See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245431187

Design and Testing of MultiElement Airfoil for Short-Takeoff-and-Landing

Ultralight Aircraft

Article  in  Journal of Aircraft · September 2009

DOI: 10.2514/1.43429

CITATIONS READS

25 5,168

3 authors:

Domenico Coiro Fabrizio Nicolosi

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
75 PUBLICATIONS   538 CITATIONS    103 PUBLICATIONS   959 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francesco Grasso
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
34 PUBLICATIONS   447 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PTO for Wave and Tidal Renewable Energy View project

Hybrid-Electric Aircraft Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Domenico Coiro on 27 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Multi-Element Airfoil Design, Analysis and Wind-Tunnel
Test for a S.T.O.L. Ultra-Light Aircraft

D.P. Coiro1, F. Nicolosi2, F. Grasso3

Department of Aerospace Engineering(DIAS) – University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Napoli, Italy

Design and analysis of a new airfoil to be applied on a STOL (Short Take-Off and
Landing) Ultra-light aircraft is presented. An inverse design philosophy has been applied
and here it’s described; numerical analysis has been performed by using XFOIL, MSES and
TBVOR computational codes and effects of airfoil shape on complete aircraft performances
have been taken into account. High-lift configuration, including slat and single-slotted flap,
has been developed and it is presented in this paper. Intensive wind tunnel tests have been
performed at laboratory of Department of Aerospace Engineering (DIAS) and are also
described. In order to validate numerical results and to analyse the presence of laminar
bubbles and their behaviour, pressures on airfoil surface and in the wake have been
measured and flow visualizations by fluorescent oil have been used. Landing configuration
has been also tested and an experimental optimization about flap and slat positions has been
done to obtain higher value of maximum lift coefficient.

Nomenclature
α = angle of attack
c = airfoil chord
Cd = drag coefficient
CDeq = complete aircraft trimmed drag coefficient
Cdmin = minimum drag coefficient
Cl = lift coefficient
CLeq = complete aircraft trimmed lift coefficient
Clmax = maximum lift coefficient
Cmc/4 = moment coefficient respect to quart of chord
Cp = pressure coefficient
Lh = Tail load
RC = Rate of climb
RCmax = Maximum rate of climb
Vmax = Maximum speed
Vs = Clean configuration stall speed
Vsff = Full flap configuration stall speed

I. Introduction

T HE design of a new STOL Ultra-Light Aircraft has being carried out at DIAS (Department of Aerospace

Engineering-Univ. of Naples “Federico II”) by ADAG (see www.dpa.unina.it/adag) research group; a general view

of the aircraft is shown in Fig.1. The commercial success of the aircraft is mainly dependent on the achievable

1
Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Via Claudio 21 80125 Napoli, Italy, [email protected],
AIAA Senior Member.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Via Claudio 21 80125 Napoli, Italy,
[email protected], AIAA Senior Member.
3
Aerospace Engineer - PhD Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Via Claudio 21 80125 Napoli, Italy,
[email protected], AIAA Associate Fellow.
STOL aircraft capabilities and on improved STOL characteristics compared to other similar light aircraft. Some

STOL light aircraft as the well-known Zenith CH701 (see Fig.2) has been appreciated worldwide and demonstrates

that STOL capabilities can be a key for commercial success in the category of light and ultra-light aircraft. Recently

other ultra-light aircraft have been modified and sold in STOL version. The Savannah ADV (see Fig. 3) produced by

ICP has been introduced in the market in 2005. These aircraft are usually characterized by a not streamlined fuselage

and by classical airfoil shape. For example Savannah ADV adopts a NACA 5-digit airfoil and a very simple flap

shape. Some STOL aircraft of this category are characterized by a fixed slot at leading edge (see Fig. 4) penalizing

parasite drag and flight speed at cruise conditions. The starting idea on which the Easy-Fly project was based, was to

design a STOL ultra-light aircraft made in composite material with good drag characteristics and very low stalling

speed. The wing high-lift system (flap and slat) was designed to have low-drag characteristics in cruise conditions

and very high maximum lift coefficient in full-flap configuration; in order to obtain this result, both leading edge slat

and slotted flap were designed to be retractable.

Fig 1 Perspective CAD view of Easyfly aircraft.

Fig 2 CH701 aircraft.

 Fig 3 Savannah ADV aircraft.

Fig 4 CH701 wing section.

The general design of the aircraft was presented in previous conferences1-3. The aerodynamic design both of the

main airfoil and high lift system, performed through numerical aerodynamic analysis and wind-tunnel tests are

illustrated in the present paper.

The high lift system includes a retractable slotted flap and a retractable slat. In literature4-7, concerning three

elements high lift devices (airfoils), all presented cases belongs to applications at high Reynolds number and with

airfoil shape commonly used for general transport transonic aircraft. This paper presents research efforts addressed

on high-lift devices to be applied for low-speed light and general aviation aircraft. These applications are usually

characterized by Reynolds number at low speed of about 1 million. For this particular reason, particular attention has

been paid both in numerical analysis and experimental tests and the optimization of gap and overlap has been

performed both numerically and experimentally. The final results in terms of maximum achieved lift coefficient are

particularly promising because obtained for relatively low value of Reynolds number.

