Aerodynamics of The Jet Provost

PROJECT REPORT
BEng (Hons) Aerospace Systems Engineering with Pilot

Studies
Name: Nilogy Sripathmanathan

Supervisor: Ben Stacey
Report
Wind title aerodynamic
tunnel in characterisation of the
Arial Bold 21/21pt
British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) Jet Provost
Report subtitle and date in Arial Bold 11/11pt
Date
19th April 2022
www.herts.ac.uk
School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science BEng Individual Project Report
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING DEGREE/DEGREE WITH HONOURS

IN Aerospace Systems Engineering with Pilot Studies
BEng Individual Project Report
Department of Engineering
School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science
University of Hertfordshire
WIND TUNNEL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISATION OF THE

BRITISH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION (BAC) JET PROVOST
Report by
NILOGY SRIPATHMANATHAN
Supervisor
BEN STACEY
Date
19th April 2022
ii
DECLARATION STATEMENT
I certify that the work submitted is my own and that any material derived or quoted from the published
or unpublished work of other persons has been duly acknowledged (ref. UPR AS/C/6.1, Appendix I,
Section 2 – Section on cheating and plagiarism)
Student Full Name: NILOGY SRIPATHMANATHAN
Student Registration Number: 17046894
Signed: …………………………………………………
Date: 19th April 2022
iii
ABSTRACT
The report explores aerodynamic characteristics of the Jet provost, a 1969 RAF military trainee aircraft
which undergoes various wind tunnel experiments using different fan speeds. The main parameters
measured for the experiment are lift, drag and pithing moment. When the fap speed is at 1,000 rpm the
aircraft has CL increasing till the 12 degrees and the coefficient values started deceasing demonstrating
the aircraft has stalled. However, when the aircraft is at 1,200 rpm the aircraft stalls at 10 degrees. This
experimental analysis supports the evidence of higher the speed, lower the critical angle of attack is.
Once the model of the jet provost stalled, the CL values started decreasing, which means once the
aircraft has stalled the production of lift reduces to very less or close to none. The CD values yet keeps
increasing. Once the critical angle of attack is reached the life production goes towards null, but the
parasitic drag keeps increasing due to some air resistance but the induce drag which is produced
because of lift production is zero. Therefore, the drag keeps increasing, but not rapidly as it did before
in the non-stall region.
Flow visualisation using sewing thread was conducted at the fan speed of 750 rpm. The flow
visualisation showed the airflow is massively turbulent. The relevant Reynolds number that was used
in this experiment is 20,127,060 and Re = 23,616,240. These numbers confirm the airflow is turbulence
is as well. The analysis of the results is compared against air foil NACA 23015 and air foil tip is NACA
4412.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to commune, as a matter of first importance, thank you to my mum who has been supporting me
for years throughout all my academic challenges. She has inspired me a lot, especially to pursue a
career in STEM industry. Secondly, I would like to definite my gratitude to University of London Air
squadron (ULAS), Royal Airforce who stimulated my interest in military and fighter aircrafts which
steered me towards choosing this topic, which I thoroughly enjoyed working on.
Thirdly, I would like to express my depth of gratitude and feel so privileged to have my project's
supervisor, Mr Ben Stacey who has not only guided me throughout this whole year relating to this report
but have been there as a supporter and my mentor in my final year of university with other subjects too.
He has given me valuable suggestions and ideas which led to the accomplishment of this project.
Lastly, I am much obliged to acknowledge my appreciation to Vinoth Chandrasegaram and Varunika

Loganathan for taking their time to read this report and assisted me during the most stressful time of
my life which has motivated me greatly to achieve the best of things.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF EQUATIONS ...........................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... x
GLOSSARY ...........................................................................................................................................xi
1. INTRODUCTON ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Aims.......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2
2. AERODYNAMIC FORCES............................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Lift ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Drag ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Parasitic drag ................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Induced Drag .................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Thrust.................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Weight................................................................................................................................... 5
2.5 Lift/Drag Ratio ....................................................................................................................... 5
3. WIND TUNNELS ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 History of Wind tunnels ......................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Aerodynamic numerical analysis of 1901 glider ................................................................... 8
3.3 Models that were tested in the first wind tunnel .................................................................... 9
4. BAC PROVOST .......................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Jet provost .......................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Design of the Aircraft .......................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Exported variants of Jet Provost to other militaries ............................................................ 11
4.4 Engine performance of Jet provost T.Mk ............................................................................ 12
4.5 Armament of Jet Provost .................................................................................................... 12
5. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 14
5.1 Aircraft Setup ...................................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Horizontal Stabiliser ............................................................................................................ 17
5.3 Relevant Reynolds number and air foil ............................................................................... 18
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 19
6.1 Coefficient of lift against angle of attack for 1,000 and 1,200 rpm ...................................... 19
6.2 Coefficient of drag against angle of attack for 1,000 and 1,200 rpm .................................. 21
6.3 Coefficient of pitching moment against angle of attack for 1,000 and 1,200 rpm ............... 23
vi
6.4 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of drag for 1,000 rpm and 1,2000 rpm........................ 25
6.5 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of pitching moment for 1,000 rpm and 1,2000 rpm .... 26
6.6 Coefficient of lift against angle of attack for +30 and -30 degrees of horizontal stabiliser at
1,000 rpm......................................................................................................................................... 27
6.7 Coefficient of drag against angle of attack for +30 and -30 degrees of horizontal stabiliser
at 1,000 rpm..................................................................................................................................... 28
6.8 Coefficient of pitching moment against angle of attack for +30 and -30 degrees of
horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm ..................................................................................................... 30
6.9 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of drag for +30 and -30 degrees of horizontal stabiliser
at 1,000 rpm..................................................................................................................................... 31
6.10 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of pitching moment for +30 and -30 degrees of
horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm ..................................................................................................... 32
7. FLOW VISUALISATION .............................................................................................................. 33
8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................ 35
8.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 35
8.2 Critical Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 37
8.3 Recommendation for Further Development........................................................................ 38
8.4 Project Management........................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 40
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 42
APPENDIX A – Catia Drawing ............................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX B – Second set of data collected ........................................................................................ 1
APPENDIX C – Gantt Chat .................................................................................................................... 1
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Close Return Wind Tunnel [2] ............................................................................................... 1

Figure 2-1: Representation of CD against angle of attack [4] ................................................................... 6
Figure 3-1: Wright Brothers’ Wind Tunnel [8] .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 3-2: First recorded data of wind tunnel experiment [9] ................................................................. 8
Figure 4-1: The Prototype T1 XD674 at Luton Airport in June 1954 [12] ............................................... 10
Figure 4-2: Prototype BAC Jet Provost T. Mk 5 (Bristol Siddeley Viper II turbojet engine) [14]............. 13
Figure 4-3: Three view diagram of Jet Provost T. Mk 5 [14] .................................................................. 13
Figure 5-1: Catia Screenshot of wing mount ........................................................................................ 14
Figure 5-2: CAD drawing of wing mount .............................................................................................. 15
Figure 5-3: Jet provost Model used in the experiment ......................................................................... 15
Figure 5-4: Filed model of wing mount ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 5-5: Model fitted into the wind tunnel ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 5-6: Horizontal stabiliser set +30 degrees ................................................................................ 17
Figure 5-7: Horizontal stabiliser set -30 degrees ................................................................................. 17
Figure 5-8: Calculation of Reynolds number for 1,000 rpm [19] ............................................................ 18
Figure 5-9: Calculation of Reynolds number for 1,200 rpm [19] ............................................................ 18
Figure 6-1: CL against Angle of attack at 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm .................................................... 19
Figure 6-2: CD against Angle of attack at 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm.................................................... 21
Figure 6-3: Cm against Angle of attack at 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm ................................................... 23
Figure 6-4: CL against CD for 1,000 rpm .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 6-5: CL against CD for 1,200 rpm .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 6-6: CL against Cm for 1,200 rpm .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 6-7: CL against Cm for 1,000 rpm .............................................................................................. 26
Figure 6-8: CL against AoA for +/- 30 degrees ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 6-9: CD against AoA for +/- 30 degrees .................................................................................... 29
Figure 6-10: Cm against AoA for +/- 30 degrees .................................................................................. 30
Figure 6-11: CL against CD for +30 degrees......................................................................................... 31
Figure 6-12: CL against CD for -30 degrees ......................................................................................... 31
Figure 6-13: CL against Cm for -30 degrees ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 6-14: CL against Cm for +30 degrees ........................................................................................ 32
Figure 7-1: Flow visualisation at 0 degrees of angle of attack ............................................................. 33
Figure 7-2: Flow visualisation at 15 degrees of angle of attack ........................................................... 34
Figure 8-1: CL against Angle of attack at 1,200 rpm [28] ....................................................................... 35
Figure 8-2: Cm against Angle of attack at 1,200 rpm [28]....................................................................... 36
Figure 8-3: Flow visualisation for a car ................................................................................................ 38
viii
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation 2-1: Lift Force [3] ...................................................................................................................... 3
Equation 2-2: Drag Force [3] ................................................................................................................... 4
Equation 2-3: Aspect Ratio [4] ................................................................................................................. 4
Equation 2-4: Induced Drag [4] ............................................................................................................... 4
Equation 2-5: Lift/Drag Ratio, (L/D)max, Minimum drag condition [5] ....................................................... 6
Equation 2-6: Coefficient of Lift, minimum drag CLmd [5] .......................................................................... 6
Equation 2-7: Coefficient of Drag, minimum drag CDmd [5] ...................................................................... 6
Equation 5-1: Reynolds number [20]...................................................................................................... 18
Equation 6-1: Coefficient of pitching moment [25] ................................................................................. 24
Equation 7-1: Bernoulli’s theorem [27] ................................................................................................... 34
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Models Tested in Wrights wind tunnel [10] ............................................................................. 9

