AIRFOIL PRESSURE, LIFT & DRAG

DESIGN LAB
EAS 3810C: Design of Aerospace Engineering Experiments

Experiment 3

March 23, 2018

Lab Section 0013

Friday, 4:30 PM
Spring 2018
Lab TA: Ryan Debevec

Group 1
Matthew Avny
Sean Kelly
Christopher Opificius
Pedro Saldarriaga
I. Abstract
 In this experiment, two different airfoils were tested in a wind tunnel to measure their
pressure, lift, and drag forces. The two airfoils used were the cambered NACA 4412 and the
symmetric NACA 0012. The experiment was designed to test these airfoils at low Reynolds
Numbers and through multiple angles of attack. The angles were increased until the airfoil
experienced flow separation. The wind tunnel was set at two speeds; 40 Hz (9.58 m/s) and 60 Hz
(14.56 m/s). The first set of airfoils were constructed with pressure taps along the length of the
airfoil and were then connected to a manometer. This allowed for measuring the pressure along
the airfoils through multiple angles of attack. The symmetric NACA 0012 was tested between a
range of -30 and 30 degrees in 5 degrees increments and had 9 pressure taps. The NACA 4412
was tested through the angles of -10 and 20 degrees and had 14 pressure taps (9 on top and 5 on
the bottom). The second set of airfoils were constructed so that they could be connected to the
Force Balance. This allowed the airfoils lift and drag to be measured at the same wind tunnel
airspeeds to that of the airfoils with the pressure taps.
The results of this experiment showed that the cambered NACA 2412 airfoil produced
more lift than that of the symmetric NACA 0012 airfoil. The cambered airfoil also produced less
drag than the symmetric airfoil and experienced flow separation at higher angles of attack. As for
the pressure readings, both airfoils had similar characteristics in that they both experienced lower
pressures on the top surfaces and higher pressures on the bottom surfaces at positive angles of
attack. Consistent with airfoil theory, both airfoils produced higher lift and drag at higher wind
tunnel airspeeds. They both produced higher pressure differences at higher wind tunnel
airspeeds. Increasing angle of attack also produced higher lift and drag for both airfoils, up until
they experienced flow separation.

II. Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………1

1
 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Results and Discussions…………………………………………………………………………...4

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………..7

References………………………………………………………………………………………....8

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………….......9

III. Introduction
Identifying the forces acting on an airfoil, the lift, drag, and pressure, are crucial in
development and testing of various nautical and aeronautical craft and systems. Pressure is found
through the use of pressure transducers on the surface of the airfoil. Lift and drag, while both
could be calculated using theory, were instead calculated from the use of a force-balance system.
The research team is to analyze a NACA 0012 and NACA 4412 airfoil. The National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics created a numerical system that could be decoded to
describe the characteristics of an airfoil which are categorized anywhere from 4 to 6 numbers.
For this application, the research team analyzed for 4-digit NACA airfoils. The first digit in the
series represents the maximum camber. To convert this, the first digit is taken as a percentage
and multiplied by the chord length to show the maximum distance from the chord line to the
camber line. For example, one the NACA 4412, the first digit represents the maximum camber
line distance which is 4% of the chord length. The second digit represents the position of
maximum camber multiplied by 10 and is 40% down the chord line. The last two digits represent
the maximum airfoil thickness which is 12% of the chord length.
Viscous drag is generated when a flow travels across an airfoil due to generated friction
by the fluid flowing over the surface of the airfoil. A boundary layer is formed by shear stress
created by this friction shown in figure 1.

