Aero 307-02 - Lab 2 Survey of a NACA-4412 Airfoil

Chris D. Rasmussen and Mathew L. Thomas California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93410 February 10, 2010

1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The objective of this report is to present the results from a wind tunnel test of a NACA-4412 airfoil. The goal of the experiment is to measure C p, Cd, and Cl. To do this a model of the NACA-4412 airfoil with a 10" chord is placed along the width of Cal Poly's 3ft x 4ft low speed wind tunnel. At a speed of 20m/s, C p values were taken at angles of attack of 0, 8, 16, and 25 degrees. Then Cd and Cl values were calculated based on that data.

Nomenclature
Cd Cl Cp c d di l li P P Pi q Re Si U i = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=

drag coefficient per unit span, lift coefficient per unit span, pressure coefficient, airfoil chord drag per unit span drag at panel i lift per unit span length of panel i pressure free stream static pressure pressure at panel i free stream dynamic pressure Reynolds number, panel length free stream velocity angle between pressure and lift vector of panel i

I.

Introduction

he purpose of this report is to find Cp, Cd, and Cl of a NACA-4412 airfoil. To do this a scale model with a 10"

chord is mounted across the test section of the wind tunnel with a rake of 20 pitot tubes positioned behind the airfoil. These measure the velocity distribution of the wake flow behind the airfoil. In addition, 20 pressure ports mounted on the center plane of the airfoil measure the pressure distribution on the upper and lower surfaces. The 4412 in the airfoil name represents the airfoil shape. The first 4 is the max camber in (1/100)*c, the second 4 is the location of max camber in (1/10)*c and the 12 is the max thickness in (1/100)*c. So, the airfoil has 0.04c max camber at 0.4c, with a max thickness of 0.12c. The reason for doing this test was to find the lift and drag, including the pressure and profile drag. Lift and drag values were found at angles of attack of 0, 8, 16, and 25 degrees. The results show no separation occurs at 0 and 8 degrees, some separation at 16 degrees, and complete separation along the upper surface at 25 degrees. This trend can be seen in the images below.

Figure 1: Water tunnel flow visualization

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The airfoil lift below stall is primarily dependent on surface pressure, which in turn depends on airfoil shape, angle of attack, and Reynolds number. The airfoil lift produced by skin friction is negligible. To do the analysis on the airfoil, a panel method is used. The C p is applied to the panel method to find the lift coefficient and pressure drag coefficient. Also, the momentum method is used to find the total drag coefficient and the skin friction coefficient. In the panel method, the airfoil surface is conceptually replaced by panels. Then vortices, sources, or sinks on the panels are adjusted until the airfoil surface becomes a streamline and the Kutta conditions are satisfied. Then, you have the surface Cp and this in turn gives you lift and pressure drag.

II.

Analysis

In order to calculate the drag and lift of the airfoil due to pressure forces using the panel method, the pressure coefficients from the wind tunnel data are used. The formula used to calculate drag on the airfoil from the pressure coefficient data is: Where Cd is the drag coefficient, Pi is the pressure on panel i, P is the free stream static pressure, q is the free stream dynamic pressure, si is the length of panel I, c is the chord length, and i is the angle from the normal to the airfoil surface to the lift vector of the airfoil. The lift vector of the airfoil is perpendicular to the free stream velocity vector pointing in the upward direction. In order to calculate the lift coefficient of the airfoil, the pressure coefficients from the wind tunnel test are used along with the following formula: The lift coefficient equation used is very similar to the drag calculation except that the cosine of the angle between the lift vector and surface normal is taken. However, the equation can be simplified by noticing that . Then Cp can be used to simplify the drag and lift coefficient calculations. ( )

In order to calculate the total drag on the airfoil, the rake data is used along with the momentum method. The momentum method drag calculation will include both the pressure drag and viscous drag of the airfoil. In order to calculate the drag on the airfoil conservation of momentum is used as follows:

Where qi is the dynamic pressure at port i, q is the free stream dynamic pressure, y is the distance between rake pressure sensors, and c is the chord length of the airfoil. The panel construction figure used is shown on the next page. The normal to the airfoil surface at panel 1 is labeled P1. The angle is taken from the normal to the chord and then we used i = (90o the measured angle) to find the angle between the surface normal and the lift vector for an angle of attack of 0. When the angle of attack was not zero, the angle of attack was added to i.

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

III.

