See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276481983

Effects of Mach Number and Specific Heat Ratio on Low-Reynolds-Number

Airfoil Flows

Article in AIAA Journal · June 2015

DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

CITATIONS READS

37 2,199

4 authors:

Masayuki Anyoji Daiju Numata

Kyushu University Tokai University
58 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 561 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hiroki Nagai Keisuke Asai

Tohoku University Tohoku University
224 PUBLICATIONS 1,368 CITATIONS 346 PUBLICATIONS 4,020 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Mars Airplane View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masayuki Anyoji on 16 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIAA JOURNAL
Vol. 53, No. 6, June 2015

Effects of Mach Number and Specific Heat Ratio

on Low-Reynolds-Number Airfoil Flows

Masayuki Anyoji∗
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 252-5210 Sagamihara, Japan
and
Daiju Numata,† Hiroki Nagai,‡ and Keisuke Asai§
Tohoku University, 980-8579 Miyagi, Japan
DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
The effects of Reynolds number, Mach number, and gas species (air and CO2 ) on aerodynamic characteristics of a
thin flat plate and a NACA 0012-34 airfoil were investigated under low-Reynolds-number (Re ! 0:43 × 104 to
4.1 × 104 ) and high-subsonic-flow (M ! 0.1 to 0.6) conditions. In addition to lift and drag measurements by a two-
component balance system, the pressure-sensitive paint technique was applied to measure pressure profiles on the
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

model surface. For the flat plate, the Reynolds number moderately affects the lift and drag characteristics because of a
simple behavior of the leading-edge separation bubble; the length of the separation bubble increases as the angle of
attack increases. By contrast, the Mach number and specific heat ratio contribute little to the aerodynamic
performance. For the NACA 0012-34 airfoil, the lift curves are highly dependent on the Reynolds number because of
the formation, shift, and burst of the separation bubble, whereas the compressibility affects only the stall
characteristics. The specific heat ratio has little effect on the aerodynamic performance. In common for both airfoils,
it was observed that the Mach-number effect allows for the delay of a laminar–turbulent transition and reattachment
of the separated shear layer.

Nomenclature sharp leading edge (e.g., a reversed NACA 0012 wing or a thin
Cd = drag coefficient wedge) develops more lift than the symmetrical NACA 0012 airfoil,
Cl = lift coefficient which is satisfactory for Re > 7.0 × 104. Schmitz [6,7] suggested
Cp = pressure coefficient that a sharp leading edge fixes the separation point at the edge and
I = luminescence intensity can improve its Reynolds-number dependence on aerodynamic
KSV = Stern–Volmer constant performance. By contrast, Ohtake et al. [8] studied the effects of low
P = static pressure, Pa Reynolds numbers (Re ! 1.0 × 104 to 1.0 × 105 ) on the aero-
Pt = total pressure, Pa dynamic performance of the NACA 0012. Their results indicated that
M = Mach number the nonlinear lift curves were susceptible to a change in the Reynolds
Re = Reynolds number (characteristic length equal to chord number.
length of airfoil) Meanwhile, as a more challenging aerodynamic design for a low-
α = angle of attack, deg Reynolds-number aircraft, Mars airplanes have been recently
γ = specific heat ratio proposed by NASA [9,10] and a Japanese research group [11,12] for
wide-range exploration with no dependence on the complex
topography of Mars and detail science measurements at a few
I. Introduction kilometers above the Mars surface. Contrary to the Earth’s atmo-

