MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

AE341 AERODYNAMICS I

LABORATORY REPORT IV:

MEASUREMENT OF DRAG OF A SYMMETRICAL AIRFOIL

Submitted by:

2397669 / Felemez Hastürk

2037307 / Burak Özdemir

2100535 / Eyüphan Şekeroğlu

2036739 / Özenç Eren Büyükikiz

Assistants : Ezgi Orbay

Battal Gencer

Professor : Prof. Dr. Oğuz Uzol

Asst. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Perçin

ABSTRACT

In this experiment, it is going to be calculated the drag force of a symmetric

airfoil at various angle of attack degrees by using the simple balance system. Then,
it will be used to obtain and plot drag coefficient C_D values with their corresponding
angle of attack values.

1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this experiment is to measure the drag force for various angle of
attack values around the NACA 0012 airfoil which is symmetrical. In the lab session,
the airfoil has been put in the test part, and balanced with a weight. The airflow
adjusted near its maximum, and stagnation pressure, free stream velocity and static
pressure observed, then the dynamic pressure calculated. Drag force of the airfoil has
been calculated by adjusting the weight to get balance for different angle of attacks.
Thus, it has been calculated the 𝐶𝐷 values and the graph plotted against the angle of
attack of airfoil.

Figure 1 Flow Configuration of the NACA 0012 Airfoil

2
 2. THEORY

2.1. What is Kutta condition? Explain briefly its importance for

aerodynamics.
Kutta condition states that, an airfoil with sharp trailing edge creates a Γ value that
makes the flow around the airfoil leave the body smoothly. There are two possibilities
for the trailing edge. Firstly, the trailing edge is a stagnation point for the condition
that the trailing edge angle is finite. Secondly, from the Bernoulli’s equation

1 1
𝑝𝑎 + 𝜌𝑉12 = 𝑝𝑎 + 𝜌𝑉22
2 2

𝑉1 = 𝑉2

where a represents the trailing edge point and V1 and V2 represents top and bottom
surface velocities respectively, we can conclude that the velocities leaving the
bottom and top surfaces are equal for the condition that the trailing edge is cusped.

We have the Equation 4.8 in the Anderson [2]

𝛾 = 𝑢1 − 𝑢2

From the first condition, we have V1=V2 =0, that makes the γ value 0. From the
second condition, we have V1=V2 that also makes the γ value 0. Therefore, we can
conclude that

𝛾(𝑇𝐸 ) = 0

Kutta condition enables us to work on inviscid flows like potential flow but keep the
viscosity’s effect to smoothen the flow to leave the body.

3
 2.2. What is Kelvin’s circulation theorem? Explain briefly its
importance for aerodynamics.
Kelvin’s circulation theorem states that Γ around a closed curve (i.e. an airfoil) does
not change with respect to time. In mathematical words,

𝐷Γ
=0
𝐷𝑡

Figure 2: Resulting circulation from the starting vortex

At the start of the flow, V=0 therefore, the Γ value around the airfoil is also 0 as
seen in Figure 2a. From the Kelvin’s theorem we can conclude that the Γ value is
the same therefore, Γ2 is also 0. From the Figure 2b, we can see that Γ4 value is the
circulation around (abd) and Γ3 value is the circulation around (cbd). We can also
see that Γ2 is the circulation around (abcd). Therefore,

Γ3 + Γ4 = Γ2

We already concluded that already concluded that Γ 2 is 0. As a result,

Γ3 = −Γ4

The circulation around the airfoil is opposite and equal to the circulation of the
starting vortex.

4
 2.3. What is drag? Explain both parasitic drag and induced drag. Is
there a way to estimate the drag coefficient using thin airfoil theory?
Drag is a force to prevent an object from moving. There are two reasons behind this.
First reason is parasitic drag. Parasitic drag is present when the object is moving
through a fluid (i.e. air). It is the combination of skin friction drag and form drag.

Skin friction drag: It is the result from the friction between the fluid and the body.
It is not present when the flow is inviscid, since the flow has no interaction with the
body.

