Experiment 1: Aerodynamic Analysis of Three Dimensional

Subsonic Wing

October 2023

Urbaneja, Jesus (C1TB1706)

[email protected]
Submission date: October 26th, 2023
 Introduction
For any type of flight, whether it is a commercial flight or an air force military operation, pilots
and engineers must consider the phenomenon of downwash. This helps to optimize the performance
of an aircraft. Downwash is a fundamental occurrence on wings with finite spans, leading to a
reduction in lift and an increase in drag in three-dimensional wings. Moreover, downwash plays a
critical role in determining aerodynamic performance as it diminishes the effective angle of attack,
induces drag, and generates interference among the main wing, tail wing, canard, and body.
The following experiment examines the relationships among the aforementioned variables and
how to adjust them to achieve the best possible performance.

1 Objectives
Within this experiment, this paper investigates how wing geometry impacts performance, including
aspects such as lift, induced drag, and lift distribution and analyzes the correlation among these
variables to obtain an optimal wing design.

2 Principles
The aerodynamic performance of a finite span wing hinges on several crucial parameters, as illus-
trated in figure 1:

Figure 1: Parameters to design a wing planform geometry

These parameters serve as the foundation for understanding the mechanics of wing performance.
Some of them are:

Aspect Ratio (AR): AR quantifies the relationship between the wingspan (b) and the area of
the wing (S), expressed as:
b2
AR = (1)
S
When dealing with a wing of rectangular shape, AR simplifies to:
b
AR = (2)
c
This implies that a wing with an extensive wingspan (typically denoted as ”large b”) and a
comparatively shorter chord length (typically denoted as ”small c”) results in a higher aspect ratio,

2
which is often desirable for aerodynamic efficiency. However, a large value for AR implies larger
structural weight. Therefore, the ideal AR value is determined by the balance of these two aspects.

Taper Ratio (λ): The taper ratio, λ, is calculated as:

ctip
λ= (3)
croot
In addition to AR, the taper ratio captures the chord length variation between the root of the
wing (croot ) and wingtip (ctip ).

Moving on to wing geometry, the sweep angle (represented as ”Λ”) focuses on the sweep angle
at a quarter of the chord length of the wing. The sweep angle is used to delay the effect of air
compressibility. Nevertheless, a larger sweep angle leads to an extension in the structural span
length and an increase in structural weight. Additionally, the sweep angle can at times induce wing
flutter. It is important to note that the sweep angle significantly influences how the load of the
wing is distributed along its span. A positive sweep angle elevates the wing load at the wingtip,
while conversely, a negative sweep angle raises the wing load at the wing root.

On the other hand, the twist angle characterizes the change in geometric angle of attack along
the span of the wing. In general, when the geometric angle of attack is lower than that at the
root of the wing, this variation is termed ”wash-out” The washout angle serves the purpose of
effectively adjusting the distribution of wing load along the span. For instance, it is employed on
a swept-wing design to prevent tip stalls by reducing the wing load near the wingtip. For a wing
lacking any sweep angle or wash-out, the lowest level of induced drag is achieved when the taper
ratio stands at 0.4. Nonetheless, small aircraft often opt for untapered wings due to the elevated
production expenses associated with tapered wings. While a reduced taper ratio decreases the
structural weight, it also elevates the lift coefficient at the wingtip, thereby heightening the risk of
tip stalls.

Lastly, we evaluate the lift of the wing and drag coefficients using the following expressions:

Lift and Drag Coefficients (CL and CD): Lift coefficient (CL) and drag coefficient (CD)
are calculated as:
L D
CL = , CD = (4)
q∞ S q∞ S
Finally, there is one parameter more to be introduced. The angle of attack (AoA) describes
the angle between the oncoming air and a reference line on an aircraft, typically the chord line of
the wing. It plays a crucial role in the generation of lift and the overall aerodynamic performance
of an aircraft. The corresponding geometry of the angle of attack is depicted in detail in figure 2.

3
 Figure 2: Angle of Attack (α)

The possible values of the coefficients explained above provide valuable insights into the per-
formance characteristics. Particularly in the context of lift generation and aerodynamic drag, the
corresponding influence of each parameter will be evaluated throughout the paper.

3 Experimental conditions
For this experiment the flow simulation of the wing is conducted using software from in Ya-
mamoto/Furusawa laboratory. The characteristics of the wing and the conditions of the experiment
are presented below:

3.1 Computational Conditions

• Base wing planform: AR = 6, Taper Ratio: TR = 0.1, Wing sweep angle: WS = 0 degrees,
Twist angle: TA = 0.
• Base computational condition: 0.6 Mach number.