A ERODYNAMICS and flow physics at low Reynolds numbers

as represented by micro air vehicles [1], high-altitude, long-
endurance, unmanned aerial vehicles [2], and insect flight [3] have
been extensively studied. Unlike that at high Reynolds number,
airfoil performance at low Reynolds numbers has specific char-
acteristics such as a nonlinear lift curve caused by the formation or
burst of a laminar separation bubble. In addition, the maximum lift-
to-drag ratio of airfoils significantly deteriorates in the chord at
Reynolds numbers from 104 to 105 because of earlier flow separation
[4]. For Re < 7.0 × 104, Laitone [5] showed that an airfoil with a
Presented as Paper 2010-4627 at the 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and
Exhibit, Chicago, IL, 28 June–1 July 2010; received 12 March 2014; revision
received 30 June 2014; accepted for publication 6 July 2014; published online
7 October 2014. Copyright © 2014 by Masayuki Anyoji. Published by the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition
that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center,
Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 1533-385X/
14 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Project Researcher, Department of Space Flight System. Member AIAA.
†
Assistant Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering. Member
AIAA.
‡
Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering. Senior
Member AIAA.
§
Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering. Associate Fellow
AIAA.
1640
sphere, the Martian atmospheric density is only approximately one-
hundredth that of the Earth. Such a low-density condition leads to a
low-Reynolds-number flight, Re ! O"104 #. Moreover, the Mars
airplane will fly at relatively high speeds to produce sufficient lift and
ensure a stable flight under windy atmospheric conditions, and then
the flight speed will easily reach subsonic velocities because of the
low sound speed in the CO2 -based and low-temperature Martian
atmosphere. If a propeller is used as the propulsion device, the tip
Mach number of the blade also would reach subsonic speeds. Under
such a subsonic flow condition at low Reynolds numbers, it is
anticipated that the flowfield around the wing will become highly
complicated, with a strong interaction between viscous and com-
pressibility effects. In addition, the specific heat ratio may affect
aerodynamic performance because the specific heat ratio differs
between CO2 and air. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the
similarity rule in the low-Reynolds-number and high-subsonic
region; however, experimental data of airfoils are very limited in such
an uncommon flow region, as shown in Fig. 1 [13].
A low-density wind tunnel, named the Mars Wind Tunnel (MWT),
was developed at Tohoku University in 2007 as a test facility to
evaluate the aerodynamic performance of airfoils under low-
Reynolds-number and high-subsonic-speed conditions. Initially, air
was used as the working gas, but a modification was made to allow
the tunnel to operate using CO2 (CO2 mode). We investigated the
operational characteristics and the flow quality in the test section
 ANYOJI ET AL.
under both air and CO2 modes. The flow calibration tests confirmed
that the MWT has a good flow quality, and its operational range
allows us to independently investigate each effect of the Reynolds
number, Mach number, and specific heat ratio on aerodynamic
performance by changing the total pressure, flow speed, and gas
species [14,15]. Furthermore, the pressure-sensitive paint (PSP)
measurement technique was developed, which allows us to optically
capture the pressure distribution on airfoils even under low-pressure
conditions [16,17], and its measurement system was installed into the
MWT. However, this PSP technique is limited for use in the air mode
and is not applicable in the CO2 mode at present.
In this study, we conducted wind-tunnel tests at low Reynolds
number (Re ! 0.43 × 104 to 4.1 × 104 ) and high subsonic flow
(M ! 0.1 to 0.6) in both air and CO2 modes using the MWT and
evaluated for each the effect of the Reynolds number, Mach number,
and the specific heat ratio on the aerodynamic performance of airfoils
at low Reynolds numbers. A thin flat plate was used as a standard
model. Also, we selected the NACA 0012-34 as the second model
because a symmetric airfoil markedly shows the effect of the
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance, and a comparatively
small leading-edge radius is expected to prevent an early laminar
separation in the vicinity of the leading edge. The flowfield around
the airfoils was analyzed on the basis of pressure distribution.
Eventually, we discuss the association between the change of the
flowfields and aerodynamic performance.
II. Mars Wind Tunnel
The MWT, as shown in Fig. 2, is mainly composed of a vacuum
chamber, an induction-type wind tunnel, and a buffer tank. The
vacuum chamber and buffer tank are connected by a flexible pipe.
A butterfly valve with a proportional–integral–derivative pressure
controller is inserted into the connecting pipe. The vacuum chamber
is cylindrical, 5000 mm in length, and 1800 mm in inner diameter.
The induction wind tunnel is placed inside the vacuum chamber. This
arrangement allows wind-tunnel tests to be conducted at low pressure
and the test gas to be replaced with CO2 . The induction tunnel, which
has a total length of 3490 mm, is made of aluminum alloy. One
honeycomb and five screens are present in the settling chamber to
reduce the turbulence level in the test section, which has a cross
section of 100 × 150 mm. The upper and lower test-section walls
have an inclination angle of 1.3 deg in each side for correcting the
development of the boundary layer. Thus, the cross section at the test-
section center is 159.1 × 150 mm. The blockage rate of the model
frontal area to the test-section cross-sectional area is approximately
5.5% at α ! 10 deg but is 8.1% at α ! 15 deg at the test section
center when the test model with 50 mm chord length is used. Barlow
et al. [18] suggested that the maximum ratio of the blockage rate of
7.5% should be used unless errors of several percent can be accepted.
Hence, the aerodynamics measurement error due to the blockage is
comparatively small at low angles of attack less than α ! 10 deg, but
our results may include errors of several percent. We consider that
these several percent errors at high angles of attack do not affect our
discussion. The turbulence intensity is less than 0.84%. To achieve
high subsonic speeds under low-pressure conditions, the wind tunnel
Fig. 1 Martian atmospheric flight (created referring to [6]).
1641
Fig. 2 Mars Wind Tunnel at Tohoku University.
is driven by a supersonic ejector located downstream of the test
section. The ejector consists of five pipes, with each having six
equally spaced small orifices. The ejection of high-pressure gas from
these nozzles reduces adjacent pressure and induces flow in the
test section. In preliminary flow calibration tests using CO2 , we
confirmed that CO2 solidification does not occur during CO2 gas
ejection. Refer to our previous studies for the further specifications of
the MWT [15].
III. Measurement Systems and Techniques
A. Force Balance
The two-component balance system consists of two load cells for
lift and drag measurements and a stepping motor for changing the
angle of attack. The range of load cells for lift measurement (A&D
AC4101-K006) and drag measurement (A&D AC4101-G600) is 60
and 6 N, respectively. The uncertain accuracies of the lift load cell and
the drag load cell are $9.0 × 10−3 and $9.0 × 10−4 N, respectively.
The output signals from the load cells are amplified by a dc strain
amplifier (NISSHO-ELECTRIC-WORKS, DSA-100A). The angle
resolution of the stepping motor is 1.44 × 10−2 deg, and the accu-
racy is 3.4 × 10−2 deg.
B. Pressure-Sensitive Paint
1. Theory
PSP is a coating-type sensor consisting of luminescent molecules
and a binder. When illuminated with light at an appropriate wave-
length, the sensor molecules in PSP are elevated to the excited state.
The excited molecules return to the ground state through several
photochemical mechanisms: luminescence, thermal deactivation,
and oxygen quenching. The principle of PSP is based on oxygen
quenching. In the presence of oxygen molecules, the energy of
excited molecules is transferred to oxygen molecules, and no lumi-
nescence is emitted. As a result, the luminescence intensity decreases
with increasing oxygen concentration. Theoretically, the relationship
of the luminescence intensity I and the oxygen concentration %O2 &
is expressed by the following relation, known as the Stern–Volmer
relation:
I0
! 1 ' K SV %O2 & (1)
I
where KSV is the Stern–Volmer constant, and the subscript “0”
represents the vacuum condition.
For air, the pressure is proportional to the oxygen partial pressure
(PO2 ! 0.21 × P for air). Therefore, the Stern–Volmer relation can
be expressed by the pressure p and luminescence intensity I:
I ref p
! A"T# ' B"T# (2)
I pref
 1642 ANYOJI ET AL.
where the subscript “ref” represents the reference condition, and
A"T# and B"T# are calibration coefficients. In wind-tunnel tests, the
surface pressure can be calculated from the ratio of luminescence
intensity images obtained under wind-on and wind-off (reference)
conditions.
2. Paint Formulation and Calibration Methods
In this experiment, Pd(II) meso-tetra (pentafluorophenyl) porphine
(PdTFPP) and poly 1-trimethylsilyl propyne [poly(TMSP)] were
used as the sensor molecule and binder, respectively. PSP composed
of PdTFPP and poly(TMSP) is known to have high-pressure
sensitivity under low-pressure conditions [19,20]; therefore, it is
considered applicable to low-pressure experiments in the MWT. The
composition of the paint is PdTFPP (4.8 mg), poly(TMSP) (0.16 g),
and toluene (20 ml). The absorption peak is approximately 407 nm,
and the emission peak is 670 nm.
Sample tests were conducted using chamber calibration [21]. The
test gas is air, and the temperature is 20°C. Pressure sensitivity is
approximately 77%∕kPa in the pressure range below 1 kPa; this is
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
sufficiently high to resolve a small change in pressure. It is noted
that pressure sensitivity is dependent on temperature. Also, the effect
of temperature on pressure sensitivity can be neglected because the
temperature change on the model is small during a test time of
less than 1 min. Because of the effect of photodegradation caused
by continuous UV light irradiation, the luminescence intensity
decreases by up to 5% for 30 min. The effect of photodegradation is
considered negligible in MWT tests because the test time is usually
less than 1 min. At room temperature, the response time is about 1 s.
This is a required consideration for the response time in the MWT
tests, especially under lower-pressure conditions, because the test
time becomes shorter with decreasing total pressure.
To date, use of the PSP technique in the CO2 mode has not yet been
established. Thus, the PSP measurement in this study is applied only
to air mode cases.
3. Setup for Pressure-Sensitive Paint Measurement
The setup for PSP measurement is shown in Fig. 3. The optical
equipment was placed outside the vacuum chamber, and mea-
surements were performed through an optical window on the top of
the vacuum chamber and a transparent ceiling of the test section made
of acrylic. Two UV–light-emitting diode (LED) arrays with 395 nm
wavelength were used as the excitation light source. A luminescent
image was captured by a thermoelectrically cooled 12 bit charge-
coupled device (CCD) camera (Hamamatsu, C4742-95-12ER) with
an optical bandpass filter (transmission wavelength 670 $ 20 nm).
An F1.4 camera lens (Nikon, 50 mm) was attached to the camera. The
resolution of the PSP image is approximately 0.14 mm. In this study,
calibration is made in the test section and using the model during the
evacuation process of the vacuum chamber. The change in model
temperature during the calibration is small and negligible. In this
method, the calibration coefficients are obtained on each pixel of the
image of the model so that the nonuniformity in pressure sensitivity
can be corrected.
Fig. 3 PSP measurement in the MWT.
IV. Test Model and Experimental Condition
A. Test Model
Figure 4 shows the airfoils of the test models. The chord length of
50 mm and span of 100 mm are common. A flat plate of 5% thickness
with a blunt leading edge and the NACA 0012-34 were used. The
NACA 0012-34 has a one-quarter leading-edge radius of the NACA
0012 and maximum thickness at 40% of the leading edge. Static
pressure taps were provided on the centerline on the upper surface to
measure the reference pressure for PSP data using a multichannel
pressure scanner (PSI Pressure Systems 9116), and a thermocouple
was also installed inside the test model near the centerline to obtain
the temperature correction factor for PSP measurement. Five static
pressure taps and one pressure tap were provided on the flat plate and
the NACA 0012-34, respectively. Each pressure tap is connected to a
multichannel pressure scanner through pressure tubes. These test
models were set into the test section by adjusting the gap between the
wing tip and the side wall to 0.15 mm. Rae and Pope [22] suggested
that the gap should be lower than 0.5% of the span. Furthermore,
Mueller and Burns [23] showed that the gap in the range from 0.1 to
1.4 mm does not affect the results. Therefore, we determined the gap
size based on these previous studies.
B. Experimental Condition
We defined the experimental condition at a Mach number of 0.20
and a Reynolds number of 1.1 × 104 as a basic case. For evaluating
pure Reynolds-number effects, the Mach number was fixed at ap-
proximately 0.20, and the Reynolds number was changed from
4.0 × 103 to 4.0 × 104 . By contrast, for evaluating pure Mach-
number effects, the Reynolds number was maintained at 1.1 × 104 ,
and the Mach number was changed from 0.1 to 0.61. The Mach and
Reynolds numbers were independently varied by controlling the total
pressure and flow velocity. A series of tests was conducted in the
range of the total pressures from 2 to 20 kPa. Air and CO2 were used
as the test gases. The specific heat ratio was 1.4 in air and 1.3 in CO2 .
The driving and driven gas species are the same.
V. Estimation of Separation Bubble Characteristics
Gerakopulos [24] suggested an estimation approach of separation,
transition, and reattachment locations based on a pressure profile
Fig. 4 Test models.
Fig. 5 Estimation of separation (S), transition (T), and reattachment (R)
locations based on pressure profile.
 ANYOJI ET AL. 1643

