NASAT.chn,c.

,M
.., GJ/02 2457"/
ii

_'_::o:
• A Comparisonof Wortmann Airfoil
:o_:, Computer-Generated Lift and Drag
_.,_,_ Polars With FIight and Wind Tunnel
=o._oi_.

;i Results
Albion H. Bowers and Alex G. Sim

;_3_:': ' December 1984

4.:i:1-,!..
oo "

_'._ Nation._iAeronauticsand
....... ; 3pace Administration
1. i

,._ • .13-. . _' - " _ '_ ','

98500456
 ,,j

NASA Technical Memorandum86035

'l

"5"

__._,_.,
A Comparison of Wort.mannAirfoil
'_ Computer Generated Lnftand Drag
_: •

_ Polars With Flight and Wind Tunnel

¢.,_p

Results
o ..

)*d

....._ Albion H. Bowersand Alex G. Sim

=,o !' Ames ResearchCenter, Dryden Flight ResearchFacility, Edwards,California

._

•, j,,t

. ._

_ _'._

:iii
,!'(o

._'_

- N/_A
National Aeronauticsand
Space Administration
Ames Research Center
Dryden FlightResearchFacility
_} Edwards,California93523
 SUMMARY

Computations of drag polars for a low-speed Wortmann sailplane airfoil are com-
pared with both wind tunnel and flight test results. Excellent correlation was
shown to exist between computations and flight results except when separated flow
regimes were encountered. Smoothness of the input coordinates to the PROFILE com-
puter program was found to be essential to obtain accurate comparisons of drag
polars or transition locat_on to either the flight or wind tunnel flight results.

INTRODUCTION

• The PROFILE computer program used for this study was developed by Dr. Richard
Eppler and Dan Somers (ref. I ). PROFILE is used to design and analyze low-speed
airfoils. The program is "user friendly" and produces results that correlate
closely with results obtained from wind tunnel tests (refs. I and 2). These cor-
relations, however, were generally for airfoils that were designed using the PROFILE
program. On the other hand, in this report, PROFILE predictions are compared with
both wind tunnel and flight results for an airfoil that was not designed using
_" PROFILE.

The airfoil chosen for this study was a first-generation Wortmann, the FX 61-163,
which has been used on many sailplanes. Coordinates and previous results from wind
tunnel experiments that were used in this report are available in reference 3.
! Although limited computational analyses were used in the initial design of this
i_ 20-year-old airfoil, the final airfoil design was refined primarily using wind tun-
L_ nel techniques.

This same airfoil, incorporating only slight modifications, was used on a sail-
plane that was tested in 1979 (ref. 4). The results of that flight test were used
for the present study both to independently verify the wind tunnel data and to illus-
trate the effect that a slight airfoil modification can have on the PROFILE computer
:_ - program predictions and the flight drag polar.

SYMBOLS

c test section wang chord, m (ft)

:r

. Cd section drag coefficient

C£ section lift coefficient

dI displacement thickness, nondimensionalized by chord

d2 momentum thickness, nondimensionalized by chord

d 3 energy thickness, nondimensionalized by chord

H32 boundary layer shape factor, d3/d 2

 Rd2 local Reynolds number based on d2

Re Reynolds number based on test section chord length

: qm free-stream dynamic pressure, kN/m 2 (lb/ft 2)

x/c distance along the chord normalised to chord length

._ y/c distance perpendicular to the chord normalized to chord length

':/ _ angle of attack, deg

: FLIGHT TESTS

The flight vehicle, described in reference 4 and shown in figure I, was a T-6
"' sailplane. The T-6 was an HP-14 design that had been altered to include a T-tail
and new wings that used a modified Wortmann FX 61-163 section, referred to in
this paper as the flight airfoil. The flight airfoil coordinates from the wing
_ te_t section are given in table I. The wing section that was studied was located
near mid-span on t_e right wing (as shown in fig. I). Modifications included

