Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
An analytic study is conducted to determine the impact of aspect ratio on the efficiency of a wing at low Reynolds
numbers. Viscous effects in terms of airfoil sectional behavior are simulated. The behavior of two airfoils is
experimentally examined to extract parameters required for simulation. The analysis indicates that without the
inclusion of airfoil pressure drag, wing efficiency increases essentially unbounded with aspect ratio. However,
incorporating airfoil efficiency leads to the appearance of distinct peaks in plots of the range and endurance
parameters. Low airfoil efficiency is seen to favor moderate wing aspect ratios so as to minimize the sectional pressuredrag penalty.
Nomenclature
AR
b
CD
Cd
CDo
C Do
=
=
=
=
=
=
Cdo
CL
Cl
CL
Cl
c
D
e
Kp
k
L
max
n
q
S
U
W
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
aspect ratio
wingspan
finite-wing drag coefficient
sectional drag coefficient
finite-wing zero-lift drag coefficient
finite-wing zero-lift drag coefficient based
on integrated chord
sectional zero-lift drag coefficient
finite-wing lift coefficient
sectional lift coefficient
finite-wing lift-curve slope
sectional lift-curve slope
chord
drag
span or Oswald efficiency factor
slope of linearized drag polar, airfoil
constant
lift
maximum
exponent
dynamic pressure
planform area
flight velocity
weight
exponent, angle of attack
attainable leading-edge suction
taper ratio
viscosity
density
nondimensional spanwise coordinate
=
=
=
=
=
=
tip
Introduction
Subscripts
ave
i
max
md
r
ref
average
inviscid
maximum
minimum drag
root
reference
Formulation
For a symmetrical or moderately cambered airfoil section, the drag
polar for an untwisted finite wing may be expressed as
626
627
TRAUB
CD CDo
C2L
ARe
(1)
CD CDo
C2L
CDo
ARe
AR
C2L
1
ei 1ARCL
(10)
The attainable leading-edge suction is the ratio of the actual leadingedge suction divided by the maximum attainable, and may be
estimated as (using a small angle approximation) [2]
Leading-Edge Suction
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
2b
cr 1
(2)
cr 1
bAR
2
CLLD max
8
>
>
<
(13)
CLC32 CD max
which integrates to
CDo
8
>
>
>
<
9 2
4
>
>
>
1
=
CL
q
>
>
2W
>
>
1
>
k
: AR 3 >
;
by
ARei
(14)
(8)
(15)
>
>
;
(6)
(7)
9 1
>22
>
1 =
q
>
ei AR
CL
2W
>
1
:k AR
12
ct < cr
2
AR
(5)
U c1
c1
t
r
C Do k
1ct cr
(11)
1
2
AR
(4)
Cl
AR
1
C2L
(12)
CD k@
CL AR
ARei
CL
(3)
U cave
CDo kRe k
Cl
AR
2
s
1
s
C2L
B1 2W C
CD k@
A KpC2L
CL AR
ARei
0
(9)
(16)
628
TRAUB
2
CLLD max
6
6
6
4
1
22
7
Kp
q 7
7
5
1 2 k 1 2W
AR
1
ARei
(17)
which for a given aspect ratio yields the CL to fly at LD max.
Similarly, the CL for C32
L CD )max may be estimated as
CLC32 CD max
L
82
2
94
3
>
>
>
<
=
2
1
7 Kp
6
4 q
5
>
2
2ARe
2W
i >
>
;
: k 1 AR 3
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
(18)
Equations (17) and (18) in conjunction with Eq. (16) allow the
estimation of LD)max or C32
L CD )max.
Generally, Kp may be estimated more conveniently than as it is a
more familiar term in the community. As such, the relationship of
and Kp is of interest.