on the upper surface of an airfoil model. Figure 5 shows a typical
pressure distribution when a laminar separation bubble is formed. In
this method, the separation location is estimated as the intersection of
a linear fit to the nearly linear pressure recovery region and a linear fit
to the nearly constant-pressure region. For estimating transition and
reattachment locations, a shape-preserving polynomial fit in the
regions of constant surface pressure and subsequent rapid surface
pressure recovery is used. The transition location is estimated as the
local maximum in the second derivative of the polynomial fit,
whereas the reattachment location is estimated as the location of the
local minimum in the second derivative of the polynomial fit. By
applying the procedure to the mean pressure distributions obtained
by the PSP measurement, locations of separation, transition, and
reattachment are estimated.
It is noted that the term “transition” is used in this paper based on
Mueller’s interpretation; however, actually, we consider that a
laminar-to-turbulent transition probably differs from a general tran-
sition of a boundary layer because flow phenomena occur in the
unstable separated shear layer. Thus, in this paper, “turbulence” is
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
VI. Results and Discussions
A. Flat Plate
1. Basic Case
Figure 6 shows the lift and drag for the basic case at a Reynolds
number of 1.1 × 104 and a Mach number of 0.20.
The lift-curve slope is nearly linear up to α ! 6 deg and is very
close to "Cl ∕α# ! 2π for the two-dimensional potential flow lift-
curve slope. Although the lift coefficient starts to level off at approx-
imately α ! 7 deg, conventional stall characteristics, such as a drop
in lift coefficient as seen in a smooth airfoil at much higher Reynolds
numbers (Re > 105 ), are not observed at the angles of attack greater
than α ! 8 deg. Furthermore, although a substantial decrease in
lift from α ! 9 deg to α ! 11 deg is observed, the lift coefficient
gradually increases with increasing angle of attack. Eventually, the
maximum lift reaches 0.76 at α ! 15 deg, corresponding to the
angle-of-attack limit in this experiment. This stall characteristic cor-
responds to the thin-airfoil stall.
Figure 7 shows PSP images on the upper surface and pressure
profiles on the centerline in the span direction for the basic case. The

defined as complex three-dimensional disturbed flows where the black dots plotted in Fig. 7 represent static pressure data obtained
two-dimensionality of the flow structure breaks. through static pressure taps as reference pressure. It is noted that,
in some cases, pressure distribution is slightly distorted at the model
free end, probably because of the existence of flow passing through
0.8 the narrow gap between the model tip and the wall (nominal 0.3 mm).
Because the low-pressure region decreases near the corners on the
upper surface, lift may become smaller due to the effect of the
0.6
three-dimensional flow as compared with that under a complete
two-dimensional flowfield. The effect of three-dimensionality on
0.4 aerodynamics should appear as a decrease of the lift-curve slope.
However, compared with the two-dimensional potential flow lift-
0.2 curve slope as shown in Fig. 6, a notable decrease and a non-
Cl and Cd

linearity of the lift-curve slope are not observed. Besides, the effect of
three-dimensionality is limited to a small region near the walls.
0
Therefore, the effects of the three-dimensional flow on the
aerodynamics can be considered negligible. This effect does not
–0.2 Cl affect our discussion on the flowfields based on the Cp distribution
Cd curves because two dimensionality of the flow is maintained in the
–0.4 center region.
2πα The low-pressure region appears around the leading edge and
–0.6 increases downstream with increasing angle of attack. Figure 8 shows
–5 0 5 10 15 locations of separation, transition, and reattachment with angles of
α [deg] attack for the basic case in accordance with Gerakopulos’s procedure.
Fig. 6 Aerodynamic characteristics of a flat plate in the basic case The low-pressure region seen in Fig. 7 corresponds to a laminar
(Re ! 1.1 × 104 , M ! 0.20). separation bubble. Flow separates at the leading edge for all angles of

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Cp

Cp

-0.4
Cp

-0.4 -0.4
Cp

Cp

-0.4 -0.4

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c x/c x/c

a) α = 0 deg b) α = 3 deg c) α = 5 deg d) α = 7 deg e) α = 10 deg

Fig. 7 PSP images (top) and pressure distribution (bottom) of a flat plate for the basic case (black dots represent static pressure data obtained by a
pressure scanner).
 1644 ANYOJI ET AL.

12 Separation from 4.0 × 103 to 4.0 × 104 , and the Mach number was maintained
Transition constant at 0.2. In all cases, lift curves are almost linear below
Reattachment α ! 5 deg to α ! 7 deg; however, the lift-curve slopes decrease
10 with decreasing Reynolds number. The lift-curve slopes (Cl ∕α) at
Re ! 4.0 × 104 and at Re ! 4.0 × 103 are 7.64 and 5.53∕rad,
8 respectively. This indicates that the lift-curve slope of a flat plate
decreases by 26.7% because of the difference in one order in the
α [deg]

6 Reynolds number. By contrast, the stall angles, which are defined as

the angle where the linearity of the lift starts collapsing, increase with
4 decreasing Reynolds number; that is, burst is less likely to occur at
lower Reynolds numbers. At the poststall angles of attack, lift
2
coefficients start to level off and maintain almost a constant value
up to α ! 15 deg, and the drag rapidly increases near the stall angles
in all cases.
0 We found that, although the drag coefficients are larger below
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 approximately α ! 3 deg for higher Reynolds numbers, the drag
x/c coefficients increase with decreasing Reynolds number above
Fig. 8 Variation of separation, transition, and reattachment locations approximately α ! 3 deg. It is noted that the absolute values of
with angle of attack for the basic case. measured drag are fairly small. The drag at zero angle of attack at
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

Re ! 1.1 × 104 , for instance, is approximately 0.05 N, which is

attack, whereas transition and reattachment locations move down-
stream as angles of attack increase for α < 7 deg. This indicates that
the separation bubble simply grows without the shift below α !
7 deg with increasing angles of attack. Note that the three dimen-
sional flow observed in Fig. 7, in particular at α ! 0 deg and α !
3 deg, is due to a corner vortex generated at the corner by the
separated flow. In contrast, the separated shear layer does not reattach
to the model surface over α ! 7 deg, where the lift coefficient starts
to level off, as shown in Fig. 6. Thus, we define a stall angle of attack
for a flat plate where the linearity of the lift starts collapsing because
of laminar-separation bubble burst. Flow visualization for Re !
10; 000 by Okamoto and Azuma [25] around a thin elliptical wing at
α ! 10 deg with AR ! 1, whose cross section is rectangular, indi-
cates unsteady vortices shedding from the leading edge without clear
reattachment. Although two- and three-dimensional wing shapes
differ between their experiments and ours, we consider that the
flowfields around the cross section at the span centerline are re-
markably similar. In addition, Garmann and Visbal [26] showed that a
negative pressure was maintained on the flat plate wing even after
breakdown of a coherent leading-edge vortex (LEV), and a rapid drop
in lift coefficient was not found before and after breakdown of the
LEV. Hence, we deduce that a low-pressure region on the flat plate as
shown in Figs. 7d and 7e is created by the unsteady leading-edge
separation vortices and prevents a sharp decrease in the lift coefficient
even at the poststall angle of attack due to the vortex lift.
2. Reynolds-Number Effect
Figure 9 shows the effects of the Reynolds number on lift and drag
characteristics of the flat plate. The Reynolds number was varied
1∕120 of the load-cell range for the drag measurement. Because the
difference in drag at low angles of attack may be within the margin of
the error, we may avoid further discussion of this difference.
Figure 10 shows PSP images and pressure profiles on the flat plate
for three angles of attack and three Reynolds numbers. The Mach
number was maintained constant at 0.20. At angles of attack less than
3 deg, a low-pressure region around the leading edge corresponding to
leading-edge separation bubble is observed common for all Reynolds-
number cases. However, the Cp profile shows different trends only at
Re ! 4.9 × 103 compared with those at the other Reynolds numbers.
At α ! 0 deg for Re ! 4.9 × 103, shown in Fig. 10a, the pressure
slowly increases from the leading edge without a constant-pressure
region, unlike the other two cases, shown in Figs. 10d and 10g. The Cp
profile for Re ! 4.9 × 103 means that, although flow separates at the
leading edge, and the separated shear layer reattaches to the surface at
approximately x∕c ! 0.20, a laminar–turbulent transition does not
occur, which is a profound difference. Sasaki and Kiya [27] visualized
the vortex structure on the flat plate at various low Reynolds numbers.
Their visualization result at Re ! 5.6 × 103 , which is close to our
experimental condition (Re ! 4.9 × 103 ), shows that the separated
shear layer remains laminar up to the reattachment location. Further-
more, surface pressure measurements for the flow over a backward-
facing step were conducted by Tani et al. [28]. They investigated that
the separated flow at the corner does not undertake a transition and
reattaches in a laminar state when the step height is very small, and
then the pressure on the surface slowly recovers without a steep
pressure recovery due to a laminar-to-turbulent transition. The pres-
sure profile shown in Fig. 10a reveals the feature very similar to the
moderate pressure recovery in the step flow observed by Tani et al. The
results of these past studies agree with our results and explanation.

