 -0.450 0.0E05.0429 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.1571 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 1.550 0.0750 1.950 0.0143 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.3429 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.000 0.000 0.3874 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0286 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 0 0.

06 0.0290 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.0000 0.6000 1.0175 0.06 0.8000 0.0183 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.2596 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.5000 1.16 0.4732 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.1383 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.4083 upper OGE -0.16 0.388 OGE 0.0079 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0E06 to 2. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 0.6376 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.0750 1.5125 upper OGE -0.06 0.9000 0.6082 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.8633 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.8673 Lower OGE 0.0000 0.4000 1.7346 upper OGE -0.2000 1.16 0.8000 0.6376 upper OGE -0.8904 upper OGE -0.06 0.388 OGE 0.3616 upper OGE 0.0183 Lower OGE -0.3821 upper OGE -0.1266 Lower OGE -0.8000 1.5641 Lower OGE -0.6768 upper OGE -0.4000 1.5000 1.6082 upper OGE -0.0E05.1002 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.2000 1.9746 Lower OGE 0.2988 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.5125 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.1000 1.9324 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.3000 1.8434 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.6439 Lower OGE 0.9378 Lower OGE 0.5494 537388 154 .16 0.0254 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.0577 Lower OGE -0.7000 0.0577 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.6831 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.6238 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.06 0.4097 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0281 upper OGE -0.0000 0.16 0.2571 upper OGE -0.0500 1.1266 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.0565 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.0750 1.16 0.06 0.3000 1.3000 1.16 0.6000 1.7170 upper OGE -0.0100 0.0175 0.0750 1.06 0.0050 0.8252 upper OGE -0.0000 0.1038 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 1.7000 1.5268 upper OGE 0.06 0.16 0.0000 0.1317 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0676 upper OGE 0.1327 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.8792 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.1383 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.1912 Lower OGE -0.06 1.1000 L 537.06 0.0000 0.8617 Lower OGE 0.2000 1.0175 1.5494 upper OGE -0.06 0.16 0.0079 Lower OGE -0.16 0.3024 upper OGE -0. Appendix I.16 0.3000 1.06 0.16 0.0565 Lower OGE -0.16 0.2596 Lower OGE -0.3169 upper OGE 0.9000 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.2571 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.9000 1.4097 upper OGE -0.06 0.6384 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.5220 upper OGE -0.0617 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.8434 upper OGE -0.0050 0.3877 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0100 0.0500 1.1208 upper OGE 0.16 0.6229 Lower OGE -0.1678 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.9000 0.0290 Lower OGE -0.4000 1.9000 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.5000 1.16 0.6768 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.4000 1.6238 upper OGE -0.013 OGE 0.1000 U 537.16 0.06 0.3024 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.5557 upper OGE 0.8904 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.2000 1.7170 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.9649 Lower OGE 0.1317 Lower OGE -0.0050 0.6229 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.06 0.5000 1.06 0.5220 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.8962 Lower OGE 0.2988 Lower OGE -0.0100 1.16 1.06 0.0281 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.0500 1.06 0.0622 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.5641 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.8617 upper OGE 0.5817 Lower OGE -0.8633 upper OGE -0.1912 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.4083 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.0351 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.1000 1.06 0.7000 0.8252 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.16 0.8998 Lower OGE 0.6000 1.3877 Lower OGE -0.3821 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0.7346 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.6000 1.9777 895013 NASA TM X-2225 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.1678 Lower OGE -0.3561 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.4443 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.06 0.9383 Lower OGE 0.5817 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.0223 U 895.06 0.1000 1.

1740 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.5511 Lower OGE -0.0307 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0319 upper OGE -0.02 0.0569 L 345.06 0.2613 upper OGE -0.2807 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.4159 upper OGE -0.0100 0.4301 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.9693 Lower OGE 0.02 0.02 0.0398 Lower OGE -0.8000 0.3163 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.7000 1.0569 U 345.9000 1.02 0.02 0.0750 1.06 1.0175 1.1087 Lower OGE -0.0175 0.02 1.0000 0.4159 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0000 1.0E06 to 2.06 0.02 0.3163 Lower OGE -0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.02 0.4301 upper OGE -0.5297 Lower OGE -0.7289 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.4000 1.3000 1.5000 1.6293 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.5937 Lower OGE -0.6293 upper OGE -0. Appendix I.1327 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.7000 0.9431 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.3000 1.02 0.0029 Lower OGE -0.0029 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.9431 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0050 0.1000 1.8673 upper OGE 0.1087 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.7289 upper OGE -0.1740 Lower OGE -0.8000 1.02 0.6862 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.5000 1.5297 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.6000 1.0750 1.02 0.9000 1.4127 upper OGE 0.02 0.02 0.1740 345444 155 .2000 1.6862 upper OGE -0.2000 1.06 0.5155 upper OGE -0.5873 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.3383 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0459 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.2613 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.5510 upper OGE -0.4000 1.0000 0.1636 upper OGE 0.4142 upper OGE -0.5510 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.8000 1.9155 Lower OGE 0.5297 upper OGE -0.02 0.02 0.0398 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0500 1.1625 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.9494 Lower OGE 0.02 0.02 0.7858 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.02 0.3739 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.5937 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0500 1.2969 Lower OGE -0.0506 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.444 OGE 0.444 OGE 0.0319 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.9000 0.6000 1.02 0.02 1.0253 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0845 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.6617 upper OGE 0.0000 1.02 0.02 0.0100 0.5511 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.6261 Lower OGE 0.4142 537388 NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0.0050 0.7858 upper OGE -0.0000 0.5155 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.5297 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.1740 upper OGE -0.1000 1.2807 upper OGE -0.0459 upper OGE -0.2969 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.0E05.7000 1.8364 345444 NASA TM X-2225 0.02 0. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 0.9747 Lower OGE 0.1625 Lower OGE -0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.

013 cp L 537.0 U 895.0 L 345.2 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.444 0.5 1.0 L 1.000.388 -0. AoA 0 deg | Various Re x/c -2. Appendix I. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds cp vs x/c NACA 4415 | approx.9 1.000 -1.3 0.0 156 .000 L 895.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 U 345.0E05.8 0.000.7 0.5 0.5 U 1.6 0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.388 0.013 -1.0E06 to 2.5 -2.5 U 537.444 0.

0632 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0050 0.550 0.1684 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0E05.1368 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.075 -1. Appendix I.51 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.000.600 -0.450 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.950 0.800 -0.150 0.000 OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.350 -1.0463 894945 157 .050 -1.9523 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.9368 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.51 0.4737 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.150 -1.51 0.800 0.000 OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.850 -0.075 0.0175 0.51 0.550 -0.3474 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.8113 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.1158 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0526 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.1474 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.900 0.9731 Lower OGE 0.900 0.5579 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0947 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.000 0.400 -0.0500 0.250 -1.1431 L 894.5802 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.1000 1.450 -0.1579 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.650 -0.2000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.1158 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.7579 U 1.1684 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0737 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.4198 Lower OGE 0.9678 Lower OGE 0.000 0.1158 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.100 0.025 -0.0737 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.650 0.2211 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.1158 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0E06 to 2.7579 L 1.945 OGE 0.2000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.1887 Lower OGE 0.1474 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.51 0.500 0.500 -0.2105 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.750 -0.8421 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.025 0.050 0.000.2000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.8569 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.850 0.9053 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0750 0.0105 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0000 0.0477 Lower OGE 0.750 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.300 0.600 0.51 0.000 0.350 0.950 0.7368 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.700 0.0100 0.1684 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 1.51 0.000 0.200 -1.2737 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 1.3474 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0269 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.4000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.2421 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.1474 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.250 0.2632 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0463 Lower OGE -0.0842 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NACA TR 832 4 0.6316 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.700 -0.400 0.100 -1.3474 upper OGE 1000000 NASA TM X-2225 4.200 0.0322 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.2000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.300 -1.1158 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.0947 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.1579 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 4 0.

4334 upper OGE -0.51 1.51 0.0715 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0500 2.17 0.4000 1.17 0.9149 Lower OGE 0.17 0.9973 Lower OGE 0.4000 1.2000 0.17 0.17 0.6000 1.7000 1.9000 0.2792 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4. Appendix I.51 0.9047 Lower OGE 0.6000 1.0750 1.0E06 to 2.3000 2.7470 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0100 0.7208 upper OGE 0.8569 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.17 0.1285 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.945 OGE 0.9966 Lower OGE 0.8956 Lower OGE 0.1000 2.51 0.0812 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.1369 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0122 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.8000 0.4000 0.9071 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.4491 upper OGE -0. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 4.0953 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0791 L 538.0175 0.1816 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.9141 upper OGE -0.51 0.0875 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.2113 upper OGE -1.4334 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.2190 upper OGE -1.1524 Lower OGE 0.0563 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.17 0.51 0.0851 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.1721 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0027 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.17 0.51 0.5975 538191 158 .9209 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.2000 2.9437 Lower OGE 0.17 1.1975 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.191 OGE 0.17 0.3000 2.0034 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.2113 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.5000 1.1721 upper OGE -1.51 0.51 0.1000 1.0560 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.8727 Lower OGE 0.8746 upper OGE 0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.1441 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.2000 2.9309 Lower OGE 0.51 0.51 0.5975 upper OGE -0.1254 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.5075 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.1273 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.9071 upper OGE -0.0791 U 538.0875 Lower OGE -0.6092 upper OGE -0.7000 0.3018 upper OGE -0.6000 0.17 0.8000 1.9637 Lower OGE 0.7236 upper OGE -0.1180 upper OGE -1.51 0.0050 0.0000 0.0138 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.1285 Lower OGE -0.8000 0.1373 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0500 2.0060 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.51 0.191 OGE 0.17 0.0060 upper OGE -0.0750 2.4491 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.51 0.9285 Lower OGE 0.0175 1.0100 1.7236 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0812 upper OGE -1.9862 Lower OGE 0.0050 0.9209 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.17 0.1191 upper OGE -1.0025 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.1369 upper OGE -1.51 0.0175 1.2000 0.3770 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.1044 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.1373 upper OGE -0.17 0.0363 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.5000 1.17 0.2190 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.3000 0.51 0.9685 Lower OGE 0.1000 2.0000 0.2668 upper OGE -0.1816 upper OGE -1.9440 Lower OGE 0.17 0.6000 0.0000 0.1180 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0E05.5000 0.8559 Lower OGE 0.3018 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0691 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0000 0.8476 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.1431 U 894.0460 upper OGE -1.51 0.51 0.5000 0.17 0.3770 upper OGE -0.17 0.17 0.9141 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.9000 1.1975 upper OGE -1.51 0.17 0.0322 Lower OGE 0.0000 0.8746 Lower OGE 0.1168 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.9678 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0100 1.1191 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.4000 0.3000 1. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.7621 upper OGE 0.0460 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0025 Lower OGE -0.6092 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0000 0.17 0.17 0.51 0.0961 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0315 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.7470 upper OGE -0.2379 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.7000 0.8832 Lower OGE 0.4925 Lower OGE 0.9039 Lower OGE 0.2668 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.0500 0.17 0.0050 0.0750 2.1254 894945 NASA TM X-2225 4.51 1.9878 Lower OGE 0.9000 0.

0393 upper OGE -1.9529 Lower OGE 0.17 0.3048 upper OGE -0.9495 Lower OGE 0.1 0.3048 upper OGE -0.1925 Lower OGE 0.8559 upper OGE 0.0050 0.5000 1.4902 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0464 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.4902 upper OGE -0.17 1.8000 1.1 0.1000 1.1 0.0750 1.1 0.1 0.9000 1.0000 1.2839 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0084 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4. Appendix I.1 0.1 0.1248 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0784 L 345.8000 1.6000 1.1194 Lower OGE -0.7000 1.0494 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0410 Lower OGE -0.2193 Lower OGE -0.1 0.1 0.0749 upper OGE -1.1319 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0000 0.3000 0.1908 Lower OGE -0.1 0.6000 0.1 0.4920 Lower OGE 0.9216 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0500 1.1 0.1158 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.8000 0.0505 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.9764 Lower OGE 0.4715 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.8325 upper OGE -0.0236 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.2000 2.1 0.0050 0.0784 U 345.0825 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.073 OGE 0.1 0.2839 upper OGE -0.0000 0.0175 0.4000 0.1 0.9000 0.0500 2.0000 1. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.1 0.0494 upper OGE -0.1319 upper OGE -1.1 0.5080 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.3000 2.1044 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.2193 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.9216 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0303 Lower OGE -0.073 OGE 0.7000 1.1 0.0750 2.0E05.0393 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0410 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.0175 1.1 0.0100 0.1908 upper OGE -0.1 1.0464 upper OGE -1.9916 Lower OGE 0.5900 upper OGE -0.8956 Lower OGE 0.4688 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.1441 538191 NASA TM X-2225 4.0624 upper OGE -0.1908 345073 159 .1 0.1000 2.9643 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.9038 upper OGE -0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4688 upper OGE -0.1 0.0471 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.1229 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.1 0.0624 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.17 0.1248 upper OGE -1.1 0.1 0. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 4.9038 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.1 0.0749 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.8325 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.9175 Lower OGE 0.2000 1.8075 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.4000 1.1 0.0357 Lower OGE 0.1908 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.5000 0.8771 Lower OGE 0.1 0.9000 1.0100 1.8842 upper OGE 0.3048 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.1194 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.5900 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.7000 0.0000 0.3048 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.1 0.0E06 to 2.0303 345073 NASA TM X-2225 4.4715 upper OGE -0.

8 0.945 cp L 538.000.5 U 538.9 1.4 0. AoA 4 deg | Various Re x/c -2. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.191 -0.5 1.000 -1.5 0.0E06 to 2. Appendix I. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.1 0.000 L 894.0 U 345.5 U 1.0 160 .0 L 345.0 U 894. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds cp vs x/c NACA 4415 | approx.073 0.0 L 1.7 0.073 0.0 0.6 0.5 -2.945 -1.191 0.0E05.000.2 0.3 0.

600 -0.900 0.075 -1. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.4109 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.5891 Lower OGE 0.7368 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.550 0.6877 Lower OGE 0.0500 0.148 OGE 0.3263 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.9746 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.81 0.81 0.150 0.000 0.81 0.350 -1.400 -1.0947 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0050 0.1789 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0737 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.450 0.300 -1.2316 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.81 0.5772 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.4000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2105 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.9684 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.750 -0.8421 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0175 0.000 -0.0254 Lower OGE 0.0E05.3070 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.2000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2632 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.8632 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.4526 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.3368 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.300 0.4000 L 1.0105 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0. Appendix I.2000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0021 Lower OGE 1.0421 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.000 OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.4000 U 1.2316 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0750 0.250 -1.650 -0.4228 Lower OGE 0.500 0.025 -2.81 0.2421 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.6105 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.5000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2842 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.1684 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0947 upper OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000 NASA TM X-2225 8.7368 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.250 0.850 0.200 -1.800 -0.9735 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.0737 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 1.0021 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.500 -0.400 0.5368 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.950 0.100 -1.2000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.100 0.000 OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.550 -0.000 0.200 0.650 0.450 -1.0265 Lower OGE 0.0000 0.700 -0.750 0.075 0.150 -1.3474 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2000 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2211 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2211 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.000.850 -0.050 -2.0947 lower OGE averaged cp at TE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.8000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.1789 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.950 0.6930 L 895.900 0.800 0.5579 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.2000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.0E06 to 2.050 0.1263 upper OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.700 0.0100 -0.3123 895148 161 .000 -0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.1000 0.81 0.1895 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.1895 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0.600 0.81 0.350 0.1368 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 1.025 0.000.6000 lower OGE 1000000 NACA TR 832 8 0. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NACA TR 832 8 0.

1204 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.9769 upper OGE 0.76 0.8376 Lower OGE 0.81 0.8225 upper OGE -0.0985 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.5303 upper OGE -1.4000 2.81 0.6607 upper OGE -1.76 0.0175 2.0050 1.1423 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.0416 upper OGE -0.9000 1.81 0.7000 1.8000 1.0228 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.81 0.76 0.0500 2.4000 0.8225 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.3000 2.0866 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.76 0.1624 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.76 0.81 0.81 0.8703 Lower OGE 0.4599 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.76 0.81 0.9400 Lower OGE 0.6892 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.8796 Lower OGE 0.1709 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.8605 Lower OGE 0.0100 2.81 1.8365 upper OGE -1.76 0.4235 upper OGE -1.81 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.5000 1.9925 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.8214 upper OGE -0.0866 upper OGE -2.5009 L 892.9867 upper OGE -0.76 0.8655 Lower OGE 0.81 0.81 0.0175 0.81 1.8577 Lower OGE 0.0E05.148 OGE 0.4000 0.7049 upper OGE -1.0000 0.0416 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.0000 0.4599 upper OGE -1.4074 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.81 0.6776 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.5926 U 892.1000 0.0075 Lower OGE 0.8775 upper OGE -1.8000 0.0600 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.8365 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.4400 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.2000 0.4991 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.6930 U 895.0291 upper OGE -1.0050 1.76 0.3000 0.4416 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.2000 2.81 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.81 0.2000 0.81 0.0228 upper OGE -1.76 0.6000 0. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 8.76 0.5000 0.2248 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.2000 2.0500 3.7000 0.0231 895148 NASA TM X-2225 7.6607 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.5584 Lower OGE 0.2562 upper OGE -1.81 0.7577 Lower OGE 0.3000 2.558 OGE 0.76 0.76 0.3457 upper OGE -1.0500 0.1129 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.1147 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.8000 0.9867 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.76 0.6158 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.76 0.76 0.81 0.0100 0.76 0.76 0.9979 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.76 1.1700 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.3000 0.81 0.1623 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.8214 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.7265 upper OGE -0.7000 0.8775 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.1267 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.1000 2.76 0.0000 0.76 0.1530 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.1121 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.0000 0.0810 Lower OGE 0.1345 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.76 0.8879 Lower OGE 0.0750 0.0000 0.6000 1.8470 Lower OGE 0.0291 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.4400 upper OGE -0.0021 Lower OGE 0.6000 1.7049 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.2153 upper OGE -0.4000 2.1297 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.8733 Lower OGE 0.76 0.9190 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.1720 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.81 0.76 0.6000 0.4235 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.1395 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.81 0.9769 Lower OGE 0.8377 Lower OGE 0.1149 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.7265 892558 162 .6158 upper OGE -0.3070 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.8884 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.558 OGE 0.8291 Lower OGE 0.0175 2.0E06 to 2.5303 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.5000 1.8300 Lower OGE 0.1000 2.6892 upper OGE -0.9000 0.5000 0.0231 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.8884 upper OGE -1.0750 2.8871 Lower OGE 0.1720 upper OGE -1.6776 upper OGE -1.0100 2.76 0.81 0.9000 0.9015 Lower OGE 0.7752 Lower OGE 0.2153 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.0750 2.76 0.3057 895148 NASA TM X-2225 8.3057 upper OGE -1.8851 Lower OGE 0.3457 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.0050 0.8853 Lower OGE 0.2423 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.2562 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.81 0.76 0.0000 0. Appendix I.

