Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013

Wings for UAV Based on High-Lift Airfoils

Dr. Nagel A., Aerodynamic Research Engineer, IAI, Israel, anagel@iai.co.il

Abstract
Wing design for tactical UAV applications requires a special approach which is different from man-operated airplanes. The maximum lift is a primary factor to achieve high endurance factor values and short take-off and landing distances. The permanent design problem for UAV wings design is engineering compromise between achieving maximum lift, reducing drag penalty for high speed flight and providing flight envelope capabilities from low-lift maximum speed flight up to stall lift levels. Speed safety margins and acceptable stall characteristics have too to be taken in attention. The relatively small UAV size and low level of flight speed which correspond with low Reynolds numbers bring specific design difficulties. While classic thin single-element airfoils lift increment is limited, the high-lift potential is based on multi-element airfoils, in particular two-element. The special feature of two-element airfoils is extremely low local Reynolds numbers on second element (flap section) providing danger of flow separation, especially for deflected flap. The rear part of main element must provide enough length for flow recovery after laminar-turbulent transition, hence limiting airfoil laminar capabilities. The engineering optimum in low Reynolds numbers airfoil design is search of compromise between the above mentioned parameters. The different approaches of two-element airfoil design are presented the airfoils with permanently opened slot and airfoils with retracted flap were designed and experimentally tested. Advantages and drawbacks of proposed two-element design concepts are analyzed. The computational methods and comparison with experimental wind tunnel results are performed for both design concepts. The present paper not only addresses airfoil design, but also the complex 3-D high-lift wings design development potential for low Reynolds number application. The attempt to analyze complex wing that combine two different two-element airfoil concepts is presented. UAV configurations employing high-lift low Reynolds wings are presented to demonstrate high-lift flight concept advantages. The presentation partially includes the results of joint ADE-IAI project "High Lift Wing Design Technology".

Key Words: airfoil, wing, UAV, aerodynamics

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013 2.Nomenclature
Cl CL Cd CD flap Re AR NLF IAI ADE UAV WT airfoil lift coefficient aircraft lift coefficient airfoil drag coefficient aircraft drag coefficient angle of attack flap deflection Reynolds number aspect ratio natural laminar flow Israel Aerospace Industries Aeronautical Development Establishment Unmanned air vehicle wind tunnel

3. Introduction
Wing design for UAV applications requires a special approach which is different from conventional man-operated airplanes. The main goal of operational UAV is endurance flight at relatively low speed. The aerodynamic endurance for propeller driven aircraft is proportional to the factor of CL1.5/CD [ref. 1], where the exponent indicates dominant role of lift factor for maximum endurance achievement. Therefore, the use of high lift airfoil is beneficial, even though the high-lift capabilities could be accompanied by a drag penalty. The design problem for high lift airfoils design is engineering compromise between achieving maximum lift, reducing drag penalty and providing full flight envelope. The last requirement means acceptable drag level at high speed (low lift coefficient). Additional desirable feature is good airfoil stall characteristic. For low speed applications, the main parameter that characterizes the air flow condition is Reynolds number (Re=VL) [ref 1]. A UAV with relatively small size and low flight speed has reduced Reynolds numbers on the wing (and tail). Reynolds numbers in the range of 300K or less bring specific design issues. The first issue is the maximum lift capability which traditionally was considered difficult for low Reynolds number [Ref. 1-3]. The second issue is the drag level of the airfoil which increases due to higher friction coefficients and due to larger size of laminar separation bubble. A large laminar separation bubble causes drag increment and may lead to risk of bubble burst. Rear part of airfoil must provide enough length for flow recovery after laminar separation bubble, hence limiting the length available for laminar flow on the forward airfoil portion. The engineering optimum in low Reynolds numbers airfoil design is a compromise between the various mentioned parameters. Reynolds number Re=300K was chosen for present work analysis as typical value for small/medium size UAV wings, and easy accessible for WT test evaluation. 4. High-lift flight concept Contrary to general view, usually operational UAV have a rather high drag due to external payloads that are installed permanently thus increasing significantly the drag as compared to a clean configuration. The tendency to reduce cost and simplify production may result in items like non-retractable landing gears, not-clean external payloads contours and not-elegant structures and installations. The result is usually high parasitic drag. Hence to increase the airplane flight endurance, defined by aerodynamic endurance factor (CL1.5/CD) [ref 1-3] for propeller-driven aircrafts, the importance of high lift wing is even more dominant. Of course, the potential for drag reduction of wing and other components should not be neglected, as it assists both in loiter and even more in other flight regimes. The usage of high C L in the endurance formula is limited by several factors. First it is bounded by the wing maximum lift capability. The airfoil maximum lift is the major factor determining wing maximum lift while other factors like twist and taper ratio have secondary role. Second factor is a stall safety margin that is required in regulations. Maximum usable lift may also be limited due to issues of stall