Table 4-1: Listed of exported variants [15] ............................................................................................. 11
Table 6-1: CL against AoA for 1,000 rpm ............................................................................................. 19
Table 6-2: CL against AoA for 1,200 rpm ............................................................................................. 19
Table 6-3: CD against AoA for 1,000 rpm ............................................................................................. 21
Table 6-4: CD against AoA for 1,200 rpm ............................................................................................. 21
Table 6-5: Cm against AoA for 1,000 rpm ............................................................................................ 23
Table 6-6: Cm against AoA for 1,200 rpm ............................................................................................ 23
Table 6-7: CL against AoA for +30 degrees ......................................................................................... 27
Table 6-8: CL against AoA for -30 degrees .......................................................................................... 27
Table 6-9: CD against AoA for +30 degrees ......................................................................................... 28
Table 6-10: CD against AoA for -30 degrees ........................................................................................ 28
Table 6-11: Cm against AoA for +30 degrees....................................................................................... 30
Table 6-12: Cm against AoA for -30 degrees ....................................................................................... 30
x
GLOSSARY
Glossary
• Form Drag: Drag brought about by the partition of the limit layer structure a surface and the
wake made by that detachment [4].
• Interference Drag: Drag that is created by the blending of wind current, which soothes out
between airframe parts like the wing and the fuselage, the motor arch and the wing or on
account of military or other specific reason airplane between the airframe and appended the
outer stores, for example, gas tanks, or weapons.
• Induced drag: Outcome of lift and is delivered by the section of an air foil through their air
• Mach number: ratio between speed of an object to speed of sound
• NACA air foil: air foil moulded for airplane wings created by National advisory committee for
aeronautics
• Lift/Drag ratio: measure of lift produced by a wing or air foil contrasted with its drag
Nomenclature
• CL: Coefficient of Lift
• CD: coefficient of drag
• Cm: coefficient of pitching moment
• r: Density
• S: wingspan
• CLmax: Maximum Coefficient of lift
• AR: Aspect ratio
• e: Oswald efficiency
• CD0: zero coefficient of drag
• C: Chord length
Abbreviation
• BAC: British Aircraft Corporation
• CRIM: Close return Interchangeable Module
• RAF: Royal Airforce
• CG: Centre of Gravity
• CFD: Computational fluid dynamics
• NACA: National Advisory committee for Aeronautics
xi
School of Engineering and Computer Science BEng Individual Project Report
1. INTRODUCTON
1.1 Project Background

To study the aerodynamic characteristics of an aircraft, the wind tunnel test is one of the optimal
methods to be used to determine the forces. The repetition of test models increases the accuracy, while
comparing the results of the models to the real-life model’s data, the data prove mathematically, the
flexibility of testing in wind tunnel, the adaption of the results and performance and lastly the cost-
effective scheme.
In this project, these facilities will be used to characterise the components of aerodynamics forces,
purposely Lift and Drag of a British Air Corporation (BAC) Jet Provost T. Mk 5 model. The mount the
aircraft attached is known as Force Balance. The forces Drag and Lift are measured during the testing,
and then compared with existing variable.
There are various types of wind tunnel accessible. Subsonic, closed return, subsonic open return full
scale and subsonic open return smoke tunnel [1]. Subsonic wind tunnels are when the Mach number is
less than 0.8, M < 0.8. Transonic wind tunnels comprise Mach number between 0.8 and 1.2, 0.8 < M <
1.2. Supersonic is with Mach number between 1.2 and 5.0. 1.2 < M < 5.0. Finally, hypersonic covers
any Mach number above 5.0, M > 5.0. The Mach number is relatively compared to the speed of sound.
As the Mach number is significantly smaller for Subsonic, the air compressibility could be neglected
while collecting data, however for Transonic and supersonic, the air compressibility should be taken in
factor in data recording [1].
The wind tunnel used in this experiment is Close return Interchangeable Module (CRIM). The Force
estimations normally require a few information decrease or post-test handling to represent Reynolds
number or Mach number concerns for the model during testing [2].
Figure 1-1: Close Return Wind Tunnel [2]
1
In this figure 1- 1, it represents how a close return wind tunnel operates. The air from the exit section of
tunnel has been recirculated through the vanes and fan to repeat the process for testing. The model of
Jet Provost T5 will be mounted in the model part of the outline in the air stream. This system is
inexpensive and easy to operate. The flow quality in the test section is generally superior to that of the
standard. This is due to the use of flow turning vanes and flow straighteners [2].
1.2 Project Aims

Analysis of this specific project is t estimate aerodynamic forces acting on a Jet provost T5 model and
characteristics shown. In this project the variant T, Mk 5 will be used as the model to demeanour the
experiment.
The closed return wind tunnel will be used in this experiment to measure data. Aerodynamic parameters
such lift, darg and pitching moment will be measured during the experiment and then these experimental
analyses of the coefficient values are discussed to see how the aircraft behavioural changes in various
angle of attack under various airspeed. Data reduction will then be carried on the experimental data
using the Lift and Drag equations correlating the angle of attack.
1.3 Project Objectives

The ambition of the project is reasonable and measured using these objectives:
01. Calibrate and familiarise with CRIM equipment
02. Estimate the angle of pitch for the 3D model
03. Determine the parameters of lift, drag and pitching moment
04. Analyse the change in coefficient lift against drag and pitching moment forces at different angle
of attack
05. Collect experimental data for different trimmed conditions of horizontal stabiliser
06. Determine ethe flow visualisation of the model at 750 rpm
2
2. AERODYNAMIC FORCES
2.1 Lift
Lift is a vector force which consists of magnitude and direction and acts on an aircraft opposing to
weight to keep it in the air. Lift is generated from every part of the aircraft, but mostly it is generated and
supported by the wings. Lift generation is often when flow of fluid is rearranged by a solid, mostly in
aircrafts upper and lower surface of wings can either cause the disruption in this flow. For lift to be
generated, the solid object (wings) needs to be in contact with the flow as if there is no physical, there
will be no lift produced perpendicular to the flow.
The lift can be calculated using Equation 01. The factors that affect the lift is, air density, velocity of the
object and air, compressibility of the air, surface area and the angle of attack. The “CL” is the coefficient
of the lift, which in some calculations be used to determine the lift of the object. Additionally, coefficient
of the lift, CL, will also be resolute using the wind tunnel testing, which then lift can be mathematically
calculated using the values. The trialled values of CL from an experiment will be carried on calculating
the lift, where the same conditions are expected to be followed. The effects of the air compressibility
and viscosity, Mach number ratio, and other factors that could affect the results should be kept identical,
or the results could mislead or be inaccurate [3].
Equation 2-1: Lift Force [3]
The equations used nowadays have the coefficient of lift in reference to flow of the dynamic pressure,
however in the early 1900s, the equation used the values were referenced to dynamic pressure of the
flow.
As the angle of attack increases [4], lift increases, until it reaches its optimal angle of attack and the lift
starts to decrease which leading to stall angle of attack, CL-Max [4].
2.2 Drag
Drag is an additional aerodynamic force that acts opposing to thrust and generated by the whole aircraft.
Likewise lift, drag is a mechanical vector force which is generated when a solid object is in contact with
a flow of fluid. One form of drag is Skin friction. Drag can be considered as aerodynamic skin friction
as it is caused when the fluid interface with the skin of the solid [3].
The below Equation 02 shows the drag equation used now to calculate the drag, D and coefficient of
drag, CD. These factors that affect the overall value of the Drag is, density of the air, velocity, viscosity
and compressibility of air, shape of the aircraft, and many other factors.
3
Equation 2-2: Drag Force [3]
2.2.1 Parasitic drag

Parasitic drag usually slows down the aircrafts. This form of drag does not use coefficient of lift, CL, to
calculate the drag. Different types of parasitic drag are Form, interference, and Skin Friction.
Form Drag is when the drag is affected by the shape of the aircraft or it’s movement. The air around
the non-streamline shapes is swirling till it seems back to the downstream, which creates more drag,
however a sphere inside a housing seems to have created less form drag. To avoid Form drag, could
design aircraft’s part streamline wherever it is possible to do so [4].
Interference Drag is caused when the components (wings, fuselages) of aircraft’s airflow streamline
interferes with each other. When the airflow intersection occurs, it is usually the airflow of vertical and
horizontal components. At the point of intersection, there is less space for the turbulence and an initial
shock wave is produced and due to this shock wave, the total drag at the given intersection is bigger
than the drag produced by the components individually [4].
To minimise the interference, drag, use of fairings and fillets will be used. The sudden meet of airflow
will then reduce the shock wave.
2.2.2 Induced Drag