5000 1.1487 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.19 0.8707 Lower OGE 0.76 0.2724 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.1721 Lower OGE -0.31 0.1407 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.3839 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.8394 upper OGE -0.965 OGE 0.8471 Lower OGE 0.0000 0.5926 U 537.1000 2.8277 Lower OGE 0.2000 2.4547 Lower OGE 0.8662 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.1258 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.9000 1.1721 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 7.31 0.8000 0.0000 Lower OGE 1.31 0.31 0.5453 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.76 0.19 0.2403 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.0050 0.8000 0.0E05.0000 0.4547 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.0175 2.9861 upper OGE -0.0147 Lower OGE 0.2014 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.8534 Lower OGE 0.0100 0.1723 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.8444 Lower OGE 0.2000 0.2000 0.31 0.19 0.3922 342560 163 .7000 1.5000 0.1390 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.1356 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.6161 Lower OGE 0.9400 upper OGE 0.1293 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.4056 upper OGE -1.5259 upper OGE -1.6078 U 342.4341 Lower OGE 0.1258 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.0000 0.3294 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.0750 0.31 0.0750 0.8000 1.9000 1.6000 1.4000 0.31 0.0000 Lower OGE 1.0189 upper OGE -0.9853 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.0100 2.31 0.31 0.3000 2.19 0.2439 upper OGE -0.31 0. Appendix I.19 0.2309 upper OGE -0.31 0.3416 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.1556 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.8234 Lower OGE 0.31 0.31 0.1000 0.5025 upper OGE -1.965 OGE 0.8662 upper OGE -1.31 0.0189 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.9325 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.5025 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.19 0.0500 0.19 0.1800 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.4000 2.0272 upper OGE -1.19 0.1000 0.7000 0.5000 0.8729 Lower OGE 0.31 1.31 0.31 0.1766 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.8371 Lower OGE 0.31 0.76 1.31 0.5259 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.9249 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.9000 0.4056 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.19 1.2439 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.5926 L 537.2309 892558 NASA TM X-2225 7.8610 Lower OGE 0.19 0.9711 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.8513 Lower OGE 0.0675 Lower OGE 0.1937 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.1466 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.9000 0.6341 upper OGE -0.560 OGE 0.19 0.19 0.4000 0.7986 Lower OGE 0.19 0.4727 upper OGE -0.0500 0.8063 Lower OGE 0.7597 Lower OGE 0.0500 3.0000 0.0175 0.0175 0.6078 L 342.3000 0.9494 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.0100 0.0600 892558 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.8742 Lower OGE 0.560 OGE 0.0000 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.0452 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.3294 upper OGE -1.8000 1.4727 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.19 0.0000 0.6000 0.31 0.19 0.8742 upper OGE 0.31 0.76 0.0000 0.31 0.8593 Lower OGE 0.0000 1.31 0.0000 0.0050 1.7000 0.8644 Lower OGE 0.6341 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.0750 2.19 0.19 0.8200 Lower OGE 0.0050 0.0506 Lower OGE 0.4074 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.1629 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.0E06 to 2.8394 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.0452 upper OGE -2.4074 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.6584 Lower OGE 0.31 1. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.1529 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.4547 upper OGE -0.1271 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.7000 1.9861 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.31 0.0092 upper OGE -0.0000 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.9249 upper OGE -1.8686 Lower OGE 0.3922 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.6000 0.7276 Lower OGE 0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.0272 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.5659 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.0289 Lower OGE 0.3000 0.0092 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.1314 537965 NASA TM X-2225 8.

000.965 0.6481 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.19 0.0419 upper OGE -0.5 L 895.2 0.2806 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.7132 upper OGE -1.000.5 -2. Actual Article AoA x/c cp surface h/c remarks Reynolds NASA TM X-2225 8.148 U 895.6 0.1489 upper OGE -1.0500 2.7783 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.148 -1.5 0.0 164 .5468 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.9809 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.1721 342560 cp vs x/c NACA 4415 | approx.0 L 1.5468 upper OGE -1.19 0.0E05.560 U 342.1000 2.1721 upper OGE -0.0 0.19 0.0E06 to 2.8 0.19 0.8160 upper OGE -0.19 0.1489 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.000 U 1.4977 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.1 0. Summary of Pressure Distribution over NACA 4415 section at various Reynolds number.1489 upper OGE -1.19 0.19 0. Angle of Attack fixed and Reynolds number decreasing from 1.19 0.0 L 342.19 0.5 1.7000 1.0750 2.0100 2.7132 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8. Appendix I.19 1.4000 2.4977 upper OGE -0.19 0.3 0.0050 2.8160 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.0000 1.19 0.5 L 537.3153 upper OGE -1.965 0. AoA 8 deg | Various Re x/c -2.5000 1.9809 upper OGE -1.2806 upper OGE -0.3000 2.558 -0.4 0.6000 1.0 U 537.8000 1.9 1.558 cp U 892.2000 2.3153 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.560 0.0419 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.6481 upper OGE -1.6207 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.7349 upper OGE -1.6207 upper OGE -0.0 L 892.7349 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.000 -1.19 0.9000 1.1489 342560 NASA TM X-2225 8.7783 upper OGE -1.19 0.19 0.0175 2.7 0.

0.1038 3.00E+06 No cd value 18 1.00E+06 No cd value -16 -0.0076 0 0.0.00E+06 0.050 0.0112 9 1. 12 1.1038 3.00E+06 0.1038x + 0.00E+06 No cd value 15 Stall Region Interpolated.17. 3.0081 from drag -4 0.175 0. 0.325 Region 3.750 AoA not used.0074 Interpolated. 0. 3.1038 3. 0. 16 1. -2 0.1038 3.17 and below (1959) AoA[deg] cl Linear Region Remarks cl-alpha Reynolds No.0078 Interpolated.4 cl 0.0103 Valid range -8 -0. by factor of 0.719 Interpolated.0078 polar.00E+06 0.200 0.450 AoA not used. 3.8857 R2 = 0.0136 Interpolated. 8 1.00E+06 0.00E+06 0.00E+06 0.00E+06 0.00E+06 0.650 0. 3.1038 3.1038 3.0088 7 1.1038 3.2 AoA [deg] 165 .400 0.1038 3.8 -1.0075 Interpolated.850 Linear AoA not used. 3.00E+06 0.900 AoA not used.0007x3 + 0.000 0.0075 5 0. 0.0170 11 1.00E+06 0.00E+06 0.927 Interpolated.0153x2 . 3.00E+06 No cd value 20 1. Calculated Lift and Drag of Finite NACA 4415 wing NACA 4415 2D data without ground effect for estimating 3D data without ground effect Experimental Data from Abbott & Doenhoff obtained under conditions Mach 0. Appendix J.0404x + 0.00E+06 0.4 -0.511 Interpolated.0 y = -0.1038 3.00E+06 0.251 Non Linear Interpolated.0075 1 0.1038 3.1038 3.00E+06 0.361 Interpolated.00E+06 No cd value At Mach 0. 10 1. 0.0102 Interpolated.9854 or by % of 1.200 0.00E+06 No cd value -12 -0. cd Remarks -18 -0.00E+06 No cd value -14 -0.225 Stall Region AoA not used.00E+06 0.00E+06 0.275 Stall Region AoA not used.875 AoA not used.2 Linear Region 0.9914 1.1038 3.9985 0.134 Interpolated.0090 of cd values -6 -0.400 Stall Region 3.4075 R2 = 0.00E+06 0.425 Max cl 3.6 1. cl-alpha reduces at most.456% Section cl vs AoA Near Stall Region 2.625 Region AoA not used.0191 Interpolated. 4 0.325 Stall Region 3.00E+06 No cd value -10 -0.850 0. 3. 2 0.1038 3.1038 3. 6 1.0 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -0.00E+06 0.1038 3.0238 14 1.8 y = 0. 0.0074 3 0.

025 0.5 2.00900 -0.0.004 0.0011x + 0.0077 0.9995 0.0 0.400 0.850 0.00750 0.00800 -0.02325 1.008 0. Appendix J.0 1.000 -1.0005x5 .0.200 0.650 0.0029x3 + 0.00775 -0.00750 0.0.012 0.5 1.625 0.01025 -0.024 .0011x4 0.00750 0.825 0.01675 1.00750 0.0029x2 .020 R2 = 0.475 0. Calculated Lift and Drag of Finite NACA 4415 wing NACA 4415 2D data without ground effect for estimating 3D data without ground effect Experimental Data from Abbott & Doenhoff obtained under conditions Mach 0.425 0.01300 Section cd vs cl [DRAG POLAR] y = 0.0033x6 .016 cd 0.050 0.5 0.17 and below (1959) cl cd cd values interpolated to match AoA 1.00850 0.250 0.01175 1.0 cl 166 .0 -0.325 0.0.200 0.

514 5.968 0.53 31.514 5.53 30.514 5.582 0.514 5. Calculated Lift and Drag of Finite NACA 4415 wing NACA 4415 3D data without ground effect Expected Experimental Data AoA Speed Temp Speed of Mach Reynolds Aspect section cl-alpha CL-alpha 3D CL-alpha 3D [deg] [m/s] [degC] Sound [m/s] Number No.968 0. C L2 C Di = πeAR Based on example 2.0 349.514 5.514 5.514 5.0531 200000 2.007 0.947 2.007 0.514 14 18. The new lift curve is calculated with new gradient CL-alpha.53 30.514 5. Aircraft Performance and Design.53 30.53 30.968 0. McGraw-Hill Eqn 2. Ratio [per rad] [per rad] [per deg] -18 AoA not used.968 0. Appendix J.05181 5 18. 20 Notes Temperature set to average of 30 degC Kinematic viscosity at 30 deg C 1.05181 2 18.514 5.007 0.514 5.968 0.514 18 AoA not used.007 0.007 0.0531 200000 2.007 0.53 30.0531 200000 2.514 11 18.53 30.968 0.0531 200000 2.514 15 18.0531 200000 2.0 349.514 5.0 349.05181 3 18.0 349.947 2.007 0.0 349.007 0.0531 200000 2.0531 200000 2.53 30.968 0.53 30.514 Non Linear Region 10 18.007 0.007 0.947 2.18b a0 acomp = 1 − M ∞2 + [a0 (πAR)] + a0 (πAR) 2 Based on figure 2.0531 200000 2.05181 1 18.23.947 2.53 30.0 349.0 349.53 30.53 30.968 0.0531 200000 2.007 0.0531 200000 2.007 0.05181 4 18.947 2.05181 -8 18.0 349..968 0.007 0. induced drag contribution is calculated by Eqn 2. 1999. -16 -14 -12 18.53 30.05181 -4 18. CD = cd + CDi 167 .947 2. Due to finite wings.0531 200000 2.53 30.0531 200000 2.14's calculation.05181 6 18.514 12 18.007 0.05181 8 18.947 2.0 349.53 30.514 5.0 349.968 0.05181 -10 18.53 30.0531 200000 2.007 0.0 349.968 0.05181 -6 18.947 2.53 30.947 2.947 2.968 0.53 30.007 0.0 349.0531 200000 2.947 2.0531 200000 2. zero lift AoA remains the same.0 349.0 349.0 349.514 16 18.05181 7 18.0 349.0531 200000 2.0 349.514 5. using the following equation.968 0.05181 -2 18.0 349. John D Anderson Jr.62E-05 m^2/s CL-alpha factors in finite width and compressibility.0 349.0 349.968 0.0 349.53 30.30.947 2.007 0.05181 0 18.007 0.0 349.947 2.53 30.947 2.0531 200000 2.0531 200000 2. Total Drag given by the following.0531 200000 2.05181 9 18.968 0.007 0.007 0.0530 200000 2.007 0.514 5.0531 200000 2.947 2.53 30.0531 200000 2.514 5.53 30.

0056 0. CD % diff CD Lift/Drag [deg] induced -18 AoA not used.0282 0.39 -4 0.7% 0.0421 0.4 AoA [Deg] 168 .6% 10.86 0.1% 7.96 Estimated from figure 2.2% 0.0437 394.7695 Max Lift? 0.0131 74.57 11 0.0298 296.0 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -0. CL 0.4 CD est.01 2 0.7% -14.2% 13.9755 1 0.0000 0. 20 CL A % used to reduce section cl value such that stall and linear region match 54% Wing CL & CD vs AoA 1.0125 0.65 14 0.61 1+δ -8 -0.0360 361.1036 48.2590 49.0162 116.6750 0.82 -4 [deg] 4 0.2 est.18 -6 -0.5699 49.3% -10.14 9 0.0% 0.7358 0.0251 -2 0.7% -13. CD Linear (CL) 0.19 12 0.1006 323.6 CL 0.0742 No cd 15 0.3% 15.0199 169.2% 0.0078 0.0835 390.4% 11.7560 0.83 e= 0.4145 51.8% 12.0703 values 16 0.0664 0.8% 0.5% 8.5% 16.1% 15.2 -0.1036 48.2072 0.4% 9.3% 0.6217 47.0613 448.5181 50.0087 0.7155 0.0348 0.6% 0.2% 0.8 y = 0.0502 0.0095 17.0768 0.00 δ= 0.8% 14.2072 7 0.7% 0.4% 11.0014 0.0% 0.0014 0.0228 121.3108 52.0518x + 0.0591 0.2% 0.3% 0.7155 0.2% 0.95 intercept =-(CL-alpha)*(alpha-ZL) 6 0.3108 50.4663 49. Calculated Lift and Drag of Finite NACA 4415 wing NACA 4415 3D data without ground effect Expected Experimental Data AoA CL % diff CL CD.0171 0. Span Efficiency Factor Eqn 2.88 8 0.58 zero lift AoA 3 0.2072 48. Appendix J.0056 0.0727 434.0664 18 AoA not used.0 0.9% 10.9% 0.0090 18.0146 61.2% 8.28 10 0.3627 49.2072 53.0245 230.1% 0.90 5 0.0125 0.0223 0.0907 374.7425 0.31 -16 -14 1 -12 e= -10 -0.0524 412.0716 0.0000 0.56 Therefore 0 0.

Appendix J.0 -15.0 AoA [Deg] 169 .0 5.0 Lift/Drag -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -5.0 10.0 0.0 -10. Calculated Lift and Drag of Finite NACA 4415 wing NACA 4415 3D data without ground effect Expected Experimental Data CL / CD vs AoA out of Ground Effect 20.0 -20.0 15.

25% of the applied force in the z direction.9594 -46.0066 -53.5971 -60.0032 -50.5417 0.8235 -49.7342 10000 15.5888 -54.8508 0. In the z direction.0030 -49.6875 -58.0032 -59.8066 0.5888 -54.5161 -62. To assume the load cell transits seamlessly from compressive to tensile measurement is reasonable.0032 -61.9341 20000 5.8231 0.7603 0.8100 0.5844 0.96% of the applied force in compression.6353 -53.7194 0.8012 10000 13.6567 -47.9125 -47.5845 0.7602 -56.7498 10000 8.7092 0.7074 10000 10.8283 10000 12.6414 -59.7726 -50.8064 10000 11.0035 -56. drift in load cell reading is considered linear with time and error caused by this idea would reduce when time interval between the same applied force reduced to as short as possible.4667 -57.0062 -53.4313 -58.9069 -47.6957 -52.8387 10000 6.8238 10000 7.7661 10000 13.6625 10000 170 .5473 -55.5184 -51. The mass of the model and supports are estimated at 2.0036 -56.8951 0. Appendix K.0032 -47.0039 -55.0041 -55.8849 10000 5.0032 -59.7934 10000 8.8629 -48.5473 -55. To simplify this.7019 10000 16.6907 -63.5257 10000 19.8828 10000 6.0034 -61.0033 -57.0034 -63.5728 10000 18.6662 10000 11.5020 0.0031 -46.3284 -61.7326 -51.5860 -49.6455 -59.5498 -50.6735 0.5276 10000 20.6567 -47.6746 0.4937 10000 21.6177 10000 18. the correlation cofficient of applied force and measured force ranges from 0.6617 10000 17. the measured force is 101.3598 -60.7917 0.7145 0. The standard deviation from each reading would be used as individual uncertainty.2107kg.6810 0.8068 0.6311 0.6854 -58.0053 -54.7043 10000 9.5539 -61.8678 -53.7771 10000 14.0030 -49. While this collection of data does not conclusively indicate that drift is linear with time.7918 10000 12. the measured force is 100.8502 0.0035 -57.7464 0. larger time between gives larger dirft.4453 -63.4877 10000 20.9974 to 1.0034 -51.6935 -52.5050 -56.0040 -62.7324 10000 14.0035 -51.7196 0.6353 -53.5433 0. Loadcell Characteristics Summary of load cell behaviour In z direction.0031 -60.7959 10000 7.7336 -51. In tension.3284 -61.81ms^-2.2955 -62.8976 0.6794 0. COMPRESSIVE loadings / unloadings in z direction Run8 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 4. some groups of points support this idea.5860 -49.0031 -58.6168 10000 17.8401 -54.5072 0.6958 10000 15.0031 -47.7492 10000 9.4313 -58.0032 -58.5184 -51.3598 -60.7516 0.7741 -50.5969 -60.4855 -52.5050 -56.8284 0.6302 0.6759 0. It was assumed that g value is 9. Looking at three plots for compression and two plots for tension.5601 -61.8473 -53. Then overall.6213 -48.8177 -49.8064 -55.8852 -48.7282 -57.0035 -52.9465 0.6658 10000 10.0031 -48.8276 -54.8476 0.0000.0037 -62. Discontinuities occur when a collection of small masses are replaced by a single piece large one.5279 -62. The final uncertainty in the measurement comes from factoring drift into the baseline reading and the difference of readings.0044 -54.7216 -57. mass used does not determine the amount of drift or direction of drift.0030 -50.7656 -56.5498 -50.5726 10000 19.0034 -52.7616 0.6213 -48.0033 -60.3960 -59. From the trends seen within each small group.0031 -48.4667 -57.2955 -62.7831 0.7972 -55.6950 -46. the measured force is 101.6611 10000 16.29% of the applied force.3960 -59.4855 -52.

