1988SaliversonPhD PDF

Saliveros, Efstratios (1988) The aerodynamic performance of the
NACA-4415 aerofoil section at low Reynolds numbers.

MSc(R) thesis.
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3050/
Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or

study, without prior permission or charge
This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first

obtaining permission in writing from the Author
The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the

author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given
Glasgow Theses Service

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
theses@gla.ac.uk
"THE AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE OF
THE NACA-4415 AEROFOIL SECTION AT LOW
REYNOLDS NUMBERS"
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of
Engineering for the Fulfilment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Master of Science, (M. Sc. )
by
Efstratios Saliveros, B.Sc.
Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ
November 1988
n© 1988, E. Saliveros"
PREFACE
The work described in this Dissertation was carried

out by the author at the Department of Aerospace
Engineering, University of Glasgow, between October 1986,
and September 1987, and is original in content except
where otherwise stated.
Department of Aerospace Engineering

University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ
E. Saliveros
November, 1988
i
ABSTRACT
In this experimental investigation, the performance

and the boundary layer characteristics of the NACA-4415
aerofoil section were examined for an incidence range of
-5.10o~a~22.90o and for the Reynolds number range of

50,OOO~Re~600,OOO. Chordwise static pressure distributions
were obtained, from which aerodynamic force and moment
coefficients, namely CN, CT, and CMc/4, were calculated
using a simple Trapezoidal Rule method. These pressure
distributions proved to be useful for the identification
and location of the various boundary layer phenomena which
occurred around the aerofoil. The "surface oil" flow
visualisation technique was also used and photographs were
obtained to record the various flow states over the upper
surface of the aerofoil. The nominal two-dimensional data
obtained in this study were compared with those from other
facilities and previously tested aerofoils at the
University of Glasgow. These latter comparisons were for
the GU25-5(11)8, GA(W)-l and NACA-0015 aerofoil sections.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

supervisor Dr. R. A. McD. Galbraith for his recommendation
of this project and his valuable advice, assistance and
guidance throughout this work.
I would also like to express my profound gratitude to

the Head of the Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Professor B. E. Richards, without whose support and
encouragement I would not have had the opportunity to work
on this research project.
lowe many special thanks to Mr. G. Kokkodis for his

advice and help during the early experimental stages of
this work, and to Drs. F. N. Coton, A. Kokkalis and to Mr.
R. D. Gordon for their useful suggestions and comments.
I am also thankful to the technicians, Messrs David

J. Perrins, James C. Carr and John A. Kitching, for their
efforts, and the goodwill that they have shown to me,
assisting in any way they possibly could and for providing
me with all the necessary equipment and tools when I really
needed them. Special praises go to Mr. Kitching for his
excellent job of constructing and polishing the model, to
Mr. David M. Whitelaw and to the staff of the Photographic
Department for their efforts of developing the pictures
that appear in this work.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their

tremendous support and encouragement that they have given
me throughout my life and to my wife Catherine for the
patience and understanding that she has shown during my
studies at university.
iii
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background Information ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Boundary-Layer Characteristics/Separation Bubble ... 4
1.3 Scope of the Present Study ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II . EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Wind Tunnel Facilities .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Wind Tunnel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Computer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Static Pressure Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Flow Visualisation and Photographic Equipment .... 15
I I I. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
3.1 Static Pressure Distribution Measurements . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Experimental Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ...... 26
3.3 Flow Visualisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
IV. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Performance as a Function of Angle of Attack ..... 32
iv
4.1.1 Introductory Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.2 Re = 50 , 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1.3 Re = 75, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.1.4 Re 100 , 00 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1.5 Re ~ 125, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2 Pressure Coefficient Variation with Reynolds
numbers at Constant Angles of Attack .... ......... 49
4.3 Flow Visualisation Over the Upper Surface of
the NACA-4415 Aerofoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.4 CN' CMc/4 and CT with Variation of Angles of
Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.5 CNmax Variation with Reynolds Numbers ..... ....... 61
4.6 Comparison of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section
Characteristics with Existing Data .. ............. 63
4.7 Comparison of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section
Characteristics with GU25-5(11)8, NASA GA(W)l
and NACA-0015 Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.1 Summary of Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies . ............. 76
5.3 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
APPENDIX: Manufacture and Assembly of NACA-4415 Aerofoil

Mode 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
REFERENCE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Coordinates of NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section ......... 90
2. Locations of Pressure Tappings on NACA-4415

Aerofoil Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3. Two-Dimensional Angle of Attack Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4. Estimated Locations of Laminar Separation Points on

the Lower Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section
Using a Viscid-Inviscid Analysis Method ..... ...... 93
5. Useful Information About Past and Present wind

Tunnels Used to Test NACA-44l5 Aerofoil Sections .. 94
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Chord Reynolds Number versus Flight Velocity

for a Variety of Natural and Man-Made Flying
Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
1.2 A Typical Laminar Separation Bubble Formed over
the Upper Surface Of an Aerofoil .... ............. 95
1.3 Turbulence Effects on Stall Hysteresis (a) and
Pressure Distribution (b) for the Wortmann
FX-63-137 Aerofoil Section. (Re=100,000) ......... 96
1.4 Turbulence Effects on Stall Hysteresis (a) and
1.5 Acoustic Effects on Stall Hysteresis (a) and
1.6 Sketch of a Laminar Separation Bubble ............ 97
1.7 Four Different Types of Static Stall ............. 98
1.8 Typical Aerofoil Pressure Distribution with
Laminar Separation Bubbles .... ................... 98
1.9 Experimental Static Pressure Distribution over
the NACA-4415 Aerofoil at an Incidence of -5.10 0
and at a Reynolds Number of 298,051 .............. 99
2.1 A Plan View of the Glasgow University's Low
Speed Wind Tunnel . .............................. 100
2.2 Cross-Sectional View of the Working Section of
the Glasgow University's Low Speed Wind Tunnel .. 101
2.3 Positions of the Pressure Tappings Around the
NACA-4415 Aerofoil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.4 Pressure Distribution Comparison Between Two
Wortmann Aerofoils of Having Different Pressure
Tap Configurations at 16 0 Angle of Attack and
Re=200, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
vii
2.5 Pressure Distribution Comparison Between Two
Wortmann Aerofoils of Having Different Pressure
Tap Configurations at 8 0 Angle of Attack and
Re=80,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.1· Sequence of Events During Pressure Distribution
Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.2 Schematic of Instrumentation used for the Data
Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.3 Section Lift and Profile Drag Coefficients Versus
Angle of Attack for Rc =150,000 for the Smooth
Lissaman Airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.4 Section Lift and Profile Drag Coefficients Versus
Angle of Attack for Rc =150,000 for the Smooth
Miley Airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.5 The NACA-4415 Aerofoil Installed in the Glasgow
University's Low Speed Wind Tunnel .. ....... ..... 108
4.1.1 3-D Plots of Cp vs x/c vs a for the Lower (a) and

Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section
and Re=50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

and Re=75, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

and Re=100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

and Re=125, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

and Re=150, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

and Re=175,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
viii
and Re=200,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

and Re=250, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

and Re=300, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

and Re=35 0 , 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

and Re=400, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

and Re=450,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

and Re=500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

and Re=550, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

and Re=60 0,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.1.16 Pressure Distribution Around the NACA-4415
Aerofoil Section at Incidences Close to Complete
Stall (Re=175, 000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Stall (Re=300, 000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
ix
Stall (Re=400, 000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.1.19 Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena
on the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil
Section at Re=75,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.1.20 Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena
on the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil
Section at Re=100, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.2.1 3-D Plot of Cp vs x/c vs Re for the Upper Surface
of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at a=-5.100 ... 129




of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at a= 0.90° ... 131





of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at a=10.900 ... 133
x
of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at a=11.90o ... 134

of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at a=12.90 o ... 134

of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at a=13.90 o ... 135





4.2.18 3-D Plot of Cp vs x/c vs Re for the Upper, Surface



4.2.21 Typical Surface Pressure Distributions With and
without Separation Bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.3.1 Flow Visualisation Photographs of the Upper
Surface of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at
Various Reynolds Numbers and at a=-5.10o ....... 140

Various Reynolds Numbers and at a=-1.10o ....... 141
xi
Surface of the NACA-44l5 Aerofoil Section at
Various Reynolds Numbers and at U= 2.90 0 ....... 142

Various Reynolds Numbers and at U= 6.90 0 ....... 143

various Reynolds Numbers and at U= 9.90 0 ....... 144

4.3.6 A sequence of Flow Visualisation Photographs of
the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil at
Re=600,000 and u=9. 90 0 .......................... 145

various Reynolds Numbers and at U=11.90 0 ....... 146

Re=600,000 and at U=11.90 0 .....•••••••.•....... 147

Various Reynolds Numbers and at U=13.90 0 ....... 148





xii
Re=450,OOO and at a=19.90 o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

4.3.15 Comparison between Cp and Flow Visualisation Data
Regarding the Locations of the Various Boundary
Layer Phenomena occurring on the Upper Surface of
the NACA-4415 Model at Re=150,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
the NACA-4415 Model at Re=250,OOO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
xiii
4.4.1 Normal Force, Quarter Chord Pitching Moment and
Tangential Force Coefficient Variation With Angle
of Attack at Re=50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
of Attack at Re=75,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
of Attack at Re=100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
of Attack at Re=125, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
of Attack at Re=150,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
of Attack at Re=175,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
of Attack at Re=200,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
of Attack at Re=250,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
of Attack at Re=300, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
of Attack at Re=350,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
of Attack at Re=400,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
of Attack at Re=450,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
xiv
Tangential Force Coefficient variation With Angle
of Attack at Re=500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
of Attack at Re=550, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
of Attack at Re=600, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.4.16 Quarter Chord Pitching Moment Coefficient versus
Angle of Attack for the Wortmann FX-63-137
Aerofoil (R c =100,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.4.17 NACA-23012 Aerofoil Data for AR=4.0 . . . . . . . . . ... 177
4.4.18 Lift Coefficient versus Uncorrected Incidence of
a NACA-23012 Aerofoil at a Reynolds Number of
350,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.4.19 Measured Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA-
23012 Ai r f 0 i 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.4.20 Comparison of Results for the Occurrence of the
'kink' on CN and CMc/4 Curves with those Defining
Fully Laminar Flow Using Coton's Method . . . . . . . . . 179
4.4.21 Two Dimensional Lift and Drag Coefficients
versus Angle of Attack, Re=80,OOO .............. . 179a
4.5.1 Maximum Normal Force Coefficient Variation with
Reynolds number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · ... ···· 179
4.5.2 Lift Coefficient Variation with Incidence and
Reynolds Number of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Tested
at stuttgart (1962-72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
at NACA VDT (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
at NACA LTT (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.5.5 Normal Force Coefficient Variation with Incidence
and Reynolds Number of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil Tested
at University of Glasgow (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 183
xv
4.5.6 Lift Coefficient Variation With Incidence of a
Wortmann FX-63-137 Aerofoil Tested at a Reynolds
Number of 200, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.6 Comparison of Lift and Quarter Chord Pitching
Moment Coefficients of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil
Obtained at Different Test Environments and Wind
Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.7.1 Normal Force Coefficient Contours for the NACA-
4415 Aerofoil with Incidence and Reynolds
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.7.2 Normal Force Coefficient Contours for the GU25-
5(11)8 Aerofoil with Incidence and Reynolds
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.7.3 Normal Force Coefficient Contours for the NASA
GA(W) -1 Aerofoil with Incidence and Reynolds
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.7.4 Normal Force Coefficient Contours for the NACA-
0015 Aerofoil with Incidence and Reynolds
Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
A1. Construction of the NACA-4415 Model . ........... . 191
xvi
NOMENCLATURE
c Aerofoil chord length, rom

CL Lift coefficient
CMc/4 Quarter chord pitching moment
CN Normal force coefficient
CNmax Maximum normal force coefficient
Cp Pressure coefficient
CT Tangential force coefficient
dCMc/4/da Quarter chord pitching moment curve slope
dCN/da Normal force curve slope

g Gravitational acceleration, m/s2
H Atmospheric pressure height, rom Hg
h21 Differential pressure height between atmospheric
and static pressure, rom H20
Differential pressure height between settling
chamber and working section, rom H20
Wind tunnel calibration constant
Static pressure based at surface of aerofoil, Nm 2
Atmospheric pressure, Nm 2
Pressure at wind tunnel settling chamber, Nm 2
Pressure at wind tunnel working section, Nm 2
Free stream dynamic pressure, Nm 2
Specific gas constant, kJ/KgK
Reynolds number based on aerofoil chord
Tunnel air speed, °c
Free stream velocity, m/s
x Chordwise co-ordinate
xvii
Greek Symbols
IX Angle of attack, deg.
IXg Geometric angle of attack, deg.
£B Total blockage factor
P Density of air, Kg/m 3
Pm Density of mercury relative to water
Pw Density of water, Kg/m 3
Subscripts
a air
c chord
g geometric
m mercury
s settling chamber
w working section, water
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In aerodynamic applications, the low Reynolds number
regime is usually taken as that for which the chord
Reynolds number falls below 1,000,000. In the past, study
of this flow regime has not been actively investigated
since most aerodynamic vehicles operate at much higher
Reynolds numbers. The last twenty years, however, have seen
a growing interest in low Reynolds number flows since a
number of applications have evolved requiring aerofoil
sections that operate at low Reynolds numbers. A working
knowledge of the associated flow phenomena is therefore
necessary.
Low Reynolds number applications occur when any
combination of the following conditions is present:
a) low free stream velocity
b) low air density
c) small aerofoil chord.
These conditions are found to exist on remotely piloted
vehicles (RPV's) used for surveillance, sampling and
- 1 -
monitoring in both military and scientific roles,
operating at high altitudes, mini-RPV's flying at low
altitudes, high altitudes jet-engine fan blades, etc.
Additional applications are found in the inboard sections
of helicopter, propeller, and in wind turbine rotors.
Figure 1.1 succinctly illustrates the various Reynolds
number regimes. Efforts in designing low Reynolds number
aerofoil sections which possess high aerodynamic
eff iciencies have been effective together with much
experimental work to determine the performance of existing
aerofoils at those Reynolds numbers (Ref.l).
Flow behaviour at chord Reynolds number less than
1,000,000 is widely known to involve some significantly
different characteristics when compared to higher Reynolds
number flows. These flow characteristics create
difficulties relating to the management of the aerofoil
boundary layer as well as difficulties associated with
accurate wind tunnel measurements (Refs 2,3). Lissaman
states, that as a general criterion there exists a critical
Reynolds number of about 70,000 below which aerofoil
performance is very poor and above which impressive
improvements are observed (Ref.4). Very important areas of
concern are the occurrence and behaviour of the leading
edge laminar separation bubbles and the associated
phenomenon of transition from laminar to turbulent flow
(F igure 1.2). It is well known that separat ion is highly
sensitive at low Reynolds numbers and plays a very
- 2 -
important role in determining the development of the
boundary layer which, in turn, affects the overall
performance of the aerofoil.
On close examination of the wind tunnel test data
below the 1,000,000 range of Reynolds numbers using models
with the same aerofoil sections, it is possible to observe
that there is a number of inconsistencies among the test
results. This can be attributed to a variety of causes
including inaccurate measurement techniques, or due to
solid and wake blockage effects, and differences between
test environments. These blockage effects are discussed in
detail in References 5 and 6. In the past, researchers
have often been puzzled by other researchers questioning
test data accuracy, data acquisition techniques, data
measurement reliability, model accuracy or even tunnel
corrections. Mueller et al (Ref.7) describes some of the
methods used to identify the level of free stream
disturbances and their influence on the performance of low
Reynolds number aerofoils.
The problems associated with obtaining accurate wind
tunnel data for aerofoil sections at low Reynolds numbers
are compounded by the extreme sensitivity of the boundary
layers to the free stream disturbance environment. The
disturbance environment present in the test section of a
low speed wind tunnel is usually determined by the free
stream turbulence levels, acoustic phenomena and mechanical
-3-
vibrations. Although these disturbances may be reduced and,
to some extent, controlled, they cannot be eliminated. If
proper care is taken to reduce or account for such
phenomena, then more meaningful results may be obtained. By
taking account of turbulence intensity levels and acoustic
disturbances Sumantran et al (Ref.8) obtained considerable
differences in the test data and in particular the stall
hysteresis loop and pressure distributions (Figures 1.3,
1.4 and 1.5). These Figures illustrate that the range of
turbulence levels between 0.02% and 0.2% is quite important
whilst above a value of 0.2% may have negligible effects.
At these increased values maximum lift coefficients appear
to remain unaffected. Similar results were also obtained by
Mueller (Ref.9), during an investigation on the performance
of two aerofoils influenced by free stream disturbances at
low Reynolds numbers.
1.2 BOUNDARY LAYER CHARACTERISTICS I SEPARATION BUBBLE
The phenomena of boundary layer separation and
transition at low Reynolds numbers have been known to be
very important for a long time because of their effect on
the aerofoils performance. With the existence of turbulent
flow over an aerofoil, drag is increased and so a desirable
design for an aerofoil, therefore, would be to maintain
laminar flow over a large proportion of its length. Such a
design would lead to higher lift and lower drag values. At
low Reynolds numbers, however, where the flow tends to
- 4 -
remain laminar it may have been expected to produce flows
tending towards this aim. Unfortunately, the inability of
the laminar boundary layer to sustain large adverse
pressure gradients leads to the separation of the flow from
the aerofoil surface within the pressure recovery region.
This results in large losses of lift and increased drag.
If the laminar shear layer separates from the surface
and undergoes transition to turbulent flow, and the
turbulent shear layer has sufficient entrainment to
reattach, then the well known "separation bubble" will be
formed. The separation bubble is defined as that region in
which slowly recirculating air is trapped between the
separation and re-attachment points. A simple diagram of
the separation bubble is shown in Figure 1.6. The length of
the separation bubble is defined as the distance between
the separation and re-attachment points and is usually
expressed in non-dimensional form as a percentage of the
chord length.
Laminar separation bubbles have been studied for many
years (Refs 10-15). Generally their behaviour is used to
describe the performance and stalling characteristics of
aerofoils. These stalling characteristics can be classified
into four different categories:
a) Trailing edge stall
b) Leading edge or short-bubble stall
c) Long bubble or thin aerofoil stall
-5-
d) Combination of both trailing edge and leading edge
stall.
The characteristics of these categories are illustrated in

Figure 1.7.
"Trailing edge stall" generally occurs on
moderately thick aerofoils (~10% x/c). It is identified by
forward movement of the turbulent separation point as
incidence is increased causing a decrease in the lift
curve slope, and a gradual loss of lift beyond the maximum
without causing a sharp drop in the lift coefficient.
"Leading edge" or "short bubble stall" occurs when a short
bubble situated just downstream of the leading edge suction
peak "bursts", causing gross flow separation. This occurs
when the leading edge adverse pressure gradient is too
severe for the flow to re-attach. The third type, the "long
bubble" or "thin aerofoil stall", is described as the
movement of the bubble's re-attachment point towards the
trailing edge of the aero foil with increasing angle of
attack. The long bubble increases in length gradually until
it covers the entire aerofoil. The maximum lift is
relatively small compared with other types of stall and if
the angle of attack is increased further this will lead to
lift reduction. The final type of stall occurs when the
aero foil experiences a combinat ion of trail ing edge
separation and leading edge short bubble bursting. At
angles of attack just prior to the leading edge bubble
bursting, the lift curve slope dips as the lift decreases
- 6-
only gradually due to significant trailing edge separation.
With increases in angle of attack the leading edge bubble
bursts resulting in a sudden decrease in lift and a large
increase in drag. In Reference 11, Chappell calls such
behaviour a "combined stall" due to the occurrence of both
forward movement of the turbulent separation point and the
leading edge bubble bursting.
Separation bubbles are typically described as
"long" or "short" depending on their relative lengths. A
"long" bubble covers a separated region of about 20%-40% of
the chord, while the length of a "short" bubble covers only
a few percent. A short bubble generally makes little impact
on the pressure distribution around an aerofoil (Figure
1.8). Lissaman (Ref.4) also uses the above criterion in
defining long bubbles, but states that the short bubble
could not form unless the chord Reynolds number is greater
than 100,000.
Many of the separation bubbles identified in this
study occurred as far downstream as 65% or even 75% of the
chord with turbulent re-attachment very close to the
trailing edge. These bubbles were "long" according to their
length criterion (20%-40% of the chord), but became shorter
in length and moved towards the leading edge at increased
incidence. When the aerofoil was set at negative angles of
attack (e.g. a=-5.1 0 , Re=300,OOO) two separation bubbles
were formed, a "long" and a "short" one. Figure 1.9,
- 7-
illustrates a pressure distribution with the two separation
bubbles formed on the upper and lower surfaces clearly
shown. The long bubble formed near the trailing edge on the
upper surface and the short one close to the leading edge
on the lower surface of the aerofoil.
During the stalling process, on the NACA-4415
aerofoil, a combination of both trailing edge separation
and leading edge short bubble bursting was observed,
indicating that the aerofoil's stalling characteristic fell
into the fourth category as mentioned earlier. The
two-dimensional behaviour of the NACA-4415 aerofoil with
increasing angle of attack and Reynolds number is described
in Chapter IV.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE PRESENT STUDY
The investigation carried out in this study was to
identify possible advantageous characteristics of the
NACA-4415 aerofoil section at Reynolds numbers below or
equal to 600,000. This work is also part of the continuing
research programme at the University of Glasgow dedicated
to revealing the performance and boundary layer characteri-
stics of aerofoils which are currently being used on the
rotor blades of various wind turbines and helicopters. In
addition to this investigation, comparison was made with
three other aerofoils previously tested using the same wind
tunnel facilities. It is hoped that what was observed will
- 8-
be valuable to future researchers and may give an
indication of the phenomena which other aerofoil sections
operating in the same low Reynolds number regime, would
experience.
Static pressure measurements were taken to obtain
values of normal force and pressure drag coefficients as
well as pitching moment coefficients. An assessment of the
first order boundary layer characteristics was made and it
revealed that the most important feature was the separation
bubbles developed on the upper and lower surfaces of the
model. Flow visualisation was also carried out to examine
the flow phenomena over the aerofoil's upper surface and
useful information was recorded in the form of photographs
which were subsequently used in the analysis of the test
data.
- 9-
CHAPTER II
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
All experimental data presented in this report were
obtained using the facilities of the Aerospace Engineering
Department's Laboratory at the University of Glasgow. The
test model, a NACA-4415 aerofoil section was used and its
performance determined over a wide range of low chord
Reynolds numbers. Static pressure distributions were
obtained using pressure tappings which were connected via
three electronic selector boxes, to a micromanometer and
thence to a DEC MINC (PDP 11/23) mini-computer system.
Aerodynamic force and moments coefficients were obtained by
integrating the static pressure distribution of the
aerofoil. The "surface oil" flow visualisation technique
was also used and photographs were obtained to record the
various flow states that occurred around the aerofoil. The
technique provided useful information for a better
understanding of the aerofoil's performance and boundary
layer characteristics.
2.1 WIND TUNNEL FACILITIES
All tests were conducted in the Aerospace Engineering
-10-
Department's medium sized low speed wind tunnel which is an
atmospheric-pressure closed-return type and has a
rectangular cross section of 1.143m width and 0.838m height
(Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Its upper and lower walls contain
graduated turntables for mounting the model vertically.
This was done in such a way as to provide rotation about
the quarter chord axis.
Since the tunnel operated at atmospheric pressures