II. Airfoil Design

A new airfoil was designed at DIAS. Aerodynamic requirements were: Clmax not less than 1.6 at Reynolds

number 1.7 x 106, Cdmin less than 0.006 and Cmc/4 greater than –0.08 at Reynolds number 4 x 106; looking at other

ultra-light aircraft, a 13.5% chord referred thickness was chosen.

The adopted design methodology8 has included preliminary airfoil selection to obtain a starting airfoil shape not

too far from design requirements. The design loop (see Fig. 5) includes evaluation both of airfoil aerodynamics and
complete aircraft aerodynamics and performances. The airfoil’s aerodynamic characteristics have been calculated by

using XFOIL9 and TBVOR10-12 ; the aircraft performances have been calculated by using AEREO13 numerical code.

Preliminary airfoil selection

Geometric modifications

Have the airfoil aerodynamic design

characteristics been achieved? no
yes no

Have the aircraft design goals been achieved?

(aerodynamic and structural characteristics,
performance, flight quality)

yes

Final airfoil

Fig 5 Airfoil design loop.

As preliminary airfoil shape GAW(1) airfoil has been considered. The airfoil thickness has been then reduced to

13.5% (original thickness of GAW(1) is 16%) and the airfoil has been named GAW(1)M.

A second phase of the design process was to modify the geometry of the previous airfoil. First of all, the

maximum camber of the mean line was reduced and its position was moved forward to improve the Cmc/4. In order to

achieve high lift performances, the leading edge (LE) has been slightly dropped; at the same time LE radius was

increased to obtain good stall characteristics and to avoid abrupt stall. The airfoil obtained in this way was named

G1. The G1 airfoil was compared to several airfoils as NLF0115 (13.5% thickness reduced and renamed

NLF0115M1), SM13m1(modification of SM701 airfoil) and G398m2 (modification of Gottinghen G398 airfoil)

(see Fig.6).

Fig 6 Compared airfoil geometries.

 Table 1 Airfoil aerodynamic characteristics (XFoil)
Airfoil Clmax Re=1.7x106 Cdmin Re=4x106 Cmc/4 Re=4x106
G1 1.67 0.00530 -0.0711
NLF0115 1.47 0.00418 -0.0521
G398m2 1.43 0.00531 -0.066
SM13m1 1.81 0.00496 -0.125

Table 1 shows the comparison of main aerodynamic characteristics (estimated through the use of the above

mentioned aerodynamic codes [ref. 9,10,11,12]) of the mentioned airfoils. The estimated two-dimensional

aerodynamics have been then used to evaluate aerodynamic characteristics [ref. 13] of the complete aircraft. Fig. 7

and fig. 8 show the effect of airfoil shape on the aircraft trimmed lift coefficient curve and on the aircraft trimmed

polar. On the base of estimated aircraft maximum lift and aircraft trimmed polar main aircraft performances have

been estimated [ref. 13] and are presented in Table 2.

Fig 7 Effect of airfoil on aircraft trimmed lift curve

 Fig 8 Effect of airfoil on aircraft trimmed drag polar

Table 2 Effect of airfoil shape on complete aircraft performances

Vsff, Km/h
Vmax, Vs, slat + single slat + fowler
Airfoil km/h Km/h slot flap flap RCmax, m/s LhVmax, Kg
G1 194.095 64.926 47.568 45.565 6.69 -159.63
NLF0115M1 194.529 69.457 49.266 47.051 6.85 42.77
G398m2 194.769 67.456 48.537 46.414 6.78 -104.77
SM13m1 191.508 62.172 46.453 44.581 6.63 -310.73

Table 2 presents the estimated aircraft performances in terms of maximum level speed, stalling speed (flap up

and down) and maximum rate of climb (RCmax). The last column of table 2 shows the maximum tail load (at

maximum flight speed) (LhVmax) on the horizontal tail surface necessary to equilibrate the aircraft at maximum level

speed. As it is well known, high airfoil pitching moment (see table 1) leads to high value of tail loading. The G1

airfoil can be considered a good compromise between STOL performances and cruise performances except for its

tail load (Lh). In order to improve these aspects, the trailing edge (TE) area was rotated 3° upward. Airfoil was

named G1F (see fig.9). In order to check influence of geometry modification on maximum lift coefficient, the

calculations have been extended to stall and post-stall conditions. In fig. 10 and fig. 11 the lift curve and moment

coefficient are shown; it can be seen that the maximum lift coefficient at Re=2 x 106 of G1F airfoil is very close to
that of original GAW(1)M airfoil. A value close to 1.60 has been estimated. Figure 11 shows that G1F is

characterized by a very low pitching moment coefficient (about –0.040) compared to that one (-0.10) relative to

GAW(1)M airfoil. In terms of drag characteristics, G1F airfoil is characterized by similar drag coefficient values

(about 0.0060 at Re= 4 x 106) respect to GAW(1)M, showing some laminar flow extension on upper and lower

surface. However, considering that airfoil upper and lower surfaces will be interested by the junction between slat

and main component when the high-lift system is present (part III), the possibility to have laminar flow extension

has been not considered. The aerodynamic characteristics of the single-component airfoil have been then considered

with boundary layer transition placed at about 10% on both upper and lower surface.

