Bryan Hoffman

MAE 551 Airfoil Theory

Homework 2
October 16, 2015

1) Analyze the NASA NLF(1)-0215F airfoil using XFOIL at Re = 3.0 and 6.0 million. The
experimental data from wind tunnel tests in the NASA Langley Low-Turbulence Pressure
Tunnel (LTPT) is provided in the following NASA report and has been digitized and given in
the nlf0215_ltpt3m.ref and nlf0215_ltpt6m.ref files. These files can be read by PPLOT. Use
PPLOT to co-plot and compare the XFOIL predictions with the experimental data. Discuss
the trends with change in Reynolds number.

Figure 1: NLF-0215F Airfoil Profile

Two Reynolds numbers were analyzed for the NLF-0215F airfoil: 3.0 and 6.0 million. Looking
at the plots in Figure 2 and Figure 3, it is clear that as Reynolds number was increased, the drag
bucket became slightly narrower relative to Cl, but the minimum drag decreased overall. The
maximum Cl is also clear to have increased by about 0.1 for the higher Reynolds number. The
charts also show a clear trend in the transition location moving upstream as the Reynolds
number is increased. For example, at Re = 6e6, the transition location on the lower surface at Cl
= 0.6 is about 0.5c. For the same Cl at Re = 1e6, the transition location is farther downstream at
about 0.65c. This aligns with expectations as a higher Reynolds number will amplify
disturbances and promote transition at a more upstream location.
Relative to the experimental data, it is clear that XFOIL tends to overestimate the value for Cl in
Figure 2. The drag between the experimental and XFOIL data was following the same trend until
the data reached higher lift coefficients. At those values, the drag coefficient values began to
deviate more and asymptotically approached a separate value.

Figure 2: NLF-0215F Airfoil vs. Wind Tunnel Experimental Data at Re = 3e6

Figure 3: NLF-0215F Airfoil vs. Wind Tunnel Experimental Data at Re = 6e6

2) Analyze the SA7035 airfoil using XFOIL at Re = 60,000 and 300,000. Use PPLOT to co-plot
and compare the XFOIL predictions with the experimental data. Discuss the trends with
change in Reynolds number.

Figure 4: SA7035 Airfoil Profile

For the SA7035 airfoil in Figure 4, polar plots were produced at Reynolds numbers of 6e4 and
3e5. The plots for these values are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The experimental and XFOIL
data are clearly more in agreement at the higher Reynolds number. The lower Reynolds
number had difficult converging at high angles of attack, as well. Relative to Reynolds number,
the drag is substantially reduced at the higher value of Re. The drag bucket is also clearly much
wider. Again, it is obvious that the higher Reynolds number results in transition farther
upstream along the airfoil. The effect is apparently to incur a reduction in drag coefficient on the
airfoil due to energizing of the boundary layer. Moreover, as in question 1, the maximum Cl is
increased with an increase in Reynolds number. Curiously, there is a spike in the moment
coefficient plot around alpha = 3 degrees which is not present in the higher Re graph.
The XFOIL results at the higher Reynolds number are strongly supported by the experimental
data. The Cl in this case was not significantly overestimated by XFOIL as it was in question 1.
The lower Reynolds number XFOIL results are a much tougher fit to the experimental data.
Drag was overestimated at lower values of Cl and underestimated at higher values.

Figure 5: SA7035 XFOIL Data vs. Wind Tunnel Experimental Data at Re = 6e4

Figure 6: SA7035 XFOIL Data vs. Wind Tunnel Experimental Data at Re = 3e5

3) Generate an NACA 23014 airfoil using XFOIL. Compare the polar for the NACA airfoil
with that for the camb1 airfoil at Re = 4 million. Using Cp distributions for the two airfoils at
different values of Cl, discuss the reasons for the differences in performance (Cd vs. Cl,
especially). Examine the transition curves and use them in your discussions.

Figure 7: NACA 23014 Airfoil Profile

Figure 8: Cambered Airfoil Profile (camb1.dat provided by Dr. Gopalarathnam)

For the two airfoils shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, there is a clear difference in the structure of
the profiles. The NACA airfoil has a thicker upstream design while the cambered airfoil has a
maximum thickness somewhere around the mid-chord. This design for the cambered airfoil
creates a more extended favorable velocity gradient on the upper surface. The result is a stronger
resistance to transition than the NACA airfoil. The data in
Figure 9 supports this explanation. At values of Cl less than 1.0, the NACA airfoil transitions to
turbulence at a location much farther upstream than the cambered airfoil. The lower surface
transitions to turbulence much earlier at higher Cl values, on the other hand. These observations
help to determine the basis for the changes in the Cl vs. Cd graph.
The drag bucket in the cambered airfoil is more pronounced at lower Cl values than the NACA
airfoil. This is due to the cause mentioned above. The upper surface maintains laminar flow
across the surface for a longer period of time and, as a result, the skin friction on the surface is
reduced. However, the higher Cl values have transition occurring farther upstream on both the
upper and lower surfaces for the cambered airfoil. The effect is to abruptly increase the drag
coefficient relative to lift coefficient at those locations.

Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12 illustrate the differences in the two airfoils pressure
distributions at three different angles of attack: -5 deg, 0 deg, and 5 deg. The favorable pressure
gradient on the upper surface is to the advantage of the cambered airfoil at around 0 degrees.
That advantage is lost, though, at the other values of alpha, as the cambered airfoil clearly has
more of an adverse gradient at upstream locations which promotes transition to turbulence.

Figure 9: NACA 23014 XFOIL Data vs. Cambered Airfoil XFOIL Data at Re = 4e6

X/C

-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4

CP

-0.2
0
0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

NACA 23014
Cambered Airfoil

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2

Figure 10: Cp Distributions for the NACA 23014 and Cambered Airfoils at Alpha = 0 deg

X/C

-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2

CP

-1.5

NACA 23014

-1

Cambered Airfoil

-0.5
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

0
0.5
1
1.5

Figure 11: Cp Distributions for the NACA 23014 and Cambered Airfoils at Alpha = -5 deg
X/C

-2

-1.5

-1

CP

-0.5

NACA 23014
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Cambered Airfoil

0.5

1.5

Figure 12: Cp Distributions for the NACA 23014 and Cambered Airfoils at Alpha = 5 deg

4) Two Parts
a. Download the NLF(1)-0414F airfoil from the UIUC website. Analyze this airfoil at
Re = 6 million and Re = 1 million at alpha of 0 deg. Compare the differences in the
Cd for the two cases. Are there any laminar separation bubbles at these Reynolds
numbers? (Look at the Cf or skin friction coeff plots using the VPLO menu). If so,
what are the locations of these bubbles on the upper and lower surfaces? (That is,
over what x/c values do these bubbles extend?).
b. Analyze this airfoil at Re = 1 million with transition fixed on both the upper and
lower surfaces at 60% chord locations. How does the Cd change compared to the
analysis in part (a) for this Reynolds number? Using our discussion in class, what is
the reason for the change in Cd because of fixing transition?

Figure 13: NLF(1)-0414F Airfoil Profile

For part a, there appear to be laminar separation bubbles at the Reynolds numbers analyzed. The
evidence for these bubbles is in the pressure distribution plots (Figure 14 and Figure 15),
boundary layer velocity profiles (Figure 16 and Figure 17), and the friction coefficient plots
(Figure 18 and Figure 19). In the friction coefficient plots, the coefficients appear to drop below
zero at some values around 0.75c. For the lower Reynolds number case, the length of the drop
below zero is much longer than in the higher Re case. In addition, the amount of reversed flow is
clearly much larger for the low Re when looking at the boundary layer profiles. The Cp
distributions show sharp drops in the charts at the same locations along the chord. All of these
things provide evidence that there are laminar separation bubbles forming on the surface of the
airfoil at both Re values, but the bubble is larger at the lower value. The same location for the
bubbles is not surprising the laminar boundary layer separation is unaffected by Re. However,
the reattachment of the flow is turbulent at the higher Re, evidenced by the higher Cf values.
Introducing turbulence at 0.6c has the effect of eliminating the laminar separation bubbles. The
plots for friction coefficient in Figure 20 and Figure 21 clearly show that since all of the values
are positive. The earlier transition promotes attachment of the fluid due to the more energetic,
turbulent boundary layer. The overall drag is greatly reduced in the lower Re case, as depicted in
the pressure distribution plots of Figure 22 and Figure 23. The higher Re case actually has an
increase in overall drag, likely due to the earlier increase in skin friction. The rise in skin friction
for the low Re case was not nearly as much of a contributor as the increase in pressure drag from
the separation bubble.