only, the Reynolds number was varied by means of changing
the tunnel airspeed. The minimum and maximum air flow
velocities obtained in the test section were approximately
2.5 and 30.0 m/s respectively. Kokkalis, (Ref.16), investi-
gated the turbulence intensity level and found that in the
longitudinal direction it was 0.4% while in the lateral
direction it was 0.6%. Both of these components were
measured at the centre of the working section and under a
free stream velocity of 10.0 m/s.
2.2 WIND TUNNEL MODEL
The model used in these experiments had a NACA-4415

aerofoil section. The construction of this model was
carried out at the Aerospace Engineering Department's
manufacturing and assembly facilities during the period
December 1986 to February 1987. Full details of the
construction of this model are given in the Appendix. The
chord length was 300.0 mm, and the span 838.0 mm giving an
-11-
aspect ratio of 2.8. The dimensions were chosen so they
would match those of GU25-5 (11) 8, NASA GA (W) -1 and
NACA-0015 models previously tested under the same
conditions in the same wind tunnel facility (Refs 17 and
18). The aerofoil's co-ordinates are listed in Table 1.
The NACA-4415 aerofoil section was chosen because it
belongs to the NACA-44XX family of aerofoil sections which
are widely used for the rotor blades of horizontal axes
wind turbines . Galbraith et al (Ref. 19), provides a
tabulated list not only of the NACA-44XX aerofoil series
but also of the NASA GA(W) -1 and NACA-0015 aerofoil
sections showing their wide applicability to various types
of wind turbines.
2.3 COMPUTER FACILITIES
In the present study, data acquisition and data
reduction for all pressure measurements was accomplished
with the aid of a DEC MINC (PDP 11/23) mini-computer. The
data acquisition system consisted of PDP 11/23 processor
interfaced with two RX02M diskette drives. Each diskette
has a capacity of 512 kB. One of the diskettes was used as
the system's device (DYO:) containing the necessary
operating system software while the other (DY1:) was used

for data and programs storage. The console used with this
system, while the computer operated in the data acquisition
mode, was a DEC VT105. An IBM computer system and an EPSON
-12-
MX-80 printer were also connected with the computer system
for the production of draft pressure distribution plots.
Analog to digital conversion was accomplished by a
12-bit A/D converter (MNCAD). In conjunction with the A/D
converter a programmable clock (MNCKW) was also used. Both
the A/D converter and the clock were plugged into the
MINC's chassis in a configured mode.
All the collected and reduced data files were
transferred from the diskettes to a VAX 11/750 computer
main-frame via a lengthy process. The VAX 11/750 coupled
with a VERSATEC plotter and using GINO graphics routines,
produced high quality plots. The VAX 11/750 computer system
used to produce the required plots and permanent storage of
the data for Data Base Management (D.B.M).
2.4 STATIC PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
Aerofoil pressure distributions were obtained using
a specially constructed model with pressure tappings
mounted on its mid-span position on the upper and lower
surfaces along the chord length. Pressure data were
obtained for ranges of 50,000 to 600,000 chord Reynolds
numbers and -5.10 0 to 22.90 0 of angles of attack.
A total of sixty pressure tappings were placed
around the aero foil so a good assessment of the chordwise
-13-
pressure distribution could be achieved. Thirty nine of
those were placed on the upper surface with the remaining
twenty one on the lower surface of the model. The
locations of these tappings were measured using a vernier
height gauge and are listed in Table 2. Figure 2.3
illustrates the shape of the aerofoil's cross section
together with the positions of the pressure tappings on
both the upper and lower surfaces. The pressure tappings
were staggered over the first 11.4% and 8% of the chord
from the leading edge on the upper and lower surfaces
respectively, and at 22% from the trailing edge on the
upper surface. Staggering the pressure tappings was
deliberate to avoid any interference which might exist
between a downstream pressure tapping and an upstream one
(Ref.1). Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show clearly wide differences
in pressure distribution measurements between an "in-line"
and "staggered" pressure tapping model tested under the
same wind tunnel conditions. As seen in Figure 2.4, the
"in-line" pressure tap model has a lower suction peak and
fails to indicate the existing leading edge separation
bubble. Figure 2.5 also demonstrates that the pressure
tappings, placed "in-line", cause earlier transition.
The use of two electronic micromanometers was
required to measure free stream dynamic pressures and
differential pressures at each pressure tapping. Both
micromanometers are of MDC-FC002 and FC012 types and have
ranges of +/-19.99 and +/-199.9 rnrn of H 2 0.
-14-
The accuracy 0 f the MDC- FC 002 mi cromanometer,
calibrated by the manufacturers using precision water
column manometers, is +/-1%, whilst for the FC012 type it
is 0.2% or 0.3% depending on range of pressure. Their
linearity is +/-0.5% or +/-1.0%, and their output voltage
signal is 0-2 VDC or 0-5 VDC respectively (see Reference

22) .
Alongside the micromanometers, three selector boxes

were provided to accommodate all pressure tubes. Each
selector box has a maximum of twenty pressure fittings
attached at its rear panel together with an output
pressure port connected to the input of the FCO 12
micromanometer. These selector boxes enabled an automatic
selection of each pressure tapping so that the
corresponding pressure measurement could be carried out.
This automatic selection of the tappings was achieved by
using an IEEE Standard 488-1975 Bus Controller mounted in
the PDP 11/23 computer. The communication path between the
PDP 11/23 and the selector boxes was provided by the IEEE
Bus interface cable.
2.5 FLOW VISUALISATION AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EOUIPMENT
In addition to the pressure coefficient and force
measurements on the NACA-4415 model tested much useful
information about the boundary layer was obtained by
-15-
visually observing the nature of the fluid flow past the
surface of the model. For this purpose, the surface oil
flow visualisation technique was considered. This technique
was chosen because of its successful application on
different aerofoil models tested in the same wind tunnel by
previous researchers (Refs 17,18,20 and 21).
This flow visualisation technique was performed using
Odina-oil, Saturn Yellow "Dayglo" fluorescent powder and
liquid paraffin for a thinner. The viscosity of the mixture
was adjusted by trial and error until a suitable ratio was
obtained. This mixture was then applied on the upper
surface of the model by careful stippling using an ordinary
sponge. Extra care was taken so the oil mixture was
uniformly distributed on the whole area of the upper
surface of the model. Once the solution was applied to the
model it was illuminated using two ultra-violet light
sources. They made the visualisation solution appear bright
yellow, and therefore enabled the user to observe and study
the flow patterns as they developed.
A NIKON FE-2 50mm camera was used to obtain still
photographs of the fluorescing powder once the pattern had
developed. The camera was equipped with ultra-violet and
polarising filters so that only the visible light from the
powder impinges on the photographic emulsion. Photographs
were obtained using ILFORD XPl-400 ASA film.
-16-
CHAPTER III
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
3.1 STATIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS
The chordwise pressure distributions were obtained at
the mid-span of the specially constructed pressure model
using the PDP 11/23 data acquisition system, two electronic
micromanometers and three selector boxes. An ordinary
thermometer and a barometer were also used to measure the
wind tunnel air temperature and atmospheric pressure
respectively during each test. Two programs were used
extensively in this study for the collection and reduction
of the data, namely AEROFL.BAS and CNTM41.FOR. The data
collection program (AEROFL.BAS) written in BASIC computer
language and the data reduction program (CNTM41. FOR)
written in FORTRAN language. The main reason of writing
AEROFL.BAS in BASIC was that the three selector boxes could
only operate under BASIC language commands. These programs
are a modification of the programs GEOR.BAS and CNDM.FOR
used by Kokkodis (Ref.lS). The modification was necessary
to improve time consumption and accuracy of the reduced
data. A set of programs was also written to present the
reduced data files in a graphical form. All the plotting
-17-
programs were written in FORTRAN and, together with GINO
graphics routines, a presentation of chordwise pressure
distributions in two and three dimensional form, as well as
force and moments coefficients versus angles of attack, was
available.
The main assumption made for this part of the study
was that the airflow remained uniform, steady and
incompressible in its entire journey through the tunnel.
Using the above assumption the pressure coefficient is
defined as
(3.1)
where P1 refers to static pressure on the surface of the
aerofoil
P2 refers to atmospheric pressure and
q refers to free stream dynamic pressure.
The pressure difference (P1 -P2) can also be written as
(Ref.23)
(3.2)
and the free stream dynamic pressure as
-18-
(1/2) 'Pa.v2 (3.3)
where k is referred to as the wind tunnel calibration
factor. For the wind tunnel concerned, k equals to 1.18.
Thus, equation (3.1) can be re-written as
(3.4)
Therefore to determine the pressure coefficient it was only
necessary to measure two pressure differences, both
measured in mm H20.
The flow chart illustrating the sequence of events
during the chordwise pressure distribution measurements is
shown in Figure 3.1. A schematic representation of the
various electronic instruments used and their inter-
connections is also shown in Figure 3.2. The free stream
dynamic pressure was measured in terms of the difference
between a total head and a static pressure reading using
the MDC-FC002 electronic micromanometer. The static
pressure was measured by means of an orifice in the wall of
the working section, well upstream of the model. The total
head pressure was measured through another orifice placed
in the tunnel's settling chamber wall upstream of the
contraction. The two orifices were connected to the
measuring head of the micromanometer via rubber tubes and
-19-
the pressure difference was then recorded. In addition, a
second micromanometer (FC012) measured the pressure
difference between static pressures from each tapping on
the model and the atmospheric pressure.
Before each set of tests, a warm up time of twenty to
thirty minutes was allowed so that the electronics of the
two micromanometers as well as the selector boxes and the
AID converter were brought up to desired operational
temperatures. At the beginning and end of each test, the
wind tunnel air temperature and the atmospheric pressure
were recorded. The air temperature was measured using an
ordinary thermometer inserted through an orifice in the
side wall of the tunnel upstream of the test section. The
atmospheric pressure was obtained using a mercury
barometer. The barometer height ((H) in mm Hg) and air
temperature ((Ta) in °C) were substituted into expression
(3.5) which determined the wind tunnel air density
(Ref. 24) .
Pair (3.5)
The determination of wind tunnel air density was necessary
in order to reduce to the minimum any experimental errors
concerning the air velocity and hence the free stream
dynamic pressure and Reynolds number.
As mentioned earlier in Chapter II, three selector
-20-
boxes were used to accommodate all pressure tubes. Each
selector box had twenty pressure ports at its rear panel.
The connection of the pressure tubes was made in such a way
that tube labelled as number one in selector box I
corresponded to the pressure tapping nearest to the
trailing edge on the upper surface of the model. The
pressure tapping nearest to the trailing edge on the lower
surface corresponded to tube number sixty connected to
selector box III. An IEEE Bus cable provided the
communication link between the PDP 11/2.3 computer and the
selector boxes. The boxes were connected to the Bus by
multiple conductor cables. With the help of the IEEE Bus
cable the selection of a particular pressure port, and
therefore of a pressure tapping on the model, could be
carried out automatically by the acquisition program.
Each selector box also has a main output pressure
port which allows the pressure of a selected pressure
tapping to be transmitted into the FC012 micromanometer.
The manometer could then measure the pressure difference
between the atmospheric pressure and the static pressure of
the selected pressure tapping. The reading was then fed
into the A/D converter of the PDP 11/23 computer as an
analog voltage signal. The selector boxes were entirely
governed by the computer which allowed complete computer
control of the experiment for the duration of each test.
A "test" consisted of the chordwise static pressure
-21-
distribution data taken at mid-span of the model for one
Reynolds number condition and for one angle of attack.
During each test, the data acquisition program stepped
through the model once, sampling each pressure tapping
forty times in a period of one second. The sampling process
for each test began at the trailing edge and proceeded
along the upper surface to the leading edge then on to the
lower surface pressure tappings starting from the leading
edge and progressing to the trailing edge. The cycle of the
selection of the forty samples for each pressure tapping
was carried out twice and two average values were obtained.
If the difference between the two averages was between
+/-2% of the first average then this value was stored on
the system's diskette before progressing to the next
tapping. However, in case the above convergence criterion

was not satisfied, then the whole process of taking new
values would be repeated up to a maximum of twenty times.
If still no convergence was obtained after the twenty
cycles then the last average value was recorded together
with a warning that this particular pressure tapping did
not converge. Therefore, it was easy to observe that the
time taken for each test varied in the present
investigation. During some tests the time used was
considerable. This occurred due to the large flow
fluctuations for very low Reynolds numbers (see Figures
4.1.1 and 4.1.2) .
The selected pressure measurements from each tapping
-22-
were stored on diskettes so that the reduction process of
the data could be carried out after the completion of the
tests. Before any experiments were begun, several runs were
carried out to check for possible pressure tube leaks at
various wind tunnel speeds and angles of attack as well as
the data acquisition process. After the completion of each
test the corresponding pressure distribution was displayed
on the screen of the DEC VT105 monitor. This allowed a
checking of any pressure abnormalities that might have

occurred during the experiment and therefore a re-run, for
that particular angle of attack and Reynolds number, was
carried out.
During each set of tests, the wind tunnel operated

at the desired speed until the completion of the tests.
This had an effect on the dynamic pressure which with
increasing angle of attack was reduced due to wind tunnel
blockage effects. The dynamic pressure was originally set
with zero angle of attack for each set of tests. Generally,
the dynamic pressure decreased for each set of tests up to
a maximum of 3% of its initial value, prior to complete
stall.
In general, a complete set of tests for the
NACA-4415 aero foil at one Reynolds number condition
included angles of attack prior to the commencement of
positive lift to angles beyond full stall. Measurements
were taken for at least every degree of incidence. The
-23-
Reynolds number range varied from 50,000 to 600,000 with a
step increment of 25,000 for the first 200,000. After
200,000 Reynolds number, the step increment increased to
50,000 until it reached 600,000 .. A grand total of 597 tests
were performed for 15 different Reynolds number conditions.
The CNTM41. FOR computer program was used for the
integration of pressure distributions to obtain normal
force and pressure drag coefficients, together with leading
edge and quarter chord pitching moment coefficients. The
integration of pressure distributions was based on a
trapezoidal rule approximation method. When using chordwise
pressure distributions this method is relatively accurate
provided there is close spacing of pressure tappings around
the aerofoil. The program also stored pressure coefficients
data in files formatted for plotting using the available
software in the Aerospace Engineering Department's VAX
11/750 computer library.
Throughout this investigation, the generated force
and moment coefficients remained uncorrected for two-
dimensional blockage effects and streamline curvature.
There were two main reasons for leaving these coefficients
uncorrected. Firstly, because no attempt was made to
measure the wake behind the aerofoil by using a wake
traverse method, and secondly, because of the limited
validity of the derived two-dimensional equations, applied
for such corrections. These equations are only valid for
-24-
flows over aerofoils which are wholly subsonic and fully
attached (Refs 5 and 6) .
Such wake measurements would have been essential for
obtaining a value of the total blockage factor, £s' at
different geometric angles of attack. Although the flow
over the present aerofoil matched the subsonic criterion,
it did not match the fully attached flow. This was because
of the presence of a separation bubble on either the upper
or lower surfaces and trailing edge separation at
incidences greater than 80 - 90 . Full details of the
expressions involved for correcting wind tunnel aerodynamic
force and moment coefficients data are given in References
5 and 6.
The only correction made in this study, however, was
of the angle of attack. Kelling (Ref.21) discovered in his
investigation that the flow approaching the test section is
yawed by approximately +/-0.6 degrees depending on the
direction in which the test incidence is measured. Here,
the positioning of the model in the working section
contributed to a negative flow yawing angle. Therefore, the
actual angle of attack was obtained by subtracting 0.6
degrees from the measured geometric incidence, i.e.
ex (3.6)
-25-
3.2 EXPERIMENTAL LIMITATIONS
The main experimental limitation experienced in this
study was the inability to obtain data for the NACA-4415
aerofoil at angles of attack greater than 19.40° and for
550,000 Reynolds number. This problem was encountered due
to the fact that the FC012 electronic micromanometer went
out of range. Pressure values exceeding the micromano-
meter sI operational limit were usually observed on the
upper surface and very close to the leading edge. When this
occurred no further collection of data was allowed and the
test was terminated.
Exactly the same problem occurred for the 600,000
Reynolds number and for angles of attack greater than
13.40°. For a matter of interest however the micromanometer
was set to manual with a maximum off-set value of -40.7 mm
H20 as the zero setting. This allowed the micromanometer to
extend its operational limit to +240.6 and -159.2 mm H20.
Once again, however, it proved impossible to reach full
stalling angles. By pure coincidence, the maximum angle of
attack obtained for both the 550,000 and 600,000 Reynolds
number cases was 19.40 0 • One might speculate that the data
collected for Reynolds number equal to 600,000 and for
angle of attack greater than 13.40 0 is not accurate enough
and should be considered with skepticism. Figure 4.4.15
however, illustrates that there are no major discrepancies
-26-
of the aerodynamic force coefficients against angle of
attack plots for angles of attack greater than U=13.40o and
therefore the data could be treated as such of lower
Reynolds numbers.
Generally, in an experimental investigation of the
aerodynamic performance of an aerofoil, a consideration
must be made for every possible aspect which might affect
its overall performance. Such an aspect is the hysteresis
effect occurring near the stalling angles of attack. The
aerodynamic forces are strongly dependent on this
hysteresis phenomenon and on the direction at which the
stalling angle is approached. Hysteresis is of practical
importance because it could strongly affect the recovery
from stall and/or flight conditions.
Two possible hysteresis loops exist, the "high-lift"
or "clockwise" and "low-lift" or "counterclockwise"
hysteresis. By increasing the angle of attack the lift and
drag forces are increased. When stall is finally reached
the lift experiences a large drop while drag experiences a
great increase. Reducing the angle of attack slightly the
former values of the aerodynamic forces are not restored.
Instead, the angle of attack may have to be reduced by
several degrees before lift and drag revert to values
obtained under conditions of increasing angle of attack.
This is known as the "high-lift" or "clockwise" hysteresis
-27-
loop and mainly happens to aerofoils experiencing early
transition caused by a separation bubble.
For the "low-lift" or "counterclockwise" hysteresis
loop, the lift and drag experience sudden increases at a
certain angle of attack. In this case, reducing the angle

of attack, lift and drag keep increasing until maximum
values are obtained. Reducing it even further causes lift
and drag forces to revert to values obtained with
increasing angles of attack. This type of hysteresis loop
is mainly caused by the increase of the long bubble and its
abrupt collapse to a short bubble. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show
that the Lissaman aerofoil exhibits the "high-lift"
hysteresis loop while the Miley produces the "low-lift"
hysteresis loop.
In this study, however, considering that there is a

very high turbulence intensity level (0.5%) in the wind
tunnel used and following the observations of Sumantran et
al and Mueller (Refs 8 and 9), it is thought that
hysteresis effects may be considered to be negligible.
Therefore, no attempt was made to show any hysteresis
effects which might occur on the lift curve slopes.
3.3 FLOW VISUALISATION
Flow visualisation was accomplished using the surface
oil-film technique. This technique was carried out on the
-28-
NACA-4415 aerofoil model with all the pressure orifices
sealed. No quantitative pressure measurements were made at
this stage, since the objective was to observe any flow
phenomena which may occur. Photographs were taken of the
model's upper surface at different angles of attack and

