Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, The Journal of Aerospace Science, Technology and Systems

ANALYSIS ON AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A

PARAGLIDER AIRFOIL ∗
M. Boffadossi a , F. Savorgnan a

a
Politecnico di Milano - Dipartimento di Scienze e tecnologie Aerospaziali

Abstract

Paraglider sail (canopy) consists of a series of flexible boxes pressurized by special openings located at the leading edge,
in the region near to the front stagnation point. Therefore, in order to avoid the deflation of the wing, the pressure inside
the sail must remain above a certain threshold. To investigate this problem it has been considered an airfoil with a typical
paraglider geometry, equipped with air intakes. The aerodynamic behavior was determined by performing experimental,
Xfoil and CFD numerical analysis. Hollow models were made by a rapid prototyping and have been tested in a wind
tunnel; forces and moments on the profile and the pressure inside the canopy were measured. The internal pressure of
the canopy and the upstream pressure gradient of the inlet have been compared in the case of airfoil with and without
inlets. The pressure inside the airfoil has been satisfactorily related with numerical estimations and, subsequently, a new
airfoil shape, with a different configuration of the inlets, has been developed by using an optimization process based on
a multi-objective genetic algorithm. The new shape optimizes the internal pressure, especially at low angle of attack.

1. Introduction is typically 20-75 km/h. School wings will fly slower

Paragliders are flying parachutes with a special de-
sign that improves the gliding capabilities by virtue
of the special canopy which acts as a wing. Differ-
ently from the hang glider a paraglider has no rigid
framework. The pilot first blows up the canopy by
pulling it up like a kite and then runs down the hill-
side until flying speed has been attained; in fact the
paraglider canopy is constructed of fabric cells with
openings at the front that allow them to be inflated
by movement through the air by the ram effect. In
aeronautical engineering the paraglider canopy is usu-
ally known as a ”ram-air airfoil”. The paraglider does
not have to resist the opening shock to which jump
parachute canopies are subjected, so thinner lines and
lighter construction can be used to reduced drag. Be-
sides the glide capability is increased by widening the
wing by adding extra cells. So the canopy aspect ra-
tio is large and this improves its efficiency. Paraglider
wings typically have an area of 20-35 m2 with a span
from 8 m to 12 m and weight 2-7 kg. Generally speak-
ing, paragliders with low aspect ratios have low per-
formance, but are more stable. Paragliders with a
higher aspect ratio are higher performing and less sta-
ble. Paragliders use thermals in the same way as other
gliding aircraft. In favorable weather the flight may
be 100 km or more. The speed range of paragliders
∗ Based on paper presented at the XXIII Congresso
Nazionale AIDAA, November 2015 Torino, Italia
1 AIDAA,
c Associazione Italiana di Aeronautica e Astronautica
than high-performance wings. The complete equip-
ment weighs from 5-20 kg and packs into a rucksack,
making paraglider unique among human-carrying air-
craft. So paraglider is lightweight, free-flying, foot-
launched glider aircraft with no rigid primary struc-
ture. [1]
The wings are built with two layers of fabric, con-
nected together with fabric ribs to form a row of cells
with the airfoil shape section. Wing can easily in-
flated thanks to openings (air intakes) in the leading
edge. During the flight, wing’s shape is maintained by
the suspension lines, the pressure of air entering vents
in the front of the wing, and the aerodynamic forces
acting over the wing. Pilot sits underneath the wing,
supported by a network of ropes, called as suspension
lines. Each set of lines is attached to the harness by a
carabiner, one on each side of the pilot. Controls are
known as brakes. Two brakes, connected to the trail-
ing of each side of the wing, let the pilot change the
trailing edge curvature, acting as aerodynamic brakes.
With these control, roll and yaw are strongly coupled,
making paraglider an easy pilotable aircraft. A speed
bar control is used to increase speed by decreasing the
wing’s angle of attack and vice versa [2].
1.1. In-flight safety
The shape is mainly generated by the aerodynamic
loads acting all over the wing surface, stiffened by the
internal pressure. In particular and complex circum-
stances, part or all of the canopy can dangerously de-