Induced drag is produced as an additional force to whenever lift is manufactured by an aircraft.
According to Bernoulli’s principle, the lower surface of the aircraft has more pressure than the upper
surface, causing the air to move from low pressure to high. While in movement of the airflow, the
pressure balances and airflow changes to lateral flow creating the vortices shape like around the
wing. They move clockwise for left wing and anti-clockwise for the right wing in view from tail.
At high altitude, the vortices created are bigger which creates more induced drag. At lower altitude, the
lift is vertical and perpendicular to the gravity, so less vortices and less induced drag produced.
The equation used to calculate induced drag is given below as equation 2-3. CL, coefficient of lift is from
the data given for take-off run, e is the Oswald efficiency factor, and the AR is the aspect ratio. To
calculate aspect ratio, it is given in the Equation 2-4 is used.
Equation 2-4: Induced Drag [4] Equation 2-3: Aspect Ratio [4]
: Induced Drag8 4
2.3 Thrust
One of the aerodynamic forces that acts on an aircraft is thrust. Thrust is produced by aircraft engines
to accelerates when it is higher than drag and have a stable airspeed when it is equal to the drag. The
force is created through a propulsion system when gas is accelerated with working fluid in opposite
direction. When the drag and thrust is in an equilibrium, the aircraft does not accelerate or decelerate
as it flies in straight and level. As the thrust reduces, the aircraft which then starts to decelerate and
eventually reduces the drag force as well. Thrust is a vector force which consists of magnitude and a
direction [3].
The correct measurement of thrust is done in Newtons (N). The Excess Thrust is the relation between
the thrust and drag. It can be calculated by finding out the difference. The most immediate performances
of the aircraft depend on excess thrust4.
2.4 Weight
The centre of gravity in an aircraft determines how stable it is. If the Centre of gravity is too forward
towards the nose, the aircraft will pitch down, if it’s towards the tail, the nose will pitch up, either way
resulting the aircraft to be unstable. Moreover, the concept works in similar way for centre of pressure
as well. If the centre of pressure is behind the centre of gravity for an aircraft, the aircraft will pitch
nose down as mentioned above. Resolving this, many aircraft design consists of centre of gravity and
pressure at the correct position to maintain stability and control.
Weight acts perpendicular to lift in an equilibrium flight. If the weight overcomes lift, the flight will
automatically start to descend. The weight is normally given in Newton (N). It is calculated using
aircraft’s mass with 9.81m/s2 which is the gravitational contact. If the aircraft is overloaded and weight
is not balanced equally:
• Cruising speed and range is reduced
• Rate and angle of climb is shortened
• Manoeuvrability is decreased
• Longer take off run due to higher take off speed.
2.5 Lift/Drag Ratio

Lift-to-drag ratio is the amount of lift produced in respect to drag in an aircraft. If the value of Lift/drag
ratio is higher, it means the aircraft is more efficient compared to an aircraft with lower Lift/drag ratio.
The lift/drag ratio is simply computed by CL/CD = dividing the coefficient of lift by coefficient by drag
[10]. It could also be calculated using the exact equation of lift and drag force using all the parameters
except the coefficients, Equation 2-1 and 2-2.
5
As shown in the Figure 2-1 below, lower the angle of attack, lower the coefficient of drag and Lift/Drag
ratio, and slight changes effects slightly as well. However, in higher angle of attack, the impact is higher
on coefficient of drag. It also shows for this specific data, the optimal Lift/Drag ratio is achieved in the
smaller angle of attack, where the maximum lift is obtained for the last drag produced.
To obtain the Lift/Drag ratio maximum (CL/CD)max, the equation 2-5 can be used. The below mentioned
equation follows the conditions at when the drag is minimum.
Equation 2-5: Lift/Drag Ratio, (L/D)max, Minimum drag condition [5]
Equation 2-6: Coefficient of Lift, Equation 2-7: Coefficient of

minimum drag CLmd [5] Drag, minimum drag CDmd [5]
Higher the Lift/Drag ratio, longer range, larger payload, and low fuel usage by the aircraft. The Lift/Drag
ratio had main components such, zero lift drag coefficient or even known as parasitic drag, CD0. Unless
in situation where the value is given, it can be calculated using parameters like coefficient of skin friction,
total wetter area of wingspan and insignificant percentage of pressure drag which is induced by
separation of flow.
Figure 2-1: Representation of CD against angle of attack [4]
6
3. WIND TUNNELS
The wind tunnels are used in experimental to determine the aerodynamic forces of a vehicle. It is
mounted to the wind tunnel and the airspeed is monitored to move around the aircraft to examine the
forces. There are different types of way to determine the airflow, threads can be used, or dye can be
used to see how the air moves. In other ways smoke can be used determine flow visualisation as well.
The wind tunnels are also used to test models of any aircraft, or full size or even model of some parts
of the aircraft before production to make changes accordingly to the numerical analysis. These testing
help air travel safer and improves efficiency and cost [6].
3.1 History of Wind tunnels

A British Mathematician, Benjamin Robins (1707 – 1751) built 4 feet whirling arm which spun using a
pulley system, however the velocity reached is very low. He used various shapes and models to test,
nevertheless he concluded the resistance is defective as all the models appeared to have same surface
area [7].
The world’s true first aviator, Otto Lilienthal’s (1848 – 1896), is famous for his Hang gliders which had
airtime over 2500 times and covered 270 yards. He officially did not build any aircraft, nevertheless it
inspired manned airflight.
Lilienthal’s experiments which used whirling arm were bult with various dimensions, varying from 5.5
feet to 23 feet. These results incorrectly concluded that the flat wings were a possibility.
Sir Hiram Maxim (1840 – 1916) [7], who is an American residing in England, retrieved a huge success
from the invention of Machine gun and his next challenge was to create man powered aircrafts. Since
he had wealth, he used those facilities to build 64 feet diameter whirling arm and a wind tunnel of 12
feet long and 3 square feet test section only. The wind tunnel consisted of fans which up streamed 50
miles per hour and had a steam engine. He also built an 8000-pound flying machine with wing area of
4000 square feet [7], 2,180 horsepower steam engine and 17.8 feet in diameter propeller. In today’s
measurement the wing area is only 3550 feet square but is being used to support 550,000-pound aircraft
weight. Using these facilities, Maxim tested his equipment and found amazing results and considered
this design as the ideal man powered aircraft which it was for 1894 [7].
After Wright brothers has modelled 1900 and 1901 models of gliders, the first wind tunnel was built in
United states to test the gliders as they only produce 1/3 lift than predicted. As shown in Figure 3-1, two
beams were built appropriately to test lift and drag respectively. These beams were only able to place
one at a time inside the tunnel, while one wright brother recorded the experimental data in the balance
output dial [8].
7
Figure 3-1: Wright Brothers’ Wind Tunnel [8]
By means of the wind tunnel, Smeaton’s pressure coefficient was calculated, importance of wing
planform and overall wing performance features were detected. The design is an open-return design
which has the fan at the start of the tunnel which will push the wind through the wings, unlike the modern
wind tunnels. The balance beams and hundreds of the wing models were made of materials (20-gauge
steel, 1/32-inch-thick) from the bicycle store which were ran by the wright brothers in Dayton, Ohio [8].
3.2 Aerodynamic numerical analysis of 1901 glider
Figure 3-2: First recorded data of wind tunnel experiment [9]
Above shown Figure 3-2 is the data collected by Wright brothers while testing the 1901 glider. The data
on the left is before the data reduction and graph on the right reflects the plotted value of lift against
drag. This study concluded the following results: flatter surface = less lift and drag, curved surface =
more lift and drag, greater the curvature = greater lift and drag, longer thin wing = higher aspect ratio,
shot wider wing = low aspect ratio and curved wing tips = lower drag [9].
8
3.3 Models that were tested in the first wind tunnel

Table 3-1: Models Tested in Wrights wind tunnel [10]
AR C
1 Used for aspect ratio test, Flat plates, area of 6 sq. in. 1.0
2 Used for aspect ratio test, Flat plates, area of 6 sq. in. 4.0
3 Used for aspect ratio test, Flat plates, area of 6 sq. in. 6.0 0.0
4 Camber test, Circular arc air foils, lower aspect ratio 6 sq. in. 1.0 1/12
5 Camber test, Circular arc air foils, low aspect ratio 6sq. in. 1.0 1/16
6 Camber test, circular arc foils, low aspect ratio, 6 sq. in. 1.0 1/20
7 Camber test, circular air foils, Area = 6 sq. in. 6.0 1/12
10 Camber test, parabolic foils, high aspect ratio, area of 6 sq. in. 6.0 1/12
15 Camber test, parabolic foils, low aspect ratio, area of 6 sq. in. 1.0 1/12
18 Aspect ratio test at low camber and bi-wing configuration, area of 6 sq. in. 4.0 1/20
Circular arc air foil, used
19 Aspect ratio test at low camber and bi-wing configuration, area of 6 sq. in. 4.0 1/20
parabolic cross section arc air foil,
20 Wing tip geometry test, Area of 6 sq. in., straight ledge and curved trailing 4.7
edge. Cross section is known as bid wing.
21 Wing tip geometry tests, area of 6 sq. in., thing parabolic section. 4.7
25 Wing tip geometry sets, aera of 4 sq. in., wing tips are curved trailing edges 8.0
and straight leading edge, identical to model 32. Cross section is parabolic,
with slight thickening leading edge.
23 Used for multiple wing tests, identical to model 22 and 26, area of 3 sq. in. 6.75 1/20
Used in bi-wing test configuration with model 22 to form model 24. Used in tri-
wing configuration with 22 and 26 to form 27. Cross section is parabolic.
35 Area of 6 sq. in., thickening near leading edge. The cross section is also 6.0
known as bird wing.
30 Area of 5 sq. in., the cross section is a hook, designed to test against Pline’s 4.1
curve.
31 Area of 8 sq. in. proved Lilientthal’s data with limitation to the measuring 4.64
device.
51 Area of 6.25 sq. in., Cross section of a parabolic. Built to test against 4.0
(13) Langley’s data.
9
4. BAC PROVOST
4.1 Jet provost