_--_ both
trailing
a plain
edge.flap
Pigure
hinged2 is
at a
79.4-percent
comparison chord
of the and
FX a61-163
straight-lined
airfoil andlower
the flight
surface
.; airfoil showing these modifications.
Z

_i_._
.,, at a Flight procedures
constant airspeed.for Flight
takix_gataccurate data necessitated
low airspeeds correspondedsmooth, steady condition
to a flight flight
:_. with a low Reynolds number and high lift coefficient as all data were taken during
'_.. straight-and-level, Ig trimmed flight. Wing test section Reynolds numbers varied
=_ from about I x 106 to 3 x 106 as airspeed varied from near 40 knots to 125 knots.

_ Wake surveys of the wing test section were obtained by installing small pitot
_: and static probes that traversed the wake at a distance uf 30-percent chord behind
_:; the trailing edge (fig. 3). Reference total pressure was obtained from a kiel tube
?-_ mounted on the upper wing surface; reference static pressure was obtained from a
.:_, trailing static located 200-percent chord aft of, and in plane with, the trailing
'; edge. To illustrate the repeatability and accuracy of the data from the wing wake
:! surveys, a typical wake sample from reference 4 is shown in figure 4. The repeata-
,,t bility and low magnitude of the random errors illustrate the low random sca_ter of
?!I this method. Section drag coefficients were computed from the wake data using the
'I
A'.
method developed by Jones which integrates the momentum deficit in the wing wake
..., (ref. 5). Section llft coefficients were estimated by using the VORTEX-LATTICE pro-
_: gram (ref. 6). Estimated total aircraft lift (±1 percent) was adjusted for measured
•. tail loads, and span load was adjusted by measuring flap and aileron deflections
t

"' DESCRIPTION O_ PROFILE

°_

'! Background information is necessary to understand the PROFILE program's ability

',iI to predict airfoil section lift and drag polars. Conceptually, the computational
_I analysis is divided into two parts -- the invlscid and the viscous. The inviscld

I 2
 ..r part determines pressure coefficient distribution or velocity distribution over the
airfoil. The program accomplishes this by using a vortex panel method with parabol-
'i ically distributed singularities on cubic spline-fitted surfeces between coordinate
. points. An example of a calculated pressure distribution for the flight airfoil is

_ given in figure 5.

_ The viscous analysis part of the program uses specified values for Reynolds num-
o ber and surface roughness to compute transition and separation characteristics of
the wing section being analyzed. All airfoils used in this study were considered to
, have a smooth surface. The viscous part of the program also computes the bourdary
layer development consisting of the displacement, momentum, and energy thickness
_ (d I , d2, and d3, respectively), as well as the boundary layer shape factor (H32)
: that can also be obtained. Transition location is also computed from H32 •

The location of the transition point from laminar to turbulent flow is con-
i_: sidered to be a function only of H32. H32 is computed as a function of arc length
from the trailing edge. The criteria for transition were empirically developed by
_' Eppler in reference 7 and is given in equation (I).

=_:_ in(Rd 2) = 18.4(H32) - 21.78 (I)

.o::: The correlation between wind tunnel transition location in reference 8 and PROFILE

_o_ computational values are excellent for the FX 66-AII-182 airfoil as shown in fig-
o_ ure 6. The error shown is less than l-percent chord.

=_= Criteria for flow separation are not as well defined as for transition.

o_ Basically, when the value of H32 becomes less than 1.46, turbulent separation is
_'_ assumed. A more involved development of this separation criteria has been detailed
_o_. by Schlichting (Eel. 9). The PROFILE program usually provides a reasonable defini-
_t. tion of the separated flow regions. However, once separation exists, it degrades
_. the prediction of section drag.