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013
characteristics. Thus, it is also important to design for good stall characteristics to avoid additional restrictions on maximum usable lift. The advantage of high-lift long endurance concept is illustrated in fig. 1 for the case of small UAV (characterized by low Reynolds loitering flight speed) with assumed parasite drag coefficient of about 450 drag counts [ref 5]. The concept of high lift needs not only high-lift airfoil implementation, but appropriate three-dimensional wing design. The Aspect Ratio parameter is important for long-endurance flight and not less significant than wing section maximum lift. Aspect ratio effect is illustrated schematically in fig. 2 for the case of Panther-class small UAV. The choice of wing area is also very important as it enters directly into the endurance calculation ( Swing ), but also affects flight speed and local Reynolds numbers on the wing [ref. 1-3]. The designer has additional means to affect the performance. Several of them are configuration related like engine characteristics, fuel and weight/structure aspects. Low Reynolds numbers on wings are characteristic of the small UAV. This poses additional aerodynamics considerations to wing geometry and sizing. The low local Reynolds number, especially on tapered wings in the tip area, may cause premature stall, increase of drag and degradation of control power. This results from aerodynamic phenomena that cause increase of separation bubble size and increase risk of its burst with ensuing flow separation. Danger of trailing and leading flow separation is increased as well. The drag penalty caused by outboard wing reduced Reynolds number could exceed the induced drag gain from wing taper ratio. So the choice of local chord length is very important. 5. High-lift airfoil features. The main design features to achieve high lift level are airfoil front part leading edge bluntness and high camber shape. Blunt leading edge means not only large leading edge radius itself, but continuous surface convex up to maximum thickness section. The goal of front part bluntness is air flow acceleration and prevention of suction peak development. This principal approach is actual as for single as for two-element airfoils, with clarification that for twoelement airfoils the concept apply both to main element and to flap section. The design problem for high lift airfoils design is engineering compromise between achieving maximum lift and reducing drag penalty for primary design points. Single-element airfoils, even specially designed, have limitation of achievable maximum lift for corresponding Reynolds numbers. The way to achieve higher lift level is implementation of two-element airfoils. Two-element airfoils are the particular case of more global class of multielement airfoils. Maximum lift of two-element airfoil is significantly higher than that of single airfoils for the same flow conditions because of air flow acceleration through slot channel and interaction with upper boundary layer coming from the main element. Design of two-element airfoils has to take into account additional parameters, which are not present for single element airfoils: horizontal overlap, vertical gap between flap and main body, and hinge point location. The design must provide horizontal overlap in order to achieve reliable flow interaction. The hinge point location has to provide acceptable gap and overlap ranges for all flap deflections. The important special task for two-element design is slot channel geometry. The channel has to be built as flow accelerator, to provide effective flow inclination on the second element. The two main features define drag level for low Reynolds airfoils are: level of laminarity (laminar part flow before turbulent transition) and the size of laminar separation bubble. Increasing the laminar separation bubble causes lift increment but on the other side threat of bubble burst. The drag always increases proportionally to separation bubble size. The drag, caused by laminar separation bubble, usually non-significant for large-scale aircraft, became the dominant factor for low-Reynolds applications. The lead to achieve maximum lift requires increased airfoil thickness that always contraries with drag reduction requirement, especially for low Reynolds numbers. Rear part of airfoil must provide enough length for flow recovery after laminar-turbulent transition, hence limiting airfoil laminar capabilities. For two-element airfoils the special issue is extremely low local Reynolds numbers on second element (flap section)

