Abstract

Ensuring the aerodynamic capability of an aircraft, and particularly the aerofoil is a critical
element in the design process, it can prove pivotal in a whole project and ultimately decide if
it is a success or failure. To assist with this there are a few options to select from, each
providing results in a different manner, and each requiring their own input and setup. This
paper will detail some of the engineering tools which can help analyse an aircraft and its
aerodynamic capability, providing a brief outline of what each tool has to offer, and how they
assist in the analysis. A more detailed look at one option will demonstrate the advantages
and disadvantages, highlighting considerations needed when selecting the specific method
for use, reminding us that there are always different matters to consider as not one option
suits every situation.
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Table of Contents

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................1
Table of Figures.....................................................................................................................................2
Methods of Evaluation..........................................................................................................................3
CFD Advantages & Disadvantages.........................................................................................................7
CFD Analysis of Aerofoil.........................................................................................................................9
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................14
References...........................................................................................................................................15

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Open circuit tunnel (Tze, 2005)...............................................................................................3

Figure 2. Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel (Calautit, 2014)...........................................................................4
Figure 3. Example of CFD to assist an Aerofoil shape (Fatahian, Salarian, Nimvari and Khaleghinia,
2020).....................................................................................................................................................5
Figure 4. Wing at 5 Degrees, CFD showing Pressure and Velocity (Roberts, 2014).............................10
Figure 5. Velocity Over Wing at 10 Degrees (Roberts, 2014)...............................................................11
Figure 6. Pressure and Velocity With Wing at 15 Degrees (Roberts, 2014).........................................12

1
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Methods of Evaluation

Since the first construction in 1871, wind tunnels have played a dominant role in assisting
with the measurement of lift and drag properties of aircraft design, while ensuring its stability
and controllability (Baals and Corliss, 1981). There is not simply one wind tunnel though,
they come in a variety of designs, shapes, and sizes, capable of operating and testing at
different speeds and functions, each one having its own advantages and disadvantages. On
a basic level there are two types of wind tunnels design, the Open Circuit, and the Closed
Circuit.

The open circuit tunnel, also referred to as the Eiffel tunnel after the French engineer,
Gustave Eiffel, utilises air from the environment in which the tunnel sits, drawing the air in,
passing through the test section, and then expelling through the exhaust. The open circuit is
the simplest and lowest cost of tunnel in respect of manufacturing, however, as the air must
be continuously drawn in from the environment, the fan is running infinitely and creates a
higher running cost. The open circuit tunnel can come with an open or closed test section,
and the sizes can vary from a small lab size tunnel to a large tunnel capable of hosting a car
or train.

Figure 1. Open circuit tunnel (Tze, 2005)

The closed circuit tunnel, also referred to as the Prandtl tunnel after the German engineer,
Ludwig Prandtl, has a continual circulation of air, an enclosed loop in which exhaust flow is
directly returned to the tunnel inlet (Singh et al., 2013). These tunnels are a more expensive
option, requiring more complex design elements as guide vanes, and circular to rectangular
tubing must be incorporated to control air flow, they are generally greater in size, they can be
of size to allow an aircraft to be tested on full scale representation. They provide a superior
flow quality in respect to the air passing through the test section, this is because there is
greater control of the airflow throughout the tunnel. Closed circuit tunnels operate at a lower
running cost, this is a result of less power being required to generate low speed flow.

2
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Figure 2. Closed Circuit Wind Tunnel (Calautit, 2014)

Wind tunnels can be further classified into categories based on the flow speed achievable.
These are, Low Speed or Subsonic, the most common type of tunnel, testing at Mach 0.4
and below, a higher subsonic tunnel will operate up to Mach 0.75. A Transonic tunnel is
highly common in the aviation world as this is the speed at which commercial aircraft
operate, Mach 0.75 – 1.2 is a general figure of operation and flow test speed in these
tunnels. Supersonic tunnels provide greater assistance in the testing of jet engines and
military fighter aircraft, as this is the range of speeds to which they are more accustomed,
with a speed of Mach 1.2 up to Mach 5. Hypersonic wind tunnels operate at greater than
Mach 5, these are used in the testing rockets and space vehicles.