:i
COMPARISONS

0_: Input coordinate smoothness was found to be critical to the full development of
!. the computed drag bucket. In computation, the raw data T-6 airfoil (ref. 4) used in
"j

_:! flight produced the narrowest drag bucket, with the smoothed airfoil producing the
.... widest, as shown in figure 7. Both smoothed and unsmoothed airfoils exhibited large
_! increases in C d exiting the drag bucket, initially as transition moved to the lead-
,of,! ing edge (C£ of 0.I and 0.7 for the raw data T-5 airfoil and -0.1 and 1.0 for the

i,i . smoothed flight airfoil) and finally as separation began at the trailing edge.
_: Note that little effect is seen in C d within the drag bucket of the raw data T-6
ii: airfoil when compared with the smoothed airfoil. The smoothed airfoil was within
o,_ ±0.00005 y/c of ideally smooth, and it is possible that continued smoothing would
further improve the correlation of flight to computed polars. The final smoothing
: _ process was accomplished Oy hand because no computational method has been found that
•_ will adequately remove waviness for use with PROFILE. However, when an airfoil is

o_ smoothed in this way, the airfoil may not perform as designed.

It appears that the smoothness required by the PROFILE program exceeds that
needed for high performance in flight since the raw data T-6 airfoil used the exact
r

: 3
 wing geometry, yet the T-6 airfoil performance predicted by PROFILE was substan-
tially Inss than that previously measured in flight.

The PROFILE program was also used to analyze the FX 61-163, called the baseline
airfoil, and the smoothed T-6 sailplane airfoil, called the flight airfoil, with
and without 6 ° of flap. Analyses were conducted at Reynolds numbers of I x 106 ,
1.3 x 106 , 2 x 106 and 3 x 106 .

Figure 8 shows a comparlson of the flight airfoil 0 ° flap deflection results

with the baseline wind tunnel results. Note the flight airfoil C d is less than the
baseline airfoil's C d below 1.0 CE. The lower surface trailing edge modifications

made to the flight airfoil resulted in lower C£ for a given Cd at higher lift coef-
ficients. This reduction was because of the reduced camber of the flight airfoil, +
resulting in a lower CR for a given _. With the flight airfoil flap deflected 6° ,

the flight and baseline airfoils have similar lift coefficients at the same angle of
attack because of approximately similar camber lines.

In figure 9, flight results with 6 ° of flap deflection show improved correlation

with the baseline results at high lift coefficients.

i_ In figure 10, the polar results of the baseline airfoil computations show a
i_ close correlation to the baseline airfoil tested in the wind tunnel at 2 x 106 and
++:

3 x 106 Re over most of the C£ range. This agreement is good considering that polar
z_ accuracies between wind tunnel tests are rarely stated to be better than 2 to 3 per- '
[_ cent. Computations of the baseline airfoil for I x 106 Re show close correlation to

i._ the results of wind tunnel tests only near C_ of 0.25 and 1.05. At intermediate C_
(shown on fig. 7) of I x 106 Re the sinuous characteristic of the wind tunnel polar
:: indicates the probable presence of a laminar separation bubble--an effect that
would not be accurately predicted using the PROFILE program. Modern airfoils are
designed to avoid separation bubbles and, hence, would avoid both the characteristic
curvature and inaccurate prediction. Regardless of the cause, the computations do
if not correlate well with the I x 10 6 Re wind tunnel data. It should be emphasized,
however, that for many other airfoils, excellent correlation has been obtained with
wind tunnel results as demonstrated in reference 2. Airfoils that have been refined
_ with a "file-it and try-it" approach or modified to simplify fabrication may result
in their performance being conservatively predicted. However, they often do not
lend themselves to easy analysis because of residual surface waviness from fabrica-
tion. This difficulty exists with the fllght airfoil.

The flight data with 0 o flap is compared to the PROFILE program predictions
for the flight airfoil in figure 11. The correlatlon between flight and analytic

.... results are excellent at Reynolds numbers of 3 x 106 and 2 x 10 6 up to about 0.7 C£.
As the CE continues to rise and the Re decreases, the correlation between the flight
and analytic results decreases. The large predicted in_rease in Cd is caused Dy the
beginning of the trailing edge separation.