7093 2000 20.6708 0.2767 -67.4826 10000 25.3734 2000 27.4502 -69.9411 0.3150 -66.0563 2000 3.3288 10000 29.6962 -59.0045 -72.4494 10000 27.3674 10000 29.4463 10000 31.4386 -69.3249 2000 28.3960 -59.2060 -69.0038 -55.0034 -67. Loadcell Characteristics 21.1055 -72.0690 0.0034 -67.5473 -55.6964 -63.1766 -45.4797 0.3227 -72.3041 0.1384 -71.1384 -71.4091 10000 27.5825 2000 18.6361 -65.2955 -62.0044 -68.0046 -46.5692 0.0037 -64.2553 -73.4240 0. Appendix K.2021 2000 0.0040 -45.0033 -52.0085 -42.4335 0.3686 2000 171 .6567 -48.6013 -65.6672 2000 16.6097 -65.3284 -61.0032 -44.3627 -71.6826 0.4667 -57.8322 -56.6210 0.9519 2000 10.6246 2000 17.8253 -44.2900 2000 0.5579 0.2025 -46.6548 -64.2855 10000 31.4441 10000 26.9123 0.0037 -70.9144 -50.1698 -70.3988 -64.2060 -69.4998 0.0042 -56.4467 10000 30.4453 -63.3829 0.9989 -48.2413 -68.4849 -73.3598 -60.0000 -42.7259 0.3679 -71.0036 -65.0379 -48.2060 -69.3459 0.5359 -67.0043 -65.1167 0.0034 -65.9270 -54.4678 0.4760 -68.9001 0.3952 -70.5414 0.0045 -67.7408 -63.4108 10000 28.4691 0.0045 -58.3573 -65.3988 -64.6631 10000 22.0268 0.1625 0.6083 10000 23.0055 -73.0036 -51.4313 -58.9573 -49.2229 -44.7393 2000 14.4632 0.1480 2000 1.8798 -55.2111 0.4729 -68.0035 -69.5058 2000 24.5586 -66.9014 2000 11.0051 -71.6296 0.4588 0.5860 -49.9691 2000 5.6950 -47.5050 -56.0036 -63.5916 0.4222 0.2897 2000 29.3988 -64.4218 -42.0043 -61.0144 2000 4.0031 -48.3468 0.0153 2000 2.0034 -68.5888 -54.4890 10000 26.8479 2000 12.0040 -64.1698 -70.6055 2000 22.5012 0.9252 2000 6.0036 -54.0038 -71.8332 -52.0046 -69.3443 0.5267 10000 24.8098 2000 9.8646 0.0000 -42.9839 0.7266 0.0036 -47.0044 -64.3643 10000 28.3039 0.3150 -66.2413 -68.6863 -64.0035 -70.8516 2000 8.3187 -42.5766 10000 24.0044 -62.0035 -66.3880 0.6344 0.3602 -71.8625 0.0038 -53.5131 -67.5418 2000 19.3573 -65.0044 -60.4183 2000 26.0046 -66.7373 -46.0035 -66.4606 2000 25.0042 -57.5725 10000 23.7428 -58.5498 -50.6105 10000 22.1384 -71.0044 -42.6792 0.5606 -66.4022 -70.5314 10000 25.3057 0.4888 -73.8869 2000 7.1698 -70.3971 -70.4041 0.6431 -64.3810 0.3319 10000 30.7877 -57.3573 -65.6389 0.2553 -73.3038 0.5184 -51.5446 0.2767 -67.9810 -53.6548 2000 21.6213 -48.7788 -45.4855 -52.7085 2000 15.5994 0.5879 0.0833 -47.0046 -59.0037 -71.7691 0.6165 -61.0036 -50.1055 -72.4933 -68.0035 -69.6353 -53.2767 -67.0053 -72.3190 -72.9650 0.5836 -66.6522 -60.1055 -72.0035 -48.0043 -63.2413 -68.5545 2000 23.4453 -63.8216 0.5153 -67.0034 -68.5725 -62.2874 10000 30.8147 0.0046 -70.0055 -73.3150 -66.5223 0.0036 -49.7991 2000 13.4342 -69.0045 -72.8764 -51.3205 -72.

2767 0:35:37 -0.13443269 6.03880444 21.05721488 14.3573 0:49:30 -0.5498 2:37:07 -0.6353 2:15:36 -0.6213 2:50:49 -0.01035789 26.05249168 15.00604509 27.00037146 28.02179325 24.6950 3:05:54 -0.3598 1:24:57 -0.4313 1:39:14 -0.2060 0:21:20 -0.1304596 4.1698 0:16:03 -0.5050 1:54:40 -0.2955 1:11:08 -0.0364E-05 29.4667 1:47:05 -0.4855 2:23:24 -0.5473 2:01:37 -0.1384 0:11:37 -0.6567 2:57:39 -0.0532999 19.3150 0:42:35 -0.13339168 5. Loadcell Characteristics Run8 Applied force [N] Time between same applied force [h:mm:ss] Drift in applied force [N] 30.12697345 10.06575782 13.3988 0:56:26 -0.1055 0:07:07 -2.04831388 20.12242389 172 .09581595 11.3960 1:32:19 -0.05442001 17.5184 2:30:29 -0.3284 1:18:07 -0.14304382 8.01865783 25.02620487 23.13912854 7.4453 1:03:17 -0.05692467 18.05188499 16. Appendix K.5888 2:08:37 -0.07718361 12.03128463 22.5860 2:43:53 -0.2413 0:28:21 -0.14142218 9.

08 -0.292 -70 R2 = 1 -75 -80 applied force With offset taken out.9974x .00 differemce in measured force 0:00:00 -0.16 time between same applied force 173 . Appendix K. Compression Run8 -40 0 10 20 30 40 -45 -50 measured force -55 -60 -65 -70 -75 -80 applied force A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in compression and unloaded.02 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00 2:52:48 3:21:36 -0.14 -0. Compression Run8 Drift 0.10 -0.74% of applied force.04 -0. measured force is 99.06 -0.12 -0.42. Loadcell Characteristics Run8 Compression Run8 -40 -45 0 10 20 30 40 -50 measured force -55 -60 -65 y = -0.

0000 -42.7885 0.0190 -54.0389 10000 4.2354 0.2339 0.0000 -42.2032 5000 25.3299 -64.6931 -49.3264 5000 20.1220 -70.4816 -62.0051 -46.9240 0.3806 -68.0072 -72.0049 -59.0182 -52.3744 0.0088 -63.0042 -70.9991 10000 5.2610 -68.5024 -63.6200 -62.0277 -41.1708 5000 28.3806 -68.8593 8000 9.0949 10000 2.1288 -43.0208 -41.1853 -68.0047 -60.0235 0.2125 -44.6561 0.0064 -68.1271 -46.4135 0.7959 -47.0036 -69.9705 10000 7.0007 -48.2092 -72.2689 -59.0201 -44.0039 -71.0045 -51.1951 2000 174 .2877 -65.2413 -67.9092 10000 9.2138 2000 22.0034 0.0585 0.0991 10000 1.9883 0.9120 -44.0854 0.3149 5000 23.1269 -45.0090 -56.7606 -48.8100 -52.3445 -69.4495 0.4729 -64.0933 2000 26.9534 -43.0912 -71.0039 -47.2066 5000 24.1264 5000 19.6148 5000 12.0036 -48.0079 -44.6200 -62.8696 -45.5372 0.9993 5000 29.1672 10000 2.2526 0.0038 -65.3466 0.0184 0.2238 0.0034 -49.0739 -47.3353 -58.9818 0.0106 -52.1016 5000 27.0457 5000 28.7245 -48.0041 -45.8696 -45.6601 -50.9534 -43.4226 -62.4701 -61.1129 0.0093 10000 6.0039 -50.3545 5000 15.7959 -47.1356 -43.0123 -50.3625 0.9932 10000 0.0723 10000 4. Loadcell Characteristics Run9 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 0.2065 0.4094 0.9672 -49.2099 -60.7375 5000 11.0046 -48.2923 5000 16.3966 2000 18.2526 0.0301 -70.0132 -55.0163 0.9593 0.1886 0.9864 10000 0.0389 -62.1904 0.4159 -67.1438 0.0221 -53.0047 -47.8987 2000 10.5948 -55.0048 -61.0064 -63.1297 -69.6059 -57.1456 -69.8313 -46.0742 2000 24.0055 -65.4160 5000 21.0375 -47.7606 -48.0871 0.7634 -53.1598 -61.0039 -42.0042 -49.1926 2000 23.0748 -70.8313 -46.0049 -67.0779 0.0040 -42.1038 -46.8353 -53.5031 -60.0294 -43.0664 2000 27.2749 -61.9518 0.0053 -64.8100 -52.4392 -63.1069 0.9203 0.2735 0.2801 -71.5734 -63.0331 -42.9354 10000 7.0039 -69.0740 -47.1650 0.4896 -65.4513 -66.4728 -56.0069 -57.0421 10000 5.9763 -49.0385 -48.2613 2000 21.2826 -44.0043 -46.2375 5000 17.5345 -59.3076 2000 20.0059 -58.3131 -70.0609 0.1946 0.0036 -67.9229 0.0057 -66.4701 -61.0036 -49.1266 -45.7220 -54.0306 -53.0046 -68.0006 10000 0.6931 -49.1110 0.0720 0.0046 -42.7245 -48.9832 0.2995 2000 19.0102 0.0036 -62.9636 10000 6.3756 -66.5734 -63.0035 -64.3114 0.6601 -50.2539 -66.9483 -52.4090 0.3131 -70.5320 -64.0045 -49.8319 10000 8.1688 0.5320 -64.0031 -48.4896 -65.2206 -67.0000 -42.0053 -43.0017 10000 0.1876 10000 1.1250 2000 25.3445 -69.4239 5000 14.1181 0.0045 -61.0153 0.4300 -72.0039 -45.1496 5000 26.6964 -54.4490 0.5042 5000 13.9120 -44.2820 0.3943 -57.0039 -70.1341 0.0948 10000 3.0360 10000 3.1784 5000 18.0557 0.3446 5000 22.4159 -67.6796 -55.2801 -71.5706 -58. Appendix K.9398 -50.6413 -56.1144 0.3645 -65.0041 -66.4513 -66.0038 -71.9428 10000 8.3180 0.

8696 -45.4660 2000 0.7068 9.6200 0:37:13 0.2458 2000 16.3153 2000 7.4616 2000 10.3636 -51.9534 2:46:08 -0.4441 2000 1.4878 23.3445 0:14:31 0.3147 2000 14.7606 -48.3568 2000 4.0084 -51.4750 0.0043 -47.6601 -51.4377 -46.4277 2000 Run9 Applied force [N] Time between same applied force [h:mm:ss] Drift in applied force [N] 28.3838 2000 12.4708 24.5709 -52.2744 -60.5114 -43.4862 -54.0042 -45.5240 27.3902 0.4311 26.0065 -43.6796 -55.4198 2000 11.3219 2000 6.0036 -55.0000 -42.0000 3:07:06 -0.0041 -60.5031 0:44:54 0.8313 2:09:55 -0.2571 0.5320 0:32:06 0.4448 -55.4919 0.5154 0.6413 0:55:53 0.4701 0:41:00 0.4593 2000 0.7245 1:35:24 -0.3771 0.6218 10.7606 1:46:19 -0.6931 -50.5600 20.5319 -42.7959 1:56:47 -0.3282 0.0037 -53.5408 21.5615 11.4126 2000 2.4513 0:26:03 0.0038 -57.4897 -42.8696 2:18:04 -0.3704 -49.4579 0.0000 -42.8313 -46.0038 -52.8100 -52.0061 -50.4535 25.0079 -42.5706 -58.7634 1:03:33 0.0053 -42.0038 -59.6931 1:24:10 -0.6601 1:14:53 -0.3572 -50.4415 0.3761 -57. Loadcell Characteristics 17.0000 -42.4748 0.6059 0:53:17 0.4938 -44.7634 -53.4896 0:28:50 0.3839 2000 3.5583 0.3414 3.5273 -53.6413 -56.0036 -54.5706 0:50:47 0.3962 0.0054 -48.5476 2000 8.4537 14.7245 -49.7220 1:01:03 0.4316 15.0038 -58.3549 0.4159 0:21:08 0.3691 5.0038 -56.4787 0.4736 2000 0.3444 -58.4317 0.4187 7.5103 0.3940 8.4712 -45.9534 -43.3866 6.5345 -59.5225 18.3979 -48.4805 13.3806 0:18:15 0.0042 -46.2613 0.0048 -42.5734 0:34:33 0.7220 -54.2801 0:05:49 0.3985 0.2800 2000 15.5155 12.6059 -57.3370 2000 5.9120 -44.5447 17.4657 175 .4906 2000 0.5175 22.3131 0:10:19 0.4552 -42.3064 -59.5039 2000 9.3561 4.3464 2000 13.7959 -47.3408 0.3624 0.5031 -60.4078 16.3421 0.3459 1. Appendix K.8100 1:07:32 0.4094 -56.5669 19.5345 0:47:50 0.6796 0:58:33 0.4120 -47.0056 -49.3456 2.4252 0.9120 2:31:04 -0.0041 -44.2919 0.

344 -70 R2 = 0. Appendix K.20 0.42.80 differemce in measured force 0.60 time between same applied force 176 .20 -0.0209x .60 0. Compression Run9 -40 0 10 20 30 40 -45 -50 measured force -55 -60 -65 -70 -75 applied force A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in compression and unloaded.00 0:00:00 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00 2:52:48 3:21:36 -0.09% of applied force.9995 -75 applied force With offset taken out.40 0. Loadcell Characteristics Run9 Compression Run9 -40 0 10 20 30 40 -45 measured force -50 -55 -60 -65 y = -1. Compression Run9 Drift 0. measured force is 102.40 -0.

1089 0.1392 2000 17.6200 -62.4300 -72.5706 -58.4815 0.7606 -48.3561 -58.0101 -66.0745 2000 8.7245 -49.0074 -59.0611 0.0080 2000 19.3313 0.2389 -62.0622 0.9380 2000 27.3111 0.0120 -61.0089 -62.0744 0.4172 -43.9733 3000 17.9546 -68.8968 -70.1285 2000 23.2185 0.3131 -69.0120 -51.1225 2000 16.0816 -60.6796 -55.2322 0.0109 -70.6059 -57.7574 0.0130 -67.0537 3000 15.7374 2000 10.0084 -62.5706 -58.0086 -60.4513 -66.5734 -63.3861 -45.4896 -65.1453 -61.0079 -55.0092 -72.8100 -52.0643 -72.0057 -69.3690 2000 13.1022 -59.3851 -42.3647 0. Loadcell Characteristics Run10 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 0.0111 -50.3131 -69.1981 -66.0071 -72.4159 -67.3698 0.0098 -67.3123 -53.9625 -69.3368 2000 0.6796 -55.3781 -42.4159 -67.3973 0.0863 0.0064 -52.8363 2000 29.0390 0.6200 -62.0321 0. Appendix K.0105 -46.2801 -70.4896 -65.6059 -57.0119 -69.2960 3000 177 .0098 -65.1226 2000 7.0438 0.8757 0.6413 -56.1720 -57.0098 -56.5031 -60.3773 2000 1.9059 0.3298 0.2139 3000 10.7634 -53.0240 3000 16.1407 -50.3032 -57.0112 -68.2017 0.5345 -59.0102 -47.2190 2000 5.0437 3000 21.0685 3000 14.0080 0.0958 -72.3287 -46.2743 0.0583 -65.4110 -55.0090 -64.9339 -69.2715 -47.0092 -54.0000 -42.2920 2000 21.1522 0.0061 -54.5605 2000 11.1463 0.8100 -52.9946 -68.1264 0.1501 -64.0081 -65.0082 -53.4988 -54.8531 3000 23.3693 0.0069 -55.0082 -72.1030 -65.3313 2000 20.6601 -51.3016 2000 14.0088 -44.9120 -44.0070 -67.1003 2000 18.4300 -72.1726 -49.4300 -72.3631 0.0618 -72.1399 3000 19.0082 -45.1471 3000 12.0139 3000 28.7220 -54.3445 -68.5345 -59.1716 0.0088 -58.1919 -63.8645 0.3515 -56.0000 -42.0090 -64.0110 -66.8848 -70.8696 -45.1103 0.2978 0.7959 -47.9867 -67.5031 -60.9364 3000 24.1915 -65.2805 2000 4.9840 2000 9.1974 -56.0116 2995 29.5905 0.0431 0.2325 -55.0080 -53.4614 2000 12.0076 -59.4819 -44.2228 0.6931 -50.0650 0.1092 3000 13.0076 -63.9378 0.9704 0.0572 -60.1298 -50.1769 0.1260 0.2607 3000 9.1338 -66.2798 -54.9652 2000 26.0779 0.1697 0.3426 2000 3.0094 0.9890 3000 22.0343 2000 29.6155 -53.0136 -58.3806 -68.8313 -46.0131 2000 25.0342 -67.1815 3000 18.3806 -67.4513 -66.1718 0.5734 -63.2512 0.0098 -48.0101 -57.3476 2000 0.0082 -49.4347 2000 2.9693 0.1441 -58.0058 -42.0822 0.0051 -43.1884 -59.0065 -60.0711 2000 24.1984 2000 22.2801 -70.8265 3000 27.0108 -63.8645 2000 28.4006 0.0074 -61.1170 0.3867 -52.2167 0.0065 -42.7802 -52.1329 -67.0070 -68.2270 -48.6413 -56.1707 2000 6.7220 -54.2547 0.3434 0.0098 -70.3445 -68.7634 -53.0075 -52.4628 0.8745 3000 26.9534 -43.3868 -62.0072 -56.0083 -57.9133 3000 25.0078 -68.2391 2000 15.3539 -63.5320 -64.4701 -61.5320 -64.4701 -61.2635 -64.9191 0.1735 3000 11.1430 -60.0906 3000 20.