Fig 9 Comparison between GAW(1)M and G1 and between G1 and G1F airfoil geometries

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
Cl

0.8

0.6
G1F GAW(1)M
0.4

0.2

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (°)

Fig 10 Lift curve of GAW(1)M and G1F airfoils

 0

-0.02

-0.04
Cmc/4

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1
G1F GAW(1)M
-0.12
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α (°)

Fig 11 Pitching moment curve of GAW(1)M and G1F airfoils

III. High Lift System Design

A. Preliminary Sizing Procedure and High Lift Design Loop

In order to obtain preliminary indications about two-dimensional high lift system that can satisfy design

specifications, a sizing procedure, based on Roskam’s semi-empirical methodology14, has been applied. In particular

two solutions have been considered for the flap: single-slotted flap and fowler flap. A flap chord extension of about

30% has been considered to optimise flap effectiveness and to contain the increase of wing pitching moment; a

chord extension of 15% for the slat has been considered. Table 3 shows the results of this preliminary analysis.

Table 3 Airfoil maximum lift coefficient at different high lift configurations

Single slot + Fowler
Clean Single slot flap Fowler flap slat slat + slat
Take-off 1.6 2.23 2.28 2.07 2.65 2.70
Landing 1.6 3.03 3.45 2.07 3.46 3.87

It can be seen that, starting from a clean airfoil Clmax of 1.60, a Clmax for the flapped configuration of 3.46 can be

achieved with a slotted-flap-slat configuration. Adopting the fowler flap it is possible to obtain a better value of Clmax

but the single slot flap has been chosen because the fowler flap solution is more complex, more expensive and

heavier , thus it is not compatible with an ultra-light aircraft.

 Single component airfoil

Slat Modifications
Preliminary Flap Modifications
slat and flap
no no
design
Aerodynamic check Aerodynamic check

yes Complete configuration modifications yes

no
Aerodynamic check

yes
Complete
Global optimization high lift
configuration
Local optimization design

Final multicomponent airfoil

Fig 12 High Lift Design Loop

Figure 12 shows the high lift design loop. Assuming semi-empirical results as aerodynamic requirements,

starting from single component airfoil, slat and flap have been separately designed; then the complete high lift

configuration has been developed and optimised through numerical computations. The landing condition has been

prescribed as design configuration; all the analysis have been performed at Reynolds number = 1.3 x 106 by using

MSES15 code.

B. Single Slot Flap Design

In order to obtain a value of Cl not less than 3.4 at the angle of attack of 10° with flap deflection of 40°, different

shapes have been developed acting on the flap shape, slot shape and lip extension. Figure 13 shows some

configurations; Table 4 shows the results.

 Fig 13 Developed flap configurations

Table 4 Maximum lift coefficient of the analyzed configurations

Configuration fs1 fs2b fs2b+ fs3c fs5 fs6
Cl (α=10°) 3.41 3.34 3.38 3.25 3.18 3.46

C. Slat Design

In the same way, in order to achieve a Cl not less than 1.9 at angle of attack of 15°, starting from single

component airfoil, different slat geometries have been designed modifying both slat and slot shapes. A 25°

deflection angle and a 15% slat chord compared to the airfoil chord have been fixed from preliminary sizing process.

Figure 14 shows some configurations; Table 5 shows the results. Starting from s2 configuration the s4 configuration

has been obtained by cutting the trailing edge zone to simplify the slat construction.

Fig 14 Developed slat configurations

Table 5 Maximum lift coefficient of the

analyzed configurations
Configuration s1 s2 s3 s4
Cl (α=15°) 1.92 1.95 1.93 1.95

D. Complete Configuration Modifications and Analysis

Merging fs6 flap geometry and s4 slat geometry together, the three components configuration has been obtained.

The single-slotted flap rotates respect to an hinge; in order to reduce the forces acting upon the hinge point, a

modification of the flap leading edge has been applied. Figure 15 shows the new shape, named fs7, and the old one.
Fig. 16 shows the 3-component airfoil in cruise, take-off (deflections, flap: 20°; slat: 25°) and landing (deflections,

flap: 40°; slat: 20°) configuration.

Figure 17 shows the results of MSES analysis for the landing configuration. Fig. 18 shows the grid used for the

MSES analysis at an angle of attack of 18 deg.

Fig 15 G1F three components airfoil before and after modification

Fig 16 G1F three components in cruise, take-off and landing configurations

 4

3.5

2.5
Cl

1.5

1 clean
take-off
0.5
landing
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
α (°)
4

3.5

2.5
Cl

1.5
clean
1 take-off
landing
0.5

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Cd
0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
Cmc/4

-0.2

-0.25

-0.3

-0.35 clean
take-off
-0.4 landing
-0.45
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
α (°)
Fig 17 Multi-element airfoil’s geometry and aerodynamic characteristics
 Fig 18 Grid computed by MSES at angle of attack of 18° and pressure coefficient distribution at the same
angle of attack.

