Go to Otherpower.com Home Page Go to Forcefield Shopping Cart Go to Wondermagnet.com Home Page
Front Page - [Homebrewed Electricity-- (wind) (solar) (hydro) (steam) (controls) (storage) (mechanical)] - Classifieds - Site News
Everything - Newbies - [Remote Living-- (housing) (heat) (light) (water)] - Reviews - Diaries - Our Products
NACA 4415


By willib, Section Diaries
Posted on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 12:43:45 AM MST
the defacto  paper on airfoils for wind turbines

Abstract

Wind turbines in the field can be subjected to many and varying wind conditions, including high winds with the rotor locked or with yaw excursions. In some cases, the rotor blades may be subjected to unusually large angles of attack that possibly result in unexpected loads and deflections. To better understand loadings at unusual angles of attack, a wind tunnel test was performed.

An 18-inch constant-chord model of the NACA 4415 airfoil section was tested under two dimensional steady state conditions in the Ohio State University Aeronautical and Astronautical Research Laboratory 7x10 Subsonic Wind Tunnel. The objective of these tests was to document section lift and moment characteristics under various model and air flow conditions. Surface pressure data were acquired at -60° through +230° geometric angles of attack, at a nominal 1 million Reynolds number. Also, cases with and without leading edge grit roughness were investigated. Leading edge roughness was used to simulate blade conditions encountered on wind turbines in the field. Additionally, surface pressure data were acquired for Reynolds numbers of 1.5 and 2.0 million, with and without leading edge grit roughness, but the angle of attack was limited to a -20° to 40° range.

In general, results showed lift curve slope sensitivities to Reynolds number and roughness. The maximum lift coefficient was reduced as much as 20 % by leading edge roughness. Moment coefficient showed little sensitivity to roughness beyond 50° angle of attack, but the expected decambering effect of a thicker boundary layer with roughness did show at lower angles.

Tests were also conducted with vortex generators located at the 30% chord location on the upper surface only, at 1 and 1.5 million Reynolds numbers, with and without leading edge grit roughness. In general, with leading edge grit roughness applied, the vortex generators restored the baseline level of maximum lift coefficient but with a more sudden stall break and at a lower angle of attack than the baseline.

NACA 4415 | 45 comments (45 topical)

Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#1)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 06:48:06 PM MST

Merlin found this , some of the old timers probably know it by heart.
a copy is in my files its 1.5 megs , but i'll be taking pieces of it for further examination


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


List of symbols (3.00 / 0) (#2)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:14:28 PM MST









Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


Airfoil Primer (3.00 / 0) (#3)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 07:57:11 PM MST

this is an airfoil primer pdf ,its only 81Kb
http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2965/airfoilprimer.pdf
its also in my files
it covers stuff like lift ,drag , angle of attack, coefficient of lift , coefficient of drag and Reynolds number


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


link to the NACA 4415 pdf (3.00 / 0) (#4)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:14:38 PM MST

i misspelled Murlins name ,sorry :)
http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2965/NACA_4415.pdf


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


Re: link to the NACA 4415 pdf (3.00 / 0) (#5)
by Murlin on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:37:06 PM MST

"i misspelled Murlins name ,sorry :)"

Hey NP....Man....those sure are alot of numbers!!!  

No way am I going to get stuff like that on the little experiment I am planning on doing.

But it is going to be a fun experiment none the less.....

I think I may have upset a few people questioning the whole airfoil issue...but I guess you just can't please everyone, all the time....

I never was one to blindly follow orders.....heh.....

Murlin

[ Parent ]



Re: link to the NACA 4415 pdf (3.00 / 0) (#6)
by DanB on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:41:49 PM MST

Damned... you could've carved a good set of blades by now ;-)
(just kidding)

[ Parent ]


what is chord , contains a 43K photo (3.00 / 0) (#7)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:49:29 PM MST

chord length is the length from the leading edge , on the right ,to the trailing edge of your blade
this particular airfoil section is about 7.4" long , i made them  out of the thin part of  cedar shingles.
coppied from a print out that paradigmdesign provided here

http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/4937/airfoil_sections.jpg



the chord line is a straight line from the leading edge to the trailing edge

.