Reynolds numbers. This method had been used very
successfully in the past (References 18 and 20) at tunnel
speeds over 10mls but with very limited success at lower
velocities. The interpretation of flow visualisation
photographs taken in the study, as well as in previous
studies for speeds lower than 1 Oml s, indicate that the
surface oil-film flow visualisation technique as used, was
performing at its limit and the oil-film probably altered
the boundary layer characteristics of the aerofoil giving

inaccurate results.
It was found from initial photographic studies that
good results could be obtained for all ranges of flow
conditions if the camera shutter speed was 1/15 second and
the aperture was set at f:2.0. All photographs in this
study were obtained using these camera settings. Film

developing and printing was accomplished using the
Aeronautics Department photographic facilities as well as
those of the Photographic Department.
The model was mounted vertically in the test section
(Figure 3.5) and the NIKON FE-2 camera mounted on a tripod
positioned approximately 60cm from the test section side
-29-
wall. Typically, it was necessary to shut down the tunnel
between tests in order to apply the correct oil film. Extra
care was taken to ensure that this oil film was uniformly
distributed over the aerofoil. Without delay the angle of
attack was set and the tunnel speed was brought up from
zero to its desired value. The oil started to move along
the chord in streaks. Since the model was mounted vertical-
ly in the test section, gravitational effects gave a down-
ward bias to the flow pattern. The flow pattern was allowed
to develop until no further flow changes were observed. The
surface flow patterns were then photographed.
Leading edge separation bubbles were clearly visible
and noted as narrow vertical bands of trapped re-
circulating oil covering a small area of the model surface
along the span (Figure 4.3.1~. Long bubbles were
characterised by a separation line followed by a region
where the oil remained stationary. The location of the
re-attachment point was identified as the line immediately
behind the bubble, indicated by the beginning of a wider
dark band representing fully attached flow (Figure 4.3.2).
Following the dark band, and for angles of attack greater
than 11.90 0 , an uneven line developed which represented the
turbulent separation front.
The main advantage of this flow visualisation method
is that the different flow fields formed on the surface of
the aerofoil could easily be distinguished.
-30-
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This chapter presents a selection and detailed
discussion of the most pertinent results obtained from both
the chordwise static pressure distribution and flow
visualisation measurements on a NACA-4415 aerofoil. From
these measurements, the two-dimensional performance of the
aerofoil with respect to angle of attack, a, and chord
Reynolds number, Re c ' was determined.
Due to the large amount of data collected during the
present investigation, pseudo-three-dimensional represent-
ations were developed to illustrate the static pressure
distributions over the aerofoil. They are plotted against
the full range of angles of attack considered at constant
Reynolds numbers and vice versa. Aerodynamic force and
moment coefficients, used for studying the performance of
an aerofoil, were obtained by integrating the chordwise
pressure distribution using a simple trapezoidal rule
method. These coefficients are presented as a function of
angle of attack for each Reynolds number tested. No
corrections, to the results throughout this study for the
-31-
effects of two-dimensional wake, solid blockage, and of
streamline curvature (refer to Section 3.1), were applied
to the data.
Further, a surface flow visualisation technique was
used to assist understanding of the flow mechanisms which
might have affected the behaviour of the boundary layer
over the upper surface of the aerofoil.
The analysis of the results obtained from the
pressure and flow visualisation measurements helped to
clarify the two dimensional performance of this aerofoil in
the Reynolds number range considered.
4.1 PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF ANGLE OF ATTACK AND
REYNOLDS NUMBER
4.1.1 Introductory Comments
The chordwise static pressure distribution plots for
the NACA-4415 aerofoil at a Reynolds number range of 50,000
to 600,000 and for angles of attack ranging from -5.10 0 to
22.90 0 are illustrated in figures 4.1.1 to 4.1.15 and 4.2.1
to 4.2.20. The first set shows the pressure variations over
the upper and lower surfaces at various incidences while
the Reynolds number is kept constant. The second set is a
presentation of the pressure differences that occur on the
upper surface of the aerofoil for the Reynolds number range
-32-
examined, at constant angles of attack. Both sets of
figures offer a good indication of the presence of laminar
separation bubbles, as well as, the locations of turbulent
boundary layer separations, on the upper or lower surface
of the model. The locations of laminar separation and
turbulent re-attachment points, however, could not be
always ascertained from these figures. It was found that
the performance of the aerofoil at these low Reynolds

numbers was dictated by the positions of laminar
separation, transition and turbulent re-attachment. Turbu-
lent boundary layer separation, however, had an effect upon
the generation of the aerodynamic forces and pitching
moments. Due to the observed repeatability of the boundary
layer phenomena over the test range, only the first three
Reynolds number cases (i.e. 50,000, 75,000 and 100,000) are
examined in detail.
For Reynolds numbers as low as 50,000 and 75,000, the
static pressure distribution plots show that the pressure
along the chord length fluctuates quite strongly for all
angles of attack tested. These pressure fluctuations are
possibly due to environmental disturbances in the wind
tunnel. Previous studies (Refs 7,8) have shown that for low
Reynolds number regimes, environmental disturbances have
played a significant part in the behaviour of the boundary
layer and, consequently, the performance of an aerofoil.
Such fluctuations in pressure make the study of the
boundary layer itself a very formidable task. The amount of
-33-
data collected from the present tests, however, allows a
detailed discussion of the flow phenomena around the
aerofoil to be carried out with some confidence.
Identification of the various boundary layer
phenomena from the pressure distribution plots was carried
out using the following criteria. Areas of relatively
constant pressure indicated the position of laminar or
turbulent flow separation. The location of flow transition
and that of turbulent re-attachment were assessed from the
classical interpretation of the pressure profiles
exhibiting bubble characteristics. Arena et al (Ref.12)
describes turbulence re-attachment as that point where the
pressure, when it is fully recovered, is nearly equal to
the value measured for a turbulent boundary layer over an
aerofoil with no presence of a separation bubble (Figure
4.2.21) .
4 .1.2 ~c 50,000
The pressure distributions over the upper and lower
surface of the aerofoil for a Reynolds number of 50,000 are
shown in Figures 4.1.1(a) and (b) respectively. Examining
these figures it may be observed, that on the lower
surface, a laminar separation bubble is formed close to the
leading edge. At -5.10 0 , the length of the bubble appears
to be between 23% and 33% of the chord, which according to
the length criteria, described in Section 1.2, the bubble
-34-
is considered to be "long". With increasing incidence,
however, the separation bubble persists, increases in
length slightly and moves aft towards the trailing edge. As
indicated by the pressure distribution plots, the bubble
seems to disappear at a higher incidence, but due to
pressure fluctuations, it is very difficult to assess the
incidence at which this occurs.
In contrast to the lower surface, the behaviour of
the boundary layer over the upper surface (Fig.4.1.1(b))
appears to be more simple. Due to the pressure fluctuations
little can be said about the behaviour of the boundary
layer, except that the suction peak moves closer to the
leading edge with increasing incidence and that stalling of
the aerofoil is believed to occur at an incidence of 6.90 0 .
The location of stall is taken from the pressure
distribution plots which show that aft of x/c=0.15 the
pressure coefficient is nearly constant, indicating that
leading edge flow separation has occurred. with increasing
incidence the aerofoil remained stalled and laminar
separation progresses forward from x/c=0.15 at u=6.90 0 to
approximately x/c=0.03 at u=22.90 0 .
From the aerodynamic force and moment coefficient

plots, shown in Figure 4.4.1, the normal force coefficient,
eN' appears to vary in a linear manner over the range from
-5.10 0 to 0.90 0 of angles of attack. Over the same range,
-35-
however, the quarter chord pitching moment coefficient,
CMc/4' decreases in magnitude with increasing incidence.
Zero normal force is obtained at an angle of attack of
about -1.50 0 . As the angle of attack is increased the CN
curve slope gradually decreases. From the incidence where
stall occurs (6.90 0 ), CN rises very slowly. Due to
fluctuations of the CN curve between 6.90 0 and 22.90 0 ,
however, only an average value of dCN/du=1.71 has been
estimated.
Between angles of attack of 0.90 0 and 13.40 0 , CMc/4
coefficient maintains an approximately constant value of
-0.09. As incidence increases to 22.90 0 the magnitude of
CMc/4 decreases; exceeding -0.13 at high angles of attack.
Minimum tangential force coefficient of 0.037 occurs at
U=-o .10 0 . From U=4. 90 0 to 22.90 0 , however, it remains
relatively constant, having an average value of 0.015
(Fig.4.4.1)
The aerofoil's performance at this Reynolds number
can be characterised as very poor, especially for angles of

attack greater than 6.90 0 where it approximates that of a
flat plate.
-36-
4.1. 3 Reo 75,000
At this Reynolds number the performance is dominated
by the formation of separation bubbles on both the upper
and lower surfaces. Pressure fluctuations persist over the
test range, but are much less than those observed at
Re=50,000. Upper and lower surface static pressure
distributions and aerodynamic coefficients are presented in
Figures 4.1.2 and 4.4.2 respectively.
For a=-5.10 0 , a leading edge separation bubble is
formed on the lower surface (Fig. 4.1.2(a)). It appears to
be shorter than that observed for Re=50,000 and occupies
about 18% of the chord. Additionally, laminar separation
occurs at x/c=O. 08 while transition and turbulent flow
re-attachment are approximately at x/ c=O. 23 and x/ c=O. 28
respectively. Also, turbulent flow separation appears to be
present at the x/c=O. 88. For increased incidences, the
bubble continued to exist but with slight increase in
length until around a=-0.10 0 where it has disappeared.
The behaviour of the flow over the upper surface
(Fig.4.1.2(b)) is dominated by the formation of a
persistent separation bubble over almost the whole range of
angles of attack tested up to the stall. For small angles
of attack as low as -5.10 0 , laminar separation is at about
x/c=0.56 with transition possibly occurring close to the
-37-
trailing edge. At increased incidence, the laminar
separation point moves forward and the flow does not
re-attach until u=-2. 10 0 . There is then an abrupt
re-attachment close to the trailing edge forming an upper
surface long separation bubble. This bubble occupies
approximately 50% of the chord with laminar separation
occurring at about x/c=O. 50 and transition at x/c=O. 84.
With further increases in incidence, the separation bubble
migrates forward and shortens to 40% at u=3.90 0 and 35% at
U=9.90 0 . Just before stall, however, its overall length is
around 13% chord. Turbulent flow separation first appears
around the 12.40 0 incidence and moves upstream towards the
leading edge with increasing angle of attack. At U=16.40 0
turbulent flow separation has moved to x/c=0.62 causing a
38% chord trailing edge separation. Leading edge
separation, caused by the "burst" of the bubble occurred at
U=16.90 o . The bubble's progression, discussed above, is
illustrated in figure 4.1.19 where the location of laminar
separation, transition, turbulent re-attachment and
turbulent separation are shown.
The formation of the upper and lower surface bubbles
as well as their disappearance played a significantly
important part into the performance of the aerofoil. Prior
to the upper surface bubble formation, the dCN/dU curve
-38-
slope increased gradually to a large value of approximately
9.50 (Fig.4.4.2). When the bubble formed, at a=-2.10 0
(Fig.4.1.2(b)), the magnitude of the slope reduced to 6.7
(a decrease of nearly 30%) and remained so until there was
no lower surface bubble at a=-0.10 0 . The disappearance of
the lower surface bubble probably caused the dCN/da value
to decrease even further by nearly 13% to an approximate
value of 5.85. Over the same variation of incidence, the
quarter chord pitching moment coefficient decreased in
magnitude reaching a minimum of -0.106 at a=0.900. In the
range -1.10 0 <a<4.900, however, dCMc/4/dafluctuates between
-0.105 and -0.097. The tangential force coefficient,
however, is different and increases in magnitude to a
maximum of 0.03 at a=-3.100 and then decreases gradually
with increasing incidence. From a=4.900 the magnitude of
the dCN/da slope decreases reaching a minimum at 12.40°, at
which CN attains its maximum value of approximately 1.41.
Over the same incidence range (8.90° to 16.40°) the
quarter chord pitching moment coefficient increases in a
somehow unsteady manner with a sharp rise of about 22%
between 11.90° and 12.90°. This increase is thought to have
occurred due to the initiation of trailing edge flow
-39-
separation. Similarly, CT continues to decrease further
with increasing incidence, reaching a minimum value of
-0.274 at U=15.90 o .
Leading edge flow separation (see figure 4.1.2(b))
causes the aerofoil to stall at an angle of attack of
U=16.90 o . This is manifested by a large decrease in both
the normal force and pitching moment coefficients, together
with a sharp rise in the tangential force coefficient (Fig.
4.4.2). At this incidence, CN and CMc/4 have dropped to
0.84 and -0.114, while CT reached a value of 0.013.
At this chord Reynolds number, the performance of
the aerofoil has improved considerably compared to the
50,000 case.
4.1.4 Reo =100,000
Figure 4.1.3 illustrates the static pressure
distributions around the aerofoil at various angles of
attack. For this Reynolds number and the remaining cases
the pressure fluctuations which dominated the first two
Reynolds numbers cases, are greatly reduced and the
identification of boundary layer phenomena was made easier.
From the pressure distributions it may be observed that
separation bubbles are formed on both the upper and lower
-40-
surfaces. From an incidence of -5.10 0 to -0.10 0 , the
aerofoil has a lower surface separation bubble close to the
leading edge. This then extends downstream with increasing
incidence (Fig. 4.1.3(a)). At u=-0.10 0 the bubble has moved
to mid-chord occupying approximately 30% of the chord
length and laminar separation has moved to x/c=0.48, with
transition and turbulent re-attachment at about x/c=O. 68
and x/c=0.78 respectively. For U=0.90 0 , however, the
corresponding pressure distribution shows that the bubble
has disappeared and this had a significant effect on the
aerofoil's performance which exhibited a noticeable "kink"
in the normal force and pitching moment curves. Detail
discussion of the "kink" is given in Section 4.4.
The behaviour of the upper surface boundary layer is
again influenced by the existence of a separation bubble
Fig.4.1.3(b). Static pressure distribution plots, however,
show that at u=-5.10 0 laminar separation and transition of
the flow appear to occur at approximately x/c=0.62 and 0.92
respectively, with no indication of turbulent re-
attachment. As the incidence is increased, the flow tends
to re-attach and at an angle of -3.10 0 is located at
x/c=O. 94. This forms a long separation bubble covering
about 40% of the chord. At this incidence, laminar
separation and transition have moved to their new positions
of x/c=0.56 and 0.86 respectively. The bubble then exhibits
similar trends, with increasing incidence, to that of the
-41-
Re=75,000 case.
It is observed that it forms at a lower incidence and
monotonically migrates towards the leading edge, whilst
decreasing in length as incidence is increased. Trailing
edge separation also takes place at a=12. 90 0 and moves
rapidly upstream with increasing incidence. However, just
prior to stall (a=16.40 0 ), the bubble develops close to the
leading edge covering 10% of the chord, while the trailing
edge separation point has progressed to x/c=O. 56. The
migration of the bubble along the chord together with that
of the trailing edge separation location is illustrated in
figure 4.1.20.
By examining the aerodynamic coefficients (Fig.
4.4.3), it is noticeable that the dCN/da value changed in
magnitude at four different incidences before stall was
eventually reached. In the first stage, from -5.10 0 to
-2.10 0 , its value was found to be about 7.3. At a=-2.100
the flow on the upper surface re-attached forming a long
bubble. It could be argued that the change of flow
behaviour on that surface caused the reduction of the curve
slope to a magnitude of 5.9, a decrease of nearly 20%. The
curve slope remained constant in magnitude until the
leading edge bubble on the lower surface disappeared at
-0.10 0 .
-42-
The re-attachment of the flow also produced distinct
effects on dCMc /4/ da curve slope. Prior to flow
re-attachment (-2.10 0 ) the CMc/4 curve has a negative
slope, whilst for greater incidence values the slope became
positive. It remained positive until CMc/4 reached a
maximum value of -0.030 at 14.40 0 except, when the lower
surface bubble disappeared, a slight "kink" is obvious on
both the CN and CMc/4 curves. This "kink" is more distinct
in greater Reynolds numbers (Figs 4.4.4 to 4.4.15) and is
discussed in Section 4.4.
For angles of attack between 0.90 0 and 3.90 0 , dCN/da
(Fig.4.4.3) obtained a value of 5.44. The flow in this
incidence range is probably fully attached, apart, of
course, for the bubble formation. A further incidence
increase to 7.90 0 increased the rate of movement of
transition and re-attachment points over their predecessors
(Fig.4.1.3(b)). This caused the boundary layer to become
turbulent prematurely, which probably affected the CN curve
slope by reducing it to 4.6. Further increases in incidence
lead to additional losses in deN/da. A maximum normal force
coefficient of 1.375 was achieved at an angle of attack of
12.400. For greater incidences the CN was reduced as the
trailing edge separation increased until when leading edge
-43-
separation (bubble burst) occurred at 16.65 0 , CN and CMc/4
dropped from 1.294 to 0.829 and -0.034 to -0.110
respectively, while CT increased from -0.260 to 0.005.
4.1.5 Ego ~125,000
Static pressure distributions over the aerofoil for
Reynolds numbers between 125,000 and 600,000 are shown in
Figures 4.1.4 to 4.1.15. Examining these figures, it may be
observed that the trends are similar to those discussed in
the last two Reynolds number cases. An attempt to discuss

each figure individually would have provided no extra
information about the behaviour of the boundary layer, than
has already been discussed. Therefore, only a brief
discussion of the most obvious changes in pressure will be
described here. As far as the aerodynamic parameters are
concerned they appear to undergo some noticeable changes,
particularly in moderate angles of attack (less than 4 0 )
and beyond CNmax. A discussion of their behaviour will be
presented in Section 4.4.
Although the most unusual discontinuities in
pressure distribution occurred on the upper surface of the
aerofoil, some slight changes were also observed on the
lower surface. There the pressure distributions (Figs
4.1.4(a) to 4.1.15(a)) indicate that, at incidences below
zero degrees, a separation bubble forms close to the
-44-
leading edge. With increasing Reynolds number, however, it
l
shortens by approximately 8-12% per 50,000 of Reynolds
number. When the angle of attack is gradually increased the
bubble travels rapidly downstream until it disappears at a
small incidence. The disappearance of this bubble is

observed to take place at an incidence not higher than
1 . 90 0 for the lower Reynolds number range (i. e. ,
125,000~Rec~200,000) and not later than 0.90 0 for the
higher regimes. Further increases in angle of attack, did
not feature any unusual discontinuities in Cp until the
incidence at which stall occurred. It is understood, that

when this happened, the suction peak on the upper surface
collapsed and the centre of pressure shifted aft towards
the trailing edge. This is clearly noticeable by the sudden
forward movement of the stagnation point towards the
leading edge.
As was described above, a laminar separation bubble

was also formed on the upper surface (Figs 4.1.4(b) to
4.1.15(b)). It was observed that its formation was near the

trailing edge and, as the angle of attack increased, it
migrated upstream. When formed, it is described as a "long"
bubble, according to bubble length criteria. With
increasing incidence, however, it travels upstream and
becomes a "short" bubble covering only a small percentage

of the chord. This is clearly illustrated in figure
4.1.10 (b) where, for example, at a Reynolds number of