2
 Figure 1 - Boundary Layers Forming over an Airfoil Surface

Drag, lift, and pressure forces that act on an airfoil are important parameters that can be
studied in a wide range of applications. When designing an aircraft, it is of utmost importance to
understand the implications of lift and drag on the aircraft. Lift is generated by an adverse
pressure gradient differential on the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil. Generally speaking,
air will have to travel a longer distance on the top of the airfoil as opposed to the bottom.
Because of this, the air will travel faster (increase in velocity) and the pressure will decrease.
Since the pressure above the airfoil is less than the pressure below the airfoil, lift will be
generated. The aerodynamic force distributions on the surface of the airfoil in low Reynolds
number fluids are crucial in the designs of, jets, UAVs, and other aircraft. A large majority of
flight time is spent at altitudes with Reynolds numbers between 1.2x104 and 1.2x106, and it is
here where engineers must understand the effects of laminar flow over the wings of the aircraft
[5].

It is advantageous to characterize the forces for low Reynolds numbers using three
different types of drag which can be seen in each experimental trial. Two drag components
shown in Equations 1 and 2 will quantify the normal and axial forces per unit span. Induced
drag, shown in Equation 3, arises from the development of lift. Discontinuities will exist in the
pressure distribution on the airfoil due to laminar bubbles forming at high angles of attack. This
will cause flow separation, and in some cases it will reattach to the airfoil after transitioning,
which will be discussed in Results and Discussion (Section V).

3
 Aerodynamic forces will be quantified for two different airfoils, NACA 0012 and NACA
4412, with a chord length of 100.1mm for both. This report continues with the Experimental
Setup and Procedure (Methods) in Section IV, the Results and Discussion in Section V,
Conclusion in Section VI, and Appendices in Section VII.

IV. Methods
List of Items Used:
● Wind Tunnel
● NACA 4412 airfoil with static pressure ports
● NACA 0012 airfoil with static pressure ports
● NACA 4412 airfoil with force balance connection
● NACA 0012 airfoil with force balance connection
● Ten-tube inclined manometer
● Force Balance
● Mass set
● Ruler
● Caliper
● XFLR5 Airfoil modeling software

Figure 2 - Wind Tunnel Diagram

4
 The first part of the experiment was the collection of the pressure distribution around the
airfoil. Tubes were used to connect the ten tube manometer to the airfoil and each airfoil was
then tested at two speeds 40 Hz (9.58 m/s) and 60 Hz (14.56 m/s). The NACA 0012 had 9 static
pressure ports that were connected to the manometer starting with the leading edge. The
locations of these static pressure ports are shown in Figure 3. With the wind tunnel off the “zero”
position of the manometer was noted to be 5.5 inches. At each of the two speeds the NACA 0012
airfoil pressure distribution was measured at angles of attack ranging from -30° to 30° in
increments of 5°. At each angle of attack increment the height of water in each tube of the
manometer was measured with a ruler for more accuracy and recorded.
The NACA 4412 airfoil had a total of 14 static pressure ports (9 top and 5 bottom) shown
in Figure 4. Since this exceeded the maximum number of tubes in the manometer, the top taps
were tested first at both speeds and then the bottom taps. The process remained the same for the
NACA 4412 airfoil except that the angle of attack range was -10° to 20° in increments of 10°
and an additional measurement was taken at 17° (the suspected stall angle). The collection of this

Figure 3 - NACA 0012 Airfoil and Pressure Tap Location

Figure 4 - NACA 4412 Airfoil and Pressure Tap Location

data was used to calculate the pressure distribution, lift, and drag induced on the airfoils.
The second part of the experiment involved directly measuring the lift and drag on each
airfoil using a force balance. The force balance was calibrated using masses ranging from 0g to
1000g and the results are shown in Figure 5. For both airfoils the exact same air velocities and
angles of attack were used so as to generate data that could be directly compared to that of the
pressure distribution method. A zero velocity reading from the force balance was recorded for

5
 each of the two airfoils since the orientation of the force balance was changed after calibration.
The voltage reading from the force balance was manually read and recorded.
In addition to the above calculations, XFLR5 was used to model the flow around the
same airfoils, at the same velocities, and same angles of attack to provide a third set of data to
compare to. The results of this data are shown in Figures 6-9.
Figure 5 - Force Calibration Graph

It is worthwhile to note that the voltage reading from the force balance varied roughly in
the magnitude of 0.01 to 0.03 V due to the unsteady nature of flow around an airfoil even in the
laminar range.