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)



how does this become a blade (3.00 / 0) (#8)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:29:04 PM MST




there are  a lot of similarities between tha NACA 4415 and the airfoils paradigmdesign provided
I can only describe what i have done , i've got a zillion pictures , going back before i became an active member here so i might as well show them if anyone wants to see them , its going to take a little while to collect them in the right sizes , more to come...


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


my early blade experiment and influences (3.00 / 0) (#9)
by willib on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:15:16 PM MST

its strange the influences other peoples designs have on you .
this is my version of doug selsams props



this is from warlock.com.au



similar yes?



warlock again


some day i would like to try five of these on a carbon fiber surf fishing rod shaft





Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)



...by no means least (3.00 / 0) (#10)
by willib on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 12:11:12 AM MST

i've come a long way in a short time , and i am by no means an expert like these guys



i could show you how to layout a section and cut it in ten minuets with a hot wire ,i think the best thing to do for all the budding blade builders out there is to make a model of a set of blades , something you can touch , rotate ,look at from all angles , and spin around if possible , because it really helps to have that as a reference ,when you are making your blades


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


Re: ...by no means least (3.00 / 0) (#12)
by Murlin on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:03:02 AM MST

Hot wire/foam....

Ya I made some pretty cool RC airplane wings out of cut foam with a  balsa skin, and fiberglass cloth/resin finish.

Light as a feather and strong as heck.

They came pre cut and ready to lay on the balsa skin.   But it was a TON of work to finish them.

Murlin

[ Parent ]



Re: ...by no means least (3.00 / 0) (#25)
by willib on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 07:42:19 PM MST

how thin is  the balsa wood ?
i'm thinking it would work great for a blade with no taper and no twist.


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


Re: ...by no means least (3.00 / 0) (#44)
by Murlin on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 11:53:29 AM MST

Sorry it took so long to get back, been on vacation and will be putting out fires all month.

The balsa skin was 1/16" thick and the wing was around 8', with about a 10" chord width.

The airfoil did look close to the 4415..

Murlin

[ Parent ]



my latest creations (3.00 / 0) (#45)
by willib on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 07:29:18 PM MST

i started them late sturday night, i worked on and off on them sunday ,and finished them yesterday, i still have to hit them with fine sandpaper
as you can see they are real small , but still the alt doesnt stop when shorted , although it does spin very slowly.
they spin at 263 RPM , with the fan on high no load.



maybe tomorrow evening i can get out an give them a spin with real wind


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


max lift ? (3.00 / 0) (#11)
by willib on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 03:02:48 AM MST

since the 4415 is so similar to my airfoil i am going to use this data in my blade designs in the future.



sorry about the gap
the 4415 has a max coeficient of lift at 14 degrees of 1.47
but it goes down to .78 from 20 to 22 degrees then goes back up to 1.36 at 39.7 degrees ? can anyone explain why this is?
and given this info ,at what angle should i design my blades
do i want the max lift?
i've got some pretty nice results with an AOA of 6 degrees could i go more?
should i go more ? thoughts? opinions








Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)


Re: max lift ? (3.00 / 0) (#13)
by rotornuts on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 11:26:06 PM MST

That transition you see in the Cl from high to low to high again is the transition from aerodynamic lift to loss of lift due to stall and back to lift due to drag.

Follow the Cd figures as well as the Cl figures to get a picture of what's really happening.

From 12 degrees to 19 degrees you go from a Cl of 1.4 up and back down to 1.4 but at 19 degrees it cost you 4 times more drag. You can see that at 20 degrees you have stalled badly and the Cd has almost doubled in one degree of angle. It's all down hill from there as the drag is increasing dramaticly. If you were in an airplane you'd be yelling mayday, mayday!