350,000 the bubble is about 25% of the chord at an
-45-
incidence of -5.10 0 and is reduced to approximately 4% at
17.90 0 . Apart from these changes in location and size of
the laminar separation bubble, turbulent flow separation
also takes place near the trailing edge at a certain angle
of attack; depending on the Reynolds number.
This separation moves towards the leading edge with
increasing incidence at a faster rate than that of the
laminar separation, transition and re-attachment points. It
is apparent, that when the separation bubble establishes
itself within the first 15% of the chord, its rate of
displacement slows substantially from about 10% to less

than 4% of the chord per degree of increasing incidence,
depending on the Reynolds number (Figs 4.1.4 (b) to
4.1.15(b)). From these figures it is also noticed that the
higher the Reynolds number, the earlier trailing edge
separation occurs.
In the present investigation, it became apparent

that the boundary layer around the aerofoil proved to be
very sensitive at these low Reynolds number regimes and
particularly for incidences close to stall. Occasionally,

during a single static pressure measurement test, the
aerofoil experienced two different flow conditions, i.e. a

fully attached and a fully separated. The occurrence of
these flow phenomena is clearly shown in figure 4.1.16(b).
This Figure illustrates that at a Reynolds number of
approximately 300,000 and at an angle of attack of 18.90 0 ,
-46-
a short bubble is situated close to the leading edge on the
upper surface of the aerofoil. Laminar separation and
transition occur at the locations of x/c=0.035 and 0.055
respectively, while re-attachment, indicated by the end of
the sharp pressure recovery region, occurs at approximately
x/c=0.075. As the pressure continues to increase, past the
re-attachment point, turbulent flow separation takes place
at about x/c=O. 44. After this the pressure coefficient
experiences a sudden decrease in value at approximately

x/c=0.56 and remains relatively constant for the rest of
the chord length.
In contrast with the upper surface, the lower
surface pressure distribution shows that as the pressure
decreases aft of the stagnation point at x/ c=O. 025 , it

experiences again a sudden increase. This occurs around
x/c=0.06 and the pressure decreases steadily from that
point to the trailing edge.
Since the pressure distribution around the aerofoil
was displayed on the computer's visual display terminal
(VT105), immediately after the completion of each test run,
it was possible to check those pressure abnormalities that
had occurred during the experiment before any data analysis
was made. By retesting the NACA-4415 aero foil for the same
incidence (18.90 0 ) and Reynolds number (300,000), it was
observed that the aerofoil was fully stalled (Fig.
4.1.16(c)).
-47-
Comparing the data of figure 4.1.16(b) with that of
the stalled case (Fig.4.1.16(c)), it may be noticed that
the upper surface pressure coefficient values from 0.62 x/c
to the trailing edge, together with those from the leading
edge to 0.05 x/c on the lower surface, are almost
identical. Bearing in mind that the order in which the
static pressure measurements were made (refer to Section
3.1), the most obvious explanation is that the aerofoil was
originally stalled and a flow perturbation triggered the
boundary layer to re-attach. A short time later, the flow
re-separated and subsequently re-attached. From these
figures it is clear that the boundary layer is so sensitive
that it is possible to change its state from fully
separated to fully attached and vice-versa (Figs 4.1.17 and
4.1.18). Such boundary layer behaviour was only observed at
incidences close to stall and can be attributed to the wind
tunnel's environmental disturbances, such as mechanical
vibrations, noise and high turbulence intensity level.
Similar observations were also made by Kokkodis
(Ref.18) for a NASA GA(W)-l and a NACA-0015 aerofoil
sections tested under the same conditions, emphasising the
extreme sensitivity of the boundary layer in these low
Reynolds numbers (0.5x105~Rec~6.0x105) regardless of the
aerofoil section.
-48-
4.2 PRESSURE COEFFICIENT VARIATION WITH REYNOLDS NUMBERS
AT CONSTANT ANGLES OF ATTACK
The pressure distribution over the upper surface of
the NACA-4415 aerofoil for constant incidences and a
variation of Reynolds numbers is illustrated in figures
4.2.1 to 4.2.20. From these figures it may be observed that
the laminar separation point over the upper surface appears
to occur further aft as the angle of attack and Reynolds
numbers increase up to -0.10 0 and 200,000 respectively
(Figs 4.2.1 to 4.2.4). For the same range of angles of
attack and for higher Reynolds numbers, its location moves
upstream, in the way that a conventional laminar separation
point should have behaved.
Further increases in incidence up to 9.90 0 (Figs
4.2.5 to 4.2.9) showed that its position was approximately
within 5% of the chord for all Reynolds numbers considered.
Meanwhile, since transition of the flow occurs earlier with
increasing Reynolds number, turbulent flow re-attachment
also occurs earlier, resulting in a reduced bubble length.
For example at an incidence of -0.10 0 (Fig. 4.2.4), the
bubble occupies approximately 30% of the chord at a
Reynolds number of 125,000. In contrast to this and at a
Reynolds number of 600,000, the bubble covers less than 15%
of the chord. Similar reductions, of more than half of its
original size, were also noticed for the remaining cases
considered. The transition and re-attachment locations,
-49-
which, as described above, occur earlier with increasing
Reynolds number, have similar locations for incidences
between 0.90 0 and 10.90 0 and Reynolds numbers higher than
450,000 (Figs 4.2.5 to 4.2.10). This clearly indicates
that, for these incidences and Reynolds number regimes, the
gross behaviour of the boundary layer is similar. It is
also in this test range that incipient trailing edge
separation occurs (Fig.4.2.9).
For angles of attack of 11.90 0 and 12.90 0 (Figs
4.2.11 and 4.2.12), however, there is anomalous pressure
data, in that the bubble is difficult to distinguish and,
indeed, could be reasonably argued, not to exist. Test
cases on either side of these data and the evidence of flow
visualisation clearly indicate bubble existence (Figs
4 .2.10 and 4.2.13, 4.3. 7 and 4.3. 9) .
For higher angles of attack (a>13.9 0 ), the separation
bubble continues to decrease in length and moves closer to
the leading edge until full stall occurs. At which the
bubble "bursts" resulting in a mixed type of stall since
significant trailing edge separation develops from lower
incidences. Stall of the aerofoil starts initially from the
lower Reynolds number regimes (Fig.4.2.16) and progresses
towards the higher ones until the aerofoil is fully stalled
for all the Reynolds numbers test range (Fig.4.2.20).
Bastedo (Ref.33) also found, during his experimental
-50-
investigation of a Wortmann FX-63-137 aerofoil, similar
difficulties of locating the upper surface separation
bubble from pressure data within a particular incidence

range. Using a direct injection smoke-flow-visualisation
technique illuminated by a laser sheet, however, he was
able to observe that the bubble not only existed but was
also very thin (less than 1mm in thickness) as it moved
forward with increasing incidence. He explains, that as the
bubble becomes thinner it allows transmission of the free
stream pressure, of the external potential flow field, to
the aero foil surface. Therefore, the pressure plateau
normally characteristic of a separation bubble is masked by
this effect. Such an explanation might also be accepted for
the pressure peculiarities observed in the present investi-
gation mentioned above.
4.3 FLOW VISUALISATION OVER THE UPPER SURfACE OF THE

NACA-4415 AEROFOIL
The particular method used to visualise the upper

surface flow fields, was the oil flow method. This
technique has been described in detail previously in
Section 2.5. It has limited applicability, however, (refer
to Section 3.3), and no attempt to use it below a Reynolds

number of 150,000 was made. Therefore, tests were only
carried out at Reynolds numbers between 150,000 and
600,000, for discrete angles of attack. During these tests,
a large number of photographs were collected, from which
-51-
only a representative few are presented here (Figs 4.3.1 to
4.3.14). Full presentation of these pictures is given in
Reference 25. From these photographs, the main features of
the boundary layer, such as laminar or turbulent flow
separation and flow re-attachment, are easily obtained.
It should noted that for these flow visualisation
tests, the tunnel speed was increased from zero to its
desired value after setting the angle of attack. Therefore,
the flow pattern does not necessarily represent the
situation which might be obtained when stall is approached
at constant Reynolds number, by increasing the angle of
attack, as it was done for the pressure measurement tests.
Figure 4.3.1 shows the flow developments that occur
over the upper surface of the aerofoil at various Reynolds
numbers but with a fixed incidence of -5.10 0 . Here the flow
may be termed nominally two-dimensional, except near the
upper model/tunnel interface. The~e minor three-dimensiona-

lity is observed to occur at almost all the Reynolds
numbers considered. The laminar separation bubble can
easily be distinguished, forming just prior to the
mid-chord position and re-attaching near the trailing edge.

Its position across the span is more clearly seen at the
Reynolds numbers of 300,000 and 600,000, with laminar
separation occurring at a much later location compared to
the other Reynolds numbers cases (Figs 4.3.1(b) and (e)).
-52-
At the lower half of the model for the 600,000 case,
as well as, the mid-span position for the 500,000 Reynolds
number (Fig.4.3.1(d)), turbulent oil streaks are observed.
These cut through the separation bubbles and are mainly
caused by lumps of "Dayglo" powder pigments located just
ahead of the bubble which induce transition. Uniform
trailing edge separation is also noticed to have taken
place at approximately x/c=0.98 for a Reynolds number of
300,000 (Fig.4.3.1(b)). As the Reynolds number increases
the length of the bubble is reduced. Such reductions are

caused by the occurrence of earlier re-attachment.
As the angle of attack is increased to -1.10 0
(Fig.4.3.2), the bubble appears to be positioned close to
the mid-chord for all the Reynolds numbers tested.
Comparing the separation bubbles in this figure with those

obtained in the previous angle of attack case, it may be
noticed that they not only become shorter with increasing
Reynolds numbers, but also move upstream with increasing
incidence. The length of the bubble reduces by almost 30%
between 250,000 and 600,000 Reynolds numbers. Trailing edge
separation is also observed to have occurred at about
x/c=0.94 at the Reynolds numbers of 250,000 and 350,000
(Fig.4.3.2 (a) and (b)).
Further increases in incidence up to 9.90 0 (Figs
4.3.3 to 4.3.5), indicate that although the nature of the
flow over the model remains two-dimensional, there is
-53-
little flow separation at the upper model/tunnel wall
junction. The centre of the bubble is located at
approximately 20-30% of the chord, depending on Reynolds
number. Trailing edge separation is present at all Reynolds
numbers tested, and increases with increasing angle of

attack.
At an incidence of 6.90 0 and a Reynolds number of
500,000 (Fig.4.3.4(d)), the bubble in the lower part of the
model is broken due to the presence of a powder particle,
located at x/c=0.03, which trip the boundary layer from
laminar to turbulent. It is also noticed that as the
Reynolds number becomes higher than 400,000 and 300,000 for
angles of attack of 6.90 0 and 9.90 0 respectively, oil
starts to escape from the bubble into the turbulent region
of the flow. This is probably caused by the thinning of the
separation bubble, as described in the previous section. It
is assumed that as the bubble gets thinner with increasing
incidence, the thickness of the oil, which is trapped
inside the bubble, becomes thicker than the bubble itself
and therefore, the shear stresses just above the bubble

drive the oil into the turbulent flow region. This
phenomenon can be seen quite clearly in Figure 4.3.6 where
a sequence of photographs was taken at intervals of
approximately fifteen seconds.
The flow behaviour over the aero foil at an incidence
of 11.90 0 and for various Reynolds numbers, is shown in
-54-
Figure 4.3.7. At this incidence, the laminar separation
bubble is close to the leading edge and its length is
reduced considerably by about 50% when compared to the
corresponding value at 9.90 0 . Turbulent flow separation is
now in the mid-span region around 70-80% of the chord. The

separation line, however, indicates three-dimensional flow
behaviour. Finally, as in the previous case, oil
accumulation in the laminar separation bubble is
significant and some escapes into the general flow
(Fig.4.3.8) .
At angles of attack of 13.90 0 and 15.90 0 (see figures
4.3.9 and 4.3.10), the separation bubble is clearly in the
leading edge region and covers only 4-5% of the chord.
Trailing edge separation is greater than 50% of the chord
and strong vortical flows are evident of the wall/model
interfaces. It may also observed that, between 400,000 and
500,000 Reynolds numbers, flow behaviour differs between
13.90 0 and 15.90 0 incidence. This difference is that, at
13.90 0 incidence, obvious three-dimensional flow exists

over the lower half of the model. At 15.90 0 , however, the
flow is closer to its original nominally two-dimensional
status, and the two vortices end appear to be of similar
extent.
For angles of attack 17.90 0 and 18.90 0 (Figs 4.3.11

and 4.3.12), the flow pattern is similar to that observed
at 15.90 0 , but the separation bubble is almost at the
-55-
leading edge, and the flow reversals covers almost 70% of
the chord. Nominal two-dimensionality persists; even at
lower Reynolds numbers than before (Fig.4.3.11(b)).
The flow development for an incidence of 19.90 0 is
shown in Figure 4.3.13. For Reynolds numbers up to 400,000
(Figs 4.3.13(a), (b) and (c)) the aerofoil is stalled and
the flow separates from the 1% chord location. At higher
Reynolds numbers, however, the flow remains attached for
25% of the chord with the separation bubble still present.
Assymetry of the junction vortices is noticeable; the lower
vortex forming away from the model/tunnel wall junction.
For a Reynolds number of 400,000 (Fig.4.3.14), the
flow, although separated from the aerofoil's surface (Figs
4.3.14(a) and (b)), suddenly changed its status from fully
separated to fully attached (Figs 4.3.14(c) and (d)). A
similar behaviour was also observed during the pressure
measurements. This again illustrates the sensitivity of the
boundary layer at incidences near full stall.
Surface oil flow visualisation technique provided an
interesting correlation with the pressure measurements.
That is, it confirmed, for Reynolds numbers higher than
200,000 the indications given by the pressure distributions
for the existence and behaviour of the laminar separation
bubbles. It may be noticed, however, that laminar
separation, as well as, turbulent re-attachment and
-56-
trailing edge separation, occur earlier with the oil flow
measurements than those deduced from the pressure profiles
(Figs. 4.3.15 to 22) .
The origins of this mismatch are at present unknown
and it is anticipated that in order to resolve the
conflicting data, especially at low Reynolds numbers,
further detailed investigations will be requested.
Such an investigation should include a more
sophisticated analysis of the pressure coefficient data and
a less intrusive method of flow visualisation (perhaps
liquid crystals). Oil flow visualisation is normally highly
informative but at the very low Reynolds numbers
considered, where the boundary layer is very sensitive, the

accumulated oil droplets may have had a severe effect. With
this in mind, the results presented here for Reynolds
numbers less than 600,000 must therefore be viewed with
reservations until the matter is resolved.
4.4 ~NL-CMc/4 AND CT WITH VARIATION OF ANGLES OF ATTACK
The normal force, tangential force and quarter chord
pitching moment coefficients plotted against angle of
attack, are shown in Figures 4.4.1 to 4.4.15. In general,
the trend of the curves is that CN and CMc/4 increase with
-57-
increasing incidence, while CT decreases. This behaviour
continues until the magnitude of the curve slopes reaches a
minimum. For angles of attack prior to the obvious "kink"
at low incidences, however, the dCN/da curve slope is at
its greatest. As the maximum value of CN is approached, the
slope decreases gradually until maximum CN is achieved.
This decrease in slope was caused by both the thickening of
the boundary layer and, primarily, the occurrence of
trailing edge separation (see figures 4.2.1 to 4.2.20).
Increases in incidence above CNmax lead to substantial
decreases in CN. As above, this may be attributed to the
large regions of trailing edge separation on the upper
surface of the aerofoil. Continued increases of incidence
result in sudden loss of CN due to the laminar separation
bubble bursting. Therefore, due to the occurrence of
trailing edge separation and the bursting of the leading
edge bubble, the stall behaviour of the NACA-4415 aerofoil
shows that it is of the combined category; discussed in
Section 1.2.
At Reynolds numbers greater than 200,000 and
incidence values greater than aCNmax (Figs 4.4.5-4.4.13),
the CN curve levels off as the effects of turbulent
separation become manifest. Also, from the force and moment
curves, it may be noticed that the zero normal force
-58-
incidence shifts towards the design value of -4 0 with
increased Reynolds number; this shift is clearly noticeable
between 50,000 and 125,000 Reynolds numbers (Figs 4.4.1 to
4.4.5). The stalling angle may also observed to increase
(Table 3) .
Similar behaviour of the curve slopes is observed at
higher Reynolds numbers, except between 400,000 and
500,000. In this Reynolds number range, normal force
coefficients exhibit an increase just before leading edge
flow separation occurs. This increase in CN may be
attributed to various flow phenomena such as flow reversal,
three-dimensionality of the flow, or to blockage effects
which may be quite significant at such high angles of
attack. The three-dimensionality of the flow alters the
pressure distribution along the span, and is normally
initiated at the corners between the model and the tunnel
walls. These flow phenomena become most evident at high
incidence, as shown in figures 4.3.7 to 4.3.13.
Throughout all the figures of CN and CMc/4 discussed
above, there is an obvious "kink", mentioned earlier. Close
examination of figures 4.4.1 to 4.4.15, may reveal that the
"kink" occurs at angles of attack between -0.10 0 and 3.90 0 ,
depending on Reynolds numbers. Examination of the relative
pressure distributions (Figs 4.1.1 to 4.1.15) did not
indicate any obvious cause of the effect. Previous
investigations, on aerofoil sections at low Reynolds
-59-
numbers, have also shown the existence of "kinks" similar
to those observed here (Refs 26,36,37 and 38). Some of the
results obtained from these investigations are presented in

figures 4.4.16, 17, 18 and 19.
In the present investigation, it was originally

assumed that the "kink" was initiated by the disappearance
of the lower surface separation bubble. However, from a
later analysis of the pressure distribution plots, it was
apparent that this was not the case. The reason for this
is, that, for flow conditions at which the separation
bubble on the lower surface should have disappeared were
not coincident with that of the "kink". Flow visualisation
of the lower surface may have provided information about
the behaviour of the leading edge bubble to support the

above argument.
Further investigation was therefore carried out using
the two-dimensional viscid-inviscid aerofoil analysis
method of Coton and Galbraith (Refs 27 and 39). The outcome
of this work revealed that, for Reynolds numbers greater

than 100,000, the lower surface boundary layer experienced
laminar flow separation well after the incidence at which

the lower surface bubble should have collapsed. Thi s
separation moved slowly towards the trailing edge with

increasing incidence. However, when a certain angle of
attack was reached, the separation point suddenly advanced
to the trailing edge. This implied that the lower surface
-60-
boundary layer, prior to that incidence, was experiencing a
significant region of turbulent flow, whereas, above this
angle of attack, the boundary layer was laminar and fully
attached. A comparison between this angle of attack and the
one at which the "kink" was observed to occur, showed good
agreement (Fig.4.4.20 and Table 4) .
Similar flow phenomena over the lower surface of a
Wortman FX-63-147 aerofoil were also observed by Bastedo
(Ref.33). He claims, however, that the non-linearity of the
CL and CD curve slopes (Fig. 4.4.21) at moderate incidences
was caused by the formation of a separation bubble on the
upper surface. Similar statement was also given by Poll et
al (Ref.37) who states, that the occurrence of the "kink"
on the aerodynamic curves is not only dependent on the
Reynolds number but also to the establishment of the short
separation bubble on the upper surface.
4.5 ~Nmax VARIATION WITH REYNOLDS NUMBERS
This investigation showed a variation in the magnitude
of CNmax at three different ranges, over the considered
Reynolds number range (1. Ox105~Rec~6. Ox10 5 ), see figure
4.5.1. This variation of CNmax is different from that of
the existing data for the same aerofoil tested at higher or
similar Reynolds number ranges (Refs 29 and 34). From these
data, it may be noticed that CNmax rises with increasing
-61-
Reynolds numbers (Figs 4.5.2 and 4.5.3). Further comparison
with data from Reference 28, however, indicates similar-
ities between results (Fig.4.5.4).
Between 100,000 and 200,000 Reynolds numbers, CNmax
occurs at 12.40 0 for the lower Reynolds number regime, but
at 12.90 0 for the higher; as shown in Table 4. The value of
CNmax remains relatively constant at 1.38, with a small
increase to 1.39 at 200,000 Reynolds number.
In the Reynolds number range 2 .5x10 5 <Re c <6. Ox10 5
(Figure 4.5.1), it may be observed that CNmax reduces
steadily from 1.39 to 1.32, with its sharpest reduction
occurring between 400,000 and 450,000. After 450,000,
however, CNmax stabilises at a value of 1.32 whilst the
CNmax incidence reduces to 11.90 0 , where it remained (Table
3). This downward shift is a consequence of an early
initiation of trailing edge separation but subsequent
slower penetration towards the leading edge and the
bursting of the laminar separation bubble (i.e., abrupt
stall) was delayed until several degrees after CNmax had
occurred (Figures 4.5.5(a) and (b)).
From a Reynolds number of 150,000 onwards and with

increased incidence, the movement of the turbulent
separation point appears to reduce its contribution to the
-62-
normal force of the upper surface, while the same increase
in incidence expands the lower surface normal force
contribution. The balancing of these two effects produced a
"flat" region on the CN curve slope prior to complete
stall. Data from References 29 and 26 relating to the
NACA-4415 and Wortmann FX-63-137 aerofoil sections
respectively, shows the same tendency (F igs 4.5.2 and
4.5.6) .
4.6 COMPARISON OF NACA-4415 AEROFOIL SECTION

CHARACTERISTICS WITH EXISTING DATA
Two-dimensional data for the NACA-4415 aerofoil
section have been obtained in the past through experimental
investigations performed in the united States (1937-47) and
West Germany (1962-72), (Refs 28, and 29). The wind tunnels
used for these tests were the NACA LTT (Low Turbulence
Tunnel) and the lAG Stuttgart wind tunnel. Two-dimensional
tests were performed using smooth NACA-4415 aerofoil models
at Reynolds numbers ranging from O.7x10 6 to 3.0x10 6 (Figs
4.5.2 and 4.5.3) These results were corrected of blockage
and streamline curvature effects.
For the comparative analysis between the present and
existing data, extra information was essential about the
type and size of the cross-sectional area of the working
section of the above wind tunnels; the turbulence intensity
together with the model sizes. This information became
-63-
available from References 28, 29, 30 and 31 and is
presented in Table 5.
Since the Reynolds number range at which the NACA LTT
and the Stuttgart wind tunnels were operating was between
0.7x10 6 and 3.0x10 6 , higher than that of the present
investigation (0.5x104~Rec~0.6x105), a direct comparison of
these results was not possible. Therefore, a brief
correlation of the aerodynamic characteristics of these
data was made here, as discussed below.
Variations of normal force and pitching moment
coefficients obtained in this study at a Reynolds number of
600,000, are plotted in figure 4.6(a) against the
corresponding coefficients from the other investigations at
a Reynolds number of 700,000 (Refs 28, and 29). It is clear
from the figure, that all the data are in reasonable
agreement up to an incidence of 110. For angles of attack
greater than this, however, the curves diverge and, in
particular, when maximum lifts are attained at 12 0 , 14 0 and
16 0 they are well separated from each other. The maximum

values of lift coefficients at these incidences were 1.27,
1. 28 and 1. 38 .
From the pitching moment coefficient data (Fig.
4.6(b)) it may be observed that the trends of the curves
are quite similar. Comparing the present data with the
Stuttgart data, the present data exhibit considerably
-64-
higher pitching moments for the entire incidence range.
This difference varies from approximately 0.010 to 0.027
with increasing incidence. In comparison with the NACA LTT
data, however, it may be noticed that the values agree
reasonably well between -2 0 and 60 of angles of attack. For
greater incidences the present data is substantially
higher, especially near the stall.
These variations, observed in the lift and pitching
moment curves, are possibly due to the differences in
turbulence intensity levels as well as the effects of noise
and mechanical vibrations, which in this study are believed
to have being quite considerable. Also, bearing in mind
that the considerable differences between wind tunnels and
model sizes, shown in Table 4, the above variations in the
curves were expected. It was very difficult to predict,
however, exactly how these differences would influence the
results.
4.7 COMPARISON OF NACA-4415 AEROFOIL SECTION