Jet Provost used commonly by The Royal Air Force (RAF), was built by Hunting Percival, and then later
was manufactured and operated by British Aircraft Corporation. The earliest inspiration design was the
piston engine powered Percival provost, however the engineering team decided there would be a need
for jet powered engine with enhanced performance with tranquil design to operate2. Thus, In March
1953 Ministry of Supply granted sponsorship for the development [11].
The maiden flight was conducted on the 16th of June 1954 following the completion of the first prototype
XD674, flown by Dick Wheldon from Luton airport which then completed 123 flying hours in next three
days. Then the prototype was submitted for official trials at RAF Boscombe Down [11].
Provost jets were in service throughout 1955 to 1993. These Jet provost, were not only used by RAF,
but it was also exported to other militaries’ Air Force such as Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Sudan, South Yemen,
Iraq, and Venezuela [4].
Figure 4-1: The Prototype T1 XD674 at Luton Airport in June 1954 [12]
4.2 Design of the Aircraft

This aircraft is designed to avoid speed and the aerodynamic design of this type is focused on
developing a variety of advantageous handling characteristics for minimizing the impact of spin and
stall on recovery. This type is commonly used for training exercises.
The cockpit of the Jet Provost is identical to that of the previous model. It features a side-by side seating
arrangement in pressurised cabin, and both positions are equipped with duplicated flight controls, this
allows the students to have a clear view of the instructors’ controls. The central warning panel is an
important feature that alerts the pilots when conditions are unfavourable or hazardous. It can be
triggered by various factors such as fire, icing, and oxygen failure [11].
10
The variants developed later was more advantageous, specifically to the production of Jet provost T.
Mk 5A, the grey coating on the wing indicate the stall warning early by breaking up the wind stall,
however T. Mk 5 had clean wings which would only warn the pilot little prior to the stall [15].
4.3 Exported variants of Jet Provost to other militaries

Table 4-1: Listed of exported variants [15]
Variants Key Dates Numbers sold Air forces
T.51 (CJ701 – 712) December 1959 and December 22 Ceylon Air Force
1960
T.51 (124, 139, 143 17th October 1961 to 26th May 4 Sudanese Air Force
th
and 157) 1962 (139) and 13 June 1962
(124) and the other two were
returned to BAC which was then
sold to Nigerian Air Force in
August 1967.
Re-serialled NAF701 Very little facts known and last 2 Nigerian Air Force
and NAF702 known was forced landed on
Porto Novo on 23rd June 1969
T.51 (101 – 106) Exported in early 1962, 6 Kuwait Air Force
withdrawn by 1970
T.52 (armed version Delivered 28th November 1962 8 Sudanese Air Force
th
of T.4) Serialled: 162, and 27 January 1964.
173, 175, 180, 181,
185, 190 and 195
T.52 (E-040 to E-054) February 1963. Grounded and 15 Venezuela Air Force
stored by 1966
T.52 (600 – 619) 31st August 1964 and 28 April 20 Iraqi Air Force
1965, moved into inventory in
1990 and only five were
destroyed.
T.52 Post 1965 period. These were South Yemini Air
ex-RAF, in which two of them Force
served in no 3, 6 and 7 FTSs.
Ex-RAF XP666, XP684, XR652,

XR652, XR661, XS223, XS224,
XS227 and XS228 were sold
back to BAC on 13th January
1967 and 30 August 1967.
11
Re-serialled as 101 to 108 and

given to Yemen on 31st January
1968.
T.52 In 1975, 5 aircrafts (ex-XN596) 5 Singapore Air Force
were sold to Singaporean Air
Force and was in service till
1980.
T.52 Scuppered by labour N/A Potential order from
Government’s block however South African Air
equipped with MB.326 instead. Force
T.55 (armed Serialled 167, 177, 187, 192 and 5 Sudan Air force
th
equivalent to RAF’s 197. Delivery took place on 30
T.5) March 1969 for 2 aircrafts and
13th June 1969 for two aircrafts,
T.55 Unfortunately embargoed by N/A Greek Air Force
Labour Government
4.4 Engine performance of Jet provost T.Mk

The Jet provost T. Mk 5 was manufactured and was the first ever model to have pressurised cabin in
RAF and it was mainly used as a trainer aircraft at No. 6 Flying training school RAF at Cranwell. The
engine used to build this model was Rolls Royce Viper 202 which was used in previous models such
as T. Mk 4s. The company was previously owned by Bristol Siddeley viper, which then was sold to by
Rolls-Royce hence the change in name. The total internal fuel capacity is 262 Imp gallons (1,191 litres)
and the two wingtips fuel tanks contain 96 Imp gallons (436 litres).
4.5 Armament of Jet Provost

Jet provost T5 was a trainer aircraft, therefore the armament was optional while training. The
armament that it carries includes [14]
• 2 Type GM2 reflector gunsights
• Ferranti LFS
• Type 5 gyro sights
• Two 7.62 mm FN machine-guns (600 rounds per gun) – located in the nose of each engine
air intake duct
•
Underwing stores
• 2, 50 Imp gallons (227 litres) fuel tanks
• 12 x 8 cm Oerlikon 9.7 kg rockets
12
• 18 x 8 cm Hispano – Suiza 11.9 kg rockets

• 72 x 37 mm SNEB Rockets in four Matra launchers
• 4 FN 7.62 mm machine guns in two pods (500 rounds per gun)
• 48 x 2 in rockets in two White & Riches launchers
• 24 x 2.75 in rockets in four Matra launchers
• Four Nord AS.11 wire-guided missiles
• 6 x 3 n Mk 6rockets with 60 lb heads/ twelve 25 lb heads
• Four HVAR rockets with 35 lb/ 52 lb heads
• 28 x 68 mm SNEB rockets in four mantra launchers
• Two Beagle reconnaissance packs, each with F.95 camera
• Eight 25 lb practice bomb
• Two 500 lb GP bombs or eight 19lb fragmentation bombs
Figure 4-2: Prototype BAC Jet Provost T. Mk 5 (Bristol Siddeley Viper II turbojet engine) [14]
Figure 4-3: Three view diagram of Jet Provost T. Mk 5 [14]
13
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1 Aircraft Setup

As mentioned before, the experiment type used for this project was CRIM wind tunnel testing. The
aircraft was fitted into the tunnel and testing for angle of attack between -2 to 15 degrees for 1,000 rpm
and 1,200 rpm fan speed. The flow visualisation test was completed also using sewing thread for 750
rpm [16].
Closed return interchangeable wind tunnels work as they intake air from the exit valves from the test
section and the air flow is induced by various vanes and fans. Once the air is exited through the tunnel,
it is contracted again into the test section. The figure 1-1 shows the diagram of the parts of the CRIM
tunnel, and the labelled arrow shows the airflow direction. To avoid distillation inside the tunnel, the air
is passed over a dryer bed.
The main advantages of using a CRIM wind tunnel are, the quality of the airflow in the test section,
which leads to results being very accurate to real life conditions. The vanes and corners which direct
the airflow, tracks a uniform flow. Also, the operational and maintaining cost are low as the fans do not
have to keep accelerating the air once the air starts circulating, it will follow the same pattern. It has a
very low relatively compared to a open wind tunnel. On the other hand, as the CRIM wind tunnels are
massive, they are expensive to build. As for flow visualisation, many factors like smoke or dyes are
used to study the airflow and the tunnel should be built in a way to eradicate all the products. The tunnel
will need a cooling system as it has hotter running conditions. The wind tunnel also has the limitation of
being turned on at least an hour before usage, so the results would be to its full potential.
To attach the aircraft to the wind tunnel, a wing mount was modelled using Catia to attach to both wings
of the aircraft. Figure 5-1 shows the screenshot of isometric, right, left, and top view from the Catia
drawing and figure 01 shows the CAD 2D drawing.
Figure 5-1: Catia Screenshot of wing mount
14
A
4.7 THRO'
8.12 Front view
Scale: 1:1 4
4 17.92
8.92
30.91 Isometric view

6.64 Scale: 1:1 3
3
1.5 THRO'
6.31
44.18 4 THRO' NOTES:
All dimensions are in mm
4
23.05 THRO' General Tolerance is +/-0.1
All the holes penerated are through the whole shape
2
2
2 THRO' 2.09 DRAWING TITLE
Wing mount for Wind Tunnel
12.62
SIZE DRAWN BY
1
1
Top view 10.64 A4 Nilogy Sripathmanathan

