Development of High-Lift, Mild-Stall Low Reynolds Number Airfoils

Alexander Nagel, Yonatan Klein and Misha Shepshelovich Engineering Center, Israel Aerospace Industries

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Development of High-Lift, Low Reynolds Numbers Airfoils

Motivation
development of Mini and light tactical UAV is a reason for renewed interest in aerodynamics of low Reynolds number airfoils high-lift wings sections are especially advantageous for this development because of their potential to reduce the size of air vehicles, improve their endurance performance, enhance take-off and landing characteristics and ensure the flight at very low airspeeds the major difficulty associated with design of high-lift, low Reynolds number airfoils is attributed to formation of laminar separation bubble, its burst at high lift coefficients and development of unacceptable abrupt stall pattern until appropriate solution is found for the treatment of this problem, high-lift, low Reynolds number airfoils are of a limited value for development of small UAV operating at domain of low airspeeds

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Mini Truck High-Lift Mini UAV/airfoil MTD-120M

W=3kg, span=1.2m, CLmax~2.3

flight testing stage - implementation of two-element, low Reynolds number airfoils

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Mini Truck wing section - airfoil MTD-120M

mission adaptive geometry, (t/c)max=11%
cruise, loitering flight - flap= 0 deg

landing - flap= +15 deg

V max- flap= -10 deg

aileron - flap= 15 deg

airbrake - flap= +75 deg

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Smooth airfoil MTD-120M - TAU WT test Abrupt stall pattern, Re=200K, flap=0
test-theory comparison
2. 5 Cl 2. 0 2 .0 2 .5

hysteresis test
Cl D
1 .5

design point

1. 5

B
1. 0

burst of laminar separation bubble

MSES code WT test

1 .0

C
0 .5

0. 5

0 .0 20 -5 0 5 10 15 20

0. 0 -5 5 0 5 10 15

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Smooth airfoil MTD-120, Re=200K, =0 flap

hysteresis test the burst of laminar separation bubble
-6.0 Cp -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0
0.0 -4.0 Cp

steep adverse pressure gradient

point
14 15

-3.0

point
10 8

A B
-2.0

C D

laminar separation the burst of laminar bubble

-1.0

0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1.0

x/c 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x/c 1.0

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Smooth airfoil MTD-120M - TAU WT test Abrupt stall pattern, Re=120K, flap=0
test-theory comparison
2.0

the burst of laminar bubble

-4.0 Cp

Cl

-3.0

10 12

1.5

-2.0

1.0

burst of laminar separation bubble MSES code WT test

-1.0

0.0

0.5 -5 0 5 10

15

1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

x/c 1.0

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Smooth airfoil MTD-120, Re=120K

formation of laminar separation bubble at low Reynolds numbers
laminar - turbulent transition

TAU WT test Cl=1.6

-3.0 Cp

laminar separation bubble steep adverse pressure gradient

separation of laminar boundary layer

reattachment of turbulent boundary layer

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

laminar separation bubble

1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

x/c 1.0

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Laminar separation bubble

formation of laminar separation bubble is a dominant physical phenomena in aerodynamics of low Reynolds number airfoils aerodynamic characteristics of low Reynolds number airfoils are dependent on formation, location and size of laminar separation bubble the burst of laminar bubble produces unacceptable abrupt stall characteristics, followed by development of hysteresis phenomena at low Reynolds numbers, transition control technique (rough surface) is mandatory for control of the size of laminar bubble intensive WT testing is required for evaluation of aerodynamic characteristics of low Reynolds number airfoils and for substantiation of transition control in the wide range of lift coefficients
9 International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

New Generation of High-Lift, Mild Stall UAV wings with stall, post stall flight capabilities
MS-SA wing - US and Israel Patent Applications SA-MS wing - US and Israel Patent Applications

advanced wing concepts lift characteristics

3.0

Advantages of mild-stall wings:

flight safety considerations elimination of speed safety margin extension of usable lift up to CLmax

CL
2.5

SA-MS wing

flight proven
2.0

flight at stall airspeeds improved take-off/landing landing at stall option

1.5

MS-SA wing

improved endurance increased glide angles reduced sensitivity to contamination

25

1.0 0 5 10 15 20

10

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Geometry of prototype SA-MS airfoil versus conventional two-element wing section