Mike

[ Parent ]



C pressure diagrams (3.00 / 0) (#16)
by willib on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:46:54 AM MST

they put pressure sensors on the airfoil , so that a negative pressure is suction ,  (lift) i think

i havnt figured what x/c means
c is the chord length
x is an " Axis parallel to airfoil reference line"

but just looking at x/c = 0.0 , i can see that at 19 deg , lift is a max , at 20 degrees it goes into stall , mayday!

and at 6 degrees there is twice as much lift as drag pressure .

VGs are vortex generators placed on the airfoil surface
k/c are  little slatterings of simulated bug debris












Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: C pressure diagrams (3.00 / 0) (#18)
by finnsawyer on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:37:14 AM MST

I'd say x/c is the fraction of the distance along the span starting at the windward edge.  They must define the axis shown as zero as some physical line across the foil.  The maximum pressure at the leading edge occurs slightly below that line.  Along the top surface the pressure drops rapidly as the air flow speeds up and then drops off slowly along the span.  I suspect any air foil will show similar curves.  No real surprise here.
GeoM
[ Parent ]


Re: max lift ? (3.00 / 0) (#14)
by finnsawyer on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 08:59:33 AM MST

You mention the lift coefficient at 14 degrees, but if you look at the data the lift coefficient changes slightly from ten degrees to twelve while the drag coefficient more than doubles.  In other words stall is more like at twelve degrees.  And keep in mind that for a high TSR wind mill blade only a small part of the lift contributes to output power due to the geometry and the direction of the apparent wind, while almost all of the drag acts to rob the blade of power.  And both drag and lift are proportional to blade width.  In any case this air foil profile behaves basically like any air foil near stall.  It is interesting to see the data above stall, as they don't normally give it.  I don't know how useful it would be, though.
GeoM
[ Parent ]


minus1.9 to 14deg data (3.00 / 0) (#15)
by willib on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 09:58:05 AM MST

hi GeoM the data after stall is provided to give data for when the blades are furled or in the process of furling and not in their normal angle relative to wind direction.i think thats the reason.
the positive and negetive angles they go into in the pdf are extreme indeed , they even go upto a positive 90 degrees AOA ,with  their model foil , which was composed of a foam core with carbon fiber skin.



i also noticed the coefficient of drag pressure Cdp is minus for an AOA of 2.2 , does this mean there is no drag at 2.2 deg AOA
there is also very little drag pressure at 4.0 & 6 degrees but it triples from 6.0 to 8.3 degrees AOA


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: minus1.9 to 14deg data (3.00 / 0) (#17)
by finnsawyer on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 08:52:08 AM MST

I think the negative values for the drag coefficients are just artifacts.  That is, they are just a result of how the data is handled.  Physically, drag will always rob the mill of power.  You need to dig deeper to find out what the minus sign means.  It would appear from the data that four degrees would be the sweet spot for this profile, but have they accounted for all the drag effects?  This doesn't seem to follow the usual curves where the drag coefficient has a U shape as a function of attack angle.

Here's something else to consider.  For a given TSR and point on the blade the apparent wind has a certain angle (alpha) relative to the plane of the blades.  Take this angle as fixed.  If one now increases the attack angle of the blade from say four degrees to eight, the angle between the blade and the blade plane goes from alpha - 4 to alpha - 8.  It starts out small and becomes less.  The amount of the lift force that contributes to the output power goes as the sine of this angle, so it becomes less.  For instance for a TSR of seven (an alpha of 8.13 degrees) the angle goes from 4.13 to 0.13 at the tip.  In the latter case essentially no part of the lift is contributing to output power at the tip.  On the other hand drag is affected only slightly by this change.  I think people tend to overlook this issue.
GeoM
[ Parent ]



blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#19)
by willib on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:49:57 AM MST

http://www.alton-moore.net/wind_calculations.html

http://www.warlock.com.au/bladecalc-abstract.htm

Both of these are very good blade calculators, my favorite is warlock's because it converts meters to inches and feet for you.

