Project-2 28/05/2020

Wing analysis using xflr5 Sivaranjani H

AE - 221, Aerodynamics SC18B039

Airfoils:
The Clark-Y foil was used with a non-uniform panelling of N = 250. The geometric co-ordinates
and some aerodynamic properties are shown in 1(a).
For the next airfoil, a TsAGI R-3a (12%) was chosen with the same number of panels. This
foil, shown in 1(b) , had properties very similar to that of the Clark-Y except that the point of
maximum camber was placed closer to the leading edge.

(a) Clark-Y (b) TsAGI R-3a

Figure 1: Properties of the chosen airfoils

Batch Analysis:

Figure 2: Results of the batch analysis carried out for Clark-Y and TsAGI airfoils

1
 A multi-threaded batch analysis of both the chosen airfoils was carried out from an AoA
of −5o to 25o in increments of 0.5o , at a Reynold’s number range of 295, 000 to 305, 000 in
increments of 1, 000. This was sufficient (in fact, an overkill) for the rectangular wings designed
for question 1.
But the tapered wing in question 2 was subjected to a range of Reynold’s number from
225, 000 to 375, 000. This is due to the fact that the chord varies across the span, with the
longest at the root and shrinks linearly towards the tips, thereby causing the effective Reynold’s
number each airfoil section sees to change. Thus, an additional analysis was done only for the
Clark-Y foil across the same AoAs from a Reynold’s number of 225, 000 to 375, 000 in increments
of 15, 000.
The results are shown in the plots of in Figure 2. From the graphs obtained, it was observed
that, even though the two airfoils had the same amount of camber and maximum thickness,
there’s a significant shift in the cl −α curve owing to the position of max camber, with the Clark-
Y foil at the top. However, it stalled earlier in an unsmooth manner unlike the TsAGI, which
showed a smooth stalling peak. Correspondingly, the L/D ratio too was higher for Clark-Y at
low AoA, but decreased steeply when compared to TsAGI.

Question 1
The first wing (Wing 1) was designed with a half-span of b/2 = 2.5m and a chord of c = 1m,
with no taper, sweep, dihedral or washout. The area of the designed wing is 5m2 and AR is 5.
Most importantly, it used a Clark-Y airfoil cross-section throughout as illustrated in 3(a).
Wing 2 was also a rectangular wing with the same reference chord length and span, but
used the TsAGI R-3a 12% airfoil as shown in 3(b).

(a) Wing 1 (b) Wing 2

Figure 3: Design and geometry of the wings

Analysis of both wings were carried out at a fixed speed of 4.5ms−1 because it corresponded
to a Reynolds number of 300, 000. It utilised the Vortex Lattice Method with ring vortices
and calculated the aerodynamic parameters over a range of AoAs from −5o to 25o . But it
was observed that AoAs above 15o did not converge to give any meaningful value. Thus, the
comparison and inference are limited to a range of −5o to 15o .
For the lift curve and L/D − α curve in Figure 4, the trend seen in the individual airfoils
is observed again with the Clark-Y wing providing higher lift. Also, the lift observed in case of
the wings was almost half of that obtained in the airfoil case due to the presence of downwash
in a finite wing. The drag profile at higher AoAs changed due to the increased effect of induced
drag and gave the polar of the wing a parabolic profile in contrast to an almost constant drag
in airfoils before separation.

2
 Figure 4: Results of the comparative analysis of wings 1 and 2

The range over which cm varied increased almost three folds due to the constant induced drag
weighing the wing down unequally and made the cm vary linearly with α. Using Equation 1,
the location of the aerodynamic centre for wing 1 is 0.48796m and for wing 2 is 0.66472m.
−mo
xac = + 0.25 (1)
ao
where,
xac = location of aerodynamic centre
mo = slope of cm − α curve (in rad−1 )
ao = slope of cL − α curve (in rad−1 )

Question 2
This question needed three wings with different aspect ratios but utilised the same airfoil. Wing
1 was the same plain rectangular wing of AR = 5 and area = 5m2 , shown in 3(a)
Wing 3 was a tapered wing with a tip to root chord ratio of 0.6. But since the AR and area
remained constant, solving the set of equations yielded a root chord of length c = 1.25m with
no change in wingspan. The tip chord length was 0.75m and was placed at an offset of 0.125m
to obtain zero sweep as depicted in 5(a)
Wing 4 is also a rectangular with no change in wing area but with a smaller aspect ratio
of AR = 3.5. Solving for the unknowns yielded a chord of length c = 1.2m and a span of
b = 2.09m, depicted in 5(b).
Analysis for wing 1 was carried out at 4.5ms−1 as before. Wing 3 too had the same mean
chord length and a Reynolds number of 300, 000 was obtained at 4.5ms−1 . But since Reynolds

3
 (a) Wing 3 (b) Wing4

Figure 5: Design and geometry of the wings

number actually varied across the span, an additional batch analysis was carried out as described
previously. For wing 4, the chord length increased by 20% and the velocity was reduced to
3.8ms−1 , in order to maintain a Reynolds number of 300, 000.

Figure 6: Results of the comparative analysis of wings 1, 3 and 4

On observing the lift curves in Figure 6 , the wing with smallest AR generated least lift
(as a consequence of a reduced slope) for a given AoA, probably due to the greater impact of
wingtip vortices. This is also confirmed by the drag polar which shows higher drag in case of
the small AR wing for a given AoA. Wing 1 and Wing 3 (same AR rectangular vs tapered)
showed remarkable similarities in their properties with the tapered wing offering marginally
greater lift and L/D ratios (possibly due to lesser wingtip vortices at the ends). Their moment
slope differed significantly with the tapered wing slope being steeper.