V. Results and Discussion

After testing both the NACA 0012 and NACA 4412 in the wind tunnel, airfoil theory was
proven. In the tables below, the coefficient of lift and drag are plotted for each airfoil at 40 Hz.
Using the Force Method and comparing it with data extracted from the software XFLR5, a
visualization of airfoil theory was created. The coefficient of drag plots for the symmetric NACA
0012 show that the airfoil has equal results at both positive and negative angles of attack. As
predicted, XFLR5 produced a near perfect coefficient of drag plot for all positive and negative
angles of attack. Using the force method, one can note slight inconsistencies with the data, but
can also see the symmetry in the drag forces for all angles of attack.

NACA 0012

Figure 6 NACA 0012 CD

6
 The coefficient of lift plots turned out to vary greatly in values, but shared similar trends
for the symmetric NACA 0012. For these results, the force method will only be referred to for
noting similar trends. This is due to higher skewed data that occured in the tested airfoil. The
XFLR5 plot will be the trusted plot for values. After creating the coefficient of lift plots for the
NACA 0012, the symmetric shape showed symmetry in the coefficient of lift vs alpha values. At
negative angles of attack, the airfoil produced negative lift on the force balance. Likewise, at
positive angles of attack, the airfoil produced positive lift on the force balance. At an angle of
attack of 0, the airfoil produced 0 lift thus proving perfect airfoil theory. The trend of increasing
lift with increasing angle of attack can also be shown in the force method plot.

Figure 7 NACA 0012 CL

As for the NACA 4412, the coefficient of drag plot was much different than that of the
symmetric airfoil. It should also be noted that the cambered NACA 4412 was only tested at
angles between -10 and 20, instead of the -30 and 30 of the symmetric airfoil. Unlike the
symmetric airfoil, the NACA 4412’s coefficient of drag plot did not show any symmetry. It did,
however, show decreasing drag between the angles of -10 and 0 and increasing drag between
angles of 0 and 20. This was true for both the XFLR5 and Force method plots. The values
between the two plots varied slightly. This could be attributed to an imperfect test setting in the
wind tunnel and errors in the force balance calibration.

7
 NACA 4412

Figure 8 NACA 4412 CD

Similar to the coefficient of lift plot for the NACA 0012, the XFLR5 plot will be used to
discuss values for the coefficient of lift. Unlike the symmetric NACA 0012, the cambered
NACA 4412 produced positive lift at 0 angle of attack. It also did not produce negative lift until
an angle below -5. This airfoil continued to produce lift even at high angles of attack. Comparing
the two coefficient of lift plots, it can be noted that the lift started to slow its increase after an
angle of 15 degrees. Its highest coefficient of lift value was about .82 for the XFLR5 plot. The
errors in the Force method plot can be attributed to skewed data from the force balance.

Figure 9 NACA 4412 CL

Pressure Distribution
The following table shows the pressure distribution for the cambered NACA 4412 at a
wind tunnel airspeed of 9.58m/s and an angle of attack of 0 degrees. There is a skew in the data,
but the trend shows that the top surface of the airfoil experiences much lower pressure than the
bottom surface. This proves airfoil theory to be correct.