E. Numerical Optimization

In order to enhance maximum lift performances of the multi-component airfoil in landing configuration, a

numerical optimization has been done varying slat and flap position in terms of gap and overlap. This optimization

process has been performed moving separately flap and slat by using a scanning pattern of positions.

1. Flap Position Optimization

Different configurations with different flap positions while keeping the slat fixed, and have been analysed with

MSES; Table 6 shows the explored geometries (in terms of gap and overlap) and table 7 presents the calculated

Clmax of all configurations calculated by MSES at the angle of attack of 18.5° (that is the angle of attack for

maximum lift in landing configuration, see fig. 17).

Table 6 Geometrical characteristics of the

analysed configurations
Overlap (%c)
3 1.9 1 0
Gap 1.7 f1 f2 f3 f4
(%c) 1.8 f5 f6 f7 f8
1.88 f9 f10 f11 f12
2 f13 f14 f15 f16

Table 7 Lift coefficient at α=18.5°

Overlap (%c)
3 1.9 1 0
Gap 1.7 1.32 4.01 4.03 3.97
(%c) 1.8 3.83 3.95 3.99 3.93
1.88 3.87 4 4.02 3.87
2 3.92 4 3.98 3.88
 Examining results and the lift curves,f3, f10, f11 and f14 configurations have been selected. Figure 19 shows the

pressure coefficient distribution on main component and flap of the mentioned geometries. The f11 configuration is

slightly more performing because of the less value of the flap overlap, but in the f14 configuration the hinge position

is closer to the airfoil’s chord. The f14 configuration has been preferred. Actually, the f3 configuration should be the

best configuration, but the f14 has been preferred because of the tendence of MSES code to predict better

performances for lower values of gap.

f10 f11 f14

-4
-10
-3
-8
-6
-2
Cp
-1
Cp

-4
-2 0
0 1
2 2
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,75 0,85 0,95 1,05

Fig 19 Pressure coefficient distribution over main component (left) and flap (right) of G1F airfoil

2. Slat Position Optimization

In the same way, different slat positions have been examined keeping the flap fixed; Table 8 shows the explored

geometries (again in terms of slat’s gap and overlap) and their Clmax at 18.5°. The s15 configuration has been

selected.

Table 8 Scheme of the analysed

configurations
Overlap (%c)
8 6 4 1
Gap 3 s1 s2 s3 s4
(%c) 3.5 s5 s6 s7 s8
3.77 s13 s14 s15 s16
4 s9 s10 s11 s12

Table 9 Lift coefficient at α=18.5°

Overlap (%c)
8 6 4 1
Gap 3 3.71 3.91 3.86 3.8
(%c) 3.5 1.09 3.91 3.94 3.88
3.77 3.77 3.91 3.96 3.76
4 3.78 3.91 3.9 3.76
 IV. Wind Tunnel Tests

After deep numerical analysis, in order to experimentally obtain aerodynamic characteristics and to validate

numerical results, extensive tests including both pressure measurements and flow visualizations, have been

performed on a 2D model of three component G1F airfoil. This model has been made by using an aluminium flap

and main component. In order to avoid slat deformation at the centre of the model where pressure taps were placed,

a very stiff carbon-fiber slat has been built. The model has a chord of about 55 cm with the flap and the slat retracted

and it is shown in fig 20 installed in the test section; 18 pressure taps are installed on the slat, 65 on the main

component and 33 on the flap, for a total number of about 116 pressure taps installed.

Slat
(carbon fiber)

Wake rake

Fig 20 Three component G1F airfoil model

All tests have been performed in the DIAS main wind tunnel (see Fig. 21); this facility is a close-circuit wind

tunnel with a close test-section measuring 2.0m x 1.4m. Tests have also been focused on the optimization of

elements position.

In particular two 64 channel ZOC Scanivalve pressure transducers have been used for the pressure

measurements. During tests, the corrections due to model blockage, wake blockage and solid wall presence have

been taken into account as reported in Pope16. An external suction system has been used to minimize the the tunnel

side-wall effects (see Fig. 22). The drag has been obtained by integration of pressures measured along a wake rake

connected with a 100 channel multi-manometer.

 Fig 21 Scheme of Wind Tunnel at the DIAS

Table 10 Wind tunnel main characteristics

Test section dimensions 2.0 m x 1.4 m
Maximum speed 150 Km/h
Turbulence level 0.1 %

Fig 22 Suction system holes

A. Cruise Configuration

The first tests were conducted on the cruise configuration (flap and slat retracted); test Reynolds number was 1.3

x 106, based on the model chord (c=0.55 m). Figure 23 shows some flow visualizations made with fluorescent oil on

airfoil upper surface at angle of attack equal to 0° and 8°. It can be observed that at low angles of attack the

geometrical discontinuity on the airfoil upper surface due to the slat trailing edge moves the transition toward

leading edge. This discontinuity causes absence of laminar flow on main component upper surface, as already

outlined in previous part of this paper. This fact will cause higher airfoil drag than expected by numerical

calculations with free transition. When the angle of attack overcomes 8° there is a laminar bubble development on

the slat trailing edge that moves forward at 5% of the chord increasing the angle of attack. Same tests have been

done by using a transition strip at 5% of the chord.

