AE 515 SPRING 2015

HW#4

CARLOS ALBERTO NUNES

UIUC

Strip
1
2
3
4
5

Mean Chord [ft]

8.49
7.13
5.97
5.12
4.68

Mean y
[ft]
5.03
14.59
22.72
28.63
31.74

alfa_ef
[deg]
2.70
2.85
2.80
2.48
2.05

Re
1.09E+07
9.15E+06
7.66E+06
6.58E+06
6.01E+06

Area [ft2]
85.16
64.58
42.99
23.74
7.48

Area total
Sum(Cd*area)
CD

223.96
1.440
0.00643

Cd strip
0.00657
0.00673
0.00626
0.00566
0.00566

Cd*area [ft2]
0.560
0.435
0.269
0.134
0.042

The optimized wing has a tapered planform, where both chord and geometrical incidence angle varies
linearly from the root to tip along the span.
Root airfoil
Tip airfoil
Wing geom. Incidence angle [deg]
Root geom. Incidence angle [deg]
Tip geom. Incidence angle [deg]
Root chord [ft]
Tip chord [ft]
Dihedral angle [deg]
Sweep angle [deg] backward sweep
Wing area [ft]
Wing span [ft]
AR
CL_cruise
Angle of attack [deg]

nlf0215f
nlf0215f
0
4.6
1.96
6.34
4.46
0
10
458.77
84.98
15.74
0.445
-6.691

Strip
1
2
3
4
5

Mean Chord
[ft]
6.05
5.49
5.01
4.67
4.49

Mean y [ft]
6.62
19.22
29.93
37.71
41.81

alfa_ef
[deg]
-3.09
-3.71
-4.31
-5.09
-7.55

Re
7.77E+06
7.05E+06
6.44E+06
6.00E+06
5.76E+06

Area [ft2]
79.42
65.09
47.23
28.26
9.36

Area total
Sum(Cd*area)
CD

229.36
1.936
0.00844

Cd strip
0.00648
0.00692
0.00762
0.00939
0.03695

Cd*area
[ft2]
0.515
0.450
0.360
0.265
0.346

APPROACH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM

In order to make the design process faster define the geometry, input the data in AVL, set the simulation
parameters like mach number and C L required; a Matlab program was developed, this script has as inputs
the wing geometry parameters and then automatically generate the input file, run the AVL and then read
some of the outputs - CDi , i , ef , Cl .
The first attempt to decrease the wing drag started by selecting the proper airfoils. We started by searching
for airfoils similar to the ones that are already being using on EMB-120 NACA 23012 and NACA 23012.
We also used some NLF airfoils, mainly due its drag bucket and the low profile drag for the C L in cruise
condition (between 0.40 and 0.50). The polar drag and Cl vs for the airfoils that we selected, using

Re 8 106 , are shown below.

2.5

NACA23012

n633418

nlf1015

NLF(1)-0215F

2.5

1.5

1.5

Cl

Cl

0.5

0.5

-10

10

20

30
-0.5

-0.5

angle of attack [deg]

NACA23012
n633418
nlf1015
NLF(1)-0215F

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Cd

The NLF-0215F presented the lowest CD value for the expected C L range, and also has a higher lift
coefficient than the NACA airfoils. Therefore we choose the NLF-0215F to be at root and tip, and if the
aircraft present an undesirable stall characteristics a geometric twist may be the solution.
At this step we start changing the wing geometry in order to minimize the induced drag in the cruise
condition. The first feature that we tried to implement was the winglets, but the design of this device did
not end up with a considerable Di reduction, and due the manufacturing complications that may result we
skip to another approach.
In the second and third approach to decrease the induced drag we keep using the same NLF airfoil on root
and tip and a tapered wing. This time we changed the both root and tip chord, and the geometrical incidence
angle of the root and tip trying to make the lift distribution get closer to an elliptical wing. The following
image shows the result of one attempt.

cCl [ unit ]

3.5

Calculated
Elliptical
3

2.5

cCl

1.5

0.5

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0
y

10

20

30

40

50

Using a simple tapered wing is not possible to match the curves, but if we introduce two tapered sections
alpha i []

0
in each semi-span
is possible to make the curves closer to each other, but again this may result in more
-0.5
difficult wing
to be construct. This method also presented lower induced drag than the original EMB-120

plan form, -1the minimum value was around 270 lbs (the calculated induced drag for the initial EMB-120
alpha i[deg]

-1.5
wing geometry
was 359 lbs).
-2

The third -2.5

attempt to decrease the induced drag was using the Matlab Genetic Algorithm. We implemented
another Matlab
function that receives as inputs the wing geometry parameters, run AVL and then calculated
-3
the induced
drag. The GA will try minimize the output induced drag and changing the input parameters
-3.5
by itself. We
-4 set some upper and lower limit for the parameters the wing span should be lower than 85 ft,
and the chord
should not be higher than 13 ft, the incidence angles should be between -10 and 8 degrees.
-4.5
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0
y

10

20

30

40

50

The optimum wing, as expected, has almost the maximum wing span allowed (84.98 ft), and this result is
in agreement with the theory, since the induced drag is proportional to the square of the span load. This
wing presented a very low CDi of 0.00386, but due the high span and AR this wing may result in a very
robust structure to avoid aeroelastic effects, and we also have considered that the aircraft weight is the same
of the EMB-120, what is not true and then the lift for the cruise condition is no longer the same. If one
implements the same function to calculated the induced drag, but taking in account also the structural
effects, and the wing weight as costs, the final wing geometry will have a lower span, although the Di may
increase.