An Investigation into the Effect of Velocity of Airflow on the Lift Force of a

Model Airplane Wing

Introduction:
This investigation will be carried out in an effort to find an answer to the research
question; how does the velocity of airflow affect the lift force generated by an airfoil?
Since we live in a day and age where airplanes are considered as a common mode of
transport, a lot of research and funding goes into increasing the efficiency and development of
such travel. The environmental impact due to the carbon emissions can be decreased if an
airplane more efficiently used its fuel. By observing how a factor affects the lift force
imposed on an airplane wing, we could devise how to efficiently plan the path an airplane
takes to minimize the fuel consumption. There are many factors that could affect the
magnitude of the lift force; the size of the airfoil, its shape, the angle at which the airfoil
meets the incoming air, and the velocity of the airflow. Thus, I aim to find a relationship
between the velocity of airflow and the lift force on a model airplane wing.

Background Information:
An airplane’s ability to fly is due to the balance of the four forces acting upon it:
thrust, weight, drag, and lift (Fig1.1) 1 .
In reality, the drag and lift forces are
observed as a single net, integrated
force called the aerodynamic force; this
is due to the pressure variations along a
given body. The lift is the force
perpendicular to the flow direction,
which acts through the center of
pressure of the body, whilst drag is the
force along the flow direction 2 . Given
that the lift force equals or exceeds the
weight force, the airplane is able to rise
in the air. In this investigation, the
assumption that the airfoil is not gaining
Figure 1.1: Forces on an Airplane
any height will be made. Most of this lift force is
generated by the wings of the airplane, which are
designed with careful thought as the shape and size of such wings can affect the magnitude of
the lift force. Obviously, the lift force is an important aspect of flight as the magnitude of the
force decides whether or not the airplane will actually suspend in the air.

Consider an airplane as a solid object and the air a fluid; when an airplane flies, it
disrupts the flow of air and causes pressure variations on itself. The lift force is generated by
the turning of such flow of air and relies on the pressure variations on the airfoil, in this case
the wings. Bernoulli proposed two equations 3 , which aid in the understanding of the
generation of lift forces:

!" !
!+ #
=$ !×&×' =$
Equation 1: Bernoulli’s Principle, assuming Equation 2: Continuity Equation
fluid is moving horizontally P=Pressure, pascals
P=Pressure, pascals A=Cross-sectional area of flow of air, m3
p=Density, kgm-3 V=Velocity of airflow
v=Velocity of the moving fluid, ms-1 k=constant
k=Constant
1
Forces on an Airplane, Grc.nasa.gov, 2015.
2 Aerodynamic Forces, Grc.nasa.gov, 2015.
3 Web.mit.edu, 1997.

1
 Essentially, the airfoil is designed
to be asymmetrical; the surface area
of the top exceeds the surface area
of the bottom (Fig1.2) 4 . Thus, the
cross-sectional area of flow of air is
greater on the top of the airfoil than
the bottom of the airfoil and
therefore the air is displaced more
at the top in the same given time.
This implies that the velocity of
airflow is greater on top of the
Figure 1.2: Asymmetrical airfoil and the turn of airflow airfoil than on the bottom, which is
confirmed by the continuity equation, taking into account the pressure of the fluid remains
constant and the cross-sectional area of flow of air has increased (Equation 2). Taking into
consideration the higher velocity on top of the airfoil, the pressure must decrease according to
Bernoulli’s Principle (Equation 1), given that the density of the fluid has remained constant.
Similarly, the lower velocity on the bottom of the airfoil implies that the pressure must
increase. Airfoils are designed and angled at a certain inclination to provide a net pressure
force upward; the pressure loss on the top of the airfoil must exceed the pressure gain.