0132 26.2131 3000 0.0778 0.5031 2:36:23 0.1949 -46.0000 -42.1465 0.6931 4:21:24 0.7245 -49.0638 16.6796 3:27:56 0.1053 -49.0000 5:52:00 0.2433 0.0111 -45.0128 3000 6.0000 -42.0390 24.0096 Correction factor to measured compressive force 0.0108 -43.1408 2.2759 -43.1091 0.0070 -42.0531 23.8696 -45.3445 1:13:05 0.0321 3000 7.0112 27.4140 8.2300 3000 0.7245 4:31:44 0.2571 0.2196 0.2127 6000 Run10 Applied force [N] Time between same applied force [h:mm:ss] Drift in applied force [N] 29.1544 12.0099 -42.1691 3000 1.1644 -47.9534 -43.5734 2:12:33 0.0129 -44.6200 2:11:04 0.5320 1:57:33 0.0124 -46.0889 3000 3.4896 1:51:20 0.2003 3000 0.2709 -44.1338 -48.0112 -49.0527 6.7220 3:37:29 0.0457 17.0128 7.0402 3000 5.0133 -50.1108 3.2797 -42.0562 0.6601 4:06:50 -0.2927 9.0136 -47.1601 19.0897 21. Loadcell Characteristics 8.3131 1:05:57 0.0134 -48.9534 5:30:30 0.4701 2:28:02 0.0080 -42.1063 -51.5706 2:56:53 0.2541 0.2019 0.2243 3000 0.8696 5:11:23 0.4159 1:31:32 0.6413 3:18:27 0.2335 -45.1058 20.7606 4:41:42 0.2600 0.2324 3000 0.2875 -42.2780 -42.8313 -46.0000 -42.0926 4.7959 -47.6059 3:07:29 0.1679 1.9120 -44.0701 3000 4.6601 -51.2667 0.4513 1:41:15 0.1806 11.9120 5:20:53 0.0731 5.3806 1:22:44 0.1703 0.7606 -48.2807 -42. the average measured vs applied force gradient is 1.1064 From 3 compression runs.1281 13.0713 22.2268 10.0074 -42.1462 18.4300 0:49:05 0.7634 3:46:59 0.5345 2:47:14 0.0853 15.2801 0:57:51 0.8100 3:56:49 0.0802 -50.0000 -42.1058 14.0161 -51.9905 178 .0310 28.8313 5:01:28 0.2553 0.6931 -50.1404 0.1322 3000 2. Appendix K.0316 25.7959 4:51:52 0.0791 0.

measured force is 101.391 -70 R2 = 0.25 0.30 0. Loadcell Characteristics Run10 Compression Run10 -40 0 10 20 30 40 -45 measured force -50 -55 -60 -65 y = -1.00 -0.35 0.40 0.05% of applied force.42.9999 -75 applied force With offset taken out. Compression Run10 Drift 0.10 0.0105x .05 0. Appendix K.15 0.20 0.05 0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00 7:12:00 time between same applied force 179 .45 differemce in measured force 0. Compression Run10 -40 0 10 20 30 40 -45 -50 measured force -55 -60 -65 -70 -75 applied force A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in compression and unloaded.

0038 -17.6445 -25.4213 -33.1606 -21.5455 -40.1075 -40.0047 -33.2830 -29.0037 -19.3097 -40.4799 7500 7.5493 0.0905 0.0099 -37.6196 7500 15.4807 0.0643 7500 1.0039 -29.9421 -13.7691 7500 19.5900 -37.0043 -31.0055 -35.6419 -25.5542 -35.1606 -21.8515 7500 21.0109 -37.4461 7500 3.7733 7500 19.7127 0.6139 0.6125 0.0047 -33.3506 -31.7292 0.0036 -21.8166 -21.4916 7500 13.6084 -31.0055 -33.7026 7500 17.7904 0.4736 7500 3.4819 7500 1.5596 7500 1.4213 -33.4549 7500 3.6199 -31.5787 7500 11.8465 7500 23.4000 -27.8864 -40.3097 -40.6035 0.5837 7500 0.7174 7500 23.0512 -40.5927 -39.8149 7500 27.8002 -21.5496 0.8796 -19.8455 -15.0054 -40.0120 -39.3119 -25.0930 -19.8764 -40.0099 -39.9371 -13.0036 -21.5674 7500 1.5135 0.0512 -40.4538 0.6135 7500 17.5253 7500 1.0035 -21.5694 -39.0053 -40.8129 7500 25.9222 0.7157 7500 25.0050 -31.0043 -40.8633 0.5123 7500 5.0937 -40.6322 0.8490 7500 21.2100 -17.4000 -27.3506 -31.6971 7500 17.8948 7500 27.5477 -39.4772 -37.6293 -31.5439 7500 7.0035 -40.3119 -25.7560 7500 21.3097 -40.6013 -27.5329 7500 9.0078 -37.1219 -15.7560 -17.6949 7500 19.5717 7500 1.8276 0.1117 -40.8435 7500 0.5880 7500 9.5930 0.4975 0.8577 7500 0.7990 -21.5385 0.5969 -33.4965 7500 5.8753 -19.0056 -40.5149 0.0079 -39.6202 -39.0036 -25.5324 7500 13.6719 -29.5233 7500 15.4213 -33.5330 0.7359 0.7341 -29.5019 -35.6439 7500 11.9199 0.1219 -15.0036 -23.6372 0.5449 0.6513 0.0046 -39.0070 -35.5860 0.0413 -13.7334 -23.5966 7500 0.0803 0.8586 0.6287 -40.5595 -27.7432 -17.8438 -15.2830 -29.0042 -15.5477 -39.6681 0.0051 -39.4790 0.5518 0.0988 0.2313 -23.6019 0.5429 -39.0065 -39.5325 -35.5434 -37.6023 0.0044 -27.8253 -39.6216 -40.0512 -40.2313 -23.5749 0.1606 -21.8290 0.2100 -17.6195 7500 15.5098 -37.0037 -27.0041 -13.0039 -23.7087 0.0040 -40.8267 7500 0.0041 -17.4310 7500 5.8591 -15.4000 -27.5582 7500 7.5961 7500 9.0042 -40.7452 -17.5900 -37.8608 0.7313 0.7870 0.3506 -31.7833 0.5525 -27.7189 0.6267 0.8437 0.0058 -35.2830 -29.0042 -13.0769 7500 1.8325 0.5151 -35.9054 7500 180 .8745 -19.8720 0.8661 0.2100 -17.6382 7500 13.5455 -40.8253 -39.0413 -13.0930 -19.2313 -23.0042 -31.5019 -35.0049 -29.5768 -33.7139 7500 23.5618 0.0053 -40.6075 -40.6030 -39.5637 -33.7206 -23.5078 -39.0930 -19.0039 -17.6520 -25.0035 -19.8253 -39.0863 7500 1.5455 -40.3119 -25.6589 0.5140 0.0037 -23.0038 -25.0036 -27.5019 -35.1219 -15.0035 -19.5477 -39.7245 -23.5900 -37. Loadcell Characteristics TENSILE loadings / unloadings in z direction Run6 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 0.6216 7500 11.0041 -25.5899 0.8007 7500 25.0038 -29.5828 7500 1.0042 -15.8600 -40.0042 -40.5761 0. Appendix K.6642 -29.0040 -15.

9567 0.9348 -13.4213 -33.8238 4500 19.2228 -37.8078 0.0031 -29.0033 -27.3119 -25.5720 0.9706 -11.4213 -33.5599 4500 11.2975 4500 5.1019 -10.0413 -13.4047 0.9908 -7.4000 -27.9890 7500 30.9907 7500 28.2028 4500 1.0040 -15.0034 -27.9908 0.2101 0.9733 -7.5631 4500 15.9706 -11.1432 -10.0035 -19. Appendix K.4865 0.5742 0.8349 0.8088 0.6679 0.0200 -7.0930 -19.0043 -7.0031 -31.6950 4500 23.0067 -17.7956 4500 23.4888 -27.5019 -35.4735 4500 9.2313 -23.8278 -15.0034 -23.0030 -33.0033 -23.2256 -37.4000 -27.8484 -19.4597 4500 13.2538 0.0035 -19.1606 -21.8363 0.5828 -29.7230 -17.4151 -33.0847 0.9125 -17.0943 -10.0035 -17.2830 -29.0042 -10.8225 -15.9771 4500 28.3119 -25.0499 7500 30.2100 -17.4902 -27.8212 -15.9186 0.0031 -37.3115 0.7536 0.9912 0.2227 -37.9370 -13.7520 0.0061 -11.0040 -10.4740 0.4774 4500 7.7689 -21.4888 -27.5878 -25.3119 -25.6698 0.0413 -13.0706 7500 30.8253 -39.9030 -10.0033 -21.6716 0.0030 -33.9030 -10.0041 -10.3253 -35.0930 -19.4969 -31.5708 0.0033 -21.0692 7500 33.3134 0.0034 -19.2100 -17.9775 4500 28.0794 -11.9030 -10.5613 4500 11.1956 4500 3.9766 4500 27.9634 7500 28.5451 4500 23.0043 -10.0031 -31.9706 -12.2124 0.9862 -7.0037 -23.2313 -23.0042 -12.0033 -37.0033 -25.4768 4500 9.0932 -10.7074 0.0587 4500 30.7653 -21.5716 0.0043 -7.0040 -12.4773 0.7415 4500 17.9126 7500 30.4642 4500 13.0033 -25.0032 -35.0041 -10.1606 -21.5900 -37.4877 0.7630 -21.4213 -33.0044 -12.3942 4500 5.8896 4500 25.5019 -35.0413 -13.4157 -33.0036 0.4000 -27.0031 -35.8368 0.0031 -29.4756 0. Loadcell Characteristics 27.2140 0.9706 -11.7084 0.2999 4500 5.7546 0.5608 4500 9.9706 -12.5883 -25.8512 -19.4650 4500 11.9312 -13.0189 -11.0974 -10.0042 -10.9037 0.9927 0.6969 4500 21.3105 0.0043 -7.3021 4500 3.3235 -35.0086 -11.0032 -35.9061 0.6548 4500 15.6949 -23.5900 -37.0031 -31.4977 -31.0040 -13.3905 4500 7.0040 -13.1990 4500 3.1219 -15.9040 7500 28.7923 4500 25.0041 -13.0040 -12.0775 0.6905 -23.5024 -31.5900 -37.9579 0.3207 -35.5019 -35.9419 7500 33.9327 7500 33.0041 -12.9706 -12.8245 4500 21.2830 -29.0200 -7.8106 0.3934 4500 7.8506 -19.0636 4500 28.8846 4500 27.5758 0.6453 4500 17.9030 -10.7411 4500 19.3506 -31.0038 -17.6584 4500 17.9551 0.0930 -19.0200 -7.7095 0.0034 -39.0039 -13.0883 0.0983 -10.4160 -33.0031 -37.0413 -13.3506 -31.0794 0.9208 -13.6826 -23.9030 -10.0033 -25.0636 4500 30.1219 -15.4899 0.0052 0.2313 -23.7228 -17.9030 -10.0039 -15.0032 -27.0201 -11.2100 -17.0860 0.0031 -29.8213 4500 21.8885 4500 27.2405 4500 181 .9052 0.7394 4500 19.0077 -11.0032 -33.5836 -29.0780 0.3506 -31.2830 -29.2694 -39.5847 -29.5858 -25.5652 4500 13.5625 4500 15.0067 0.1219 -15.4060 0.0034 -21.7943 4500 25.0039 -15.1606 -21.0040 -12.4024 0.5778 0.

2676 -39.8843 -40.0561 13.1430 0.2540 0.2709 1.0032 -39.0930 1:07:33 0.3097 -40.9030 0:13:26 0.2830 2:01:16 0.6623 0.1367 4500 0.9706 0:24:00 0.2313 1:29:15 0.0512 -40.2423 4500 1.0010 1.0152 25.6539 0.0236 182 .6017 -39.6672 0.8253 -39.5455 3:42:21 -0.8253 -39.0035 -40.5731 4500 1.8939 -40.2659 -39.5748 4500 1.5455 -40.1371 4500 1.5998 -39.1581 5.0512 -40.1242 4500 1.0034 -39.4213 2:24:28 0.0587 0.1146 7.3097 -40.5976 -39.0047 -40.2603 1.5477 -39.0512 -40.2100 0:56:25 0.5746 4500 1.0054 -40.6546 4500 0.3119 1:39:45 0.2030 3.0037 -40. Loadcell Characteristics 1.0335 17.6676 -40.4000 1:50:04 0.5872 0.5019 2:35:27 0.0033 -40.5868 0.0036 -39.6418 4500 0.0274 19.0570 0.6764 -40.6779 -40.8806 0.1622 -40.0436 15.0032 -40.5455 -40.1573 -40.5900 2:46:00 0.5859 0.0080 28.2529 0.0512 3:30:35 -0.5477 -39.8591 4500 Run6 Applied force [N] Time between same applied force [h:mm:ss] Drift in applied force [N] 30.8253 3:05:49 0.0237 21.0206 23.3097 3:54:32 -0.0880 9.8658 4500 0.0043 -40.5455 -40.0032 -39.0413 0:34:55 0.0694 11.8928 0.1484 0.1612 -40. Appendix K.3097 -40.1606 1:18:08 0.9129 -40.0136 27.1492 0.0032 -40.8787 4500 0.0032 -39.2424 4500 1.6481 4500 0.5477 -39.3506 2:11:53 0.8717 0.1219 0:46:07 0.0051 -40.5477 3:18:31 0.

the measured force is 100.55% of the applied force.05 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00 2:52:48 3:21:36 3:50:24 4:19:12 -0. Loadcell Characteristics Run6 Tension Run6 0 0 10 20 30 40 -10 y = 1.41. Appendix K.067 measured force R2 = 0.30 differemce in measured force 0.05 0. Tension Run6 Drift 0. Tension Run6 0 0 10 20 30 40 -10 measured force -20 -30 -40 -50 applied force A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in tension and unloaded.25 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.0055x .9999 -20 -30 -40 -50 applied force With offset taken out.10 time between same applied force 183 .00 0:00:00 -0.

8748 0.9711 0.0183 -40.9381 7500 1.1961 -14.5900 -37.2100 -17.9077 7500 17.8253 -39.7832 7500 9.9025 -29.1865 -14.2313 -23.8253 -39.9846 7500 23.7863 7500 1.0063 -31.0069 -40.8258 -31.1042 7500 0.4000 -27.0512 -40.6857 0.8648 -25.0057 -14.8405 0.7764 7500 9.9989 -40.9490 -23.1502 0.9439 7500 23.0083 -37.1668 0.1606 -22.0071 -40.6704 7500 3.0072 -25.3119 -25.0338 -21.0194 -39.5019 -35.4213 -33.5019 -35.7436 7500 13.6480 -37.7995 -39.0413 -14.0065 -35.0059 -22.2100 -17.4977 -40.6657 0.9233 0.0078 -39.5455 -40.0069 -25.6576 7500 3.9443 7500 1.7530 0.5455 -40.5455 -40.9804 0.5900 -37.0122 -39.0056 -37.0064 -31.7139 7500 7.8926 -29.8253 -39.0052 -29.2313 -23.4611 7500 1.9782 7500 19.9924 -17.7282 7500 7.3097 -41.7135 -37.2100 -17.7067 -35.9517 -23.0053 -27.9286 0.0512 -40.6885 0.0071 -41.6677 7500 5.0061 -39.6873 -37.8253 -39.7483 0.0080 -41.5894 7500 3.0063 -27.3506 -31.7025 -35.5900 -37.1606 -22.2830 -29.8253 -39.5019 -35.0057 -14.7684 -39.0413 -14.7410 7500 1.6995 7500 9.9776 -39.0054 -14.4000 -27.7679 7500 11.7461 -39.8441 7500 11.9917 -39.0346 -21.7558 -33. Appendix K.9721 0.8803 0.6127 0.4915 -40.3506 -31.9939 0.9663 -39.7837 -27.8431 0.9461 7500 27.9723 0.0055 -31.7713 0.9486 7500 0.8124 7500 17.8889 -29.0061 -29.4213 -33.6900 7500 13.0072 -39.9697 0.4510 7500 1.0132 0.4730 0.0059 -35.5900 -37.9829 7500 19.8520 7500 11.8528 7500 13.7443 7500 15.1354 7500 184 .8253 -39.5900 -37.9504 -23.8319 -31.0127 0.6217 7500 7.8180 0.4434 7500 1.9003 -39.8207 7500 15.0059 -29.7251 0.0061 -17.1722 -41.8167 7500 15.1824 -41.6196 -37.0048 -35.8333 -31.0060 -40.2830 -29.9586 7500 0.7722 -33.4213 -33.7470 0.6024 7500 3.0070 -23.7650 0.8718 -25.6675 0.4783 0.9001 7500 17.9381 7500 1.1602 -41.8087 0.0064 -40.5477 -39.8299 7500 1.8643 0.3506 -31.6243 0.0053 -39.9874 -39.8484 -39.5832 7500 5.4000 -27.7001 -35.3119 -25.8629 -25.1682 0.0060 -22.4893 0.7469 -37.1706 0.0044 -17.6124 7500 5.0064 -17.1581 0.6016 0.9294 0.8458 0.0512 -40.8659 -27.9719 0.8038 0.0071 -25.7247 7500 1.1606 -22.0063 -41.0153 -39.0063 -39.0088 -37.7000 7500 3.2313 -23.9618 0.3097 -41.0049 -37.0067 -41.7377 0.9938 -40.0130 0.8713 0.0056 -33.3097 -41.0065 -33.0052 -27.5049 -40.1458 7500 27.0413 -14.7176 0.5900 -37.1221 7500 0.9402 7500 1.3119 -25.0131 -37.9638 0.0049 -33.1465 7500 27.9282 0.9983 -17.0053 -40.6303 7500 3. Loadcell Characteristics Run7 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 0.7759 -33.5477 -39.0060 -18.7675 0.0052 -37.1933 -14.1373 0.8138 0.0058 -23.0096 -39.7858 -27.6749 0.9465 7500 23.5477 -39.1329 7500 0.9059 7500 19.0330 -21.8794 7500 1.7738 0.0062 -22.2830 -29.6466 -37.0059 -23.