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Base Wing
The figure presents a rough sketch of the wing, illustrating the conditions discussed in the previous
section. This helps to provide a clearer understanding of the significance of each parameter.

Figure 3: Base Wing

4
4.2 Evaluation of Angle of Attack
Using different values of angle of attack, this section aims to understand its correlation with the lift
and drag produced by the wing. Figures 4a and 4b show the values of lift coefficient and section
lift at different positions with three different values of angle of attack. On the other hand, figure
15 shows the lift and drag coefficients at different angles of attack.

Figure 4: Cl and Lift values at different positions

(a) CL for different AoA (b) Lift for different AoA

In this context, ”y” represents the distance from the root of the wing, normalized by dividing it
by 2b . The section lift is calculated as Cl×c
cavg ,” where ”Cl” denotes the lift coefficient, ”c” represents
the local chord length, and ”cavg ” signifies the average chord length.
The data presented demonstrates a general increase in the lift coefficient (Cl) as a point moves
from the root of the wing (2y/b = 0) towards the wingtip (2y/b = 1). It reaches its peak value of
approximately 0.451 around 2y/b = 0.89, after which it gradually decreases towards the wingtip.
In contrast, the section lift reaches its maximum at the root and gradually decreases as it progresses
towards the wingtip.
This phenomenon can be attributed to several factors. Tapered wings tend to generate more
lift towards the root due to the larger chord length, resulting in a greater lift-generating area.
Additionally, the wing section near the root experiences a more direct airflow, leading to higher
lift generation compared to the wingtip. As Cl is a dimensionless coefficient that relates the lift
generated by a section of the wing to its size (chord length), a smaller chord at the tip results
in a relatively higher Cl. However, it is noteworthy that points close to the wingtip experience a
sudden drop in Cl. This drop can be attributed to the fact that boundary layer effects become
more pronounced towards the tip, leading to increased drag and potential variations in Cl.

5
 Figure 5: Average Cd and Cl for different AoA

Referring to Figure 5, it is evident that both the lift coefficient (Cl) and the drag coefficient (Cd)
increase proportionally with the angle of attack. This behavior is due to the larger perpendicular
wing area exposed to the airflow.
Moreover, the point of optimal performance, where Cl is maximized, and Cd is minimized,
appears to fall within the 8 to 12-degree range of the angle of attack. This range demonstrates
the most efficient balance between lift generation and drag production, resulting in the highest
lift-to-drag ratio.

4.3 Aspect Ratio (AR=3,6,12)

The simulation was conducted with the parameters explained in the computational conditions.
However, the aspect ratio value was systematically varied to AR = 3, 6, and 12. Using each of
these AR values, the conditions were analyzed at different angles of attack (AoA = 4, 8, 12) to
assess the relationship between these variables.

Figure 6: Cl and Lift values at different positions for AoA4

(a) Cl for AR= 4,8,12 (b) Section Lift for AR= 4,8,12

In summary, the key distinction among the three aspect ratio (AR) values lies in the magnitude
of lift generated, with AR = 12 yielding significantly higher lift coefficients across the span for
AoA4 when compared to AR = 6. This highlights the influence of aspect ratio on lift generation
and wing performance, with a preference for higher AR values.
As depicted in Figure 7a, these trends remain consistent across various AoA values. Moreover,
it is worth noting that for larger AR values, Cl exhibits a steeper incline in response to changes in
AoA compared to lower AR values.

6
 Figure 7: Cl and Cd values at different AoA

(a) Cl for AR= 4,8,12 (b) Cl and Cd for AR= 4,8,12

These outcomes can be attributed to the advantages conferred by higher AR values. A higher
AR reduces induced drag due to the extended wingspan relative to the chord. This effect is clearly
demonstrated in Figure 7b, where an increase in aspect ratio not only elevates Cl but also reduces
Cd values. Additionally, a higher AR facilitates more efficient spanwise airflow and results in smaller
and less powerful wingtip vortices. Moreover, the vortices generated at the tip for high AR values
have less impact on the main body since they are farther apart from it.

4.4 Wing Sweep Angle

The wing sweep was assessed under three different conditions: 30, 0, and -30 degrees. The corre-
sponding lift and lift coefficient were then determined for AoA = 4, 8, 12 degrees.