Scale: 1:1 SCALE 1:1 MATERIAL DATE SHEET 1/1
Brass 10/12/2021
D A
Figure 5-2: CAD drawing of wing mount
The CAD 2D drawing shows all the dimensions used to create the model. As shown, in figure 5-2, the
top surface of the mount is flatter than the air foil shape. The air foil shape of the wing was a compound
radius. It normally is easier to file the excess part than to machine in the exact shape, therefore it was
modelled with flat air foil shape and later was machined. The holes in the mount align with the holes in
the aircraft, which is then screwed with the aircraft wing attaching to the wind tunnel. The exact
dimensions were taken from the aircraft using a ruler, so it can perfectly fit through the stingers of the
CRIM model available in university.
The material used for this mount to be made is brass, and the holes were threaded through to screw in
into the wings.
Figure 5-3: Jet provost Model used in the experiment
15
Figure 5-4 shows the mount once it is completed with the machining and the top air foil filed. The file
set was used to file down the top and the edges of the mount. The side of the mount was in different
sizes; therefore, the filing was done in different shapes.
Figure 5-4: Filed model of wing mount
Figure 5-5 shows once the aircraft model was fitted inside wind tunnel. The model was inverted in the
wind tunnel, as it’s easier to measure the lift this way. However, while being places upside, the models
can have some interference which would affect the results when they are hung up by a string.
Therefore, for this wind tunnel, a metal rode called stingers is used to have more precise readings of
results.
Furthermore, additional reason to have models inverted is it helps with the flow visualisation
experiments. It is easier to see the effect of airflow for various speed and angle of attack.
Figure 5-5: Model fitted into the wind tunnel
16
5.2 Horizontal Stabiliser

The closed return wind tunnel module’s internal dimensions are 1.14 m and 0.83 m. The empty weight
of the tunnel is 382 kg. As every wind tunnel experiment, the lift and drag forced were measured and
the coefficients of lift and drag, alongside coefficient of pitching moment were measured against the
angle of attack. The pitch was set 2 degrees apart till the data reached 14 degrees, and the measured
final data of 15 degrees. The fan speed used to measure the data are, 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm. The
experiment was conducted for different angle of attack with horizontal stabiliser with 0 degrees and then
change to +30 and -30 degrees.
The wind tunnel testing was used to

• Simulate the natural wind environment in the tunnel
• Obtain the initial aerodynamics characteristics of the jet provost
• Measure coefficient of lift, drag and pitching moment
• Analyse and interpret the observed results [18]
Different type of testing was done with different angle of attack for horizontal stabiliser. The angle of
attack was +30 degrees and -30 degrees. As attested by, when different speed was measured, the
horizontal stabiliser was set to zero degrees. This experiment was used to compare how aerodynamic
characteristics affect the jet provost when the horizontal stabiliser changes.
Horizontal stabiliser is part of a tail plane which is shaped as a small wing at the rear of the tailplane for
jet provost. It provides the stability to the aircraft and helps to fly straight. It also prevents the aircraft
from extreme pitching conditions. This part of the aircraft is trimmable accordingly to unrelenting level
flight. When the stabiliser is pointed upwards, with +30 degrees, it helps the nose of the aircraft to pitch
down and -30 degrees with downward cause nose to pitch up. This creates lift, however thee lift created
is due to gravity with relevance to the centre of gravity of the aircraft.
Figure 5-6: Horizontal stabiliser set +30 degrees Figure 5-7: Horizontal stabiliser set -30 degrees
17
5.3 Relevant Reynolds number and air foil

The wind tunnel experiment will be used to determine how the aerodynamic characteristics affects
the jet provost and the conditions used will be different velocity among the same angle of attack and
different angle setting for horizontal stabiliser for one specific velocity. The fan speed chosen to use
are 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm which in conversion changes to 16.44 m/s and 19.29 m/s for velocity.
To determine the Reynolds number, the equation 5-1, mentioned below is used.
Equation 5-1: Reynolds number [20]
From the parameters relevant for the calculation, the density used will be the ISA condition, therefore it
will be 1.225 gm/m3, velocity are 16.44 m/s and 19.29 m/s. The chord length of the Jet provost model
is 18.5 m and the kinematic viscosity of the fluid is 1.5111E-5 m2/s as the experiment was conducted
at room temperature. These calculation gives Re = 20,127,060 for 16.44 m/s and Re = 23,616,240 for
19.29 m/s. The Reynolds number is greater than 2,000 for both speeds, therefore the airflow is
turbulent.
Figure 5-8: Calculation of Reynolds number for 1,000 rpm [19]
Figure 5-9: Calculation of Reynolds number for 1,200 rpm [19]
Both figures above show the calculation carried out through Air foil tools webpage. The equation 5-1
was used and Ncrit value was 9 for this as the wind tunnel was assumed to be average. The air foil
reference for root of Jet provost is NACA 23015 and tip is NACA 4412 [21].
18
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Coefficient of lift against angle of attack for 1,000 and 1,200 rpm
Table 6-2: CL against AoA for 1,200 rpm Table 6-1: CL against AoA for 1,000 rpm
Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of

(m/s) Attack Lift (CL) (m/s) Attack Lift (CL)
(degrees) (degrees)
15.18240268 -2 0.000587885 18.13576388 -2 0.001291
15.14183507 0 0.02041113 18.14192936 0 0.019967
15.06315642 2 0.039387873 18.11339641 2 0.039782
15.12798033 4 0.055433087 18.13692006 4 0.056443
15.01063009 6 0.070937676 18.10799323 6 0.071743
14.95184332 8 0.086243392 18.07940673 8 0.087327
15.01807861 10 0.100012995 18.00230704 10 0.101869
14.97659921 12 0.112144392 18.00851821 12 0.100902
15.00969877 14 0.106546503 17.96382766 14 0.100316
15.0041096 15 0.097319442 18.02868975 15 0.098594
Coefficient of Lift against Angle of Attack

0.12
0.1
Coefficient of Lift (CL)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Angle of Attack (degrees)
1,000 rpm 1,200
Figure 6-1: CL against Angle of attack at 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm
19
As revealed in the table, when the air foil increases in angle of attack, the wing creates more lift, leading
it to have an increasing coefficient of lift data.
Angle of attack is measured in between the degrees of chord line of aerofoil to the airflow. Coefficient
of lift can be obtained using two ways, either by experiment or calculation. The relation between air foil
and the wing is what the coefficient of lift compares. It also, converts the velocity into lift with angle of
attack.
A lift slope, which shows the direct proportion of the a against the angle of attack.
From given table 6-1, the CL is 0.00587885 when the angle of attack is -2 degrees with 15.182 m/s
airspeed, and as the angle of attack increases till 12 degrees, with CL 0.112144392 with airspeed 14.977
m/s there was a steady growth in the graph. When it stalls, the lift starts to drop as there is no more lift
produced by the aircraft wings when the airflow turns from laminar to turbulent flow. When the airflow
changes from laminar to turbulence, there is no creation of lift. The drop of the lift production was very
dramatic which implies the aircraft did not stall gently2.
Inference, the model of Jet provost stalled at 12 degrees of angle of attack, which is knows the critical
angle of attack for 1,000 rpm. This aircraft has stalled at a higher angle of attack when the airflow has
separated at somewhere in the upper surface of the wing with minimum pressure point.
Table 6-2 displays the recorded data of coefficient lift for the relevant angle of attack when it’s 1,200
rpm. The data shows a major difference when the airspeed changes. The data at -2 degrees of angle
of attack has 0.001291 and with angel of attack increasing, the lift coefficient increases too. After the
10 degrees the CL starts decreasing at which point it indicates that the aircraft has stalled. The CL
decreased from 0.101869 to 0.100902 at 10 degrees to 12 degrees respectively.
The airspeed had a massive impact on the aircraft as at 1,000 rpm the jet provost stalled at 12 degrees,
however at 1,200 rpm the aircraft stalled at 10 degrees sharply. The increase in airspeed, resulted in
decrease in critical angle of attack. When the airspeed increases, more lift is produced which leads to
aircraft having higher lift coefficient than when the aircraft is at lower airspeed. When more lift is
produced, the aircraft tends to stall earlier which is at lower angle of attack.
The region from -2 degrees to 12 degrees for 1,000 rpm and -2 degrees to 10 degrees for 1,200 rpm is
known as the linear region or non-stall region. As per coefficient of lift is directly proportional to angle
of attack with the linear increase till it reached 10 degrees of angle of attack and 12 degrees for 1,000
rpm and 1,200 respectively.
20
6.2 Coefficient of drag against angle of attack for 1,000 and 1,200
rpm
Table 6-3: CD against AoA for 1,000 rpm Table 6-4: CD against AoA for 1,200 rpm
Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of Airspeed Angle of Coefficient

(m/s) Attack Drag (CD) (m/s) Attack of Drag (CD)
(degrees) (degrees)
15.18240268 -2 0.006982888 18.13576 -2 0.00669
15.14183507 0 0.007907889 18.14193 0 0.007635
15.06315642 2 0.009274994 18.1134 2 0.008988
15.12798033 4 0.010765708 18.13692 4 0.010581
15.01063009 6 0.012886579 18.10799 6 0.012612
14.95184332 8 0.015387186 18.07941 8 0.01506
15.01807861 10 0.01815597 18.00231 10 0.017941
14.97659921 12 0.021511805 18.00852 12 0.023647
15.00969877 14 0.027823111 17.96383 14 0.027858
15.0041096 15 0.032213863 18.02869 15 0.031973
Coefficient of Drag against Angle of Attack