Form drag: It is the drag that results from the body shape and size. Larger cross-
sectional bodies will have higher drag then smaller ones. Therefore, it is crucial to
design the airfoil in such a way that the goal is to minimize drag.

Second reason is induced drag. Induced drag comes from the fact that in the real
world, the wings have finite spans. To this point, we worked on 2D bodies with infinite
span length. Therefore, we did not take into consideration that end of the wings
creates downwash. Downwash is the air that is deflected by the flow around the wing.

5
 Figure 3: Downwash effect and tip vortices

Downwash has a velocity and it is denoted by, ω. Downwash is combined with the
free stream velocity and the total angle of attack is changed.

Figure 4: Effect of the downwash on an airfoil

6
In the Figure 4 we can see that downwash has changed the angle of attack by α i.
This change in angle of attack results in a drag value called, induced drag.

Thin airfoil theory estimates lift and moment coefficients. However, there is no
possible way to calculate drag coefficient.

2.4. Comment on the behavior of the 𝑪𝑫 vs 𝜶 curve and stall

phenomenon. What happens if angle of attack is very large? Can you
predict the stall angle from drag measurements?

Figure 5: Cd vs. angle of attack

We can conclude from the figure that the drag coefficient increases as angle of attack
increases and its lowest value is at α=0. We can also predict stall phenomenon from
the curve as the drag coefficient reaches some value, it becomes unsteady. That value
is stall value. The reason for the cd increase is as the angle of attack increases, the
lift value increases. Therefore, the induced drag will be increased.

7
 3. RESULTS

 Dynamic pressure at inlet with full throttle and half throttle;

𝑞∞ = 𝑃0 − 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐

𝑞∞,𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 = (220 − 168) ∗ 9.80665 = 509.95 𝑃𝑎

𝑞∞,ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 = (194 − 168) ∗ 9.80665 = 254.97 𝑃𝑎

 Density;
𝑃 101900 𝑃𝑎 𝑘𝑔
𝜌= = = 1.191 3
𝑅𝑇 (287.058 𝐽 ) (298𝐾 ) 𝑚
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾

 Incoming air velocities;

2𝑞∞
𝑉∞ = √
𝜌

2∗(509.95 𝑃𝑎) 𝑚 2∗(254.97 𝑃𝑎) 𝑚

𝑉∞ , 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 = √ 𝑘𝑔 = 29.26 , 𝑉∞ , ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 = √ 𝑘𝑔 = 20.69
1.191 3 𝑠 1.191 3 𝑠
𝑚 𝑚

𝑚
29.26
𝑀𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 𝑠 = 0.08452
𝐽
√1.4 ∗ 287.1 ∗ 298.15 𝐾
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾

𝑚
20.69
𝑀ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 = 𝑠 = 0.05977
𝐽
√1.4 ∗ 287.1 ∗ 298.15 𝐾
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾

For both case we dealing with subsonic flight conditions.

8
  Reynolds Numbers;

𝑘𝑔 𝑚
1.191 ∗ 29.26 𝑠 ∗ 0.063 𝑚
𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 𝑚3 = 119514
−6 𝑘𝑔
18.37 ∗ 10 𝑚 ∗ 𝑠

𝑘𝑔 𝑚
1.191 ∗ 20.69 𝑠 ∗ 0.063 𝑚
𝑅𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 = 𝑚3 = 84509
−6 𝑘𝑔
18.37 ∗ 10 𝑚 ∗ 𝑠

Table 1: The results of the calculation for drag coefficients for Re=119514.

𝛼 𝑊𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝐷 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝐷 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

[degrees] [𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠] [N]
0.02645
-8 46 0.245 0.158875416
-6 36 0.147 0.09532525 0.01836
-4 32 0.1078 0.069905183 0.01445
-2 30 0.0882 0.05719515 0.01320
0 28 0.0686 0.044485117 0.01547
2 28 0.0686 0.044485117 0.01320
4 31 0.098 0.063550167 0.01415
6 33 0.1176 0.0762602 0.01836
8 35 0.1372 0.088970233 0.02645
10 38 0.1666 0.108035283 0.04060
12 40 0.1862 0.120745316 0.06652
14 44 0.2254 0.146165383 0.15661
16 48 0.2646 0.17158545 0.17454
18 53 0.3136 0.203360533 0.19372
20 56 0.343 0.222425583 0.21472

9
For the same angle of attack 𝐶𝐷 values for half throttle case is generally higher than
full throttle case. The lower the Reynolds number, the higher the viscous effect and
viscous effect causes skin friction thus drug coefficient will increase. This statement
true only for low angle of attacks where drag mainly caused by skin friction. As angle
of attack increases beyond stall angle pressure force becomes main contributor to
drag.

Table 2: The results of the calculation for drag coefficients for Re= 84509.

𝛼 𝑊𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝐷 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝐷 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

[degrees] [𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠] [N]
0.03121
-8 30 0.0882 0.114393
-6 29 0.0784 0.101682 0.02118
-4 27 0.0588 0.076262 0.01649
-2 25 0.0392 0.050841 0.01604
0 24 0.0294 0.038131 0.01774
2 24 0.0294 0.038131 0.01604
4 26 0.049 0.063551 0.01649
6 27 0.0588 0.076262 0.02118
8 29 0.0784 0.101682 0.03121
10 30 0.0882 0.114393 0.05024
12 33 0.1176 0.152523 0.13724
14 36 0.147 0.190654 0.16766
16 40 0.1862 0.241495 0.19394
18 44 0.2254 0.292336 0.22035
20 47 0.2548 0.330467 0.24537

10
If we analyze the table 1 and table 2 we see that C_D increases as angle of attack
increases as expected. After a certain angle of attack separation will come close to
leading edge and drag will get much bigger. Thus aircraft cannot generate lift and
loose altitude. This critical angle where this phenomenon occur is called stall angle.

𝐶D vs α (full throttle)
0,25

0,2

0,15
𝐶D

0,1

0,05

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

(degree)
Experimental Results Theoretical Results

Figure 6: Drag coefficient calculations at Re=119514

The stall angle is about 12 for Re 119514 and around 10 for Re 84509. This can be
concluded from either steep curve form 𝐶𝐷 𝑣𝑠 𝛼 curve or sharp increase in 𝐶𝐷 form
Table 1 and 2.

11
 𝐶D vs α (half throttle)
0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2
CD

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

(degree)
Experimental Results Theoracal Results

Figure 7: Drag coefficient calculations at Re= 84509

It is clear from both graphs (Figure 6 and Figure 7) that theoretical values taken from
the XFOIL are less then experimental values. The main reason is the XFOIL uses
inviscid solver and it neglects the friction force which is at low angle of attack main
contributor to drag.

12
 4. CONCLUSION

To conclude, we have measured the pressure differences between the upper and the
lower surfaces of the airfoil in order to reach drag force. Firstly, while we have
changed the angle of attack at full and half throttle level. It is observed that at the
same angle of attack, drag coefficient for the half throttle case is mostly higher than
the full throttle case because of the higher viscous effect.

13
 5. REFERENCES
[Figure 1]: Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Flow Around an Airfoil and a Circular
Cylinder, Omer Halisdemir University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2017.

[2] J.D. Anderson Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1984.

[3] Downwash Behind an Airfoil. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Fluids/downwash.html.

[4] J.D. Anderson Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1984.

[5] TY - JOUR

AU - Wisnoe, Wirachman

AU - Mohd Ali, Zurriati

AU - Mohamad, Firdaus

AU - Fazira, R

AU - Nasir, Rizal

AU - Kuntjoro, Wahyu

PY - 2010/12/01

SP -

T1 - Experimental investigation of center elevator deflection on aerodynamics of

UiTM's Baseline-I Blended Wing Body (BWB) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

DO - 10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773694

14
15