An issue with wind tunnels is the physical size and scale of the tunnel in comparison to the
reality of the item under test, example being an aircraft aerofoil, testing of an aerofoil shape
in a laboratory wind tunnel can have errors compared to a full-size aerofoil on a fuselage in
free air. A wind tunnel is an enclosed structure, it therefore has walls encapsulating the
flowing air, these walls create drag and boundary layers hindering the flow, furthermore if the
walls are too close to the test object, they can create pressure differences acting on the test
object. These are qualities that would not occur in free air as an aircraft was flying, the air
displaced by the moving aircraft has no perimeter to its displacement. By placing an item in a
test section of a wind tunnel, due to the fixed walls, and the now smaller area for air to flow,
a higher speed can occur over the model than indicated, this is the blockage effect, another
issue with wind tunnel testing. Another factor to consider when using a scale test is the
Reynolds Number, this plays a key factor in ensuring similarity is maintained, the Reynolds
number is defined as the ratio of inertial forces and viscous forces, and consequently
quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for a given set of flow
conditions (Rott, 1990). It helps give clarity to when laminar flow becomes turbulent flow, a
critical aspect of aircraft aerodynamics and design, incorrect calculation can result in a
completely different resultant of reality to what was demonstrated at the wind tunnel test.
This scaling law involves the relationship between wind speed, spatial scale, and viscosity, it
allows for realistic laboratory simulation (Satoru, 2011).

3
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has progressed significantly over the past few
decades, with the advances in computers and their computational power, it allows fluid flow
analysis using numerical solution methods and algorithms. In relation to aircraft design and
evaluation this allows designers and engineers to visualize airflow over the aircraft, in
particular the aerofoil, demonstrating the most efficient lift and drag shape and scenarios,
providing fine details on pressures and velocities acting on and over the aerofoil.

Figure 3. Example of CFD to assist an Aerofoil shape (Fatahian, Salarian, Nimvari and Khaleghinia, 2020)

CFD allows for effective analysis of an aerodynamic design at the design stage, long before
production is even a thought, this allows for amendments to be carried out immediately. The
instantaneous allowance of design review through CFD analysis provides opportunity to
scrutinise, manipulate and implement any modifications with instant results displayed. There
are a multitude of CFD software packages commercially available, it is essential that the
correct software is used for the aircraft aerodynamic design specifications required. The
quality of the input and thus the output is as restricted or open as the user allows, the
education and knowledge of the individual sat at the computer, providing the collated data,
and then analysing the results, can prove pivotal in fully understanding CFD, and the results
displayed. All CFD software contains three main elements, a Pre-Processor for inputting the
problem geometry, generating the grid, and defining the flow parameter and boundary
conditions. A Flow Solver to solve the governing equations of the given parameter and
conditions provided, four methods act as a flow solver, these are Finite Difference method,
Finite Element method, Finite Volume method and Spectral method. Finally, a Post-
Processor is then used to display the data and resultant in graphical form (Ashgriz and
Mostaghimi, 2002).

CFD can incur an initial higher expense, due to the variety of design variables required to
produce the optimal simulation, the database of forces and moments coupled with flow
conditions throughout a flight envelope provide an infinite calculation. However, the reduced
turn time in applying adjustments, performing tests, and carrying out analysis can create a
money saving situation in the longer run of the aircraft design process.

4
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Instrumented Flight Testing is the real, live testing of the physical subject in question, fitted
with onboard sensors to send analytic data to engineers for analysis. This is the first
opportunity human and machine interface can occur, all the designing and preparation can
only provide an educated presumption of what will happen, while the advancement of
forementioned wind tunnels and CFD can provide extremely accurate results, they are still
estimations. A flight test will put this into reality with definitive answers, operating in the
varying atmospheric conditions, with weather alterations and pressure fluctuations.
Therefore, the flight test delivers a greater, true representation, it is the first opportunity to
perform manoeuvres about the three axis of direction, pushing the limits and boundaries to
truly test the capability of the aerodynamic performance adequately. Flight testing does also
allow for the testing of power plants and system data (Kimberlin, 2003) and how the aircraft
performs in its entirety, not just aerodynamically. To monitor the airframe and how the
structure performs, accelerometers are strategically placed around the fuselage, providing
data on the pressure induced under flight conditions. Unlike wind tunnels and CFD there is
no physical view of airflow over the fuselage or aerofoil, there is also no opportunity to
scrutinise the model up close, as it is operating at altitude, a shadow flight with high quality
cameras would be required to visually observe the flight. This can add to the costing of flight
testing, an already expensive evaluation option, as a flight test has multiple pre-
requirements, planning, tests, and safety standards to be met, then the cost of the aircraft
having already gone through design and manufacture. Any error discovered in the planning
stage or early in the flight test could prove extortionate and time critical or even catastrophic
to the whole development process.