CHARACTERISTICS WITH GU25-5(11)8. NASA-GA(W)-l AND
NACA-0015 SECTIONS
In order to obtain a better overall picture of how
the NACA-4415 aerofoil performs with increasing Reynolds
numbers (Re) and increasing incidence (a), CN contours were
plotted, against the above parameters and are illustrated
-65-
in Figure 4.7.1. The main advantage of the development of
CL or CN contours against a base of incidence and Reynolds
number, is that it shows clearly the overall behaviour of
an aerofoil at various untested Reynolds numbers. Regions
in which the contour lines lie very close to one another,
at a small range of Reynolds numbers, are regarded as
"critical", since the slightest increase or decrease in
Reynolds number or incidence will result in considerable
changes in lift or normal force coefficients.
From Figure 4.7.1, it is evident that the performance
of the aerofoil improves considerably between 50,000 and
75,000 Reynolds numbers. At the lower value, the aerofoil
appears to be in the subcritical range in which it suffers
badly from laminar separation without subsequent
re-attachment. This is demonstrated by the corresponding
pressure distribution behaviour given in Figure 4.1.1, and
by the normal force curve which approximates that of a flat
plate (Fig. 4.4.1) At the higher Reynolds number, however,
it is indicated that the aerofoil operates above the
critical Reynolds number, since its performance is
considerably improved (Fig. 4.4.2).
Figure 4.7.1 also shows that for further increases in
Reynolds numbers up to 450,000, the CN varies very little
for angles of attack less than 10 0 , and is almost constant
for greater incidences and Reynolds numbers. The maximum
normal force coefficient decreases with increasing Reynolds
-66-
number by approximately 5% between 75,000 and 600,000. It
may also be observed from the CN contours that, decreasing
the Reynolds numbers results in reduction of the zero
normal force coefficient angle of attack, from its designed
value of -4 0 to -1.5 0 . This is mainly due to the thickening
of the boundary layer which reduces the effective camber of
the aerofoil at lower speeds.
It could be said, that the overall performance of

this aerofoil is satisfactory, especially for angles of
attack less than 10 0 and for Reynolds numbers greater than
75, 000, indicating that the aerofoil could be safely
operated between these Reynolds number and incidence
ranges.
The comparison of the NACA-4415 with the GU25-5(11)8

(Ref.17) and GA(W)-l, NACA-0015 sections (Ref.18) is
presented in figures 4.7.2, 3 and 4. For this purpose, the
present model was constructed in such a way as to match the
dimensions of the other three aerofoil sections (i. e.
thickness/chord ratio and aspect ratio). The main
assumption of carrying out the above comparison was that if
two or more aerofoil sections having similar dimensions,
being tested under the same wind tunnel environmental

conditions (i.e. turbulence intensity, noise and mechanical
vibrations levels) and using the same wind tunnel
facilities, the results of those tests could be directly
comparable.
-67-
It may be noticed, from the above figures, that the
performance of the GU25-5(11)8 section is strongly affected
by laminar separation without re-attachment, particularly
at Reynolds numbers lower than 350,000. For greater
Reynolds numbers, however, where flow re-attachment occurs,
the performance of this aerofoil increases considerably to
quite impressive standards. This can be seen clearly in
Figure 4.7.2, where, for example, at an incidence of 6 0 and
in a short Reynolds number range between 2. 5x1 0 5 and
4.0x10 5 , the CL magnitude changes dramatically from about
0.35 to 1.17, an increase of more than 240%.
From Figures 4.7.1, 3 and 4, it may also be observed,
that the performance of the GA(W)-l improves at a slower
rate than the NACA-4415 and NACA-0015, between the range of
0.5x105~Rec~1.5x105 and a<5°. For these aerofoils, further
increases in incidence showed little variation in CN until
CNmax was obtained. As incidence and Reynolds number
increased even further, a reduction in CN occurred. This
decrease is more abrupt for the GA(W) -1 and NACA-0015
aerofoils, indicating a leading edge type of stall,
regardless of Reynolds number. For the NACA-4415 section,
however, the loss of lift was more gradual due to trailing
edge flow separation, with the abrupt loss occurring at a
higher incidence.
-68-
As a concluding remark, it may be said that all
aerofoils examined in this investigation appear to have
their own operational limits. The NACA-4415 together with
the GU25-5 (11) 8 aerofoil could be safely operated at
Reynolds numbers greater than 100,000 and 400,000
respectively. The operational limits of the GA(W)-l and
NACA-0015 aerofoils are similar to the NACA-4415 but due to
their early leading edge stall characteristic, they have
been shortened. The contours also indicate that the

GU25-5(11)8 aerofoil stalls at an earlier incidence, while
for the other three aerofoils stall is delayed as Reynolds
number increases. The occurrence of earlier stalling, as
stated by Laing and Kokkodis (Refs 35 and 18), is due to
earlier trailing edge separation caused by the formation of
the separation bubble at mid-chord of the aerofoil. It
should also be mentioned, that maximum normal force
coefficient for the GA(W)-l and NACA-0015 sections
increases slightly with increasing Reynolds numbers, while
for the NACA-4415 and GU25-5(11) 8, it decreases.
The NACA-4415 appears to be, generally, superior to
GA(W)-l and NACA-0015 since it produces higher CN values
for the same increase in incidence and it has more
favourable stalling characteristics. It is also more
favourable to the GU25-5(11)8, but only at Reynolds numbers
lower than 350,000. For higher Reynolds numbers, however,
the GU25-5(11) 8 aerofoil section shows its great
-69-
superiority by producing the highest eN values of all those
sections considered.
-70-
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDIES
The present study could be described as a preliminary
investigation into the performance of a NACA-4415 aerofoil
section tested at Reynolds numbers ranging from 50,000 to
600,000. The main objectives were to accumulate sufficient
chordwise static pressure data to attain the aerodynamic
forces and moments, namely CN' CT' and CMc/4' and to assess
how these forces and moments have been affected by the
behaviour of the boundary layer around the aerofoil. The
boundary layer behaviour was examined by studying the
static pressure distributions that occurred over the
aerofoil in conjunction with a selection of flow
visualisation photographs which were taken to record the
flow phenomena that occurred over the upper surface of the
aerofoil only.
Furthermore, the aerodynamic characteristics of the
present aerofoil section were compared with those obtained
for the GU25-5(11)8, NASA GA(W)-l and NACA-0015 previously
tested using the same facilities.
-71-
5.1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of the results from the chordwise
pressure distribution measurements showed that the upper
and lower surfaces of the aerofoil were dominated by the
development of two laminar separation bubbles. The lower
surface bubble, defined as "short", initially forms close
to the leading edge at negative angles of attack. As
incidence is gradually increased it progresses towards the

trailing edge, while its length slowly increases. At a
certain incidence, however, depending on the Reynolds

number, the bubble disappears. In contrast with the lower
surface bubble, that on the upper surface, originally
described as "long", travels rapidly upstream becoming
shorter in length with increasing incidence and Reynolds
number. As it moves to within 15% of the chord from the
leading edge its rate of movement was shown to slow down
considerably. Flow separation was also observed to occur,
sometimes covering an area as high as 65% of the chord from
the trailing edge. When a certain angle of attack was
reached the bubble "burst" causing massive flow separation
over the aerofoil.
The sensi ti vi ty of the boundary layer was also
highlighted during both the pressure and flow visualisation

measurements. It was observed, that at incidences just
prior to complete flow separation the boundary layer
behaved rather erratically. In that it would alternate from
-72-
being fully attached to fully separated, in a non-periodic
fashion within a few seconds. This was thought to be caused
by the large environmental disturbances, at such
incidences, present during the experiments, causing the
boundary layer to flick-on and off from one state to

another.
From a series of oil-film flow visualisation
experiments, conducted to study the nature and behaviour of
the flow over the upper surface of the model, a number of

flow visualisation photographs were taken. In the analysis
that followed, vital information was obtained about the
behaviour of the boundary layer. It was revealed that at
low incidences a "long" laminar separation bubble was
formed close to the trailing edge, moving upstream and

becoming shorter in length as the incidence and Reynolds
number were increased. This gave confirmation of the
existence and behaviour of such a bubble, indicated by the
earlier pressure distribution measurements. Three-dimensi-
onali ty of the flow was also observed, especially for
incidences higher than 11.90 0 and prior to complete stall.
The oil-film flow visualisation technique became very
useful, especially in cases where the laminar separation
bubble, although present, was unable to be detected by the

pressure measurement method. However, when detection of the
separation bubble and trailing edge flow separation was
obtained, there was generally a close agreement between the
-73-
results obtained by the two methods; in particular, at a
Reynolds number equal to 600,000. For the lower Reynolds
number ranges, there was some slight disagreement between
the laminar and turbulent flow separation points, while
turbulent re-attachment points matched each other exceptio-
nally well for all incidences and Reynolds numbers.
The aerodynamic forces and moments generated to study
the performance of the aerofoil in these low Reynolds
number regimes, were found also to be affected by the
behaviour of the boundary layer. In cases where the
development and disappearance of the separation bubbles had
occurred, on either the upper or lower surface of the
aerofoil, dCN / da and dCMc / 4 / da were affected. This
manifested itself in an obvious magnitudes change. This was
most evident when the lower surface turbulent boundary
layer changed to fully laminar state over a narrow range of
incidences. As a result of this, a slight "kink" developed
on the aerodynamic coefficient curves and was present over
the majority of the Reynolds numbers tested.
The most dominant feature in the normal force and
pitching moment curves, apart from the "kink", was the
gentle decrease in CN and an increase in CMc/4 and CT with
increased incidence. This was due to the obvious
penetration of the trailing edge separation towards the
leading edge. When complete stall occurred an abrupt
-74-
reduction in aerodynamic coe fficient magnitudes was
observed. From an examination of the pressure profiles,
this was caused by the "bursting" of the upper surface
separation bubble in the region close to the leading edge.
Therefore, the behaviour of the normal force and the
quarter chord pitching moment coefficients, suggested that
the stalling characteristic of the NACA-4415 aerofoil
section was that of a "combined stall", i.e. a combination
of trailing and leading edge stall. As Reynolds number was
increased, stalling of the aerofoil was found to occur at a
higher incidence. The maximum normal force coefficient also
varied for Reynolds numbers below 400, 000. For higher
Reynolds numbers, however, it remained relatively constant
having a value of approximately 1.32.
The critical Reynolds number for the NACA-4415
aerofoil was found to lie between 50,000 and 75,000. It was
demonstrated that, when the aerofoil operated below the
critical Reynolds number, its performance was similar to
that of a flat plate, while when operated above it, it
behaved like a conventional aerofoil. Although the aerofoil
was well behaved for Reynolds numbers between 450,000 and
600,000, its performance below this regime was more
dependent on Reynolds numbers, especially at incidences
greater than 8 0 .
Present and existing data were also examined and
showed that the differences in test environments, wind
-75-
tunnels, model sizes, etc., can have considerable effects.
With this in mind, however, it is difficult to predict the
way they will affect the results of this particular series

of tests.
Lastly, comparing the characteristics of the present
aerofoil with those of the GU25-5(11)8, NASA GA(W)-l and
NACA-0015, revealed that the GU25-5(11)8 showed superiority
over the other three aerofoils for Reynolds numbers above
350,000, by producing the highest CN values. For lower
Reynolds numbers, however, it behaved in a very unstable
manner, with all the other aerofoils greatly superior to
it, especially at moderate to low incidences. The NACA-4415
aerofoil is pre-eminent over GA(W)-l and NACA-0015 for all
Reynolds numbers tested, as it generates higher CN values,
has better stalling characteristics and a higher
operational range.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
The NACA-4415 aerofoil section is known to be widely
used on the rotor blades of various Horizontal Axis Wind
Turbines (HAWT). These turbines operate in an open
atmospheric environment and therefore are exposed to the
elements. Because of their operational environment some
roughness to the blades in the form of rain droplets, dust

or even in the form of bird droppings and dead insects, may
exists. These can affect the performance of the blades and
consequently that of the turbine. Bearing in mind such
-76-
condit ions , it is therefore suggested that further
experiments should be carried out with the application of
some roughness on either the upper or lower surface of the
present NACA-4415 aerofoil model. The applied roughness
could be in the form of a trip wire covering the whole
length of the span, having different diameter sizes,
located at various positions along the chord length, etc.
As mentioned in Section 4.4, the existence of the
slight "kink" on the CN and CMc/4 curve slopes was thought
to have been caused by the occurrence of full laminar flow
on the lower surface of the aerofoil. It is therefore
advisable, that in future, a surface oil-film flow
visualisation technique should be employed to study the
boundary layer behaviour on the lower surface. Its use
might prove most useful to confirm or refute the sudden
downstream movement of the laminar separation point
inferred by using the method of Coton and Galbraith (Refs
27 and 39). Additionally, since the surface oil flow
visualisation technique, utilised for studying the
behaviour of the boundary layer over the upper surface of
the model, gave apparently misleading results for Reynolds
numbers below 200,000, an alternative technique, such as
the direct smoke injection, could be recommended.
For a limited number of experiments, however, it was
noticed that the upper surface separation bubble, although
present, as indicated by the flow visualisation pictures,
-77-
could not be identified from the pressure distribution
plots. In such cases, further experiments are required to
examine the nature and behaviour of the flow. This could be
accomplished by using a large number of hot film anemometry
gauges over the upper surface of the model.
Finally, due to the large amount of time consumed in
the present investigation for the data acquisition
procedure, an alternative method should be employed and a
possible alternative is described below.
The pressure tappings used for recording the pressure
variation around the present aerofoil at various incidences
and Reynolds numbers, should be substituted by a number of
miniature pressure transducers. By employing such pressure
transducers an automatic and simultaneous pressure
recording can be obtained with the help of a Transient
Recording System linked to a highly compatible computer.
The computer could be programmed to display the pressure
distribution around the aerofoil in a graphical form on its
visual display terminal or onto a printer after each test
run. Such a procedure will allow the user to check for any
faults in the collected data immediately after each test
and if necessary to repeat the test. When all test runs are
completed, the computer can perform the necessary integra-
tions of each pressure distribution, producing plots of the
aerodynamic forces and moments. This will enable the user
to start an immediate analysis of the aerodynamic chara-
-78-
cteristics of that particular aerofoil.
Such a data acquisition and data reduction procedure
could not only save a considerable amount of the
researcher's time, but would allow him also to test more
aerofoils inside the permitted time given. The shortcomings
and difficulties for the employment of such a method,

however, are recognised.
5.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The results of this study provided valuable
information about the aerodynamic characteristics of the
NACA-4415 aerofoil and the behaviour of the boundary layer,
when tested two-dimensionally for Reynolds numbers below
600,000. From the acquired data, speculations may arise
about the validity of the results, mainly because of the
high levels of free stream turbulence, noise and mechanical
vibrations in the working section of the test facility.
However, because the above aerofoil is used extensively in
HAWT applications, which in turn are operating in an
environment possessing similar perturbations, the present
data could be considered as valid.
A search of the available literature did not bring to

light any two-dimensional data about the NACA-4415 aerofoil
tested at Reynolds numbers below 700,000. Therefore, since
the blades of HAWT machines, designed and constructed for
-79-
wind tunnel experimental purposes, operate usually in
regimes lower than 1,000,000, the present data could prove
very valuable.
Finally, due to the uncertainty of the performance of
aerofoil sections tested below Reynolds numbers of 500,000,
as shown in the present investigation, it is hoped that
this will encourage future researchers to examine the
behaviour of other aerofoils currently operating in these
low Reynolds number regimes.
-80-
APPENDIX
MANUFACTURE AND ASSEMBLY OF NACA-4415 AEROFOIL MODEL
The construction of the NACA-4415 aero foil model was
carried out in the manufacturing facilities located in the
Aerospace Engineering Department of the University of
Glasgow. The facilities consist of two blocks of wax
together with a fixed head cutting machine, fitted with
router and follower which was used to cut the wax into the
required aerofoil shape. Figure A1 shows the model under
construction, divided into two halves, as well as the
locations of the structural materials used.
Before the cutting of the wax, the x and y
coordinates of the NACA-4415 aerofoil were plotted onto a
1/4 inch thick mild steel plate using a vernier height
gauge to ensure accuracy of the profile. The steel plate
was cut to provide the required upper and lower surfaces of
the aerofoil and mounted on the wax cutting machine with
the router follower resting on it. After machining, Slipwax
was applied to ease mould release and the wax surface
polished to give a good finish. Epoxy resin gel-coat was
then spread and left to harden. This gel-coat covered both
surfaces for the required span length of the model.
-81-
Holes representing the pressure orifices were drilled
through the hardened surface of the gel-coat into the wax
at the chosen surface locations. At this stage, pins having
the same diameter were inserted into the pressure orifices
preventing them from getting blocked when glass fibre and
epoxy resin were added to model. Four layers of 280 gm/m2
glass fibre woven roving together with epoxy resin applied
between each layer were laid on the gel-coat surface at an
angle of +/- 45° to give a strong torsional stiffness.
Balsa wood blocks were then cut to fill the aerofoil
shape and positioned at each end of the model, allowing
room for 1/4 inch aluminium plates to finish off the ends.
The relevant balsa wood was then drilled to allow for the
extension of the brass pressure tubes out past the length
of the model. When these blocks were in place the brass
pressure tubes were allocated on the model. Epoxy resin
foam mixture was then poured into the model and left to
harden. When this was complete the model was ready to be
machined flat. After machining, either the upper or lower
surface model was removed from the wax block and placed on
top of the other so that the leading edges and balsa wood
blocks were parallel with each other. While in position,
four holes were drilled through the balsa woods to take 3/8
inch dia. dowel pins. The pins prevented either half of the
model from slipping. Epoxy resin mixture was then applied
to both flat surfaces. The top half of the model was then
pressed carefully to squeeze out any excess foam. Extra
-82-
care was taken by checking constantly that no slipping
movement had occurred since the slightest movement could
misalign the whole model.
When the resin had set, the whole model was removed
from the wax mould. The aluminium end plates were filled to
the ends of the model and fixed by woodscrewing them on the
balsa wood blocks in conjunction with an epoxy bond. The
accuracy of the model's profile was carefully checked using
the templates and bumps or indentations on the surface were
rectified by filling in with gel-coat and rubbing down with
wet and dry emery paper. The brass pressure tubes were
checked for any blockages and cleaned out by blowing
through with compressed air. Finally, when accuracy of the
aerofoil profile was achieved and the pressure tubes
cleaned, the model was ready to be installed into the
tunnel. The connection of the brass pressure tubes with the
pressure ports at the rear of the selector boxes was
achieved using plastic tubes.
-83-
REFERENCES
1. Mueller, T.J.
"Low Reynolds number Vehicles" AGARDOgraph No.288, February
1985.
2. Mueller, T.J., Jansen, B.J.Jr.

"Aerodynamic Measurements at Low Reynolds Numbers", AIAA
paper No. 82-0598, 1982.
3. Marchman, J.F.
"Aerodynamic Testing at Low Reynolds Numbers", Journal of
Aircraft, Vol.24, No.2, February 1987.
4. Lissaman, P.B.S.
"Low Reyn olds Number Air foils", Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews, Inc., Vol.
15 , pp . 223 - 23 9 , 1 98 3 .
5. Pope, A., Rae, W.H., Jr.

"Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing", John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1984.
6. E.S.D.U.
"wind Tunnel Corrections", 'Aerodynamics', Volume 13, Item
Number 76028, November 1976.
7. Mueller,T.J., Pohlen,L.J., Conigliaro,P.E, Jansen,B.J.Jr.

"The Influence of Free Stream Disturbances on Low Reynolds
Number Airfoil Experiments", Experiments in Fluids, Vol.1,
pp. 3-14, 1983.
8. Sumantran, V., Sun, Z., Marchman, J.F.III.

"Acoustic and Turbulence Influence on Low Reynolds Number
Wing Pressure Distributions", Conference on Low Reynolds
Number Airfoil Aerodynamics, Notre Dame, June 16-18, 1985.
-84 -
9. Mueller, T.J.
"The Influence of Laminar Separation and Transition on Low
Reynolds Number Airfoil Hysteresis", AIAA 17th Conference on
Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Lasers, Colorado, June
25-27, 1984.
10. Horton, H.P.

"Laminar Separation Bubbles in Two and Three Dimensional
Incompressible Flow", Ph.D. Thesis, Queen Mary College,
University of London, London, 1968.
11. Chappell, P.D.

"Flow Separation and Stall Characteristics of Plane, Constant
-Sections Wings in Subcritical Flow", The Aeronautical
Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol. 72, pp.
82-90, January 1968.
12. Arena, A.V., Mueller, T.J.

"Laminar Separation, Transition, and Turbulent Re-attachment
near the Leading Edge of Airfoils", AIAA Journal, Vol. 18,
No.17, pp.747-753, July 1980.
13. Gaster, M.
"The Structure and Behaviour of Laminar Separation Bubbles",
ARC R & M, No. 3595, March 1969.
14. van den Berg, B.

"Role of Laminar Separation Bubbles in Airfoil Leading-Edge
Stalls", AIAA Journal, Vol.19, No.5, pp. 553-556, May 1981.
15. Ward, J.W.

"The Behaviour and Effects of Laminar Separation Bubbles on
Aerofoils in Incompressible Flow", Journal of the Royal
Aeronautical Society, Vol.67, pp. 783-789, December 1963.
-85 -
16. Kokkalis, A.
"An Investigation into the Wake Flow Behind Circular
Cylinders Fi tted wi th Slat Devices", M. Sc. Thesis, Department
of Aeronautics and Fluid Mechanics, University of Glasgow,
March 1983.
17. Lunde, K.
"Wind Tunnel Testing of Aerofoil Sections", Final Year
Project, Department of Aeronautics and Fluid Mechanics,
University of Glasgow, April 1983.
18. Kokkodis, G.
"Low Reynolds Number Performance of a NACA-0015 and a GA (W)-1
Aerofoil", M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Fluid
Mechanics, University of Glasgow, February 1987.
19. Galbraith, R.A.McD, Coton,F.N., Saliveros,E., Kokkodis,G.