211
212
flate (collapse) due to wind gusts like in Figure 1. To
improve paraglider safety, wings designer focus on ac-
tive and passive safety. The first concerns the different
piloting techniques that will reduce the frequency and
severity of deflations or collapses, showed in Figure 1.
Passive safety is a paraglider property to avoid non-
desirable in-flight behavior. The present work con-
cerns mainly the method to optimize internal wing
pressure with the aim to increase passive safety.
Figure 1. Asymmetric paraglider collapse
Therefore the focus of the present work has been re-
lated to the aerodynamic study of the paraglider wing
sections. The main objective is to improve the aerody-
namic performance of competition models but always
preserving the safety of the pilot and the stability of
the canopy geometry, by providing in all flight condi-
tions the necessary internal pressure. To achieve this
result a combined optimization has been developed,
considering both the airfoil shape and the front open-
ing, its dimension and its position at the wing leading
edge.
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Experimental investigations of a flexible, three-
dimensional, paraglider wing are a challenging task,
as discussed in [3, 4]; the main difficulties come from
the flexibility of the wing and its unknown shape, as
shown in [5–7]. In order to simplify the study it has
been decided a rigid two dimensional wing, equipped
with the typical leading edge intake, both numerically
study and experimentally with wind tunnel test.
Wind tunnel tests have been performed in the
M.Falco laboratory at Politecnico di Milano, using
the open circuit model DeltaLab EA600, 300 mm
M. Boffadossi , F. Savorgnan
Figure 2. Wind tunnel model
square test section, equipped with a strain gauge three-
component dynamometer. For the drag measurements
a Pitot probe was mounted on a ruled guide, moved
across the airfoil wake.
2.1. Wind tunnel model
The airfoil is typically the one used for wings with
intermediate performance (Ascender paraglider). The
airfoil section is shown in Figure 13 and the main char-
acteristics are described in Table 1; in particular the
maximum camber is 2.03% and the maximum thick-
ness is 18%. The air intake starts at 1.2% and ends at
5% of the chord. The chords is constant and the span
equals the width of the test section.
Table 1
Airfoil 01 - Ascender Airfoil Data
tmax xtmax Pmax xPmax xstart xend
18% 21.9% 2.03% 15.7% 1.2% 5.0%
The model consist into a 2 mm thick shell, sectioned
in 14 boxes with 2 mm thick diaphragms. Due to 3D
Printer limits the model is manufactured into two sep-
arate parts, then assembled. As shown Figure 3, the
extremity boxes are 17 mm width, and all the others
are 18 mm, in order to create a cell ratio b/h = 1.
The last 3 cells on the side of the model are glued to a
cylindrical pin that fits in the balance outside the test
chamber. On the opposite side a thin steel pipe was
Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016
ANALYSIS ON AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A PARAGLIDER AIRFOIL
drilled into the model to reach the central wing cell,
where it is possible to measure the pressure inside the
canopy, without influencing the flow field.
Figure 3. Wind tunnel model, 2D scheme
Models are made by Rapid Prototyping, with Fused
Deposition Modeling Technique. Given the consistent
dimension of the product the Polylactic Acid (PLA) is
used as building material, owning its dimension stabil-
ity, lower melting pot temperature and sufficient me-
chanical strength. PLA has a glass transition temper-
ature from 140 ◦ C to 160 ◦ C and density variable from
1210 kg/m3 to 1430 kg/m3 .
The possibility of generating horizontal planes
comes from the particular sequence of the material de-
position; a sketch is shown in Figure 4.
In order to generate an external accurate geometry,
free from error or defect despite the internal cavity,
horizontal planes with an improved double sequence of
the material deposition have been considered; a sketch
is shown in Figure 4.
The external perimeter section has a double fila-
ment wall. By starting the deposition over the inside
perimeter it is possible to stretch the material, just
like a bridge, over the hole till the opposite side. This
technique makes unnecessary to build structures inside
the cell to support the diaphragm.
Figure 4. Bridge section scheme
Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016
213
2.2. Measurements
Low differential pressure sensors, type LPM 9000 Se-
ries, manufactured by GE Druck were used in the ex-
periments. All the signals are acquired by National In-
struments CompactDAQ, equipped with NI 9201 mod-
ule, 24 bit, ± 10 V. The angle of attack was mea-
sured by an inclinometer with resolution ± 0.1 deg.
A 3-component strain-gauge balance DeltaLab EL450,
is mounted outside the test chamber. The model is
clamped through a hole in the test chamber sidewall.
The drag of the airfoil is computed by measuring the
wake velocity with a Pitot probe, moved in a trans-
verse direction across the wake. Tests are conducted
at 45 m/s, corresponding to Re = 300 000.
Lift Coefficient
1.5
1
0.5
Cl
0
-0.5
Airfoil 01 (air intake)
Airfoil 02 (closed)
Xfoil
-1
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Angle of Attack [deg]
Figure 5. Comparison of Lift Coefficient
3. XFOIL CALCULATION
Xfoil is a well known code for studying subcriti-
cal airfoils at low Re [8]. The inviscid formulation of
Xfoil is a simple linear-vorticity stream function panel
method. A finite trailing edge base thickness is mod-
eled with a source panel. The equations are closed
with an explicit Kutta condition. The boundary lay-
ers and wake are described with a two-equation lagged
dissipation integral BL formulation and an envelope
en transition criterion, both taken from the transonic
analysis/design ISES code [9].
214 M. Boffadossi , F. Savorgnan

