Szymon Borowski University of Hertfordshire 25/02/2016

Aerodynamics Wind Tunnel

Laboratory Test
Szymon Borowski SRN: 14037348

Content:

Page 0 – Front page and Content.

Page 1 – Introduction and Assumptions

Page 2, 3 – Flow and Pressure Visualization.

Page 4, 5 – Graphs with comments.

Page 5 – Error, conclusion and improvements.

University of Hertfordshire | Aerothermodynamics | February 25, 2016

PG. 0
Szymon Borowski University of Hertfordshire 25/02/2016

Introduction and Assumptions

This report is a description and explanation of carried Wind tunnel experiment using a
Canberra aircraft scaled model. To perform an experiment a CRIM Wind Tunnel was used
along with balance scale and a computer where initial conditions and settings were
introduced. The same computer along with ‘wt41.vxe’ program were used to collect
parameters for the scaled aircraft. Parameters that were recorder are as follows:

 For Constant angle of attack, α°= 8°

 Airspeed (ms-1)
 Lift (N)
 Drag (N)
 Lift Coefficient, CL
 Drag Coefficient, CD

 For Constant Air Speed of 15 ms-1 at 2° angle of attack interval.

 Coefficient of Lift, CL
 Coefficient of Drag, CD
 Lift (N)
 Drag (N)

A report consist a presentation and description of obtained results as well as detailed

explanation of characteristics of the airflow and pressure distribution around an airfoil.
Finally comments on limitations and errors will be drawn that will lead to detailed
description of potential improvements with a conclusion.

A general assumption says that increase in airspeed and angle of attack (not
simultaneously) will have a significant effect on Lift and Drag including a lift & drag
coefficients which are parameters that help to better understand these forces. At this
point an assumption is that with increased airspeed and angle of attack there will be
significant increase in net lift accompanied with small increase in drag up to certain point.
After that point a drag (pressure) force will become large enough so that lift effect will
become less significant and eventually an aircraft will begin to stall. An effective
optimization of angle of attack and other devices is required to maximize lift generation
with drag to be kept as small as possible. However this experiment will only be valid when
Mach and Reynolds number will be kept the same for a real ‘Canberra’ aircraft and its
scaled version model.

PAGE 1
Szymon Borowski University of Hertfordshire 25/02/2016

Flow and Pressure Visualization.

Air flowing around a wing behaves in a different way when either an airspeed is increased
or an angle of attack, α°. Flow over the wing can be categorized in two flow types:

1. Laminar – Nice and smooth flow in parallel layers with no mixing at low velocities.
Accompanied by shear drag.
2. Turbulent – Flow with chaotic orientation of flow with no common flow layers
with very high fluid mixing .Accompanied by foam/pressure drag.

Both flows occur when an air is flowing over the wing and a point where laminar flow
goes into turbulent flow is called a transition point.

The air flow passing over the aircraft surface depend on the aircraft component geometry,
local ambient conditions and flow velocity. All three factors are represented by single,
dimensionless quantity called Reynolds number. Reynolds number is a ratio between
inertial and viscous forces and its value of 3x105 represents a transition point in most
scenarios. Figure 1.0 represents a boundary layer with a transition point above airfoil and
a variation of air velocity along ‘y’ which are caused by viscous effect of air molecules
sticking to airfoil surface.

Figure 1.0

Increase in both speed and angle of attack will result in increase in turbulent/laminar flow
ratio. When there is increase in that ratio and in turn increase of Reynolds number the
transition point moves closer to the leading edge. This results in more pressure drag (High
drag) than a shear drag (low drag) which in turn increase an overall drag force when

PAGE 2
 Szymon Borowski University of Hertfordshire 25/02/2016

compared to lift. This results in an aircraft stalling as mentioned in assumptions. Figure

1.1 and 1.2 represents that change in transition point as a result in change in α°.

Minimum pressure point At low angle of attack the

Laminar flow transition point occurs at
Transition Point
far end of a wing creating
small reversal flow which
in turns leaves a smooth
wake
At high angle of attack
Figure 1.1 turbulent flow causing big
Minimum pressure point
pressure drag due to
Transition Point pressure difference
caused by flow reversal
Looking at the streamlines of flow
we can notice that flow going over the top
wing is much faster. It is represented by
streamlines laying closer together as Figure 1.1
compared to flow over the bottom part of
a wing. This in turn has a significant effect
on the pressure difference and Figure 1.2
distribution which cause wing to produce
lift.