 Slat-main Slat-main Laminar bubble
α: 0° discontinuity α: 8° discontinuity Laminar flow

Laminar flow

Turbulent
Laminar flow
Turbulent
Laminar bubble
Turbulent α: 13°
flow flow flow

Fig 23 Flow visualization tests on airfoil upper surface

Figure 24 shows the comparison between the numerical and the experimental results in terms of airfoil pressure

coefficient distribution. It can be observed a general good agreement between numerical and experimental data

except for the local difference on the upper surface of the airfoil due to the geometrical discontinuity between slat

and main component of the model.

experiments numerical
-1.5
slat-main component discontinuity
-1

-0.5
Cp

0.5
α: 0°
1

1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

experiments numerical
-3
-2.5
slat-main component discontinuity
-2
-1.5
-1
Cp

-0.5
0
0.5
α: 6°
1
1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Fig 24 Pressure coefficient measurements on G1F airfoil; numerical-experimental comparisons

 Fig 25 Experimental lift curve; numerical-experimental comparisons

Fig 26 Experimental drag curve; numerical-experimental comparisons

Figures 25-26 show the comparisons between numerical and experimental analysis in terms of lift, drag and

moment coefficients. Also In this case a good agreement between numerical and experimental results can be

observed. In the drag polar curve there is a difference between numerical and experimental data because of a low
under-predicted numerical data and probably an over-estimated experimental data arising from the above mentioned

discontinuity.

B. Landing Configuration

Landing configuration has also been extensively tested. The chosen preliminary landing configurations have

been obtained considering the previous numerical analysis results. Thereafter, an experimental optimisation of the

configuration has been carried out acting separately on slat and flap position; the same definitions of gap and

overlap used for the numerical analysis have been applied here.

Different slat configurations have been analysed at angle of attack of 15°, assuming that the gap is the minimum

distance between elements and the overlap is the vertical distance between slat TE and main component LE (see Fig.

27). From table 11 it can be seen that maximum lift coefficient for landing configuration is dependent on slat’s gap

and overlap. Table 11 show that high values of the slat gap (5-6% ,configurations s2 and s3) are characterized by a

reduction of maximum achievable lift coefficient respect to the s1 configuration (gap of about 3%). An optimum

overlap value of about 4% has been found to be the best. Very small values of slat’s gap and overlap (configuration

s4) lead to a partially chocked slat channel with a sensible reduction of maximum lift coefficient. Finally a slat

position close to s1 (gap of 3% and overlap of about 4% of airfoil chord) has been chosen and frozen for next part of

experiments related to flap position optimization.

Fig 27 Definition of Gap and Overlap.

Table 11 Slat position experimental optimization; Re=1.3*106,

flap deflection=39°, slat deflection=0°
Configuration Gap (%c) Overlap (%c) α (°) Cl
s1 3.37 4.12 15.37 3.7
s2 5.1 3.9 15.5 3.3
s3 6.1 4.44 15.46 3.5
s4 2.22 2.56 15.36 3.22
 In the same way different flap configurations have been considered with a deflection of 39° (see Table 12),

assuming that the gap is the minimum distance between elements and the overlap is the horizontal distance between

the main component TE and flap LE (see Fig. 28). As can be seen from table 12 the gap value of the tested

configuration has been fixed around 1.3 % of airfoil chord. Preliminary tests (see also p1 in table 12) have shown

that smaller flap’s gap values (see in example configuration p1 with gap value of 1.l8%) lead to a partially chocked

channel (with the flap not working properly) and lower maximum lift coefficient. The presented different

configurations in table 12 are characterized by overlap values ranging from 2% to about 4% of the chord. As already

well known, very low overlap values lead to a not efficient slot with increased flow separation on flap upper surface.

Figure 29 shows the comparison between the different lift coefficient curves measured through wind-tunnel tests

performed on each configuration. As can be seen from fig. 30 an overlap value of about 4%, with gap fixed at 1.35%

(configuration p5) has been found as optimal. The measured maximum lift coefficient for the final landing

configuration at an angle of attack of about 24 deg. is about 4.0. This value of the maximum lift coefficient can be

considered very high and a very good result of the numerical and experimental optimization process.

Fig 2827 Definition of Gap and Overlap

Table 12 Flap position experimental

optimization; Re=1.3*106, flap
deflection=39°, slat deflection=0°
Configuration Gap (%c) Overlap (%c)
p1 1.18 2.3
p2 1.35 3.4
p3 1.35 3.2
p4 1.35 1.96
p5 1.35 3.73
 Fig 29 Lift coefficient curve of experimentally optimized flap configurations

Figure 30 shows the pressure coefficient distribution measured on the 3-componet airfoil in landing

configuration at different angles of attack. Figure 31 shows the lift coefficient curve of the optimal landing

configuration; in the same figure the effect of different flap deflection angles is shown.