Figure 10 NACA 4412 @ 0 degrees alpha

8
 When increasing the angle of attack to 10 degrees, the characteristic of low pressure
occuring on the top of the airfoil becomes much more evident. The table also shows that the
lowest pressure occurs near the 2nd pressure tap. This pressure tap is located near the area of
max camber indicating that this is where most of the lift is created. The pressure slowly
decreases as it nears the trailing edge of the airfoil.
Figure 11 NACA 4412 @ 10 degrees alpha

VI. Summary
Based on the results of the laboratory, the research team could come to the following
conclusions:
The cambered NACA 4412 airfoil generally experiences higher values of lift as well as
pressure differences over all values of alpha versus the NACA 0012. Better overall design in

9
 terms of lift generated and stall point is verified in the fact that the airplane industry, both
military and commercial, use almost exclusively the cambered airfoil design. In addition, with
increased lift comes increased drag - the NACA 4412 airfoil had higher coefficient of drag
values across the board.
As the wind tunnel used in the testing had its flow velocity increased - ranging from 40
hz to 60hz, the values of drag and lift both increased as well. This can be seen across both
airfoils and across all angles of attack.
For the NACA 4412, both methods of calculating the lift force gave fairly similar curves.
However, the NACA 0012 had a plotting anomaly. For the force lift, the lift generated at
negative angles of attack came to positive values. As seen on the XFLR5 plot, the theoretical lift
at negative angles of attack was negative - as expected, and positive for positive angles. This
results in a symmetric distribution. The errors through experimentation could have resulted from
a bad manometer read, or a bad force reading,
Improvements that could be made to this experiment is with the equipment. The
manometer was at a 45 degree angle and was very difficult to read accurately, an improved
manometer array would allow for easier and more accurate readings. In addition a wider range of
angles of attack would provide for more comprehensive results.

VII. References
[1] - Figiola, Richard S. And Donald E. Beasley, Theory and Design for Mechanical
Measurements, 5th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Chap 5. Print.

[2] - “NACA 0012 AIRFOILS (n0012il)”

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=n0012il
[retrieved 2/15/2018]

[3] - “NACA 4412 (naca4412il)”

http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca4412il
[retrieved 2/15/2018]

[4] - M. Serdar Genç, İlyas Karasu, H. Hakan Açıkel and M. Tuğrul Akpolat (2012). Low
Reynolds Number Flows and Transition, Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics and
Transition, Dr. Mustafa Serdar Genc (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0492-6, InTech, Available
from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/low-reynolds-numberaerodynamics-
and-transition/low-reynolds-number-flows-and-transition
[5] “The Reynolds Number” AeroDrag Available:
http://www.aerodrag.com/Articles/ReynoldsNumber.htm.

Sample Calculations

Flow velocity at 45 Hz

10
 V = .2489(45)-.3718 = 10.83 m/s

Coefficient of Lift for NACA 4412 at 10 degree angle of attack at 45 Hz

C = 0.5*2/(1.225*10.83^2*.1*.15) = 0.464

Coefficient of Drag for NACA 4412 at 10 degree angle of attack 45 Hz

C = 0.0687*2/(1.225*10.83^2*.1*.15) = 0.0637

Uncertainty in Coefficient of Lift for NACA 4412 at 10 degree angle of attack 45 Hz

Ucl = √(2/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌))2 (.00981)2 + (2𝜌/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌))2 (.0005)2 +
(2𝜌/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ))2 (.0005)2 +(4𝜌/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌3 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌 )2 (.05)^2 = +/- .01 (2.25%)

Uncertainty in Coefficient of Drag for NACA 4412 at 10 degree angle of attack 45 Hz

Ucd = √(2/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌))2 (.00981)2 + (2𝜌/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌))2 (.0005)2 +
(2𝜌/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌2 ))2 (.0005)2 +(4𝜌/(𝜌 ∗ 𝜌3 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌 )2 (.05)^2 = +/- .009 (14%)

VIII. Appendices

Equations

𝜌
(1) 𝜌𝜌 = 1
∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌∞ 2 ∗𝜌 ∗ 𝜌
2

𝜌
(2) 𝜌𝜌 = 1
∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌∞ 2 ∗𝜌 ∗ 𝜌
2

𝜌−𝜌∞
(3) 𝜌𝜌 = 1
∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝜌∞ 2
2

𝜌𝜌 2
(4) 𝜌𝜌𝜌 =
𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌

(5)

11