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013
providing danger of flow separation, especially for deflected flap. The engineering optimum in low Reynolds numbers airfoil design is search of compromise between the various mentioned parameters. 6. High-lift airfoils design Three different concepts high-lift of high-lift airfoil design are discussed in present work. All presented airfoils were designed during joined ADE-IAI program and tested in wind tunnel in IIT, Kanpur. Low-speed wind tunnel facility and experiment methodology are described in details in references 6-7. The conventional way is to design a single-element airfoil. Airfoil B-19 is a single element and it was designed during present work. The airfoil geometry is schematically shown on fig. 3. It's lift characteristics are presented on fig. 4 for NLF flow condition Re=300K. MSES numerical simulation in comparison with WT test results are available and demonstrated good test-theory agreement. Modification of trailing edge geometry was proposed and tested. Wedge trailing edge was proposed as simplified version of DTE (divergent trailing edge) concept refs. [9]. The wedge trailing edge geometry is presented on fig. 5. A comparison of lift curve between calculation and WT tests is presented on fig. 6, for the case of clean airfoil. Fig. 6 shows that modified trailing edge provides a lift increment of magnitude about Cl~0.15. Though this is a considerable maximum lift increase, it is still restricted, and to achieve higher values another concept of two-element airfoil should be considered. Two different concepts of two-element airfoil design were evaluated during present work: slotted airfoil with permanently opened slot and airfoil with retractable flap. The first concept is two-element slotted airfoil with permanently opened slot, as shown on fig. 7, refs.[5,8]. This concept was already effectively applied for low-Reynolds UAV applications as described in reference 5. The advantage of slotted two-element airfoil concept is the built-in possibility of flap deflection providing camber shape adaptation to mission requirement. The known disadvantage of this concept is increased airfoil drag. The increased drag, caused by opened slot, that can have small effect for high-lift low-speed loitering flight, becomes significantly undesirable factor for high speed, low-lift flight. Presented on fig. 7 airfoil TE-300 was designed for ADE-IAI join work and tested in Kanpur WT facility. Design Reynolds number was Re=300K, the main design tool was MSES. Airfoil TE-300 employs zero flap deflection (nominal flap setting) for loitering flight. The flap negative deflection position (approx. -10 degrees) provides decambering option meaning option for drag reduction at lowlift high speed flight. Positive flap deflections provide maximum lift increment, for take-off or landing. High positive flap deflections on the order of 60 degrees can provide drag for air brake option. TE-300 nominal setting provides aerodynamically effective positive and negative deflections up to 20 degrees (symmetrical deflection for both directions) that can be used for roll control. The hinge point location was chosen to provide suitable gap and overlap range for the whole range of deflections. Another consideration for hinge location was to provide adequate hinge moments. The hinge point is located forward of flap's neutral point. The relative motion between main body and flap leading edge provides effective flow inclination on the flap. The lift characteristics of TE-300 airfoil for Re=300K and NLF conditions are presented on fig. 8, both for for MSES numerical simulations (fig. 8a) and for WT tests results (fig. 8b), for flap deflections range -20+20 deg. The design provided good stall characteristics. There is no hysteresis loop for nominal and for positive flap deflections (fig. 9). Airfoil two-element concept allows in this case an increase of maximum lift up to level Cl~2.5 for deflected flap and Cl~2.3 for nominal flap position. Availability of flap deflections to negative and positive directions provides full flight envelope with acceptable drag levels. This result could not be achieved by conventional single-element airfoil.

The second concept is two-element airfoil with retractable flap. The airfoil which was designed through this concept and tested in WT we named FH-300. The second