0.8
0.8
0.6

0.4
0.4
0.2
Re = 4.0 × 104
Cl

0
Cl

4
0 Re = 4.0 × 104
Re = 2.0 × 10 4
–0.2 4 Re = 2.0 × 10
Re = 1.1 × 10 4
3 Re = 1.1 × 10
–0.4 Re = 6.0 × 10 –0.4
3
3 Re = 6.0 × 10
–0.6 Re = 4.0 × 10 3
Re = 4.0 × 10
2π
–0.8 –0.8
–5 0 5 10 15 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
α [deg] Cd

a) Lift curve b) Drag polar

Fig. 9 Effects of the Reynolds number on aerodynamic characteristics of a flat plate.
 ANYOJI ET AL. 1645

-1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1 -1 -1
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
-0.6 -0.6
Cp

Cp
-0.6

Cp
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c
3 3 3
a) Re = 4.9×10 , α = 0 deg b) Re = 4.9×10 , α = 3 deg c) Re = 4.9×10 , α = 4 deg

-1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Cp
Cp

Cp
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c
d) Re = 1.1×104, α = 0 deg e) Re = 1.1×104, α = 3 deg f) Re = 1.1×104, α = 5 deg
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2
-1 -1 -1
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
Cp

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Cp

Cp
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c
g) Re = 4.1×104, α = 0 deg h) Re = 4.1×104, α = 3 deg i) Re = 4.1×104, α = 5 deg
Fig. 10 Pressure distributions on the upper surface of a flat plate at Re ! 4.9 × 10 (top), Re ! 1.1 × 104 (center), and Re ! 4.1 × 104 (bottom).
3

In correlation with these results, the PSP data suggest that a critical
region, where the vortex structure around the flat plate at α ! 0 deg
changes, exists between Re ! 4.9 × 103 and Re ! 1.1 × 104 .
3. Mach-Number Effect
Figure 11 shows the effects of the Mach number on the lift and drag
characteristics of the flat plate model for a constant Reynolds number.
The Mach number was varied from 0.09 to 0.61, whereas the
Reynolds number was maintained constant at 1.1 × 104 . Lift curves
are nearly unchanged even when the Mach number changes up to
0.61 compared with that in the basic case (M ! 0.20). The lift-curve
slope slightly increases at M ! 0.61, and the lift coefficients at the
poststall angles of attack only for M ! 0.61 and M ! 0.47 slowly
increase. The largest difference in lift, at α ! 15 deg between each
Mach number condition, is approximately 9.8%. Also, almost no
variation is seen in the polar curves, as shown in Fig. 11b. Hence, the
effect of the Mach number on aerodynamic characteristics of a flat
plate in Mach number up to 0.61 is almost negligible, whereas we
may draw attention to the lift coefficient at high angles of attack above
α ! 15 deg because there is a possibility that the Mach number
increases the difference in lift.
Figure 12 shows PSP images and pressure profiles on the flat plate
for three angles of attack and three Mach numbers. The Reynolds
number was maintained constant at 1.1 × 104 . In all cases, a leading-

1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Cl

Cl

0 0

–0.2 M = 0.61 –0.2 M = 0.61

M = 0.47 M = 0.47
–0.4 M = 0.33 –0.4 M = 0.33
M = 0.20 M = 0.20
–0.6 M = 0.09 –0.6 M = 0.09
–5 0 5 10 15 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
α [deg] Cd
a) Lift curve b) Drag polar
Fig. 11 Effect of Mach number on aerodynamic characteristics of a flat plate.
 1646 ANYOJI ET AL.

edge separation bubble with a low-pressure region and similar Cp
profiles are observed. However, focusing on transition and re-
attachment locations defined on the basis of Cp profiles, these loca-
tions move downstream as the Mach number increases. That is, the
effect of compressibility stabilizes the separated shear layer and then
delays both laminar–turbulent transition and reattachment. Conse-
quently, a separation bubble is slightly extended. However, this flow
change has a very small effect on aerodynamic characteristics
because of a negligible change in Cp profiles.
4. Effect of Specific Heat Ratio
Figure 13 shows the Reynolds number effect on lift and drag
characteristics of the flat plate in different specific heat ratios (air and
CO2 ). The Reynolds number was varied from 4.0 × 103 to 4.0 × 104 ,
and the Mach number was maintained constant at 0.20.
In the Reynolds-number range above 1.1 × 104 , the lift slope, stall
angle of attack, and drag polar change little in the air and CO2 modes.
However, a difference exists in the lift coefficient at the poststall angle
of attack. These differences in the lift coefficient between the air and
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
affected by the difference in specific heat ratio in the Reynolds
number region above Re ! 1.1 × 104 .
Figure 14 shows the effect of the Mach number on the lift and drag
characteristics of the flat plate in different specific heat ratios. The
Reynolds number was constant at 1.1 × 104 , and the Mach number
was varied from 0.20 to 0.61. Although a slight difference exists in the
lift coefficient at the poststall angle of attack between the air and CO2
modes, almost no variation exists in the lift-curve slope and drag
characteristics. Comparing the lift coefficients after stall between the
air and CO2 modes at the same Mach number, the lift in the CO2 mode
is slightly lower than that in the air mode, in common with the previous
case shown in Fig. 13. However, the difference in the lift coefficient
between the air and CO2 modes is 4.3%, maximum. Hence, the effect
of the Mach number on specific heat ratio is almost negligible.
B. NACA 0012-34
1. Basic Case
Figure 15 shows the aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA
0012-34 airfoil for the basic case (Re ! 1.1 × 104 , M ! 0.20). A

CO2 modes are not common among different Reynolds numbers. For
the smallest Reynolds number, the lift slope and maximum lift
coefficient in the CO2 mode were larger than those in the air mode.
The difference may be caused by the higher Reynolds number in the
CO2 mode because the lift slope has a tendency to become large with
increasing Reynolds number. This Reynolds number difference
between the air and CO2 modes is 22.5%, which is high compared
with the difference in the other Reynolds number conditions between
air and CO2 modes. Therefore, a comparison of the effects of the
specific heat ratio cannot be discussed accurately only for Reynolds
numbers below Re ! 1.1 × 104 ; however, at the very least, it can be
said that the aerodynamic performance of the flat plate is little
strong nonlinearity of the lift curve and a rapid decrease of the lift
after stall are observed, unlike the characteristics of the lift curve for
the flat plate as described previously. Although the lift-curve slope in
the range from α ! 0 deg to α ! 5 deg is no more than Cl ∕α !
2.04∕rad, the lift coefficient drastically increases from α ! 7 deg to
α ! 8 deg. The lift coefficient at α ! 8 deg achieves approximately
1.7 times the lift coefficient at α ! 7 deg by only 1 deg increase of
the angle of attack. In addition, a drag bucket is observed from α !
7 deg to α ! 9 deg. The lift coefficient moderately increases above
α ! 8 deg and then reaches a peak at α ! 11 deg, corresponding
to the stall angle of attack. It keeps on decreasing after the stall up
to α ! 15 deg.

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Cp

Cp
Cp

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c
a) M = 0.21, α = 0 deg b) M = 0.21, α = 3 deg c) M = 0.21, α = 5 deg

-1 -1 -1

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Cp
Cp

Cp

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c
d) M = 0.47, α = 0 deg e) M = 0.47, α = 3 deg f) M = 0.47, α = 5 deg

-1 -1 -1
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6
Cp

Cp

Cp

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c
g) M = 0.60, α = 0 deg h) M = 0.60, α = 3 deg i) M = 0.60, α = 5 deg
Fig. 12 Pressure distributions on the upper surface of a flat plate for three angles of attack and three Mach numbers.
 ANYOJI ET AL. 1647

1
0.8

0.6
0.5
0.4 Air mode Air mode
CO2 mode CO2 mode
0.2
4
Re = 4.0 × 104 0 Re = 4.0 × 10

Cl
Cl
0 4 4
Re = 1.1 × 10 Re = 1.1 × 10
3 3
–0.2 Re = 4.0 × 10 Re = 4.0 × 10
4 4
Re = 3.8 × 10 –0.5 Re = 3.8 × 10
–0.4
4 4
Re = 1.1 × 10 Re = 1.1 × 10
–0.6 3 Re = 4.9 × 10
3
Re = 4.9 × 10
–0.8 –1
–5 0 5 10 15 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
α [deg] Cd

a) Lift curve b) Drag polar

Fig. 13 Effects of specific heat ratio on aerodynamic characteristics of a flat plate for constant Mach number (M ! 0.2).
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

1 1

0.5
0.5

Air mode 0 Air mode

Cl

Cl

0 CO2 mode CO2 mode

M = 0.61 M = 0.61
M = 0.49 M = 0.49
M = 0.20 –0.5 M = 0.20
–0.5 M = 0.60 M = 0.60
M = 0.47 M = 0.47
M = 0.20 M = 0.20
–1
–5 0 5 10 15 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
α [deg] Cd
a) Lift curve b) Drag polar
Fig. 14 Effects of specific heat ratio on aerodynamic characteristics of a flat plate for a constant Reynolds number (Re ! 1.1 × 104 ).