"Aerofoil Scale Effects and the Relevance to Wind Turbines",
Ninth Annual Wind Energy Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1-3
April, 1987.
20. Spalding, D.J.

"Wind Tunnel Testing of Aerofoil Sections", Final Year
Pro j ect, Department 0 f Aeronaut ics and Fluid Mechanics,
University of Glasgow, March 1985.
21. Kelling, F.B.

"Experimental Investigation of a High Lift Low Drag
Aerofoil", G.U. Report No. 6802, Department of Aeronautics
and Fluid Mechanics, University of Glasgow, 1968.
22. Furness Controls Limited.

"Instruction Manuals of FC002 and FC012 Micromanometers".
23. Duncan, W.J., Thorn, A.S., Young, A.D.

"Mechanics of Fluids", Published by Edward Arnold Ltd.,
Second Edition, London, 1970.
-86 -
24. Houghton, E.L., Carruthers, N.B.
"Aerodynamics for Engineering Students", Published by Edward
Arnold Ltd., Third Edition, London, 1982.
25. Saliveros, E.
"Collection of Flow Visualisation Photographs over the Upper
Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil", Report in Progress,
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Glasgow,
February 1988.
26. Huber, A.F.II.

"The Effects on Roughness on an Airfoil at Low Reynolds
Numbers", M.Sc. Thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
Indiana, May 1985.
27. Coton, F.N.

"Contribution to the Prediction of Low Reynolds Number
Aerofoil Performance" f Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Aeronautics and Fluid Mechanics, University of Glasgow,
December 1987.
28. Loftin, L.K., Jr., Smith, H.A.

"Aerodynamic Characteristics of 15 NACA Airfoil Sections at
Seven Reynolds Numbers From O.7x10 6 to 9. Ox10 6 ", NACA
Technical Note 1945, October, 1949.
29. Althaus, D.
"Stuttgarter Profilikatalog I", Institut fur Aerodynamik und
Gasdynamik der Universitat Stuttgart, 1972.
30. Miley, S.J.

"A Catalog of Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Data for Wind
Turbine Applications", Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Texas A&M University, Texas 77843, February 1982.
31. Riegels, F.N.

"Aerofoil Se ct ions", Publi shed by But terworths and Co.
(Publishers) Ltd., London, 1961.
-87 -
32. Galbraith, R.A.McD.
"The Aerodynamic Characteristics of a GU25-5 (11) 8 Aerofoil
for Low Reynolds Numbers", Experiments in Fluids, Vol.3, pp.
253-256, 1985.
33. Bastedo, W.G.Jr.

"Performance of an Aerofoil and Three Rectangular Planform
Wings at Low Reynolds Numbers", M.Sc. Thesis, Department of
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Notre Dame, Indiana,
December 1984.
34. Jacobs, E.N., Sherman, A.

"Airfoil Section Characteristics as Affected by Variations of
the Reynolds Numbers", NACA Technical Report No. 586, 23rd
Annual Report, 1937.
35. Laing, S.
"Wind Tunnel Test ing of Aerofoil Sect ions", Final Year
Pro ject, Department of Aeronautics and Fluid Mechanics,
University of Glasgow, April 1984.
36. Clayton, B.R.

"BWEA Initiative of Wind Assisted Ship Propulsion", Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 19, pp.
251-276, 1985.
37. Poll, D.I.A., Mansoor, A.

"On the Determination of the Two-Dimensional Characteristics
of Aerofoils at Low Reynolds Numbers", International
Conference on Aerodynamics at Low Reynolds Numbers
(10 4 <Re<10 6 ), London, 15-18 October, 1986.
38. van Ingen, J.L., Boermans, L.M.M.

"Aerodynamics at Low Reynolds Numbers: A Review of
Theoretical and Experimental Research at Delft University of
Technology", International Conference on Aerodynamics at Low
Reynolds Numbers (10 4 <Re<10 6 ), London, 15-18 October, 1986.
-88 -
39. Coton, F.N., Galbraith, R.A.McD.
"A Simple Method for the Prediction of Separation Bubble
formation on Aerofoils at Low Reynolds Numbers",
International Conference on Aerodynamics at Low Reynolds
Numbers (104<Re<10 6 ), London, 15-18 October, 1986.
-89 -
TABLE 1.
Coordinates of NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section
UPPER SURFACE LOWER SURFACE

x/c y/c x/c y/c
1. 00000 0.00156 0.99979 -0.00156

0.96946 0.01100 0.96771 -0.00284
0.93865 0.02002 0.93576 -0.00415
0.90781 0.02863 0.90397 -0.00505
0.87697 0.03682 0.87236 -0.00689
0.84617 0.04460 0.84095 -0.00833
0.81545 0.05198 0.80978 -0.00981
0.78483 0.05814 0.77887 -0.01134
0.75437 0.06550 0.74824 -0.01292
0.72408 0.07164 0.71793 -0.01454
0.69400 0.07738 0.68795 -0.01619
0.66418 0.08270 0.65834 -0.01787
0.63463 0.08762 0.62911 -0.01956
0.60540 0.09211 0.60029 -0.02126
0.57652 0.09620 0.57191 -0.02294
0.54802 0.09986 0.54399 -0.02460
0.51994 0.10311 0.51654 -0.02622
0.49231 0.10594 0.48960 -0.02778
0.46515 0.10835 0.46319 -0.02926
0.43851 0.11034 0.43732 -0.03066
0.41241 0.11192 0.41201 -0.03195
0.38662 0.11306 0.38756 -0.03314
0.36119 0.11363 0.36396 -0.03433
0.33640 0.11364 0.34097 -0.03552
0.31228 0.11310 0.31861 -0.03667
0.28888 0.11203 0.29690 -0.03776
0.26621 0.11046 0.27584 -0.03878
0.24433 0.10842 0.25544 -0.03968
0.22324 0.10592 0.23572 -0.04046
0.20299 0.10302 0.21669 -0.04109
0.18360 0.09972 0.19836 -0.04156
0.16508 0.09607 0.18074 -0.04185
0.14748 0.09209 0.16385 -0.04194
0.13080 0.08782 0.14770 -0.04181
0.11507 0.08329 0.13231 -0.04147
0.10030 0.07854 0.11768 -0.04088
0.08651 0.07360 0.10383 -0.04006
0.07370 0.06850 0.09078 -0.03898
0.06190 0.06327 0.07854 -0.03765
0.05110 0.05794 0.06712 -0.03604
0.04133 0.05255 0.05655 -0.03417
0.03257 0.04712 0.04683 -0.03203
0.02484 0.04168 0.03798 -0.02960
0.01814 0.03624 0.03001 -0.02690
0.01247 0.03084 0.02294 -0.02392
0.00738 0.02549 0.01154 -0.01709
0.00164 0.01501 0.00386 -0.00912
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
-90-
TABLE 2.
Locations of Pressure Tappings on NACA-4415
Aerofoil Section
UPPER SURFACE
x/c y/c x/c y/c
0.979666 0.007933 0.234400 0.108833

0.959866 0.013533 0.193267 0.103267
0.940166 0.018966 0.153267 0.095133
0.919166 0.024833 0.133600 0.090067
0.899200 0.030200 0.114600 0.084633
0.878966 0.035600 0.104533 0.081200
0.860866 0.040066 0.095866 0.078200
0.840266 0.045466 0.085334 0.074466
0.820334 0.050400 0.076000 0.070733
0.799466 0.055200 0.065800 0.066533
0.780000 0.059466 0.055266 0.061267
0.739466 0.068072 0.045733 0.056266
0.679266 0.079626 0.035200 0.051300
0.619266 0.089691 0.027133 0.042666
0.558733 0.098301 0.015800 0.035800
0.500266 0.105039 0.008733 0.028733
0.437200 0.110399 0.004334 0.025000
0.375533 0.113334 0.000667 0.012466
0.315667 0.113066 0.000025 0.003667
0.275466 0.110977
LOWER SURFACE
x/c y/c x/c y/c
0.001533 -0.009866 0.181033 -0.042166
0.010166 -0.015466 0.234733 -0.040531
0.016766 -0.020533 0.281466 -0.038440
0.028466 -0.026334 0.382000 -0.033394
0.039667 -0.030485 0.480733 -0.028366
0.049600 -0.033766 0.581266 -0.022600
0.059466 -0.036165 0.681266 -0.016833
0.069933 -0.038031 0.779334 -0.011600
0.079466 -0.039370 0.879866 -0.006777
0.100600 -0.041061 0.979800 -0.002425
0.139433 -0.042366
-91-
TABLE 3.
2-D ANGLE OF ATTACK SUMMARY
Reynolds CN =0 C [CMc/4Jmax Stall

Number Nmax
50,000 -1.50 4.90 7.90 -----
75,000 -2.90 12.40 14.90 16.90
100,000 -3.80 12.40 14.40 16.65
125,000 -4.10 12.90 14.90 17.40
150,000 -4.20 12.90 14.90 17.40
175,000 -4.20 12.90 14.90 17.40
200,000 -4.10 12.90 14.90 17.90
250,000 -4.10 11. 90 13.90 18.40
300,000 -4.10 11. 90 13.90 18.90
350,000 -4.10 11.90 13.90 18.90
400,000 -4.10 11.90 13.40 19.40
450,000 -4.10 11.90 13.90 19.40
500,000 -4.10 11. 90 13.90 20.40
550,000 -4.10 11.90 14.90 -----
600,000 -4.10 11.90 14.90 -----
-92-
TABLE 4.
Estimated locations of laminar separation points on the lower
surface of a NACA-4415 aerofoil section using a viscid-inviscid
analysis method.
Rex1o' 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0 600.0
ex (0) x/c (% )
-2 7.7 7.7 8.0 16.6 16.6 17.6 17.6 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7
-1 8.9 8.9 21. 0 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.5
I
~
W
I 0 11. 6 12.6 40.6 40.9 42.0 42.4 42.8 57.0 58.1 54.9 51.1
1 14.3 22.1 87.4 92.0 90.5 85.8 81.0 76.0 72.3 69.1 66.4
2 19.2 95.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.4 94.8 92.0 90.8
3 38.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4 100.0
---_._.-
TABLE 5.
Useful Information About Past and Present Wind Tunnels Used
to Test NACA-4415 Aerofoil Sections.
Test Velocity Turbulence Chord Aspect

Tunnel Type Test
Section (m/s) Intensity Ratio
(m)
NACA LTT
Closec O. 90mx2 .291
Low Turbulence 70 0.03% 0.6 2-D 3.81
Return (Closed)
Tunnel
I
\.0
.J::,.
I
lAG STUTTGART=l
Closed o. 73mx2 . 73 h 0.5 1 5.46
Stuttgart & &
Laminar
91 0.02% 2-D
Return
(Closed) 1.0
Wind Tunnel 2 2.73
GLASGOW
UNIVERSITY Closed 0.84mx1.14
30 ~0.50% 0.3 2-D 2.80
Low Speed Return
(Closed)
Wind Tunnel
1: for Reynolds numbers up to 1.5x10 6
2: for Reynolds numbers> 1.5x10 6
(Adapted from References 28, 29, 30 and 31)

HIGH AlTlTUD! AIRCR"FT
PLATFORMS AND ~'.lNl - "'PVa
1.0
(C.on tt.I~I>c<lJ
li>
.....
'00
a:
:E
~ 0.1 UJ
C)
~
::> '0 ::>
oUJ z
- 0.01 :x:
W ()
0.. «
1.0
...
W
::t
:E
....
o 0.001 ~
:::; -J
u. 0.1 UL1RALIGHT I,lRCnAFT
U.
MODEL AIRPlAIIES
0.0001
0.01
CHORD REYNOLDS NUMBER, Uc

l!
Figure 1.1. Chord Reynolds Number versus Flight Velocity

for a Variety of Natural and Man-Made Flying
Objects. (Adapted from Reference 1)
Sep. Bubble with turbulent reattachment

Probably local
separation near
trailing edge
Figure 1.2. A Typical Laminar Separation Bubble Formed

over the Upper Surface of an Aerofoil.
(Adapted from Reference 1)
- 95-
CP
A: 0 ~ - 12.5 Ret- IOOeGB .132% UPPER
-5 B: ¢ I( - 12.5 RCf- I emlElB .02% LOHER
c: A " D 12.5 RCt- lomme .2% LO~ER
-4
-3
,,
CJ - ,TUR8uL[1C([ 'nH~ptSITT 0.021
6 - TUHzlUUhC£ IptTI"'~IlT 0.21
Re ... 100.000
-11 II , ze
+tH+~+H+H+H'+'~II~'~II~I'+II~I+II~I+1~II+'HII+'~III
(flaj a (b)
Figure 1.3. Turbulence Effects on Stall Hysteresis (a) and

FX-63-137 Aerofoil Section. (Re=100,OOO)
A'-. 6.->. CP
u Ai'~' ~ A: a 16.5 RCf· 2000013 .02%
~A~';"C
IJ a
-5 B: 0 Q 0= 16.5 RCi= 20000e .02%

c: 6. tJ c 16.5 RCf= 2000eIJ .2%
tJ." -4
B-?,
, .'
I
I
I
GJ - Tt;I;,::.Lr... l'i;:( I1ITC.OIjtTY 0.011
A - TI.'1i.2~-... ('1([ !llT[l1SITY 0.2:
,I rtf! ... 200.1Y.lO
I
-II II I 11
+j-I'i31:19+-~r++H+H++-t+H-H-+'H-+ I' I I I r I I I )-
a (b)
Figure 1.4. Turbulence Effects on Stall Hysteresis (a) and

FX-63-137 'Aerofoil Section. (Re=200,OOO)
CP
o tJ '" I~.S RCt e 2833013 A
1.:1- A -5 - ¢ a c 14.5 RC~e 20e200 B
\JJ
C A ~ c 14.5 Rn= 2130130e C
-4 -
I
/ I
B'
,:. w ~@:l~
I
CJ - 00 ~CO"SIiCS
Re." lOG.OOO
6, - 5b'lO t-fl.
18 ,18 39
I I II I I I I II I , I' I I I I I I I I I'
(a) a (b)
Figure 1.5. Acoustic Effects on Stall Hysteresis (a) and

FX-63-137 Aerofoil Section. (Re=200,OOO)
- 96 -
Dividing Separated Turbulent
Slreamlin~ Shear Layer
Edge of the
Boundary Layer
1..0
-J
Separated
Laminar Shear
Layer "D eo d A'Ir .. Redeveloping Turbulent
Laminar Boundary Layer
Region
Boundary Layer
Figure 1.6. Sketch of a Laminar Separation Bubble.

/'
/ ,':
/ .' \ ,--Tral'1'lng Ed ge Sta 11
f "
/: , ...... , ~: ______ Combined Stall
/ .
I: ...-/ . :...--' -----:-: ~'--Leading Edge Stall
I .
I..: /
'-"-~ Thin Aerofoil Stall
I.' .
l!
/,~
1/
a;
Figure 1.7. Four Different Types of Static

Stall
Laminar Separation
Transition
- Reattachment
Turbulent Separation
High Angles of Attack

Low Angles of Attack
TS
.. . .
..... 1·0
o .. . ., . ..
x/c
1
Figure 1.8. Typical Aerofoil Pressure Distribution
with Laminar Separation Bubbles.
·98 -
Xl0-l
"
NACA-1115 AeroFoil
45'
Angle of Attack -5. 1 0 (deg.)
I
I
Reynolds Number 298051 .1
40
Dynamic Pressure 131.151 N/m sq.
Uncorrecled Datu
o Upper SurFace
() Lower SurFacE
I
25
- C
P
\-0 20
\-0
10
5'
01 (jfrL; :2 :3 .0\ 5 6~ ~Io

XlO- 1
X/c
-5
Figure 1.9. Experimental Static Pressure Distribution over the NACA-4415

-10
o
Aerofoil at an Incidence of -5.10 and at a Reynolds Number
of 298,051.
straighteners Fan Housing
~
~ '-- I \ i---"" / It--
------
~
~
---
Dl. f fuser
\
Contraction
Diffuser
'\,
I
1
I
t-'
o
o --+--~- II
1
I
I
~--- 1/ 1
Breather Slot ~--------~- Working Section /

Settling Chamber Corner
Vanes
O.383mx1.143m WIND TUNNEL
Figure 2.1. A Plan View of the Glasgow University's Low Speed Wind
Tunnel.
PRESSURE TUBES
GRADUATED ANGLE
SCALE
/
-... /
_ MODEL
1
1.143m
':. PRESSURE
-------- TAPPINGS i
O.838m
_____________ ~_~i______~
i
1\
\
~~ __. -__r -_____________\~\ ____________- r__~__- J
\\
CIRCULAR STEEL
PLATES
/ / I / /7 / / / / / / / / / / / /////7// ////
Figure 2.2. Cross-Sectional View of the Working

Section of the Glasgow University's Low
Speed Wind Tunnel.
-101-
NACA-4415 AEROFOIL SECTION
X10- 2
12
~
o
l'0
10
8
6 ........-------- --------
-2
-4
•
• •
X/C (X10- 1)
-6
Figure 2.3. Positions of the Pressure Tappings Around the

NACA-4415 Aerofoil Model.
-5 WORTMANN FX 63-137
Rc = 200.000 (c = 6")
Alpha = 16 degrees
Uncorrected data
-4-
"Q..
U
'V -3- [> In-line tap model
0: StaggQred tap model
+)
[
OJ
·rl
U -2-
'rl
f-'
0 4-
w tj-.
(U
0
u -1 .
cu
l ~ e 0
J I>
en
en a
OJ 25 50 75 100
l ~ e ~ e ~ A ~
(L . ..-..- Q A &-()
x/c (7.)
1
Figure 2.4. Pressure Distribution Comparison Between two Wortmann Aerofoils

0
Having Different Pressure Tap Configurations at 16 Angle of
Attack and Re=200,OOO. (Adapted from Reference 1)
-5 T WORTMANN FX 63-137
Rc = 80, 000 (c = 6" )
Alpha = B degroes
I
Uncorrected data
-4-
r-..
(L
U
'---' -3 t I> In-line top rHode 1
0 Staggered top model
~J
r:
ill
rl
u -2
rl
f-' (-t-
o
II'> l~_
ill
0
U -1 -
QJ
L
J
(J)
(J)
m o I -ItA ~ ;5 ;~ S ; ~
+--i
75
t
100
L
(L
Rf¥-
x/c eX)
1
Figure 2.5. Pressure Distribution Comparison Between two Wortmann Aerofoils

Having Different Pressure Tap Configurations at 8 0 Angle of
Attack and Re=80,OOO. (Adapted from Reference 1)
(
START
START TUNNEL &

BRING IT UP TO
DESIRED SPEED
i
RUN PROGRAM
~
AEROFOIL.BAS
CHANGE AUTO LOGGING

INCIDENCE SEQUENCE
END OF PROGRAM
DO
YES YOU
WANT
ANOTHER
RUN
NO
STOP TUNNEL
SPEED
Figure 3.1. Sequence of events during pressure distribution

measurements
-105-
AEROFOIL C ~
I
j l PRESSURE
TAPPINGS
DRIVE
DY1:
DRIVE
DYO:
-
AID
CONVERTER
(MNCAD)
.. -
..-
MICROMANOMETER
I
I FC012 I
J-
•
I
00
p
jX\
~ SELECTOR - II
~
~ BOXES
........ ... REAL TIME

f-'
o
p
DEC CLOCK III
CJ\ MINC 11/23 (MNCKW)
I I MICROCOMPUTER
.....
p
DEC VT·l05
TERMINAL ,,
~.
.....
... ......
}~
IEEE BUS CONTROLER 488-1975
I I
.1 1
II
PRINTER
IBM EPSON MX-80
Figure 3.2. Schematic of Instrumentation used for the data acquisition.