2086 0.0141 7500 17.1477 0.0200 -8.8783 7500 11.0064 -43.3933 -39.3119 -25.0064 -43.8436 -31.1274 0.9256 -29.1606 -22.0450 -25.0074 -18.4000 -27.0044 -27.0061 -39.5019 -35.0057 -24.8253 -39.1344 7500 0.0000 -43.8253 -39.8483 -27.7743 7500 7.2301 -8.0076 -8.9706 -12.0047 -37.0000 -43.7321 7500 185 .0065 -29.0400 0.0210 0.0000 -43.1655 0.9399 7500 15. Appendix K.7707 -39.0164 -8.4180 -39.8249 0.0865 -43.0044 -33.5019 -35.0000 -43.7468 7500 1.0050 -37.0068 -18.7404 0.0000 -43.9742 7500 0.1610 0.5439 0.0048 -31.1911 -43.3506 -31.8253 -39.0274 7500 0.2100 -18.0082 -43.7113 7500 7.0055 -27.3552 7500 1.0048 -37.4895 0.1394 0.0065 -43.0000 -43.1868 -43.8223 0.0621 -24.6033 0.4205 7500 28.6284 -35.4213 -33.0054 -27.4614 7500 3.0057 -43.9292 -29.1356 7500 19.1788 -25.8253 0.4671 0.5025 -12.0042 -35.0000 -43.0200 -8.9820 7500 0.1593 -18.7648 0.2313 -24.5719 -12.0582 0.2878 -8.0058 -29.0052 -22.0200 -8.5008 0.0000 -43.1077 7500 17.0000 -43.0067 -43.3763 7500 1.5129 -12.8441 -31.1331 7500 0.5477 -39.1553 0.0059 -33.0020 0.6342 0.7883 7500 9.0200 -8.0066 -43.5900 -37.4737 7500 3.0436 0.1650 -22.1647 0.0200 -8.3432 7500 1.1849 -43.7275 7500 13.5900 -37.1798 -43.4513 7500 28.3119 -25.9158 -27.9113 0.2357 -8.8413 7500 15.1705 0.0064 -18.6376 -35.1196 7500 23.0000 -43.1690 -18.6838 -8.1235 7500 19.1379 7500 33.1606 -22.9283 0.0094 -12.1697 0.0891 7500 19.0214 -8.0123 7500 0.6431 -8.1913 -43.0064 -43.1492 -18.4953 0.6485 -35.1362 0.5415 -8.0052 -39.5900 -37.1699 0.4838 -37.9320 0.0053 -35.2830 -29.0054 -29.1425 7500 0.8754 7500 11.4952 -37.0050 -25.0053 -39.0386 0.1586 -22.0064 -39.4000 -27.4213 -33.2120 0.7808 7500 11.6201 7500 5.0068 -24.2313 -24.3953 0.3749 0.0088 7500 0.4213 -33.0039 -33.4512 7500 1.0063 -26.3767 -39.0066 -8.7574 -33.0059 -24.0071 -43.6106 0.0085 -43.3591 0.7999 7500 9.3506 -31.6031 7500 5.4076 7500 23.8622 7500 9.1843 7500 33.0595 -24.0081 -43.3119 -25.8201 0.4783 0.0327 7500 0.1453 7500 0.0353 0.2830 -29.7422 0.7346 7500 13.4735 7500 33.9123 7500 15.0060 -8.0000 -43.8206 0.1598 7500 0.8265 0.2053 0.0659 0.0931 7500 33.7418 0.0056 -31.5019 -35.9494 -25.6226 0.9091 0.0200 -8.1113 -23.1900 -43.0132 -8. Loadcell Characteristics 33.4581 0.2100 -18.0645 -43.0531 0.7464 7500 13.0061 -22.2830 -29.0050 -35.9346 0.0441 -42.0744 -43.0082 -12.4449 7500 28.2100 -18.7508 0.9706 -12.2313 -24.9248 -29.0798 -43.7539 -33.3506 -31.4000 -27.1606 -22.1469 0.0052 -22.9706 -12.8424 -31.5910 7500 3.4755 0.7185 7500 7.9089 0.0271 -42.1737 -22.7871 -39.5489 7500 33.0000 -43.0072 -43.0089 -26.0072 -39.7709 -33.7129 7500 5.9050 -27.1071 7500 23.5477 -39.0180 7500 17.0049 -31.5052 -37.1303 7500 0.0072 -12.

8253 6:03:11 0.1854 0.1659 19.0512 6:34:29 0.3256 -40.0071 -40.4921 1.0044 5.0885 13.7413 0.1345 17.2566 7500 0.1606 3:05:57 -0.0069 -41.0535 3.0075 -40.7613 -39.7855 0.0060 -40.3309 -40.0065 -40.0531 11.5900 5:32:35 0.8289 -40. Appendix K.2830 4:25:51 -0.0512 -40.7624 0.3097 -40.9673 7500 0.3726 1.9937 -40.9865 7500 0.0052 -40.1963 0.8096 0.1346 3.7846 -40.2137 1.3097 -41. Loadcell Characteristics 1.7595 7500 0.7830 7500 0.9726 0.9893 0.5455 -40.0129 Correction factor to measured tensile force 0.0168 7.5455 -40.1109 15.2784 0.3005 -40.0133 0.5019 5:09:28 0.0395 -40.0084 -40.0064 -40.8106 -40.9527 7500 Run7 Applied force [N] Time between same applied force [h:mm:ss] Drift in applied force [N] 33.0097 -41. the average measured vs applied force gradient is 1.2963 0.4213 4:53:56 0.5477 -39.0049 -39.0200 2:30:43 -0.2123 1.3119 3:46:01 -0.0343 9.5477 6:18:45 0.2313 3:28:16 -0.2735 7500 1.1568 From 2 tension runs.5455 -40.9706 2:44:36 1.3407 28.0512 -40.4000 4:10:42 -0.9873 186 .5900 5:23:23 0.5455 6:49:16 0.7143 7500 1.0131 -40.3506 4:39:58 -0.3097 -40.6923 23.3099 0.8253 5:56:34 0.2100 2:57:50 -0.0512 -40.7419 7500 0.3097 7:05:06 0.2913 7500 1.

the measured force is 102. Loadcell Characteristics Run7 Tension Run7 0 0 10 20 30 40 -10 y = 1. Tension Run7 Drift 2.50 1.03% of the applied force.9972 -20 -30 -40 -50 applied force With offset taken out.41. Appendix K. Tension Run7 0 0 10 20 30 40 -10 measured force -20 -30 -40 -50 applied force A small amount of drift can be detected when load cell is loaded in tension and unloaded.0203x .00 0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00 7:12:00 8:24:00 -0.666 measured force R2 = 0.50 0.00 differemce in measured force 1.00 0.50 time between same applied force 187 .

0024 -1.0256 Correction factor to measured drag force 0.1092 7500 5.1294 0.6824 7500 2.0481 0.6408 0.9976 -4 -5 applied force With offset taken out. Loadcell Characteristics Drag loadings in x direction Run10 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 0.1163 3.0000 3.9750 188 .1400 3.8838 -3.0940 0.0029 0.9545 -1. Appendix K.6980 0.0032 3.8477 -4.1142 7500 0.0028 3.6555 2.9% of applied force.029x + 2.0000 3.9654 -3 R2 = 0.1311 -1.1184 7500 0.0029 -2.1368 3.0032 2.0842 -2.0021 -0.7113 1.6227 7500 1.0930 7500 Drag Run10 4 3 2 measured force 1 0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -2 y = -1.0029 -3.0000 3.1515 7500 4.9918 -4. measured force is 102.0029 3.7417 7500 2.0332 -3.9928 -0. From 2 drag runs.0766 1.1963 7500 3.0126 7500 0.9191 -2.7665 0.7543 0.1809 -0.0618 7500 6.1043 0.0352 0.1232 2.0012 0.1894 0.1242 0.1399 0.0023 1.0037 -3. the average measured vs applied force gradient is 1.

0024 3.2420 0.0000 3.9928 -0.0980 0.6364 7500 2.0222x + 2.0018 -4.0847 0.0363 0.0021 -1.0352 0.0019 -3.1401 0.0027 0.8477 -4.2564 7500 3.7215 0.7018 0.1232 2.0437 7500 0.9191 -2.5924 0.1064 3.0020 -0.0971 3.0779 -3.9974 -4 -5 applied force With offset taken out.8838 -3.8878 -3 R2 = 0. Appendix K. 189 .0678 7500 0.6007 2.1907 0.5799 7500 1.0025 3.22% of applied force.9545 -1.0025 1.6489 0.0892 7500 Drag Run11 4 3 2 measured force 1 0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -2 y = -1.0029 2. measured force is 102.2064 7500 4.2365 -0.1103 7500 6. Loadcell Characteristics Run 11 Applied force [N] Measured force [N] Standard deviation [N] max [N] min [N] Sample size 0.0885 0.0766 1.6569 1.0292 -4.1519 7500 5.0000 3.0021 -2.1843 -1.6868 7500 2.1322 -2.

Appendix K. Loadcell Characteristics 190 .

Loadcell Characteristics 191 .Appendix K.

Figure L1. 192 . Appendix L. Figure L2. Lower half of center portion of wing. Drawings of the Model. Complete center portion of wing.

Upper half of center portion of wing. Figure L4. 193 . Figure L3. Drawings of the Model. Appendix L. Left extension of wing.

Figure L6. Internal pivot joints of wing. 194 . Right extension of wing. Drawings of the Model. Appendix L. Figure L5.

Location of pressure taps along mid-span of wing. Appendix L. 195 . Drawings of the Model. Figure L7.

A way forward is to assume that the boundary layer on both sides sufficiently similar. In turn. The dp/dx readings on the Port Side are taken to represent the dp/dx readings along the centre line and experienced by the model. Comments Overall. The raw pressure readings showed a consistent pressure profile with all 5 readings flucuating together. portable Thermometer simple ambient temperature type Observations On the Star Board wall. Appendix M. orthogonal right hand rule) z-position along Wind Tunnel Centre Line 5 measurement points on Port side x-position various distances fore and aft of model. there is still a likely leak of air into the tunnel on the Star Board side. a clear static pressure drop was not observed. 196 . However. This was not seen on the Star Board wall of the tunnel. the start static pressure ahead of the model is higher than the end static pressure It is expected that greater speed in the wind tunnel has a higher Reynolds number and also causes a thinner wall boundary layer. The static pressure rose a little before decreasing. Downstream Pressure Profile. causing air to slow down (pressure rise). slightly. giving a smaller contraction with smaller speed increase and smaller dp/dx. y-position 500mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Starboard side. y-position 500mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Port side. orthogonal right hand rule) z-position along Wind Tunnel Centre Line Tubes' length 600mm Manometer inclined at 30 deg. 14 tubes. Downstream Pressure Profile 5 measurement points on Starboard side x-position various distances fore and aft of model.

0 -385.0 29.00 -72.15 -345.05 0.0 Pressure (datum: Atm) [Pa] -355. Downstream Pressure Profile.00 -78.00 -72.5 28.3214 26.5 28.12 26.0 -360.0 R2 = 0.5 28.4 SB6 -0.00 -388.5 29.00 -79. Appendix M.0 28.00 -78.5 SB6 0.5 29. Starboard side of wind tunnel Distance from Inverter Freq Delta Static Temperature Static Data Set Model centre [m] [Hz] Reading [mm] Calculated [degC] Pressure [Pa] Number -0.0 -395.8 29.0 -350.5 28.5 29.00 -354.12 26.00 -72.98 R2 = 0.0 y = -12.00 -388.00 27.00 26.00 -383.00 -370.385.4 SB6 -0.62 -354.8 SB5 0.0 27.0 y = -16.4 -380.5 SB5 0.00 27.62 -351.67 -386.62 -354.5 28.0 -390.2 SB5 0.7 SB5 -0.0 SB5 -0.62 -356.00 -72.4 SB5 Distance from Inverter Freq Delta Static Temperature Static Data Set Model centre [m] [Hz] Reading [mm] Calculated [degC] Pressure [Pa] Number -0.12 26.06 26.06 27.0 28.5 SB6 0.00 -72.06 26.10 0.12 26.00 -354.12 27.10 -0.8 29.00 -72.06 26.2 SB5 -0.353.4 SB5 0.00 -384.5 28.5 29.8 SB5 0.5 29.0 29.67 -383.00 -383.00 26.67 -388.00 -351.00 -78.12 27.7 SB6 0.67 -383.05 0.67 -388.00 -78.00 -73.74 -365.00 -79.7 SB6 0.15 -0.00 -72.62 -351.00 -79.00 -79.06 27.5 SB5 0.00 0.00 -355.00 -72.12 27.7 SB6 dp/dx Wind Tunnel Star Board side | Data set SB5 | (Flow Direction >>) -0.215x .00 -351.0 28.4 SB6 0.5 29.00 -72.06 27.00 -78.0 x [m] 197 .286x .0 28.12 27.2 SB6 -0.2 SB6 0.06 27.00 -79.06 26.00 -375.

25 -349.1422x .00 -71.0 PS6 Distance from Inverter Freq Delta Static Temperature Static Data Set Model centre [m] [Hz] Reading [mm] Calculated [degC] Pressure [Pa] Number -0.00 0.00 -71.12 26.12 27.0 29.0 29.3 PS7 0.0 Pressure (datum: Atm) [Pa] -355.0 x [m] Port Side of wind tunnel Distance from Inverter Freq Delta Static Temperature Static Data Set Model centre [m] [Hz] Reading [mm] Calculated [degC] Pressure [Pa] Number -0.29 -381.00 -77.0 PS7 0.18 -349.17 -378.00 27.00 -78.06 26.00 -72.25 -349.05 0.00 -71.00 -72.00 -71.0 29.12 27.18 -346.00 26.5 29.5 29.0 -350.18 -351.06 26.8 PS7 -0.3 PS6 0.45 -365.10 -0.5 29.29 -378.0 29.5 29.0 y = 4.00 -77.25 -346.0 PS6 0.17 -381.12 27.00 -375. Downstream Pressure Profile.0 29.12 26.6 PS6 0.7 PS6 -0.17 -378.00 -370.6 PS7 0.0 29.5 29.3 PS7 0.00 -71.29 -378.7 PS7 -0.5 29. Appendix M.353.18 -349.6 PS7 0.00 -72.00 -77.0 27.12 26.7 R2 = 0.10 0.00 -78.0238 -380.0 29.05 0.0711x .00 -77.00 -78.06 26.12 26.00 -77.00 -71.06 27.5 29.17 -378.29 -381.00 26.06 26.0 -390.7 PS6 0.0 y = -8.06 27.25 -351.0 -385.3 PS6 0.385.00 -77.0 -360.5 29.7 PS7 0.5 29.6 PS6 -0.29 -378.2222 26.17 -381.0 -395.18 -351.6 PS7 -0.15 -345.0 29. Starboard side of wind tunnel dp/dx Wind Tunnel Star Board side | Data set SB6 | (Flow Direction >>) -0.15 -0.25 -351.0 R2 = 0.00 -78.0 29.6 PS6 0.8 PS6 -0.12 27.5 29.00 -72.06 27.06 27.0 29.0 PS7 198 .00 27.

0 Pressure (datum: Atm) [Pa] -355.15 -0. Appendix M.379.0 x [m] 199 . Downstream Pressure Profile.349.8929 26.75 -380.77 -360.0 27.75 -380.0 R2 = 0.0 x [m] dp/dx Wind Tunnel Port Side | Data set PS7 | (Flow Direction >>) -0.212x .354x . Port Side of wind tunnel dp/dx Wind Tunnel Port Side | Data set PS6 | (Flow Direction >>) -0.00 -365.0 y = -12.0 R2 = 0.213x .05 0.05 0.349.00 -365.0 27.15 -0.10 0.57 -375.05 0.0 Pressure (datum: Atm) [Pa] -355.0 y = -20.10 -0.8929 26.0 -350.15 -345.355x .0 -350.77 -360.0 R2 = 0.0 -385.05 0.00 0.00 0.379.0 y = -20.0 y = -12.00 -370.10 -0.56 -375.10 0.0 R2 = 0.15 -345.0 -385.00 -370.

Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile Measurement Positions Position S-CL x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section y-position -39. orthogonal right hand rule) Position P-WT x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section y-position 220. portable Thermometer Simple ambient temperature type 200 .5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Starboard side.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Port side. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile. 14 tubes. Appendix N. orthogonal right hand rule) Position S-WT x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section y-position -220.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Starboard side. orthogonal right hand rule) Position P-CL x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section y-position 57. orthogonal right hand rule) Pitot static tube EMF0093 Tubes' length 1000mm Manometer inclined at 30 deg.5mm from Wind Tunnel Centre Line (Port side.

Reynolds Number is not affected by temperature in a large way.048 28.4 Position S-CL 2 R = 0.6 Temperature [degC] 29.6 208000 209000 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000 Re Number At each position.175m 29.2 R2 = 0. the variation can be attributed mainly to the tunnel's condition (screen cleanliness or floor smoothness) and little to changing ambient temperate as readings were taken.426 Position S-WT Position P-WT 29.029 29. Vertical Velocity Profile Vertical Velocity Profile 60 50 Distance from Floor [cm] 40 Position S-CL Position P-CL 30 Position S-WT Position P-WT 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 U velocity [m/s] With constant power input to Wind Tunnel Suction Fan (Invertor Frequency set at 28 Hz). 201 .8 R2 = 0. Temperature vs Reynolds Number Based on Chord 0. Therefore variation in Reynolds number is mainly due to variations in speed in the vertical direction.0 28.3493 Position P-CL 29. the vertical velocity profile obtained on the right and left of the tunnel centre line is approximately contant across the middle (4 to 56 cm from the floor).8 R2 = 0. At each position. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile. Appendix N.