Figure 16 shows PSP images and Cp profiles of the NACA 0012-
34 airfoil for the basic case. Figure 17 shows a variation of separation,
transition, and reattachment locations based on Cp analysis. Details
about the flowfield are described later in this paper. A trailing-edge
separation occurs at x∕c ! 0.95 for α ! 0 deg. The separation point
moves upstream to x∕c ! 0.53 for α ! 6 deg, and a suction peak
also forms at the leading edge. At α ! 7 deg, a laminar-to-turbulent
transition occurs at x∕c ! 0.72. The separated shear layer does not
seem to reattach to the surface at α ! 7 deg; however, it is difficult to
clearly estimate whether the separated shear layer reattaches based
only on the feature of Cp profiles. At α ! 8 deg, the separation
location moves upstream and then passes over the high point on the
airfoil (x∕c ! 0.40). Furthermore, a laminar separation bubble forms
in the vicinity of the center of the chord length. The formation of the
separation bubble enhances the negative pressure on the upper
surface and consequently causes a nonlinear lift increase, as shown in

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Cl
Cl

0.2 0.2

0 0

–0.2 –0.2
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
–5 0 5 10 15 20
Cd
α [deg]
a) Lift curve b) Drag polar
Fig. 15 Aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 airfoil in the basic case (Re ! 1.1 × 104 , M ! 0.20).
 1648 ANYOJI ET AL.

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2

-1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5

-1 -1 -1 -1
Cp

Cp

Cp

Cp
-1

Cp
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
-0.5
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

0 0 0 0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c x/c x/c x/c
a) α = 0 deg b) α = 6 deg c) α = 7 deg d) α = 8 deg e) α = 10 deg
Fig. 16 Pressure distribution of the NACA 0012-34 for the basic case (black dot represents static pressure data) obtained by a pressure scanner.

Fig. 15. The separation bubble moves a bit upstream up to α !
10 deg as the angle of attack increases. At α ! 14 deg, corre-
sponding to the poststall angle of attack, reattachment is not observed
in the Cp profile; however, the transition is observed at
around x∕c ! 0.30.
Contrary to the flat plate, the effect of three-dimensionality on Cp
distribution for the NACA 0012-34 airfoil shown in Fig. 16 is not
found at α ! 0 deg because a large area of the airfoil surface is
covered by the attached flow. In the angle-of-attack range from α !
0 deg to α ! 5 deg, where the flow attaches to the surface in large
area of the wing, we consider that the effect of three-dimensionality on
the aerodynamics is considered to be small due to the two dimen-
sionality of the flow. However, above α ! 6 deg, where the sep-
aration point moves upstream, the two-dimensional nonuniformity of
Cp distribution appears downstream of the separation point. As with
the discussion on the flat plate, the effect on aerodynamics is negligible
even if the three-dimensionality appears because the two-dimensional
uniformity is limited to a small region near the walls.
2. Reynolds-Number Effect
Figure 18 shows the effects of the Reynolds number on the lift and
drag characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 airfoil model. In contrast
to the results of the flat plate (Fig. 9), the lift curves and drag polars are
20
15
α [deg]
strongly sensitive to the Reynolds number change. The most
pronounced common feature is a high nonlinearity of the lift curves.
The kink point, meaning the angle of attack where the lift coefficient
starts to sharply increase, delays with decreasing Reynolds number.
Each kink point corresponds to α ! 3 deg, α ! 7 deg, and α !
11 deg for Re ! 3.9 × 104, Re ! 1.1 × 104 , and Re ! 4.0 × 103 ,
respectively. It is noted that the lift curves overlap well in all the
Reynolds numbers before a nonlinear lift increase. The lift coefficient
at the angles of attack after the steep lift enhancement gradually
increases with the angle of attack and then reaches a peak point
corresponding to the stall condition. However, differences in the stall
angle and maximum lift coefficient Cl max are found. The stall angle
for 1.1 × 104 is α ! 11 deg, whereas the peak of lift coefficient
seems to be approximately at α ! 14.5 deg for Re ! 4.0 × 103. In
addition, Cl max gradually decreases as the Reynolds number de-
creases. A 13.3% decrease of Cl max from Re ! 3.9 × 104 to Re !
4.0 × 103 is observed. In drag polars shown in Fig. 18b, a drag bucket
is found both at Re ! 3.9 × 104 and Re ! 1.1 × 104 , as seen in the
basic case. The drag increases with decreasing Reynolds number,
indicating that the effect of viscosity becomes pronounced. The drag
at Re ! 3.9 × 104 changes little even when the angle of attack
increases up to α ! 8 deg. By contrast, the drag gradually increases
as the angle of attack increases at Re ! 4.0 × 103 .
These unusual aerodynamic variations with nonlinearity as
displayed in Fig. 18 are associated with the behavior of a separation
bubble. Figure 19 shows the pressure distribution at Re ! 4.9 × 103
and 4.1 × 104 . Figure 20 presents the variation of separation, tran-
sition, and reattachment locations based on the analysis of Cp profiles
applying Gerakopulos’s methodology, and Fig. 21 illustrates
schematic images of flowfields on the airfoils for each Reynolds
number.
Although the laminar separation without reattachment occurs
near the trailing edge at α ! 0 deg for Re ! 4.9 × 103, similar

10 trends of Cp distributions at Re ! 4.9 × 103 are observed at from

α ! 9 deg to α ! 11 deg, where the pressure distribution has a
suction peak at the leading edge and a constant-pressure region. This
indicates that flow separation occurs without a laminar-to-turbulent
5 transition. The flow remains separated up to α ! 11 deg, and the
Separation separation location gradually moves upstream as the angle of attack
Transition increases. This separated flow leads to a lower lift-curve slope than
Reattachment those for the other higher Reynolds numbers. However, at α ! 12
0
0 0.2 0.6 0.4
0.8 1.0 and 14 deg, the pressure recovery is found at around x∕c ! 0.80,
x/c indicating that at least the transition occurs. Although it is difficult to
Fig. 17 Variation of separation, transition, and reattachment locations conclusively determine whether or not the flow reattaches based only
with the angle of attack for the basic case. on the shape of Cp distribution, the reattachment location at α ! 12
 ANYOJI ET AL. 1649

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

Cl
Cl
0 0

–0.2 –0.2
Re = 3.9 × 104 Re = 3.9 × 104
–0.4 Re = 1.1 × 10
4
–0.4 Re = 1.1 × 10
4
3
Re = 4.0 × 10 Re = 4.0 × 10
3

–0.6 2π –0.6
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
–5 0 5 10 15 20
Cd
α [deg]
a) Lift curve b) Drag polar
Fig. 18 Effects of the Reynolds number on aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 airfoil for a constant Mach number (M ! 0.19 to 0.22).
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