Now,as an example put in warlock's calc. click on the metric button
 3 blades
 6 tsr
 .35 eff
 1 m radius blade size
 10.1 kph
now click imperial button your chord should read 2.404" long  ,at the tip. at an angle of 0.3 degrees, angle beta.

maybe i have been spoiled because i can change the angle of attack of the whole blade even after its done. Just by pivoting the blades a tad this way or that.a nice feature to be sure

What happens if you want to change the length ( radius) of the blade and get the calc to output in inches? easy , just go back and click the  metric button , put in .875 m radius , click solve , then click imperial this gives you a blade radius of 2.9 feet , if you then click solve again,  notice the length is back to 3 feet it must be a conversion problem in th program , dont know..

some things i've noticed and have some questions on:

for a given TSR , both calculators assume a AOA , let me explain

TSR - Altons - Warlock
 9 - 4.2 - 4.2
 8 - 4.7 - 4.8
 7 - 5.4 - 5.4
 6 - 6.3 - 6.3
 5 - 7.6 - 7.6
 4 - 9.4 - 9.5
at these angles for each calculator the tip ends up at 0 degrees ,when you change the airfoil from NACA 2412 to a user defined airfoil
how is it that the NACA 2412 is defined by its Cl of .85 at an alpha of 6 degrees?

another observation i've made is that for any given set of parameters , lowering the lift coefficient , increases the chord length to make up for the lower Cl .

.


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#20)
by finnsawyer on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:02:06 AM MST

Increasing the chord length also increases the drag.  Considering that one can impose any angle at the root when installing the blades, it is quite feasible to carve the blade such that at the tip the blade has zero angle relative to the broad side of the board and still maintain the desired attack angle.  The attack angle in turn must depend on the TSR so that at the tip one gets the desired lift.  As the TSR drops the angle alpha that I defined gets larger allowing a larger attack angle.  Anyway, that's why their programs impose a certain attack angle for a specified TSR.  I would have to see all the details for a blade design to comment further.  As I pointed out in the past, carving these blades from 2 bys somethings probably does not give good performance below half radius.
GeoM
[ Parent ]


Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#21)
by willib on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:32:28 AM MST

but isnt it also true that increasing the chord length also increases the lift , and if one uses a proper airfoil , say a NACA 4415 , then the gained lift outweighs the gained drag , and there is a net gain from using a larger chord


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#22)
by finnsawyer on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 08:37:53 AM MST

As it happens both the lift and drag are proportional to the chord length, so both go up by the same ratio.  There is no advantage to increasing the chord length.  Besides, there is only so much power or energy available from the wind.  If the chord length is already optimal (that's what those programs are supposed to find), then increasing the chord can not gain you any more power from the wind, but will increase drag to rob more power from the wind, so you lose output.  One relative measure that some people use is the ratio of the lift coefficient to the drag coefficient Cl/Cd.  Obviously maximizing this quantity would be good.  I don't believe it tells the whole story, however, as the angle of chord axis to the blade plane (alpha - AOA) is important.  The smaller that angle the less the lift contributes to the output power while the drag basically stays the same.

Since you seem to have a deep interest in these issues, I suggest you get a book on aerodynamics, such as the one by Dan Smith.  If you're not versed in Calculus I also suggest you enroll in courses in differential calculus and integration at a local university.  You need to understand the interplay of forces, dynamics, and geometry and these get quite complicated, but the tools do exist to handle them.  The problem is that there are two forces at work and you want to maximize the usable component of the lift force while minimizing the drag force within the constraint of the available power from the wind.  Not only that, you want to keep your RPMs up to match the characteristics of your alternator.
GeoM
[ Parent ]



Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#23)
by willib on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 02:04:00 PM MST

"As it happens both the lift and drag are proportional to the chord length, so both go up by the same ratio.  There is no advantage to increasing the chord length.  "

i respectively dissagree , if i may.
if there is no gain from increasing chord length , then how come the blade calculators do just that .
When one inputs a lower Coefficient of lift , the blade calculators compensate for this , by increasing chord length , for the same wind speed , RPM & Power Output of the blades.