Apparatus and Procedures

The procedure for this experiment starts with documenting and checking all of the test equipment. Once the equipment has been checked, the wind tunnel is set to a speed of 20 m/s. This is done with a speed controller made by Square D(model #altivar) and an incline manometer made by Meriam(model #40HE35). The least significant reading (LSR) for the manometer was 1mm and the tare reading is zero. The next step is to level the airfoil and then rotate it until the leading edge pressure port is at the stagnation point. Once the stagnation point is found, the airfoil is set to zero angle of attack. Also, a rake of pitot tubes is mounted roughly in the center of the wake flow. For zero angle of attack, pressure values are recorded for both the airfoil and the rake. Then the airfoil is adjusted to angles of 8, 16, and 25 degrees and surface pressure around the airfoil, and the pressure readings for the rake are recorded.

IV.

Results and Discussion

Figure 2 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution along the wing at an angle of attack of 0 degrees from our wind tunnel test data. The top line is the pressure coefficient distribution on the top of the wing. The bottom curve is the pressure coefficient distribution along the bottom of the wing.

Figure 2: Pressure coefficient distribution at 0 degree angle of attack The Cp axes on Figure 2 have the negative values on the upper portion so that the upper curve will represent the upper surface of the wing. We can see that there are not any flat areas on the graph, which indicates that there is no separation of the boundary layer. Figure 3 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution for an angle of attack of 0 degrees from the CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) data.

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 3: Pressure coefficient distribution from CFD data

From Figure 3 the graph is a similar shape, and the trends are the same. The stagnation point is still at the leading edge of the airfoil and the pressure coefficient at the trailing edge is 0.2. There are no signs of stagnation because there are no regions of flat Cp. Figure 4 below is a picture taken of the water tunnel flow visualization at an angle of attack of 0 degrees.

Figure 4: Water tunnel flow visualization at 0 degrees angle of attack Figure 4 clearly shows that there is no boundary layer separation because the red dye follows the surface smoothly over the entire wing. Comparing this with the pressure coefficient plots leads us to conclude that there is no boundary layer separation at an angle of attack of 0 degrees. Figure 5 below shows the CFD velocity distribution in the flow around the airfoil.

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 5: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 0 degrees angle of attack from CFD data

It can clearly be seen in Figure 5 that the velocity is higher along the upper surface of the wing, represented by the redder colors. Also there is a velocity defect area directly behind the airfoil represented by the green and blue colors coming off the trailing edge. The velocity defect region is small. Figure 6 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution from our wind tunnel test data at an angle of attack of 8 degrees. Again, the top curve corresponds to the top surface of the wing, and the bottom curve corresponds to the bottom surface of the wing.

Figure 6: Pressure coefficient distribution at angle of attack of 8 degrees Figure 6 indicates that there is no boundary layer separation due to the fact that there are no flat areas of pressure coefficient that would indicate separation. Also the top surface of the wing has much more negative pressure coefficients than at 0 degrees angle of attack, which leads us to believe that more lift is being produced 6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

because there is a larger pressure difference between the top and bottom of the wing. We can also see that the stagnation point is very near the leading edge, if possibly a bit back on the lower surface of the wing. Figure 7 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution along the wing at an angle of attack of 8 degrees from the CFD data.

Figure 7: Pressure coefficient distribution at 8 degrees angle of attack from CFD data From Figure 7 we can see that the stagnation point is indeed on the underside of the wing very near the . There are no flat areas of Cp which indicates that there is no boundary layer separation. Figure 8 below shows the water tunnel flow visualization at 8 degrees angle of attack.

front, at

Figure 8: Water tunnel flow visualization at angle of attack of 8 degrees

In Figure 8 the flow is clearly turbulent. However the flow does not separate from the surface of the wing leading to the conclusion that the boundary layer stays attached over the entire wing. Figure 9 below shows the velocity distribution around the airfoil from CFD data at 8 degrees angle of attack. 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 9: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 8 degrees angle of attack from CFD Data

Along the upper surface of the wing, especially near the leading edge, the velocity is higher which leads to a lower pressure due to Bernoullis principle. Also there is again a velocity defect area directly behind the trailing edge of the airfoil represented by the blue region. This velocity defect area is also rather small. Figure10 below shows for the wake flow data taken by the rake.

AoA 8 degrees
1.04 1.02 1 0.98 0.96 sqrt(q/q_inf) 0.94 0.92 0.9 0.88 0.86 0 5 10 15 20 25 Pitot tube
Figure 10: Wake flow velocity profile from experimental data at 8 degrees angle of attack

Figure 10 clearly shows that there is a velocity defect region behind the airfoil centered at the 14 th pitot tube in the wake array. This velocity defect area indicates that the airfoil is producing drag. Figure 11 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at an angle of attack of 16 degrees from our wind tunnel test data.