The relationship between the lift force and the velocity of airflow is existent, because
lift force is generated from the turning of airflow, and can be derived with the usage of
Newton’s Second Law of Motion. Remembering that the lift force is a component of the
aerodynamic forces, we can firstly consider the direct relationship between aerodynamic
forces and the change in momentum of fluid with time5.
!
( = ) × *6 = "#$7
"
Equation 3: Fluid Momentum Equation 4: Mass Flow Rate
p=Fluid momentum, kgms-1 m=Mass, kg
m=Mass, kg t=Time, s
v=Velocity, ms-1 p=Density, kgm-3
v=Velocity, ms-1
A=area, m2
∆! )# *# − )% *% )*
+∝ =$ =$ , 1223)456 *% = 0.
. . .
)
= $(*) < = = $(*)((*&), 32456 >?31.4@5 4.
.

B@524C>D456 & C@>2 5@. Eℎ156>, $ × & = [email protected]..

∴ + = D(()(* # )

Equation 5: Force in relation to Velocity8

Where the variables are defined as;

F=Aerodynamic Force, N v=relative velocity between fluid and object, ms-1

P=Fluid momentum, kgms-1 t=time, s A=area, m2
m=mass, kg p=density, kgm-3 k=constant, r=constant

4 Velocity Effects on Aerodynamic Forces, grc.nasa.gov, 2015.

5 Velocity Effects on Aerodynamic Forces, grc.nasa.gov, 2015.
6 Velocity Effects on Aerodynamic Forces, grc.nasa.gov, 2015.
7 Velocity Effects on Aerodynamic Forces, grc.nasa.gov, 2015.
8 Momentum Effects on Aerodynamic Forces, grc.nasa.gov, 2015.

2
 Since lift force is a component of the aerodynamic force, we can modify equation 5 to
conclude that the lift force is also proportional to velocity-squared. This provides a link into
the investigation as we can now plot a calculated lift force in relation to the relative velocity
of the airfoil and airflow.

Independent Variable:
The velocity of airflow (v) will act as the independent variable. We will manipulate
the velocity of airflow by varying the distance (x) between the airfoil and the small fan. The
distance measured will be from the center of the airfoil to the center of the small fan. Then,
the airflow supplied by the small fan will be measured with an anemometer, which will be
placed adjacent to the airfoil and the velocity, measured in ms-1, will be recorded during the
time in which the dependent variable is measured. The average velocity will be taken during
this period.

Dependent Variable:
The lift force (F) acting on the airfoil will be taken as the dependent variable. This
will be measured by continually weighing the airfoil on a scale as the air from the fan is
applied to it. The airfoil will firstly be weighed, its mass recorded, and then the scale set to
zero. When the airflow is applied to the airfoil, the mass shown on the scale (m) will be taken
as the mass when the lift force is acting upon the airfoil. This mass, measured in kilograms,
will then be used to calculate the lift force by multiplying the mass by the gravitational
acceleration, 9.81 ms-2, thus measured in Newtons.

Controlled Variables:
Variable Importance How it will be controlled
Air The temperature of the room can affect the density of the The thermostat of the room
temperature air. The air density directly affects the lift force, as will be set to 23°C. The
shown in equation 1. Thus, it is important to keep the air approximate value for the air
density the same in all trials to minimize fluctuations in density at this temperature is
values for the measured weight of the airfoil. 1.194 kgm-3.
Shape of The shape of the airfoil dictates how much flow is The chosen airfoil was a
airfoil turned. The magnitude of lift is dependent on how much model that was asymmetrical
flow is turned thus in order to see how only the velocity in shape, see figure 1.2.
affects the magnitude of lift force, the shape of the
airfoil must remain constant.
Mass of The mass of the airfoil is part of the weight force One airfoil model will be
airfoil (w=mg) thus when trying to measure the lift force on a used for all trials thus the
balance, the weight for all trials should remain the same. mass will be controlled at
This is so that the weight stays the same and the force 110.28 (±0.01) grams. At the
needed to generate lift should solely be reliant on the beginning of every trial, the
velocity, not airfoil itself. mass should be recorded to
see if any changes occur.
Material of The material of the airfoil, especially its exterior, can The airfoil model is made of
airfoil affect the turning of the air. With a smooth surface, the wood, with cardboard paper
air can flow smoothly above and beneath the airfoil. To glued around it to ensure that
minimize fluctuations in the discrepancy of the airflow all the faces are smooth.
path, the material of the airfoil must remain constant.
Angle of To avoid wing stall and to minimize having variables The inclination will be set at
the airfoil affect the lift force, the angle at which the airfoil meets 0°. This is so that it is easily
the airflow will be controlled to the maximum ability. manageable and thus ensures
Since the inclination affects how much air is turned, this only velocity majorly affects
will affect the generation of lift force. the lift force.
Setting of The setting of the fan dictates the speed of the air The setting of the fan will be
fan produced from it. To avoid having fluctuations in the at its maximum capacity and