From figure 30 it can be observed that the maximum lift coefficient of about 4 it is achieved at alpha about 24

deg. As it is well known for 3 component configurations with slat, the increase in lift coefficient from an angle of

attack of 12 deg. to 24 deg. is due to the sensible increase in lift on the slat component. From 12 deg. to 24 deg. the

main component lift coefficient increases of about 10% while the lift coefficient on the slat increases from 0.61 up

to about 1.0 (about 65%).

Fig 30 Experimental pressure coefficient distribution of landing configuration at different angles of attack;
Re=1.3*106, flap deflection=39°, slat deflection=0°.
 Fig 31 Experimental lift coefficient curve of the landing configuration; effect of the flap deflection angle.
Re=1.3*106, flap deflection=39°, slat deflection=0°.

Tests on the landing configuration with fixed transition on the slat and on the main component have also been

performed to test the effect of dirtiness or contaminated surface. A transition strip have been applied on the slat

leading edge and on the main leading edge (about 5% of main component on its upper surface). Figure 32 shows the

results in terms of lift curve, figure 33 shows the results of the flow visualization tests.
 No strip Strip slat Strip slat+main
4.5

3.5

3
Cl

2.5

1.5

1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
α (°)

Fig 32 Experimental lift curve with fixed transition effects; Re=1.3*106, flap deflection=39°, slat
deflection=0°.

Fig 33 Flow visualization tests on landing configuration upper surface (flow from right to left)

At the end of numerical and experimental analysis, a comparison in terms of lift coefficient curves has been
performed between the G1F three elements airfoil and the airfoil proposed in ref. 6. This has been done because of
the poor literature about multi-element airfoils at low value of Reynolds number, as highlighted in the introduction
of the present publication. Fig. 34 shows the experimental and numerical lift curve of G1F 3-element airfoil at
Re=1.3*106 and the experimental and numerical results of AGARD-AR-303 test-case airfoil at Re=3.5*106. It is
worth to outline that the airfoil presented in the AGARD case is a 3-component airfoil with fowler flap but with
lower flap deflection (about 20 deg.). The G1F airfoil show similar maximum lift coefficient despite of lower
Reynolds number due to higher flap deflection. Obtained results show that Clmax of about 4 is possible at low
Reynolds number (about 1 million) with a 3-component airfoil and with adequate flap deflection.
 G1F (experiments) G1F (MSES calculations)
AGARD-AR-303 (experiments) AGARD-AR-303 (MSES calculations)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
Cl

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
α (°)

Fig 28 Numerical-Experimental comparison between G1F airfoil and AGARD-AR-303 airfoil.

V. Conclusions

Starting from GAW(1) airfoil, the G1F airfoil has been designed and analyzed; this new airfoil is well suited for
STOL applications having good stall characteristics and good Clmax performance. At the same time the moment
coefficient Cmc/4 is not very high (-0.040) and will lead to small tail loads and small trim drag for the aircraft.
Experimental tests have confirmed all numerical results. The airfoil maximum lift coefficient in cruise configuration
(slat and flap retracted) has been found to be around 1.60 (both numerically and experimentally) at Reynolds
number equal to 1.3*106. A detailed numerical aerodynamic analysis of the 3-component landing configuration with
flap and slat deflected has been performed using MSES code. Many different configurations have been considered
through the modification of flap and slat positions (different gap and overlap values for both components).
Calculations have shown that a maximum lift coefficient of about 4.0 could be achieved at high angles of attack at
Re=1.3*106. The wind-tunnel tests have been then performed on the landing configurations for the 3-component
airfoils. An optimization of flap and slat position changing gap and overlap for both components have been
performed. More than 30 different configurations have been tested in a wide range of angles of attack. In the paper
only results relative to more significant configurations have been presented. After flap and slat optimization the final
landing configuration shows a maximum lift coefficient close to 4.0. This result can be considered as a very good
value considering the low value of Reynolds number. Because of this aspect, the present work can be considered a
good reference for design of multi-element airfoil. The achieved maximum lift coefficient in landing configuration
gives good opportunities for the airfoil to be applied on STOL light aircraft.
VI. Appendix A: G1F single component airfoil coordinates