and 14 deg is mathematically worked out by applying Gerakopulos’s
methodology. Besides, Fig. 18 reveals a nonlinear lift increase
between α ! 11 deg and α ! 12 deg, suggesting a lift enhance-
ment due to a formation of a separation bubble. The separation bubble
covers a wide range of the wing from α ! 12 deg to α ! 14 deg. At
α ! 16 deg, the pressure distribution denotes the same tendency at
α ! 11 deg, indicating that only the flow separation occurs without
transition and reattachment, and the burst of the separation bubble
occurs. A small drop in lift is also observe between α ! 15 deg and
α ! 16 deg in Fig. 18. It seems that lift coefficient reaches its peak at
approximately α ! 14.5 deg. Hence, we concluded that the burst of
the separation bubble occurs at α ! 16 deg, and the stall angle is
α ! 14.5 deg. Alam et al. [29] and Zhou et al. [30] inves-
tigated aerodynamics and the wake of the NACA 0012 airfoil at a
similar Reynolds number. Their results showed that flow remained
laminar after separation without reattachment at Re ! 5.3 × 103 . In
addition, the lift coefficient has no peak value, indicating the
conventional stall is absent. These results have a different tendency
from our results. Many papers [4,6,7,31] have reported that aero-
dynamic performance is highly dependent on the airfoil shape and
Reynolds number at such low Reynolds numbers. The NACA 0012
airfoil has a comparatively large leading-edge radius, and thus the
laminar boundary layer is more likely to separate. In contrast,
the NACA 0012-34 airfoil has a smaller leading-edge radius, and the
flow is less likely to separate. We consider that the difference between
our results and those by Alam et al. [29] and Zhou et al. [30] is due to
the difference in the airfoil shape.
The flowfields at Re ! 1.1 × 104 (basic case) is as described in
Sec. VI.B.1. At Re ! 4.1 × 104 , a laminar separation without re-
attachment occurs at x∕c ! 0.76 for α ! 0 deg. However, the
separation bubble forms at α ! 3 deg and causes a rapid lift increase.
In this angle of attack, the separation point slightly moves upstream
from x∕c ! 0.76 at α ! 0 deg, and then the separated shear layer
reattaches near the trailing edge. The separation bubble continues to
slightly move upstream up to α ! 5 deg. By contrast, the location
of the separation bubble drastically changes from α ! 5 deg to
α ! 6 deg. The separation bubble passes over the high point of the
wing at α ! 6 deg, and a comparatively short separation bubble
forms near the leading edge. However, the shift of the separation
bubble has little effect on the nonlinearity of the lift curve. Fur-
thermore, the difference in the drag coefficient between α ! 5 deg
and α ! 6 deg is very small. As shown in Fig. 19b, the negative
pressure around the leading edge (x∕c ! 0–0.15) increases due to the
forward movement of the separation bubble. However, this negative
pressure region of the separation bubble has little contribution to drag
because the chordwise location of x∕c ! 0.17 corresponds to the
location where the slope of the tangent line to the airfoil profile is zero
at α ! 6 deg; that is, the drag component at around x∕c ! 0.17 is
negligible. Moreover, the magnitude of Cp values on the suction side
does not drastically change between α ! 5 deg and α ! 6 deg.
Although Cp distribution on the pressure side is also required for
discussing about lift and drag in detail, we deduce that this is the
reason why the differences in lift and drag coefficient between α !
5 deg and α ! 6 deg are small even if the separation bubble dras-
tically moves upstream. At α ! 12 deg, the flow separates at the
leading edge without reattachment.
Consequently, the behaviors of the separation bubble especially in
formation and burst of the separation bubble are considerably
sensitive to the Reynolds number change and consequently lead to
the distinguishing nonlinear lift curves at each Reynolds number.

-2.5 -2.5
= 0 deg = 0 deg
-2 = 5 deg -2 = 3 deg
= 9 deg = 5 deg
= 11 deg = 6 deg
-1.5 = 12 deg -1.5 = 8 deg
= 14 deg = 12 deg
= 16 deg
-1 -1
Cp

Cp

-0.5 -0.5

0 0

0.5 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c
a) Re = 4.9 103 b) Re = 4.1 104
Fig. 19 Pressure distribution of the NACA 0012-34 at Re ! 4.9 × 103 and 4.1 × 104 .
 1650
20 20
15 15
[deg]
[deg]
10 10
5 5
Separation
Transition
Reattachment
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/c
a) Re = 4.9 103 b) Re = 1.1 104
Fig. 20 Variation of separation, transition, and reattachment locations with the angle of attack for different Reynolds numbers.
3. Mach-Number Effect
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
Figure 22 shows the effect of the Mach number on the lift and drag
characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 airfoil model for a constant
Reynolds number. Below α ! 6 deg, the lift curves and drag polars
change little with increasing angles of attack. Hence, the Mach-
number change does not affect aerodynamic performance in the
low-angle-of-attack range. However, there is a noticeable change of
the lift coefficient in the range of α ! 7 deg to α ! 14 deg. The lift
coefficients for M ! 0.21 and M ! 0.48 keep increasing with in-
creasing angles of attack up to α ! 10 deg or α ! 11 deg, whereas
the lift coefficient at M ! 0.61 starts to level off at approximately
α ! 10 deg. In this angle-of-attack range, the lift coefficients de-
crease as the Mach number increases. Compared with the lift coef-
ficients at α ! 10 deg for each Mach number, a 25.4% decrease of
the lift coefficient from M ! 0.21 to M ! 0.61 is found. Each lift
coefficient overlaps at α ! 15 deg and maintains almost the same
level above α ! 15 deg.
The trend that the lift coefficients from α ! 7 deg to α ! 14 deg
decrease with increasing Mach number is different from those
predicted by the Prandtl–Glauert rule. According to the Prandtl–
Glauert rule, lift coefficients increase due to the compressibility.
Similar results were observed by Suwa et al. [32], who investigated
Mach-number effects on the aerodynamic characteristics of a triangle
airfoil at Re ! 10; 000. Their results show that the lift curves overlap
each other at low angles of attack, whereas lift coefficients from α !
5 deg to α ! 12 at M ! 0.70 are smaller than those at M ! 0.50 and
M ! 0.15. Hence, our results indicate that the Prandtl–Glauert rule is
not applicable to such low-Reynolds-number conditions.
Fig. 21 Flow model of the NACA 0012-34 airfoil for different Reynolds numbers.
ANYOJI ET AL.
20
15
[deg]
10
5
Separation Separation
Transition Transition
Reattachment Reattachment
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/c x/c
c) Re = 4.1 104
Figure 23 shows the pressure distribution at M ! 0.48 and
M ! 0.61. Figure 24 presents a variation of separation, transition,
and reattachment locations. The Mach number was varied from 0.21
to 0.61, and the Reynolds number was maintained constant at
1.1 × 104 . The flowfield images, based on the information in Fig. 24,
are shown schematically in Fig. 25. In all cases, a laminar separation
without reattachment occurs near the trailing edge at the angles
of attack below α ! 6 deg. Furthermore, the separation location
moves upstream as the angle of attack increases. The common trend
that is a trailing-edge separation leads the overlap of lift coefficients
below α ! 6 deg. At α ! 7 deg, the separation bubble forms only
for M ! 0.21, whereas the flow remains separated for M !
0.48 and M ! 0.61. The separation bubble forms at α ! 8 deg for
M ! 0.48. This 1 deg difference between M ! 0.21 and M ! 0.48
affects the delay of the kink point shown in Figs. 24 and 25. It is noted
that, although we predicted a reattached flow at α ! 8 deg for
M ! 0.48 due to the formation of the separation bubble based on the
Cp profile, a steep lift increase at α ! 8 deg is not yet seen in the lift
curve shown in Fig. 22. We deduce that the angle of attack of around
8 deg for M ! 0.48 is a very sensitive region regarding whether the
flow reattaches, and a slight error of the angle of attack affects the
difference between the interpretation of the flowfield and the lift
curve. Meanwhile, the flow does not reattach up to α ! 13 deg for
M ! 0.61, and a separation bubble does not form. The nonexistence
of a laminar separation bubble leads to lower lift coefficients for
M ! 0.61 at high angles of attack greater than α ! 7 deg.
As shown in Figs. 24 and 25, separation, transition, and re-
attachment locations move downstream as the Mach number
 ANYOJI ET AL. 1651

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Cl

Cl
0.2 0.2

0 0
M = 0.61 M = 0.61
M = 0.48 M = 0.48
M = 0.20 M = 0.20
0.2 0.2
5 0 5 10 15 20 0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
[deg] Cd
a) Lift curve b) Drag polar
Fig. 22 Effects of the Mach number on aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 for a constant Reynolds number (Re ! 1.1 × 104 ).
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

increases, particularly at high angles of attack above α ! 7 deg,
where the difference in lift curves is observed for each Mach number.
This indicates that the compressibility has the effect of stabilizing the
separated shear layer and delaying separation and transition to
turbulence. Therefore, we consider that the reattachment location
passes over the trailing edge for M ! 0.61 because of the com-
pressibility effect, although the transition occurs. As a result, this
prevents the formation of the separation bubble.
Compared with results by Alam et al. [29] and Zhou et al. [30],
there is a similarity of the lift curve at M ! 0.61 shown in Fig. 22a to
that for the NACA 0012 at much smaller Mach number and
Re ! 5.3 × 103 . For the NACA 0012-34, although the transition
occurs, the reattachment location passes over the trailing edge at
M ! 0.61; that is, the separated flow is observed. Consequently, the
flowfield around the NACA 0012-34 is remarkably similar to that for
the NACA 0012 at a much smaller Mach number and Re ! 5.3 × 103
in spite of a large difference in Mach number. It should be noted here
that lift keeps increasing above α ! 10 deg in common with each
other. As Alam et al. [29] and Zhou et al. [30] visualized, a coherent
vortex exists on the airfoil. This large separated vortex generates a

-2 -2
= 0 deg = 0 deg
= 6 deg = 6 deg
-1.5 = 7 deg -1.5 = 7 deg
= 8 deg = 8 deg
= 10 deg = 10 deg
-1 = 11 deg -1 = 13 deg
Cp

Cp

-0.5 -0.5

0 0

0.5 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/c x/c
a) M = 0.48 b) M = 0.61
Fig. 23 Pressure distribution of the NACA 0012-34 at a) M ! 0.48, and b) M ! 0.61.