3
 velocity of the airflow when distance from the airplane the fan used for each trial
model is increased, the setting of the fan will remain will be the same.
constant. This will ensure that the wind speed decreases
as the distance between the source and airfoil is
increased.
Apparatus:
Equipment Measurement Quantity
Model airfoil 110.28 g ± 0.01 g 1
Wooden stand 37.94 g ±0.01 g 1
Small fan With 2 settings 1
Balance 2 decimal places 1
Vernier LabQuest Mini 1
Anemometer 0.5-30.0 ms-1 (±0.1 ms-1), with stand attached 1
Bosshead 1
Stand 1
Ruler 1.00 meter ± 0.01 m 1
Masking tape 1.00 meter ± 0.01 m 1 piece
Thermometer 1
Styrofoam boards 0.90x0.60x0.015 m 2
Methodology:
1. On a flat surface, place the piece of masking tape. Using the meter ruler, mark off
points of 0 meters, and 0.24 meters. Mark off every 0.11 meter increment up until
0.90 meters. This should result in 7 points.
2. Place the 2 decimal place scale next to the masking tape, nearest to your 0m mark.
3. Stick your model airfoil onto the wooden stand at a 0° inclination. The airfoil should
not be tightly stuck onto the wooden stand.
4. Measure the length of the model airfoil; its halfway point should match up to the 0
meter mark on the masking tape.
5. The model airfoil’s curved end should be facing the direction of the increasing marks
of distance on the measuring tape.
6. Set up the anemometer adjacent to the airfoil model, ensuring that it doesn’t obstruct
the airfoil in any way. The anemometer should be as close to the airfoil’s side as
possible but not obstructing the flow of air when the fan is turned on. The
anemometer’s wind detector should be at the same height as the airfoil model. Screw
in the anemometer’s standing rod and clamp it onto a stand.
7. The small fan should be placed at the 0.24 meter mark. The blades of the fan should
meet the mark.
8. The small fan should not move; ensure that its stopper is inserted. This should be set
up straight in front of the airfoil, its front facing the airfoil.
9. Place the two large pieces of Styrofoam on either side of the set up. These pieces
should be perpendicular to the surface. They act as barriers for the wind supplied by
the small fan. One end of each piece should lean on the fan and the other end, the
scale. Ensure that the pieces do not touch the airfoil model as this could affect the
mass and therefore measured lift force inflicted upon it.
10. Turn the fan on at the pre-selected setting. Allow the speed to settle; once the speed
has been constant for at least 5 seconds, start taking measurements.
11. The mass of the airfoil should be video-recorded for duration of 5 seconds. At the
same time, the anemometer’s measurements should also be recorded.
12. In such duration, the maximum and minimum masses should be noted and the
average taken as the mass for such distance from the fan. The average wind speed
should also be noted from such duration.

Repeat steps 8-13 by increasing the distance between the fan and the airfoil model by
0.11 meters until a minimum of 7 measurements have been recorded – this is to ensure that a

4
reliable graph with an observable pattern can be produced. This process can be repeated to
obtain more data sets, which can increase the reliability of the data.

