ME4424

Introduction to the Characteristics of Airfoil Design and Analysis in XFLR5

Mary O’Donnell

LM077

19247389

The aim of this project is to introduce some basic aspects of airfoil lift and drag. To accomplish this, XFLR5 and

XFoil are used to demonstrate the different effects. The code was developed by Prof. Mark Drela and H. Youngren

in the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department (Course 16) at MIT to accurately approximate the flow over airfoils

and wings. The following analysis highlights basic aerodynamic relationships for 2D airfoil design.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 2

Table of Contents

Nomenclature

Introduction to the Characteristics of Airfoil Design and Analysis in XFLR5.................. 3

External Aspects........................................................................................................... 4

Effect of Angle of Attack .......................................................................................... 4

Reynolds Number..................................................................................................... 7

Mach Number ........................................................................................................ 10

Internal Aspects.......................................................................................................... 12

Thickness of Airfoil ................................................................................................ 12

Camber - Magnitude............................................................................................... 14

Camber – Location ................................................................................................. 16

Designing Airfoils ...................................................................................................... 19

Airfoil with Highest Max Cl ................................................................................... 19

Airfoil with Max Cl at α = 0.................................................................................... 20

Airfoil with largest stall angle ................................................................................. 22

Airfoil with Best CL/CD ratio at α = 8..................................................................... 24

Airfoil with the best CL/CD ratio at α = 8 and Re = 300,000 .................................... 27

Discussion and Results ............................................................................................... 29

References ................................................................................................................ 33
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 3

Nomenclature

Mach number M Reynolds number Re

Coefficient of Lift Cl Coefficient of Drag Cd
Coefficient of Moment Cm Angle of Attack α
Lift/Drag Polar Cl/Cd Leading Edge LE
Trailing Edge TE

Introduction to the Characteristics of Airfoil Design and Analysis in XFLR5

Basic airfoil geometry consists of chord length (the length of the airfoil), the thickness and

camber. The physical aspects coupled with the external features such as the angle of attack, Mach

number and Reynolds number, create different effects on the coefficients of lift, drag, moment,

lift/drag and pressure profiles. The first part of this report will examine the external features,

followed by the physical. The second part will then apply these features to airfoils in set conditions.

These effects and their resulting impacts on the airfoils will be discussed to finalize the report.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 4

External Aspects

Effect of Angle of Attack

In this section, NACA 0012 is examined at M = 0 and a set Re of 1,000,000, α = -4 - 16 in

increments of 4.

Figure 1: The effects of increasing α on pressure.

Figure 1 demonstrates the changing pressure profile of the increasing. As the angles

increase, the pressure on the upper surface drastically increases: 16 degrees reaches Cp of -10.

This corresponds to the gradual increase in pressure below the X-axis for the lower surface of the

airfoil. Figures 2 & 3 determine the Cl and Cd. Lift increase as the angle increase, and the graph

tapers around 12 degrees as it reaches stall. Drag exponentially increases with increasing α as
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 5

‘induced drag’ is created due to lift. The pressure then decreases in an exponentially fashion as the

air flows moves further down the chord length

Figures 2 & 3: Cl and Cd at increasing angles of attack

Next, the plot was refined with α ranging from -4 to 18 in increments of 0.5 degrees. A

similar trend is noticed in that Cp increases on the upper surface and increases below the X-axis

for the lower surface. The negative values above the X-axis correspond to lower pressure values.

As the velocity over the airfoil increase due to the angle, the pressure lowers, increasing the

pressure beneath which is what creates the lift. The smaller increments allowed for more accurate

analysis of the airfoil. As a symmetrical airfoil, the lowest point of Cd is at α = 0, shown in Figure

3. This corresponds to Bernoulli’s equation as it’s the imbalances of pressure which generate lift

and the conservation of momentum is demonstrated.

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 6

Figure 4: Pressure profile for α = -4 – 18

Figure 5 examines how the different coefficients change due the changing α. Notice how

Cl drops off as a higher angle is reached. Therefore, we can calculate the max Cl which is

approximately 1.35 at 14 degrees. The maximum value of Cl/Cd is approximately 80 and at this

point the values of Cl, Cd and are 0.9, 0.1 The angle at zero lift is 0 as it is a symmetrical airfoil.