15 15 15

10 10 10
[deg]

[deg]

[deg]

5 5 5

Separation Separation Separation

Transition Transition Transition
Reattachment Reattachment Reattachment
0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/c x/c x/c
a) M = 0.21 b) M = 0.48 c) M = 0.61
Fig. 24 Variation of separation, transition, and reattachment locations with the angle of attack for different Mach numbers.
 1652 ANYOJI ET AL.
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468

Fig. 25 Flow model of the NACA 0012-34 for different Mach numbers.

low-pressure region on the suction side and enhances lift as vortex
lift. We deduce that this is because lift keeps increasing at high angles
of attack.
In contrast to the results for the flat plate as described in
Sec. VI.A.3, the effect of compressibility on the aerodynamics is
clearly observed at high angles of attack. As for the flat plate, the
separation point is fixed at the leading edge, and compressibility
affects the locations of the transition and the reattachment. Moreover,
there is little difference in the magnitude of the Cp values between
M ! 0.20 and 0.60 at the same angle of attack. Hence, compress-
ibility has little effect on the aerodynamics. By contrast, compress-
ibility for the NACA 0012-34 affects not only transition and
reattachment but separation, indicating that the location and the
length of the separation bubble moves on the suction side. In
particular at high angles of attack, the flow does not reattach to the
surface at larger Mach number. Therefore, compressibility for the
NACA 0012-34 affects the aerodynamics at high angles of attack
because compressibility especially has an effect on reattachment.
4. Effect of Specific Heat Ratio
Figure 26 shows the effect of specific heat ratio on the lift and drag
characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 model for a constant Mach
number. The Reynolds number was varied from 4.0 × 103 to
3.9 × 104 , and the Mach number was maintained constant at 0.20. As
is the case with the results of the flat plate, the Reynolds-number
difference between the air and CO2 modes is 22.5% in the smallest
Reynolds-number case. Therefore, a precise discussion about the
effect of the difference of the Reynolds number is precluded only for
the smallest Reynolds-number case.
The nonlinear lift curves, including the kink points, and the drag
polars change little between the air and CO2 modes. However, a
difference in the lift coefficient around the stall angle of attack is
found. As seen in the results of the flat plate described in Sec. VI.A.4,
the lift coefficients near the stall angle of attack (α ! 11 deg) for
Re ! 3.9 × 104 and Re ! 1.1 × 104 in the air mode are larger than
those in the CO2 mode. However, only for Re ! 3.9 × 104, the trend
was reversed, and the lift coefficient in the air mode becomes lower
than that in the CO2 mode. As a common trend in each Reynolds
number, the stall angle of attack in the CO2 mode is slightly smaller
than that in the air mode.
As with the conclusion obtained in the flat-plate case, the differ-
ence in specific heat ratio has little effect on the aerodynamic charac-
teristics when the Reynolds number is varied; however, it may affect
the flowfield after stall.
Figure 27 shows the effects of specific heat ratio on the lift and drag
characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 model for a constant Reynolds
number. The Mach number was varied from 0.20 to 0.62, and the
Reynolds number was maintained constant at 1.1 × 104 .
The lift–drag characteristics are well accorded between the air and
CO2 modes except around the stall angle of attack. The maximum lift

0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
Air mode Air mode
0.2 CO2 mode 0.2 CO2 mode
Cl

Cl

0 Re = 3.9 104 0 Re = 3.9 104

4 4
Re = 1.1 10 Re = 1.1 10
0.2 Re = 4.0 10
3 0.2 Re = 4.0 10
3

4 4
Re = 3.8 10 Re = 3.8 10
0.4 4
0.4 4
Re = 1.1 10 Re = 1.1 10
3 3
0.6 Re = 4.9 10 0.6 Re = 4.9 10