The flight data with 6 ° of flap compared with the PROFILE prediction of the
flight air_oil with a 6 ° flap model is shown in figure 12. Again, at low C£
(approximately 0.3) the correlation between flight and analytic results is excellent.
However, in this case the agreement remains excellent as low as a Re of 1.3 x 106

._ 4

" .... _ n + • , + + +_ , - _ •I_

 I and as high as 0.8 C_. Although the correlation of the analytic results to flight
i results again decreases at the high C£, the deviation is not as large as that which
i occurred in the unflapped case shown in figure 8. Agreement decreases as the trail-
{ inc! edge is predicted to have s_paration growth.

il The above results show that flight performance exceeds the program predictions
by a small margin. Even with minor fabrication irregularities in the wing, it

?_ appearspredicted
This that predicted performance
performance, however, candoes
be met
not using
include current
items production
that disturb methods•
the flow,
such as exposed rivet heads or sheet metal lap joints.

! GENERAL REMARKS

....
i I The polar and transition predictions resulting from the PROFILE program
_P provided a high correlation with results of both wind tunnel and flight experiments
_ where separation was not predicted or expected to exist. Furthermore, the perform-
ance predicted by PROFILE for an airfoil can be expected to be achieved using cur-
*_._* rent aircraft construction techniques,
i

i_ 2. An operational, user-friendly, computational technique is needed that will

provide more accurate predictions of airfoil lift and drag with separated flow.
i

_ 3. The PROFILE program requires reduced sensitivity to surface waviness, or a

=!_ smoothing routine to reduce waviness should be incorporated to lessen or eliminate
__ the need for hand smoothing of airfoil coordinates.
t_

___ 4. Flight techniques need to be improved• In the past, flight techniques t/%at
_ have been used to measure airfoil characteristics include wake rakes, hot films, '
,: subliming chemicals, and pressure orifices. Although each of these techniques has
_ valid uses, they are of limited application. The serial use of these, plus a few

_i:i other techniques, are required to measure a full set of airfoil characteristics.
%

_! CONCLUDING REMARKS

•_: Drag polars of _ne airfoil section were computed using the PROFILE program for
_i_i an FX 61-163 baseline airfoil and for a similar airfoil flown on a sailplane. Com-
= pared with the results obtained from wind tunnel data on the baseline airfoil, the
:_ computations indicated close correlation with results from wind tunnel experiments
:i'i at moderate and high Reynolds numbers and poor correlation with the results from
" wind tunnel experiments at the I x 10 6 Reynolds number where a probable separation
anomaly existed. Compared with the flight data, the computations were very good for
r_ both the flapped and unflapped cases at low and moderate section lift coefficients
:i but were not as accurate at higher llft coefficients where PROFILE predicted the
beginning of separated flow at the t_ailing edge. Poor correlation was shown to
exist when the airfoil being analyzed was insufficiently smooth. On the other
:! hand, greatly improved correlation resulted from extensive smoothing of the com-
puted flight test airfoil. A certain degree of smoothness is necessary because of
i_ PROFILE's sensitivity to surface waviness, but is not needed for good performance
 i
? on flight airfoils. The performance predicted by PROFILE is easily achieved with
!, existing fabrication technologies.

Ames Research Center

: Drgden Flight Research Facilit9
"" National Aeronautics and Space Administration
!"'__"! Edwards, California, July 27, 1984
= 4'
,, "-

....i_ REFERENCES

: Io Eppler, Richard; and Seiners, Dan M. = A Computer Program for the Design and ,
, Analysis of Low-Speed Airfoils• NASA TM-80210, 1980.

: 2. Somers, Dan M. : A New Natural Laminar Flow Airfoil for General Aviation
! Applications. NASA TP-1861, 1981.

_ 3. Althaus, Dieter: Stuttgarter Profilkatalog I (Stuttgart Airfoil Catalog I).