Test flights can be more difficult to arrange and perform, there are higher risk factors to be
accounted for prior to implementation. Before a flight test can occur, a detailed plan is
required, specifying the flight parameters with altitude, airspeed, flight envelope and
manoeuvres to be performed (Tucker, Hutto and Dagli, 2010), the ability of the aircraft to
carry this out will have been established through an intensive design phase. The potential for
error is high in respect to an already established aircraft, as the flight test would be the first
airborne situation, and the prospect of uncertainty will be present, at this stage it is hopeful
all design and engineering elements have been calculated correctly. These factors
contribute to the safety risk that is incurred with a flight test, which is a great risk when
compared to the previous mentioned wind tunnels and CFD options. The rewards of a
successful flight test can out way that of the wind tunnel and CFD, as it is the final assurance
of success, if the aerodynamic assessment is accepted that is.

5
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

CFD Advantages & Disadvantages

Using a CFD software for the evaluation of aerodynamic performance brings with it multiple
advantages and disadvantages, when compared to not only other options of evaluation, but
also general characteristics within the design and build process of aircraft.

The initial setup of a CFD facility can prove costly, when considering the computer platform
to be used, it must be powerful enough to run the software at a high specification and speed,
as well as running other programs alongside. For example, an Auto-Cad programme can
often be sat next to the CFD programme, as they couple together in the design element of
the process, there have been advancements in the merge between CAD and CFD operating
simultaneously in the same programme. The CFD software itself can prove to be a higher-
than-expected incurred cost at initial outlay, especially if using a forementioned combined
CFD within CAD, there are a multitude of options out there available for selection, each one
having its own unique elements as well as the more common options provided by all. Some
programmes are sold on an annual rental fee rather than purchase cost, with the need to
renew the licence at a cost, another factor to be considered. The in-depth quality and
available options vary and will dictate the software package which is needed by any
organization for the given task and evaluation, this will also dictate the cost, as the greater
the package the greater the expense. However, over time of owning or renting, and utilising
a CFD software will show a return on the expensive outlay and then more, the cost saving
factor of analysing designs at the click of a button, having the ability to slightly amend and
re-assess in moments will become invaluable. In any other analysis option, the highlight of
an aerodynamic error would result in a redesign, with a complete rebuild, then a new
analysis, this would prove time consuming and costly. With a CFD, the design could be
amended, through the alternate software, Auto-Cad, and then instantly analysed, again at
the click of a button, without the need for physical build and practical setup. The time
reduction on a single project could be pivotal to production rates and beating competition,
and over several projects it again would be invaluable, the only limit would be the operator’s
ability to work at a fast pace and input data correctly. This then highlights the next potential
issue, having an operator capable of detailing, inputting, and analysing the data. Weinhold,
2010, demonstrates how the advancements of CFD have allowed Engineers to be the
operators, taking away the requirement for a specialist. This provides several advantages,
opening the opportunity for more personnel to be CFD compliant, saving on the cost of
wages, and taking away an indispensable role within the organization. There would still be a
requirement to provide training to staff, unlikely to be an in-house option, utilising an external
agency will hike up costs yet again.

Utilising a computation analysis can prove to be a disadvantage, relying on the results from
the data, and even the correct data is provided without fault to the CFD, leaves room for
error. Having no physical test and evaluation places a great amount of trust and dependency
on the CFD, this can prove disastrous if an error is not detected with respect to the details
that are given to the programme. Whilst the thought of multiple tests and checks been
carried out would highlight such errors, a situation could be presented where the error
continues to slip through and only becomes apparent at the build stage of a process. This
would then provide time and cost penalties that would be compounded by the need to find
the error, basically the programme is only as good as the details it is provided, it has no flags

6
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

or voice to speak up and forewarn. To flip this scenario around can provide an advantage of
CFD, observing an error in the analysis due to an input flaw can be very quickly recoverable.
If the data provided is found to be foul and corrected accordingly, it can be moments and
another analysis is performed, again saving on time costs and rebuild of any models
produced, when compared to say a wind tunnel test, this is priceless.