Table 13 G1F single

component airfoil
coordinates
x/c y/c
0.999774 0.000573
0.987277 0.001332
0.965208 0.003687
0.938837 0.007044
0.908922 0.011121
0.876884 0.015597
0.843993 0.020248
0.810867 0.025034
0.777551 0.029945
0.744315 0.034861
0.711392 0.03988
0.678507 0.045019
0.646121 0.049955
0.614228 0.054493
0.58259 0.058597
0.551039 0.062276
0.519501 0.065528
0.487928 0.068361
0.456311 0.070787
0.424672 0.072804
0.393058 0.074406
0.361508 0.075595
0.330106 0.076344
0.298939 0.076631
0.26814 0.076429
0.237852 0.075693
0.208385 0.074395
0.18007 0.072458
0.153266 0.069843
0.128439 0.066581
0.106154 0.062814
0.086864 0.058713
0.07059 0.05438
0.057021 0.049945
0.045766 0.04551
0.036424 0.041135
0.028646 0.036839
0.022154 0.032622
0.01673 0.028476
0.012215 0.024392
0.008498 0.020356
0.005496 0.016365
0.003166 0.012414
0.001483 0.008514
0.000435 0.00469
0.000011 0.000985
0.000193 -0.00266
0.001045 -0.00638
0.002627 -0.01011
0.004961 -0.01374
0.008045 -0.01724
0.011857 -0.02061
0.016463 -0.02383
0.021973 -0.0269
0.028502 -0.02991
0.036272 -0.03292
0.045608 -0.03597
0.056956 -0.03906
0.070887 -0.04219
0.088018 -0.04532
0.108733 -0.04839
0.132845 -0.05123
0.159747 -0.05364
0.188523 -0.0556
0.218418 -0.05702
0.249008 -0.05791
0.280082 -0.05831
0.311502 -0.05825
0.343152 -0.05777
0.374955 -0.05689
0.406818 -0.05564
0.43868 -0.054
0.470531 -0.05198
0.502413 -0.04957
0.534393 -0.04676
0.566579 -0.0436
0.599001 -0.04013
0.631477 -0.03646
0.66345 -0.03265
0.695651 -0.02828
0.728579 -0.02375
0.761529 -0.01924
0.794011 -0.01497
0.825842 -0.01098
0.856565 -0.00752
0.886232 -0.00476
0.914713 -0.00277
0.941555 -0.00161
0.966058 -0.00126
0.987538 -0.00167
1 -0.00242
VII. Appendix B: G1F three component airfoil coordinates (landing configuration)

Table 14 G1F slat

coordinates
x/c y/c
-0.00745 0.024986
-0.03215 0.012802
-0.05201 0.001377
-0.06747 -0.00905
-0.0793 -0.01843
-0.08832 -0.02689
-0.09517 -0.03458
-0.10032 -0.04166
-0.10408 -0.04823
-0.10666 -0.05437
-0.10817 -0.06013
-0.10868 -0.0655
-0.10823 -0.07043
-0.10687 -0.07493
-0.10442 -0.07923
-0.10081 -0.08317
-0.09604 -0.08657
-0.09013 -0.0894
-0.08488 -0.09118
-0.08111 -0.09193
-0.07722 -0.09261
-0.07722 -0.09261
-0.08196 -0.08722
-0.08451 -0.08152
-0.08563 -0.07662
-0.08606 -0.07325
-0.08611 -0.06977
-0.0858 -0.06357
-0.08457 -0.05479
-0.08208 -0.04636
-0.07774 -0.03771
-0.07096 -0.02787
-0.06214 -0.01718
-0.05134 -0.00642
-0.03991 0.003069
-0.02661 0.012564
-0.00745 0.024986

Table 15 G1F main

component
coordinates
x/c y/c
0.782345 0.030726
0.756731 0.03429
0.712575 0.040599
0.662578 0.047984
0.619642 0.054157
0.576587 0.059767
0.533788 0.06458
0.491009 0.068613
0.448176 0.071892
0.405353 0.074421
0.362698 0.076189
0.320474 0.077162
0.279097 0.077302
0.239344 0.076581
0.202501 0.075004
0.170152 0.072716
0.14309 0.069546
0.120313 0.065189
0.100994 0.059987
0.084753 0.054287
0.071232 0.048187
0.059984 0.041817
0.050648 0.035385
0.042954 0.029009
0.036678 0.022742
0.031657 0.016602
0.027712 0.010637
0.024705 0.004881
0.022422 -0.0006
0.0209 -0.00582
0.020041 -0.01088
0.020093 -0.01496
0.020718 -0.01923
0.021961 -0.02318
0.024022 -0.02657
0.028384 -0.02969
0.03652 -0.03306
0.044531 -0.03567
0.05059 -0.03753
0.056599 -0.03916
0.066011 -0.04149
0.078444 -0.04427
0.094849 -0.0471
0.115842 -0.04999
0.142553 -0.05286
0.175106 -0.05548
0.212189 -0.0575
0.252088 -0.05872
0.293629 -0.05908
0.336144 -0.05865
0.3792 -0.05749
0.422475 -0.05562
0.465826 -0.05305
0.509309 -0.04976
0.553236 -0.04575
0.598001 -0.0411
0.643607 -0.03604
0.681976 -0.03138
0.693531 -0.02992
0.693531 -0.02992
0.689546 -0.0234
0.686076 -0.01466
0.686222 -0.00504
0.68893 0.001766
0.695551 0.01123
0.707462 0.020312
0.719487 0.025139
0.73218 0.028449
0.749045 0.030045
0.767119 0.030381
0.782378 0.029765