The sectional drag coefficient may be written as [2]
Cd Cdo Cl 1
(19)
Kp 1 Cl 1 2
(20)
Airfoil Characterization
ClarkY airfoil
0.40
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Cl 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Cl 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Cl 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0.30
Re = 200k
Re = 225k
Cd 0.20
0.10
0.00
0.4
0.3
Re = 125k
Re = 150k
Cd 0.2
Re = 175k
0.1
0.0
0.4
Re = 40k
Re = 75k
0.3
Re =100k
Cd 0.2
Laminar Separation
-5
10
, deg
15
0.1
20
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.8
Cl
1.2
1.6
629
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
TRAUB
Clmax 1.2
Evaluation
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.20
0.15
Kp 0.10
0.05
0.00
0.12
0.09
Cl 0.06
0.03
ClarkY airfoil
0.00
0.12
0.09
Xfoil
Turbulent BL
Cdmin 0.06
Laminar BL
Curves shifted
to coincide
with expt. data at
Re = 225,000
0.03
Cdmin= 90.250 Re -0.718
0.00
Fig. 2
50000
100000
150000
Re
200000
250000
630
TRAUB
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
SD7062 airfoil
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Cl 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Cl 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
0.30
0.25
0.20
Cd 0.15
Re = 150k
0.10
Re = 200k
0.05
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.20
Cd 0.15
Re = 75k
-5
10
, deg
Re = 100k
0.10
Re = 125k
0.05
15
20
0.00
0.0
0.4
0.8
Cl
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.05
0.04
0.03
Kp
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.12
0.09
Cl 0.06
0.03
SD7062 airfoil
0.00
0.09
Cdmin= 2312 Re -0.957
0.06
Experimental Data
Cdmin
Xfoil
0.03
0.00
0
Fig. 4
50000
100000 150000
Re
200000
250000
631
TRAUB
300000
300000
L/D
250000
250000
200000
3/2
300000
/CD
300000
L/D
250000
250000
200000
200000
200000
Re 150000
Re 150000
Re 150000
Re 150000
100000
100000
100000
100000
50000
50000
50000
50000
0
0.10
0
0.30
0
0.06
0.08
0.25
CL
CD
CD 0.15
0.04
CD 0.10
0.02
0.10
0.02
/CD
0.04
0.20
0.06
3/2
0
0.20
0.15
CD
0.05
0.05
0.00
3.0
2.5
0.00
0.8
0.00
5.0
ClarkY airfoil
ei=0.9, W=9.81N
k= 90.085, = -0.664
4.0
2.0
0.00
1.4
ClarkY airfoil
ei=0.9, W=9.81N
k= 90.085, = -0.664
1.2
0.6
1.0
3.0
CL 1.5
CL 0.4
CL
CL
2.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.5
=1
0.0
20
Lift/Stall Limiter
0.0
30
= 0.8
0.6
0.4
= 0.4
0.2
= 0.2
0.0
8
Lift/Stall Limiter
0.8
0.0
6
= 0.0
= 0.6
20
0
0
10
20
10
Fig. 5
20
30
10
20
30
10
20
30
AR
AR
Effect of aspect ratio and attained leading-edge suction on the maximum range and endurance parameters, ClarkY airfoil.
25
Lift/Stall Limiter
15
3/2
/CD
AR
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
15
AR
12
L/D
AR
3/2
L/D, CL
/CD
6
Lift/Stall Limiter
3
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
Table 1
AR (LD)
14a
12
6
5
4
4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
AR (C32
L CD )
5a
8a
14a
22
17
14
CL32 CD )max
9.26a
8.40a
7.14a
5.83
4.91
4.29
ClarkY airfoil
ei=0.9, W = 9.81N
k= 90.085, = -0.664
20
CL
AR
AR
2
0
30
CL
10
3/2
L/D
3/2
L/D 10
/CD
/CD
15
CL
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
CL
0.6
0.8
Variable-Wing Area
1.0
632
TRAUB
300000
300000
L/D
200000
200000
Re 150000
Re 150000
100000
100000
50000
50000
0
0.10
0
0.30
0.08
3/2
/CD
0.25
0.20
0.06
CD 0.15
CD
0.04
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.00
1.5
0.00
3.0
ClarkY airfoil
ei=0.9, = 0.8
k= 90.085, = -0.664
2.5
1.2
2.0
0.9
CL 1.5
CL
0.6
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.0
10
0.0
15
/CD
6
W = 10N
3/2
W = 5N
CL
L/D
Lift/Stall Limiter
12
W = 20N
3
0
2
0
10
20
30
10
20
30
AR
AR
Fig. 7 Effect of aspect ratio and vehicle weight on the maximum range and endurance parameters, ClarkY airfoil.
300000
300000
L/D
CL
3/2
300000
/CD
300000
L/D
250000
250000
200000
200000
200000
200000
Re 150000
Re 150000
Re 150000
Re 150000
100000
100000
100000
100000
50000
50000
50000
50000
0
0.04
0
0.12
0
0.030
250000
0.10
CD 0.02
0.08
0.020
CD 0.015
0.04
0.010
0.02
0.005
0.00
2.0
0.00
3.0
SD7062 airfoil
ei=0.9, W=9.81N
k= 113, = -0.756
1.5
CL 1.0
2.5
= 0.8
2.0
= 0.6
CL 1.5
/CD
CD 0.04
0.02
0.000
0.4
= 1
3/2
0
0.08
0.06
CD 0.06
0.01
CL
250000
0.025
0.03
0.00
0.8
SD7062 airfoil
ei=0.9, W=9.81N
k= 113, = -0.756
0.3
0.6
CL 0.2
CL 0.4
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.0
25
0.0
35
Lift/Stall Limiter
0.2
= 0.4
Lift/Stall Limiter
= 0.2
0.0
14
0.0
8
= 0.0
30
10
/CD
20
L/D 10
15
3/2
15
3/2
L/D
12
25
CL
/CD
20
CL
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
CL
250000
250000
10
5
0
5
0
10
20
AR
Fig. 8
30
6
0
10
20
AR
30
10
20
AR
30
10
20
AR
Effect of aspect ratio and attained leading-edge suction on the maximum range and endurance parameters, SD7062 airfoil.