Figure 5: Plots of airfoil coefficients for NACA 0012

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 7

Reynolds Number

In this section, NACA 0012 is examined at α = 4 degrees and M = 0.00 and created pressure

profiles from Re = 100,000 to 2.1 million in increments of 400,000. The following pressure

profiles were generated as Re increased.

Figures 6: Changes in pressure profile to Reynolds number 100,000 – 2.1

million

The dip in the graph indicates separation of the airflow which noticeably levels out as the

Re increases. Figure 10 expands on this observation further, examining the pressure profile at Re

= 4 million. At the highest part of the dip, laminar separation occurs, and the airfoil experiences a

drop in pressure as the air flow transitions into a turbulent region. The transition is almost

nonexistent at such a high Re. At low Re, the transition happens further down the chord.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 8

Figure 7: Pressure profile at Re = 4 million

At 4 million, the graph appears inviscid. The new conditions analyzed were a change in α from -

4 to 20 in increments of 0.5, with table 1 demonstrating the effects on the different coefficients.

The last three columns are results based on when max Cl/Cd is reached.

Table 1: Effect of Reynolds number on airfoil coefficients

Re Max Cl α stall Max Cl/Cd Cl Cd α

100,000 0.95 10 40 0.6 2 5
500,000 1.2 12.5 60 0.7 1 6
900,000 1.35 14 75 0.9 1.5 7.5
2.1 mil 1.6 20 90 1.15 2 9
4 mil +1.6 +20 110 1.15 1 10
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 9

Figure 8: Effects of increasing Re on airfoil coefficients vs α

As the angles increase, the Cd decreases as Re and α increases, with a very drastic rise in

drag at Re = 100,000. For Cl, the higher angles produce greater lift corresponding to higher

Reynolds numbers, with the stall point being extended as both Re and α increase. The graph of

CL/CD vs alpha shows how, as the Re increases, the most efficient angle for the airfoil also

increases along with the polar. The angle of efficiency or ‘glide angle’ is the highest point of the

curve.

Figure 9: Cl vs Cd Polar for changing Re

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 10

Mach Number

The following pressure profiles were generated at a fixed α of 4 degrees with a Re of 2

million on a NACA 0012 varies marginally. The air velocity is travelling at subsonic speed i.e.

When M < 1, and the compressibility of air can be ignored. The pressure profiles do not deviate

much, with only slight transition period.

Figure 10: Effects of changing M on pressure

The different values of M were then examined with alpha increasing from -4 to 20 in

increments of 0.5. The effects on the coefficients of the airfoil is demonstrated in Table 2.

Table 2: Effect of Mach number on airfoil coefficients

Re Max Cl α stall Max Cl/Cd Cl Cd α

0.0 1.6+ 18 90 1.05 0.015 8.5
0.1 1.6 17.5 90 1.05 0.015 8.5
0.2 1.5 16 90 1 0.015 8
0.3 1.3 12.5 90 0.9 0.01 7.5
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 11

Figure 11 outlines the different behaviors of the coefficients, with the change from M = 0.2

- 0.3 having a large jump between values in most cases, as α becomes steeper. While Cd increases

with increasing M and α the inverse is true for Cl, Cd and Cl/Cd. The most efficient angle of attack

is at the highest point of the CL/CD graph, which is almost the same for each airfoil, except it’s

seen at higher Mach numbers, lift decreases faster.

The plot for CL vs Cd shows that at higher Mach numbers, the airfoils experience more

drag to lift, with the lower Mach numbers generating the most lift and least drag.

Figure 11: Effects of increasing M on airfoil coefficients vs α

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 12

Internal Aspects

Thickness of Airfoil

This section considers varying thickness of NACA airfoils. The report analyses 4-digit

foils;

• 1 st digit specifies maximum camber as a percent of the length of chord

• 2 nd digit is the position of max camber in 1/10ths of the chord

• The last 2 digits are the maximum thickness in of the foil as a percentage of the

chord length.

• Chord length = distance from LE – TE

Assuming Re = 2 million and M = 0.00, airfoils NACA 0004, 0008, 0012, 0016 and 0020

where examined as α increased from -4 to 20 in increments of 0.5.