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#24)
by willib on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 02:07:10 PM MST

 my mistake i ment respectfully


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#27)
by SmoggyTurnip on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 08:42:37 AM MST

Increasing the chord length increases the RE number.
If there was no advantage to larger chord lengths then airplanes
should have 1" chord for their wings.

.
The sooner you start the longer it takes.
[ Parent ]



Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#29)
by finnsawyer on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 09:36:51 AM MST

The dynamics of an airplane wing and a windmill blade are different.  The airplane wing is being pulled through the air.  The lift is vertical and the drag is horizontal.  Both are proportional to the area (planform) of the wing.  In order to keep the plane aloft you need a certain amount of lift.  This results in a certain amount of drag.  Doubling the wing's (chord length) will double both. This requires a larger engine to overcome the drag.  You don't get something for nothing.  The same applies for a wind mill where the engine is the wind.  You have to stay within the limits imposed by it.  It is a more complex situation than the air plane wing.  See the explanation above.
GeoM
[ Parent ]


Re: blade calculators ( ins & outs) (3.00 / 0) (#28)
by finnsawyer on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 09:23:32 AM MST

I thought you were advocating increasing the chord length with the same coefficient of lift.  That is different than the case you described above.  I stand by my comment, as doubling the chord length for the same lift coefficient would double the force pulling the blade around.  This doubling of force means twice as much work is done by the blade as it makes a complete revolution.  If the time of one revolution does not change, then the power provided by the blade has also doubled.  The problem is that the wind does not support this if the original chord length was optimal.  You will, in effect, have only succeeded in increasing drag.

If, on the other hand, you halve the lift coefficient by reducing the angle of attack, you do need to double the chord length to get the same lift on the blade.  Reducing the lift coefficient may also change the drag coefficient.  If the drag coefficient is reduced by more than half, the drag may also be reduced allowing a shorter chord length for optimal performance.  But by reducing the angle of attack you have also changed the geometry.  Since the angle of the apparent wind does not change anywhere along the blade for a given TSR, you would also have a greater fraction of the lift force in the direction of rotation with a smaller angle of attack allowing a further reduction in the chord length.  Does this mean we should use a zero angle of attack, since you can still get lift then?  Well, it depends on what the drag coefficient or the ratio Cl/Cd is doing since we end up with a very wide blade.  Obviously this case is much more complex than the one that I outlined above.  There is an optimal solution, but finding it is not easy.  You need the proper data to do it, but I am not sure if the data you have presented is it.  I am concerned, as I mentioned before, about the behavior of the drag coefficient.  The data seems to imply that the resistance to air flow of what is basically a fat air foil disappears at a certain angle of attack.  This is suspect.
GeoM
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#26)
by SamoaPower on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 06:30:07 AM MST

The introductory text, "the defacto paper on airfoils for wind turbines", to this post is quite misleading. The referenced paper only contends to be a report on  tests to determine the effects of surface roughness and the use of vortex generators on a particular airfoil. It does not purport to be a treatise on the selection of airfoils or design of wind turbine rotors. The paper doesn't claim to be a defacto anything, it's only this post author's interpretation of something he obviously doesn't understand very well.

There are so many mistakes, mis-statements, and mis-interpretations of data in this post, I hardly know where to begin ... so, I won't. I write this simply to offer a word of caution to the new-commers, that there are many better sources of information on this topic than what is presented here.

I believe it is irresponsible to offer an authoritative paper for review and to represent it as something it doesn't purport to be.



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#30)
by finnsawyer on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 09:59:04 AM MST

I came to a similar conclusion from the data alone.  There is something wrong with the drag coefficient.  It appears the paper's authors are measuring or calculating the drag due to a certain effect.  I don't think it tells the whole story.  I would not use this data for a blade design.
GeoM
[ Parent ]


Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#31)
by SamoaPower on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 12:54:39 PM MST

I guess I gave the impression that I was being critical of the paper itself. No, not all. The paper is fine for what it purports to be. What I was being critical about is the post's author misuse of it. Sorry, if I gave the wrong impression.