Figure 14: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Airfoil at Re = 1e6

Figure 15: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Airfoil at Re = 6e6

Figure 16: Boundary Layer Velocity Profile (green) on the Upper Surface at Re = 1e6

Figure 17: Boundary Layer Velocity Profile (green) on the Upper Surface at Re = 6e6

Figure 18: NLF-0414(F) Friction Coefficients along the Airfoil at Re = 1e6

Figure 19: NLF-0414(F) Friction Coefficients along the Airfoil at Re = 6e6

Figure 20: NLF-0414(F) Friction Coefficients along the Airfoil at Re = 1e6 with Tripped Flow

Figure 21: NLF-0414(F) Friction Coefficients along the Airfoil at Re = 6e6 with Tripped Flow

Figure 22: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Airfoil at Re = 1e6 with Tripped Flow

Figure 23: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Airfoil at Re = 6e6 with Tripped Flow

5) Three Parts
a. Using a Reynolds number of 4 million, examine the reflexed airfoil using XFOIL.
Generate a polar plot. Determine the Cm,c/4 for a design Cl of approximately 0.3.
b. Using XFOIL at Re = 4 million, determine the flap deflections that will result in
approximately the same Cm,c/4 (to within plus/minus 0.0005 in Cm,c/4) for the
symmetric and the cambered airfoils. For this exercise use a flap chord of 20%, i.e.
flap hinge at x/c = 0.8 and y/c = 0. Produce polar plots for the sym1 and camb1
airfoils with the flap deflected to match the Cm,c/4 of the reflex7 airfoil. Coplot the
polars and discuss the pros and cons of the three means of producing a positive C m,c/4.
c. Generate an upside-down cambered airfoil using camb1. Analyze this airfoil using
XFOIL at the same Re and generate a polar plot. Discuss the behavior of this airfoil
in comparison with the reflex7 airfoil.

Figure 24: The Reflexed Airfoil Profile (reflex7.dat provided by Dr. Gopalarathnam)

Figure 25: The Symmetric Airfoil Profile (sym1.dat provided by Dr. Gopalarathnam)
At the design value of Cl = 0.3, the reflexed airfoil in Figure 24 has a Cm (quarter-chord) value
of 0.0406. This positive moment coefficient is due to the geometry of the tail of the airfoil which
actually produces downforce. The effect of the tail is shown in Figure 26 as the upper surface
pressure coefficient crosses the lower surfaces at the region of the airfoil where the concavity
begins to change. The transition location at lower Cl values occurs at about the same point on the
upper surface. The polar plot shows the drag bucket occurring around Cl values of 0.2 0.7.

Figure 26: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Reflexed Airfoil at Re = 4e6, Alpha = 0.3
deg

Figure 27: Reflexed Airfoil XFOIL Data at Re = 4e6

Symmetric and cambered airfoils were also manipulated to match the same moment coefficient
with the use of flaps. In Figure 28 and Figure 29, the pressure coefficients show that the same
coefficient was achieved at Re values of 4e6 using flap deflections at 80% chord. The deflections
were determined to be -9.85 deg for the cambered airfoil and -3.65 deg for the symmetric airfoil.
Using these values, the overall coefficient at an alpha of 0.3 deg (cruise condition) was 0.0405.
There are pros and cons to the three methods for producing positive moment coefficient,
however. Polar plots for the data are shown in Figure 30. These plots show that the drag buckets
for the three airfoils are all occurring at different values of Cl. For a design condition of 0.3 deg,
the best airfoil would be the reflexed airfoil since the bucket (min. drag) is located right on the
value. It also has lower drag for higher Cl values, but higher drag at lower Cl values. The
cambered airfoil is the next best performer in this area. The reflexed airfoil is negatively affected
by the fact that the moment coefficient is not consistent across all angles of attack, however. At
around 10 15 deg, the moment coefficient is actually negative. The other airfoils have higher
moment coefficients as well. The max Cl does occur with the reflexed airfoil, too.

Figure 28: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Cambered Airfoil with -9.85 deg Flap

Figure 29: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Symmetric Airfoil with -3.65 deg Flap

Figure 30: Reflexed, Cambered Flapped, and Symmetric Flapped Airfoils at Re = 4e6

Finally, an upside down cambered airfoil was studied for its performance as a positive moment
coefficient airfoil. At 0.3 deg, the airfoil generated a moment coefficient much higher than the
reflexed airfoil and the other two with flap deflections. On the other hand, when compared
against the reflexed airfoil in Figure 33, the design for drag optimization is obviously much more
unrealistic as the bucket occurs below Cl = 0. At reasonable values of lift coefficient, the drag is
substantially above the reflexed airfoil. The total lift coefficient achievable is significantly lower
as well. The conclusion is that an upside down airfoil, though capable of producing high moment
coefficients, is not practical for actual flight conditions.

Figure 31: Upside Down Cambered Airfoil Profile

Figure 32: Cp Distribution and Output Values for the Upside Down Cambered Airfoil at Re =
4e6, Alpha = 0.3 deg

Figure 33: Reflexed and Upside Down Cambered Airfoils at Re = 4e6