Drag Coefficient  


0.04

0.035


0.03

0.025



Cd

0.02


0.015

0.01

Airfoil 01 (air intake)
  
0.005 Airfoil 02 (closed)
 
Xfoil 

0 
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20        
Angle of Attack [deg]

 

Figure 6. Comparison of Drag Coefficient Figure 7. Comparison of Pitch Moment Coefficient

4. RESULTS
4.1. Aerodynamic characteristics
The comparisons between the aerodynamic coeffi-
cients Cl , Cd , Cm are illustrated in Figures 5, 6 and
7. Airfoil 01 is the model with the openings, Airfoil
02 is the closed model with the same geometry. The
difference between the two airfoil lift curve slopes is
negligible. Only a different Clmax is visible, with the
Airfoil 01 (with the air intake) that shows an antici-
pated stall beside the Airfoil 02 (closed). The Xfoil nu- Figure 8. Curvilinear coordinate of the airfoil contour
merical simulation shows a slightly more pronounced and intake position
modification of the curve slope, caused by the transi-
tional separation bubble on the leading edge.
4.2. Internal Pressure a very satisfactory way, confirming the validity of the
Despite Xfoil can only calculate closed airfoils, the hypothesis.
internal pressurization has been estimated by assum-
ing the inside airfoil’s pressure as an average of the 5. CFD NUMERICAL MODEL
pressure distribution at the air intake region. So, for
all angles of attack, we can find the Xfoil viscous solu- A preliminary CFD study was also performed
tion and calculate the mean pressure over the length by using OpenFOAM R
, the open source Compu-
of the air intake, from si to sf of the curvilinear coor- tational Fluid Dynamic software package developed
dinate of the airfoil contour (Figure 8). by OpenCFD [10]. A structured mesh, including
 sf the internal region of the airfoil, was built with the
1 blockMesh tool, as shown in Figure 10. A correct
Pin = P (s) ds (1)
s f − s i si air intake geometry has been modelled considering all
the previous aspects; particular attention has been de-
As illustrated in Figure 9, the Xfoil estimations of voted to build a correct interface between external and
the internal pressure follow the experimental data in internal zones.

Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016

ANALYSIS ON AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A PARAGLIDER AIRFOIL 215

Internal Pressure Coefficient

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Cp in

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Airfoil 01 (air intake)
-0.8 Xfoil
Figure 10. OpenFOAM
R
Model - Mesh Scheme
-1
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Angle of Attack [deg]
Internal Pressure Coefficient
1

0.8
Figure 9. Comparison of Internal Pressure Coefficient
- Experimental vs Xfoil 0.6

0.4

Only Spalart-Allmaras turbulent model [11] has 0.2

been considered for the simulations.
Cp in

Despite the preliminary mesh design and the simple 0

turbulent model, the results obtained are quite satis- -0.2

factory and agree with those of the experiments: the
internal pressure provided by CFD follows the exper- -0.4
imental data (Figure 11), but with a lesser precision
-0.6
than Xfoil computation (Figure 9) and a much longer
calculation time. -0.8 Airfoil 01 (air intake)
CFD OpenFoam

-1
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Table 2 Angle of Attack [deg]
Optimization Variables
Maximum camber M
Maximum camber position P
Maximum thickness SS Figure 11. Comparison of Internal Pressure Coefficient
Air intake front limit xi - Experimental vs CFD OpenFOAM R

Air intake back limit xf

Slot center position xc
Slot depth h0
In the present work an optimization procedure is devel-
Front slot shape αi
oped, based on Xfoil fast computations and Matlab R

Back slot shape αf

6. AIRFOIL OPTIMIZATION
References [12,13] consider different solutions to im-
prove safety and performances of paraglider’s wings.
Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm [14].
The procedure considers both the inside pressure
and the aerodynamic performance of the airfoil. The
aim is to change the external geometry and the posi-
tion of the air intake for maximizing Pin and L/D for
a selected range of angle of attack. The optimization
variables selected are listed in Table 2.
The NACA 4 digit parametrization (M P SS) is con-

Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016

216
Figure 12. Geometric parametrization of airfoil nose
Figure 13. Airfoil 01
Figure 14. Optimized Airfoil
sidered by adding a further modification of the airfoil
nose, near the stagnation point. The new geometry
presents a narrow double curvature slot on the lower
side of the leading edge, like in Figure 12, where it is
parametrized by using a bell function. Figure 13 and
Figure 14 show the comparison between the traditional
airfoil and the new shape.
Only flyable angle of attack was considered, varying
from 0 to 10 deg. In this range, the code calculates
the average inside pressure and the average efficiency,
M. Boffadossi , F. Savorgnan
Internal Pressure coefficient
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
CP in
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8 Airfoil 01
Optimized Airfoil
-1
-5 0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack [deg]
Figure 15. Comparison of internal pressurization –
Traditional vs Optimized
and iterates in order to maximize them.
Figure 15 shows the result of the optimization pro-
cess, that improves considerably the internal pressur-
ization, with only a small reduction of the maximum
aerodynamic efficiency, visible in Figure 16.
The particular shape of the optimized airfoil (Figure
14) slows the flow in the air intake region to achieve
a higher pressure near the stagnation point; this can
be appreciated in Figure 17, where the differences be-
tween the pressure distribution of the two airfoils are
evident.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Paraglider is the lightest and simplest flying ma-
chine. The sail (canopy) consists of a series of boxes
(cells) which, during air inflation, keep the wing struc-
ture rigid. The air-flow inside the sail is generated
thanks to the openings located near the leading edge,
in the region near to the front stagnation point.
To keep the structure rigid in all flight conditions
and in all flight maneuvers it is required to ensure
a pressure inside the sail above a certain threshold.
Therefore, to improve performances and safety of next
generation paragliders, a clear comprehension of the
inside pressure behavior is strictly necessary.
In order to simplify the investigation, experimental
tests have been designed to characterize the aerody-
Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016
ANALYSIS ON AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A PARAGLIDER AIRFOIL 217

Aerodynamic Efficiency Pressure Distribution

70 -2.5

60 -2

50
-1.5

40
-1
30

Cp
Eff (L/D)

-0.5
20

10 0

0 0.5
Airfoil 01
Optimized Airfoil
-10
1

-20 Airfoil 01 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Optimized Airfoil x/c
-30 Pressure Distribution
-5 0 5 10 15
0.5
Angle of Attack [deg]