Analysing a CFD can provide very detailed results, pinpointing exact points of pressure over
an aerofoil or fuselage, allowing the engineers to scrutinise the capability of any design to
the highest degree. This is a feature that cannot be replicated in a wind tunnel, as pressure
is not measured in that respect, a flight test would also not provide such details, even if an
accelerometer was placed at every square inch of the aircraft. This gives the use of CFD
over other testing options a great advantage. To ascertain such detail though, a fine grid is
required in the setup of the simulation, this can become difficult to produce, timely and thus
costly, the skill level required to achieve such a set up rises along with the requirement. The
setup of a CFD can become complicated if the boundary walls of which the simulation sits
are not calculated correctly or built correctly in the programme. The simulation could become
affected by the surrounding wall if it is too close, incurring false readings due to resistive
factors been present and impeding the true airflow over the design been analysed, the word
true is used loosely as obviously it is a computer simulation of airflow. That been said the
airflow still must be protected from influencing factors while the simulation is running, an
untrained individual would undoubtedly fail to see the false results and perceive the results
to be true and fair. A dangerous situation to be into any design process wanting to progress
to the next stage.

As CFD is a computer run simulation, the requirement to build a facility in which the testing
can take place, is not necessary, merely a desk and computer could suffice. A wind tunnel
on the other hand can be large and costly to build, as well as extremely noisy when testing is
in full flow, all elements CFD opposes. To perform an instrument flight test, a runway is
required, again large, costly to build and noisy, this provides greater advantages to CFD
once more. If a study into the overheads of maintenance and running costs were carried out,
it would be obvious which option would triumph, CFD would prove to be significantly more
financially viable.

The details given above are not exhaustive of the pros and cons that surround the use of
CFD, however a common theme continues to appear, that is the cost saving. Even as time is
reduced, this in turn reduces cost again, if errors are detected from the analysis, the ability to
amend and re-test reduces cost. The common factor as a disadvantage appears to be the
operator inputting the data and carrying out the analysis, having the correct training and skill
set to carry out the tasks.

7
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

CFD Analysis of Aerofoil

At Zero degrees a representation of the aerofoil and its shape is displayed, that meaning no
angle is altering the results. This demonstrates that even though the aerofoil may seem
symmetrical, it is not, the upper surface has more of a camber than the lower surface. While
never officially stated, Bernoulli’s Theorem becomes a dominant factor in the design shape
of an aerofoil, that is to increase speed over the upper surface of a wing and decrease static
pressure, this is achieved by developing a similar shape to that of a converging venturi. At
the maximum thickness on the upper camber, the pressure is at the lowest while the velocity
is at the fastest, both readings are also of greater area than that of the lower surface. The
aerofoil at this point would be capable of producing lift, due to it been asymmetric.

5 degrees shows a greater differential beginning to occur between the upper and lower
surfaces, in respect to both pressure and velocity. The pressure on the upper surface has
moved forward slightly from the maximum thickness, the probe at the rear of the aerofoil
highlights this, as the value decreases from 2.468530 to -4.788913. The pressure on the
upper surface has also decreased in value at its peak position, this is due to the velocity
increasing at the same point. The lower surface at this angle appears to display no pressure
or velocity “bubble”, this would suggest the relative airflow is streamlined, or more accurately
Laminar Flow. Laminar Flow is when airflow over a surface occurs without a shearing action
happening between the layers of airflow (Strike, 2011). No pressure differential is apparent
in respect to the surrounding atmosphere, however there is still a pressure differential in
respect to the upper surface of the aerofoil. The average probe value has increased because
there is more pressure present across the upper surface due to the angle of attack been
increased, this is still referred to as low pressure, but it is an increase across the entire
surface, the velocity has increased as would be expected. The transition point starts to
become visible on the upper surface at 5 degrees, the transition point is when the laminar
flow becomes turbulent flow, the slight gap between the rear of the aerofoil and the red
“bubble” would indicate this, especially as the velocity reduces at this point, indicating
turbulent flow is present. Turbulent flow is airflow over a body that has separated and
become re-circulating flow.