Diagram:

Figure 1.3: Diagram to show set-up of apparatus

The aim of the design of this experiment was to isolate the two variables being
investigated; the wind speed and the lift force. Preliminary trials showed that using the
Styrofoam barriers reduced the noise around the airfoil model to a certain extent; the
dependent variable showed more variance with an observable trend. Without the Styrofoam
barriers, moving the fan at varied distances had little to no effect on the airfoil model.
Furthermore, the angle at which the airfoil was inclined was chosen due to the
unpredictability of its varying measured force. Sometimes, the mass of the airfoil after being
zeroed would not be negative thus showing that the weight force was greater than the lift
force. In order to ensure that the velocity of airflow was greater on top of the airfoil, its
curvature was faced towards the incoming airflow and it was situated at an inclination of 0°.
It was also specified to ensure that the airfoil was not stuck onto the stand but rather balanced
on it so that the airflow could actually affect the forces acting upon the airfoil.

Preliminary trials using the set-up in the diagram above also showed that there was
optimum difference of mass when wind was applied with the highest fan setting.
Furthermore, there were observable differences in the calculated lift force when the distance
was varied by over 0.10 meters. In order to abide by the dimensions of the Styrofoam
barriers, a range of 0.24 to 0.90 meters as the distance between the middle of the airfoil and
the fan with values chosen at increments of 0.11 meters was chosen. The measured air speed
varied from 0.8 to 1.7 ms-1. The dependent variable, the mass of the airfoil after being zeroed
on the scale, was not uniform during the 5 seconds when the wind was applied. Therefore, it
was decided that the changing mass would be recorded for 5 seconds, its maximum and
minimum recorded, then the uncertainty and average mass taken in order to calculate the lift
force.
Safety, Ethical, and Environmental Issues:

There are no ethical or safety issues related to this investigation. Environmentally,

materials should be used consciously to minimize waste; this applies to when the airfoil
models are constructed, when the fan is turned on, and when the scale is turned on as well.

5
 Quantitative Data:
Wind Speed, v/ms-1, ±0.1 ms-1 Speed2, v2, m2s-2
Distance between
fan and airfoil, Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
D/m, ±0.03 m 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Average Uncertainty Value Uncertainty
0.24 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 0.2 9 1
0.35 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 0.1 5.6 0.5
0.46 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.1 4.4 0.4
0.57 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.2 2.6 0.5
0.68 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 0.1 1.7 0.3
0.79 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.3
0.90 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1
Figure 2.1: Raw Data Table, varying Distance and corresponding Wind Speed

Changing mass of airfoil, m/kg

Distance between
fan and airfoil, Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Lift force, F/N
D/m, ±0.03 m 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Average Uncertainty Value Uncertainty
0.24 -2.58 -2.70 -2.32 -2.66 -2.79 -2.62 -2.76 -2.67 -2.71 -2.30 -2.34 -2.40 -2.51 -2.64 -2.71 -2.6 0.2 25 2
0.35 -1.59 -1.87 -1.89 -1.56 -1.62 -1.92 -1.60 -1.49 -1.76 -1.54 -1.76 -1.65 -1.57 -1.63 -1.59 -1.7 0.2 16 2
0.46 -1.23 -1.00 -1.39 -0.94 -1.09 -1.34 -1.13 -1.21 -1.22 -1.18 -1.27 -1.11 -1.25 -1.01 -1.15 -1.2 0.2 12 2
0.57 -0.60 -0.78 -0.57 -0.70 -0.79 -0.62 -0.72 -0.51 -0.53 -0.69 -0.71 -0.58 -0.67 -0.75 -0.61 -0.7 0.1 6 1
0.68 -0.48 -0.49 -0.58 -0.41 -0.55 -0.42 -0.52 -0.47 -0.56 -0.52 -0.41 -0.52 -0.45 -0.46 -0.47 -0.49 0.09 4.8 0.8
0.79 -0.24 -0.19 -0.18 -0.23 -0.21 -0.17 -0.15 -0.26 -0.31 -0.28 -0.21 -0.14 -0.25 -0.26 -0.19 -0.22 0.09 2.1 0.8
0.90 -0.05 -0.07 -0.12 -0.13 -0.08 -0.11 -0.04 -0.07 -0.12 -0.02 -0.03 -0.05 -0.02 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 0.06 0.7 0.5

Figure 2.2: Raw Data Table, varying Distance and observed Changing Mass, calculated Lift Force.