0.6

Figure 16. Comparison of Efficiency (L/D) – Tradi-

0.7
tional vs Optimized
Cp

0.8

namics of a two-dimensional flow around a rigid air-

0.9
foil, with a typical paraglider geometry. The models
were built with a rapid prototyping machine and have
been tested in an open circuit wind tunnel. The acting 1
forces and moments on the airfoil have been measured Airfoil 01
together with the pressure inside the canopy. Optimized Airfoil

The results regarding Airfoil 01 equipped with inlets 1.1

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
have been compared with Airfoil 02 with same shape x/c
but without inlets, in order to identify the interferences
of the inlets with the external flow. An anticipated
stall and a worst efficiency has characterized Airfoil
01 (with the openings). Figure 17. Comparison of external pressure distribu-
The pressure inside the airfoil has been satisfactorily tion – Detail of stagnation point
compared both with CFD and Xfoil numerical estima-
tion, making considerations concerning the relation-
ship between the internal pressure of the canopy and
the upstream pressure gradient of the inlet. With Xfoil ments. Further optimizations and experimental inves-
it was possible to run very fast analyses with respect tigations are suggested to validate and improve airfoils
to the more complex CFD simulations. with complex nose shaping.
Subsequently, a new airfoil shape with a different
configuration of the previous inlets has been devel-
oped by an optimization process, which was performed REFERENCES
by combining XFOIL numerical analysis with a multi- 1. M. Dale, D. Thompson. BHPA Pilot Handbook. British
objective genetic algorithm. In particular, this new Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association, 2008.
2. B. Goldsmith. Fifty Ways to Fly Better. Cross Country,
shape optimizes the internal pressure at a different an- 2013.
gle of attack, according to the fact that the internal 3. M. N. Uddin, M. Mashud. Wind Tunnel Test of a
pressurization is fundamental for safety flight require- Paraglider (flexible) Wing Canopy. International Journal

Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016

218 M. Boffadossi , F. Savorgnan

of Mechatronics Engineering IJMME-IJENS, 10(3), 7–13,

2010.
4. M. Mashud, A. Umemura. Experimental Investigation on
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Paraglider Wing. The
Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 49(163),
9–17, 2006.
5. M. Mashud, A. Umemura. Three-Dimensional Mea-
surements of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Paraglider
Canopy Cells. The Japan Society for Aeronautical and
Space Sciences, 49(163), 146–153, 2006.
6. K. Hanke, S. Schenk. Evaluating the Geometric Shape of
a Flying Paraglider. International Archives of the Pho-
togrammetry, Vol. XL – 5, 265, 2014.
7. H. Belloc. Wind Tunnel Investigation of a Rigid Paraglider
Reference Wing. Journal of Aircraft, 52(2), 703–708, 2015.
8. M. Drela. XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low
Reynolds Number Airfoils. Low Reynolds Number Aerody-
namics, edited by T. J. Mueller, Vol. 54 of Lecture Notes
in Engineering, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1–12, 1989.
9. M. Drela, M.B Giles. Viscous-Inviscid Analysis of Tran-
sonic and Low Reynolds Number Airfoils. AIAA Journal,
25(10), 1347–1355, 1987.
10. OpenFOAM. The Open Source CFD Toolbox.
http://www.openfoam.com, Rel. 2.4.0, May 22, 2015.
11. P. R. Spalart, S. R. Allmaras. A One-Equation Turbulence
Model for Aerodynamic Flows. AIAA Paper, 92–0439, 1992.
12. H. Babinsky. Aerodynamic Improvements of Paraglider
Performance. AIAA Paper, 99–3148, 1999.
13. F. Pieri, L. Armant, D. Dagault. Ozone Shark Nose Tech-
nology. Patent FR2972422 (A1), September 14, 2012.
14. D. Kalyanmoy. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolu-
tionary Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2001.

Dedicated to who wanted and started this work.

Dedicated to who gave me the honour to continue
working on this project.
To Matteo Balzarotti who left us in a flight accident
in 2014.

Live Free, Fly Free Balza

Aerotecnica Vol.95, No.4, October-December 2016