CITY UNIVERSITY

LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Pressure Distribution around a Symmetrical Aerofoil

Olabode Brown, Lab Group D1, Olabode.Brown.1@city.ac.uk
Abstract
The study of pressure distribution is a vital part of the field of
Aerodynamics. Efficient aerodynamic design is a big factor is creating
efficient aircrafts and vehicles. Aerofoils are shapes of wings that produce
aerodynamic force very well, as they can create pressure differences
between their upper surface and their lower surface. The angle of attack
an aerofoil is set at can influence how much lift the aerofoil generates.
Varying pressure acts normal to the surface of an aerofoil. The amount of
pressure depends on the angle of attack and the design of the aerofoil, or
perhaps the symmetry of the aerofoil. This then determines how much lift
the aerofoil produces. The objective of this experiment was to
investigative how pressure varies across a symmetrical aerofoil at
different angles of attack and how this affects the amount of lift the
aerofoil will produce. This will be done by mounting a symmetrical aerofoil
in a wind tunnel and measuring the pressure at different point on the
aerofoil using pressure tappings connected to a manometer. The
recordings will then be used to plot graphs that tell how the pressure
varies across the aerofoil at different angles of attack, and ultimately tell
the variation of lift with different angles of attack. The results appeared to
be coherent with assumptions and predictions, although the experiment
could have been improved in terms of the reproducibility of the recordings
as well as various human errors.
Introduction
The aim of this experiment was to determine the pressure distribution
around a symmetrical aerofoil. This should then lead to determining the
normal resultant force acting on the aerofoil and hence, outline a lift-curve
slope. It was expected that the angle of attack of 0 on a symmetrical
aerofoil should generate a minimal lift of approximately equal to zero and
the stalling angle of a symmetrical aerofoil should be between 7 and 12.
This study of aerodynamics is essential in the fields of aeronautics and
motorsport; as this enables engineers to find angles of attack that would
produce maximum lift and minimum drag, which leads to lower fuel
consumption on an aircraft or a Formula 1 car. Of course, this does not
only apply to fighter planes and Formula 1 cars, as trains and consumer
cars for example also benefit from findings in this area of study. The basic
principle of lift generation is due to a pressure difference between the
suction surface of an aerofoil, and the pressure surface. The suction
surface is the surface which air is travelling at a higher velocity relative to
the pressure surface and hence according to Bernoullis equation, a lower
MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 1 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

pressure is being exerted on it. The net result of the pressure distribution
results in an upwards force that acts normal to the chord of the aerofoil,
which is known as Lift. (Leishman et al, 2006) In aeronautics the suction
surface is the top surface and in motorsport, the suction surface is the
bottom surface. The occurrence of a pressure difference between the top
and bottom surface of an aerofoil can also be explained with Newtons
second law of motion, which is based on the principle of conservation of
momentum. If an aerofoil was set at an arbitrary angle of attack, which is
the angle between the chord of an aerofoil and the direction of flow of the
fluid, the fluid flow will separate at the leading edge; so in order to
conform to Newtons second law, the two points in their respective
streamlines will have to meet at the same point at the same time at the
trailing edge. For this to happen, the streamline at the top surface would
have to accelerate while the streamline at the bottom surface would have
to decelerate. This can then be related to Bernoullis equation to explain
the generation of lift.
However, there are some cases where theoretically, zero lift should be
generated on an aerofoil. In this experiment, the pressure distribution was
investigated around a symmetrical aerofoil; which is an aerofoil of equal
curvature at the top and bottom surface along its longitudinal axis. In this
case of a symmetrical aerofoil, the chord is the line joining the leading
edge and the trailing edge. Because of this, separated fluid flow will have
to travel the same distance to the trailing edge at an angle of attack of 0,
so no difference in pressure is created and hence, no lift is generated. (City
University London, 2012) Contrast to this is a cambered aerofoil, which is
in laymans terms, an asymmetrical aerofoil. Even at an angle of attack of
0, a cambered aerofoil will still generate lift, although minimal, due to its
asymmetry. Lift should increase for both aerofoils as the angle of attack
increases until the lift reaches a peak; the corresponding angle is known as
the stalling angle, and this is the angle of attack where drag becomes
significant. (Anderson, 2001) Cambered aerofoils will stall at a lower angle
of attack relative to symmetrical aerofoils but will generate a higher lift
coefficient at the same angle of attack as a symmetrical aerofoil.
(Leishman et al, 2006)
Theory
As it has already been established, lift is generated due to the pressure
distribution on the aerofoil. In fact, shear stresses act on the aerofoil as
well due to viscous effects. When a fluid moves past a body, viscosity of
the fluid causes it to stick to the body; this is known as the no-slip
condition, which is where the velocity of the fluid is zero relative to the
boundary at the boundary layer. (Garratt et al, 1994) This creates a
velocity gradient which results in viscous shear stresses according to
Newtons law of viscosity. These stresses are parallel to the chord of an
aerofoil and is what causes drag on an aerofoil but not much light will be
shed on this as the objective of this experiment is based around the lift
generated on an aerofoil.