The drag used is the pressure drag coefficient which I believe is different than what we are used to seeing from the polar plots for an airfoil.

[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#32)
by willib on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 04:48:29 PM MST

No it was pretty clear to me anyways what you were getting at.
it is also clear to me that some of us are doers and some of us are talkers
anyone reading this can decide for themselves which is which


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#34)
by finnsawyer on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 08:43:06 AM MST

What's the point of being a doer if you don't know what your are doing?  You can follow what most people are doing here.  But by posting this you implied you have entered the realm of the thinker, which opens up all kinds of issues.  What escapes me is why you didn't check the existing data for the 4415 profile, as it surely exists being a NACA air foil profile.  I am sure you would have found a much different curve for the drag coefficient.  I would like to call your attention to graph B32.  Note the lower curve that has a pressure coefficient as large as one.  I take that to be pressure above that of the incident wind.  As such, it results in a force against the leading edge of the wing.  That is, it results in drag. Unfortunately you need this build up of pressure along the leading edge to give the speed up in air flow along the top surface that results in lower pressure there and lift.  So, this component of drag and the lift are intricately related.  

If you are willing to pay me $100,000.00 a year, I will drop everything I am doing and will advise you (develop the necessary equations or computer programs) in doing whatever it is you are trying to do.  As it is, you are getting these insights for free.  It's up to you to put them to good use.  
GeoM
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#35)
by willib on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:03:48 AM MST

"What escapes me is why you didn't check the existing data for the 4415 profile, as it surely exists being a NACA air foil profile"

 the online data for the airfoil (the SG6050) that i am using is somewhat lacking  , BUT it is real close to the NACA4415 ,which there is lots of data for , i believe i stated that earlier in this thread .
its not exact , but its close enough for me :)
the differences i can see are the sg6050 has a slightly pointier nose , it is a tad thicker , and lacks the slight camber twards the trailing edge , but like i said close enough for government work.
i agree the pressure, on the lower part of the graph ,is the pressure above the foil , from the incident wind side of the foil, even though they call it a coeficient it is really sort of a direct pressure reading from pressure sensors located on the upper and lower part of the airfoil ,i'll try and find the part in the pdf where they talk about  the pressure sensors and how the data is presented.












Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#39)
by finnsawyer on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 08:06:22 AM MST

I don't have time to try and digest this now.  I'd simply like to say that I haven't seen anything really revolutionary concerning air foils.  As far I can tell they all behave (have lift and drag coefficient behavior) about the same.  As such, from the standpoint of the home experimenter it doesn't make much difference what profile they use, including simply having a flat back surface.  You might check it out.  From my perspective there are other more interesting issues to consider that may yield better results than fiddling with air foil shapes.  You also ought to keep in mind that a 50 per cent increase in output only requires about a 15 per cent increase in wind speed.  How many people can make the necessary measurements to the accuracy required in the field (not in a wind tunnel)?  Ever wonder why the leading edge of an air plane wing is rounded rather than a knife edge, which would have less drag?  
GeoM
[ Parent ]


Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#40)
by willib on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 09:16:58 AM MST

"Ever wonder why the leading edge of an air plane wing is rounded rather than a knife edge, which would have less drag?"

i'm not sure how one would incorporate a wing with a knife edge into an airfoil shape
i can tell you that proportionally  enlarging  the airfoil that i have to a 21" chord , brings the leading edge up to a 1/2" radius..
sort of blunt ,but that part of the blade isnt going as fast as the tip is.

i found it interresting in the last paragraph about the Vortex Generators (VGs).

"Adding VGs on the model upper surface at the 30% chord station caused
the maximum lift coefficient to increase by 29% in the clean cases and about 27% for the roughened cases.
The VGs apparently energized the boundary layer sufficiently to increase the lift curve slope and to delay
stall to a higher angle of attack resulting in a higher maximum lift coefficient. However, the positive stall with VGs was more abrupt than the stall without VGs."