8
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Figure 4. Wing at 5 Degrees, CFD showing Pressure and Velocity (Roberts, 2014)

10 degrees begins to display a significant increase in lower surface high pressure, acting at
the point where the relative airflow contacts the aerofoil, this is caused by the airflow velocity
striking the surface and slowing down greatly. The upper surface shows how the pressure
has yet again decreased in value, this decrease in value again comes from the increase in
velocity of air at the same point. The centre of pressure has moved closer to the leading
edge of the aerofoil with the increase of angle of attack, creating greater lift and drag. The
increased drag is a resultant of the transition point moving closer towards the leading edge

9
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

of the aerofoil, this creates a more forward separation point, the separation point is when the
boundary layer separates from the body it is flowing over, giving greater turbulent air acting
over the trailing upper surface of the wing, this then increases the form drag, thus increasing
total drag. This is evident in the velocity image again, as the separation is visible coming
away from the wing, with the velocity decreasing sharply after, this is the turbulent flow and a
recirculating air. Backed up by the increase in pressure at the same point, to almost equal
that pressure on the lower side of the wing.

Figure 5. Velocity Over Wing at 10 Degrees (Roberts, 2014)

15 degrees demonstrates what occurs when too much of an angle of attack is applied, the
low pressure on the upper surface has almost doubled the value given at 10 degrees, this is
occurring at a point way forward of the maximum thickness of the aerofoil. While the
pressure on the lower surface of the wing is at its greatest, indicating the airflow at this point
is minimal, almost negligible, a quick review of the velocity indications assures this, 3 m/s is
displayed. The separation point at this angle is also forward of the maximum thickness,
meaning the airflow over most of the wing is recirculating air, this will all but destroy the lift
over the wing and dramatically increase the drag. Looking at the velocity image, it is visible
that the flow towards the rear of the aerofoil is extremely slow, under 10 m/s, this is coupled
with a rapid increase in pressure at the same point. The size of the “bubble” representing
pressure over the aerofoil is at its greatest through all the degrees of test, this demonstrates
the increase in pressure over a greater area, again this is due to the huge reduction in
velocity of the airflow over the upper surface. At 15 degrees the upper surface low pressure
is at its maximum, or minimum value numerically, meaning any further

10
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

inclination would put the aerofoil in to a stall scenario, the probe at indicates a stall is not yet
present. If a stall situation had occurred the pressure at that point would rise in numerical
value and the velocity would reduce, as the airflow would be recirculating flow.

Figure 6. Pressure and Velocity with Wing at 15 Degrees (Roberts, 2014)

11
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

The results of the wing at different degrees gives a representation of how the pressure and
velocity act, at points on the surface and its surrounding area, demonstrating how lift is
achieved through creating a low-pressure upper surface and high-pressure lower surface.
However, it can be difficult to pinpoint precise locations, due to the size and quality of image.
Having a larger, clearer image could improve the identification of such things as the
separation and transition points, definitive occurrences in the airflow over a wing. Producing
a larger subject or decreasing the surrounding area, could cause errors due to scale
representation, as even in a CFD simulation, the surrounding box can cause flow concerns.
Having the ability to manoeuvre the probe throughout various positions of the wing whilst the
simulation is running would aid in providing greater clarity, assessing pressure and velocity
at more particular points could add to education and understanding of what is happening.

12
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Conclusion

Each method detailed for evaluating the aerodynamic performance of an aircraft is proven
and trusted, and these will continue to be used for years to come, this is because there is not
simply a single solution to satisfy all scenarios. Each method delivers a result in a different
manner, and dependant on the analysis requirements, the type of method to be used is
essential, as Engineers need to evaluate particular aspects at varying times. The ideal
situation would be to utilise the forementioned methods in a combined fashion, as the
design, test, and analysis process goes through each stage, it would not be out of place to
assume that this occurs in industry today. Looking at what CFD is and when it is used, it
appears a more design stage analysis, before fabrication and build is granted, giving
reassurance the design concept will function as needed. Once confirmed a model can then
be placed in a wind tunnel for a more, real airflow analysis, as discussed earlier, there a
multitude of wind tunnels options. Depending on the size of the model to be tested, and the
airflow speed needed to simulate what the aircraft will do when operating. The final stage
would then be to carry out a flight test, once all previous testing is complete, and analysis
performed, the aircraft can finally take to the skies and give the necessary feedback.

Having options provides a reassurance that the design process is delivering optimal results,
having the flexibility to perform varied tests, with different assets, at different stages. In an
industry that is continually advancing and looking for improvement, through ever improving
design philosophies, searching for greater efficiency and lower running costs, these
evaluation methods are indispensable. One aspect that seems evident is the digital world
coming to the forefront more and more, as CFD improves with its ability to analyse not only
airflow over objects but can also detail the internal flows and turbulence of mechanical parts
and components. This is analysis way beyond that of a wind tunnel and flight test, and as
computational advancement continues, there is no end to how far CFD can go in delivering
results.