Vertical Velocity Profile Velocity vs Re Number based on chord 0. Higher ambient temperatures result in faster speeds for the same Reynolds Number.4 Position P-WT 19. a test should be concluded within a reasonably short durations so that the effects of variations in temperature are minimised.6 R2 = 0. Velocity vs Temperature 20. Power input to suction fan has to be adjusted downward when temperature rises to achieve the similar speeds.9996 Position P-CL R2 = 0. Therefore the interpaly between Power input.6 Position S-CL Position P-CL Position S-WT 19.175m 20.4 29.8 28.0 29. The variations are about -2% to +2% of the mean freestream speed.3 29.2 19.2 29.9959 Position S-WT 19. The fact that the curves do not coincide indicates the speeds depend on ambient temperature.7 28.0 28.6 29.2 19. temperature and achieved speed is not straightforward. Appendix N.0 208000 209000 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000 Re Number The variation of Reynolds number corresponds very proportionately to variation in wind speed within the position.9 29.8 Temperature [degC] At each position.9992 R2 = 0.1 29.8 Velocity [m/s] Position S-CL 19.5 29.8 Velocity [m/s] 19. 202 .0 19. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile.7 29.9966 19. Ideally.0 R2 = 0.4 Position P-WT 19. changes in ambient temperature also give similar spread in velocities across the tunnel.

96% 28 28 144.194 208677 yes -1.5256 19. Vertical Velocity Profile location S-CL Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation [cm] from Floor Up [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from Mean 2 28 148.79% 40 28 144.0 29.5 29.530 211818 yes -0.539 201073 6 28 145.0 28.0 29.41% 48 28 144.0 190.531 211811 yes -0.0 190.3571 19.0 190.0 29.0 29.52% 1 28 151.78% 52 28 144.42% 32 28 144.0 189.0 190.0 29.2286 19.8952 19.0 29.5000 19.0 29.520 212127 yes 0.52% 8 28 145.70% 48 28 144.3857 19.0 190.2214 19.8667 19.0 189.15% 22 28 144.2188 18. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile.8143 19.44% 52 28 144.0 29.424 210631 yes -0.70% 18 28 144.0 190.8000 19.7857 19.423 210644 yes -0.3571 19.646 212714 yes 0.5 28.305 209765 yes -0.0 28.0 190.52% 2 28 146.642 212850 yes 0.5128 19.0 28.3643 19.302 209872 yes -0.9048 19.2396 19.206 208281 yes -1.5 189.5 28.0 190.0 190.5 29.535 211690 yes -0.3571 19.625 213355 yes 0.0 29.3714 19.0 28.5 189.647 212690 yes 0.15% 44 28 144.0 189.839 215623 yes 1.13% 52 28 143.96% 4 28 146.8286 19.5 189.0 28.5 29.9143 19.733 214459 yes 1.0 191.5 28.0 28.42% 36 28 144.68% 44 28 143.0 29.5 28.39% 32 28 145.643 212823 yes 0.71% 28 28 144.3571 19.0 189.0 189.0 189.194 208663 yes -1.753 213855 yes 0.642 212850 yes 0.837 215674 yes 1.94% 12 28 145.3929 19.0 190.5 190.0 190.749 213969 yes 0.2429 19.39% 20 28 145.8400 19.2292 19.70% 36 28 144.193 208703 yes -1.70% 10 28 145.81% 14 28 144.427 210524 yes -0. Appendix N.535 211683 yes -0.0 28.0 28.25% 24 28 145.413 210958 yes -0.0 189.0 190.0 189.071 196437 203 .5 29.5 29.98% 56 28 144.0 28.0 190.16% 24 28 143.41% 48 28 143.8667 19.0 191.5 190.413 210949 yes -0.8810 19.16% 16 28 145.0 28.8429 18.0 190.519 212179 yes 0.44% location P-CL Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation [cm] from Floor Up [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean 56 28 143.8267 19.5 189.5 29.642 212836 yes 0.8952 19.627 213317 yes 0.5 189.8133 19.13% 40 28 144.627 213303 yes 0.8810 19.5 29.5 28.5 190.0 189.5 28.

0 29. Vertical Velocity Profile location S Wing Tip Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation [cm] from Floor Up [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean 4 28 144.5 190.0 191.5000 19.0 29.48% 52 28 144.5881 19.759 213673 yes 0.651 212555 yes -0.01% 36 28 146.0 29.0 29.0 190.4643 19.0 190.0 190.0 29.5 191.0 191.537 211622 yes 0.4286 19.755 213783 yes 0.46% 12 28 145.537 211622 yes 0.863 214877 yes 0.5 191.46% location P Wing Tip Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation [cm] from Floor Up [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean 32 28 145.5 191.5333 19.0 29.62% 32 28 144.643 212796 yes 0.00% 44 28 145.864 214841 yes 0.61% 44 28 144.5 190.6923 19.7088 19.5000 19.55% 48 28 145. Appendix N.4071 19.0 29.5 191.01% 20 28 145.652 212532 yes -0.0 29.0 29.5000 19.5 190.0 29.539 211555 yes 0.0 191.5 29.5 29.0 190.4214 19.62% 20 28 144.0 29.0 29.62% 56 28 144.4286 18.0 191.4143 19.07% 48 28 144.5 29.46% 36 28 144.430 210423 yes -0.652 212532 yes -0.5 190.08% 24 28 144.0 29.429 210463 yes -0.5 190. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile.0 29.4286 19.539 211555 yes 0.63% 28 28 145.0 29.6799 19.6978 19.0 190.0 191.00% 8 28 145.62% 8 28 144.865 214824 yes 0.4286 19.0 29.0 29.5000 19.856 215103 yes 1.0 29.01% 12 28 145.0 29.5 191.7143 19.54% 52 28 145.4143 19.537 211622 yes 0.5 191.0 29.6923 19.0 191.658 202106 -4% 204 .00% 4 28 149.5 29.0 191.5 191.5 29.865 214830 yes 0.651 212567 yes -0.0 191.539 211555 yes 0.647 212683 yes -0.5 191.431 210389 yes -0.46% 16 28 144.0 29.0 29.6552 19.45% 28 28 144.6799 19.54% 16 28 145.10% 24 28 145.0 191.7033 19.55% 40 28 145.6923 19.323 209217 yes -1.46% 40 28 144.6676 19.652 212544 yes -0.0 191.5000 19.0 29.653 212516 yes -0.643 212796 yes 0.865 214808 yes 0.6429 19.54% 56 28 144.

15% 205 .0 190.896 216067 yes 0.2000 19.0 182.0 182.5 28.0 190.0000 19. orthogonal right hand rule) z-position 30mm below Wind Tunnel Centre Line Location PS x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section y-position measured from Wind Tunnel Port Side Wall (Port side.0 28.10% 10 28 144.712 215113 yes 0.91% 60 28 135.392 211615 yes -0.2000 19. orthogonal right hand rule) z-position 30mm below Wind Tunnel Centre Line Pitot static tube EMF0093 Tubes' length 1000mm Manometer inclined at 30 deg.0 181.209 219470 yes 1.2000 19.2000 19.818 216266 yes 1.411 211004 yes -2.18% 20 28 144.0000 19.8974 19.5 29.0000 19.91% 85 28 135.15% 55 28 134. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile.5 189.0 182.0 183.684 213768 yes -0.0 183.2000 19.8462 19. 14 tubes.5 28.0 190.96% 90 28 134.945 216737 yes 0.5 29.0 28.06% location PS Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation [cm] from PS wall in [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean 5 28 144.54% 40 28 144.64% 25 28 144. Horizontal Velocity Profile Measurement Positions Location SB x-position 718mm from start of Wind tunnel Test Section y-position measured from Wind Tunnel Starboard wall (Starboard side.22% 65 28 135.0 190.0 183.44% 15 28 144.0 29.577 212609 yes -1.0 183.5 189.5000 19.615 213666 yes 0.0000 20.790 214920 yes -0.0 28.001 217207 yes 0.2000 19. portable Thermometer Simple ambient temperature type location SB Distance Invertor Freq Pitot Static Temperature Speed Re Number Linear Variation [cm] from PS wall in [Hz] [mm] [mm] [degC] Calculated [m/s] Region % from mean 95 28 134. Appendix N.606 213953 yes 0.2000 19.0 28.99% 45 28 144.684 213768 yes -0.0000 20.499 212787 yes -0.5 29.001 217207 yes 0.38% 80 28 135.0 28.69% 70 28 136.606 213953 yes 0.0 29.15% 50 28 144.5 29.712 215113 yes 0.2000 19.0 182.63% 50 28 135.284 210436 yes -1.0000 19.5 28.5 29.0 29.0 190.0 28.0 190.5000 19.69% 75 28 136.615 213666 yes 0.0 191.0000 19.5 28.64% 35 28 144.10% 30 28 144.0000 20.0 28.5 28.0 189.0 182.

Appendix N. clamping of the pitot static tube that reduces vibration or that photographs of manometer pitot and static readings are not taken together) and little to changing ambient temperate as readings were taken.4 28. the horizontal velocity profile obtained between the tunnel walls approximately contant across the middle (5 to 95 cm from the Port Side wall).6 location PS 28. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile. Temperature vs Reynolds Number Based on Chord 0. 206 .1611 location SB 28. Horizontal Velocity Profile Horizontal Velocity Profile 100 90 Distance from PS wall [cm] 80 70 60 location SB 50 location PS 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 U velocity [m/s] With constant power input to Wind Tunnel Suction Fan (Invertor Frequency set at 28 Hz).175m 29.2 R2 = 8E-06 28. Reynolds Number is not affected by temperature in a large way.0 209000 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000 217000 218000 219000 220000 Re Number At each position.0 Temperature [degC] 28. Therefore variation in Reynolds number is mainly due to variations in speed in the vertical direction.2 29.8 R2 = 0. The variation can be attributed mainly to the tunnel's condition (screen cleanliness.

temperature and achieved speed is not straightforward.4 19. Higher ambient temperatures result in faster speeds for the same Reynolds Number. changes in ambient temperature also give similar spread in velocities across the tunnel.0 Velocity [m/s] R2 = 0. Power input to suction fan has to be adjusted downward when temperature rises to achieve the similar speeds.2 20.8 location PS 19.9993 location SB 19. Therefore the interpaly between Power input.2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Temperature [degC] At each position. Appendix N. The variations are about -2% to +2% of the mean freestream speed.6 19. Y-Z Plane Velocity Profile. Velocity vs Temperature 20.2 210000 211000 212000 213000 214000 215000 216000 217000 218000 219000 220000 Re Number The variation of Reynolds number corresponds very proportionately to variation in wind speed within the position. The fact that the curves do not coincide indicates the speeds depend on ambient temperature.2 20.0 Velocity [m/s] 19. 207 .8 location SB location PS 19.175m 20. a test should be concluded within a reasonably short durations so that the effects of variations in temperature are minimised.991 19.6 R2 = 0.4 20. Horizontal Velocity Profile Velocity vs Re Number based on chord 0.4 19. Ideally.

65 1.15 8.75 21 2.05 10.15 7.60 2.80 11 0.15 2.40 13 0.05 10.70 0.40 5.70 2.95 3.75 19 1.65 29 3.55 9.70 3.30 27 3.45 3.55 12.35 5.60 4. Appendix O.05 4.10 31 4.70 3.53m tube produces no obvious difference in mean pressure values from the 0.15 15 1.05 25 2.25 1. Invertor Freq Difference in water levels [cm] [Hz] Pitot Short tube Static Short tube Pitot Long tube Static Long tube 33 4.90 1.10 0.05 4.55 9. Wind Speed and Effect of Tube Length.90 1.25 Speed Measurement comparing Short (160mm) and Long (1530mm) tubings 14 12 Pitot and Static Readings [cm] 10 Pitot Short tube 8 Static Short tube Pitot Long tube 6 Static Long tube 4 2 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 Fan Motor Invertor Frequency [Hz] Conclusion 1.75 6. 208 .85 17 1.75 6.00 1. Examinng the effects of tubing length on manometer reading.00 4.15 2.55 12.65 2.85 23 2.20 3.65 1.16m tubes.70 1.40 3.

50 0. The dynamic pressures need to under go blockage correction to increase it slightly to above original levels so that Cp reduces to a max of 1.50 42.938 1.00 72.94 of pitot water rise.964 1. 209 . Without further correction to the measured values. The PVC tube lengths and diameters are different pitot 600mm Approximately 2.50 40.50 0.50 32.50 78. dynamic ratio of no. Appendix P.00 78.008 0.07 1 27hz 30.50 41.1mm diameter pressure taps 1500mm Approximately 1. Frequency nose pitot static pressure [mm] nose pressure / pitot pressure Uncorrected Cp 1 26Hz 28. nose 1. Approximating the Leading Edge Pressure reading from Pitot Reading.8mm diameter other taps 1. except 26Hz pressure 3 run.02 3 26Hz 30. Based on average of ratios.915 1.5 1.00 0.98 3 27Hz 30.946 1.0 or nose of airfoil. a pressure value is suggested at the nose of the model. Since q was determined upstream of the model. This does not affect the cl and cd readings by large amounts since the area change caused by the small changes in Cp(x/c 0.50 77.50 45.6mm diameter The metal tubes forming the pressure tap at the nose is differernt from the rest of the pressure taps.83 31. which exceeds the stagnation Cp = 1.50 71.935 1. Notes: background information.50 0.04 2 27Hz 30.3mm diameter Possible explanations.50 71.04 These pressures are slightly higher than pitot pressure at the locaiton x/c = 0.85 33.05 2 26Hz 28.73 30. This implies a CP value greater than 1 at the nose.50 45. Run Inverter Water rise height [mm] q. However blockage correction must give a maximum of 7% increase in q. the actual q at the model's position in the tunnel is larger than the measured q.00 0. nose water rise = 0.00 46.0) are small.38 30.38 31.

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

Coefficient of Pressure - Upper surface
AoA x/c Reynolds
[deg] h/c 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 number
0 1.00 1.012 -0.654 -1.052 -0.916 -0.796 -0.677 -0.544 -0.411 -0.269 202580
0 0.80 1.014 -0.640 -1.031 -0.916 -0.778 -0.640 -0.514 -0.387 -0.250 203101
0 0.60 1.014 -0.623 -1.030 -0.915 -0.788 -0.661 -0.528 -0.395 -0.245 202246
0 0.40 1.013 -0.619 -1.054 -0.928 -0.791 -0.653 -0.522 -0.390 -0.298 203827
0 0.30 1.013 -0.627 -1.048 -0.912 -0.775 -0.639 -0.513 -0.388 -0.206 203654
0 0.20 1.014 -0.639 -1.053 -0.892 -0.772 -0.651 -0.513 -0.375 -0.213 203636
0 0.10 1.013 -0.611 -1.021 -0.850 -0.742 -0.634 -0.503 -0.372 -0.202 203745
0 0.05 1.013 -0.606 -0.992 -0.822 -0.725 -0.628 -0.497 -0.367 -0.207 203590
2 1.00 1.015 -0.775 -1.099 -0.868 -0.775 -0.682 -0.509 -0.335 -0.173 202785
2 0.80 1.015 -0.808 -1.157 -0.924 -0.813 -0.703 -0.557 -0.411 -0.202 202785
2 0.60 1.014 -0.818 -1.162 -0.932 -0.822 -0.712 -0.556 -0.400 -0.215 203988
2 0.40 1.015 -0.808 -1.158 -0.925 -0.814 -0.704 -0.553 -0.401 -0.203 202450
2 0.30 1.015 -0.769 -1.138 -0.884 -0.775 -0.665 -0.521 -0.377 -0.181 203787
2 0.20 1.014 -0.745 -1.109 -0.859 -0.751 -0.643 -0.489 -0.336 -0.165 205200
2 0.10 1.014 -0.734 -1.075 -0.802 -0.728 -0.654 -0.489 -0.324 -0.177 205145
2 0.05 1.015 -0.743 -1.064 -0.788 -0.713 -0.639 -0.483 -0.328 -0.202 204061
4 1.00 1.016 -1.070 -1.300 -0.978 -0.793 -0.609 -0.425 -0.333 -0.149 202326
4 0.80 1.016 -1.136 -1.369 -1.021 -0.902 -0.783 -0.581 -0.378 -0.175 203576
4 0.60 1.015 -1.085 -1.303 -0.971 -0.842 -0.713 -0.525 -0.336 -0.147 204691
4 0.40 1.016 -1.063 -1.291 -0.948 -0.819 -0.691 -0.502 -0.313 -0.136 204348
4 0.30 1.016 -1.063 -1.269 -0.948 -0.819 -0.691 -0.490 -0.290 -0.136 204275
4 0.20 1.017 -1.092 -1.303 -0.975 -0.843 -0.710 -0.505 -0.299 -0.153 204357
4 0.10 1.016 -0.994 -1.223 -0.902 -0.774 -0.645 -0.433 -0.221 -0.113 204467
4 0.05 1.016 -0.954 -1.171 -0.873 -0.756 -0.638 -0.426 -0.214 -0.117 204467
6 1.00 1.012 -1.286 -1.477 -1.108 -0.922 -0.735 -0.539 -0.342 -0.128 202732
6 0.80 1.010 -1.252 -1.426 -1.088 -0.903 -0.717 -0.522 -0.328 -0.137 207193
6 0.60 1.010 -1.228 -1.401 -1.056 -0.856 -0.689 -0.461 -0.306 -0.105 208943
6 0.40 1.009 -1.215 -1.385 -1.044 -0.846 -0.659 -0.470 -0.280 -0.071 209886
6 0.30 1.010 -1.220 -1.394 -1.068 -0.843 -0.663 -0.469 -0.275 -0.050 207432
6 0.20 1.011 -1.192 -1.378 -1.040 -0.838 -0.635 -0.430 -0.225 -0.022 207478
6 0.10 1.010 -1.153 -1.338 -1.023 -0.826 -0.630 -0.407 -0.185 -0.039 207515
6 0.05 1.010 -1.146 -1.297 -0.939 -0.760 -0.592 -0.383 -0.173 -0.061 208095
8 1.00 1.011 -1.488 -1.534 -1.131 -0.867 -0.631 -0.396 -0.235 -0.056 203097
8 0.80 1.009 -1.429 -1.474 -1.092 -0.845 -0.609 -0.373 -0.204 -0.052 205557
8 0.60 1.008 -1.389 -1.455 -1.056 -0.812 -0.578 -0.345 -0.179 -0.073 206879
8 0.40 1.012 -1.445 -1.491 -1.104 -0.831 -0.575 -0.318 -0.159 -0.074 204532
8 0.30 1.012 -1.447 -1.458 -1.077 -0.799 -0.545 -0.290 -0.117 -0.100 202974
8 0.20 1.013 -1.432 -1.467 -1.060 -0.781 -0.513 -0.246 -0.094 -0.123 202504
8 0.10 1.013 -1.362 -1.408 -0.989 -0.733 -0.466 -0.198 -0.070 -0.098 202612
8 0.05 1.011 -1.291 -1.313 -0.909 -0.639 -0.403 -0.168 -0.066 -0.094 206165