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 2 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

A way of representing pressure at different points on an aerofoil is by the

coefficient of pressure, which is non-dimensional. This can be determined
by:
C P=

PP
1/2 U 2
(1)

where P is the local pressure at a certain point P is the static pressure

of the free stream fluid and U is the free stream velocity. The coefficient of
pressure can also be expressed in terms of head. This can be derived from
equation 1 to give:
C P=

hh s
ha h s
(2)

where h s and ha are the static pressure in the working section and the
atmospheric pressure respectively in terms of head, and h is the
pressure at the point being investigated. (City University London, 2012)
The coefficient of pressure can also be stated in terms of velocity with the
use of Bernoullis equation to give:
V
V

C P=1
(3)
where V is the velocity of the point in interest and V is the velocity
of the free stream fluid. (Leishman et al, 2006) The coefficient of pressure
essentially describes the relative pressure throughout the flow field. The
equations above are only valid for incompressible fluids; other parameters
would have to be considered for compressible flows. Although air, the fluid
in use in the experiment, is not an incompressible fluid, it can be
considered so as it will be travelling at relatively low speeds, (< Mach 0.3).
For incompressible fluids, the coefficient of pressure cannot exceed 1;
when the coefficient of pressure is equal to 1, this means the pressure in
interest is equal to the stagnation pressure, which is the highest possible
pressure experienced by the body. At this point the velocity of the fluid will
be 0. In this case of the coefficient of pressure being 0, the pressure in
interest will be equal to the atmospheric pressure. The only time the
coefficient of pressure will exceed 1 is in the case of compressible fluids.
(White, 2011)

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 3 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

As stated before, lift should increase as the angle of attack is increased

until a certain point, known as the stalling angle. This is due to a
separation point occurring on the aerofoil, which is where the boundary
layer parts from the surface of the aerofoil (Mathieu, 2000). Vortices and
eddies start to form in the fluid flow past the separation point. Past the
stalling angle, if the angle of attack is further increased, the separation
point moves up towards the leading edge. The lift can also be represented
as a ratio known as the coefficient of lift, which is defined as:
C L=

L
1/2 U 2
(4)

Just like how force is an integral of pressure, the coefficient of pressure can
also be integrated to give the coefficient of lift; this is expressed as:
x
c
C P d ()
C L =
(5)
This basically states that the coefficient of lift is the cyclic integral of
coefficient of pressure. The coefficient of lift can also be expressed as the
integral of the difference of the coefficient of pressure between the upper
and lower surface of an aerofoil.
The Reynolds number, which is the ratio of inertial forces and viscous
forces acting on the aerofoil, will also need to be determined. This can be
done using:
=