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013 element (flap) provides only positive deflections with a fixed hinge location. The flap can not be used as an aileron wing section. The main advantage of this concept is higher maximum lift than for the 2 element slotted airfoil.. Another advantage is lower drag at low lift coefficients because the flap can be retracted to zero deflection. In this position the airfoil provides drag level similar to single-element airfoil in contrary to conventional two-element airfoil with permanently opened slot. The drawback of this concept is high hinge moment. The production complexity is similar to a permanently slotted two-element airfoil. This concept is similar to wide use of Fowler flap on commercial aircrafts, where the second element deflects and moves backward. The reason of not using the Fowler flap option in present work is its higher production and installation complexity. The complexity of production and installation is especially problematic for small low-cost UAV. The FH-300 airfoil geometry is presented in fig. 10. Airfoil was designed with flap chord 30% of global chord. The flap chord length is a compromise between the high lift requirement and the room required for flow recovery on main element. The airfoil with fixed hinge concept is designed only for two flap positions: the retracted flap and opened (deflected flap). Airfoil with retracted flap looks (and works) as single-element airfoil. The flap deflection provides increment of camber shape and at the same time also chord increment (fig. 10). The special problem of fixed hinge point concept is hinge point location. Hinge point is located forward the flap leading edge and far downward the lower surface. The downward location of the hinge point increases actuator arm size and creates additional drag. The hinge axis forward the leading edge causes high hinge moment that requires additional actuator power. These disadvantages were taken into consideration for the fixed hinge concept. Airfoil FH-300 design Reynolds number was Re=300K. Lift computations for NLF flow and Re=300K conditions are presented on fig. 11 for retracted and deflected flap positions. The airfoil was tested in WT in Kanpur, India. Test-theory comparisons are presented for retracted flap on fig. 12 and for deflected flap on fig. 13, respectively. Lift curves are compared on fig. 12 and drag polars on fig. 13 respectively. Fig. 13 illustrates the achievement of high maximum lift of fixed hinge airfoil. The comparison with slotted two-element airfoil and single-element airfoil is presented on fig. 14, where the fixed hinge airfoil maximum lift is the highest. The MSES-calculated drag polars are compared on fig. 15 for NLF flow Re=300K conditions. The drag of fixed hinge airfoil is lower than slotted airfoil for positively deflected flap as shown on fig. 15a. For high speed flight (low lift) FH-300 airfoil demonstrates drag level close to singleelement airfoil B-19, and less than for slotted two-element airfoil TE-300, not only for nominal setting but even for decambering option flap deflection (fig. 15b). 7. High-lift wing concept
Previous chapters described two-dimensional airfoils design and analysis. Presented high-lift airfoils belong to one family with similar front part geometry. This fact facilitates to use the designed airfoils as wing sections for UAV wing. The wing based on single-element airfoil could provide limited lift capabilities. Wing based on full-span slotted two-element airfoil confirmed long-endurance advantages (the main well-known sample is Heron UAV). Nevertheless, wing based on slotted airfoil may have some drawbacks especially for low-lift high speed flight. Implementation of fixed hinge airfoil as UAV wing section requires several considerations. The fixed hinge high-lift airfoil does not have option for negative deflections, hence couldn't be used as aileron section. To satisfy for aircraft requirements a complex high-lift wing design is

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013
proposed and schematically shown on fig. 16. The inboard wing (flap sections) is based on fixed hinge two-element airfoil and the outboard wing (aileron sections) is based on slotted twoelement airfoil. The single-element airfoil with similar front part geometry will be used like wing tip to complement the proposed airfoils. Proposed wing provides not only high maximum lift, but may reduce drag for cruise flight flap flight, by using retracted flap position. High level of sectional maximum lift on outboard wing provides full control for all flight conditions. Low drag for cruise speed flight provides increased mission range, while high-lift characteristics provide STOL capabilities.

8. Summary
- high-lift airfoils of different concepts were designed during joined ADE-IAI work - the airfoils representing each design concept were tested in wind tunnel and confirmed highlift capabilities - the advantage of high-lift concept for UAV wing design was evaluated - different approaches for two-element airfoils are presented - complex high-lift wing concept based on the designed high-lift two-element airfoils is proposed

9. Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank prof. Kamal Poddar (IIT, Kanpur) for active contribution and recommendations during the airfoil wind tunnel testing. The staff of Low Speed Aerodynamics lab and National Wind Tunnel Facility (Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur) is gratefully acknowledged for technical support and assistance.

10. References.
1. Anderson, J., D., "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics", 3 rd edition, McGraw-Hill Series in Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering , NY, 2001 2. Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing Sections, Dover Publications Inc., N.Y., 1959. 3. Torenbeek, E., "Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design", Delft University Press, Delft, Netherlands, 1982. 4. Hoerner, S., F., and Borst, H., B., "Fluid Dynamic Lift" Hoerner fluid Dynamics, N.J., US, 1975. 5. Nagel A., " High-Lift Low Reynolds Wings for UAV - development potential", 5th symposium on Applied aerodynamics and design of Aerospace Vehicles, Bangalore, India, 16-18 November 2011 6. Poddar, K., and Sharma, D.M., "Investigations on Quasi-Steady Characteristics for an Airfoil Oscillating at Low Reduced Frequencies", International Journal of aerospace Engineering Volume 2010, 2010. 7. Poddar, K., and Sharma, D.M., "Experimental Investigations of laminar separation Bubble for a Flow Past an airfoil", Proceeding of the ASME Turbo-Expo Conference, Glasgow, UK, June 2010. 8. Sankar G., Bhavneet, Bauminger S., Nagel A., "High-Lift technology for low Reynolds UAV airfoils design", 5th symposium on Applied aerodynamics and design of Aerospace Vehicles, Bangalore, India, 16-18 November 2011 9. Selvaraj K., Sankar G., Bhavneet, K. Poddar, Bauminger S., Nagel A., "High-lift Airfoil for Small UAV Wing", 52nd Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace Sciences, February 29-March 1, 2012. 10. Nagel, A., Levy, D.E. and Shepshelovich, M., Conceptual Aerodynamic Evaluation of Mini/Micro UAV, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit , Reno, NV, 9-12 January 2006. 11. Nagel, A., Klein, Y., and Shepshelovich, M., Development of High -Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoils", International Conference on Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles , Bangalore, India, 3-4 April 2009. 12. Nagel, A., and Shepshelovich, M., Development of High -Lift UAV Wings, 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, San Francisco, Ca, 5-8 June 2006. 13. Nagel, A. and Shepshelovich, M., "Wings for Aircrafts", US Patent Application, No. 11/802,139 (21.05.2007)