210

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

Coefficient of Pressure - Lower surface
AoA x/c
[deg] h/c 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 1.00 1.012 -0.229 -0.292 -0.262 -0.261 -0.230 -0.213 -0.196 -0.140 -0.009
0 0.80 1.014 -0.227 -0.284 -0.270 -0.255 -0.227 -0.204 -0.181 -0.135 -0.032
0 0.60 1.014 -0.222 -0.282 -0.268 -0.254 -0.225 -0.203 -0.180 -0.146 -0.031
0 0.40 1.013 -0.201 -0.258 -0.242 -0.227 -0.195 -0.175 -0.155 -0.115 0.011
0 0.30 1.013 -0.155 -0.201 -0.185 -0.169 -0.138 -0.129 -0.121 -0.081 0.033
0 0.20 1.014 -0.139 -0.208 -0.192 -0.176 -0.144 -0.124 -0.104 -0.087 0.029
0 0.10 1.013 -0.048 -0.162 -0.152 -0.142 -0.122 -0.102 -0.082 0.037 0.049
0 0.05 1.013 0.071 -0.179 -0.163 -0.148 -0.116 -0.091 -0.065 0.032 0.055
2 1.00 1.015 -0.080 -0.173 -0.161 -0.150 -0.127 -0.127 -0.127 -0.034 0.012
2 0.80 1.015 -0.120 -0.190 -0.181 -0.172 -0.155 -0.149 -0.143 -0.097 0.020
2 0.60 1.014 -0.134 -0.179 -0.175 -0.172 -0.166 -0.154 -0.141 -0.095 0.009
2 0.40 1.015 -0.110 -0.169 -0.166 -0.164 -0.158 -0.147 -0.135 -0.089 0.022
2 0.30 1.015 -0.066 -0.123 -0.117 -0.112 -0.100 -0.077 -0.054 -0.030 0.050
2 0.20 1.014 -0.052 -0.097 -0.077 -0.068 -0.040 -0.028 -0.017 0.052 0.086
2 0.10 1.014 0.073 -0.040 -0.043 -0.045 -0.051 -0.017 0.017 0.063 0.074
2 0.05 1.015 0.143 0.029 0.020 0.000 -0.029 0.006 0.041 0.064 0.075
4 1.00 1.016 0.174 -0.011 -0.039 -0.034 -0.057 -0.058 -0.058 -0.058 -0.058
4 0.80 1.016 0.126 -0.031 -0.051 -0.046 -0.060 -0.072 -0.084 -0.061 -0.027
4 0.60 1.015 0.162 0.008 -0.012 -0.007 -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 0.036
4 0.40 1.016 0.185 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.059
4 0.30 1.016 0.185 0.076 0.081 0.085 0.093 0.082 0.071 0.082 0.082
4 0.20 1.017 0.200 0.088 0.090 0.091 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.117 0.106
4 0.10 1.016 0.254 0.168 0.161 0.153 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.162 0.151
4 0.05 1.016 0.319 0.210 0.206 0.202 0.194 0.182 0.171 0.194 0.183
6 1.00 1.012 0.246 0.082 0.079 0.074 0.065 0.006 -0.054 -0.038 0.037
6 0.80 1.010 0.235 0.111 0.103 0.094 0.077 0.021 -0.035 -0.024 0.044
6 0.60 1.010 0.250 0.128 0.120 0.111 0.095 0.039 -0.016 -0.005 0.050
6 0.40 1.009 0.292 0.149 0.138 0.132 0.116 0.094 0.072 0.094 0.083
6 0.30 1.010 0.287 0.163 0.152 0.135 0.107 0.096 0.085 0.096 0.096
6 0.20 1.011 0.315 0.191 0.183 0.175 0.158 0.141 0.124 0.135 0.124
6 0.10 1.010 0.310 0.231 0.225 0.220 0.208 0.186 0.163 0.163 0.163
6 0.05 1.010 0.341 0.274 0.263 0.263 0.252 0.229 0.207 0.218 0.196
8 1.00 1.011 0.409 0.202 0.179 0.156 0.110 0.061 0.012 0.006 0.040
8 0.80 1.009 0.414 0.212 0.189 0.167 0.122 0.091 0.060 0.054 0.043
8 0.60 1.008 0.421 0.221 0.196 0.171 0.121 0.102 0.082 0.077 0.065
8 0.40 1.012 0.444 0.250 0.230 0.210 0.170 0.138 0.107 0.112 0.101
8 0.30 1.012 0.461 0.265 0.250 0.236 0.207 0.169 0.132 0.126 0.103
8 0.20 1.013 0.464 0.278 0.269 0.260 0.243 0.205 0.167 0.162 0.138
8 0.10 1.013 0.466 0.339 0.333 0.327 0.316 0.290 0.264 0.258 0.224
8 0.05 1.011 0.473 0.383 0.381 0.378 0.373 0.353 0.334 0.351 0.317

211

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

l/d vs AoA
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various h/c

10

9 1.00
0.80
8 0.60
0.40
l/d

0.30
7
0.20
0.10
6 0.05

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]

cd vs AoA
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various h/c

0.12

0.11
1.00
0.10 0.80
0.60
0.09
0.40
cd

0.08 0.30
0.20
0.07 0.10
0.05
0.06

0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]

212

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

cl vs AoA
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various h/c

0.90

0.80
1.00
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.60
cl

0.30
0.20
0.50
0.10

0.40 0.05

0.30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
AoA [deg]

l/d vs h/c
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack

10

9

0
8 2
l/d

4
7 6
8

6

5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c

213

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

cl vs h/c
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack

0.90

0.80

0.70 0
2
0.60
cl

4
6
0.50 8

0.40

0.30
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c

cd vs h/c
NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack

0.12

0.11

0.10
0
0.09 2
cd

4
0.08 6
8
0.07

0.06

0.05
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
h/c

214

6 0.8 0.0 0.20 -0.8 0.80 -0.6 0.9 1.0 0.60 0.3 0.5 0.80 -0.4 0.1 0.0 -0.60 0.10 0 0.30 -0.5 0.10 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.1 CP lower AoA 0 deg x/c -0. CP upper AoA 0 deg x/c -1.2 0.4 0.40 -0.0 -0.1 0.30 -0.8 0.40 0.2 0.9 1 0.1 -1.2 0.3 -0.2 0.4 0.9 1.6 0. Appendix Q.00 -0.7 0.05 0.5 0.1 215 .3 0.05 -0.1 0.20 0.7 0.7 0.4 -0.3 1.00 0.

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

CP upper AoA 2 deg

x/c
-1.2
-1.1
-1.0
1.00
-0.9
0.80
-0.8
0.60
-0.7 0.40
-0.6 0.30
-0.5 0.20
0.10
-0.4
0.05
-0.3
-0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-0.1

CP lower AoA 2 deg

x/c
-0.200

-0.100 1.00
0.80
0.60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.40
0.000
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.100 0.05

0.200

216

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

CP upper AoA 4 deg

x/c
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
1.00
-1.0
0.80
-0.9
0.60
-0.8
0.40
-0.7
0.30
-0.6
0.20
-0.5
0.10
-0.4
-0.3 0.05
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0

CP lower AoA 4 deg

x/c
-0.100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300

0.400

217

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

CP upper AoA 6 deg

x/c
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 1.00
-1.1 0.80
-1.0 0.60
-0.9
0.40
-0.8
-0.7 0.30
-0.6 0.20
-0.5 0.10
-0.4 0.05
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0

CP lower AoA 6 deg

x/c
-0.100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.000
1.00
0.80
0.100 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.200 0.20
0.10
0.05
0.300

0.400

218

Appendix Q. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Pressure.

CP upper AoA 8 deg

x/c
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2 1.00
-1.1 0.80
-1.0 0.60
-0.9
0.40
-0.8
-0.7 0.30
-0.6 0.20
-0.5 0.10
-0.4 0.05
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0

CP lower AoA 8 deg

x/c
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.000

0.100 1.00
0.80
0.200 0.60
0.40
0.30
0.300 0.20
0.10
0.400 0.05

0.500

219

Appendix R. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.

AoA % change Relative uncertainty Reynolds
[deg] h/c CL CD CL CD L/D CD CL L/D number
0 1.00 0.3724 0.0222 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.06% 1.95% 0.67% 202571
0 0.90 0.3618 0.0220 -2.85% -0.86% -2.01% 2.11% 1.93% 0.87% 203663
0 0.80 0.3709 0.0226 -0.41% 1.80% -2.16% 2.12% 1.95% 0.84% 202066
0 0.70 0.3732 0.0220 0.22% -1.13% 1.36% 2.11% 1.95% 0.83% 202183
0 0.60 0.3723 0.0214 -0.03% -3.87% 3.99% 2.09% 1.92% 0.82% 203445
0 0.50 0.3792 0.0210 1.83% -5.52% 7.77% 2.11% 1.95% 0.82% 202309
0 0.40 0.3832 0.0227 2.89% 2.28% 0.60% 2.07% 1.93% 0.76% 203818
0 0.30 0.3911 0.0220 5.03% -0.96% 6.05% 2.07% 1.93% 0.75% 203754
0 0.20 0.4035 0.0178 8.34% -19.85% 35.18% 2.06% 1.96% 0.67% 202372
0 0.10 0.4045 0.0231 8.63% 3.68% 4.77% 2.07% 1.93% 0.75% 203436
0 0.05 0.4260 0.0255 14.38% 14.54% -0.13% 2.10% 1.95% 0.78% 202427
1 1.00 0.4937 0.0302 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
1 0.90 0.4847 0.0303 -1.83% 0.36% -2.18%
1 0.80 0.4906 0.0306 -0.63% 1.38% -1.98%
1 0.70 0.4958 0.0320 0.42% 6.01% -5.28%
1 0.60 0.5023 0.0315 1.74% 4.57% -2.71%
1 0.50 0.4997 0.0296 1.21% -1.75% 3.02%
1 0.40 0.5038 0.0291 2.05% -3.50% 5.75%
1 0.30 0.5137 0.0287 4.06% -4.66% 9.15%
1 0.20 0.5231 0.0285 5.96% -5.56% 12.20%
1 0.10 0.5265 0.0284 6.65% -5.70% 13.09%
1 0.05 0.5312 0.0271 7.60% -10.05% 19.61%
2 1.00 0.4693 0.0336 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.99% 1.93% 0.50% 202980
2 0.90 0.4664 0.0340 -0.61% 0.92% -1.52% 1.99% 1.93% 0.50% 202880
2 0.80 0.4709 0.0350 0.33% 4.10% -3.62% 1.99% 1.93% 0.49% 202880
2 0.70 0.4746 0.0346 1.13% 2.84% -1.66% 1.99% 1.93% 0.50% 202880
2 0.60 0.4754 0.0339 1.30% 0.87% 0.42% 2.02% 1.95% 0.52% 202840
2 0.50 0.4827 0.0342 2.84% 1.58% 1.24% 2.01% 1.95% 0.48% 202948
2 0.40 0.4898 0.0337 4.36% 0.20% 4.16% 2.01% 1.95% 0.49% 202939
2 0.30 0.4963 0.0324 5.74% -3.61% 9.70% 2.01% 1.95% 0.50% 202994
2 0.20 0.5060 0.0317 7.82% -5.70% 14.34% 2.02% 1.95% 0.52% 202939
2 0.10 0.5127 0.0317 9.24% -5.70% 15.84% 2.02% 1.95% 0.52% 202994
2 0.05 0.5113 0.0309 8.95% -8.21% 18.70% 2.03% 1.95% 0.56% 202994
3 1.00 0.5731 0.0396 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3 0.90 0.5713 0.0398 -0.33% 0.44% -0.76%
3 0.80 0.5700 0.0399 -0.54% 0.90% -1.43%
3 0.70 0.5775 0.0405 0.77% 2.23% -1.43%
3 0.60 0.5683 0.0389 -0.84% -1.80% 0.98%
3 0.50 0.5878 0.0395 2.55% -0.11% 2.67%
3 0.40 0.5866 0.0381 2.35% -3.64% 6.22%
3 0.30 0.5813 0.0370 1.42% -6.65% 8.65%
3 0.20 0.6026 0.0369 5.14% -6.84% 12.86%
3 0.10 0.6078 0.0365 6.05% -7.75% 14.97%
3 0.05 0.6144 0.0351 7.21% -11.32% 20.89%
4 1.00 0.6481 0.0503 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.97% 1.94% 0.35% 202960
4 0.90 0.6471 0.0507 -0.15% 0.66% -0.80% 1.97% 1.94% 0.36% 202960
4 0.80 0.6497 0.0515 0.26% 2.33% -2.03% 1.97% 1.94% 0.35% 202932
4 0.70 0.6473 0.0507 -0.12% 0.78% -0.90% 1.97% 1.94% 0.36% 203703
4 0.60 0.6467 0.0491 -0.21% -2.56% 2.41% 1.99% 1.96% 0.35% 202530
4 0.50 0.6548 0.0488 1.04% -3.10% 4.27% 1.99% 1.96% 0.37% 202602
4 0.40 0.6598 0.0485 1.80% -3.76% 5.78% 1.99% 1.96% 0.37% 202530
4 0.30 0.6677 0.0476 3.03% -5.37% 8.87% 1.99% 1.96% 0.36% 202620
4 0.20 0.6789 0.0469 4.76% -6.78% 12.38% 1.99% 1.96% 0.36% 202620

220

95% 0.93% 0.36% 201962 6 0.94% 1.00% 1.20 0.8010 0.95% 1.37% 201980 6 0.23% 203477 8 0.0702 0.69% 1.8078 0.19% 1.35% 2.0628 0.00% 1.6595 0.98% 1.80 0.00% 1.92% 19.10 0.77% 5 0.07% 1.02% -1.99% -13.10% -2.17% 0.36% 1.6373 0.7475 0.58% 2.50 0.7782 0.60 0.93% 0.0815 1.29% 1.62% 1.28% 0.33% 1.71% -5.43% 7.0712 0.95% 0.00 0.10% 7 0.4% 202620 4 0.24% 203450 8 0.30 0.95% 1.32% 203448 6 0.70% -2.70 0.47% 2.94% 1.00% 0.40 0.0458 0.04% 5.8212 0.70% -1.49% -0.0456 -0.50% -1.0424 5.29% 1.8135 0.96% 1.19% 5 0.60% -1.80 0.77% -2.00% 1.90% -6. AoA % change Relative uncertainty Reynolds [deg] h/c CL CD CL CD L/D CD CL L/D number 4 0.83% 7 0.6238 0.9154 0.78% 12.93% 0.92% 5 0.79% -10.27% 23.22% 203496 8 0.32% 1.09% 1.03% 0.98% 0.47% 16.21% 7 0.85% 2.59% 11.88% 6 1.50% 4.05 0.90% 5 0.79% -9.10% 1.15% 1.8432 0.26% 17.0698 0.98% -1.30 0.0% 2.84% 6.22% 203841 8 0.33% 202523 7 1.0703 1.95% 0.97% 0.20 0.90 0.7485 0.0681 5.20 0.91% -1.0791 9.0812 4.8428 0.47% 0.6251 0.10 0.98% 0.07% 3.39% 5 0.0418 6.54% 7.0691 4.80% 3.80 0.94% 1.85% 7 0.0803 0.10 0.76% 1.0817 5.94% 3.6320 0.0620 0.30 0.93% 0.24% 203296 8 0.8575 0.36% 1.33% 1.05 0.98% 0.4% 202620 5 1.74% 0.29% 1.40 0.26% -1.60 0.53% 4.00% 0.31% 203530 6 0.20% 2.0691 2.19% 7 0.00% 7 0.8353 0.68% 3.02% 3.60 0.01% 1.0458 0.23% 203296 8 0.0401 6.0595 7.98% 0.88% 8 1.70 0.00 0.94% 1.97% 1.0435 4.0702 -0.6662 0.01% 1.93% 0.50 0.0613 -0.0805 2.00% 0.60% 7 0.0572 9.6434 0.94% 1.36% 2.00 0.6501 0.7472 0.6856 0.24% 5.7664 0.51% 1.6652 0.33% 202270 6 0.63% 1.00% 0.8042 0.23% 203523 8 0.7553 0.90 0.23% 203296 8 0. Appendix R.56% 1.95% 0.00% 5 0.04% -1.98% 1.33% 202116 6 0.11% 0.95% 7 0.8536 0.60 0.00% 2.93% 0.33% 202614 6 0.0600 1.0701 2.10 0.94% 1.10 0.0813 7.98% 1.05 0.6934 0.20 0.7610 0.01% 1.14% -0.0456 1.7475 0.30 0.33% 202270 6 0.8251 0.32% 203530 6 0.32% 203530 6 0.61% 2.19% 0.0601 2.50% -2.94% 1.11% -1.8056 0.00 0.04% 1.50 0.47% 2.0599 1.18% 12.94% 7 0.8019 0.8047 0.63% -0.86% -6.8823 0.8960 0.8202 0.01% 1.0% 0.00% 0.0819 0.0456 5.93% 0.0611 0.0% 2.23% 203459 8 0.0820 0.0437 6.6239 0.73% 2.40 0.00% 0.94% 1.66% 0.0808 2.80 0.40 0.95% 0.8500 0.45% 0.0599 4.0716 0.0% 0.05 0.05 0.70 0.26% 5 0.0598 -0.59% 7 0.60% -1.53% -1.0655 5.81% -1.01% 1.50 0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 203296 8 0.62% -7.24% 14.12% -1.00% 1.62% 0.44% -0.13% 5 0.94% 1.23% 202657 221 .8492 0.0450 0.88% 1.55% 0.0443 3.68% 1.54% 10.13% -1.97% 0.04% 2.97% 0.15% 2.98% 1.73% 5 0.02% 1.93% 0.20% -3.89% -1.01% 1.8428 0.94% 5 0.90% 2.94% -2.8383 0.13% 2.70 0.93% 0.27% 1.0817 0.90 0.0448 2.6282 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.90 0.93% 0.7423 0.8699 0.8349 0.