6
Example Calculations for distance of 0.24 m: (refer to figures 2.1 and 2.2 for variable
definitions):

/$)%0 1 +%2% + /$)%0 2 +%2% + /$)%0 3 +%2%

!"#$%&# ()*+ ,-##+ =
15
3.0 + 3.1 + 3.0 + 3.0 + 2.8 + 3.2 + 2.9 + 3.1 + 3.0 + 3.2 + 2.8 + 2.9 + 3.0 + 2.9 + 2.9
=
15
= 2.98 = 3.0 ;, !"
#$%&'(' *$+(,!#&-&'(' .$+(, 0./!/.2
<*=#$2%)*2> )* " = /
= /
= 0.2 (2@ 1 ,. A. )

D*=#$2%)*2> 0.2
% D*=#$2%)*2> )* " = × 100 = × 100 = 6.69%
%"#$%&# ()*+ ,-##+ 2.98

G-##+/ = !"#$%&# ()*+ ,-##+/ = 3.0/ = 9 ;/ , !3

% D*=#$2%)*2> )* " / = 2 × H#$=#*2%&# D*=#$2%)*2> )* ()*+ ,-##+ = 6.69 × 2 =

13.38%

% D*=#$2%)*2> )* " / 13.38

<*=#$2%)*2> )* " / = × "/ = × 9.0 = 1.20 = 1 (2@ 1 ,. A. )
100 100
/$)%0 1 +%2% + /$)%0 2 +%2% + /$)%0 3 +%2%
!"#$%&# ;%,, @A %)$A@)0 =
15
2.58 + 2.70 + 2.32 + 2.66 + 2.79 + 2.62 + 2.76 + 2.67 + 2.71 + 2.30 + 2.34 + 2.40 + 2.51 + 2.64 + 2.71
= −J K
15
= −2.58 = −2.6L&

M%N);D; "%0D# − M)*);D; "%0D# −2.30— 2.79

<*=#$2%)*2> )* ;%,, @A %)$A@)0 = =
2 2
= 0.245 = 0.2 (2@ 1 ,. A. )

<*=#$2%)*2> 0.245
% D*=#$2%)*2> )* ;%,, @A %)$A@)0 = × 100 = × 100
|!"#$%&# ;%,, @A %)$A@)0| 2.58
= 9.49% (2@ 2 +. -. )

S%0D# @A T)A2 U@$=# = !"#$%&# ;%,, × V$%")2%2)@*%0 U)#0+ G2$#*&2ℎ

= −2.58 × −9.81 = 25.31 = 25 X (2@ *@ +. -. )

% D*=#$2%)*2> )* T)A2 U@$=# = % D*=#$2%)*2> )* ;%,, @A %)$A@)0 = 9.49%

H#$=#*2%&# D*=#$2%)*2>
<*=#$2%)*2> )* T)A2 U@$=# = × S%0D# @A T)A2 U@$=#
100
9.49
= × 25.31 = 2.4 = 2 (2@ 1 ,. A. )
100

*All uncertainties are given to one significant figure. The number of decimal places in the
uncertainties dictates the number of decimal places in their corresponding variables. If the
calculated uncertainty is greater than the uncertainty given by the measuring instrument, the
calculated uncertainty was taken.