Table 16 slotted flap

coordinates
x/c y/c
1.014122 -0.19102
1.000803 -0.17813
0.982767 -0.15907
0.961386 -0.13572
0.938427 -0.11028
0.914801 -0.08402
0.891316 -0.058
0.870098 -0.03491
0.851931 -0.01771
0.835627 -0.00496
0.821987 0.003515
0.810538 0.008601
0.800755 0.011187
0.79233 0.011887
0.785094 0.011107
0.778979 0.00932
0.773864 0.007152
0.769851 0.004468
0.766876 0.001334
0.76475 -0.00236
0.763516 -0.00667
0.763255 -0.0114
0.764422 -0.0163
0.767543 -0.02106
0.772716 -0.02582
0.780787 -0.03136
0.794076 -0.03985
 0.815929 -0.05326
0.844692 -0.07083
0.875018 -0.08997
0.904873 -0.10962
0.933738 -0.12969
0.960608 -0.14961
0.984238 -0.16846
1.002829 -0.1845
1.012363 -0.19347

References

[1] Coiro, D.P., Nicolosi, F., De Marco, A., Genito, N., and Figliolia, S., “Design of a Low Cost Easy-to-Fly STOL Ultra-

light Aircraft In Composite Material” Acta Polytecnica, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2005, pp. 73-80, ISSN 1210- 2709 (Presented

at 4th Advanced Engineering Design Conference, Glasgow, Sept. 2004).

[2] Coiro, D.P., Nicolosi, F., Figliolia, S., Grasso, F., De Marco, A., and Genito, N., “Design of a S.T.O.L. Ultra-Light

Aircraft in Composite Material”, XVIII Congresso Nazionale AIDAA, Volterra (Pi), Italy, 2005.

[3] Coiro, D.P., Nicolosi, F., De Marco, A., Scherillo, F., Grasso, F., “High-Lift Systems for STOL Ultra-Light Aircraft,

Design and Wind-Tunnel Tests” , XIX Congresso Nazionale AIDAA, Forlì (Fc), Italy, 2007.

[4] Lin, J.C., Dominik, C.J., “Parametric Investigation of a High Lift Airfoil at High Reynolds Numbers”, Journal of

Aircraft, Vol.34, No. 4, July-August, 1997, pp.485-491.

[5] Spaid, F.W., “High Reynolds Number, Multielement Airfoil Flowfield Measurements”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.37,

No.3, May-June, 2000, pp.499-507.

[6] Moir, I., “Measurements on a Two-Dimensional Airfoil with High Lift Devices: A Selection of Experimental Test

Cases for the Validation of CFD Codes”, AGARD-AR-303, August 1994.

[7] Balaji, R., Bramkamp, F., Hesse, M., Ballmann, J., ”Effect of Flap and Slat Riggings on 2-D High-Lift Aerodynamics,

Journal of Aircraft, Vol.43, No.5, September-October 2006, pp. 1259-1271.

[8] Grasso, F., “Progetto e analisi di un profilo alare multicomponente per applicazioni S.T.O.L.”, Aerospace Engineering

Thesis, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale, Academic Year 2004-

2005.

[9] Drela, M., “XFOIL User Guide”, ver. 6.94, MIT Aero & Astro, Dec. 2001.

[10] Coiro, D.P., and de Nicola, C., “Prediction of Aerodynamic Performance of Airfoils in Low Reynolds Number Flows,”

Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics Conference, Notre Dame, USA, 1989.

[11] Coiro D.P., and Dini P., "Stall and Post-Stall Performance Prediction of Advanced Wind-turbine Airfoils", XII AIDAA

Congress, Como, Italy, 1993.

 [12] Coiro D.P., and Dini P., "Prediction of Airfoil Stall over Wind-Turbine Airfoils", FTEC '97 Congress, YogJakarta,

Indonesia, July 1997.

[13] Coiro, D. P., Nicolosi, F., “Aerodynamics, Dynamics and Performance Prediction of Sailplanes and Light Aircraft”,

Technical Soaring, 24, No. 2, April 2000.

[14] Roskam, J., “Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes” , DARcorporation, Lawrence, Kansas, 1997, Part I-II and IV.

[15] Drela, M., “A User’s Guide to MSES”, ver. 2.9, MIT Computational Aerospace Sciences Laboratory, October 1995.

[16] Rae, W. H., Pope, A., "Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing", II edition, Wiley-Interscience, 1984.

[17] Besnard, E., Schimtz, A., Boscher, E., Garcia, N., Cebeci, T., “Two dimensional Aircraft High Lift System Design and

Optimization”, AIAA 98-0123, 1998.

[18] Kim, S., Alonso, J.J., Jameson, A., “Design Optimization of High Lift Configurations using a Viscous Adjoint-Based

Method”, 40th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno , NV, 2002.

[19] Egglestone, B., McKinney, W.D., Banaszek, J., Choi, N.S., Krolikowski, G., Lebrun, F., Thompson, J., Zingg, D.W.,

Nemec, M., De Rango, S., “Development of a New Flap for a Light Utility Transport Aircraft”, Canadian Aeronautic

and Space Journal, Vol. 48, No. 4, Dec. 2002.

View publication stats