CL vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.09 0.07 0 0.05 4 6 0.80 0.70 0.04 8 0.40 0.60 0.90 1.30 0.80 0 0.90 0.10 0.03 0.50 0.70 0.30 0.60 6 8 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.10 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 1.00 0.70 2 CL 4 0.02 0.80 0.90 1.06 2 CD 0.20 0.00 h/c 222 .00 h/c CD vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 0. Appendix R.20 0.08 0.40 0.01 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.

10 0.80 0.40 CL 0.40 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.0518x + 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 24 22 20 0 18 2 L/D 16 4 6 14 8 12 10 8 0.60 0.80 0.50 0.20 0.00 h/c CL vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] 223 .00 0.30 0.40 0.70 0.20 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 1.60 0.05 0. L/D vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.60 y = 0.90 1.20 0.90 1. Appendix R.80 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.2072 0.30 0.00 0.30 OGE 0.70 0.

30 0.05 0. CD vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.20 14 0.20 0.08 1.40 L/D 16 0. Appendix R.60 0.00 20 0.03 0.40 CD 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 24 22 1.07 0.02 0.00 0.10 12 0.30 0.09 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.04 0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] L/D vs AoA NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.05 OGE 10 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AoA [deg] 224 .06 0.10 0.05 OGE 0.80 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 0.80 0.60 18 0.

80 0.40 0.00 0.00 -2% -4% h/c % Increase in CD (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.70 0.80 0.00 0.70 0. Appendix R.50 0.60 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 2 Percentage 0% 4 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.50 0.60 0. % Increase in CL (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.90 1.00 -5% 6 8 -10% Relative Uncertainty in CD -15% -20% -25% h/c 225 .20 0.10 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.40 0.30 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 16% 14% 12% 10% 0 2 Percentage 8% 4 6% 6 4% 8 2% Relative Uncertainty in CL 0% 0.90 1.

70 0. % Increase in L/D (points) and Relative Uncertainty (lines) vs h/c NACA 4415 | 3D | Re approx.40 0.90 1. Appendix R.10 0. Summary of NACA 4415 Aerodynamic Data Force.00 0.30 0.80 0.20 0.00 -5% -10% h/c 226 .50 0. 200000 | at various Angles of Attack 40% 35% 30% 25% 0 2 Percentage 20% 4 15% 6 10% 8 5% Relative Uncertainty in L/D 0% 0.60 0.

Appendix S.∆Α ∆Α Relative uncertainty . n = 3. n = 3 as the rectangular distribution has gives a more conservative estimate of uncertainty. For independent quantities.ε A = Α For readings with the standard deviation available. the following rules were used. which was based on the International Organisation of Standardisation Guide to the expression of uncertainty in Measurement 1995 edition. the standard uncertainty was calculated from the standard deviation according the following equation. the uncertainties were represented in the following ways. For readings with the only tolerances available a ± a . Addition and Subtraction – absolute uncertainties added. n = 6. Absolute uncertainty . a ∆Α = n where a is the tolerance and n is determined by the distribution assumed for the samples. the standard uncertainty was calculated from the tolerances according to the following equation. the following simplified rules apply. For measurements where readings had a higher probability of occurrence near the mean. Using 227 . For measurements where each reading had an equal probability of occurrence. These rules were based on the Evaluation of Measurement data – Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [reference 36]. In this work. σ ∆Α = N where σ is the standard deviation and N is the number of samples. Uncertainty in Force Measurements The following rules were use to determine the uncertainty in force measurements. For the quantity A. Using Χ = Α±Β Uncertainty of X is ∆Χ = ∆Α 2 + ∆Β2 Multiplication and Division – relative uncertainties added. which was a triangular distribution. which was a rectangular distribution. According to the Laws of propagation of uncertainty in the GUM.

228 . Uncertainty in Force Measurements Α Χ= or Χ = ΑΒ Β Uncertainty of X is 2 2 ∆Χ  ∆Α   ∆Β  =   +  Χ  Α   Β  Powers Using Χ = Αn Uncertainty of X is ∆Χ n∆A = Χ A The expanded uncertainty was obtained by the following. The coverage factor is taken as 2 for a significance level of 95%. Expanded uncertainty of X = k∆Χ where k is the coverage factor. Appendix S.

slips of paper were used as shims to bring the Perspex sheets approximately flush to each other. the other side of each hole was covered to reduce the volume of trapped air behind the plastic sheet. The floor edges along the side did not extend to the tunnel walls. The entire floor was sanded down gradually with sandpaper on a hand-held buffing machine. the surfaces near the lines of joining were sanded down by a larger amount to blend one panel smoothly to another. However. Eventually. Due to the size and stiffness of the panels and wooden frame. However this cut out was located a few mm off the centerline of the tunnel. When operating the tunnel. The gap introduced between the Perspex sheet and wooden frame was covered by electrical insulation tape. The grit reduced in stages from 180 to 280 to 400 to 600 to 800 to 1000. Once the panels were mounted into the tunnel walls. the remaining gap between panels and tunnel walls were sealed also by application of electrical insulation tape. as the repair was too difficult. Appendix T. an almost reflective surface finish was achieved on the remaining layers of paint. the surface was not smooth. Layers of masking tape were applied to fill in the gap. approximately 10mm thick Perspex sheet mounted to a wooden frame by screws. a few mis-aligned screw holes were not used. Both sheets were adjusted such that the joining line matched and both sheets blended one to the next. This wind tunnel test section wall comprised of four panels on each side. when lower-pressure regions existed inside the tunnel during operation. The tunnel ceiling comprised two large Perspex sheets secured by screws to the frame. The cut out within the first half of the tunnel was made of Perspex and joined to the rest of the tunnel floor by wood filler. 229 . Less trapped air caused less bulging. The wood filler was sanded down to blend the adjacent surfaces too. Preparation of Wind Tunnel Test Section The floor of the wind tunnel test section had several layers of old paint. Since sanding the entire tunnel floor till it became flat was not feasible. Each panel composed of a large. Other holes were covered with transparent plastic sheets and taped down with scotch tape. Since the wooden frame did not place the Perspex sheet flush to the adjacent panel's sheet. The floor was made of three large wooden panels but they are not aligned till flat and flush at the lines of joining.

with more points concentrated within x/c 0 to 0. The simple hinges below the wing were replaced with two pieces of plastic with holes. Preparation of Model To verify the sectional shape of the wing.3 to more accurately define this highly curved portion of the upper surface. When the model was received. Angle of attack adjustments did not change the h/c value with this hinge mechanism. The spray painted surface was sanded down. This template was transferred to paper and the paper cutouts were glued to the wing tips while re-shaping the model. Appendix U. a template was created from a 200 point CAD drawing. A hundred discrete points defined the upper surface. This hinge mechanism pivots the model on its trailing edge. The same process was used on the lower surface. Next the gaps in the grains on the surface were filled in with dark wood filler and sanded down in preparation for spray painting. a glue and filler. The rest of the hinge mechanism was attached by means of 2mm diameter pins. These attach to the model by screws fastened into the model. space was cut within the model to hold a block of plastic that holds the internal threads for the fastening screws. 230 . The parts of the model were carefully sanded down to almost the profile of the paper cutout. the section’s shape was oversized at various portions by at most 1 mm. Another price of plastic with internal threads was glued into the point of attachment with Araldite. Matt white paint was used to fill even smaller gaps on the model surface. The upper half was secured to the lower half by screws and the corresponding internal threads were initially cut into wood. ending with grit 1200 sandpaper to give the model a near reflective finish. Since wooden threads cannot withstand repetitive fastening and unfastening.

This vibration was felt on the wooden frame of the test section and the installed supports. Mounting at the top on the rear half of the model placed the support in a region of airflow that does not vary much as the ground approached. The support surface was smoothened by sanding. while the vertical ones were aligned to the wind tunnel pillars. The mechanism to set the angle of attack was also shielded within the support. To give this structure some stiffness. Supporting the model from below is not ideal as the supports possibly disrupted the flow below the model. the elevated ground was adjusted vertically to the desired ground clearance between itself and the model. Once these glass tubes and adjacent stiffened rubber tubes were painstakingly replaced. It must connect rigidly to the model and load cell. The vertical traverse mechanism consists of three individually adjustable car jacks that supported a horizontal rectangular frame. During wind tunnel operation. All 40 glass tubes were clamped into a holder. Model Support In this work. it did not affect the flow about the model. The external shape was streamlined with NACA 0012 cross section. Manometer The bank of manometers was repaired to a state where all tubes responded relatively together to changing reservoir water level. It was not practical to increase the stiffness by using heavier and stronger materials.5 to 1. four bars of NACA 0012 cross section connect the rectangular frame outside to the elevated ground inside the tunnel. The flow accelerated locally around the supports. the suction fan motor transmitted a small obvious amount of vibration to the ground. Having the supports slanted and exiting the wind tunnel at a position aft of the model ensured that if excessive air leaked into the wind tunnel.0 or sting support from the trailing edge. The supports must be rigid to transmit drag. In turn. The horizontal bars were aligned to the wind tunnel floor. to eliminate separated flow from the supports. This structure was made from 40mm square profile aluminum bars. Tubes from pressure taps were also routed through the support. Simply taping holes have reduced the drag contribution by half. Using a narrow symmetrical support with airfoil shape cross section mitigated this. water level in all tubes rose and fell together. most tubes developed minute cracks. lift and moment to the load cell. Each tube had a short section made of glass at the top. 231 . the model came from a previous project and was supported from beneath. Cross-section of Support Bars A NACA 0012 cross section was selected for the support bars to reduce their interference to the flow inside the wind tunnel. Alternative positions to mount the support were the upper surface from x/c 0. The airfoil shape has a small amount of drag and caused no shedding vortices in steady flow. The support had to stay clear of the tunnel walls to give correct readings on the load cell. the vertical bars were secured to both the wind tunnel floor and the ground. Preparation of other Equipment Supports Below Test Section A support structure was assembled below the wind tunnel to hold the vertical traverse mechanism for the flat plate. Appendix V. Due to age and the clamping. Since the model stayed put relative to the tunnel floor and ceiling.

0191T + 1000. Dynamic Pressure 1 q= ρ AIRU 2 = PSTAGNATION − PSTATIC = hρWATER g 2 where h was the difference in water level heights read on the manometer.0. S = bc Uncertainty εS = (ε b )2 + (ε c )2 Density A simple quadratic curve was fitted to the water and air density values for the temperature range that the experiments were conducted in. Temperature was recorded in degree Celsius and the coefficients were considered accurate. Absolute uncertainty . Appendix W.5 ρ AIR = AAIRT 2 + BAIRT + C AIR Uncertainty 2 2  2 4 2∆T   ∆T  ∆ρ AIR =  AAIR T  +  BAIRT   T   T  The uncertainty for water density was determined in this similar way. Uncertainty 2  ∆h   ∆ρ  2 ∆q =   +  WATER  q  h   ρWATER  and h = hSTATIC − hPITOT 2 2 ∆h = ∆hSTATIC + ∆hPITOT 2 2 ∆h ∆hSTATIC + ∆hPITOT = h hSTATIC − hPITOT where the smallest division was 1mm on the manometer. Force measurements The absolute uncertainty in force measurements was defined by 232 .0046T + 1.05mm.2913 Water density = -0. Formulas The following formulas were used to determine the coefficients and their relative uncertainties.0. For the quantity A.ε A = Α Common variables Planform area Dimensions were measured with a vernier rule with the smallest division 0.∆Α ∆Α Relative uncertainty .0047T2 .00001T2 . Air density = 0.

No correction factor is needed for the drag force. Since the load cell gave a slightly different value of Drag force. the buoyancy correction was assumed to have no uncertainty. Appendix W. Uncertainty 2 2 ∆DBL 2 + ∆DBL1 εD − D BL1 = BL 2 DBL 2 − DBL1 ∆tm2 + ∆tl2 εt − t1 = m tm − t1 ∆t22 + ∆t12 εt − t1 = 2 t2 − t1 t − t  tm − t1 ∆  m 1 (DBL 2 − DBL1 ) = (ε D BL 2 − D BL1 ) + (ε ) + (ε ) 2 t m − t1 2 t 2 − t1 2 (DBL 2 − DBL1 )  t2 − t1  t2 − t1 2 t − t  ∆DBL = ∆D 2 BL1 + ∆  m 1 (DBL 2 − DBL1 )  t2 − t1  Drag experienced by the wing was given by D = Dm − DBL − DS where S-supports. m-measurement. the following formula was used. t-time. However. 233 . the load cell was considered to give an accurate reading directly. As the buoyancy correction is a small quantity compared to the measured drag. To simplify the analysis. the corrected drag force is given by DCORRECTED = AD D − DBuoyancy where AD is the correction factor. Formulas σ ∆F = N where F-force. Buoyancy correction was applied after load cell correction. 2-after. Each ∆DS reading was obtained in the same way as ∆DBL. since the load cell correction factor is almost 1. 1-before.0. Uncertainty ∆D = ∆Dm2 + ∆DBL 2 + ∆DS2 where ∆DS was mean absolute uncertainty for drag on supports. t m − t1 DBL = DBL1 + (DBL 2 − DBL1 ) t 2 − t1 where D-drag. BL-baseline. σ-standard deviation and N-number of samples. Drag Since a small drift occurred when establishing the drag force’s baseline and this drift was reasonably assumed linear with time when the time interval was small.

BL-baseline. Appendix W. the following formula was used. t-time. tm − t1 LBL = LBL1 + (LBL 2 − LBL1 ) t2 − t1 where L-drag. 1-before. Formulas The drag force was then DCORRECTED = D − DBuoyancy Uncertainty ∆DCORRECTED = ∆D Coefficient of drag DCORRECTED DCORRECTED CD = 2 = 2 ρU S 1 qS Uncertainty ε C = ε D2 D CORRECTED + ε q2 + ε S2 Lift Since a small drift occurred when establishing the lift force’s baseline and this drift was reasonably assumed linear with time when time between readings was small. 2-after Uncertainty ∆L2BL 2 + ∆L2BL1 εL − L BL1 = BL 2 LBL 2 − LBL1 ∆tm2 + ∆tl2 εt − t1 = m tm − t1 ∆t22 + ∆tl2 εt − t1 = 2 t2 − t1 t − t  tm − t1 ∆  m 1 (LBL 2 − LBL1 ) = (ε LBL 2 − L BL1 ) + (ε ) + (ε ) 2 t m − t1 2 t 2 − t1 2 (LBL 2 − LBL1 )  t2 − t1  t2 − t1 2 t − t  ∆LBL = ∆L 2 BL1 +  m 1 (LBL 2 − LBL1 )  t2 − t1  Lift experienced by the wing is given by L = Lm − LBL Uncertainty ∆L = ∆L2m + ∆L2BL 234 . m-measurement.

the load cell’s output can be considered accurate and no correction factor needed. The corrected Lift force was then LCORRECTED = L Uncertainty ∆LCORRECTED = ∆L Coefficient of lift LCORRECTED LCORRECTED CL = 2 = 2 ρU S 1 qS Uncertainty ε C = ε L2 L CORRECTED + ε q2 + ε S2 Lift / Drag Since aerodynamic efficiency was represented by L/D.0. Since this correction factor is close to 1. Appendix W. the corrected drag force is given by LCORRECTED = AL L where AL is the correction factor. 235 . The relative uncertainty of L/D was given by ε L / D = ε L2 CORRECTED + ε D2 CORRECTED which improved slightly since the relative uncertainty of dynamic pressure was not required. Formulas Since the load cell gave a slightly different value of lift force.

Dynamic pressure corrected using blockage correction. 3. It was not practical to find times where temperature varied between 27 to 32OC to determine the pressure gradient. At the end data collection. Buoyancy correction Downstream pressure gradient was determined from both walls of the tunnel. the measured static pressure was corrected using dp/dx. changes in upper surface suction was used to determine change in circulation. Corrections to Pressure measurements 1. 236 . 5. resulting in lower static pressure readings.94 of the pitot reading rise in water height. while the existing tubes are of 1. Adjustment to Measured Static Pressure on Pitot tube As the pitot static tube was incorrectly positioned ahead of the flat plate. This value of pressure gradient was taken to represent the pressure gradient of the entire free stream region. Static pressure corrected using dp/dx. Drag force corrected again using buoyancy correction. varying power input was used to select the pressure gradient. Drag force corrected using loadcell calibration.3mm diameter. which in turn was used for buoyancy correction. The pressure gradient from the portside wall was linear and responded to changing Reynolds number of the flow. This pressure reading was inserted into pressure readings of each run. The correction effectively shifted the pitot static tube downstream by 0. Static pressure corrected using dp/dx. The metal tube in this tap was of diameter 1. 2. Due to temperature changes. 4. This also indicates the stagnation point movement and simplified the construction since no pressure taps were needed at the wing’s leading edge. Dynamic pressure corrected using blockage correction. While it is direct to obtain stagnation point movement from pressure readings at the leading edge. Running the wind tunnel at 26hz and 27hz produced two distinct values of streamwise pressure gradient. Since temperature caused power inputs to vary. While maximum practical effort was expanded to seal the tunnel walls. These show that the rise in water height from the leading edge is 0. Three test runs were carried out at α = 0O.36m. The obtained pressure gradient was not linear and its magnitude did not reduce with increasing Reynolds number. Appendix X. 2. The required pressure gradient was obtained by linear interpolation based on the frequency of the power input. leaks were present on the starboard wall. Lift force corrected using loadcell calibration. the power required to produce a flow in the test section with Reynolds Number as close to 200000 varied between power inputs indicated by 26hz to 27hz on the control panel of the wind tunnel controller.8mm. Further details are in the appendix for pressure gradient. Further details are in the appendix for leading edge pressure measurement. an additional tap was inserted at the leading edge. Corrections to Force measurements 1. Corrections to Data Pressure Taps at the Leading and Trailing edge There was no pressure tap at the leading edge of the wing when all the readings were taken.