_ Braunschweig, Wiesbaden- Vieweg, 1981.

_'°_;' 4. Montoya, Lawrence C.; Bikle, Paul F.; and Banner, Richard D.: "Section Drag
,'_ Coefficients from Pressure Probe Traverses of a Wing Wake at Low Speeds,"
,, ';_
_',_ Advanced Technology Airfoil Research, Vol. I• NASA CP-2045, pt. 2, 1979,
_:, pp. 601-622.

_ _,_ 5. Jones, B. Melville: The Measurement of Profile Drag by the Pitot-Traverse

_ I,_ Method. R. & M. No. 1688, British A.R.C., Jan. 1936o

-_<_ 6. Lamar, John E.; and Gloss, Blair B.: Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of
F ":i Interacting Lifting Surfaces With Separated Flow Around Sharp Edges Predicted
l
_ by A Vortex-Lattice Method• NASA TN D-7921, 1975.

-.',! 7. Eppler, R. (Francesca Neffgen, transl.): Laminar Airfoils for Reynolds Numbers
°_i Greater than 4 x 106 . B-819-35, 1969. (Available from NTIS as N69-28178.)

:, 8. Somers, Dan M.: Experimental and Theoretical Low Speed Aerodynamic Character-
,: istics of a Wortmann Airfoil as Manufactured on a Fiberglass Sailplane. NASA
:. TN D-8324, 1977•

9. Schlichting, Herman (J. Kestin, transl. ): Boundary-Layer Theory• McGraw-Hill

_"" Book CO•, 1979•
'_: i: &

o _

o:

tI
 TABLE I, -- COORDINATES OF THE SMOOTHED FLIGHT
AIRFOIL WITH 0 ° FLAP DEFLECTION

x/c (upper) Y/a x/c (lower) y/c

0 0.00243 0 -0.00243
0.00224 0.00882 0,00087 -0.00320
0.00?34 0.01595 0.00519 -0,00806
, 0,01502 0,02355 0,01327 -0.01283
0.02529 0,03156 0,02465 -0.01775
0.03787 0.03975 0,03896 -0,02261
t
0.05265 0,04800 0,05619 -0,02750
0,06951 0.05602 0,07567 -0.03210
0.08851 0,06382 0,09807 -0.03651
0,10964 0,07133 0,12272 -_.04076
0,13217 0.07808 0,14958 -0.04489
0.15663 0.08420 0,17836 -0.04894
0,18308 0,08970 0,20818 -0.05252
0.21115 0.09453 0,23979 -0.05540
0,24027 0,09856 0.27263 -0.05?68
0.27058 0,10164 0.30685 -0,05953
0.33933 0.10506 0.33933 -0.06072
0.37056 0,10495 0,37056 -0,06124
0,40243 0,10388 0,40243 -0,06100
0,43469 0.10188 0.43469 -0,05871
0,46733 0,09888 0,46733 -0.05669
0.49997 0.09515 0.49997 -0.05428
0,53274 0.09045 0,53274 -0.05138
0.56525 0.08516 0.56525 -0,04819
0.59750 0.07939 0,59750 -0.04474
0,62938 0.07311 0,62938 -0,04109
0.66074 0,06692 0.66074 -0,03749
0.69133 0.06075 0.69133 -0,03398
0.72115 0.05472 0.72115 -0.03059
0.74995 0.04884 0.74995 -0.02732

! 0.77773 0.04328 0.77773 -0.02419

:_ 0.80435 0.03791 0.80435 -0.02121
0,82970 0.03279 0.82970 -0.01841
. 0.85350 0.02806 0.85350 -0,01577
0.87590 0.02366 0.87590 -0.01333
0.89664 0.01963 0.89664 -0.01109
0.91571 0,01600 0.91571 -0.00905
0.93299 0,01284 0.93299 -0,00723
0.94848 0.01005 0.94848 -0.00565
0.96192 0.00762 0.96192 -0.00318
0.98291 0,00383 0.98291 -0,00117
1.00000 0.00083 1 _0000 -0.00117

,t
I
t
t

JI 7
I

L ,.9
 Test
- umtlon

p
' i
' T
¢

:' Figure 2. Three view c_ T-6 sall-

";: plane an_ tes{: sect:ton 2oca/:ton. $_n
._,°i"... ,, 24.93 m (49 ft:)j wetgh_ ,, 367 kg
"_ (830 Ib)s are_a - 23.2 m2 (229 ft2)j
_ an_ eese section chor_ - 75.9 c=
_ (29.875 in).