Figure 8: Section lift and Cl for different wing sweep angles

(a) Lift coefficient (b) Section Lift

Figure 8a and figure 8b show the difference of the variance of Cl and section lift along the span.
In this case, the 0-degree sweep wing maintains higher Cl values near the root and has a more
gradual decrease in Cl. Furthermore, the -30-degree sweep wing experiences a more significant
decrease in lift towards the tip while the 30-degree sweep wing has Cl values that are more evenly
distributed along the span, with minimal decrease from root to tip. A similar analysis can be done
for the section lift.

7
 Figure 9: Cl and Cd at different wing sweep angles

(a) Cl and Cd (b) Cl at different AoA

The influence of wing sweep angles on lift distribution is evident across the three configurations
since wing sweep affects the corresponding angle of attack. In the zero-degree sweep configuration,
lift is relatively evenly distributed along the span of the wing as airflow encounters it at consistent
angles. For the 30-degree positive sweep, lift decreases towards the wingtip, but the reduction is
less significant compared to the -30-degree sweep. These variations in lift distribution are primarily
attributed to changes in local airflow speeds and angles of attack along the span, making wing
sweep a critical factor in designing aircraft with specific aerodynamic performance characteristics.

Figure 9a shows the results of Cl and Cd for various sweep angles, while 9b displays the values
of Cl obtained for different angles of attack (AoA) and sweep angles of 30, 0, and -30 degrees.
In summary, the data illustrates how wing sweep angles can affect the lift coefficient (Cl) as a
function of the angle of attack (AoA). The extent of wing sweep influences the magnitude of Cl, with
the 30-degree sweep generating slightly higher Cl values compared to -30-degree sweep, especially
at higher AoA values, while 0-degree sweep maintains the highest Cl values across different AoA.

4.5 Evaluation of Taper Ratio

In Figure 10a, it is observed that the data points for taper ratio 1.0 consistently show high Cl values
compared to 0.5 and 0.1, when close to the root. However, at approximately 0.5 spanwise position,
an interesting reversal occurs where the highest Cl is achieved for taper ratio 0.1. However, Figure
10b shows the inverse relationship. The shift in lift and Cl values is primarily due to the fact that
high taper ratios (indicating a larger chord when compared to the wingtip) result in higher section
lift coefficients at that point, causing the overall lift coefficient to decrease as the point moves to-
ward the wingtip. Moreover, notice how the graph for taper ratio 1.0 is flatter compared to the

8
 Figure 10: Cl and Section lift for different taper ratios

(a) Lift coefficient (b) Section Lift

others, this indicate a more uniform distribution of the lift.

The results from figure 11a indicate that, at an AoA of 4 degrees, a taper ratio of 0.5 yields the
highest Cl value among the three cases, even though it also has a slightly higher Cd compared to the
other cases. This demonstrates the trade-off between lift and drag for different wing configurations,
with a moderate taper ratio being the most efficient at AoA4. However, the performance differences
become less pronounced at higher AoAs (as shown in fig. 11b), with only slight variations in Cl
values among the different taper ratios. These results illustrate the sensitivity of Cl to both the
taper ratio and the AoA of the wing.

Figure 11: Section lift and Cl for different taper ratios

(a) Cl and Cd (b) Cl at different AoA

9
4.6 Evaluation of Washout
Figures 12a and 12b demonstrate how wing washout angles affect how lift is distributed along the
span of the wing. Positive washout angles (3 degrees) significantly reduce lift at the wingtip, whereas
negative washout angles (-3 degrees) tend to maintain higher Cl values there. A more consistent lift
distribution is maintained along the graph with zero washout, which displays intermediate behavior.

Figure 12: Section lift and Cl for different washouts

(a) Lift coefficient (b) Section Lift

Figure 16a shows how the configuration with a washout of -3 degrees produces the highest Cl,
indicating higher lift generation at this specific AoA. However, it also produces the highest drag
coefficient indicating it might not be the best layout. This is due to the fact that a higher washout
angle increases the angle of attack. Moreover, the primary purpose of washout is to delay the onset
of a stall.

10
 Figure 13: Section lift and Cl for different washouts

(a) Lift coefficient (b) Section Lift

From the graph it is possible to infer that the ideal washout angle is between -3 and 0 degrees
where the radio of Cl/Cd is the highest. On the other hand, figure 16b shows that the results are
consistent among different angles of attack, being -3 with the highest at all time.

5 Assignment Section
Calculate dC
dα and discuss the effects of each parameter on
L dCL
dα . Compare 3D Wing
dCL dCL 1
dα with 2D ( dα = 2π( rad )) and discuss the difference.