Uc

(6)

Where U is the tunnel speed, c is the chord length in metres and is the
kinematic viscosity of air. However in order to calculate this, the tunnel
speed first needs to be determined. This can be using:
1/ 2 U 2= m g ( hsha ) sin
(7)
Where and m are the densities of air and the manometer fluid
respectively. The density of air may be determined from the equation of
state which is:

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 4 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

P
RT
(8)

Where P is the atmosphere pressure, T is the room temperature and R is

the gas constant for air, which is 287 kJ/kgK.
Experimental Arrangement
For this experiment, a lift-curve slope will be determined from the
coefficient of pressure taken at 15 different points on the symmetrical
aerofoil. The aerofoil will be mounted in the working section of a wind
tunnel with a fan located at the outlet of the wind tunnel. A motor powers
the fan to suck air from the inlet to flow past the aerofoil. This is so that a
situation in where disturbed flow occurs due to the fan blowing air at the
aerofoil can be prevented. The contraction at the inlet of the working
section enables the flow to be throttled before reaching the aerofoil.
Pressure tappings are located at the 15 points to be investigated; which
include points at the leading edge, the top and surface, and the trailing
edge. These pressure tappings will then be connected to an inclined
manometer via hypodermic tubes. The use of an inclined manometer
increases the resolution in the changes of pressure; which means that the
manometer will be sensitive to small changes in pressure. The manometer
is inclined at 30.9 to the horizontal. 2 other pressure tappings will be
connected to the inclined manometer, which will be measuring the local
static free stream pressure and the atmospheric pressure. The pressure
readings will be taken at 5 different angles of attack: -5, 0, 5, 10 and
16. The fluid used in the manometer is an alcohol spirit, with a density of
around 830 kg /m3 . The pressure tappings are placed normal to the aerofoil
as pressure acts normal to the surface of an aerofoil. While the experiment
is running, a rise in fluid in the manometer should indicate a decrease in
pressure tapping at the point corresponding to the tube number. The
manometer readings were taken in inches.
The pressure reading of the 5 different angles of attack are then tabulated
in order plot graphs of the pressure distributions of the top and bottom
surface of the aerofoil for the angles of attack. The coefficient of pressure
will be plotted against the ratio of the distance from the pressure tapping
to the leading edge against the chord length; this can be denoted as x/c.
In order to comply with the direction in which the lift and down force acts,
the y-axis will be flipped over so that negative coefficients of pressure are
plotted on top of positive coefficients of pressure. A graph plotting the
coefficient of lift against the angles of attack will then be generated from
the coefficient of pressure-versus-x/c graphs. This is due to the fact that
the coefficient of lift is an integral of the coefficient of pressure; so this will
be done by finding the area underneath (and above) the coefficient of
pressure curves. An alternative version of the trapezium rule will used in
finding the coefficient of lift at the varying angles of attack. This is
because the strips within the curves are not equal. The expected stalling

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 5 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

angle should be between 7 and 12. Therefore, a line of best fit should be
drawn for the angles of attack that have linear coefficient of lift. The
gradient of this should be equal to the theoretical value of 2 radians.

Wind
Tunnel
Outlet

(a
)

Wind
Tunnel
- Inlet

Working
Fan
section
Figure 1 (a) Experimental arrangement. Flow is throttled past an aerofoil in
Inclined
order to measure pressure at different point on an aerofoil with an inclined
Manomet
manometer. (b) Closer view of the working section; pressure tappings are
er
connected to the inclined manometer via hypodermic tubes.

Symmetrical Aerofoil

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode
Brown tubes
Hypodermic

Page 6 of 17
(b

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Figure 2 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of -5.

Figure 3 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 0.

Figure 4 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 5.

Figure 5 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 10.

Figure 7 Graph displaying coefficient at varying AoA.

Figure 6 Graph displaying pressure distribution at AoA of 16.

Results

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 7 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

The dashed line represents the line of best fit in Figure 7 with the equation
of the line also being depicted. The speed of the wind tunnel during the
experiment was determined to be 27.1m/s; therefore the Reynolds number
was determined to be 1.58 x 105 . The calculations of the tunnel speed and
the Reynolds number can be found in Appendix C.

Discussion
In Figure 2, the stagnation point, which is where the maximum pressure on
the aerofoil occurs, was at the upper surface close to the leading edge. It
was 0.05 inches away from the leading edge. The coefficient of pressure
was +0.75. The boundary layer does not part from the surface of the
aerofoil until it reaches the trailing edge; this implies that a minimal
amount of drag occurs on the aerofoil at this angle of attack. The peak
suction, which is the maximum negative of the coefficient of pressure the
aerofoil experiences at this angle of attack, is -2.14. This occurs at the
lower surface near the leading edge. The value of the coefficient of
pressure at the trailing edge is -0.14; this suggests that a suction force is
acting here. In Figure 2 the angle of attack is -5.
In Figure 3, the aerofoil is now angled at 0. The stagnation pressure has
now increased; this suggests a decrease in lift. The coefficient of pressure
for the stagnation point was +0.81 and was located at the leading edge.
As this angle of attack is at 0, the separation point seems to be at the
trailing edge. The peak suction has however now decreased to a
coefficient of pressure of -0.84. This sharp decrease in coefficient of
pressure draws a parallel to the lift. This occurs at the lower surface of the
aerofoil around the centre of the chord. The value of the coefficient of
pressure at the trailing edge was -0.08; this value is also lower than the
value obtained from Figure 2, which implies a decrease in the net force
exerted on the aerofoil.
In Figure 4, the stagnation point has decreased to a coefficient of pressure
value of +0.65. It would appear that lift on the aerofoil has increased. This
is also located at the leading edge. The separation point at this angle of
attack again seems to occur at the trailing edge of the aerofoil. The peak
suction now increases to -1.27 on the upper surface 0.18 inches away from
the leading edge of the aerofoil. This suggests that the lift has been
increased relative to the aerofoil with an angle of attack of 0. The value of
the coefficient of pressure at the trailing edge is now -0.11, which also
supports the impression of the lift increasing on this angle of attack.
In Figure 5, the aerofoil is now at an angle of 10. The stagnation point has
increased to a coefficient of pressure value of +0.73, which is located at
the lower surface of the aerofoil, near the leading edge. The flow
separation point is still located at the trailing edge, meaning that the lift
coefficient is still linear with the angle of attack. The peak suction of the

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 8 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

aerofoil at this angle of attack now has a coefficient of pressure value of

-2.51, which occurs at the lower surface of the aerofoil, near the leading
edge. The coefficient of pressure at the trailing edge has further increased
to -0.19.
In Figure 6, the aerofoil has an angle of attack of 16. The stagnation point
now reaches a maximum from all the angles of attack of a value of
coefficient of pressure of +0.83. This is located at the lower surface of the
aerofoil, near the leading edge. A flow separation point is now present at
this angle of attack. This occurs at the upper surface of the aerofoil 1.23
inches from the leading edge. This suggests that the stalling angle has
either been reached or exceeded at this angle of attack. The peak suction
of the aerofoil at this angle of attack has a coefficient of pressure value of
-1. The coefficient of pressure at the trailing edge is -0.46, which is the
minimum relative to all angles of attack.
Based on the areas within the curves of the coefficient of pressure-versusx/c graphs, it would seem the greatest lift achieved from all the angles of
attack was at 10; suggesting that the peak lift was close to this angle.
Generally, it seems that the region on the aerofoil that contributes to the
most lift is around the leading edge. This is because that the region where
the peak suction generally occurred at all the angles of attack. This could
be due to the stagnation point also generally being around the leading
edge. Theoretically, the coefficient of pressure should be equal to +1 at
the stagnation point but due to factors such as boundary layers, the actual
values obtained at the various angles of attack vary, all falling under the
theoretical value, which could be due to viscous effects. It can also be
seen that as the angle of attack was increased, the stagnation point
lowered. The boundary layer separating from the surface of the aerofoil
can be seen on the graphs where the coefficient of pressure becomes
constant. This differs from a shock wave which would be depicted as a
sharp drop or an expansion wave which would be depicted by a sharp rise.
Although this means that the coefficient of pressure line should be flat, it
does not seem so on the graphs; this is due to the pressure trying to
maintain equilibrium.
In the lift coefficient-versus-angle of attack graph, the lift coefficient
increases with the angle of attack until it reaches a limit stall point; just
as expected. The lift coefficient should have a value of zero at an angle of
attack of 0, but it is slightly lower than 0. This could be due to offset
errors when placing the aerofoil in the working section, or even the surface
of the aerofoil exhibiting warping as the aerofoil is made of wood.
Downwash could also be an explanation to this. These factors seem to be
the cause behind the reason that a minimal amount of lift is generated at
an angle of attack of 0, according to the graph. Because of this, it seems
that no lift is generated at an angle of attack of about 1.5. According to
the graph, the stalling angle, which is where the lift coefficient is at a
maximum, is around 12-13. After the stall point, the lift coefficient is
supposed to decrease quite significantly, however the graph depicts the
lift coefficient being constant. This is due to lift coefficient being measured
MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 9 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

at 10 and then 16. In result to this, it is fairly ambiguous what is going on

between these two angles of attack. The gradient of the linear line of best
fit taken from angles of attack of -5 to 10 comes to 0.0983 per degree.
This compares to the theoretical value of 0.1097 per degree as having an
error of 10%. This deviation could be due to the offset errors stated before.
Reynolds number was calculated to be 1.579 x 105 . Compared to the
Reynolds number of full-scale aerofoils, which is around 3050 x 10 6 , this
is quite insignificant. Reynolds number plays a big role in determining
turbulent flow. Laminar flow occurs at Reynolds number less than or equal
to 3.2 x 105 /m , which the Reynolds of the aerofoil is well under. At Reynolds
numbers of full-scale aerofoils, viscous forces are insignificant relative to
inertial force, primarily due to the chord length of the aerofoil.

Error Analysis
A certain amount of errors were recognized from the experiment. In terms
of reading the measurements off the manometer, several factors could
have influenced the recording of the results. Firstly, due to capillary action,
the top of the alcohol spirit in the manometer exhibits a concave
meniscus. Because of this, some measurements were taken from the
bottom of the meniscus and some from the top, which led to inconsistent
results. Errors could have also resulted from parallax error while recording
results from the manometer. Other errors in the experiment originated
from the offset error that occurred while placing the aerofoil in the working
section. One set of measurements were chosen in calculating the
percentage uncertainty of the coefficient of pressure; in this case, Tapping
No. 6 was chosen. The percentage uncertainty were the following: 1.58%
at AoA of -5, 1.52% at AoA of 0, 1.53% at AoA of 5, 1.61% at AoA of 10
and 1.43% at AoA of 16. The uncertainty of the coefficient of lift and the
lift curve slope were estimated from error bars on their respective graphs
based on the uncertainties of the coefficient of pressure. These can be
found along with the calculations of the percentage uncertainties of the
coefficient of pressure of one reading at the various angles of attack in
Appendix .

Conclusions
The aim of the experiment was to determine the pressure distribution
around a symmetrical aerofoil in order to determine the lift at varying
angles of attack. It was expected that no lift was to be generated on the
aerofoil at an angle of attack of 0. But in the results, it seems like lift was
generated at the stated angle. This could be an error due to an error of
MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 10 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

degree when mounting the aerofoil in the working section. The gradient of
the linear region of the lift coefficient-versus-angle of attack also deviates
from the theoretical value to possible errors and viscous effects acting on
the aerofoil. An improvement to the experiment could be taking readings
more than once. This could improve the results in terms of accuracy. Other
improvements that could be made to the experiment could be taking
measurements at finer angles as this created vagueness in the graph. The
reproducibility in this experiment could also be questioned. Perhaps a
more accurate means of recording data could be implemented if the
experiment was to be repeated.

References
Anderson J.D. (2001) Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 3rd Edition, New York:
McGraw Hill
City University London (2012) Engineering Laboratory Instruction Booklet,
(Unpublished), pp15-18
Garratt J.R., Dessler A.J., Houghton J.T., Rycroft M.J., (1994) The
Atmospheric Boundary Layer Cambridge Atmospheric & Space Sciences
Series No. 5, New York: Cambridge University Press
Leishman J.G., Rycroft M.J., Shyy W. (2006) Principles of Helicopter
Aerodynamics Cambridge University Aerospace Series No. 12, 2nd Edition,
New York: Cambridge University Press
Mathieu J., Scott J. (2000) An Introduction to Turbulent Flow, New York:
Cambridge University Press
White F. M. (2011) Fluid Mechanics, 7th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 11 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

Appendices
Appendix A Tabulation of Data
inches
Tapping
No.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Tube
No.
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

x
(inches
)
0
0.05
0.18
0.53
1.23
1.75
2.45
3.15
0.09
0.26
0.88
1.49
2.1
2.8
3.5

ha
hs

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

-5
8
4.5
6
7.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.9
14.9
13
11.9
10.8
9.8
8.5
7.7
3.6
7.2

0
4.4
6.9
8.9
9.2
9.3
9.7
8.8
8.2
10
10.3
10.5
10
9.6
9
7.7
3.7
7.4

Olabode Brown

5
4.9
11.1
12
11.8
10.2
9.8
9
8.2
6.4
7.9
9.1
9.1
9
8.5
7.7
3.6
7.3

10
9.9
16.3
15.4
12.2
10.5
9.8
8.7
8.1
4.3
5.9
7.6
8
8.2
7.9
7.7
3.3
7

16
8.7
11.6
11.8
11.4
10.9
10.8
10.5
10
4.3
5.4
7.3
7.8
8.4
8.5
9.6
3.6
7.7

Page 12 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
Table 1 Tabulation of data recorded during
experiment

Tappin
g No.

Tube
No.

x in
-5

Pressure Coefficient
0
5
10

x/c

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14

2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
16

0.00
0.05
0.18
0.53
1.23
1.75
2.45
3.15
3.50

-0.22
0.75
0.33
-0.03
-0.28
-0.28
-0.28
-0.19
-0.14

0.81
0.14
-0.41
-0.49
-0.51
-0.62
-0.38
-0.22
-0.08

0.65
-1.03
-1.27
-1.22
-0.78
-0.68
-0.46
-0.24
-0.11

-0.78
-2.51
-2.27
-1.41
-0.95
-0.76
-0.46
-0.30
-0.19

-0.24
-0.95
-1.00
-0.90
-0.78
-0.76
-0.68
-0.56
-0.46

0
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

0.00
0.09
0.26
0.88
1.49
2.10
2.80
3.50

-0.22
-2.14
-1.61
-1.31
-1.00
-0.72
-0.36
-0.14

0.81
-0.70
-0.78
-0.84
-0.70
-0.59
-0.43
-0.08

0.65
0.24
-0.16
-0.49
-0.49
-0.46
-0.32
-0.11

-0.78
0.73
0.30
-0.16
-0.27
-0.32
-0.24
-0.19

-0.24
0.83
0.56
0.10
-0.02
-0.17
-0.20
-0.46

Leading
Edge

Upper
Surface

Trailing Edge
Leading
Edge
Lower
Surface
Trailing Edge

Table 2 Tabulation of data showing coefficient of pressure and

coefficient of lift.