.


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#42)
by finnsawyer on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 09:20:43 AM MST

The 15 in the 4415 means that the thickness of the air foil is 15 per cent of the length.  There are also tables for 12 per cent thicknesses.  Air plane design involves compromises between many competing requirements.  One is the need for a spar of sufficient strength in the wing.  Does this determine the shape of the wing with the blunt edge or are there other considerations?  One could (conceptually) continue the shape of the air foil toward the wind to a knife edge, making it symmetrical and about doubling its length.  In the case of a wind mill blade the entire blade is the spar, so we don't need as much thickness.  There are those who advocate very thin blades, so maybe we should use a thin blade with a knife edge.  In my mind this leaves the question of what speeds up the air to cause the lower pressure along the top surface.  Since it requires a force to change the direction and speed of any mass, I think we need those blunt noses with the build up of pressure to get maximum lift.  Again we come back to the relationship between the drag caused by this pressure and the lift.

The use of the vortex generators may increase lift, but what will the effect on overall drag be?  If drag increased this could actually decrease performance.  Keep in mind that you can increase power with an air plane, but have no such option with a wind mill.  As you are aware, I am skeptical about their drag coefficient data.  I don't think it tells the whole story.  
GeoM
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#43)
by willib on Sat Jul 29, 2006 at 09:51:29 AM MST

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/airfoils1/airfoilgeometry.html

if you have java activated on your machine the above page is pretty cool ,as it lets you change the numbers of the  NACA airfoils and draws them for you..


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#41)
by willib on Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 01:42:19 PM MST

"As such, from the standpoint of the home experimenter it doesn't make much difference what profile they use, including simply having a flat back surface."

all i meant was the NACA 4415 was close enough to the SG5060 that it seemed to me that i could use the 4415 results and apply them to the SG6050 .


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#38)
by willib on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:15:15 PM MST

Test Equipment and Procedures
Data Acquisition
Data were acquired and processed from up to 60 surface pressure taps, three individual tunnel pressure transducers, and an angle of attack potentiometer. The data acquisition system included an IBM PC compatible 80386 based computer connected to a Pressure Systems Incorporated (PSI) data scanning system.
The PSI system included a 780B Data Acquisition and Control Unit (DACU), 780B Pressure Calibration Unit (PCU), 81-IFC scanning module interface, two ESP-32 5-psid range pressure scanning modules (ESPs), and a 30-channel Remotely Addressed Millivolt Module (RAMM-30).

Three individual pressure transducers read tunnel total pressure, tunnel east static pressure, and tunnel west static pressure. Before the test began, these transducers were bench calibrated using a water manometer to determine their sensitivities and offsets. Related values were entered into the data acquisition and reduction program so the transducers could be shunt resistor calibrated before each series of wind tunnel runs.
The angle of attack potentiometer was a linear rotary potentiometer and was regularly calibrated during the tunnel pressure transducers shunt calibration. The angle of attack calibration was accomplished by taking voltage readings at known values of set angle of attack. This calibration method gave angle of attack
readings within ±0.25° of actual over the entire angle range.
Two ESPs were calibrated simultaneously using the DACU and PCU. At the operator's request, the DACU commanded the PCU to apply known regulated pressures to the ESPs and read the output voltages from each integrated pressure sensor. From these values, the DACU calculated the calibration coefficients and stored them internally until the coefficients were requested by the controlling computer. This calibration was done several times during a run set because the ESPs were installed inside the model and their outputs tended to drift with temperature changes during a test sequence. Frequent online calibrations minimized the effect.
Finally, at the operator's request, pressure measurements from the airfoil surface taps and all other channels of information were acquired and stored by the DACU and subsequently passed to the controlling computer for final processing.

Data Reduction
The data reduction routine was incorporated as a section of the data acquisition program. This combination of data acquisition and reduction routines allowed data to be reduced online during a test. By quickly reducing selected runs, integrity checks could be made to ensure the equipment was working properly and to enable timely decisions about the test matrix.
The ambient pressure and tunnel air temperature were manually input into the computer and were updated regularly. These values, as well as the measurements from the tunnel pressure transducers, were used to calculate tunnel airspeed. As a continuous check of readings, both the tunnel individual pressure transducers
and the ESPs, read the tunnel total and static pressures.
A typical datum point was derived by acquiring twenty data scans of all channels over a 1-second window at each angle of attack and tunnel condition. The reduction portion of the program processed each data scan to coefficient forms Cp, Cl, Cm¼, and Cdp using the measured surface pressure voltages, calibration coefficients, tap locations and wind tunnel conditions. All scan sets for a given condition were then ensemble averaged to provide one set. All data were saved in electronic form. The data were not corrected for any tunnel wall effects, etc.
Test Matrix
The test was designed to allow an extended angle of attack range of -60° to 230° and Reynolds numbers of 1, 1.5, and 2 million with and without LEGR. Tabular data in Appendix B contains the actual Reynolds number for each angle of attack. The angle of attack increment was four degrees when ����<-20° or ����>40°, two degrees when -20°< ���� <10° or 20°< ���� <40°, and one degree when 10°< ���� <20°. All test speeds and angles of attack were set for model clean and LEGR conditions.



For some cases, VGs were mounted at the 30% chord position on the model's upper surface only. The VG strips were provided by U.S. Windpower and were the exact type used on wind turbines in the field. Test conditions while the VGs were applied included clean and LEGR data at 1 and 1.5 million Reynolds numbers
over an angle of attack range of -20° to 40°.

Summary
A NACA 4415 model was installed in the OSU/AARL 7x10 subsonic wind tunnel and tested at three Reynolds numbers and with model clean, roughened, and with VGs. Table 1 is a summary of the aerodynamic coefficient data for the NACA 4415.



For the clean NACA 4415 model, Reynolds number changes from 1 to 2 million did not have a significant effect on the maximum positive lift or the pitching moment at zero degrees angle of attack. However, the addition of leading edge grit roughness to the model reduced the maximum lift coefficient by 18% and caused a 16% change in the pitching moment at 0° angle of attack. Also, the lift curve slope showed
increases with Reynolds number. Adding VGS on the model upper surface at the 30% chord station caused the maximum lift coefficient to increase by 29% in the clean cases and about 27% for the roughened cases.
The VGs apparently energized the boundary layer sufficiently to increase the lift curve slope and to delay stall to a higher angle of attack resulting in a higher maximum lift coefficient. However, the positive stall with VGs was more abrupt than the stall without VGs.



Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]



Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#33)
by willib on Wed Jul 26, 2006 at 08:28:37 PM MST

Damnit i wish i had'nt said that
i was in sort of a bad mood
sorry


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#36)
by SamoaPower on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 07:07:57 PM MST

Now, what's this about doers and talkers?







Re: NACA 4415 (3.00 / 0) (#37)
by willib on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 07:30:41 PM MST

Finally we get to see something from you, what took you so long?
i did apologize ...
what is that cool looking gaget third one down on the left ?
is that a wartman fx 60 airfoil top right? looks like it has depth to it?
cool planes too
is that a pitch control mechanism right above that cool looking gaget?


Carpe Ventum (seize the wind)
[ Parent ]


NACA 4415 | 45 comments (45 topical)
Display: Sort:
Menu
· create account
· How to use the board
· FAQs
· search the board
· Google search the board

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Total Views
  163 Scoop users have viewed this posting.

Related Links
· willib's Diary

Powered by Scoop
You must be a registered user to post here. It's easy and free, and the link is on the upper right side of your page.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Postings are owned by the poster, but may be deleted or moved at the ADMIN's sole discretion. The Rest © 2009 Forcefield.
You can Email the board ADMIN here. PLEASE include the username you signed up with!