Airfoil Analysis & Comparison - Biplane Forum is likely that blunting the trailing edges of the...
Transcript of Airfoil Analysis & Comparison - Biplane Forum is likely that blunting the trailing edges of the...
Airfoil Analysis & Comparison
Overview
� Airfoil selection
� Airfoil Designations
� Xfoil� Xfoil
� Reynolds Number (aviation’s dirty lie)
� Aerobatic airfoils & geometry
� Data
� Some Thoughts & Summary
Airfoil Selection
� For the purposes of selecting an aerobatic airfoil (and plain old curiosity), several existing airfoils were analyzed using Xfoil:
Munk M6 (flat-wing pitts; S-1C & S-1D)�Munk M6 (flat-wing pitts; S-1C & S-1D)
�NACA 0012 (Pitts lower wing) & 0015
�NACA 63A015 (Pitts upper wing)
�Eppler 472 (Extra, Edge*, MX2*)
�Clark Y (older Pipers, many others)
Airfoil Selection
� In addition, ‘Akro1’ series of airfoils was developed.
� Airfoils in this series consist of elliptical nose section with straight section with straight segments to a blunt trailing edge.
� Geometry is based on appearance of high performance acro airfoils
Airfoil Designations
� NACA 4-digit series:
� 1st #: max camber in
% of chord
� Decathlon uses
NACA 1412
� 1 = 1% camber
� 2nd #: position of max
camber in tenths of
chord
� 3rd/4th #: percentage
of max thickness
� 4 = max chamber @
40% chord
� 12 = 12% thickness
Airfoil Designations
� NACA 6-series- first ‘successful’ laminar flow airfoils
� 1st #: series designation (always 6)
� 2nd #: position of min. pressure in tenths of chord (how far back laminar flow can go)
� Pitts upper wing: 63A015
� 6 = NACA 6-series
� 3 = laminar flow as far back as 30% chord
� A = part of rear airfoil replaced with straight line segment (fabric laminar flow can go)
� Special letters & numbers: don’t ask!
� 3rd #: lift coefficient in tenths at which airfoil was designed for low drag
� 4th/5th #: max thickness in # of chord
with straight line segment (fabric covered aircraft)
� 0 = designed for Cl = 0 (symmetric airfoil)
� 15 = 15% thickness
Airfoil Designations
� Munk M6: Munk’s 6th airfoil?�Max Munk was German immigrant, one of
America’s greatest aerodynamicists of 20’s, 30’s, 40’s. Published a lot of material.30’s, 40’s. Published a lot of material.
� Clark Y: Y name airfoils?�Clark Y is in fact a Göttingen Gö 398
�Clark Y (german airfoil) is the basis for the NACA 4 and 5 digit series. Thank a German.
Airfoil Designations
� Akro1-series
� 1st #: position of max
thickness in %
� 2nd #: max thickness in %
� Best design: Akro1-20-
15-10
� Akro1 = 1st series
� 20 = max thickness is at � 2nd #: max thickness in %
chord
� 3rd #: thickness of blunt
trailing edge in tenths of
% (sorry!)
� 20 = max thickness is at
20% chord
� 15 = 15% max thickness
� 10 = 1% thick trailing
edge
Profiles
Profiles
Akro1-20-15-10
0.3
0.4
0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Series1
Xfoil
� Program used for analysis is Xfoil:� “Panel” code with boundary
layer analysis.
� Generally accurate until just past stall past stall
� (unfortunately, we are interested in post-stall region)
� Analysis is not 100% correct, but comparisons between airfoils are very accurate.
� Xfoil has some design capacity.
� Never use airfoil that hasn’t been tested in a wind tunnel
Reynolds Number (Re)
� Dirty Lie: Airfoils stall at same AoA, properties don’t vary with airspeed.
� Airfoil properties vary with Reynolds number:� CL max, AoAstall increase, CD decreases with increasing Re. L max stall D
� Higher Re is better.
� Re increases linearly with airspeed, decreases with altitude.
� Re = ρVc/µ� ρ: density
� V: velocity
� c: characteristic length (chord, in our case)
� µ: fluid viscosity
Airfoil Data
� Performance calculated at two Reynolds numbers:
�Re = 2,250,000 (3 ft chord near stall speed)�Re = 2,250,000 (3 ft chord near stall speed)
�Re = 10,500,000 (4.5 ft chord near 250 mph)
� Airfoils sometimes grouped into 12% group and 15% group.