Figure 1.2 shows a pressure distribution around a wing as a result of difference in airflow
speeds around top and bottom
surface. This diagram operates on
Bernoulli’s principle which states that
Figure 1.2 total pressure (called stagnation
pressure) which is a sum of static and
dynamic pressure is equal to
constant. Having that in mind we
know that increase in velocity over
the top wing will result in increase in
dynamic pressure in that region which in turn result in decrease in static pressure due to
conservation of mass and momentum in Bernoulli’s equation. The same process takes place
at the bottom of the wing but in reversed order. There is decrease in dynamic pressure due
to slower airflow and increase in static pressure. That pressure difference creates net
upward force called a lift. Lift has the greatest magnitude over the leading edge of the wing
due to the greatest pressure difference.

PAGE 3
 Szymon Borowski University of Hertfordshire 25/02/2016

Graphs and Comments.

CL/CD vs Wind Speed^2 Drag Coefficient vs Wind

10 Speed
Coefficient Ratio

8 0,01

Drag Coefficient
6 0,008
0,006
4
0,004
2 0,002
0 0
0,00 2,80 37,49 93,78 164,87 251,54 355,70 0 1,672 6,123 9,684 12,84 15,86 18,86
Wind Speed^2 (m/s)^2 Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4

Lift/Drag Ratio vs α° at wind Lift Coefficient vs Wind

spped approx. 15m/s Speed
10 0,06
Lift to Drag ratio

Lift Coefficient

8
6 0,04
4 0,02
2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 1,672 6,123 9,684 12,84 15,86 18,86
Incidence angle, α (°) Wind Speed (m/s)

Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6

Lift and Drag Coefficient vs Figure 1.3 – This figure shows a small positive ratio
between lift and drag coefficient with increasing wind
Incidence Angle speed. Increase in wind speed influences a static
0,06 pressure difference which generates lift and its
0,05 coefficient however the gradient of the line is
Coefficient

0,04
becoming smaller as wind speed is increasing.
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Incidence angle, α°
Figure 1.7
Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient

PAGE 4
 Szymon Borowski University of Hertfordshire 25/02/2016

Figure 1.4 – This graph shows that there is not much change in drag coefficient as wind
speed is increased. This might be due to angle of attack being kept the same thus there is
no significant change in pressure drag. Therefore laminar flow takes place over most of the
wing’s area. There first values on the graph can be treated as error due to uncalibrated
instruments.

Figure 1.5 – This graph shoes that for this type of wing most lift is generated when an angle
of attack is at 8°. In this position there is a highest lift to drag ratio giving most efficient
result. After 8° a turbulent flow creates too much pressure drag that has a negative effect
of the ratio therefore efficiency drops significantly.

Figure 1.6 – This graph shows similar characteristics as figure 1.4. Both drag and lift
coefficients doesn’t change much as a result of increase in wind speed at constant angle of
attack. This might be due to symmetrical shape of a wing therefore no lift or drag is
generated in a leveled flight.

Figure 1.7 – This graph is a good shows that there is more lift generated than drag as a
result of increase in angle of attack. However at the end of the graph we can see that the
difference is becoming smaller which means that after some point drag coefficient will
become greater than lift coefficient and aircraft will begin to stall.

Error, Conclusion and Improvements.

Some of the errors due to uncalibrated instruments within computer program and
unbalanced balance scale had effect on results. Some parts of the graph shows extreme
values especially when wind within a test cell is stationary. On the other hand wind tunnel
experiment requires Mach number, Reynolds number and flow similarity to be kept
constant as well as assuming incompressible flow which is correct for wind speed not
exceeding 56 mph.

Assumption of this experiment states that there will be significant change in lift and drag
as a result change (not simultaneous) in wind speed or angle of attack however results
show that drag and lift is more susceptible for change in angle of attack rather than increase
in wind speed. This might be due to the symmetrical shape of the test wing which does not
produce any drag and lift in a leveled flight unless its angle of attack is changed. On the
other hand there was some errors in reading due to uncalibrated instruments that could
give a false results for some graphs. A General conclusion states that the most efficient way
of generating lift is to keep angle of attack at 8° with a constant wind speed.

Some improvements to wing efficiency would involve use of high lift devices that helps to
slow down a creation of transition point over the top surface. High lift devices use flow
reattachment giving more laminar flow accompanied with higher angle of attack.

PAGE 5