7
Figure 2.3: Graph of Lift Force against Velocity2

8
 Graph Analysis:

Maximum gradient (mmax): 2.820 Ns2m-2

Minimum gradient (mmin): 2.251Ns2m-2

Average gradient (mavg):

!!"# + !!$% 2.820 + 2.251
2
=
2
= 2.536 = 2.5 ()2 *−2 (,- 1 /. 0. )
Uncertainty in gradient (∆m):
!!"# − !!$% 2.820 − 2.251
= = 0.285 = 0.3 *+2 ,−2 (./ 1 +. 1. )
2 2

%Uncertainty in gradient:
∆% &.()*
%
× 100 = (.*+, × 100 = 11.24 = 10% (to 1 s.f.)
&'(

Using equation 5,
6 = 7(8)(9 ( )
6
∴ ( = ,-./ = 7(8)
9
∴ 2.5 = 7(1.194)
∴ 7 = 2.094 ,+ , where r is a constant.

To find the units of r,

6
= 7(8)
9(
<=,+ + , = 7(,( <=01 )
0( ( 0(

<=,01
∴ 7 = ( 01 = ,+
, <=
Conclusion:

The aim of the investigation was to draw a conclusion for the relationship between
the lift force and the velocity of the airflow on a model airfoil. By evaluating figure 2.3, we
can see how there is a directly proportional relationship between the lift force and velocity-
squared of the airflow. This is shown by how when velocity-squared increases, the lift force
arithmetically increases. The resultant graph is a straight-line gradient with an average value
of 2.5±0.3 Ns2m-2 that passes through the
origin. Although the gradient does not
indicate any scientific value, the shape of the
graph agrees with other scientific studies that
have shown a proportional relationship
between velocity-squared and the lift force.
This shape is not surprising because logically,
if the velocity of the airflow was 0 ms-1 and
thus velocity-squared 0 m2s-2, the lift force
would have to be non-existent, thus the line
should pass through the origin. The minimum
and maximum gradients that I constructed
align alongside the hypothetical location Figure 3.1: How uncertainty bars were constructed
where the horizontal and vertical uncertainty
bars meet, which is why it seems as if these
gradients are skewed at the point of 0.90 m.

To answer my research question, how does the velocity of airflow affect the lift
force generated by a model airfoil, I can conclude that increasing the velocity-squared of

9
airflow will proportionally increase the lift force generated by a stationary model airfoil. This
is shown through the relationship in my graph in figure 2.3, whereby a clear trend with a
gradient of strong correlation of approximately 0.998 is present. The associated uncertainty
with the average gradient however was 10%, which shows that there was a substantial spread
in the data collection. We can deduce that most of this uncertainty however stemmed from the
larger values of wind speed, as the maximum and minimum gradients diverge as the
independent variable increases. My conclusion can be explained using scientific theory; as
discussed in background information, fluid pressure variations along an airfoil are what cause
a force to be created upwards when the angle of inclination and shape of the airfoil are
designed to create a turn in the airflow. Thus when taking into consideration the role pressure
variation takes, we can consider the role of fluid velocity on the lift fore generated. As the
velocity increases, lift force must also be increased because the increased velocity is causing
more disruption of the airflow and is consequently turning more air. This creates a larger
imbalance of pressure on the top and bottom sides of the airfoil, causing larger pressure
variations and thus a net force upwards. Now that the investigation has been carried out, we
see that there is a proportional relationship between the velocity-squared and the lift force.

Although there is no published value for the constant that I have obtained, I can
deduce that my conclusion is sound due to my data spread and correlation. All of the data
points follow the clear trend of proportionality and lie within the maximum and minimum
gradients. We can however consider points 0.79 m, and 0.90 m as anomalies because their
error bars do not touch either the minimum or maximum gradients. These anomalies can be
attributed to the growing magnitude of systematic error that will be discussed in the
evaluation. Apart from these two anomalies however, the graph shows a clear trend of
proportionality and strong correlation stemming from a large range of wind speeds. This
conclusion is supported by other scientists’ theories and results, as discussed in the
background information. There is no numerical value for the constant that has been calculated
due to the constant’s dependence the density of the air and the area of the model airfoil, which
in this investigation are extremely different to those modeled in professional settings. It is not
useful to compare my value with any published values because of the magnitude of the model
airfoils they use and the different in air density as they try to replicate actual flying
conditions. The constant itself indicates the area of the model airfoil multiplied by another
constant. Since the area of the model airfoil was estimated to be around 2 meters in total, the
constant k can be considered to be around 1.094 m. If k were greater in value, the lift force
generated with the same airflow velocity values would be greater than those obtained in this
investigation. On the other hand, if k were less than 1.094 m, the lift force generated with the
same airflow velocity values would be less than those obtained in this investigation.