Figure 12: Effect of increasing airfoil thickness on airfoil coefficients vs α

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 13

The effects of thickness are shown in Figure 12. Notice how the drag for NACA 0004 and

0008 increases sharply as α increases, compared to the other foils. The thicker airfoils follow more

of a trend than these two. The thicker airfoils have more gradual increases in drag, lift, Cl/Cd and

in the lift/drag polar compared to the lower. NACA 0004 does not appear to have a stall point.

XFLR5 shows that the NACA 0004 and 0008 do not converge, which is noticeable around α = 4.

Table 3: Effect of increasing thickness on airfoil coefficients

Airfoil Max Cl α stall Max Cl/Cd Cl Cd Α

0004 1 - 50 0.2 0.01 2.5
0008 1.15 12 80 0.9 0.02 7.5
0012 1.6 17.5 90 11 0.03 10
0016 1.62 18 90 11 0.03 10
0020 1.59 20 90 10.5 0.03 10

NACA 0008 has a more gradual increase in drag, a high CL and a high CL/CD polar with

a critical angle of around 7.5. While only increasing in thickness by 4%, these results are much

different from the NACA 0004. There’s a sharp increase in drag at α = 5, a low lift to drag ratio

and the increase in drag corresponds to the drop in CL/Cd polar. Note the low angle of efficiency

a (Max point of Cl/Cd)

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 14

Camber - Magnitude

The camber of an airfoil is its curvature. To analyze the effect of camber, we examined

NACA 0012, 0312, 1312, 2312 and 3312 at Re = 2 million, M = 0.00, with α increasing from -4

to 20 in increments of 0.5.

Figures 13-17: L – R NACA 0012 – 3312 Pressure profiles as Camber Magnitude increases
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 15

The pressure graphs of the more symmetrical airfoils (0012, 0312 & 1312) appear smoother,

without much transition or separation phases as the angles of attack increase. However, we see the

effects of increasing camber as in the pressure profiles of 2312 and 3312, as there is more

separation and transition of flow.

Figure 18: Analysis of varying camber on airfoil coefficients

Table 4: Effects of camber on airfoil coefficients

Airfoil Max Cl α stall Max Cl/Cd Cl Cd α

0012 1.5 17.5 90 1.1 0.015 10
0312 1.5 17.5 90 1.1 0.015 10
1312 1.6 17.5 100 1 0.01 7.5
2312 1.65 17.5 +100 0.8 0.01 5
3312 +1.7 17.5 +100 0.9 0.01 5
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 16

From Figure 18, as camber increases, so does lift and drag. The airfoils can generate lift at

α = 0, unlike NACA 0012, a symmetric airfoil. The increase in camber also shows no effect on

stall angle.

The more symmetric airfoils, while producing low lift, can glide at higher angles compared

to the asymmetric airfoils. Their quickly generated lifts cause them to glide sooner as seen in the

plot of Cl/Cd. Cl/Cd is greatly affected by camber, as it increases with higher camber.

Camber – Location

This exercise examines how the location of the max camber on the airfoil affects the

performance of the airfoil. NACA 0012, 2112, 2312, 2512 and 2712 were analyzed at Re = 2

million, M = 0.00, and the same α conditions as previous. The further back the camber, the greater

Cp difference between upper and lower surfaces. The NACA 2112 has a negative pressure due to

a drooped nose.

Figures 19 - 23: L-R Pressure profiles of NACA 0012 - 2712

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 17

Figure 24: Effect of Camber Location on airfoil coefficients vs α

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 18

Table 5: Effects of Camber Location on airfoil coefficients

Airfoil Max Cl α stall Max Cl/Cd Cl Cd α

0012 1.5 17.5 90 1.35 0.015 10
2112 1.75 17.5 120 1.7 0.015 12.5
2312 1.65 17.5 120 1.6 0.01 5
2512 1.65 17.5 110 1.65 0.01 5
2712 1.75 17.5 100 1.65 0.0125 7.5

The Cd is very similar in each airfoil with the more significant results in the Cl and Cl/Cd

graphs. The further back the camber, the higher the lift generated which is noticed as the airfoils

are being compared to the symmetrical NACA 0012. However, they all reach their maximum lift

at the same angle. What is most noticeable is the changes of the Cl/Cd polar. NACA 2112 has a

much higher polar than the rest with an equally higher angle of efficiency. However, compared to

the higher camber locations, they generate a better glide, with a much gradual decrease in lift.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 19

Designing Airfoils

From the previous exercises, the results extracted can be applied to airfoils for fix ed

specifications. For the following tasks, assume Re = 500,000 and M = 0 (unless otherwise stated).