1.6 6
MILEY
1
lISSAMAN
A,· 150.000
~~
Rc: 150,000 (j:;
1.2 1.
1.2 °0o~
<>
o8L~
<>
c\
0.8
C\
I I 0:>
O(f ~
08 o0:;;«0'),-/
_rA
0
0
o
0° -~
0 00
0.41. 0.4 i 0
v
o <>
~····-t ____ .2....t(L-+ __'-+-_'--""---i ~IO
(>
o
o o
(>
<,:..:.i>-0,4 rJfXXx;O<>
({} -04
0
l--'
0.3
<1
<>
Cd o
<>
J4
o 0.3
-J
Cd
0 ..2 <> (p <>

o 02
00 I8
~;t
00 0
"0, 00 00
~ 0.1 ~o0
0
01 00
cP. 00
0
/'IJl)dY , 0
00 . ,(y 0;;0">
I , '+---'--l~"-"--+-'---i--~ I I .-..-----i~--....- - I 1
-20 -12 -4 4 12 20 :t8 -;1:0 -12 -4 4 12 20 28
a.IOEGR[(SI a.(OECREES)
Figure 3.3. Section Lift and Profile Drag Figure 3.4. Section Lift and Profile Drag
Coefficients Versus Angle of Coefficients Versus Angle of
Attack for Rc=lS0,OOO for the Attack for Rc=lS0,OOO for the
Smooth Lissaman Airfoil. Smooth Miley Airfoil.
(Adapted from Reference 9) (Adapted from Reference 9)

-
o
00
I
Figure 3.5. The NACA-4415 Aerofoil Installed in the Glasgow University's Low
Speed Wind Tunnel
-c
p
-c
p
-1
Figure 4.1.1. 3-D Plots of Cp vs x/c vs a for the Lower (a)

and Upper (b) Surface of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil
Section and Re=50,OOO.
-109-
-c
-c
p
-1

-110-
-c
p
-c
p

-111-
-c
p
~~~~22.90 21.90
20.90
19.90
18.90
17.90
-c 17.';0
p 16.90
16.';0
15.90
15.+0
' .... 90
13.90
12.90
11.90 e"
"I
9'.~090 ae
7.~090 L1§'
90
5.;0 o-2t
.... 90 'I..J"'v
3.90
2.90 0' "
O.~090 "e (b)

_1~0'0 ,,<'0,
-2.10
-3.10
-".10
'r.,fflt../-~r-T--t---,t--7:---,j---'S---<!9.---=::,-r: -5.10
Xl0- 1

-112-
-c
p
_~~~.22'90 21.90
20.90
19.90
18.90
-c 17.90
p 17.40
16.90
16.40
15.90
14.90
13.9Q
12.90
11.90 .....,
9'.~090 e.e'?
8.90 cf
8.~090 LC,"-
-+.~090 0-r5
3.90 ,,"""
2.90 '<- (b)
, .90 rJ.
-o.~090 ,-e.
-2-." 0' 0 ,<-"0,
-3.10
-'i.l0
't-:-;fffl-+-~"-T-~---;"--t--~--"!;--~-""";r;' -5.' 0
-1

Section and Re=150,OOO
-113-
(\',---
(,
E_
"
-c
10
-c
~~~22'90 19.90
18.90
17.90
17 .... 0
21.90
20.90
p 16.90
16.-10
15.90
14,90
13.90
12.90
11.90 "]
91.~090 e.e'"
8.90
7.90
cl
Oe
S.90 L
'L~090 (Jr:F
3.90 . . .,)"""
2.90 ';-
1.90 J. (b)
-o.~090 '\..e
-2~'t 010 ,;-{'Co
-3.10
-".10
-5.10
9
Xl0- 1
-1

-114-
5,
Ii
, I
I
!
3~
:: a)
22.90
1
21.90
20 .90
19.90
18.90
17.90
17.40
-c ! 16.90
p 4 16.40
r 15.90
15.'1"0
I 14.90
13.90
I
3'
12.80 1
1 \.90 eO
r 9',° 90
90 c§e
7.;090 L C?'
6.90 C
4 .~090 ,,"vCr
3.90 '(- (b)
2.90 0'
O.~090 "cz
_1-.~010 't'-.('~
-2.10
-3.10
-'4.10
-5.10
9
X10- 1
-1

-115-
·I
I II
-c
p II
- \
'. .::1../
9 10
X10- 1
22.S0
21.90
20.90
19.90
18.90
18.'W
17.90
17."f0
16.90
-c 16.10
p 15.90
15.10
'1.90
I
14."10
13.90 e"
12'.;0"'0 C§e
10'.~090 L6Q.
9.90 C
7 .~090 '"vCr
Ei .90 ,,"
5 .90 J:
3 .~090 '-e
1 .~090 ,;-<'0,
0.90 (b)
-0.10
-1.10
-2.10
-3.10
-'L1D
-5.10
9
X10- 1
-I

Section and Re=2S0,OOO.
-116-
-c
22.90
21.90
20.90
!9.S0
18.90
18."\0
17.90
17 .'to
16.90
16.40
15.90
15."W
-c '" .90
H.40 I
p .,
13.90 eo'
13.40 (e
12.90 C;
12."W be,
11.90 1_
101.~O"lO (JC
10.'+0 ,,"'-'
9 .90 't-
8.90 J
S.~090 ",rL-
., .;090 >:-"0,
3.90 (b)
2.90
1.90
0.90
-0.10
-1.10
-2.10
-3.10
-4.10
-5.10
-I

-117-
-5.10
-1.10
-3.10
-2.10
-1.1{)
-C.l0
0.90
1.90
2.90
3.90
-c 4.90
p 5.90
6.90
7.90 I
9 .~090 ri"'"
10.90 C§
1/~O'1-0 LeX"
12t.~O~O c:rC
13 .... 0 ","v
13.90 ';-
Hl.~"'O ox.
15 .... 0 '-c
'B'.~090 ,;-"c,
1 S .90
17.10
17.90
18.10
18.90
18.90
20.90
2T .90
22.90
21.90
20.90
IS.!'JO
113.'90
lB.10
17.90
17.'10
1B.90
16.'10
'5.90
15.40
-c Ii .90
p 11.40 '""r
13.90 e'"
'2'.~O"0 C§C
1t t.~010 ,-012
10'.~O"O (JC
10 ....0 "'-''''
9.90 't-
8.90 0'<
.~o90 ,-fl,
6
1.~o90 't-<,c, (b)
3.90
2.90
1.90
0.90
-0.10
-1.10
-2.10
-3.10
-4.10
h--Jftl......~--'\---7---.!,----T---,;----.!;--.:t;9:::=_Z -5.10
XlO- 1
-1

Section and Re=350,000.
-118-
-5.' C;
-c
p
9 ,0
Xl0- 1
22.90
21.90
20.90
19.90
19.10
18.90
18.10
17.90
17."f0
16.90
16.40
-c 15.90
p 15.40
1'4.90 ""I
131.~040 Q.e0
13.10 cf
90
'2'.;0 c.Oe
101.~090 U-
9.90 >vD-
e.90 't-......
6.~090 0"
5.90 ........e
3 .~090 't-"o, (b)
2 .90
1 .90
0.90
-0.10
-1.10
-2.10
-3.10
-1.10
-5.10
-1

-119-
-c
p
( a)
-c
p
-,

-120-
-5.10
I ~
:
=======---======::::;f -3.10
-~.10
?.:= / -0.10
_1-.~O'0
T 0.90
7 ~ .50
/ 2.90
3.90
"1.90
5.90
6.90
7.90 I
8.90 eO
9.~O~O de
-c
D 10'.~O"rO ,,-oe.
11.40
11.90 "C-
e-
12'.~"to ","
13.10 J:
H'.~090 ",Q,
151.~090 't-"c,
15.90
16.10 t .~)
lS.90
17.10
17.90
18 .... 0
18.90
'8.'tO
19.90
20 .... 0
20.90
21.90
22.90
ii'i-~ ~ ~ ~ ~=:~l ! 1)!;: t~;

21.90
20.90
20 ....0
19.90
19.10
18.90
18 ....0
17.90
17 .... 0
16.90
lS."rO 22.90
15.90
15.10 . ,
11.90 e'"
-c 131.~010 ~e
D
121.~010 L OIZ
11'.~O"'O Cr e
11 .... 0 "...J'><v
10 .. 90 't:-
10.10 J:
9.~090 \..(l
7 .~090 -.;-"c,
B.90
5.90
1.90
2.~090 (b)
1.90
0.90
-D.l0
-1.10
-2.10
-3.10
-1.10
-5.10
-1

-121-
-c
p
-c
p
-1

-122-
-c
p
s 19."0
19.90
~
~ 17.90
18."0
17."0
16.90
16.10
15.90
15 ..... 0
H.90
-c ,.... ..... 0
p 13.90
13.-10
12.90 1
1
11.<0
".~o·o cl e""
101.~090 L ~>",
9 .~090 "U
8.S0 ","
7 .90 "
5.~090 0'
..... 90 '-0 (b)
2 .~090 ,,('COl
1.90
0.90
-0.10
-1.10
-2.10
-3.10
-';"0
-S.10
-1

-123-
;(10- 1
50
\ \
Angle of Attack
o : Uppe-r" SurFacE'
= 18'-:'.0 (dE-g.)
Q: Lo .... (>r SurFace
~ ,,
( 3.)
Angle oF' Atlack ;:: 18.~ Cde>g.,
0: Upper SurFace
Q: Lo ...... ,.. Sl.IrFace
~ ,,
(b)
Angle of I\t.t.ack = 18.90 (deg.;
o : Upppr SurFace
Q : Lo .... (>r SurFace
~ ,,
( C)
~igure 4.1.16. Pressure Distribution Around the NACA-441S

Aerofoil Section at Incidences Close to
Complete Stall (Re=300, 000) .
-124-
AngLe of ....t.t.ack '" 16.90 (deg.)
c : UPPE'!'" S .... rFacl'

<:) : Lo .... e!'" S .... rFO'cl'
] 3.)
1 "'ngle of ... Uack '" 17.10 (de-g.)
0: Upper SurFace
o : Lo .... er SurFace
-0
,
XIO-I
... ngte of Attack = 17.90 (de-g.)
0: Upper S .... rPacl'

Q: Lo .... er S....rFacli'
-0
,
(e)
Figure 4.1.17. Pressure Distribution Around the NACA-441S

Complete Stall (Re=175,OOO).
-125-
~ngle oF' Attock = 18.90 (de-g.'
c : lJpper S .... rF acE'

<): lOIo'E"r SurFace
~, ~
~-~~~.-
XtO- t
1 Angle of Attack'" 19.10 <deg.)
0: Upper SurFace
<): Lower SurFace
~. (b)
~-~~~~
,:;====_l~_'_'
,~/~,c ~10-1
Angle oP ALtack '" 19.10 (O€'g.'

J.
o : UPPE"I'" SurPacE'
o : Lower SurFac@
-c ,
(C)
Figure 4.1.18. Pressure Distribution Around the NACA-4415

Complete Stall (Re=400,OOO).
-126-
20 ,- ------------------------- ------~
ex 6
'-~
L
10
Q
~.,
f-'
l'J
---J
o-
-0- Lam i nar sep.
-+- Trans it i on
, ~,
.... Reattachment "tJ
~ Turbulent sep.
- I0 I --,-----.~~--~ -------,------~-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.13 1.U