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013
35 CD0=440 C D0=450cts operational UAV CD0=200 C D0=200cts clean configuration configuration

25

Endurance factor

30

Endurance factor

20 AR=20 AR=20 AR=10 AR=10 15

25

20

15

AR=20
CL CL
10
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

10

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Fig. 1. High-lift flight concept for operational UAV. Fig. 2. Aspect ratio effect on high-lift flight
1.8

Cl
1.6 1.4 1.2 WT 1.0 MSES 0.8 0.6

Re=300K
0.4 0.2 0.0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fig. 3. Airfoil B-19

Fig. 4. Airfoil B-19 lift characteristics

2.0

Cl
1.8

1.6

Re=300K
1.4 WT clean 1.2 WT wedge MSES clean MSES wedge 0.8

1.0

0.6 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fig. 5. Airfoil B-19 wedge TE

Fig. 6. Airfoil B-19 wedge flap lift increment

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013

Fig. 7. Slotted airfoil TE-300

3.0

Cl
2.5

MSES, Re=300K

3.0 C l

flap
+20 +10

WT, Re=300K

2.5

0 -10 -20

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

flap
1.0 +20 +10 0.5 0 -10 0.0 -5 0 5 10 15 -20

1.0

0.5

20

0.0 -5 0 5 10 15

20

a) MSES calculations b) WT test results Fig. 8. Two-element slotted airfoil TE-300 calculated and experimental lift curves
2.5

2.5

Cl

Cl

2.0

2.0

1.5 acsent descent 1.0

1.5 acsent descent 1.0

flap retracted, WT, Re=300K

0.5

Fig. 7. Airfoil TE-300 lift

0 5 10 15 20 25

0.5
30

flap deflected +15 deg, WT, Re=300K

0 5 10 15 20 25

30

a)

nominal flap position

b) flap positive deflection +15 deg

Fig. 9. Airfoil TE-300 hysteresis effect

hinge point

Fig. 10. Airfoil FH-300 with fixed hinge retractable flap.

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013
3.0

2.0

Cl
2.5

Cl

1.5
2.0

1.5 flap deflected +15 1.0 flap retracted 0.5

1.0 WT MSES 0.5

MSES, Re=300K
0.0 -5 0 5 10 15

20

flap retracted, Re=300K

0.0 -5 0 5 10 15

20

Fig. 11. Airfoil FH-300 lift, MSES

3.0

Fig. 12. FH-300 test-theory comparison for retracted flap position

3.0

Cl
2.5

Cl
2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5 WT MSES 1.0

1.5 FH300 flap +15 1.0 TE300 flap +15 B-19 0.5

0.5

flap deflected +15 deg, Re=300K

MSES, Re=300K
20

15 20

0.0 -5 0 5 10 15

0.0 -5 0 5 10

Fig. 13. Airfoil FH-300 test-theory comparison for deflected flap position
2.5

Fig. 14. Airfoils lift comparison.

2.0

Cl
2.0

MSES, Re=300K
1.5

Cl

MSES, Re=300K

1.5 FH300 flap +15 1.0 TE300 flap +15

FH-300 flap retracted 1.0 B-19 TE-300 flap -10

TE-300 flap 0

0.5
0.5

Cd

Cd
0.0 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Fig. 11. 0.0 0.010

Airfoil FH-300 with deflected flap

0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

a) Deflected flap position Fig. 15. Airfoils drag comparison, MSES

b) Retracted flap position

Aero India 2013 International Seminar Bangalore, India, 04-06 February 2013

Inboard wing: fixed-hinge two-element airfoil

Outboard wing: two-element slotted airfoil

Fig. 16. High-lift wing principal scheme.

10