The airfoils had to be constructed under the following constraints:

▪ Camber 0%-7%

▪ Camber location 10%-60%

▪ Thickness 3%-30%c

Airfoil with Highest Max Cl

As Re and M were fixed, this exercise dealt mostly with the results in the ‘External Effects’

section. From part D, we see that NACA 0016 has the highest lift, compared to the higher and

lower values. Therefore, to achieve the highest lift, an intermediate thickness was selected. From

part E, it was noticed that the highest cambered airfoil generated the highest lift. Finally, for part

F, it’s seen that the further back the max camber on airfoil, the higher the lift.

From these observations, various airfoils were generated. High cambers and camber

locations were experimented with, but it was found that they did not always results in the highest

lift. Figure 32 outlines the effects of the variations on Cl. NACA 7420 created the highest lift at Cl

= 2.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 20

Figure 25: Maximum Cl of various airfoils

Airfoil with Max Cl at α = 0

To generate a lift at α = 0, an asymmetrical airfoil was required. Sections A-D dealt with NACA

0012 as well as other symmetrical airfoils, which were seen to generate no lift at 0. Section D

examined the effects of airfoil thickness. The airfoils were all symmetrical however, at α = 0,

intermediate thickness was shown to produce the highest lift. However, coupled with the other

aspects of airfoil characteristics and from XFLR5 graphs, it was shown that thinner airfoils were

ultimately more desirable. Section E dealt with camber magnitude and it was noted that the highest

cambered airfoil produced the highest lift. Then, from Section E, in analyzing the location of the

max camber, it was seen that the further back the position of the max camber, the higher the lift.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 21

Figure 26: Maximum Cl at α = 0 of various airfoils

For comparison, a commonly used airfoil for high lift aircraft Cessna – NACA 2412, was

also analyzed. From the above observations, the highest allowed max camber and position was

selected. While thinner airfoil allowance was available, the results were either un-converged or

unrealistic. NACA 7610 produced Cl of almost 1 at α = 0.

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 22

Airfoil with largest stall angle

An airfoil stall when the angle of attack exceeds that of the angle that generates maximum

lift because of the airflow around it. It’s also known as the critical angle of attack. Below the critical

angle of attack, as the angle of attack decreases, the lift coefficient decreases. Conversely, above

the critical angle of attack, as the angle of attack increases, the air begins to flow less smoothly

over the upper surface of the foil and begins to separate. At the critical angle of attack, upper

surface flow is more separated, and the airfoil is producing its maximum lift coefficient. As the

angle of attack increases further, the upper surface flow becomes more fully separated and the lift

coefficient reduces further.

Figure 27: Analysis of airfoil coefficients to determine largest stall angle

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 23

When trying to generate a high stall angle, we want to slowly increase the lift with the

angle, so it does not go into glide. Therefore, airfoils with sharp lift increase were not considered.

Comparing Sections D and E, it was found that while the cambered airfoils produced more lift, the

stall angle of symmetric airfoils was greater, and with thicker airfoils, it was much increased even

more. Section F produced results of stall angles being very similar at any location of camber but

increasing angles of lift. Therefore, in deciding which airfoil had the largest stall angle, a further

back camber was chosen, to increase the angle.

The NACA 0130 and 2130 produce a stall angle of 20 degrees with similar angle of

efficiency. However, notice the sharp decrease in lift in CL v alpha, the negative decrease in Cl v

Cd and the sharp decrease in Cd v α of the NACA 2130.

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 24

Airfoil with Best CL/CD ratio at α = 8

Figures 28 & 29: Analysis of various airfoil coefficients to determine best Cl/Cd at α = 8

From the previous exercises, it was shown that high cambered, a reasonably far back

camber position and a thin airfoil created a good Cl/Cd ratio at lower angles. The airfoils examined

for this exercise considered these measures while keeping realistic airfoil standards. Exercise D

showed the NACA 3312 generating a good Cl/Cd ratio. Exercise E saw that the intermediate
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 25

camber location on the NACA 2512 performed quite well and the NACA 0008 in Exercise F, while

not the thinnest, demonstrated that a thin airfoil would create a high polar result in the lower angle

range. The best performing airfoil for this section was the NACA 7410 with a Cl/Cd value of 120

for α = 8.