0.035
0.03
0.025
Coefficient of Drag (CD)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1,000 rpm 1,200
Figure 6-2: CD against Angle of attack at 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm
21
The drag coefficient reflects on the resistance of that specific object and streamlined objects will have
lower coefficient of drag. Typically a aerofoil shape will have 0.04 CD. The drag coefficient mostly gets
affected by fluid viscosity and pressure. The lower the angle of attack is, the lower the CD value is and
in higher angle of attack, the CD increases rapidly. High speed which leads to have higher air resistance,
will have higher CD as well. By way of shown in figure 6-2, when the speed is around 18 m/s the CD is
higher.
Comparing this with the air foil of a jet provost which has minimum drag of 0.0069 and maximum drag
of 0.032 shows the range is within the theory.
The table 6-3 shows the coefficient of drag data for the jet provost with the relevance angle of attack
between -2 and 15 degrees. The figure 6-2, shows as the angle of attack increases, coefficient of drag
increases as well. When the angle of attack is -2 degrees, the CD is 0.008473 and when the angle of
attack was 14 degrees, the CD is 0.028277. As supported by figure 6-1, this model of jet provost stalled
at critical angle of attack at 12 degrees and the curve continues to increase with higher angle of attack.
As the aircraft started to have less/no lift in the aircraft, the proportionate drag force stared to reduce.
At lower angle of attack the drag produced on the shape of the aircraft wing is very small, however
when the aircraft stalls and there is no lift, there is still some drag fiction as to why there is small
coefficient of drag. The figure 6-2, shows gentle increase of drag slope, which implies the aircraft is
designed well enough to fly through lower angle of attack without any problems, and still have induced
drag [23].
The CD used to establish the shape of the air foil, inclination and the effect of the air and its viscosity.
As mentioned in the above equation 2-2, it can be rearranged to find the drag force. As for the data
measure in table 6-3 and 6-4, the airspeed is below 89.408 m/s, so the effect of compressibility of the
wind is negligible. Skin friction and pressure drag are some factors that affect the critical angle of attack.
As the airspeed increases, induced drag increase, while parasitic drag decreases, and when the total
drag is at the lowest, minimum drag for the aircraft, jet provost occurs. Total drag is the combination of
both induced and parasitic drag. Additionally, when there is more airspeed produced, drag is reduced
further as to addition of thrust, which then cause the airplane to stall.
When thew airspeed is reduces, more drag is produced. As from figure 6-2, when the jet provost stalled
at 12 degrees as the airspeed increased, figure 6-2 shows there is a slight change in CD from 12
degrees. The CD is going up steeper than it was before 12 degrees, as there is not any lift to balance
the aerodynamic forces. Drag coefficients are vastly affected by shape, Reynolds number, Mach
number and the stiffness of the aircraft’s skin because of the air resistance [23].
22
6.3 Coefficient of pitching moment against angle of attack for 1,000

and 1,200 rpm
Table 6-5: Cm against AoA for 1,000 rpm Table 6-6: Cm against AoA for 1,200 rpm
(m/s) Attack Pitching Moment (m/s) Attack Pitching
(degrees) (Cm) (degrees) Moment (Cm)
15.18240268 -2 1.07981E-07 18.13576388 -2 2.82761E-07
15.14183507 0 1.01281E-07 18.14192936 0 2.60682E-07
15.06315642 2 9.03393E-10 18.11339641 2 3.60304E-07
15.12798033 4 1.08504E-07 18.13692006 4 3.64622E-07
15.01063009 6 2.01829E-07 18.10799323 6 4.69291E-07
14.95184332 8 1.42904E-07 18.07940673 8 5.6108E-07
15.01807861 10 -6.34879E-08 18.00230704 10 8.02446E-07
14.97659921 12 7.50414E-07 18.00851821 12 1.86455E-07
15.00969877 14 -3.32091E-07 17.96382766 14 2.25042E-08
15.0041096 15 -1.08612E-06 18.02868975 15 -9.49561E-07
Coefficient of Pitching moment against Angle of

Attack
0.000001
Coefficient of Piching moment (Cm)
0.0000005
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-5E-07
-0.000001
-1.5E-06
1,000 rpm 1,200 rpm
Figure 6-3: Cm against Angle of attack at 1,000 rpm and 1,200 rpm
23
The pitching moment of an aircraft is where the aerodynamic pressure is applied to the centre of the
aerodynamic chord. The force will be balanced by the horizontal stabiliser with lift. As the forces change
towards forward and aft, the centre of pressure of the aircraft starts to move. Even yet, if the centre of
pressure keeps moving the lift force will be proportionate twice with the airspeed in the change.
The table 6-5 and 6-6 and figure 6-3 shows the data resulted from the experiment for coefficient of
pitching moment and the data plotted respectively. The equation used to calculate pitching moment
from coefficient of pitching moment is:
Equation 6-1: Coefficient of pitching moment [25]
Where Cm is the coefficient of the pitching moment, q is the dynamic pressure, S is the wing area and
C is the air foil chord.
Pitching moment coefficient is fluctuating between -2 to 10 degrees with the Cm values but it clearly
indicated the aircraft has stalled at 12 degrees, when the value dropped rapidly at 1,000 rpm. The value
at -2 degrees is 1.07E-07 and -6.35E-08 at 10 degrees. As supported by table 6-5 the aircraft at 1,000
rpm does stall at 12 degrees which is shown in figure 6-3 when the Cm dropped rapidly.
This table 6-6 shows the same parameter measured, coefficient pitching moment against angle of attack
but at airspeed of 1,200 rpm. As this figure 6-3 demonstrates as well, this graph’s correlation is
fluctuating. The Cm is going up slightly from 2 degrees to 10 degrees, and then the Cm goes up suddenly
and at the angle of angle when the aircraft stall which is 10 degrees, then Cm drops rapidly [25].
The pitching moment of y axis is pressure, shear stress differentials and moment arms integrated over
the airplane surface to produce a net pitching moment [25]. At the point which the slope crosses the x-
axis, is the trim angle of attack, which also mean sum of moments is equal to zero. The negative slope
required is interrelated to static stability. The impact of static margin when there is no angle of attack,
is null control deflection. Likewise, the impact of static margin when the sum of moment in zero, is at
trimmed condition. Influence of lift redirection on throwing coefficient is control avoidance shifts curve
all over, influencing trim approach. [25].
Pitching moment coefficient can also be calculated by the variation due to elevator deflection.
24
6.4 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of drag for 1,000 rpm and
1,2000 rpm
Coefficient of lift against Coefficient of Lift against

coefficient of drag coefficient of drag
0.12 0.12
0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Coefficient of drag (Cd) Coefficient of drag (Cd)
Figure 6-4: CL against CD for 1,000 rpm Figure 6-5: CL against CD for 1,200 rpm
The figure 6-4 above is a polar graph which compares the coefficient of lift against coefficient of drag
when it’s measured at 1,000 rpm. The maximum lift is 0.1121 and the minimum drag is 0.0070. The
drag polar specifies best glide speed or optimum glide angle for flights. Best glide ratio is calculated
from the graph when a tangent line is drawn from CL = 0 and CD = 0 and then CL is divided by CD, which
for this specific graph is 16.014 (0.1121/0.0070).
The region before CD minimum is known as the minimum drag coefficient zone. The correlation with
both graphs, the CD is increasing with CL showing the drag production in aircraft’s wing when there is
lift produced. It also demonstrates when the aircraft has stalled with the dropped in slopes. The CD is
still increase with CL decrease after stall, subsidiary the theory of drag production with no lift. For figure
6-4, when the aircraft stalls the CL is 0.1121 and CD is 0.022, and figure 6-5 has stall coefficient for lift
0.102 and 0.0179 for drag showing the stall in early angle of attack.
Aircraft in general with higher lift/drag ratio is more efficient than aircraft with lower lift/drag ratio. The
Lift/drag ratio measures the air foil efficiency.
25
6.5 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of pitching moment for

1,000 rpm and 1,2000 rpm
Coefficient of lift against Coefficient of lift against

coefficient of pitching moment coefficient of pitching moment
0.000001 0.000001
Coefficient of pitching moment (Cm)

0.0000005 0.0000005
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5E-07 -5E-07
-0.000001 -0.000001
-1.5E-06 -1.5E-06
Coefficient of lift (CL) Coefficient of lift (CL)
Figure 6-7: CL against Cm for 1,000 rpm Figure 6-6: CL against Cm for 1,200 rpm
The figure 6-6 and 6-7 shows the graphs of coefficient lift against coefficient of pitching moment. The
figure 6-6 is for values at 1,000 rpm and figure 6-7 is for 1,200 rpm. The CL is meant to increase with
Cm before stall, however there is one anomaly results for CL at 0.10, Cm is -6.35E-08. This is clearly an
error in reading. Neglecting that values, the graph’s correlation is positive till it stalls. When the aircraft
stalls, the CL reduces speedily, and Cm reduces slightly as well and it’s very visible when it stalled as
the slope is going down.
For figure 6-7, it plots the values of CL in contradiction of Cm at 1,200 rpm. Noticeably, aircraft stalls
earlier with lower CL and Cm values. As in theory, both values kept rising giving the connection to be
positive till it reached the stall. As previously stated, the CL values for stall is 0.10 with Cm to be 8.02E-
07. Once the stall occurred, the Cl decreased slightly when the Cm dropped down to a negative value
of -9.5E-07.
The summation of the moments on the aircraft affects the centre of gravity of the aircraft in general. The
moment which acts on the aerodynamic centre of the wing and the body of the aircraft is M0. As when
the correlation is positive with Cm against angle of attack is that the aircrafts is stable, and the negative
correlation shows the aircraft i9s unstable and whenever it crosses the x-axis line is the trim point of the
aircraft [25].
26
6.6 Coefficient of lift against angle of attack for +30 and -30 degrees
of horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm
Table 6-7: CL against AoA for +30 degrees Table 6-8: CL against AoA for -30 degrees