8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 11: Pressure coefficient distribution at angle of attack of 16 degrees

The stagnation point has moved from the front to slightly back and on the underside of the wing and is slightly further back than where it was at 8 degree angle of attack. Also there is a clear area of flat Cp starting at about and continuing to the trailing edge. Clearly the boundary layer has separated and we have a stagnant region near the trailing edge of the wing. Figure 12 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at an angle of attack of 16 degrees from the CFD data.

Figure 12: Pressure coefficient at 16 degree angle of attack from CFD data

Clearly there is a region of flat pressure coefficient which means that there is stagnation and boundary layer separation. This region starts at around x/c = 0.5 and continues until the trailing edge. At the leading edge the boundary layer is still attached. Also the stagnation point has moved back to . Figure 13 below shows the water tunnel flow visualization at an angle of attack of 16 degrees.

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 13: Water tunnel flow visualization at 16 degree angle of attack

Figure 13 clearly shows that there is boundary layer separation which seems to occur around the midpoint of the airfoil. The transition to turbulent flow has also moved further towards the leading edge. Figure 14 below shows the velocity distribution around the airfoil at 16 degrees angle of attack.

Figure 14: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 16 degrees angle of attack from CFD data

Figure 14 shows that there is once again higher velocities along the upper surface, although they are now concentrated along the leading edge of the airfoil. The separated region is clearly visible due to the low velocity of the stagnant flow which is shown by the blue region on the back of the upper surface of the airfoil. Also the velocity 10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

defect area following the trailing edge is significantly larger than at either 0 or 8 degrees angle of attack, leading to the conclusion that there is more drag on the airfoil at 16 degrees angle of attack because more momentum is being lost. Figure 15 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack from our wind tunnel test data.

Figure 15: Pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack

Figure 15 clearly shows that there is leading edge boundary layer separation because the entire wing has a flat Cp distribution which indicates a stagnation region. Figure 16 below shows the pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack from the CFD data.

Figure 16: Pressure coefficient distribution at 25 degree angle of attack from CFD data

Figure 16 is not nearly as smooth as our wind tunnel test data. The reason could be that the iteration scheme did not converge to a value for either lift or drag and the algorithm could be having trouble with the flow field from leading edge separation. Figure 17 below shows the water tunnel flow visualization at 25 degree angle of attack. 11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 17: Water tunnel flow visualization at 25 degree angle of attack

Figure 17 clearly shows that there is leading edge boundary layer separation and that some of the flow from the lower surface is being sucked onto the upper surface. Figure 18 below shows the velocity distribution around the airfoil at 25 degrees angle of attack.

Figure 18: Velocity distribution around airfoil at 25 degrees angle of attack from CFD data

Figure 18 clearly shows that there is leading edge separation when the angle of attack is 25 degrees. The velocity defect region coming off the trailing edge is also much larger than the 16 degree angle of attack airfoil meaning that even more drag is produced. Also there is a lot of slow moving flow along the upper surface of the airfoil which means that not much lift is being produced compared to the lower angles of attack. 12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

At 8 degrees angle of attack, the lift coefficient was and the pressure drag (form drag) coefficient was the profile drag coefficient from the rake data calculations was these results indicate that the airfoil has not stalled. The momentum data is not needed for the lift coefficient because lift is negligibly affected by viscous forces. The difference between the profile drag coefficient and the form drag coefficient is the viscous drag coefficient or skin friction drag. At 25 degrees angle of attack the lift coefficient was and the pressure drag coefficient was . It is clear that at 25 degrees angle of attack the airfoil is in post stall because the lift coefficient has dropped dramatically because the flow has separated. Also the drag coefficient has increased dramatically due to the large separated region. However, there is a fair amount of experimental uncertainty in our calculations due to the number of pressure ports on the wing and in the wake region. Also the readings from the pressure ports and pitot tubes are not perfect so the experimental uncertainty must be accounted for. The calculated experimental error for the pressure coefficient was 0.38% and the calculated experimental uncertainty for the lift coefficient was at 8 degrees angle of attack and for 25 degrees angle of attack. V.