30
633
TRAUB
Table 2
(21)
20
/CD 15
AR
10
3/2
5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
30
25
AR
20
L/D, CL
3/2
/CD
L/D
15
AR
10
5
Lift/Stall Limiter
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
200
0.8
n = 1.2
120
S, m2 0.6
n = 1.4
W, N
80
0.4
40
0.2
0
1.5
0.0
0.10
ClarkY airfoil
ei=0.9, Wref=9.81N, U = 20m/s,
Re = 202.247, c = 0.15m
k= 90.085, = -0.664
1.0
0.08
0.0
10
10
10
L/D
0.0
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
CD 0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
15
CL
3/2
Lift/Stall Limiter
0.2
/CD
0.00
15
/CD
0.5
0.0
15
L/D
ClarkY airfoil
ei=0.9, Wref=9.81N, U = 20m/s,
Re = 202.247, c = 0.15m
k= 90.085, = -0.664
1.0
0.02
n=2
0.4
2.0
0.04
n = 1.8
S, m2 0.6
CL 1.5
CD
0.5
n = 1.6
0.8
2.5
0.06
CL
1.0
280
240
200
W, N 160
120
80
40
0
3.0
n=1
160
10
3/2
0
0.0
5
All values for n = 1.8 and 2
lift coefficient limited
0
0
10
20
AR
30
10
20
AR
C32
L CD )max
17.9a
13.46a
9.36
7.42
6.28
5.52
25
CL
AR (CL32 CD )
10a
25a
27
18
14
12
Lift/Stall Limiter
CL
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
30
LD)max
23.28
15.74
14.05
13.04
12.32
11.73
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
AR (LD)
27a
8
4
3
3
3
30
10
20
AR
30
10
20
30
AR
Fig. 10 Effect of variable weight and aspect ratio on the range and endurance parameters, q 240 Pa, ClarkY airfoil. ARref 1, W ref 9.81 N
634
TRAUB
Downloaded by QUEEN MARY & WESTFIELD COLLEGE on January 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031980
Conclusions
An analytic investigation was conducted to establish the effect of
wing aspect ratio on performance at low Reynolds number. The effect
of airfoil pressure drag was accounted for using a leading-edge
suction approach. To support the study, experimental measurements
were recorded to quantify the behavior of two airfoils as affected by
Reynolds number. The analysis initially was implemented within the
framework of a constrained planform area and weight. If airfoil
pressure drag was neglected, LD and C32
L CD increased without
bound. Including the effects of pressure drag yielded the appearance
of distinct peaks in LD and C32
L CD , which migrated to lower
aspect ratio as the airfoil efficiency dropped. Incorporating the effect
of variable-wing weight showed performance peaks that depended on
the rate at which the weight was set to increase.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Thomas Nix and Kenneth Toro for
performing the wind-tunnel tests.
References
[1] McCormick, B. W., Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics,
2nd ed., Wiley, New York, 1994, pp. 172176.
[2] Traub, L. W., Analytic Drag Prediction for Cambered Wings with
Partial Leading-Edge Suction, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2009,
pp. 312319.
doi:10.2514/1.38558
[3] Anderson, J. D., Aircraft Performance & Design, 1st ed., McGrawHill,
New York, 1998, pp. 129133.
[4] Large, E., The Optimal Planform, Size and Mass of a Wing,
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 85, March 1981, pp. 103110.
[5] Bramesfeld, G., Small and Micro Aerial Vehicles: How Much
Span Is Too Much Span, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2010,
pp. 19821990.
doi:10.2514/1.C000238
[6] Helmbold, H. B., Der Unverwundene Ellipsenflugel als Tragende
Flache, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Luftfahrtforschung, R. Oldenbourg,
Munich, 1942, pp. I-111I-113.
[7] Nix, T., Toro, K., and Traub, L. W., Effects of Surface Flats on the
Performance of a Remotely Piloted Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 46, No. 5, 2009, pp. 18151817.
doi:10.2514/1.44124
[8] Traub, L. W., and Cooper, E., Experimental Investigation of Pressure
Measurement and Airfoil Characteristics at Low Reynolds Numbers,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2008, pp. 13221333.
doi:10.2514/1.34769
[9] Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed., Springer, Berlin,
1979, pp. 140638.
[10] Cleveland, F. A., Size Effects in Conventional Aircraft Design,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, No. 6, 1970, pp. 483512.