Angle of attack 4,8, 12 in AR=3

e (inviscid) = 0.99933 (This value is given by the lab software)
dCL a0 2π
= a0 = 2π = 3.769
dα 1 + πeAR 1 + π0.99933∗3
Angle of attack 4,8, 12 in AR=6
e (inviscid) = 0.98309

dCL a0 2π
= a0 = 2π = 4.6922
dα 1 + πeAR 1 + π0.98309∗6
Angle of attack 4,8, 12 in AR=12
e (inviscid) = 0.95552

11
 dCL a0 2π
= a0 = 2π = 5.3724
dα 1 + πeAR 1+ π0.95552∗12
The data demonstrates that altering the angle of attack does not have a significant impact on
the lift curve slope, whereas changing the aspect ratio does. In a 2D wing scenario, the lift curve
slope is 2π, equivalent to 6.28. Notably, in the case of a 3D wing, the lift curve slope is lower than
that of a 2D wing, leading to a reduction in generated lift and a decrease in the effective angle of
attack.

The taper ratio is then taken into account when changing the angle of attack value to see how
the lift curve slope changes. The fixed aspect ratio is 6.0.

Angle of attack 4,8, 12 and Taper Ratio = 0.1

e (inviscid) = 0.98309
dCL a0 2π
= a0 = 2π = 4.6922
dα 1 + πeAR 1 + π0.98309∗6
Angle of attack 4,8, 12 and Taper Ratio = 0.5
e (inviscid) = 1.00911
dCL a0 2π
= a0 = 2π = 4.7230
dα 1 + πeAR 1 + π1.00911∗6
Angle of attack 4,8, 12 and Taper Ratio = 1.0
e (inviscid) = 1.00117
dCL a0 2π
= a0 = 2π = 4.7137
dα 1 + πeAR 1 + π1.00117∗6
Once more, it is evident that altering angles of attack has no bearing on the slope. When com-
paring this data with that of a two-dimensional wing, it is possible to observe that the lift curve
slope of a three-dimensional wing is reduced, primarily due to the presence of wingtip vortices and
downwash. These factors contribute to induced drag and lead to a decrease in the lift curve slope.
Additionally, the benefits derived from increasing the angle of attack are also lessened due to the
influence of downwash.

Explain the reason why the wing tip is stalled in the condition of low taper ratio.

In a low taper ratio wing, the wing tip is more prone to stall than the root. This is because the
lift distribution of a low taper ratio wing is more elliptical, which means that the lift coefficient at
the tip is higher than that at the root. As a result, the effective angle of attack at the tip is higher
than that at the root, which leads to a higher local angle of attack and a higher likelihood of stall.
This phenomenon can be observed in the local Cl distribution of a low taper ratio wing (see fig.
10a and 10b), where the Cl value at the tip is higher than that at the root 1.
To avoid this issue, the taper ratio is reduced by increasing the chord length of the wing tip.
This will reduce the ellipticity of the lift distribution and make it more rectangular, which will
result in a more uniform lift coefficient along the span of the wing.

12
 Explain the advantages and limitations of lifting-surface (lifting-line) method.

The Prandtl lifting-line theory is a fundamental mathematical model in aerodynamics employed

to predict the lift distribution over a three-dimensional wing, primarily based on its geometric
parameters and circulation.
This method offers distinct advantages. First of all, it provides a more accurate approximation of
the lift distribution for wings with moderate to high aspect ratios compared to the classical lifting-
line approach. Moreover, it takes into account the effects of compressibility on the lift distribution,
rendering it suitable for the analysis of wings operating at high speeds or within transonic or
supersonic flow regimes.
Nevertheless, there are certain limitations to be aware of. Firstly, the Prandtl lifting-line theory
assumes that the airflow over the wing is two-dimensional and incompressible. Consequently, its
application is not suitable for wings operating at very high speeds or within hypersonic flow regimes.
Secondly, it is based on the premise that the lift distribution follows an elliptical pattern, which
might not accurately represent real-world wing designs in all cases. Finally, this theory does not
consider viscous effects such as skin friction and turbulence, which can significantly impact the lift
distribution, especially in certain wing geometries and conditions.

Explain an example of actual aircraft design and discuss the relation between wing
planform geometry and aerodynamic performance

Figure 14: Boeing 747

The Boeing 747, introduced by Boeing in 1969, is a pioneering jet airliner with a wide body.
It is often fondly referred to as the ”Jumbo Jet.” One of its characteristic features is having more
than one aisle, classifying it as a wide-body aircraft. It started an era where an increased number
of passengers could travel to more distant destinations at higher speeds and lower costs.