(m/s) Attack Lift (CL) (m/s) Attack Lift (CL)
(degrees) (degrees)
15.2563438 -2 -0.0126172 15.3267362 -2 0.01517663
15.3271923 0 0.00286153 15.2462612 0 0.03415807
15.2329603 2 0.02066004 15.2035654 2 0.05225378
15.2104599 4 0.03839611 15.2187292 4 0.06743353
15.1464505 6 0.05343039 15.2122979 6 0.08120855
15.1814819 8 0.06677625 15.2755739 8 0.09385706
15.1353711 10 0.08152869 15.1801006 10 0.10849765
15.0617643 12 0.09466667 15.1911474 12 0.11861893
15.1173498 14 0.09051869 15.0840231 14 0.11164758
15.1704281 15 0.08845764 15.0793885 15 0.10125505

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.02
+30 -30
Figure 6-8: CL against AoA for +/- 30 degrees
27
This experiment is the results for when the angle of horizontal stabiliser is trimmed between +30
degrees and -30 degrees. The CL increases with the angle of attack and the experiment was conducted
at 1,000 rpm so the aircraft stalled at 12 degrees. The line shows the exact shape in the graph but just
shifted apart as the -30 degrees has higher CL for given angle of attack than +30 degrees.
The CL at -2 degrees is -0.013 for +30 degrees and 0.015177 for -30 degrees. The same principle
applies here with angle of attack increases, CL increases as well. When the aircraft’s horizontal stabiliser
is pitched downwards, the nose is automatically driven up which causes the pilot to retrim or readjust
the pitch of the aircraft. Typically, in larger aircrafts, when the horizontal stabiliser is pitched down, the
elevator is pitched up which causes the aircraft to have a downforce act on it. This result in the centre
of gravity pushing the aircraft’s nose upwards. Elevators normally don’t have shapes stuck out into the
airflow which reduces the interference drag.
Different settings of horizontal stabiliser affect the stability and control of the aircraft. When a negative
lift is produces, that mean the centre of gravity of the aircraft is aft and forward Centre of Gravity gives
positive values of lift. Given from the table 6-7, the values when at -2 degrees when it’s trimmed
downwards, the CG is aft of the centre of lift and as the angle of attack increases, the CG moves forward
of the aircraft.
6.7 Coefficient of drag against angle of attack for +30 and -30
degrees of horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm
Table 6-9: CD against AoA for +30 degrees
Table 6-10: CD against AoA for -30
degrees
Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of
Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of
(m/s) Attack drag (CD) (m/s) Attack drag (CD))
(degrees) (degrees)
15.2563438 -2 -0.0126172 15.2563438 -2 -0.0126172
15.3271923 0 0.00286153 15.3271923 0 0.00286153
15.2329603 2 0.02066004 15.2329603 2 0.02066004
15.2104599 4 0.03839611 15.2104599 4 0.03839611
15.1464505 6 0.05343039 15.1464505 6 0.05343039
15.1814819 8 0.06677625 15.1814819 8 0.06677625
15.1353711 10 0.08152869 15.1353711 10 0.08152869
15.0617643 12 0.09466667 15.0617643 12 0.09466667
15.1173498 14 0.09051869 15.1173498 14 0.09051869
15.1704281 15 0.08845764 15.1704281 15 0.08845764
28
Coefficient of Drag against Angle of Attack

0.045
0.04
0.035
Coefficient of drag (CD)
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
+30 -30
Figure 6-9: CD against AoA for +/- 30 degrees
The tables and figure above show the CD values against angle of attack for -30 degrees and +30
degrees. When the horizontal stabiliser is set to +30 degrees, the CD values are lower than when it’s in
-30 degrees. As shown in figure 6-8, the value of CL is lower for +30 degrees, such correspondingly CD
values.
When the angle of attack increases, the CD increases as well. When it is trimmed for +30 degrees, the
drag produced is lower as mentioned before. Therefore, when it is angles upwards, it has higher pitching
down moment, which makes the centre of gravity forward causing the aircraft to have higher stall speed.
When the horizontal stabiliser is pitched down, instance of -30 degrees, will have smaller pitch down
moment, lift produced will be weight and the counter force of the aircraft and stall speed will be smaller
as centre of gravity is now aft of the aircraft [22].
The drag is reduced 3 – 8% when the horizontal stabiliser is retrimmed. Trim drag is mainly instigated
by horizontal stabiliser which refrain it from deflecting and stay equal in the horizontal stabiliser. It also
avoids it creating negative drag on the tailplane, which results in an effect on induced drag and on wings
and mainly on the horizontal stabiliser. This then mainly affects the total drag.
The minimum drag value is -0.0126 when it’s upwash angle and 0-0.0126 when it’s in downwash angle,
which is the same value.
29
6.8 Coefficient of pitching moment against angle of attack for +30

and -30 degrees of horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm
Table 6-11: Cm against AoA for +30 degrees Table 6-12: Cm against AoA for -30 degrees

(m/s) Attack Pitching Moment (m/s) Attack Pitching Moment
(degrees) (Cm) (degrees) (Cm)
15.2563438 -2 2.8228E-06 15.3267362 -2 -1.817E-06
15.3271923 0 1.2112E-06 15.2462612 0 -2.714E-06
15.2329603 2 1.1216E-06 15.2035654 2 -3.411E-06
15.2104599 4 1.6635E-06 15.2187292 4 -3.017E-06
15.1464505 6 1.8231E-06 15.2122979 6 -2.683E-06

15.1814819 8 2.0184E-06 15.2755739 8 -2.501E-06
15.1353711 10 2.1118E-06 15.1801006 10 -1.686E-06
15.0617643 12 2.4272E-06 15.1911474 12 -1.45E-06
15.1173498 14 1.6213E-06 15.0840231 14 -2.332E-06
15.1704281 15 1.0299E-06 15.0793885 15 -3.023E-06
Coefficient of pitching moment against Angle of Attack

0.000004
0.000003
0.000002
0.000001
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.000001
-0.000002
-0.000003
-0.000004
+30 -30
Figure 6-10: Cm against AoA for +/- 30 degrees
30
This figure explains what happens to the pitching moment coefficient when it’s retrimmed under same
conditions. As explained the pitching moment Is higher when the horizontal stabiliser is trimmed
upwards pushing the centre of gravity forward. The pitching moment is lower as seen when it’s at -30
degrees.
The shape of both follows the exact same pattern with the coefficient values fluctuating, decreasing
from – 2 degrees to 2 degrees and the values increasing till 12 degrees when the values start dropping
instantly when it stalls. The values at -2 degrees for +30 degrees is 2.8228E-06 and -30 degrees is-
1.817E-06. Eventually for higher angle of attack at 12 degrees for +30 degrees is 2.427E-06 and -30
degrees of -1.45E-06. The values overall when horizontal stabiliser is angled downwards, the coefficient
values change to negative.
Pitching moment coefficient for horizontal stabiliser is the hardest values to measure accurately and
simulate because of the separation of the boundary layer. It appears to have the exact same force
distributed over the whole aircraft. The slope is both upwards and downwards till the aircraft stalled.
The vulnerability at the time adjustment, is the reasons for the dissimilarity between the trial and
expected plots.
6.9 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of drag for +30 and -30
degrees of horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm
Coefficient of Lift against Coefficient of Lift against

coefficient of drag coefficient of drag
0.12 0.14
0.1 0.12
0.08 0.1
Coefficient of Lift
Coefficient of Lift
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Coefficient of drag (CD) Coefficient of drag (CD)
Figure 6-11: CL against CD for +30 degrees Figure 6-12: CL against CD for -30 degrees
31
Figures 6-11 and 6-12 above shows the polar plots of coefficients values of lift against drag for both
+30 and – 30 degrees. For 1,000 rpm the plot increases with positive correlation with coefficient of lift
increasing while coefficient of drag increasing as well, till it reaches the stalling region. Once the aircraft
has stalled the coefficient of lift is slight decreasing, while CD is still increasing. It supports the evidence
parasitic drag is still being produced and no induced drag is being produced. This number is relatively
higher. Higher CL/CD value has higher aspect ratio. In case of same speed, the CL/CD ratio is higher if
the mass of the aircraft differs and be higher.
6.10 Coefficient of lift against coefficient of pitching moment for +30

and -30 degrees of horizontal stabiliser at 1,000 rpm
Coefficient of Lift against Coefficient of Lift against