Conclusion

A 10 inch NACA 4412 airfoil was surveyed in the Cal Poly low speed wind tunnel. Pressure ports on the airfoil surfaced were connected to a scanivalve apparatus to record the pressure at 20 different locations along the airfoil. Also a rake of pitot tubes was placed behind the airfoil to measure the wake flow properties to allow for the calculation of the profile drag of the airfoil. When the airfoil was at low angles of attack, there was no boundary layer separation along the wing and the velocity defect area behind the wing was small. At an angle of attack of 16 degrees, there was boundary layer separation at which led to a stagnation area on the back half of the wing and a significantly larger velocity defect area in the wake. At the final angle of attack of 25 degrees, there is leading edge separation and a stagnation area along the entire airfoil. There is also a large velocity defect area in the wake. From the data gathered from the surface pressure ports and the wake rake the lift and drag coefficients of the airfoil can be calculated. At 8 degrees angle of attack, the lift coefficient is high and the drag coefficient is low compared to the airfoil at 25 degrees angle of attack which has a much smaller lift coefficient and a much larger drag coefficient. These differences indicate that at 25 degrees the airfoil is post stall while the airfoil at 8 degrees has not stalled.

References
1

Tso, Jin. Experimental Aerodynamics. San Luis Obispo: Aerospace Engineering Department, Cal Poly, 2009. Print. Tso, Jin. "Lab 2: Survey of a NACA-4412 Airfoil" Aero 307 Class Lecture. San Luis Obispo. 1 Feb. 2010. Lecture

13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Appendix
0 degrees angle of attack 8 degrees angle of attack 16 degrees angle of attack
Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp 1 -0.21809 0.000589 -5.23542 2 -0.23258 0.00065 -5.66712 3 -0.22163 0.000713 -5.3408 4 -0.20147 0.000737 -4.73986 5 -0.19705 0.00046 -4.60807 6 -0.19351 0.000552 -4.50272 7 -0.12417 0.000498 -2.4358 8 -0.09985 0.000763 -1.71104 9 -0.08711 0.00042 -1.33139 10 -0.06495 0.000308 -0.67069 11 -0.06233 0.000119 -0.59276 12 -0.06232 0.000126 -0.59256 13 -0.04618 7.22E-05 -0.11149 14 -0.03561 5.42E-05 0.203665 15 -0.02995 5.40E-05 0.372309 16 -0.02424 4.85E-05 0.542519 17 -0.01663 4.57E-05 0.769341 18 -0.01001 4.56E-05 0.966822 19 -0.01149 7.76E-05 0.922505 20 -0.03257 0.000178 0.294405 21 -0.01819 0.001085 0.722937 22 -0.01909 0.001092 0.696112 23 -0.01994 0.001062 0.670814 24 -0.02065 0.001043 0.649633 25 -0.0212 0.00101 0.633221 26 -0.02202 0.000924 0.608744 27 -0.02249 0.000852 0.594828 28 -0.02285 0.00074 0.584042 29 -0.02294 0.000639 0.58121 30 -0.02285 0.00053 0.583856 31 -0.02259 0.000409 0.591661 32 -0.02211 0.000405 0.606098 33 -0.021 0.000458 0.639276 34 -0.02056 0.000492 0.652279 35 -0.01906 0.0006 0.696894 36 -0.01794 0.000603 0.730426 37 -0.01703 0.000648 0.757549 38 -0.01557 0.000659 0.801028 39 -0.01419 0.000631 0.842234 40 -0.01309 0.00064 0.874779 41 -0.00889 9.35E-05 -5.23542 42 -0.04244 9.26E-05

Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp 1 -0.01024 0.010058 0.960541 1 -0.09356 0.000339 -1.4948 2 -0.01566 0.009316 0.806978 2 -0.13019 0.000487 -2.57574 3 -0.02604 0.00866 0.512527 3 -0.13931 0.000326 -2.84513 4 -0.04355 0.00763 0.016119 4 -0.15063 0.000298 -3.179 5 -0.05029 0.007107 -0.17492 5 -0.14383 0.00027 -2.97839 6 -0.05897 0.006146 -0.42102 6 -0.12597 0.000191 -2.45135 7 -0.06725 0.003447 -0.65577 7 -0.11439 0.000134 -2.1097 8 -0.07307 0.002248 -0.82073 8 -0.10463 0.00011 -1.82166 9 -0.07331 0.00163 -0.82755 9 -0.09517 0.000111 -1.54228 10 -0.06878 0.00112 -0.69894 10 -0.08129 8.04E-05 -1.13262 11 -0.06388 0.000881 -0.5602 11 -0.06984 7.70E-05 -0.79499 12 -0.04841 0.000553 -0.12146 12 -0.04753 6.55E-05 -0.13644 13 -0.04016 0.000262 0.112419 13 -0.03916 4.72E-05 0.110501 14 -0.04236 0.000482 0.049876 14 -0.03594 5.51E-05 0.205731 15 -0.04238 0.001044 0.049409 15 -0.033 5.83E-05 0.292477 16 -0.04908 0.001583 -0.14052 16 -0.03121 7.40E-05 0.3451 17 -0.05455 0.002881 -0.29574 17 -0.02637 6.96E-05 0.488121 18 -0.05759 0.003834 -0.38169 18 -0.01927 8.20E-05 0.697432 19 -0.05317 0.005811 -0.25654 19 -0.00876 5.84E-05 1.007599 20 -0.04616 0.00735 -0.05786 20 -0.00965 3.67E-05 0.981555 21 -0.00857 0.001014 1.007808 21 -0.00796 3.92E-05 1.031227 22 -0.00954 0.001062 0.980247 22 -0.00804 4.01E-05 1.028921 23 -0.01122 0.000945 0.932858 23 -0.00814 3.77E-05 1.026007 24 -0.01324 0.000791 0.875431 24 -0.00813 4.12E-05 1.026358 25 -0.01434 0.000834 0.84434 25 -0.00791 4.57E-05 1.03285 26 -0.01389 0.000965 0.857141 26 -0.00803 4.55E-05 1.029161 27 -0.01165 0.000974 0.920674 27 -0.00811 4.22E-05 1.026911 28 -0.00929 0.000782 0.987587 28 -0.00869 5.17E-05 1.009739 29 -0.00818 0.000693 1.019006 29 -0.00989 5.37E-05 0.97438 30 -0.00812 0.000675 1.02049 30 -0.01212 6.74E-05 0.908477 31 -0.00807 0.000672 1.022125 31 -0.01466 7.86E-05 0.833665 32 -0.00809 0.000645 1.021469 32 -0.01657 8.59E-05 0.777169 33 -0.00776 0.0006 1.030792 33 -0.01663 6.46E-05 0.77549 34 -0.00818 0.000553 1.018814 34 -0.0158 7.33E-05 0.800003 35 -0.00793 0.000513 1.025994 35 -0.01278 7.99E-05 0.888944 36 -0.00775 0.000446 1.031062 36 -0.01027 8.37E-05 0.963092 37 -0.008 0.000387 1.023936 37 -0.00891 6.72E-05 1.003265 38 -0.00785 0.000332 1.028202 38 -0.00802 5.44E-05 1.029659 39 -0.00793 0.000263 1.026092 39 -0.00785 4.96E-05 1.034492 40 -0.00783 0.000215 1.028973 40 -0.00785 5.74E-05 1.034473 41 -0.00885 0.000123 0.960541 41 -0.00902 6.52E-05 -1.4948 42 -0.04412 0.00013 42 -0.04291 7.10E-05

14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

25 degrees angle of attack Port_Num p_avg p_std Cp 1 -0.0901 0.000234 -1.47709 2 -0.08122 0.000262 -1.20728 3 -0.07753 0.00023 -1.09507 4 -0.07736 0.000227 -1.08975 5 -0.07779 0.000206 -1.10286 6 -0.07761 0.000222 -1.09739 7 -0.07717 0.000225 -1.08416 8 -0.07669 0.000229 -1.06959 9 -0.07681 0.000216 -1.07328 10 -0.07715 0.000232 -1.08359 11 -0.07742 0.000236 -1.09159 12 -0.07705 0.000207 -1.08053 13 -0.0548 8.48E-05 -0.40383 14 -0.03932 6.69E-05 0.066543 15 -0.03181 8.02E-05 0.294891 16 -0.02514 7.03E-05 0.49789 17 -0.01784 7.42E-05 0.719739 18 -0.01143 7.35E-05 0.914776 19 -0.00805 6.01E-05 1.01752 20 -0.01572 6.27E-05 0.784156 21 -0.07375 0.000643 -0.98022 22 -0.07358 0.000645 -0.97502 23 -0.07374 0.000646 -0.97982 24 -0.07381 0.000683 -0.98193 25 -0.07347 0.0007 -0.97148 26 -0.07338 0.000752 -0.96886 27 -0.07325 0.000784 -0.965 28 -0.0725 0.000844 -0.94199 29 -0.07177 0.000874 -0.91983 30 -0.07077 0.000907 -0.88956 31 -0.06946 0.000944 -0.84958 32 -0.06775 0.000986 -0.79782 33 -0.06562 0.000966 -0.73293 34 -0.06355 0.001021 -0.66998 35 -0.06034 0.001124 -0.57229 36 -0.0579 0.001028 -0.49822 37 -0.0551 0.000994 -0.41294 38 -0.05198 0.000922 -0.31834 39 -0.04837 0.000885 -0.20834 40 -0.04485 0.000895 -0.10142 41 -0.00862 0.000149 -1.47709 42 -0.04151 8.05E-05