10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

[deg] Cd
a) Lift curve b) Drag polar
Fig. 26 Effects of specific heat ratio on aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 for a constant Mach number (M ! 0.20).
 ANYOJI ET AL.
0.8
0.6
0.4
Cl
Air mode
0.2 CO2 mode
M = 0.61
M = 0.48
0 M = 0.20
M = 0.62
M = 0.49
M = 0.20
0.2
10 5 0 5 10 15 20
[deg]
a) Lift curve
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
Fig. 27 Effects of specific heat ratio on aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012-34 for a constant Reynolds number (Re ! 1.1 × 104 ).
at the stall angle of attack in the CO2 case slightly deteriorates for
Mach numbers below 0.49. However, both lift and drag char-
acteristics agree rather well in a wide range of the angles of attack
between the air and CO2 modes for M ! 0.61, although a small
difference is observed at α ! 12 deg and α ! 13 deg. Con-
sequently, effects of specific heat ratio on aerodynamic character-
istics are not large and become smaller as Mach number increases.
Anyoji et al. [33] numerically investigated the flowfield and the
aerodynamic performance of the NACA 0012 at Re ! 23; 000 and
M ! 0.20. Their results showed that the spanwise vortices break up
near the transition point at α ! 9 deg. At the downstream of the
transition point, the flow has strong three-dimensionality, and the
mixing of the separated shear layer is enhanced. Although the Mach
number in the CO2 mode is consistent with that in the air mode, the
flow velocity in the CO2 mode is lower than that in the air mode due to
the difference in sound velocity, and then the Reynolds stress in the
CO2 mode becomes smaller compared with the air mode. Hence, we
consider that the difference in momentum exchange by Reynolds
stress between the air mode and the CO2 mode leads a small
difference in lift coefficients at high angles of attack. In particular, the
transition point exists forward of the maximum thickness point above
α ! 8 deg at M ! 0.20, and then the mixing of the separated shear
layer is enhanced in the large area on the wing. As a result, the
difference in lift is observed at relatively low angles of attack (around
α ! 8 deg). Meanwhile, the effect of compressibility delays the
transition at higher Mach number. In addition to stabilization of the
separated shear layer, an influence region of momentum exchange by
the flow mixing also decreases on the wing and consequently leads
lower effects of specific heat ratio on aerodynamic performance at
higher Mach number.
VII. Conclusions
Aerodynamic characteristics and pressure distributions of a flat
plate with 5% thickness and a NACA 0012-34 airfoil were
investigated in the Mars Wind Tunnel to evaluate the similarity rule
under low-Reynolds-number and high-subsonic-flow conditions.
For the flat plate, the Reynolds number affects the lift-curve slope
and drag characteristics, whereas the Mach number and specific
heat ratio have almost no impact on aerodynamic performance. A
leading-edge separation bubble with a distinguishing low-pressure
region was captured by PSP measurement. In particular, laminar
reattachment without a laminar-to-turbulent transition was observed
only at α ! 0 deg for Re ! 4.9 × 103, indicating that a critical
region where the reattachment state changes exists between Re !
4.9 × 103 and Re ! 1.1 × 104 . Compressibility has an effect of
stabilizing the separated shear layer and delaying transition to
turbulence and reattachment. However, this effect of the
1653
0.8
0.6
0.4
Cl
Air mode
0.2 CO2 mode
M = 0.61
M = 0.48
0 M = 0.20
M = 0.62
M = 0.49
0.2 M = 0.20
25 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Cd
b) Drag polar
compressibility on the flowfields around the flat plate does not
affect aerodynamic performance.
For the NACA 0012-34 airfoil, the effects of Reynolds and Mach
numbers on aerodynamic characteristics become more prominent
compared to the flat plate. The Reynolds-number effect leads to
nonlinear aerodynamic variation such as a steep lift increase caused
by the behavior of the laminar separation bubble. The lift coefficient
rapidly increases at a certain angle of attack where the separated shear
layer reattaches on the model surface, and the laminar separation
bubble forms. By contrast, the Mach-number effect decreases the
lift coefficient at high angles of attack at greater than 7 deg, whereas
lift curves for each Mach number change little with increasing angles
of attack below 6 deg. This trend is ruled out by Prandtl–Glauert rule,
indicating that the Prandtl–Glauert rule is not applicable to such
low-Reynolds-number conditions. In analogy with the flat plate,
the compressibility effect, which delays separation, transition, and
reattachment, was observed. Effects of specific heat ratio on aero-
dynamic characteristics are not large, in particular at angles of attack
before stall, and become smaller as Mach number increases. It is
considered that the difference in high angles of attack where the
mixing of the separated shear layer is enhanced by a strong three-
dimensionality of the flow is due to the difference in momentum
exchange by Reynolds stress between the air mode and the CO2
mode. However, these differences in lift coefficients are small.
Therefore, it can be concluded that specific heat ratio has negligible
effect on aerodynamic performance even when the Reynolds and
Mach numbers change.
Further discussion associated with the flowfield change between
the air and CO2 modes requires detailed pressure distribution
measurement. However, to date, the PSP technique has not yet been
established in the CO2 mode. In addition, unsteady flow phenomena
such as vortex shedding at high angles of attack probably occur on the
model surface. To clarify these flow phenomena, the PSP measure-
ment techniques for the CO2 case and unsteady measurements under
the low-pressure condition are under development.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere thanks to S. Obayashi and T.
Ogawa of Tohoku University for their continuing support to our
study. We would also like to thank M. Okamoto of Kanazawa
Institute of Technology for valuable discussion on low-Reynolds-
number airfoils. We thank also T. Ono, K. Nose, and S. Ida, who
graduated from Tohoku University, for this research. This research
was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
(KAKENHI: 2056081) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency.
 1654 ANYOJI ET AL.
References
[1] Mueller, T. J., Kellogg, J. C., Ifju, P. G., and Shkarayev, S. V.,
Introduction to the Design of Fixed-Wing Micro Air Vehicles: Including
Three Case Studies, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2007, pp. 1–107.
[2] Jacob, J. D., and Smith, S. W., “Design of HALE Aircraft Using
Inflatable Wings,” 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
AIAA Paper 2008-0167, Jan. 2008.
[3] Platzer, M. F., Jones, K. D., Young, J., and Lai, J. C. S., “Flapping Wing
Aerodynamics: Progress and Challenges,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 46, No. 9,
2008, pp. 2136–2149.
doi:10.2514/1.29263
[4] McMasters, J. H., and Henderson, M. L., “Low-Speed Single-Element
Airfoil Synthesis,” Technical Soaring, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1980, pp. 1–21.
[5] Laitone, E. V., “Aerodynamic Lift at Reynolds Numbers Below
7 × 104,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 9, 1996, pp. 1941–1942.
doi:10.2514/3.13329
[6] Schmitz, F. W., “Aerodyamics of the Model Airplane Part 1,” Redstone
Scientific Information Center Rept. 721, Alabama, 1967.
[7] Schmitz, F. W., “The Aerodyamics of Small Reynolds Number,” NASA
TM-51, 1980.
[8] Ohtake, T., Nakae, Y., and Motohashi, T., “Nonlinearity of the
Downloaded by KYUSHU UNIVERSITY OOA on July 20, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J053468
Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA0012 Aerofoil at Low Reynolds
Numbers,” Journal of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space
Sciences, Vol. 55, No. 644, 2007, pp. 439–445.
doi:10.2322/jjsass.55.439
[9] Guynn, M. D., Croom, M. A., Smith, S. C., Parks, R. W., and Gelhausen,
P. A., “Evolution of a Mars Airplane Concept for the ARES Mars Scout
Mission,” 2nd AIAA “Unmanned Unlimited” Conference and
Workshop & Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2003-6578, Sept. 2003.
[10] Braun, R. D., and Spencer, D. A., “Design of the ARES Mars Airplane
and Mission Architecture,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43,
No. 5, 2006, pp. 1026–1034.
doi:10.2514/1.17956
[11] Tanaka, Y., Okabe, Y., Suzuki, H., Nakamura, K., Kubo, D., Tokuhiro,
M., and Rinoie, K., “Conceptual Design of Mars Airplane for
Geographical Exploration,” Journal of the Japan Society for
Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Vol. 54, No. 624, 2006, pp. 24–26.
[12] Oyama, A., and Fuji, K., “A Study on Airfoil Design for Future Mars
Airplane,” 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA
Paper 2006-1484, Jan. 2006.
[13] Drela, M., “Transonic Low-Reynolds Number Airfoils,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1106–1113.
doi:10.2514/3.46292
[14] Anyoji, M., Nose, K., Ida, S., Numata, D., Nagai, H., and Asai, K.,
“Development of a Low-Density Wind Tunnel for Simulating Martian
Atmospheric Flight,” Transactions of the Japan Society for Aerospace
for Aerospace and Space Sciences, Vol. 9, 2011, pp. 21–27.
[15] Anyoji, M., Ida, S., Nose, K., Numata, D., Nagai, H., and Asai, K.,
“Characteristics of the Mars Wind Tunnel at Tohoku University in CO2
Operation Mode,” 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA
Paper 2010-1490, Jan. 2010.
[16] Anyoji, M., Nose, K., Ida, S., Numata, D., Nagai, H., and Asai, K., “Low
Reynolds Number Airfoil Testing in a Mars Wind Tunnel,” 40th Fluid
Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2010-4627, June–
July 2010.
[17] Anyoji, M., Nose, K., Ida, S., Numata, D., Nagai, H., and Asai, K.,
“Aerodynamic Measurements in the Mars Wind Tunnel at Tohoku
University,” 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper
2011-0852, Jan. 2011.
[18] Barlow, J. B., Rae, W. H., Jr., and Pope, A., “Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
Testing,” 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, 1999, p. 375.
[19] Niimi, T., Niimi, T., Yoshida, M., Kondo, M., Oshima, Y., Mori, H.,
Egami, , Asai, K., and Nishide, H., “Application of Pressure-Sensitive
View publication stats
Paints to Low Pressure Range,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2005, pp. 9–16.
doi:10.2514/1.5047
[20] Mori, H., Niimi, T., Hirako, M., and Uenishi, H., “Pressure Sensitive
Paint Suitable to High Knudsen Number Regime,” Measurement
Science and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1242–1246.
doi:10.1088/0957-0233/17/6/S02
[21] Ono, T., “Development of Pressure-Sensitive Paint Technique for
Surface Pressure Measurement in a Mars Wind tunnel,” Proceedings of
the 14th International Symposium on Flow Visualization, Korean Soc.
of Visualization, No. 107, ISFV12-4D-5, 2010.
[22] Rae, W. H., Jr., and Pope, A., Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 2nd ed.,
Wiley, New York, 1984, p. 176.
[23] Mueller, T. J., and Burns, T. F., “Experimental Studies of the Eppler 61
Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers,” 20th Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
AIAA Paper 1982-0598, Jan. 1982.
[24] Gerakopulos, R., Boutilier, M. S. H., and Yarusevych, S., “Aerodynamic
Characterization of a NACA 0018 Airfoil at Low Reynolds Numbers,”
40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2010-4629,
June–July 2010.
[25] Okamoto, M., and Azuma, A., “Aerodynamic Characteristics at Low
Reynolds Numbers for Wings of Various Planforms,” AIAA Journal,
Vol. 49, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1135–1150.
doi:10.2514/1.J050071
[26] Garmann, D. J., and Visbal, M. R., “Dynamics of Revolving Wings for
Various Aspect Ratios,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 748,
June 2014, pp. 932–956.
doi:10.1017/jfm.2014.212
[27] Sasaki, K., and Kiya, M., “Three-Dimensional Vortex Structure in a
Leading-Edge Separation Bubble at Moderate Reynolds Number,”
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 9, 1991, pp. 405–410.
doi:10.1115/1.2909510
[28] Tani, I., Iuchi, M., and Komoda, H., “Experimental Investigation of
Flow Separation Associated with a Step or a Groove,” Aeronautical
Research Inst. Rept. 364, Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1961.
[29] Alam, M. M., Zhou, Y., Yang, H. X., Guo, H., and Mi, J., “The Ultra-
Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Wake,” Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 48,
No. 1, 2010, pp. 81–103.
doi:10.1007/s00348-009-0713-7
[30] Zhou, Y., Alam, M. M., Yang, H. X., Guo, H., and Wood, D. H., “Fluid
Forces on a Very Low Reynolds Number Airfoil and Their Prediction,”
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2011,
pp. 329–339.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2010.07.008
[31] Azuma, A., Okamoto, M., and Yasuda, K., “Aerodynamic Character-
istics of Wing at Low Reynolds Number,” Fixed and Flapping Wing
Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle Applications, edited by Mueller, T.
J., Vol. 195, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Reston,
VA, 2001, pp. 341–398.
[32] Suwa, T., Nose, K., Numata, D., Nagai, H., and Asai, K.,
“Compressibility Effects on Airfoil Aerodynamics at Low Reynolds
Number,” 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Paper
2012-3029, June 2012.
[33] Anyoji, M., Nonomura, T., Aono, H., Oyama, A., Fujii, K., Nagai, H.,
and Asai, K., “Computational and Experimental Analysis of a High-
Performance Airfoil Under Low-Reynolds-Number Flow Condition,”
Journal of Aircraft, 2014 (accepted for publication).
doi:10.2514/1.C032553
F. Coton
Associate Editor