19 October 2018

Delta Wing Force Measurement

Submitted To
Professor Sandeep Saha
Aerodynamics Laboratory II [AE39001]
Aditya R. Prajapati
[16AE10033], Group V
aditya12398@iitkgp.ac.in
Abstract
Measurement of Lift and Drag forces on a delta wing kept in a wind tunnel at angles of attack ranging
from 0 to 45 degrees using a strain gauge based six component-based sting balance. Discussion of
properties and characteristics of sharp edged delta wing and resemblance with the experiment
conducted by us.

Apparatus
 Given Delta Wing
 Sting Balance
 Data Acquisition Box
 Low Subsonic Wind Tunnel

Introduction
The delta wing, as the name suggests, is shaped like the Greek letter delta (). It is triangular and is
nowadays widely used in supersonic flights. It was long studied but it’s application in flights was
never considered significant till the jet age when high speed flights became possible and its suitability
was discovered. On the other end of the speed scale the flexible version of this design was proven
suitable for hand gliders and ultralight aircraft.
There are several advantages of having a delta wing, from aerodynamic characteristics to structural
advantages and economic/manufacturing feasibility. Aerodynamically, to summarise, delta wings
have really good stalling characteristics which make them apt for extremely rough manoeuvres, high
climb rates and better control. Structurally, since these wings are not mounted the way rectangular
wings would have, they have a longer root chord ‘making it stronger at the fuselage. The structural
benefits increase phenomenally in delta wings and thus probability of structural failures reduces
significantly.
Although delta wings are primarily known for their supersonic characteristics, their subsonic
characteristics are very important too. Landing, take off and a lot of flight operations happen in
subsonic/high subsonic range and thus the study of subsonic behaviour of delta wing is important too.
In this experiment we calculate the lift, drag and pitching moment of the delta wing in a low subsonic
wind tunnel with a test section of 61 x 61 cm 2 of cross section. For this, we calculate three force
components by using a sting balance and do the appropriate conversions in the wind axes to find lift
and drag.
Theory
Lift Generation in a Delta Wing
The lift generation in a delta wing happens differently than a rectangular wing. In a rectangular wing
the pressure distribution varies between the upper and the lower surface and this leads to the
generation of lift. In a delta wing, the difference in pressure causes the formation of large vortices at
the leading edge which are known as leading edge vortices. These vortices separate because of the
sharp leading edge. The flow separates near the leading edge and then reattaches at the upper surface
of the wing. The leading edge core has a very strong vortex which is very difficult to break. These
vortices are spiral in shape.
Near the root of the delta wing, the flow is close to straight and the pressure is lesser than the free
stream but not so much to create a significant lifting force. The main component of lift is the vortex
that drops the pressure near the leading edge drastically and creates a very strong suction. The stalling
angle of delta wings are very high but they have a lesser C L vs alpha slope which means they generate
lesser lift than rectangular wings. They therefore have to be kept at a higher angle of attack to
generate sufficient lift. The leading edge vortex grows stronger with increasing angle of attack and
reaches at peak after which it drops. This angle is known as the stalling angle.
 Theoretical Model for Lift Calculation
The present approach assumes that if flow reattachment occurs on the upper sur- B face the total lift
can be calculated as the sum of a potential-flow lift and a lift associated with the existence of the
separated leading-edge spiral vortices. First, the potential flow lift will be examined with regard to the
effect of high angles of attack and modified leading-edge conditions. Then, the vortex lift will be
determined by a method in which the vortex flow is assumed to be related to the potential flow about
the leading edge.
A Kutta type flow condition is considered to account for the leading edge separation of the vortex and
so, no leading edge suction can be produced.
C L ,P =C N , P cos α
The normal force can be determined by applying the Kutta-Joukowski theorem using the velocity
component parallel to the wing chord; thus,

N= ρ Γ b (V cos α )
where Γ is a total effective circulation given by:
SV
Γ =K P sin α
2b
After doing the necessary substitutions, we get:
C N ,P =K P sin α cos α
and

C L ,P =K P sin α cos2 α
For the vortex lift component, the normal force associated with leading edge vortex is:
 CT
C N ,v =C S =
cos Λ
The lift component can be given by:
cos α
C L ,v =C N , v cos α=C T
cos Λ

By applying the Kutta-Joukowski theorem using velocity components normal to the wing chord plane,
the leading-edge thrust is given by

T =ρ Γ b(V sin α −wi)

Where wi is the effective downwash velocity induced onto the wing by the trailing vortex.
By substituting Γ, we get the coefficient to be:

wi
(
C T = 1−
V sin α )
K P sin2 α

Since wi is proportional to Γ, which in turn is proportional to Vsinα by virtue of the boundary

condition, then it follows that wi/Vsinα is independent of angle of attack. Therefore, by use of the
induced-drag relationships of small-angle theory, it can be shown that
wi ∂ C Di
=K P K i ∧K i=
V sin α ∂ C2L
By substituting, we get:

C T =( K P −K 2P K i ) sin 2 α

We get,
cos α
C L ,v =( K P −K 2P K i ) sin2 α
cos Λ
 1
K V =( K P−K 2P K i )
cos Λ
The final equation for coefficient of lift is:

C L =K P sin α cos2 α + K V cos α sin2 α

KP and KV for our delta wing comes out to be 1.1428 and 3.1639 respectively. So,

C L =1.1428 sin α cos 2 α +3.1639 cos α sin2 α

Six Component Based Strain Gauge

The sting balance has 6 strain gauge components. Two normal forces, two side forces, one axial force
and one rolling moment. The 6 components can be measured by mounting the delta wing on the sting
balance and connecting the wires to the DAQ box. The principle is the same as a single string gauge,
it consists of resistors that increase or decrease in length based on the type of force they are subjected
to. This causes them to change the resistance and the potential difference across them when they are
connected in a wheat-stone bridge. These changes are then appropriately converted and we get the
associated strain.

Procedure
1. Mount the delta wing on a sting balance and mount it inside the test section of the wind tunnel.
2. Adjust the wing to 0 degrees angle of attack using the digital protractor. Connect the strain gauge
wires to the data acquisition box. Reset the DAQ box (switch off and then on). Wait of 35
seconds.
3. Turn on the wind tunnel. Measure the free stream and stagnation conditions using the gangue
manometer. Now note down the readings of forces N1, N2 and Ax.
4. Turn off the tunnel. Change the angle of attack and then reset the DAQ box. Repeat the above
steps for angles of attacks ranging from 0 to 45 degrees.
5. Calculate the lift and drag forces by using the appropriate conversions and plot C L, CD and CM vs
alpha. Estimate the stalling angle and study the characteristics of the curves.

Analysis of Results
Density: 1.192 Kg m-3
Mean Aerodynamic Chord: 0.2333 m
Length of Moment Arm: 0.0649 m
Area: 0.026425 m2
 Velocity = 19.7
Angle Normal Pitching
of AF Force Lift Drag Moment Lift Drag Moment
Attack (Kgs) N1 (Kgs) N2 (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kg - m) Coeffi cient Coeffi cient Coefficient
0 0.01 0.009 -0.012 -0.003 -0 0.01 0.0014 -0.0048 0.0209 0.0094
5 0.02 -0.084 0.141 0.057 0.06 0.02 -0.0145 0.0888 0.0368 -0.1003
10 0.02 -0.216 0.365 0.149 0.14 0.05 -0.0371 0.2298 0.0764 -0.2558
15 0.03 -0.352 0.601 0.249 0.23 0.09 -0.0597 0.3754 0.1455 -0.4116
20 0.04 -0.59 0.992 0.402 0.37 0.17 -0.0965 0.5865 0.2783 -0.6648
25 0.04 -0.764 1.274 0.51 0.45 0.25 -0.1199 0.7153 0.4061 -0.826
30 0.05 -0.942 1.57 0.628 0.52 0.36 -0.1412 0.8367 0.57 -0.973
35 0.04 -0.925 1.534 0.609 0.48 0.38 -0.1308 0.7635 0.6167 -0.901
40 0.05 -1.07 1.802 0.732 0.53 0.51 -0.1428 0.8501 0.8177 -0.9841
45 0.05 -1.06 1.77 0.71 0.47 0.54 -0.1299 0.7506 0.8637 -0.8952

Velocity = 20.27
Angle Normal Pitching
of AF Force Lift Drag Moment Lift Drag Moment
Attack (Kgs) N1 (Kgs) N2 (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kg - m) Coeffi cient Coeffi cient Coefficient
0 0.016 0.004 -0.001 0.003 0.003 0.016 0.0003 0.0045 0.0243 0.0021
5 0.019 -0.098 0.168 0.07 0.068 0.025 -0.0172 0.1034 0.038 -0.1119
10 0.025 -0.241 0.41 0.169 0.162 0.054 -0.0416 0.2462 0.0819 -0.2708
15 0.032 -0.41 0.69 0.28 0.262 0.103 -0.069 0.3981 0.1569 -0.4488
20 0.038 -0.58 0.976 0.396 0.359 0.171 -0.0949 0.5454 0.2598 -0.6176
25 0.045 -0.77 1.29 0.52 0.452 0.26 -0.1212 0.6869 0.3955 -0.7886
30 0.052 -1.03 1.73 0.7 0.58 0.395 -0.1551 0.8812 0.5996 -1.0097
35 0.048 -1.03 1.726 0.696 0.543 0.438 -0.1465 0.8242 0.6657 -0.9537
40 0.051 -1.099 1.83 0.731 0.527 0.509 -0.1457 0.8008 0.7726 -0.948
45 0.052 -1.112 1.87 0.758 0.499 0.572 -0.1369 0.7584 0.8695 -0.8909

Velocity = 22.13
Angle Normal Pitching
of AF N1 N2 Force Lift Drag Moment Lift Drag Moment
Attack (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (Kg - m) Coeffi cient Coeffi cient Coeffi cient
0 0.015 0.09 -0.011 0.079 0.079 0.015 0.0066 0.1006 0.0191 0.0358
5 0.022 -0.101 0.176 0.075 0.073 0.028 -0.0179 0.0927 0.0362 -0.0978
10 0.027 -0.259 0.441 0.182 0.175 0.058 -0.0447 0.2224 0.0741 -0.2443
15 0.035 -0.445 0.769 0.324 0.304 0.118 -0.0761 0.3872 0.1499 -0.4156
20 0.041 -0.65 1.091 0.441 0.4 0.189 -0.1062 0.5101 0.2412 -0.5798
25 0.052 -0.937 1.577 0.64 0.558 0.317 -0.1479 0.7111 0.4045 -0.8075
30 0.056 -1.126 1.871 0.745 0.617 0.421 -0.1685 0.7864 0.5361 -0.9199
35 0.053 -1.143 1.902 0.759 0.591 0.479 -0.1619 0.7536 0.6097 -0.8841
40 0.057 -1.215 2.05 0.835 0.603 0.58 -0.1624 0.7685 0.7392 -0.8865
44.5 0.058 -1.235 2.05 0.815 0.541 0.612 -0.1521 0.6891 0.7802 -0.8306
 Angle of Attack Theoretical Cl Cl Cl
(degrees) Cl
Velocity = 20.27 Velocity = 22.13 Velocity = 19.7
0 0 0.0045 0.1006 -0.0048
5 0.12271359 0.1034 0.0927 0.0888
10 0.28623177 0.2462 0.2224 0.2298
15 0.48037184 0.3981 0.3872 0.3754
20 0.69248536 0.5454 0.5101 0.5865
25 0.908315 0.6869 0.7111 0.7153
30 1.11296375 0.8812 0.7864 0.8367
35 1.29191064 0.8242 0.7536 0.7635
40 1.43200381 0.8008 0.7685 0.8501
45 1.52236327 0.7584 0.6891 0.7506

Plots and Charts

Velocity = 20.27
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2

Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient Moment Coefficient

Velocity = 22.13
1

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient Moment Coefficient

 Velocity = 19.7
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2

Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient Moment Coefficient

Cl vs Angle of Attack
2

1.5
Coefficient of Lift

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.5
Angle of Attack

Theoretical Velocity 20.27

Velocity 22.13 Velocity 19.7

Discussion
According to the theoretical values the coefficient of lift is supposed to monotonically increase till 45
degrees. Clearly, that is not the case. We find the delta wing to stall at around 30 degrees. It should be
near it more or less since our increment is in 5 degrees so minute differences in stall angles (1 or 2
degrees) can not be captured. General appropriation with theoretical predictions is observed in this
experiment. A parabolic-like nature of the Drag Polar, a close to linear plot of the C L distribution and
stalling angles close to 30 are most of the predictions that we can refer to as a validation of our
experimental data.
The theoretically calculated values of CL were close to the experimentally observed values till 25
degrees after which significant difference between the two was observed. Difference as large as 25%
can be seen at an angle of 30 degrees. The difference increases as the wing stalls at 30 degrees which
is not accommodated by the model used in calculating the lifting coefficient.
The sources of error are mostly human error and setup limitations. We have observed small forces
acting on the wing at zero angle of attack. Since the wing is symmetrical, ideally the forces should
have been zero which is clearly not the case. This is probably because of small angles (not zero)
which can not be corrected. Other possible reasons could be an unbalanced wheat-stone bridge in any
or all of the strain gauges.
We cannot eliminate the errors but we can minimise it to a good extent. Properly mounting the wing
can reduce the small angle errors (close-to-zero yaw and roll angles). Balancing the wheat-stone
bridge and fixing zero errors in the DAQ box are other possible options. The wind tunnel should be
kept clean and the walls smooth to minimize turbulence as much as possible.

References
1. Anderson, J.D., “Modern Compressible Flow with Historical Perspective”, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill
Series in Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering, New York, 2003.
2. Polhamus, E.C., “A Concept of the Vortex Lift of Sharp-Edge Delta Wings Based On a Leading-
Edge-Suction Analogy”, Langley Research Centre Langley Station, Hampton, VA, 1966.

Group Member Marks

1. Shilpa Sajeev [16AE10022] 5/5
2. Priyam Dalmia [16AE10013] 5/5
3. Suraj K [16AE10028] 5/5
4. Swapnil Agarwal [16AE10030] 5/5

Question and Answers

*All questions have been answered implicitly in the theory and discussion in the report.