15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

8 degrees angle of attack processed data

theta(measured) theta(total) panel mid panel length Cl Cd Cl/Cd signs 15 1.44862328 0.001 0.0005 -9.10853E-05 0.000742 37 1.06465084 0.0035 0.0025 -0.00312186 0.005632 43 0.95993109 0.009 0.0055 -0.008975437 0.012818 53 0.78539816 0.017 0.008 -0.017983114 0.017983 58 0.6981317 0.034 0.017 -0.038786846 0.032546 64 0.59341195 0.0735 0.0395 -0.080274291 0.054146 77 0.36651914 0.15 0.0765 -0.150672216 0.057838 86 0.20943951 0.25 0.1 -0.178185531 0.037875 92 0.10471976 0.375 0.125 -0.191728908 0.020152 96 0.03490659 0.525 0.15 -0.169789747 0.005929 101 -0.0523599 0.75 0.225 -0.178627618 0.009361 106 -0.1396263 0.9 0.15 -0.020266505 0.002848 89 0.15707963 0.75 0.15 0.016371052 0.002593 89 0.15707963 0.5 0.25 0.050799567 0.008046 88 0.17453293 0.3 0.2 0.05760671 0.010158 89 0.15707963 0.15 0.15 0.051127668 0.008098 92 0.10471976 0.076 0.074 0.035923053 0.003776 98 0 0.036 0.04 0.027897277 0 127 -0.5061455 0.015 0.021 0.018506589 0.010258 141 -0.7504916 0.005 0.01 0.00717864 0.006694 q q_inf rake span Cd_i 0.0349465 0.03388494 0.1336842 0.004875154 15 23 0.034868375 0.006034734 37 45 0.034769625 0.007498563 43 51 0.0347815 0.007322645 53 61 0.0350015 0.004058025 58 66 0.0348765 0.005914199 64 72 0.03480025 0.007044816 77 85 0.034218375 0.015631092 86 94 0.03302025 0.03307265 92 100 0.030787125 0.064671424 96 104 0.028252125 0.098963447 101 109 0.02633775 0.123614673 106 114 0.026280875 0.12432929 89 81 0.0271115 0.113788796 89 81 0.03012525 0.073794503 88 80 0.03263775 0.038571106 89 81 0.033999 0.018848885 92 84 0.034893375 0.005663811 98 90 0.035057125 0.003230951 127 119 0.0350565 0.003240248 141 133 total 0.059201621 port/c 0 0.002 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.047 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.052 0.02 0.01 Cl_total Cd_total 1.303914 0.173123

16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

25 degrees angle of attack processed data

theta(measured) theta(total) panel mid panel length Cl Cd Cl/Cd signs port/c 15 40 0.001 0.0005 0.000475 -0.00057 0 37 62 0.0035 0.0025 0.002665 -0.00142 0.002 43 68 0.009 0.0055 0.005584 -0.00226 0.005 53 78 0.017 0.008 0.008527 -0.00181 0.013 58 83 0.034 0.017 0.018609 -0.00228 0.021 64 89 0.0735 0.0395 0.04334 -0.00076 0.047 77 102 0.15 0.0765 0.081126 0.017244 0.1 86 111 0.25 0.1 0.099855 0.038331 0.2 92 117 0.375 0.125 0.119537 0.060907 0.3 96 121 0.525 0.15 0.139323 0.083714 0.45 101 126 0.75 0.225 0.198702 0.144365 0.6 106 131 0.9 0.15 0.122323 0.106334 0.9 89 64 0.75 0.15 0.054444 -0.02655 0.9 89 64 0.5 0.25 0.014952 0.007293 0.6 88 63 0.3 0.2 0.05255 0.026776 0.4 89 64 0.15 0.15 0.067125 0.032739 0.2 92 67 0.076 0.074 0.049027 0.020811 0.1 98 73 0.036 0.04 0.034992 0.010698 0.052 127 102 0.015 0.021 0.020901 -0.00444 0.02 141 116 0.005 0.01 0.007048 -0.00344 0.01

Cl Cd

0.539027 0.505683

17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics