Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133

9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020, CHALLENGES OF AVIATION

DEVELOPMENT

Aerodynamic analysis of the aircraft model made with the 3D

printing method
Paulina Iljaszewicza, Tomasz Łusiakb*, Anna Pastuszakb,Andrej Novakc
a
Military University of Aviation, Dywizjonu 303 no. 35, 08-521 Dęblin, Poland
b
Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36, 20-618 Lublin, Poland
c
Air Transport Department, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia

Abstract

The article presents an aerodynamic analysis of the aircraft model. The process of constructing the physical model began with the
development of geometry. Preliminary design was made using SolidWorks program, giving the desired shape with as many
details as the method allowed. It had to be made precisely, because later it was to be printed on a 3D printer. In this phase of the
project a special hole was also prepared on the model side for mounting in the wind tunnel. Important conditions were measured
and written down. The applied wind tunnel - Gunt HM 170 - enabled the measurement of the lifting forces and resistance at four
different air speeds (15, 20, 25 and 28 m/s) and different angles of attack - 0˚, 2˚, 4˚, 6˚ ... 16˚ and then 0˚, -2˚, -4˚, -6˚ ... -12˚. On
the basis of the results obtained, the load bearing force and resistance coefficients were calculated. In order to make a
comparison, a simulation was prepared in the SolidWorks Flow Simulation, using the same conditions as in the wind tunnel test.
This allowed for a relative comparison of the results from tests on physical models. The obtained results of uplift and resistance
forces were tabulated.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open
Peer-review access
under article under
responsibility of the
the CC BY-NC-ND
scientific license
committee (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020,
Peer-review
CHALLENGES under responsibility
OF AVIATION of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020, CHALLENGES
DEVELOPMENT
OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
Keywords: aerodynamic characteristics; aerodynamical analysis; coefficient; comparative analysis; drag; Flow Simulation; lift; SolidWorks; wind
tunnel

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: t.lusiak@pollub.pl

2352-1465 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020, CHALLENGES
OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
2352-1465 © 2020 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Air Transport – INAIR 2020,
CHALLENGES OF AVIATION DEVELOPMENT
10.1016/j.trpro.2020.11.014
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 119
2 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Each newly created aircraft undergoes a series of aerodynamic analyses and tests aimed at creating and applying
the best - economical, aesthetical, performance, geometrical and design solutions. The Aduster is one of the most
modern aircraft, having an interesting design. It was therefore interesting to examine this aircraft in terms of
aerodynamic characteristics. As the examination of the aircraft itself was impossible to complete, the available
model of the Aduster aircraft was used, which was scanned. The numerical model was created from the scan, which
allowed later to prepare a physical model of the half of the aircraft. The finished model was aerodynamically
analysed. This work describes one by one phases of the process of creating a numerical model, executing a physical
model, then presenting accurate descriptions of the outcomes of these studies and the results obtained during the
analyses. Based on these, graphs were drawn up for measured and calculated values. Next, the values were
interpreted for correctness by comparing with the results obtained during numerical simulations with those obtained
during the wind tunnel tests. The last part of the work contains ordered results of aerodynamic analyses with their
interpretation. Abłamowicz and Nowakowski (1980) showed the same proposition.

1.1. Physical context

The term "aerodynamic analysis of a flying object" refers to a wide range of studies of the given object. It defines
the description of all phenomena occurring during the flight, when the object is submitted to the flow of the
medium, in this case air. For this work, aerodynamic analysis has been narrowed to measuring the lift (Pz) and drag
(Px) forces and to calculating and analyzing the aerodynamic force factors- the lift (Cz) and the drag (Cx),
coefficients. The basic parameters that have been measured are:

• lift – a force that acts perpendicular to the air velocity vector in the symmetry plane of the wing
(aircraft);
• drag - the force that acts in the direction of the air velocity vector. (As shown on the Fig. 1.)

Fig. 1. Aerodynamic forces occurring on the aeronautical profile (V- velocity of true airspeed, α – the angle of attack, Pz – lift, Px – drag, P-
resultant force).

The lift force is produced by the favourable pressure distribution that occurs on the wing. Less pressure is created
on the upper surface of the wing and a higher pressure on the lower surface of the wing. Using Bernoulli’s law, it
can be inferred that air moves at different speeds depending on the surface measured, moving faster along the upper
surface of the wings than along the lower surface. Formula defining the lift force (1):

𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2
𝑃𝑃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐶𝐶𝑧𝑧 𝑆𝑆
2

Where: Cz - the lift coefficient at the desired angle of attack, S – the planform wing area, ρ – the air density.
120 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

Similarly, the formula for the drag force can be defined. This force is present during the flight of the aircraft and
operates in the opposite direction of the flight. Formula defining the drag force (2):

𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2
𝑃𝑃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐶𝐶𝑧𝑧 𝑆𝑆
2

Where the Cx is the drag force coefficient. Sobieraj (2014) showed similar equation.
The mentioned drag and lift coefficients are important and should be calculated using the following
transformations of the equations above (3):

𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2 2𝑃𝑃𝑧𝑧
𝑃𝑃𝑧𝑧 = 𝐶𝐶𝑧𝑧 𝑆𝑆 → 𝐶𝐶𝑧𝑧 =
2 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2 𝑆𝑆

and (4):
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2 2𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥
𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥 = 𝐶𝐶𝑥𝑥 𝑆𝑆 → 𝐶𝐶𝑥𝑥 =
2 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2 𝑆𝑆

1.2. The base- aircraft and the used software

The aircraft used as an inspiration for the shape of the manufactured model was Aduster. Melnarowicz (1982)
prepared some information about this. Equipped with modern operating systems, is characterized by high
manoeuvrability, and can fly at very large angles of attack.
The aircraft model utilized during the analyses was developed using a 3D scanner. The scanner used was a Nikon
3D scanner, the Maker MMCx model. The image of the scanned object was transmitted directly to the computer
with Geomagic Design X software and displayed on the monitor. Based on the scan of aircraft by the research team,
the aircraft's geometries were obtained. They were introduced to SolidWorks software.
Some components had to be simplified and the aircraft should be scaled for printing and to adjust the finished
model to the dimensions of the wind tunnel used. For the purposes of this work, the original dimensions have been
reduced, the model has been scaled so that it can be later installed in the used wind tunnel. The wind tunnel
measuring space did not allow for full-geometry aircraft testing, so half of the aircraft was used for printing. Due to
the dimensions and capabilities of the 3D printer used, the model was designed for printing in two parts- the front
and the back one, similarly to Pecho et al. (2019). In the centre of the model, holes for connecting rods were created,
which ensured stabilization when gluing both parts of the model.

2. The physical model

2.1. Spatial printing technology and the creation of the model

The MakerBot Replicator Z18, which uses Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology, was used to print the
model. It involves melting the working material and applying it with thin threads one on top of the other.
When it freezes, the material binds together to form a hard and durable coating.
Kaim (2018) prepare model in the same types. The model was previously exported to the 3D printer control
software MakerBot Print. The software divided the model into 0.2mm layers, then generated a print preview and an
executive file for the printer (Fig. 2.).
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 121
4 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

The printer prints the model from the bottom, that is, from the side of the connecting platform, building it by
overlaying individual layers in a way that is consistent with the pre-set shape. The finished model has also been
printed as divided into two elements. They were connected to each other through a thin platform, as shown in Fig. 3.
and intended to be merged at a later stage of the work.

Fig.2. Print preview that appears on the monitor at the initial stage of work (on the left) and the model printed in two parts (on the right).

The primary objective when preparing the physical model for testing in the wind tunnel was to achieve an
appropriate level of smoothness, as it has a direct impact on measurement results. Using tools, such as combinators
and small modelling chisels, the unnecessary elements have been removed. With the help of a grinder, the ends of
the two parts were later filed down, which were made to adhere to each other, forming the whole model from two
separate parts. These surfaces have been cleaned. With the help of sandpapers of different granularity, the process of
smoothing the surface of the aircraft model began. The most important was the initial compensation of the
discontinuity of the model texture, as the transverse hollows are characteristic for the 3D prints made with the used
method. The next stage was to fill the cavities with a putty and a spatula. After drying, the filled surface had to be
sanded down again, and the whole process was repeated until the desired smoothness was achieved. After obtaining
a satisfactory smoothness of the model, it was possible to paint it. For this purpose, several layers of white varnish
were applied. Due to its thinness, it smoothed the model, filling the smallest, elusive for the previous method,
grooves. The painted model was put to dry all night. The next day, it was already possible to conduct tests in the
wind tunnel.

Fig. 3. Finished model.

122 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

2.2. The aerodynamical analysis in the wind tunnel

After reviewing the wind tunnel specifications, preparations for measurements began. The first stage was to
choose the right fastening. The model should then be anchored on the appropriate tip and closed in the tunnel
measuring space. Later, the air parameters of the test had to be read. It was used in the calculations and to make the
environment in the computer programme after. Olejnik et al. (2007) realised similar information.
For the tests, the Gunt HM 170 wind tunnel was used. This particular model applies perfectly also for multi-rotor
drones testing.
To begin the analysis itself, the aerodynamic force indicator had to be reset. This was equivalent to setting the
model in the tunnel’s axis so that the actual angle of attack of the 0° corresponds to the same reading value. The
setting was checked with the values indicated by the lift and drag forces correlated with the tunnel.
After switching on the tunnel, the desired flow rate had to be set, resp. 15, 20, 25 and 27 m/s. Using a special
knob with the described angular scale, the values of the angles of attack were changed (sequentially - 0°, 2°, 4°, 6°
... 16°, then 0°, -2°, -4°, -6° ... -12°) for all the tested speeds of the airflow. The lift and drag forces values appeared
on the screen. The results obtained are structured in Tables 1. and 2.

Table 1. Results of measurements of Pz and Px in the wind tunnel for positive angles of attack.
V= 15 m/s V= 20 m/s V= 25 m/s V= 27m/s
α [˚] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N]
0 0.44 0.07 0.73 0.13 0.96 0.2 1.26 0.22
2 0.73 0.08 1.26 0.15 1.8 0.24 2.22 0.44
4 0.97 0.11 1.7 0.2 2.59 0.27 3.1 05
6 1.24 0.18 2.18 0.33 3.19 0.44 3.95 0.61
8 1.49 0.28 2.72 0.53 3.83 0.76 4.84 0.92
10 1.63 0.37 2.97 0.69 4.3 1.06 5.6 1.29
12 1.72 0.49 2.89 0.82 4.42 1.23 5.41 1.6
14 1.81 0.58 3.08 1 5.02 1.54 5.7 1.9
16 1.88 0.68 3.27 1.17 5.23 1.76 5.86 2.14

Table 2. Results of measurements of Pz and Px in the wind tunnel for negative angles of attack
V= 15 m/s V= 20 m/s V= 25 m/s V= 27m/s
α [˚] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N]
0 0.44 0.07 0.81 0.13 1.07 0.2 1.48 0.23
-2 0.11 0.07 0.32 0.13 0.32 0.19 0.7 0.26
-4 -0.16 0.09 -0.3 0.17 -0.45 0.21 -0.49 0.39
-6 -0.44 0.12 -0.78 0.22 -1.19 0.22 -1.35 0.54
-8 -0.72 0.17 -1.26 0.31 -2.02 0.49 -2.07 0.48
-10 -1.03 0.24 -1.74 0.42 -2.59 0.51 -2.91 0.7
-12 -1.33 0.35 -2.22 0.56 -3.18 0.7 -3.54 1.05

2.3. Development of results, calculations

Based on the received values of lift and drag forces, using the formulae (3) and (4) calculations of the Cz and Cx
coefficients were made for each angle of attack. The used values are shown in the Table 3. Maruszkiewicz (1981)
present similar method.
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 123
6 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 3. Values used for calculation of the Cz and Cx coefficients.

Pz/Px ρ V S
Read during the V=15 m/s; V= 20 m/s;
1.205kg/m3 0.02557m2
testing V=25 m/s; V=27m/s

An example of the calculation is shown below.

For the angle of attack α=2˚ and the true air velocity V=15m/s the measured drag force equalled P x=0,08N, so

2𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥 2 ∗ 0,08
𝐶𝐶𝑥𝑥 = 2
= = 0,023079
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 𝑆𝑆 1.205 ∗ 152 ∗ 0.02557

Similar calculations were made for all the obtained forces and tested angles of attack, the results are visible in the
Tables 4. and 5.

Table 4. Values of the Cz and Cx coefficients calculated after analysis in the wind tunnel (V=15m/s and 20m/s).
V=15m/s V=20m/s
α [˚] Cz Cx Cz Cx
0 0.126935 0.020194 0.118461 0.021096
2 0.210597 0.023079 0.204467 0.024341
4 0.279835 0.031734 0.275868 0.032455
6 0.357727 0.051928 0.35376 0.053551
8 0.429849 0.080777 0.441389 0.086006
10 0.470238 0.106741 0.481957 0.11197
12 0.496202 0.14136 0.468975 0.133066
14 0.522166 0.167324 0.499808 0.162275
16 0.54236 0.196173 0.53064 0.189862
0 0.126935 0.020194 0.131443 0.021096
-2 0.031734 0.020194 0.051928 0.021096
-4 -0.04616 0.025964 -0.04868 0.027587
-6 -0.12694 0.034619 -0.12657 0.035701
-8 -0.20771 0.049043 -0.20447 0.050305
-10 -0.29714 0.069237 -0.28236 0.068156
-12 -0.38369 0.100971 -0.36025 0.090874
124 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Table 5. Values of the Cz and Cx coefficients calculated after analysis in the wind tunnel (V=25m/s and 27m/s).
V=25m/s V=27m/s
α [˚] Cz Cx Cz Cx
0 0.099702 0.020771 0.11219 0.019589
2 0.186941 0.024925 0.197669 0.039178
4 0,268987 0.028041 0.276024 0.04452
6 0.331301 0.045697 0.351708 0.054314
8 0.397769 0.078931 0.430953 0.081917
10 0.446581 0.110088 0.498623 0.114861
12 0.459044 0.127743 0.481706 0.142464
14 0.521358 0.159938 0.507527 0.169176
16 0.543168 0.182787 0.521774 0.190545
0 0.111126 0.020771 0.131779 0.020479
-2 0.033234 0.019733 0.062328 0.02315
-4 -0.04674 0.02181 -0.04363 0.034726
-6 -0.12359 0.022848 -0.1202 0.048082
-8 -0.20979 0.05089 -0.18431 0.042739
-10 -0.26899 0.052967 -0.25911 0.062328
-12 -0.33026 0.072699 -0.3152 0.093492

3. Simulation

Having all the results and values, it was possible to programme the simulation in the SolidWorks Flow
Simulation software. The purpose of the simulation was to obtain the same conditions, as these occurring during the
simulation in the wind tunnel and their comparison. Therefore, the same values of air density and true air speed were
programmed. During designing of the simulation’s environment, even the shape of the wind tunnel was copied,
providing as many details as possible.

3.1. Simulation results

The programmed simulation not only allowed the set parameters to be illustrated and the model behave under the
set conditions, but also resulted in the values of the lift and drag forces. The results are shown in the Tables 6. and 7.

Table 6. Results of measurements of Pz and Px obtained during the computer simulation for V=15m/s and V=20m/s.
V=15m/s V=20m/s
α [˚] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N]
0 0.086665346 0.148679348 0,.144639962 0.250837556
2 0.370796032 0.150992274 0.665180413 0.256136233
4 0.644561825 0.169022421 1.150371518 0.288438301
6 0.894841001 0.202784163 1.608068584 0.349126882
8 1.113627937 0.261879709 2.016424433 0.451476822
10 1.309307582 0.339695654 2.362108782 0.593730409
12 1.531637281 0.43584018 2.718551509 0.761687517
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 125
8 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

14 1718938272 0.546542221 3.047283374 0.960043787

16 1.882505427 0.661640576 3.374745225 1.172798791
-2 -0.20512 0.158875 -0.36396 0.269448
-4 -0.48347 0.1907 -0.86371 0.327109
-6 -0.77622 0.232168 -1.3802 0.401706
-8 -1.04772 0.29216 -1.86471 0.506031
-10 -1.29507 0.373076 -2.31112 0.650836
-12 -1.47243 0.465814 -2.61703 0.815002

Table 7. Results of measurements of Pz and Px obtained during the computer simulation for V=25m/s and V=27m/s.
V=25m/s V=27m/s
α [˚] Pz [N] Px [N] Pz [N] Px [N]
0 0.224662977 0.377726772 0.270320121 0.436739068
2 1.039999014 0.387395862 1.209080706 0.446664623
4 1.802825345 0.436969635 2.102950331 0.505562428
6 2.52904451 0.531313058 2.955262447 0.616337063
8 3.163949707 0.690150682 3.699022053 0.80100336
10 3.675312284 0.916265509 4.287762483 1.063318015
12 4.263579734 1.189393011 4.958325706 1.36821502
14 4.799015064 1.500883294 5.622547324 1.746057908
16 5.264470423 1.816397617 6.169553118 2.120355009
-2 -0.57167 0.408344 -0.66527 0.47128
-4 -1.35209 0.498908 -1.57759 0.577734
-6 -2.16322 0.613911 -2.52735 0.710349
-8 -2.90889 0.775654 -3.39481 0.899804
-10 -3.6085 1.002286 -4.20591 1.161943
-12 -4.09546 1.261842 -4.77126 1.465164

3.2. Development of results, calculations

Similarly to those obtained during the testing in the wind tunnel, the results of the lift and drag forces from the
SolidWorks Flow Simulation programme were also used to calculate the Cz and Cx coefficients. Using the same
formula, the calculations were held. In the Tables 8. and 9. below, the values are shown.
126 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 9

Table 8. Values of the Cz and Cx coefficients calculated after the computer simulation (V=15m/s and 20m/s).
V=15m/s V=20m/s
α [˚] Cz Cx Cz Cx
0 0.025002 0.042892 0.023471 0.040705
2 0.106971 0.04356 0.107942 0.041565
4 0.185949 0.048761 0.186677 0.046806
6 0.258152 0.058501 0.26095 0.056655
8 0.32127 0.075549 0.327216 0.073264
10 0.377721 0.097999 0.383312 0.096348
12 0.441861 0.125735 0.441154 0.123603
14 0.495895 0.157672 0.494499 0.155791
16 0.543083 0.190876 0.547638 0.190316
-2 -0.05918 0.045834 -0.05906 0.043725
-4 -0.13948 0.055015 -0.14016 0.053082
-6 -0.22393 0.066978 -0.22397 0.065187
-8 -0.30226 0.084285 -0.3026 0.082116
-10 -0.37361 0.107629 -0.37504 0.105615
-12 -0.42478 0.134382 -0.42468 0.132255

Table 9. Values of the Cz and Cx coefficients calculated after the computer simulation (V=25m/s and 27m/s).
V=25m/s V=27m/s
α [˚] Cz Cx Cz Cx
0 0.023333 0.039229 0.024069 0.038887
2 0.10801 0.040233 0.107656 0.039771
4 0.187234 0.045382 0.187246 0.045015
6 0.262657 0.05518 0.263136 0.054879
8 0.328596 0.071676 0.329361 0.071321
10 0.381704 0.09516 0.381782 0.094678
12 0.442799 0.123526 0.441489 0.121826
14 0.498407 0.155876 0.500631 0.155469
16 0.546748 0.188644 0.549336 0.188796
-2 -0.05937 0.042409 -0.05924 0.041963
-4 -0.14042 0.051815 -0.14047 0.051441
-6 -0.22466 0.063758 -0.22503 0.063249
-8 -0.30211 0.080556 -0.30227 0.080118
-10 -0.37477 0.104094 -0.37449 0.103459
-12 -0.42534 0.13105 -0.42483 0.130458
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 127
10 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

4. Comparative analysis of the results

After systematizing the results of the previous chapters, they were analyzed. Below, the comparison of the
measured values of the Pz and Px aerodynamic forces and the calculated Cz and Cx coefficients based on the
physical model studies in the wind tunnel with those obtained and calculated from model simulation in SolidWorks
is shown. True air speeds were used as a comparative criterion (angles of attack values were changed). For each
airflow speed, tests were carried out at positive and negative rake angle values in the wind tunnel and later in the
SolidWorks calculation program. The values of the lift and drag forces (Pz, Px) were collected, and then the
coefficients of these aerodynamic forces- Cz and Cx were calculated. The following are structured results for the
lowest (15m/s) and the highest (27m/s) true air speeds.

4.1. Comparative analysis for V=15m/s

The first speed considered was V=15m/s. The values of the lift and drag forces are shown in Tables 1., 2., 6. and
the values of the calculated aerodynamic coefficients are shown in Tables 4. and 8. Using the mentioned values, it is
possible to compare the results obtained during the tests in two different ways- in the wind tunnel and during
simulation in the SolidWork. To illustrate the results, graphs were also made showing the measured (Pz, Px) and
calculated (Cz, Cx) values (Fig. 4., 5.)

Fig. 4. Comparison of the Pz (left) and Px (right) forces values obtained during the test in the wind tunnel (tunel) and the simulation (solid),
V=15m/s.

A comparative analysis of aerodynamic forces for fixed flight speeds and variable angles of attack showed that
the numerical values obtained for wind tunnel results and solid works simulations differ from each other. The
differences in received values of lift at α= -12°, -10°, -8° differ by 9-20%, at α= 0° the difference is the largest,
because the measured value in the tunnel is as much as five times the value in the SolidWorks simulation, while at
the largest angles (from α= 12°) they practically overlap (Fig. 4. left). A similar trend can be seen by analyzing the
drag. It can be observed that the graphs run parallel to each other (Fig. 4. right). This means that the differences in
values did not affect the final shape of the chart of both cases. In addition, the extreme values practically overlap
each other. The shape of the resulting charts is valid.
128 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 11

Fig. 5. Comparison of the Cz (left) and Cx (right) forces values obtained during the test in the wind tunnel (tunel) and the simulation (solid),
V=15m/s.

Analysis of the values of the coefficients Cz obtained during the wind tunnel test and during simulation in
SolidWorks shows that the values obtained during the calculation of the results are similar to each other. The
numerical differences are not large and the results for extreme angles of attack α= -12° (9% difference), α= 12°
(12%), α= 14° (5%), α= 16° (0.1%) overlap (Fig. 5. left). A graphic representation of the value shows that the two
charts lie close together, remaining at similar distances. Their shapes are correct compared to literature patterns. The
numerical values of the Cx are generally similar, although you can see the tendency that the discrepancies occurring
are greater for negative and small rake angles (for α=0° 52%, for α=2° 47%, for α= 4° 35%), while they begin to
move very closer from the value for the rake angle α=6°, where the difference was only 11%, and with subsequent
angles it decreased even closer to less than 3% at α= 16°. In Fig. 5. (right) it can be seen that despite the discrepancy
in values at these angles, the shapes are correct.

4.2. Comparative analysis for V=27m/s

The last speed considered was V= 27m/s. The values of lift and drag forces are shown in Tables 1., 2., 7., and the
values of the calculated aerodynamic coefficients are shown in Table 5., 9. Using the mentioned values, it is possible
to compare the results obtained during the tests in two different ways- in the wind tunnel and during simulation in
the SolidWork. To illustrate the results, graphs were also made showing the measured (Pz, Px) and calculated (Cz,
Cx) values (Fig. 6., 7.).

Fig. 6. Comparison of the Pz (left) and Px (right) forces values obtained during the test in the wind tunnel (tunel) and the simulation (solid),
V=27m/s.

By analyzing the results of the lift force (Pz) measurement for true air speed V= 27m/s, discrepancies within 30%
between the results of the wind tunnel and simulation in SolidWorks occured. In Fig. 6. (left). however, it can be
seen that the runs of both charts are very similar- their shapes are the same, they descend at the last three values (at
angles of attack α= 12°, α= 14°, α= 16° differences totaled 9%, 1%, 5%). Both runs have the expected shape. Drag
force values (Px) differ significantly for measurements at negative rake angles and at α= 0° (where the difference
was 50%). The values for positive angles overlap almost completely, with differences of 10%. This can be seen very
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 129
12 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

well in Fig. 6. (right), where the values from the wind tunnel are chaotic for negative rake angles, while when you
exceed α= 0°, the graphs converge.

Fig. 7. Comparison of the Cz (left) and Cx (right) forces values obtained during the test in the wind tunnel (tunel) and the simulation (solid),
V=27m/.

For the true air speed of 27 m/s, the values of the lift force coefficients Cz obtained during the wind tunnel test
and during simulation in SolidWorks differed slightly for most angles of attack, only for the last three angles (α=
12°, 14°, 16°) the values were very similar. Represent values in Fig. 7. (left) shows that the two runs are parallel to
each other up to the rake angle α= 12°, when they begin to overlap (at α= 12° the difference was only 9%). The
shape of both passes is valid, and the differences in values are proportional. When analyzing the values of the drag
coefficients Cx, it can be seen that the differences between the values occur for some angles of attack, primarily are
visible for negative angles and are not great (do not exceed 40%). In contrast, the values for positive angles are very
similar. The chart runs confirm the numeric values analyzed- there are slight differences for negative angles, while
the runs on the positive side of the chart are practically the same (Fig. 7., right). Both runs are in the correct shape.

4.3. Aggregated analysis

Ambroziak et al. (2011) present some information about aerodynamic analysis. After comparing the results at the
different speeds, it was possible to compare the results in one more way- the last criterion was to impose the results
of the individual values and analyze their trends alltogether. For this purpose, comparative graphs were drawn up, on
which the lift (Pz), drag (Px) and their coefficients obtained during the tunnel test and during the simulation in the
SolidWorks calculation program were imposed for all speeds in the function of changing the angle of attack values
(α). These diagrams are shown below (Fig. 8., Fig. 9., Fig. 10. and Fig. 11.)
130 Paulina
Author Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation
name / Transportation Research00Procedia
Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
(2019) 000–000 13

Fig. 8. Visualisation ot the lift forces values (Pz) obtained during all the tests.

Based on Fig. 8. it can be seen that the values of the lift forces are very similar in shape. Although discrepancies
can be seen, especially for extreme angles of attack, all runs are within the permissible deviations. All shapes are
correct with literature patterns. You can see the general trend of increasing the value of the Pz as the rake angles
increase, which occurs to α= 10°, then the graphs begin to "wave", which is a normal phenomena.

Fig. 9. Visualisation ot the drag forces values (Px) obtained during all the tests.
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 131
14 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

As it can be seen in Fig. 9., the Px drag force values graphs are similar in shape. The shapes of the wind tunnel
measurements for speeds V= 25m/s and V= 27m/s are the most irregular, but the general tendency of all runs
mantains the expected (according to literature patterns) shape - the smallest values graph takes around the angle of
attack α= 0°, while, as the deviations increase (the smallest and largest angles of approach), these values increase.
Despite the shifts, it can therefore be concluded that they have the correct shapes for all measured cases.

Fig 10. Visualisation ot the lift force coefficients values (Cz) obtained during all the tests.

Fig. 10. shows the values of the lift force coefficients (Cz) for all analysed cases. At first glance it can be spotted
that some passes completely overlap, to the point that it is impossible to distinguish them. It can easily be seen that
the trend of the coefficient increase as the rake angle increases, up to a value of α= 10°, when most runs break down
and the possible increase is less steep. Some runs (e.g. Cz for speed V= 27m/s calculated from wind tunnel results)
remain constant when this point is exceeded. The waveform shapes are correct and coincide with the theory.

Fig 11. Visualisation ot the lift force coefficients values (Cx) obtained during all the tests.
132 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133
Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 15

In Fig. 11. the waveforms show the values of the drag force coefficients (Cx). They have the correct shapes, the
values are the smallest at the angle of attack of α= 0° and small rake angles (α= -5° to α= 5°), and they increase as
they approach the extreme angles of attack. It can also be noticed that runs from values calculated from simulations
in SolidWorks overlap. The values from the wind tunnel are different from each other (especially for negative rake
angles). However, it can be concluded that all eight runs have the correct shapes, falling within acceptable limits.

5. Conclusion

A comparative analysis of aerodynamic forces coefficients for fixed flight velocity and variable angles of attack
showed that the numerical values of the results obtained during the wind tunnel test and the simulation in the
SolidWorks calculation program differed slightly, most were within the limits of the numerical test error allowed
(up to 40%), the discrepancies were greater at large rake angles. Minor inaccuracies were within acceptable
standards, but the reasons can be indicated. As one of them, can be counted the fact that the simulations and
numerical calculations carried out did not consider all the parameters present in real-world conditions in the
comparative experiments carried out. The accuracy of the measurements in the wind tunnel was influenced by the
manual execution of the physical model- it is never possible to completely reflect the accuracy of the design from
the computer program by manual processing of the model. Also, the capabilities of the 3D printer do not allow a
completely accurate mapping of the numerical design already at the printing stage. However, it can be concluded
that the results obtained are appropriate, in line with expected, and that the aerodynamic analysis has been carried
out in a proper manner. In such analyses, the most important comparative criterion is to graphically represent the
values examined and to establish the similarity or discrepancies between the literature patterns and the shape
obtained. The comparative graphs obtained show:

• the consistency of the shape for the individual cases studied with the shapes described in the literature for these
values (parabolic shape for the values of the coefficients of aerodynamic resistance coefficients Cx (Fig. 5. right)
and the hyperbolic shape for the values of the load-bearing force coefficients Cz (Fig. 5. left) to maintain the
correct trends, suck as an increase in the lift with an increase in the angle of attack, to a certain limit moment
(approximately α= 10°), then maintaining the value at a similar level, and an increase in resistance force at the
extreme values of the rake angles and lower resistance values around α= 0°;
• slight shifts and partial overlap of the line of the graph.

The latter may have been caused by a shift in the centre of gravity of the model during wind tunnel testing.
Attention should be paid to the fact that during the simulation the program itself controls the numerical model and
during the tests it is fixed permanently in the centre of gravity and immobilized against possible movements/shifts.
In the physical wind tunnel, the only effect on this parameter occurred at the time of fixing the model- the mounting
hole was made in the middle of the mass. Ultimately, it can be concluded that the wind tunnel tests were carried out
correctly, the results obtained are in line with expectations.
To achieve the intended goal led to the individual steps - obtaining and developing the geometry needed to make
the model; development of a numerical model; 3D printing; preparing a physical model for wind tunnel testing and
carrying out those; designing simulations; systematise the results obtained; calculation of the necessary values of
coefficients; carrying out and interpreting the comparative analysis. At each of these stages, errors could have been
made that could have had a direct impact on the result of the study. Therefore, obtaining the same results indicates
that all elements of the work and the reliability of the results were completed correctly.
It is planned to use the presented method to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of unmanned aircraft
intended for transport over urbanized areas. Their fuselage structures have unconventional forms /e.g. CityAirbus/.
This problem is currently particularly important and developed in urban air mobility programs /such as ASSURED -
AMU/. In practical applications it will be useful to determine the characteristics, also for high values of angles of
attack, of air flow from different directions, as well as to assess the strong impact of aerodynamic disturbances. At
the beginning of 2021, the Institute of Aviation will start work on defining a package of recommendations that will
guarantee universal acceptance, safe use and sustainable and integrated unmanned transport in urban areas. Project
"Acceptance, Safety and Sustainability Recommendations for Efficient Deployment of Urban Air Mobility".
 Paulina Iljaszewicz et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 51 (2020) 118–133 133
16 Author name / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

(ASSURED - AMU) will be financed by the European Commission within the framework of the "Horizon 2020"
programme and we will want to cooperate with the Institute.

Acknowledgements

The work was carried out as part of the project "Auto-dynamic Power Assist - ADUSTER" Contract No.
POIR.01.01.01-00-0056/16

References

Abłamowicz, A., Nowakowski, N., 1980. Szkolenie samolotowe, Podstawy aerodynamiki i mechaniki lotu, Warszawa 1980, p. 26, 28, 31, 35-39.
Ambroziak, L., Gosiewski, Z., Kondratiuk, M., 2011. Identyfikacja charakterystyk aerodynamicznych mikrosamolotu, Prace Instytutu Lotnictwa,
Warszawa 2011, 17-29.
Kaim, D., 2018. Badania eksperymentalne modeli skrzydła statku powietrznego, Dęblin, p. 19, 36.
Maruszkiewicz, J., 1981. Aerodynamika i mechanika lotu. Część I Aerodynamika, Warszawa, WAT.
Melnarowicz, W., 1982. Aerodynamika i mechanika lotu. Część I Aerodynamika samolotu, Oleśnica, p. 33, 38, 39, 116.
Olejnik, A., Krzyżanowski, A., Kachel, S., Frant, M., Makowski, W., Skrodzki, C., 2007. Doświadczalne charakterystyki aerodynamiczne
modelu samolotu F-16 w opływie symetrycznym, Biuletyn WAT Warszawa.
Pecho, P., Ažaltovič, V., Kandera, B., Bugaj, M., 2019. Introduction study of design and layout of UAVs 3D printed wings in relation to optimal
lightweight and load distribution. Transportation Research Procedia 40, 861-868.
Sobieraj, W., 2014. Aerodynamika, Warszawa, p. 18.