Aerobatic Airfoils
� Aerobatic airfoils are (ideally) tailored for low drag at high AoA, instead of low drag at cruise (low AoA)
For unlimited aerobatics, sharp stall is � For unlimited aerobatics, sharp stall is desired. For training and recreation, gradual stall is better.
� Important characteristics for aerobatics are CL vs. AoA, L/D, and CL vs. CD.
Important Airfoil Geometry
� Symmetric
� Forward max thickness increases CL max.
� NACA/Clark Y/M6 airfoils have highest CL max at 12% thickness. thickness.
� More decreases max lift, but improves structural weight.
� A blunt trailing edge keeps stagnation (separation) point attached to trailing edge to much higher AoA than sharp T.E.
� Steeper pressure recovery both increases max lift and sharpens stall.
Cl vs. AoA (classic airfoils)
Cl vs. AoA (Re = 2.25 million)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Cl vs. AoA (Re = 10.5 million)
2
2.5
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA
Cl
Clark Y
Munk M6
NACA 0012
NACA 0015
NACA 63A015
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA
Cl
Clark Y
Munk M6
NACA 0012
NACA 0015
NACA 63A015
Cl vs. AoA (newer airfoils)
Cl vs. AoA (Re = 2.25 million)
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Cl vs. AoA (Re = 10.5 million)
2
2.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AoA
Cl
NACA 0012
Eppler 472
Eppler 472 (mod T.E.)
Akro1-20-15-10
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AoA
Cl
NACA 0012
Eppler 472
Eppler 472 (mod T.E.)
Akro1-20-15-10
L/D vs. AoA (classic airfoils)
L/D vs. AoA (Re = 2.25 million)
120
140
160
L/D vs. AoA (Re = 10.5 million)
120
140
160
180
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA
L/D
Clark Y
Munk M6
NACA 0012
NACA 0015
NACA 63A015
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
AoA
L/D
Clark Y
Munk M6
NACA 0012
NACA 0015
NACA 63A015
L/D vs. AoA (newer airfoils)
L/D vs. AoA (Re = 2.25 million)
100
120
L/D vs. AoA (Re = 10.5 million)
200
250
0
20
40
60
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AoA
L/D
NACA 0012
Eppler 472
Eppler 472 (mod T.E.)
Akro1-20-15-10
0
50
100
150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AoA
L/D
NACA 0012
Eppler 472
Eppler 472 (mod T.E.)
Akro1-20-15-10
Cl vs. Cd (classic airfoils)
Cl vs Cd (Re = 2.25 million)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Cl vs Cd (Re = 10.5 million)
2
2.5
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Cd
Cl
Clark Y
Munk M6
NACA 0012
NACA 0015
NACA 63A015
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Cd
Cl
Clark Y
Munk M6
NACA 0012
NACA 0015
NACA 63A015
Cl vs. Cd (newer airfoils)
Cl vs Cd (Re = 2.25 million)
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Cl vs Cd (Re = 10.5 million)
2
2.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Cd
Cl
NACA 0012
Eppler 472
Eppler 472 (mod T.E.)
Akro1-20-15-10
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Cd
Cl
NACA 0012
Eppler 472
Eppler 472 (mod T.E.)
Akro1-20-15-10
Some thoughts
� We lose a lot of performance with no camber.
� The NACA 0012 and 0015 seem almost identical, and the 0015 seems to have slightly greater lift, going against the general statement that 12% thickness has the greatest lift.greatest lift.
� The Eppler airfoil (without modification) has lower drag at higher AoA and a sharper stall, but not much higher CLmax.
� Adding a blunt trailing edge to the Eppler and Akro1 airfoils resulted in drastic improvements.� It is likely that blunting the trailing edges of the NACA/Munk M6
airfoils would have the same effect.
Some thoughts
� Some of the data associated with the Akro1 looks suspicious. It’s superiority to the other airfoils is possibly bad data.
� The Munk has superior performance to the other classic airfoils at low AoA, agreeing with the general belief that airfoils at low AoA, agreeing with the general belief that the flatwing Pitts climbs and cruises better. At high AoA, there is no appreciable difference with the other airfoils.
� The 63A015 looks lousy. From personal design experience, the 6-series has much lower drag than the 4 and 5 digit series. Explanations could be the low (30%) extent of laminar flow and the modification (63A015)
In Conclusion
� The data largely agreed with existing data and experience.
� There is a good probability of bad data in some places.places.
� Arguments could be made either way about how large/small differences between airfoils are.� That said, I will be using the Eppler 472 with the blunt
trailing edge. To hell with designing an airfoil from scratch.