high-lift, mild stall SA-MS airfoil
MS-ramp

conventional two-element airfoil

main body / upper surface - distribution of local radius

1/rlocal

11

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

High-Lift, Mild-Stall SA-MS airfoil

mission adaptive geometry, (t/c)max=18%
cruise, loitering, flap = 0

high-lift flight, flap = +20

decambering, flap = -10

aileron

ail -20 +20

airbrake, flap = +75

12

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

High-Lift, Mild-Stall SA-MS airfoil

TAU WT test, smooth airfoil
Re=500K
2.5

Re=300K
2.5

Cl

Cl

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

flap (deg)
1.0 0 10 0.5
0.5 1.0

flap (deg)
0 10

0.0 -5 0 5 10 15 20

0.0

25
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

13

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

SA-MS airfoil - pressure distributions

TAU WT test, clean airfoil, Re=300K, flap=0
-5.0

Cp

=14, Cl=2.26
start of flow separation on MS-ramp

-5.0

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0

-6.0

Cp

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0

=18, Cl=2.34
development of separation region on MS-ramp

x/c

1.0
-6.0

x/c

Cp

-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0

=22, Cl=2.28
fully separated MS-ramp

Cp

-5.0 -4.0

=25, Cl=2.09
flow separation upstream of MS-ramp

trailing edge separation

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0

x/c

1.0

x/c

14

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

SA-MS airfoil - elimination of speed safety margin

lift curves, Re=1M, MSES
airfoil SA/MS-18/1.0, flap 25%C
4.0

Cl
usable lift 1.2Vstall

-15 +20

3.5 3.0 2.5

airfoil DSA, flap 40%C

rigid connection

2.0

DSA
1.5

fl = +40

SA-MS fl = +20

-10

1.0 0.5 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

20

+40

15

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Development of high-lift, mild-stall low Reynolds number airfoils Combination of MS-ramp concept and transition control methodology
Technical objectives:
delay of the burst of laminar bubble elimination of hysteresis phenomena elimination of speed safety margin extension of usable lift up to CLmax safety considerations at low airspeeds

Technical activities:
SA-MS airfoil - WT test at low Reynolds numbers application of transition control methodology

16

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

SA-MS airfoil - transition control effect

TAU WT test, flap=0
clean airfoil
2.5

roughness effect - Re=150K

2.5

Cl
2.0

Cl
2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0 Re (K)

0.5

200 150

0.5

clean rough

0.0
20 25

0.0 -5 0 5 10 15

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25

17

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Smooth SA-MS airfoil - abrupt stall pattern

TAU WT test, Re=200K
Cp
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5

= 14, Cl = 2.16

-5.0 Cp -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0

= 18, Cl = 2.23

x/c

1.0 -5.0 Cp -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

0.0

0.5

x/c

1.0

-5.0 Cp
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

= 20, Cl = 2.26

= 21

0.5

x/c

0.0

0.5

x/c

1.0

18

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Rough SA-MS airfoil - pressure distributions

TAU WT test, Re=150K
-3 Cp

-4

= 9, Cl = 1.79
-3

Cp

= 12, Cl = 2.00

-2

roughness strips
-2
-1

-1
0

1 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 x/c 1.0
-5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x/c 1.0

= 16, Cl = 2.15
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0.0 0.2

= 18, Cl = 2.15
development of separation region on MS-ramp

flow separation on MS-ramp

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

19

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Rough SA-MS airfoil - pressure distributions

TAU WT test, Re=150K
-5 -4 -3
-5

= 20, Cl = 2.15
roughness strips

= 23, Cl = 2.10 ,
-4 -3

fully separated MS-ramp

-2 -1 0 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
-2 -1 0 1 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4

flow separation upstream of MS-ramp

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

-5

-5

= 24 , Cl = 1.91
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

= 25
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

flow separation upstream of MS-ramp

20

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

SA-MS airfoil - roughness effect

TAU WT test, Re=150K, flap=0
formation of large bubble
-3 Cp
-4 Cp

the burst of laminar bubble

=12
roughness - main body clean rough

=9
-3

-2
-2

-1

roughness - main body clean rough

-1

1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 x/c 1.0

1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 x/c 1.0

21

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Rough SA-MS airfoil at low Reynolds numbers

TAU WT test, flap=0
lift curves at low Re numbers
2.5 -5

location of laminar bubble, Re=150K

Cl
2.0 -4 1.5 -3 1.0
Re (K)

= 20 = 23 = 24

laminar bubble close to 2nd strip

150 120 0.5 100 80 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 -2

-1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

22

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Rough SA-MS airfoil - pressure distributions

TAU WT test, Re=120K, flap=0
-5 Cp -4 -3

Cl = 2.15 , = 21

-5 Cp -4 -3

22 23

roughness strips
-2 -1 0 x/c 1 0.0 -5 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 0.0 -5 Cp 0.2 0.4 0.6 -2 -1 0

x/c 0.8 1.0

Cl = 2.15 , = 20

Cl = 2.11 , = 22

-4

-4

-3

-3

-2

-2

-1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

x/c

x/c -1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.4

23

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Rough SA-MS airfoil - pressure distributions

TAU WT test, Re=100K, flap=0
-4 Cp -3

Cl = 1.99 =16

-5 Cp -4 -3

Cl = 1.99 , = 18

-2

roughness strips
-2

-1

-1
0 x/c 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0 x/c 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-5 Cp -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Cl = 1.96 , = 19

-5 Cp -4 -3 -2 -1 0
x/c

= 20

x/c 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

24

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Mini Truck - wing options / rough airfoils, flap= 0

airfoil MTD-120 SA-MS airfoil

lift curves - Re=120K

2.5 2.5

lift curves - Re=150K

Cl
2.0

Cl
2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

SA-MS airfoil
0.5

burst of laminar separation bubble

0.5

MTD-120 airfoil

0.0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0.0 -5 0 5 10 15 20

25

25

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India

Conclusions
combination of MS-ramp and transition control provides acceptable high-lift characteristics at the studied range of low Reynolds numbers the burst of laminar separation bubble and development of hysteresis phenomena were delayed to high post-stall angles of attack for SA-MS wing, the speed safety margin may be eliminated, allowing extension of usable lift up to the maximum lift the concept allows safe operation of UAV at post-stall angles of attack for continuation effort, the thickness of the airfoil should be adjusted to the values that are typical for low Reynolds numbers applications

26

International Conference ICAUV-2009, Bangalore, India