However, the true test is a flight test, it supersedes any predicted or educated estimations as
to what is going to occur through flight, it grants reassurance that the design works. The
complicated factor with flight testing is obtaining the results required, and whilst
accelerometers are advancing, giving engineers the data they desire, this is still a
problematic area. With flight testing, unlike wind tunnels, there is no issue with airflow
becoming effected by surrounding structures, creating drag and resistance, this is also an
issue present with CFD.

There could be a continual discussion as to which method of performance triumphs above all
others, highlighting the good and bad in each. Industry experts and users will have preferred
options, but these are suited to their particular field of analysis, so are not claiming victory
over the other methods, merely better fit for use at the given time and testing. The truth is
the methods detailed in this paper, sit along side each other as a prominent analysis option
for aerodynamic evaluation, each with advantages over the other, and each with its own
flaws. Yet each utilised continually in today’s world by multiple manufacturers and designers.

13
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

References

Ashgriz, N. and Mostaghimi, J. (2002a) 'An introduction to computational fluid dynamics', Fluid

flow handbook, 1, pp. 1-49.
Ashgriz, N. and Mostaghimi, J. (2002b) 'An introduction to computational fluid dynamics', Fluid
flow handbook, 1, pp. 1-49.
Baals, D. and Corliss, W. (1981) Wind Tunnels of NASA. Washington, D.C: NASA.
Blok, M. (2020) What is CFD? Computational Fluid Dynamics explained. Available
at: https://heinenhopman.com/en/about-us/blogs/20201113-what-is-cfd-computational-fluid-
dynamics-explained/ (Accessed: Dec 8, 2021).
Calautit, J. (2014) 'Integration and application of passive cooling within a wind tower for hot
climates', .
Da Ronch, A., Ghoreyshi, M. and Badcock, K.J. (2011) 'On the generation of flight dynamics
aerodynamic tables by computational fluid dynamics', Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 47(8),
pp. 597-620. doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.09.001.
Fatahian, H., Salarian, H., Nimvari, M.E. and Khaleghinia, J. (2020) 'Computational fluid
dynamics simulation of aerodynamic performance and flow separation by single element and
slatted airfoils under rainfall conditions', Applied Mathematical Modelling, 83, pp. 683-702.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2020.01.060.
Gebbink, R., Wang, G. and Zhong, M. (2018) 'High-speed wind tunnel test of the CAE
aerodynamic validation model', Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 31(3), pp. 439-447. doi:
10.1016/j.cja.2018.01.010.
Grant, S.E. and Tucker, H. (2018) 'Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling of
atmospheric dispersion for land-use planning around major hazards sites in Great
Britain', Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, , pp. 340-345.
HUA, J., ZHENG, S., ZHONG, M., WANG, G., EITELBERG, G., HEGEN, S. and GEBBINK, R.
(2018) 'Recent development of a CFD-wind tunnel correlation study based on CAE-AVM
investigation', Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 31(3), pp. 419-428.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.01.017.
Kimberlin, R. (2003) Flight Testing of Fixed Wing Aircraft. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics INC.
Okamoto, S. (2011) Wind Tunnels. InTech.
Roberts, D. 2014, Wing Analysis for Aerodynamic Assignment (unpublished).
Rott, N. (1990) 'Note on the History of the Reynolds Number', Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, 22(1), pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1146/annurev.fl.22.010190.000245.
Singh, M., Singh, N. and Yadav, S.K. (2013) 'Review of Design and Construction of an Open
Circuit Low
Speed Wind Tunnel', Global Journal of Researches in Engineering Mechanical and Mechanics
Engineering, (5).
Strike, C. (2011) Basic Aerodynamics. Cardiff & Vale College International Centre for Aerospace
Training.
Tucker, A.A., Hutto, G.T. and Dagli, C.H. (2010) 'Application of design of experiments to flight
test: a case study', Journal of Aircraft, 47(2), pp. 458-463.

14
MECH50686 Aerodynamics 20024962

Weinhold, I. (2010) 5 Myths of CFD. Available at: https://www.designworldonline.com/5-myths-

of-cfd/ (Accessed: Jan 5, 2022).
Y. Gu, B. Seanor, G. Campa, M. R. Napolitano, L. Rowe, S. Gururajan and S. Wan
(2006) Design and Flight Testing Evaluation of Formation Control Laws.

15