Evaluation:

Figure 2.3 shows how the width of the error bars increase as the values of velocity-
squared increase. This is associated with the random error caused by the fluctuation of
recorded values over a 5-second interval. The height of the error bars is also attributed to the
fluctuation over the recorded values of the lift force over a 5-second interval. We can see how
the height of the error bars remains the same for the first 4 data points but increases by almost
two-fold for the last 3 data points. Both the widening and lengthening of the error bars
signifies that the magnitude of fluctuation of data increases as such values increase.

There were many strengths associated with this investigation. Although the lift force
was easily affected by multiple other factors and isolating the velocity was difficult, a graph
with few anomalies, a clear trend, and a strong correlation was produced. This success can be
attributed to the meticulous method and awareness of which variables needed to be
controlled. A significant addition to the method was the set-up of a wind tunnel; although it
carried some random error, it greatly reduced the extent of noise that acted alongside the
independent variable thus improving the isolation of the independent variable. Additionally,

10
 by taking repeat readings, it was also evident if data had to be recollected if the values taken
seemed skewed. Although taking repeat readings did not help reduce the random error in
most cases, it did help spot how the range of values of the changing mass increased as the
distance between the airfoil and fan increased, leading towards the identification of a
significant source of error, the relative height between the two pieces of equipment.

Weaknesses of the investigation included many sources of error that were not thought
through. Although the uncertainties associated with the apparatus were low, the uncertainties
calculated from the trials taken were greater than the aforementioned thus random error still
remained quite high. The random error associated with the wind speed did not drastically
increase but the random error associated with the lift force did. This was essentially due to the
major sources of error listed below:

Source of Error How it affected data How it can be improved

Variation of As the distance between the fan and the airfoil In the beginning of the
height of fan in increased, the height of the fan in relation to the experiment, measure the
relation to the airfoil also increased. This affected the angle at height of the airfoil and the
model airfoil which the wind was reaching the airfoil but also the height at which the middle of
proportion of wind affecting the airfoil itself. The the airfoil meets the fan.
angle of inclination increases as the relative height Tape off the location on the
of the fan increases thus the amount of airflow fan and ensure that the tape
turned decreases, which results in lower lift force always meets the middle of
values. This is a source of systematic error and the airfoil. Adding books to
increases in magnitude as the distance between the the bottom of the fan can
fan and airfoil increases. control this.
Usage of The Styrofoam boards do not replicate how air Building a wind tunnel with
Styrofoam actually moves in a wind tunnel due to its surface a smooth surface and one
boards as a wind variation and how it constantly moves when wind is that would not shake with the
tunnel shot through in the middle of it. This meant that the addition of wind through it.
wind speed reaching the airfoil varied throughout This could be done through
the data collection period, consistently altering the making a cylindrical or
mass of the airfoil. Since the shaking of the rectangular wind tunnel with
Styrofoam boards was not uniform, this was a stable sides made of
source of random error. cardboard or another thick,
smooth material.
Anemometer’s Since the anemometer was placed slightly to the By using a more stable wind
position and side of the airfoil, it did not receive the same speed tunnel, the wind speeds can
ability to read of air that the airfoil did. Furthermore, when trying be recorded after the mass of
the wind speed to place the anemometer as close to the airfoil as the airfoil has been recorded
possible, it was slightly at an angle to the fan thus at the same location the
not measuring the wind speed in the same airfoil was placed. This
circumstance as the airfoil. This altered the would decrease the error as
measured wind speed, as the anemometer was not the anemometer could be
receiving the full effect of the wind speed, thus all placed at the exact same
measured wind speeds were lower than expected location at the same angle the
therefore this is a source of systematic error. airfoil was at.
Assumption that The velocity in equation 5 is stated as the relative The problem with controlling
the model airfoil velocity between the fluid and the object. In our the airfoil’s motion is that it
was stationary investigation, we only took into consideration the could potentially inhibit the
velocity of the fluid and assumed the airfoil was changing mass values. It is
stationary when in fact its speed was affected by the possible to minimize motion
wind. Although there is no extensive change in by plastering the model onto
speed of the airfoil, it still consistently moved thus the stand but this would
could have affected the amount of airflow that was inhibit the model from