•= ,dv. O T.6 airfoil

°i _ FX61-163
=_v I

't

:_! Flguze 2. ,q _'ompartson of t:he

.,r baseltrJe IPX62-263 alx'_otl and f:he
} T-6 fltghe airfoil with 0e flap
,.
,; dof lecf: lon.

o:
?

___--,,,-,<__-,_..._ - _ ,_._,......... ._.__

)
 - 1.4 -

- 1,0
-- ,8

-- ,Q

cp::;

.e
1.o I ] J f I r ] ] J J

.OS
11¢ 0
:_ -.OS
.10
-.100 .1 .2 .3 .4 .S .e .7 .8 .9 1.0
; xl¢
,r

Figure 5. Pressure coefficLer¢

_ (inviscid) for flight aiz_oLl,
_' G m 4o .

; kx'.atlon
'! -1.o/ P iL\_"-ol'f_ t Wind
_I -.8 I-- ,,_ "'_ "_--Stethe. , tunnel
:'_ r _)_ scope _ test

:. _ --.4

i Cp 0

i! .4
/,
i .6 Wind
' L o u.,,..... Ig_'_,
1.0 _
/ m
-- Protlle --"
la L_L.I_L_L_L_L/_/__L_J
o .1 a .s .4 .s .e .7 .o a _.o
XlO

Figure 6. Transition 2scat:ion

and pressure coeffioien_ com-
parison for FX66-411-182 air-
foil in the wind tunnel at Re

: I._ x 106, o : 0% and C_

" 0.4! low-speed airfoil pro-
. gram at Re : 1,5 x 106 , a m Oo,
; and C_ ,, 0.368.

_o

- _" ............... 1985004560 TSAI:

,_ 11
Z"

Re x 10-6

_ 1.3 Flight 0 1.0

• "fi --<>-- 2.0 <> 2.0 Computed
• _
:-:;f --0-
_ 1.0
&O ;
1 _ Re x3.0
10-61
....i --- 1.0 _ --- 1.0 ] Wind '
;i
..... -- --- 2.0
3.0 _ tunnel
Wind -- --
.... 2.0
3.0 I tunnel
;i
'i 1.6 -- 1.5 --

_, ,;, _' //_°1

/
.S // _o,,

o _X I I o _X, I I
.oo .010 .01$ .OOS .010 .0115
Cd Cd
Figure 9. A comparison of Figure 20. A comparison of
flight data (ref. 4) wlth 6 ° computed and wind t._nel data .
flap deflection and the base- (ref. 3) for the baseline air-
line wind tunnel data (ref, 3), foil.

l
 Re x 10 -0
0 1.0 Re x 10-0
Q 1.3 0 1.0
0 2.0 13 1.3
3.0 0 2.0
,+ Solid symbols A 3.0
• ' represent flight Solid symbols
• 1.5 -- represent flight
i ,: 1.S --

oX:
_. 1.0 - 1.0 - ) 0

:i_. cr &Coo- .,__

l_ .5 QO

_'
; .005 .010 .01S .OOS .010 .015
Cd Cd
,+
:. Figure ]1. A comparison of Figure 12. A comparison of
computed and flight data (ref. uomputed and flight data (ref.
• , 4) for the flight airfoil with 4) for the flight airfoil with
0 ° flap deflection° 6° flap deflection.

13

.+ ,? ,: " u. _u