0.00
0.01
0.05
0.15
0.35
0.50
0.70
0.90
1.00
Total

0.00
0.02
0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.06
-0.05
-0.02
-0.15

0.00
0.03
0.07
0.25
0.43
0.60
0.80
1.00
Total
Cl +
Cl Cl

-0.03
-0.09
-0.26
-0.20
-0.15
-0.11
-0.05
-0.89
-1.04
0.74
-0.74

Appendix B Calculation of coefficient of pressure uncertainties

and graphs with error bars of coefficient of lift and lift curve slope

% Uncertainty:

||

C p h6 + h s ha + h s
=
+
x 100
Cp
h6 + h6
ha +h s
AoA: -5

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

-5

16

Page 13 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05

=
+
x 100=1.58
Cp
8.2+7.2
3.6+ 7.2
AoA: 0

||

C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05

=
+
x 100=1.52
Cp
8.8+7.4
3.7+7.4

||

AoA: 5
C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05
=
+
x 100=1.53
Cp
9+7.3
3.6+ 7.3

||

AoA: 10
C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05
=
+
x 100=1.61
Cp
8.7+7
3.3+7

||

AoA: 16
C p 0.05+0.05 0.05+ 0.05
=
+
x 100=1.43
Cp
10.5+7.7
3.6+7.7

||

Graphs showing error bars based on relative uncertainty of

coefficient of pressure
Figure 8 Graph-3.0
displaying errors bars of lift
coefficient at AoA of -5
-2.0
Cp

Figure 9 Graph displaying errors bars of lift

coefficient at AoA of 0

-1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 14 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
1.00
f(x) = 0.1x - 0.21
0.50

Coefficient of Lift CL

0.00
-5
0

10

15

-0.50
-1.00
Angle of Attack a
-3.0
-2.0
Cp

-1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c
-3.0
-2.0

Cp

-1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 15 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

-3.0
-2.0
-1.0

Cp

0.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c
-3.0
Figure 10 Graph displaying errors bars of lift
-2.0of 5
coefficient at AoA

Figure 11 Graph displaying errors bars of lift

coefficient at AoA of 10

-1.0

Cp

0.0
1.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x/c

Appendix C Calculation of Tunnel Speed and Reynolds Number

Tunnel Speed
FigureFirstly,
12 Graph
displaying
of lift
the
densityerrors
of airbars
was
determined Figure
using equation
8. This came
out of lift
13 Graph displaying
errors bars
coefficient at AoA of 16
curve slope
to be:
5

1 x 10 Pa
=1.17 kg m3
1 1
( 0.287 kJ kg K )(298 K)

This then density was used in equation 7 to determine the tunnel speed.
This came out to be:
U=

2 ( 830 kg m3 )( 9.8 m s2 ) ( 0.192 m0.009 m ) sin ( 30.9 )

=27.1 m s1
3
1.17 k g m

This was then used in equation 6 to determine the Reynolds Number of the
aerofoil; which came out to be:
=

(27.1 ms1)(0.0875m)
=1.58 x 105
5 2 1
1.5 x 10 m s

Appendix D Derivation of coefficient of pressure in terms of head

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 16 of 17

CITY UNIVERSITY
LONDON

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

We know the coefficient of pressure as in equation 1. We also that the local

pressure and the static pressure in the free stream can be expressed as:
P=ghsin
(9)
And:

P= gh s sin

Applying the equation for total energy in a system in terms of pressure, we

get:
1
2
PT = U + gz + Ps
2
(10)
Gravitational influences can be ignored as there are negligible changes in
elevation, giving:
1
PT = U 2 + P s
2
Equation 1 & 10 can be substituted into the equation and rearranged to
make the coefficient of pressure the subject, giving equation 2.

MEA Part 1 Engineering Lab

Olabode Brown

Page 17 of 17