In analyzing the other coefficients, the results make sense as it also creates a high lift with

a reasonable drag, just enough to bring it to its peak at α = 8. The NACA 5210 and 6210 were also

further examined as they generated an extremely high Cl/Cd polar as shown in Figure 37. However,

the values for α = 8 are nearing the end of their glide process whereas in the previous airfoils, 8

degrees was more around the actual peak. See the dramatic spike at α = 0 for the NACA 5210. It’s

less drastic in the NACA 6210 but again, it’s nearing the end of the glide.

Figure 30: Cl/Cd polar NACA 5210 & 6210

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 26

Figures 31: Further analysis of NACA 5210 and 6210

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 27

Airfoil with the best CL/CD ratio at α = 8 and Re = 300,000

As stated, the previous airfoils have been examined under a higher Reynolds number. With

the decreasing Re, the Cl/Cd ratio will also decrease. Looking at the formula Re=ρu/μ, the decrease

Reynolds number can be interpreted as an increase in viscosity. Thus, the airfoil will be moving in

a ‘thicker’ fluid, increasing the drag. Let’s consider the last airfoil, NACA 7410. The figure below

shows the effect of the Re on what was considered the ‘best airfoil’ in Design Example D.

Figure 32: Comparison of Cl/Cd of NACA 7410 in different Re

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 28

To counteract the decrease in Re, airfoils with high initial lifts needed to be considered.

High cambered, thin airfoils generate quick lift as seen from previous exercises. The extreme cases

of the airfoils were considered i.e. NACA 7103, however, many points were un-converged and

produced radical results therefore proving unrealistic for this analysis. Note, in Figure 4, how in

most of the extreme cases, the different coefficients are all affected in equally extreme ways –

unconverging points, sharp spikes and dips.

Figure 33: Analysis of various airfoil coefficients at Re = 300,000

The foils examined closer are NACA 7510 and 7610. The difference in 10% of location of

camber effects the lift and the drag – increasing and decreasing respectively, making the 7510 more

efficient at α = 8. In comparison to Design Example D, the further back camber works better for

the lower Reynolds number, even with the same camber magnitude. The NACA 7510 has a Cl/Cd

of almost 120 with a much more gradual glide than the 7610, which has a more dramatic descent.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 29

Figure 34: Closer analysis of Cl/Cd polar of NACA 5510 and 7610

Discussion and Results

From both the airfoil exercises and the Design examples, we can conclude that many

aspects must be considered when creating airfoils. Both external and internal factors must also be

considered as it from the exercises, they can both effect each other significantly. This section of

the report will further discuss some significant trends and observations.
AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 30

• Effect of Boundary Layers on Lift and Pitching Moments at Low and High

Reynolds Numbers

Figure 35: Effects of Re on Lift

Figure 36: Effect of Re on Pitching moments

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 31

Figures 35 and 36 show the effects of increasing Re on lift and pitching moment. As Re

increased (became more turbulent), lift increases along with α. Max pitching moment follows the

same pattern, increasing with Re.

• Variation of Drag

Figure 37 demonstrates how drag decreases as Re increases. With the formula for Cd =
𝐷
1 . This formula is an expression that Drag is influenced by a change in Re and viscosity, and
𝜌v2A
2

that at higher Re, the airfoil flows through ‘thinner air’ meaning less drag.

Figure 37: Effect of Re on Drag

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 32

• Boundary Layer Separation, Transition and Reattachment

Figure 38 shows the flow separation boundary, indicated by the dashed red line. At

higher α, the separation happens lower down the chord. The pressure profile shows that the

transition and reattachment also occur further to the LE as α increases.

Figure 38: Pressure profile of NACA 0012, Re = 2,000,000, α=16

AIRFOIL CHARACTERISTICS ME4424 33

References

Winslow, Otsuka, Govindarajan, Chopra (2018). Basic Understanding of Airfoil Characteristics

at Low Reynolds Numbers. Journal of Aircraft, Pages 1050 - 1061

Anderson, John D. (2016). Introduction to Flight. New York: McGraw Hill Education.