x/c
Figure 4.1.19. Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena on tile Upper
Surface of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at Re=75,OOO.
20 -,-----
C<
l\\
~~~
10 .
f-'
tJ
CD o
-0- Laminarsep
-+- Transition ~"'., ""0-.-_._
... Reattachment
---0
-¢- Turbulent sep
-t---
- 10 --------,.----------.---------,------~-.----
0.0 0.2 0.4 U.6 u.8 1.0
x/c
Figure 4.1.20. Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena on the Urpel:
Surface of the NACA-441S Aerofoil Section at Re=100,OOO.
6
NACA-4415 AeroFoil
Angle of AUack = -5.10 (deg.)
5
-c
p
599790.3
550159.9
499570.4
450524.1
397925.5
348849.7
2880:51.1
248733.4
196919.7
173418.3
149128.7
124521 .3
99758.5
74077.0
19878.0
Figure 4.2.1. 3-D Plot of Cp vs x/c vs Re for the Upper

<X.=- 5.10°.
6
NACA-4415 AeroFoil
Angle of AUack = -3.10 (deg.)
5
-c
P 4
599702.8
550233.4
499328.9
450798.8
399086.9
349568.3
300'196.2
249704.4
198395.6
173621.1
149453.7
124742.9
99512.4
7'1206.3
50000.5
5 5 7 8

<X.=-3.100.
-129-
NACA-4415 A~roFoll
AngLe of Attack = -1.10 (deg.)
-c
p
599881.1
5502H.9
199800.1
150771.8
400050.5
349862.6
300023.9
250756.2
198748.2
171021.1
H9114.0
121608.4
100087.8
71272.7
50076.2

Surface of the NACA-441S Aerofoil Section at
U=-1.10 o .
6
NACA-4415 A~roFoll
Angle of Attack = -0.10 (deg.)
5
-c
P 4
600362.3
550056.9
499356.7
452219.7
400509.9
350713.7
300488.4
251328.5
198968.4
171559.2
149537.0
124681 .9
100164.0
73936.6
50111.9
5 6 7 8 9
XlO- 1
-1

U=-0.10 o .
-130-
6
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
5 AngLe of Altack = 0.90 (deg.)
-c
p
60030"1.1
550622.0
2 500030.2
151S57.0
"100"133.9
350421 .5
301009.3
251887.4
199370.4
174385.6
1"19595.6
12"1731.3
100231.7
73999.7
7
50134.8
8
-1

U= 0.90 0 .
6
NACA-4415 AeroFoiL
AngLe of Altack = 2.90 (deg.)
5
-c
P 4
600818.3
551160.4
2
501079.8
151924.8
400987.1
3532H.l
300029.3
25189"1.8
198400.6
174735.4
H9963.3
124513.6
100366.4
74140.8
50170.4
-1

Surface of the NACA-44l5 Aerofoil Section at
U= 2.90 0 .
-131-
6
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
AngLe of Attack = 4.90 (deg.)
5
-r:
p 4
601826.7
551709.9
500469.9
451479.5
400904.0
351788.2
300758.2
252148.4
199082.6
174852.8
150323.3
124597.2
100093.1
74810.0
o 50206.0
-1

a= 4.90°.
NACA-4415 AeroFoiL
Angle of Attack = 6.90 (deg.)
-c
p
601315.6
551877.1
500540.3
451318.7
401186.1
352218.2
301310.9
252249.2
199560.1
175099.8
150520.1
124975.3
100193.5
74946.4
0~---t----22----~3----~4----~5;---~6~--'7~--~8~---9~--~ 50213 .2
XIO-I
-1

a=6. 90°.
-132-
6
NACA-44J5 AeroFoll
5
-c
P "I
-1

U= 9.90°.
6
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
5 AngLe oF' Attack = 10.90 (deg.)
-c
P "I
6017"13.3
552031.7
2 501 32·LI
"151108.2
"101858.1
353228.2
301109.3
252680.7
199836.6
174967.1
150637.5
125082.0
100302.8
7+583.0
°t----,----?2----~3----~4----~5----~6~--~7,---'8~--'9~--~ 50293.1
XlO- 1
-1

U=10. 90°.
-133-
6
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
AngLe of Attack = I I .90 'Geg. )
5
-c
p
5 5 7 8
-I

Ct=11.900.
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
5
-c
P 1
601331.7
551216.1
2 500982.3
151317.4
401786.8
352835.3
300374.8
252+33.3
199583.1
175008.2
150451.1
125128.1
100408.0
7+675.5
o 50255.6
2 3 5 6 7 8 9
XIO-1
-I

Ct=12. 90°.
-134-
6
NACA-1415 AeroPolL
5 AngLe oF' Allack = 13.'30 (deg.)
-c
P 4
~~
~-------~---
3
~~ 50~~~~8.~.7
600888.6
2 l}
------- 1
_
--------
.~
/
/ 151304.4
400816.3
352880.1
---_____ 300651.2
253017.2
199171.8
175022.8
150179.0
12-1801.8
100473.4
74640.2
O~--t--22--~3--~4C-_-~5;--~6~-~7~-~8~-~9--}10 50240.3
XIO-1
-1

<X=13. 90 0 .
NACA-1415 AerOPOlL
5
AnqLe oF' Attack = 11.'30 (deg.)
-c
P 1
601181.8
552293.2
2 500383.6
151254.5
100399.1
352136.2
300350.8
252135.6
198961 .2
174763.6
150196.9
121801 .8
100540.6
71710.4
o 50229.9
2 3 5 6 7 8
-1

<X=14. 90 0 .
-135-
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
5 AngLe of Altack = 15.90 (deg.)
-c
P "I
~
~
3
601363.7
552223."1
500292.7
"\50344.0
"100189.6
351369.5
298836.8
251183.2
198509.0
174518.7
150507.5
12517"1.1
100237.8
7"1714.1
0~---t----~2----13----~4~'--~5;---~6~--~7~--~8~--~9----~ 50241 .2
XlO- 1
-1

U=15. 90 0 .
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
AngLe of Altack = 16.90 (deg.)
5
-c
P 4
601336.3
5518"i1.0
"i99796.7
2 45012"i.6
400047.1
351260.1
299543.1
250208.0
197425.4
174320.3
150523.4
124856.1
98718.0
73585.0
50226.5
2 3 4 ·5 6 7 8 9
Xl0-l
x/c
-I

U=16. 90 0 .
-136-
6
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
5 AngLe of Attack = 17.90 (deg.)
-c
p
599911 .~
550945.8
499589.8
4,9139.7
399575.3
350742.7
239163.6
249041.3
194120.8
172843.1
149477.5
122195.6
97890.2
71119.7
0~---T----~2----~3----~4----~5----~6~--'7~--~8~---9~--~ 50227.2
XIO-I
-I

Cl=17.90 0 .
NACA-4415 AeroFolL
AngLe oF' Allack = 18.90 (deg.)
5
-c
P 4
600365.3
550603. ,
498371 .1
39W>;8.~.0 e'
343537.5 ~
291719.8 ~0
243017.3
193079.3 00
172561 .3 '--
149747.6 ~o
122141.8 e.-0
98291.0 q.:
73562.8
0~--·-L----~2----~3----74----~5----~6~--~7~--·8~---'9~---fIO 50222.0
XIO-I
-I

Cl=18. 90 0 .
-137-
6
NACA-4415 AeroFoll
AngLe of Attack = 19.90 .: ,jeg. )
5
-c
p
496766.4
437484.3
390825.2
1." 24~~ ~~5.~.5
343014.4
lH::::::::::=:======================:::::
~ /
. 192032.6
172054.5
14;;503.1
122121.4
,,0
.-0
~
00
98281. 1 ,~I.&
74102.3
o 50218.6
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
XIO- 1
-1

0:=19.90 0 .
NACA-4415 AeroFoil
Angle of Attack = 20.90 (deg.)
-c
p
497247.5
'147306.1
390841.9
3'12204.0
291077.7
2'11852.7
191208.9
171568.9
150301.'1
121766.9
97887.2
74089.8
0~--~--~----~3----·t---~5----~6----~7~--~8'---~9~--~ 50214.3
XIO- 1
-1

0:=20.90 0 .
-138-
Minimum
pressure
peak~
~ \
I ,
I ',T'
.... -- ..... T
I
I f \r t(
Actual. pressure
vanOTlon with
I S \ separafJon
-cp I \ bubbfe
( \
I \
I T"lrbulent boundary \
I loyer pressure
I
'yariatlon without
seporotlcn bubble R
( trip wIre)
POSITION ALONG CHORD, X/C
Figure 4.2.21. Typical Surface Pressure Distributions With

and Without Separation Bubble.
- 139 -
( a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
I
.........
~
o
I
Re=200,OOO Re=300,OOO Re=400,OOO Re=500,OOO Re=600,OOO
Figure 4.3.1. Flow Visualisation Photographs of the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at U=-5.10 o .
(a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
.,
.+:0.
..........
I
Re=2S0,OOO Re=350,OOO Re=450,OOO Re=500,OOO Re=600,OOO
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at U=-1.10 o .
(b) (c) ( d) ( e)
(a)
.........
~
N
I
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at U=2.90o.
( a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
- I
..j:;:..
w
I
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at U=6.90o.
(a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
-
I
~
~
I
Re=200,OOO Re=300,OOO Re:::::400,OOO Re=4S0,OOO Re=SOO,OOO
Figure 4.3.5. Flow Visualisation Photographs of the Upper Surface of the NACA-441S
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at U:::::9.90o.
..p..
Vl
I
( a) (b) (c)
Figure 4.3.6. A Sequence of Flow Visualisation Photographs of the Upper Surface of the
NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at Re=600,OOO and at a=9.90o.
( a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
+:-.
0'1
I
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at a=11.90o.
I
...-
+:-.
-...l
I
( a) (b) (c)
NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at Re=600,OOO and at U=11.90o.
( a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
~
00
I
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at a=13.90 o .
(a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
~
\.0
I
Re==250,OOO Re==350,OOO Re==450,OOO Re==500,OOO Re==600,OOO
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at a==15.90 o .
(a) (b) (c) ( d) (e)
Vl
o
I
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at a=17.90o.
( a) (b) (c) ( d) ( e)
--
VI
Aerofoil Section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at a=18.909.
(a) (b) (c) ( d) (e)
-
I
VI
tv
I
Aerofoil section at Various Reynolds Numbers and at U=19.90o.
V1
w
I
( a) (b) ( c) ( d)
NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at Re=450,OOO and at U=19,90o,
20
ex
t
~~.
10
"' ~~~~~~\ ~
f-'
U1
o ~
~~"'- ~
.1'>
~*,'
-0- Larninarsep } o
-+- Reattachment Cp Data
.... Turbulent sep ~ ""'~
~ Laminarsep } ~ "",-
--- Reattacliment Flow Vis. Data '''''9

-0- Turbulent sep.
-1 0 ~t~~-----,- r"~'-~---r------''----'-'-'-'-T -.-.--.... ~-- . - . , ..-.--._.-. - .. -. ----,

0.0 0.2 0.4 CI.b 0.8 ] .0
z/c
Figure 4.3.15. Comparison Between Cp and Flow Visualisation Data Regarding the
Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena Occurring on
the Upper Surface of the NACA~4415 Model at Re=lSO,OOO.
20 -
IX
10-
"~
~
J-'
Ul
Ul o
~ ~"
-{r Laminarsep. } '~
+ Reattachment Cp Data ~
'--'--..
-. Tur·buientsep.
-<>- Laminar sep. } "-.-........,.~~. '-9
-II- Reattacilment Flow Vis. Data
-0- Turbu 1ent sep.
--.----- -.--. -,. ,_.. - -- - --. -- - - I

-10+- 1-
~-----,-------.-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 o.e 1.0

x/c
Figure 4.3.16. Comparison Between Cp and Flow Visualisation Data Regarding the
the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415 Model at Re=200,OOO.
20 -
ex
10
t-->
U1
0\
o
-rt
+
Laminar sep
Reattachment
}-c p Data --"
... Turbulentsep. ~"
~""""-"""'-"--""
-<>- Laminarsep. }
. . Reattachment Flow Vis_ Data ~~~
-0- Turbu 1ent sep.
- 10 +-------T 1 -------,-- 1 - ---- --,--- - - ..---------y---- ----- - -1'- -I
0.0 O.~~ 0.4 U.6 0.8 1.0

x/c
Figure 4.3.17. Comparison Between Cp and Flovv Vi~311alisation Data Regarclj ng th<:j
Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena Occurring ell

IX
10
f-'
(Jl
--J
o ~¢- Lam i nar sep. }
+ Reattachment Cp Data
-+- Turbulent sep
+ Laminarsep. }
.... Reattachment Flow Vis. Data 1:1I
-{]- Turbu 1ent sep.
- 10 +-.~~-.-.. T--·-~~--'------ r- -- - ___ 0. _ _ _ _ _ _ T - .--- - -- ---~ --I~-
nn 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x/c
Figure 4.3.18. Comparison Between Cp and Flow Visualisation Data Regarding ttlU
the Upper Surface of the NACA~44]5 Model at Re=300,OOO.
20
ex:
10-
f-'
Ul
(»
o-
¢-
+
Laminar sep. } 1
\
Reattachment Cp Data
... Turbulent sep
-¢- Laminarsep. } -""'-' \
--It- Reattacliment Flow Vis. Data "¢ ~
-{]- Tur'bu lent sep
----- -1- --_. ----._- _.- - -- ----,-.---- -------1

-10 --~----"-,... -r-------~ -,.......---~-- -T- ------
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 . \)

x/c
Figure 4.3.19. Comparison Between Cp and Flo\', Visualisation Data RegauHn<;;r Llil~
Loca tions of the Various Boundal:y Layer Phenomena OccurI.' in9 ,)n
20 - _1
ex
10-
f-' "
lJl
o ".
,
~
"
\D
LarninJrSe p. } "1A ,
+ Reattachrnent Cp Data
-¢- t
. . Turbulent sep.
Larninarsep.
-II- Reattachrnent
-{]- Turbul ent sep
Flow Vis. Data
\
\
~J
-------------,--~--·-----t--~-------~ --1"- - ------ - -l- -- - - - - - - - - -.. - - , - - ------- - -,- - - - - ---1

-I01---~
0.0 0.2 0.4 o . c' 0.[\ 1.0

xl c:
Figure 4.3.20. Comparison Between Cp and Flow Vi sual:Lsa Lion Data Regardi li<;J the
Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena Occunin<;'1 on
the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415 Nodel at Re=400,OOO.
20
C<
"~"
10- ~¢L"",
"'~
'~
I--'
y~
Q')
o
o- -¢- Laminarsep }
+ Reattachment cp Data "~
... Turbulent sep. "~
-<>- Laminarsep } ",
.. Reattachment Flow Vis. Data '-'''''9
-0 Turbulent sep
- 10 -f-~~------.----- -'--~'----T y---~~~---- ------ - r------ --~-- ---l
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 () • 13 1.0

x/c
Figure 4.3.21. Comparison Between Cp and Flow Vi sualisaU on DaLa Peg,ell di Ij';; til
Locations of the Various Boundary Layer Phenomena OccuJ:rirl9 on
20·
(X
10
f-'
O'l
f-'
o -¢- Lam i nar sep. }
+ Reattachment Cp Data
-t Turbu 1ent sep. \\
-<>- Laminar'sep, } \
-III- Reattachment Flow Vis, Data 't;J
-0- Turbulent sep,
-1 0 -I--~---~~-. -----,-------,--.- -- .. -~- ~- -_.,.-

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/c
Figure 4.3.22. Comparison Between Cp and Flow Visualisation Data Regarding tile
the Upper Surface of the NACA-4415 Modol at Re=600,OOO.
X10-1
14
12
10
C 8
n
REYNOLDS NUMBER = 50000.0

6
¢ : UNCORRECTEO O~T~
AngLe (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25
J
AngLe (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 3
-5
-15
XlO- 1
3
-c t
2
AngLe (Degrees)
~100--------~~~_-------~~0----~~=:J~t=~,~.~,-:,=~A~~~~~~~~~~t~[;.~,~~~.~'~£~G~~.~'=_~--;2~5;-------~3C
~&- () -+~-
Figure 4.4.1. Normal Force, Quarter Chord Pitching Moment

and Tangential Force Coefficient Variation
With Angle of Attack at Re=50,OOO.
-162-
X10-1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
.,: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
':'10 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5
-15
XlO- 1
3
-ct
2
Angle (Degrees)
-~1~0~------~=-------~~~------5S---------~1~O~------~155--i:~:;~~=:==~~2~5r--------:30

-163-
X10-1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
-~1nO~------~-~5--------~---------'5t---------'1~O~------~;~5--------~2AO--------~2~[5~------~30
-5
c
m
1/4
-15
-c t
2
Angle (Degrees)

-164-
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
-~11~0~------~~~5--------~----------~5--------~1~O'-------~1~5--------~2~O-------~--------~30
-5
-15
-c t
2
Angle (Degrees)
-~1~0--------~-~5--------~~~------~5--------~1~O'-------~1~5----~--~~--------~25~------~30

-165-
XlO- 1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED OATA
AngLe (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25
-2
Ang L e ( Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 3
-5
-15
XlO- 1
3
-C
t
2
Ang Le ( Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 25 3D

-166-
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
-'"10 -'"5 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5
m
1/4
-15
XlO- 1
3
-c t
2
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 25 30
Figure 4.4.6. Normal Force, Quarter Chord pitching Moment

-167-
Xl0-l
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
-10 -5 --~5---------~i~0--------'i~5~------~2~[O--------~25~------~30
-5
XlO- 1
3
-c t
2
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 o 25 30

-168-
X10-1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25 3
Angle (Degrees)
-~100------~-~5'-------~--------~5;-------'~1~fO;--------ti;5~------~2~0--------~2~5--------~3C
-5
-15
-ct
2
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 o 25 3D
Figure 4.4.8. Normal Force, Quarter Chord pitching Moment

with Angle of Attack at Re=2S0,OOO.
-169-
X10-1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
X10- 2
-~1~0--------~-5~------~--------~5--------~1~O~-------~i5~------~2~0--------~2~5--------~30
-5
-15
X10- 1
3
-c
t
2
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 o 25 30

With Angle of Attack at Re=300,000.
-170-
Xl0-l
14
12
10
C 8
n
REYNOLDS NUMBER = 350DOO.0

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
I I I I
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 3(
J
Angle (Degrees)
-~1~0---------~5~------~----·----~5~------~lh'O~------~;5~------~2AO--------~2~5~------~3l
-5
-15
XlO- 1 .
3
-C
t
2
Angle (Degrees)
-~100------~~;=~;=~~~------~5'---------lho~-------t15~-----t:j~O=====---;2~5'--------:30

-171-
XlO- 1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
~: UNCORRECTEO DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25 3C
Angle (Degrees)
:w-------~-~5--------~---------.5~--------~Ino---------+i5~------~2~10,-------~2~5~--------3o
-5
c
m
1/4
-15
XlO- 1
3
-ct
2
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 o 25 30

-172-
X10-1
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-~1~O--------~-5~------~--------~5~--------~10'--------+15~------~2~O--------~2~!5~------~30
-2
Angle (Degrees)
-~1~0~------~-5~------~~-------O5~!---------~io,-------·-+i~5--------~2~O--------~2b!5~------~30
-5
-10
c
-15
-c
t
2
Angle (Degrees)
-~1~O------~~~~;=~t-~------~5s---------nl0~-------t15~-------i~------~2~5;-------~30

-173-
XIO-I
14
12
10
C 8
n

6
~: UNCORRECTED DATA
AngLe (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2
AngLe (Degrees)
-~1~0--------~-5r-------~r----------'5~'--------~i~0--------~i5r---------2~'O--------~2~5---------30
-5
-10
c
-15
XIO- 1
3
- C
t
2
AngLe (Degrees)
-~IOO--------~~~~~~~~-----'5S---------~100---------t155---------22~t:,::,==.---:2~5~-------:30

-174-
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
I I
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 ~
-1
Angle (Degrees)
~-10--------~-5~------~--------~5~--------~10'-------~15~------~2~O--------~2~5~------~3C
-5
-c
t
2
Angle (Degrees)

-175-
12
10
C 8
n

6
0: UNCORRECTED DATA
Angle (Degrees)
-10 5 10 15 20 25 30
Angle (Degrees)
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5
-1
c
m
1/4
-15
XlO- 1
3
-C
t.
2
Angle (Degrees)
-~100--------~;=:=~~~~------~55---------~10~-------t155--------22~0--------:2~5;--------:30

-176-
Wortmann · 3T C X10- 1
FX 63-137 mc/4 1~ CL,2oo V~ ALPHA
Corrected data RETNOLOS NO. 320225.
Rc = 99, 388 CL
c = 6 in. · 2-
Smooth 2CC
· 1
Alpha, degre8s
"---r
1_
~,----- .. --
__J
4 12 20 28
I---' 200
--.J
--.J
-10 10 15 20 25 30
ANGl.£ OF ATTACK (deree.o I

-.3
Fig. 4.4.16. Qurter Chord Pitching Moment Coef- Fig. 4.4.17. NACA-23012 Aerofoil Data for
icient Versus Angle of Attack for AR=4.0.
the Wortmann FX-63-137 Aerofoil
(Rc=100,OOO) (Adapted from Reference 36)

10S'r----r----.-----
c,
1.2
10
'1 J~
0.8
Cl
0.8 .~ JP
Geometric AR 2.466
f-' ........... Geometric AR 2.0
--J . _ . _ . Geometric AR 1.5
CD o
- - Geometric AR 1.0
- - - - - Geometric AR 0.5 "'I II
5
RC·ZoO·'0
- 0.4
-10 o 10 20 ____________
30
-I... ...
-.S'~ L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ____________ ~
()(,o I I•• 2 •. '

a (dig.)
Fig. 4.4.18. Lift Coefficient Versus Uncorrected Fig. 4.4.19. Measured Aerodynamic Characteri-
Incidence of a NACA-23012 Aerofoil stics of a NACA-23012 Airfoil.
at a Reynolds Number of 350,000.
1· 5
1· 4 I
,.. ,
'- ""
0 - Lower Surface Exhibits CNmax .

Fully Laminar Attached 1. 3
Flow
SOl x - Occurrence of "kink"
ex 6° 1·2
I-'
--J
4°
\.0
0 Q Q Q ~
2° X S? ~ Q Q 8
0°
2 3 4 5 6
- 2° -s
Re x 10
- 4°
0'°0 2 3 4 5 6
•
5
Re x 10-
Fig. 4.4.20. Comparison of Results for the Occur- Fi<;r. 4.'5.1. [\']ct);irnum NCILIII.11 ]'(1)(,'", (_>j,dijc'ic'?lll
rence of the 'kink' on C and C Var ia tjOll VJi th Rt'~'nolc:L; Number.

N Mc/4
Curves With Those Defining Fully
Laminar Flow Using Caton's Method.
.5
Wortmann
FX 63-137
Rc"77.6D4 1.6
Uncorrgctgd Data I /\ \ . 4
Cd
C 1. 2 '
1 I J ~ . •3
.8
I .-1> ~
.2
.. :Ii A' , --'---'

20
~,-r~
-20 4 12 28
Al pho. tJQ9rQI;H~ ... ---+--
-20 -12 -4 4 12 20 23
-. 4
" 1pho. d;;;>groQs
Figure 4.4.21. Two Dimensional Lift and Drag Coefficients versus Angle of
Attack, Re = 80,000.
(Adapted form Reference 33)

1 ·4
1 ·2
1 ·0
CL max REYNOLDS No
1 28 700,000 •
7 1,000,000
0-4 0
+
i 1· 42
1· 46
1,500,000
2,000,000 x
•
10'2 1 ·48 3,000,000 ..
g-4 4 8 20 24
.-i
1'2 16
-0'2
•
~
• iii
-0,4
Figure 4.5.2 Lift Coefficient Variation with Incidence and

Reynolds Number of a NACA-4415 Aerofoil
Tested at Stuttgart (1962-72).
-180-
J~---~----~---20
5to. i Up'r. i L'wi-: , y h~ .l a .c . 1
1 1
l' /0 J:lli ~
l/ r 1'--1-+--
0~
1 ;::
O. - I 0 '- , ! I
1.25; 3.07; -1.79 i ~.g .... 't--.
2.51 4. /7 -2.48 I' ; . , .... \.J -10 !, II ',J I i I 1
5.015.74 -3.27 ~ " :', )1

7.51 6.9/ - 3. 7 / i 0:: 0 I ~, I : I 1"'cf41 i I
/017.84 -3.98 I 0 20 40 60 80 100

,
/5 9.27 -4. /8 I I Fercenf ofchord
20110.25 -4. /5
25 1092 -3.98 - - - r - - - - - - , - - ,;---'-;-~-----
I f-i
i : i
30:1 1.25! -3.75 : i I I
401//. 25 3 .25 I !
50:10.53 -272
1-
i
,
I
I
i :
I
1 i i !
,
!
2.0 t
t
60 9.30 i -2.14 I i i ! i i I I i I
70 7.63 i -/.55 i i ,
I i i I ! I 1.8
80 5.55 -1.03
I I : I
I
,
I 1
I
9013.08 - .57 j I I
951/.67 - .36 ~ ..tY::.
1.6
! IDa i (.16) (-.16) :
o I
I I
I
t d ~. rn~
I
"
::s,.(- 1
- to ~-~-x, r--A I
I
:
11001 , :
I
!
~- K
I :
! L E. Rod.: 2.48 : J
I
I
~ 'L~ '- ~
7'
... 1 I
, t
,
I
I
1.4
, Slope of radiusi
tl"lrough end of! ! t1 v/......
'~'L~"
....,.. , "
~ ...
'-J,
;"'1
...
V I
i I
1.2 t.J
chord: 4/20 I ' A~V "'" ~"- ~
I
~ ~'
fo II I
'\
" >, ru.
~ ~" ''\
''tz
I.,
'"I,
r-.....
" ........
I-l- !-
~
I
;.,.-
c:::
1.0 ......
Q;
~ ~ fo. ...'J' .. - :-- -= .ll

~
8 ~Q)
,...,
Test ~v
I---
j/ •
o
.1'
,., Reynolds Number_
.6 u
~
0 3,000,000 .....
\t:
6.-----2,380,000
x----------- 1.260,000 .4-.....J
IYi" + - - - - - - 654,000
1P \7------- 334,000
0------ 163,000 .2
1
'{,'I
1/
'\J--------- 83,000
t £7--------41 700 o
J~ Airfoil: NA.C.A. 44/5
Ifl /
i~,
~
" Size: 5"x30"
Test: V. D. T / /63
Vel. (ff./sec.):69 -.2
Rres.(sfhd. afm.): 1/4 fo 20
Where fesfed: L.MA.L.

Dafe: 8-34
-,4
-8 -4 0 4 8 /2 16 20 24 28 32
.Angle of attack for infinife aspecf ratio, eto (degrees)

Tested at NACA VDT (1934).
-181-
1· 4
1 ·2
1·0
0·8
(Lmax REYNOLDS NO.
1 -38 0 700,000
1·36
1·37
• 1,000,000
0 1,500,00 °
1·44 x 2,000,000
1·34- + 3,000,000
4 8 12 16 20
a
- 0· 2
II
x+
+ -0· 4

Tested at NACA LTT (1945).
-182-
X10-1
16~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14
12
ReynoLds Number
4 II : 150,000
v: 175,000
+ : 200,000
2
x : 250,000
0: 300,000
<> : 350,000
°
NACA-1~15 AeroFoil
-2
UNCORRECTED DATA
-4
( a)
Figure 4.5.5 Normal Force Coefficient Variation with

Incidence and Reynolds Number of a NACA-4415
Aerofoil Tested at University of Glasgow
(1987) .
-183-
XlO- 1
18~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14
12
Reynolds Number
4 ,,: 400,000
v: 450,000
+ : 500,000
x: 550,000
2
0: 600,000
o+-__ ______-+________________________________________________
~ ~
NACA-~~15 AeroFoil
-2
UNCORRECTED DATA
-4
a
(b)
Figure 4.5.5. Concluded
-184-
Wortmann 1.6
FX 63-137
CcrrGctad data
Rc = 199. 487
c lC6 1 n. 1.2
Smooth
-20
;::J-4 4 12
Alpha.
20
dQgrQQs
28
-. 4
Figure 4.5.6 Lift Coefficient Variation with Incidence of a

Wortmann FX-63-137 Aerofoil Tested at a
Reynolds Number of 200,000.
-185-
NACA
1· 4 LTT
'x
1·2
(L GLASGOW
1· 0
0·8
TEST CONDITIONS
TUNNEL NACA LTT STUlTGARHI1 GLASGOW
TEST 2-D 2-D 2-D
0·03% 0·02% ~O· 5%
3 ·81 5'46 2·80
70~OOO 600,000
SMOOTH SMOOTH
-8 4 8 12 16 20 24
a. ( 0)
,. - 0·2
~.
If
- 0'4
a. ( 0)
(MC/I.
-8 -4 4 8 12 16 20 24
-0'04
..
-x-X _x-x-.x-;X~.··x
.. ' .• . x 'X
•...•...•.. -0·12 •••

.. ' ....•...•... •••
'
Figure 4.6. Comparison of Lift and Quarter Chord Pitching

Moment Coefficients of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil
Obtained at Different Test Environments and Wind
Tunnels.
-186-
'2.2 CN CONTOURS
'·0 1-0
20
a (0)
18
1-20
16 1-23
1-25
1-28
14 1-30
1·31
1-32
-12
1-32
1-31
1'30
10 -28
1-25
1-23
1·20
8 1·18
1-15
1·10
6
1-0
0-9
4
0-8
0-7
2
0-6
0-5
6
·4
0-3
-2 0·2
~0'1
-4 0-0
-5
- 0'1
Re x 10
Figure 4.7.1. Normal Force Coefficient Contours for the

NACA-4415 Aerofoil with Incidence and Reynolds
Number.
-187-
~ '?
24 <:)
1- 5
22
20
0-8
18
0-7
16
14 0-6
0<.0
12
0-5
~'6
10 0-4
8
0-3
1-4
6
0-2
4 0-'
0-0 '·0
2
-----0·9
0-8
-0-'
0-7
0 6
0-6
-2 o·s
0-4

GU25-5(11)8 Aerofoil with Incidence and
Reynolds Number.
-188-
18
0·97
1·06
1 ·17
16
14
1·17
12
10
1· 06-
8
0·93
6
0·81
4 0·70
0·58
2
0·47
0 0·34
3 5
0·23
-2
0·11
RE x 10- 5
-4

NASA GA(W) -1 Aerofoil with Incidence and
Reynolds Number.
-189-
16
0'6
10'8
~0'7
.... O·g
14
o·g
0·8
_ 0'7
~
~
~0'6
..............
. / ' 0'5
----- 0'4
2
----
~
- 0'2
0'3
0·1
1 2 3 5
Re x 10- 5

NACA-0015 Aerofoil with Incidence and Reynolds
Number.
-190-
EPo~Y Resin foam
Gel-,~oat surface
Aluminium End Plate
Gla S \3 fibre wa~ Mould
Al\1lnininm End plate
B3700d
S
Locating p}n
I-'
\.0
I-'
I
~1\O.· ~ 41;)
et
. f the Mod
Figure bl. constcuctlOn 0

1988SaliversonPhD PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1988SaliversonPhD PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1988SaliversonPhD PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saliveros, Efstratios (1988) The aerodynamic performance of the

NACA-4415 aerofoil section at low Reynolds numbers.

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or

This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first

When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the

Glasgow Theses Service

THE NACA-4415 AEROFOIL SECTION AT LOW

Submitted to the Faculty of

Engineering for the Fulfilment of

the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science, (M. Sc. )

Efstratios Saliveros, B.Sc.

Department of Aerospace Engineering

Glasgow G12 8QQ

The work described in this Dissertation was carried

Department of Aerospace Engineering

In this experimental investigation, the performance

-5.10o~a~22.90o and for the Reynolds number range of

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

I would also like to express my profound gratitude to

lowe many special thanks to Mr. G. Kokkodis for his

I am also thankful to the technicians, Messrs David

Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their

1.1 Background Information ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Boundary-Layer Characteristics/Separation Bubble ... 4

1.3 Scope of the Present Study ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1 Wind Tunnel Facilities .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Wind Tunnel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 Computer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 Static Pressure Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5 Flow Visualisation and Photographic Equipment .... 15

3.1 Static Pressure Distribution Measurements . . . . . . . . 17

3.2 Experimental Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ...... 26

3.3 Flow Visualisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

IV. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.1 Performance as a Function of Angle of Attack ..... 32

4.1.3 Re = 75, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.1.5 Re ~ 125, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.2 Pressure Coefficient Variation with Reynolds

numbers at Constant Angles of Attack .... ......... 49

4.3 Flow Visualisation Over the Upper Surface of

the NACA-4415 Aerofoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.4 CN' CMc/4 and CT with Variation of Angles of

4.5 CNmax Variation with Reynolds Numbers ..... ....... 61

4.6 Comparison of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section

Characteristics with Existing Data .. ............. 63

4.7 Comparison of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section

Characteristics with GU25-5(11)8, NASA GA(W)l

and NACA-0015 Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER

5.1 Summary of Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies . ............. 76

5.3 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

APPENDIX: Manufacture and Assembly of NACA-4415 Aerofoil

1. Coordinates of NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section ......... 90

2. Locations of Pressure Tappings on NACA-4415

3. Two-Dimensional Angle of Attack Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4. Estimated Locations of Laminar Separation Points on

5. Useful Information About Past and Present wind