11
 turned by altering its angle of inclination, slightly experiencing a lift force.
increasing its distance from the fan, or just by Since the effect of the motion
having a velocity in a different direction thus is probably quite small, it is
altering the relative velocity. This would be a best to not modify the
source of random error due to the variation of methodology and accept the
extent of change in velocity of the airfoil. error.

The most influential source of error was the variation in the relative height between
the airfoil and the fan. We can see this direct relationship as the random error increases as the
distance between the two pieces of equipment increase. This is due to its direct influence on
another key factor of lift force, the angle of inclination. In theory, the turning of the air and
the proportion of the air on the top and bottom of the airfoil depend greatly on the angle at
which the airfoil meets the oncoming wind thus it is important to keep this controlled to
minimize error. The other major sources of error did not affect the measured lift force or wind
speed to a similar extent. The error associated with the improper wind tunnel is reflected in
the uncertainties of the wind speed thus we can see that combined with other error factors, it
did not massively interfere with the wind speed. Furthermore, it was deduced that the error
caused was random because of the clear fluctuation of uncertainty in the wind speed.
Furthermore, the suggested improvements for the errors of the wind tunnel and the motion of
the model airfoil are plausible but not perfect. They would not completely remove the
uncertainty but perhaps decrease it. The improvements concerning the relative height and the
anemometer’s readings could perhaps eliminate any additional error that was propagated onto
the equipment.

An extension of this investigation would be to look at another factor, which may

affect the lift force. To look at another factor would mean that the velocity of the airflow must
remain as a controlled variable thus if the same methodology were to be used, the distance
between the airfoil and fan would have to remain constant. Altering the temperature of the
surroundings could modify the density of the air however; the range of the change in
temperature would have to be extremely great to see a plausible difference in the density thus
is unrealistic. The mass of the airfoil can be modified by creating different models of the
same shape but of different size; this would require a greater force to be generated to combat
the increased weight force, thus we can predict a proportional relationship between increasing
weight and velocity of airflow. Furthermore, we could alter the angle of attack; if the
inclination were downwards, more air would be turned onto the topside of the airfoil thus
causing pressure variations to make the airfoil rise (background information) and similarly, if
the inclination were upwards, more air would be turned onto the bottom side of the airfoil
thus causing pressure variations to make the airfoil sink. The angle of attack could also
indicate the critical angle of attack, which produces maximum lift coefficient and varies
amongst each airfoil.

Citations
Grc.nasa.gov. (2015). Aerodynamic Forces. [online] Available at:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/presar.html [Accessed 12 May 2017].
Grc.nasa.gov. (2015). Forces on an Airplane. [online] Available at:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/forces.html [Accessed 10 May 2017].
Grc.nasa.gov. (2015). Momentum Effects on Aerodynamic Forces. [online] Available at:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/momntm.html [Accessed 12 May 2017].
Grc.nasa.gov. (2015). Velocity Effects on Aerodynamic Forces. [online] Available at:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/vel.html [Accessed 12 May 2017].
Web.mit.edu. (1997). Theory of Flight. [online] Available at:
http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html [Accessed 12 May 2017].

12