From the provided specifications of the Boeing 747, several insights can be gathered about its
aerodynamic performance. The significant wing sweep of 37.5° suggests that the aircraft is designed
for improved high-speed performance and stability. The generous wingspan and large wing area

13
contribute to the lift capabilities of the aircraft, which are crucial for carrying heavy loads and
achieving long-range flight. A taper ratio of 0.28 indicates a particular wing shape that balances
aerodynamic efficiency. An angle of attack between 4° and 5° is within the typical range for the
Boeing 747, which helps maintain lift and control during various flight conditions. Finally, the
1° washout further enhances flight dynamics, particularly by delaying the stall at the wingtips. In
summary, these specifications collectively reflect an aircraft optimized for long-range, high-capacity,
and stable flight, which are key factors contributing to the Boeing 747’s remarkable performance
and its status as one of the most iconic jumbo jets in aviation history.

Twin-aisle aircraft, such as the Boeing 747, implement various design features and engineering
solutions to manage the extra weight and structural complexities of having two aisles. These so-
lutions include reinforced structural components, higher-powered engines, advanced materials, and
optimized weight distribution to maintain stability and maneuverability. The use of redundant sys-
tems, careful wing design, and aerodynamic efficiency enhancements further help offset the weight
of the second aisle. Modern avionics systems assist pilots in optimizing performance, and improved
landing gear systems can handle the additional weight for safe takeoffs and landings.

Design and optimize the wing for your imaginary plane on 6 deg. angle of attack.
by using WING.exe and WING.IN. Show the Cl distribution, Total Cl and Cd and
explain why you chose the parameters.

The design for this exercise is a simple paper plane model known as The Sprinter. This unique
paper airplane design features a prominent stabilizing tail fin. The wings exhibit flapping tendencies
at specific angles. It is noteworthy that this particular design displays sensitivity to any asymmetries
and may require minor adjustments for optimal performance. This section will explain how to find
the optimal geometry for the paper plane wing.

Figure 15: The Sprinter

Experiment Parameters:
For the paper plane experiment, the following parameters were used for initialization:

Wing Sweep: 0 degrees

Taper Ratio: 0.4

14
 Aspect Ratio (AR): 6
Mach Number (M): 0.08
Results Obtained:

The following results were obtained from the experiment:

Coefficient of Drag (CD): 0.01040

Inviscid Lift Efficiency (e): 0.99533
Coefficient of Lift (CL): 0.44170

To optimize the wing design, it is crucial to increase the Cl/Cd ratio. The initial Cl/Cd value
of 42.4711538462 was considered low.

Aspect Ratio Investigation:

In the results and discussion section, it was found that a higher aspect ratio is desirable. After
trying different aspect ratios (AR = 7, 8, 9), the following Cl/Cd ratios were obtained:

AR = 7: Cl/Cd = 46.9393
AR = 8: Cl/Cd = 51.3422
AR = 9: Cl/Cd = 55.7037

Any aspect ratio higher than 9 was deemed impractical, so an aspect ratio of 9 was chosen for
the design.

Wing Sweep Investigation:

Using the previous data, the ideal value for wing sweep was examined:

WS = 10: Cl/Cd = 55.4655

WS = 20: Cl/Cd = 56.1919
WS = 30: Cl/Cd = 58.0495

It was determined that a wing sweep angle of 30 degrees offers the best Cl/Cd ratio.

Washout Investigation:
Similar to the previous investigations, a 2-degree angle for washout was found to be ideal, re-
sulting in a high Cl/Cd ratio of 81.114.

Notice how the ideal wing design exhibits a flatter graph for the coefficient of lift (CL). This
flatter curve suggests that the lift distribution across the wing is more stable and uniform. On the
graph to the left, it is also evident that the section lift generated at the root of the wing is notably
larger when compared to other wing models.

15
 Figure 16: Section lift and Cl for different washouts

(a) Lift coefficient (b) Section Lift

Final Results
Wing Sweep: 30 degrees
Taper Ratio: 0.4
Aspect Ratio (AR): 9
Mach Number (M): 0.08
Washout: 2

16
6 References
1. Boeing 747 - Virginia Tech.
2. Fold N Fly. (n.d.). The Sprinter. Retrieved from https://www.foldnfly.com/4.html#The-
Sprinter
3. Superior Performance: The Wing-Based Advantages Of The Boeing 747-8.

4. Numerical Analysis and Optimization of Wing-tip Designs.

5. Serling, R. J. (1973). The Great Gamble: The Boeing 747. The Boeing – Pan Am Project to
Develop, Produce, and Introduce the 747. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
6. Torenbeek, E. (Year). An introduction to wing design. SpringerLink.

17