coefficient of pitching moment coefficient of pitching moment
0.12 0.14
0.1 0.12
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0
0 0.000001 0.000002 0.000003
0
-0.000004-0.000003-0.000002-0.000001 0
-0.02
Coefficeint of Lift (CL) Coefficeint of Lift (CL)
Figure 6-14: CL against Cm for +30 degrees Figure 6-13: CL against Cm for -30 degrees
The graphs above show the plots of coefficient of lift against the coefficient of pitching moment. As
shown the correlation of the graph is vivid and have fluctuations. Reading the graph for how it effects
the stability of the aircraft, both lift and pitching moment coefficients increases and then it started
reducing marginally till the aircraft stalls which is when the lift coefficient reduced vastly while Cm is still
increasing. Once the aircraft has stalled, the aircraft will either pitch up or down, so there is still some
pitching moment involved in the flight.
32
7. FLOW VISUALISATION
Flow visualisation is one of the techniques used in wind tunnel testing to determine how airflow changes
in different angle of attack and different airspeed. The testing displays streamlines of airflow. The main
cause of this method is to study the characteristics of fluid dynamics by using different factors to
measure. The results will then be further used to realise the flow and the lift and drag production. In
recent experiment, it can be used in training to understand the physical attributes to improve aircraft
designs and reduces turbulence phenomena. Further to previously mentioned comment, a sewing
thread was used in this experiment. When the aircraft is stalled, the experimental values will show a
separation in boundary airflow layer [27].
The aircraft was fitted in the same CRIM tunnel, and measured against the same angle of attack,
however with different fan sped of 750 rpm, airspeed of 12 m/s.
When the angle of attack is at 0 degrees, the thread is oscillating very high. This shows the air around
the aircraft is turbulent. As you move the thread to above the aircraft, where the air flow is not touching
the aircraft skin, the thread still stays steady. Moreover, when the thread is further away at the bottom,
there is no oscillation. This experiment is for fan speed of 750 rpm with Reynolds number = 14,692,257
with airflow turbulent.
The CL value when it was at 0 degrees is 0.2128 and CD value is 0.00734. These are the separation
point values for this angle of attack. The values of coefficient of lift and drag keep increasing as the
angle of attack increases.
Figure 7-1: Flow visualisation at 0 degrees of angle of attack
33
Figure 7-2 shows, the flow visualisation test when it was conducted at 15 degrees of angle of attack.
When the aircraft is pitched at higher angle of attack, the aircraft’s airflow is different. The thread when
it was near the aircraft, it was oscillating at very high speed and when it’s away from the aircraft it was
steady and in laminar flow. The CL values at the separation point is 0.09551 and CD value is 0.032559.
When the angle of attack changes, as when the aircraft is a high pitch, it is shown the airflow around
the aircraft becomes turbulent causing the aircraft to stall quick and at low degrees of angle of attack,
the airflow is more laminar and makes it more stable to fly. The critical angle of attack for 12 m/s is 14
degrees as lower the speed, higher the critical angle of attack. The figure 7-2 was recorded at 15
degrees, after the aircraft has stall which supports the turbulent airflow.
Figure 7-2: Flow visualisation at 15 degrees of angle of attack
Using Bernoulli’s theorem, which is mentioned below equation 7-1, it was easier to observe the fluid
flow. There are differences between separation point and since the air foil is cambered, it created a
small lift force which causes higher pressure instead of symmetrical air pressure due to the wake region.
Pressure drag is caused between the longitudinal pressure of the aircraft. For streamlines objects, the
pressure drag is reduced to minimum. This also allows the boundary layer to stay attached to the object
for longer as the separation points are pushed both back and closer together creating smaller wake
region.
Equation 7-1: Bernoulli’s theorem [27]
34
8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1 Conclusion
This segment closes the outcomes obtained and the aerodynamic forces affect the Jet Provost model.
As mentioned above in methodology section, CRIM wind tunnel experiment was conducted, and the
results obtained support some evidence for the critical angle of attack.
The characteristic of Jet provost T5 model suggests airflow is easier to analyse when it’s steady and
constant over time. The compressibility of the air is considered as main parameter measured with
different airspeed. The viscosity of the air is however neglected over many years as the frictional drag
caused and heating of the air in higher airspeed is not necessary.
The Reynolds number is relatively high, as 106 is somewhere between large birds and Cessna. As a
wood model of Jet provost T5 was used, the Reynolds number does correlate to be in that range.
Below shown are graphs obtained accordingly for the air foil root NACA 23015, for Reynolds number
1,000,000. The speeds at which the experiment conducted is Re = 20,127,060 and Re = 23,616,240.
Higher Reynolds number means, quicker the boundary layer grows. So, in this comparison, when the
airspeed keeps increasing, the turbulent keeps increasing causing the aerodynamic forces to act
differently. The angle of attack range is between -20 to 20 degrees. The lift slope shows the same
pattern as in figure 6-1, which is as the angle of attack increases, the of CL increases as well, yet this
shows the aircraft stalled at 17 degrees for smaller Reynolds number therefore when the aircraft stalled
at 12 degrees for 20,127,060 Reynolds number and 10 degrees for 23,616,240, it does support the
evidence. Higher the Reynolds number, smaller the critical angle of attack.
Figure 8-1: CL against Angle of attack at 1,200 rpm [28]
35
The graph also confirms the data collected was the expected data in terms with positive correlation.
The graphs related with CD values and Cm values support the curves of the measured data implying the
results are not anomalies. The minimum drag value is at -2 degrees, however if the range of degrees
started before perhaps at -4 or -6, the curve would have started higher and dropped below explicitly
showing the minimum drag value. So, the range of data considered could have increased for more
accurate data.
For pitching moment coefficient vales, the numbers were vaguely increasing and once it’s reached its
relevant stalling points they started reducing. For air foil NACA 23015 and NACA 4412, the similar
pattern follows as the values increased in a shallow pattern and dropped once the stall angle is reached.
This proves the results expected were correctly measured.
Figure 8-2: Cm against Angle of attack at 1,200 rpm [28]
The polar plots demonstrate the expected results and the suitable CL and CD values. If lower angle of
attacks were considered, the graph would be a parabolic as the values CD values will keep increasing
once the CL values stopped after stall. his cause the graph to look in shape of parabolic function.
However, this was not the case for the collected data as started point was not the minimum drag value.
When the results were plotted against CL and Cm values, the results they are reliable with clear fall after
the stall [28].
In addition to, the testing with different angle of horizontal stabiliser spectacle the changes in lift and
drag force. Horizontal stabiliser is one of the main components which makes the aircraft fly in a stable
manner and keep it from stalling, so experimenting with that reveals how stall angle changes. Different
angles were tested, therefore the speed used was constant. The fan speed was 1,200 rpm therefore
the graphs does support the stall angle is 12. The same pattern but different shift in the values explains
that downwards setting of the stabiliser will just have higher values of the coefficient or even high values
of the aerodynamic forces but will stall at the same angle.
36
All the results had the similar reflection which avoids the anomalies results. This shows the CRM wind
tunnel is an average maintained reliable wind tunnel.
In conclusion, the model used in the experiment shows the applicable production of aerodynamic forces.
In comparison with the real scale model, which is in greater size ratio the stall angles and the coefficient
values will be vastly different, however these can still be used to predict their behaviours and patterns.
Expressly, the flow visualisation illuminates how airflow performs at different angle of attack, and a
thread was used to visualise the airflow as the motion is undistinguishable to the naked eye. Higher the
angle of attack, more turbulent the air is around the aircraft. Consequently, the aircraft is said to stall
more heavily and easily at higher angle oof attacks because there is no stable airflow. In relative with
high Reynolds number, the experiment regarded with reasonable viscous effects.
8.2 Critical Evaluation

This section covers how this project could have been improved and changed to achieve better results
and could have been done in more efficient way.
The methodology used was CRIM wind tunnel testing in various angle of attack and airspeed. For
instance, as mentioned above if the angle of attack was considered even lower, have a wider range of
angle of attack the minimum drag would have been visible and it would have the results be more reliable
and comparable.
Both airspeeds used for the experiments are with high Reynolds number which are greater than 2,000
demonstrating the turbulent airflow. However, any airspeed that would results in lower Reynolds number
can be used to determine the difference of the result. Lower Reynolds number shows the aircraft stalls
earlier with lower angle of attack and the overall value is lower as well. Another airspeed of lower
Reynolds number could have been expended.
CRIM wind tunnels are normally considered to have poor flow quality in the test section. Therefore, a
numerical modelling method, Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software could have been used to
demonstrate the aerodynamic characteristic in the jet provost. A 3D modelling of the Jet provost T5
would have need to be created using either ANSYS fluent software or Catia 3D modelling and then
imported to the ANSYS software to undergo the experiment of aerodynamic forces. Alongside with the
wind tunnel testing results, the coefficient values of lift, drag and pitching moment could have been
compared for the same fan sped and angle of attack range and sea real life wind tunnel testing will be
different to a CFD 3D model. CFD models are assessed at lower cost, as it practically cost nothing to
create models using the software which are installed in the computers previously. It is also easier of
execution. It can also be used to input comprehensive information and evaluate the outcome
accordingly. It would also be an ideal way of testing to simulate different conditions: such of various
37
range of airspeed, wide range of angle of attack and various setting of tailplane angle. CFD simulation
could have also been used in calculation of how pressure, heat transfer and viscosity of the air effects
the dynamic forces.
By using, CFD different methods of flow visualisation can be studied as well. CFD simulations are
particle tracking from inlet to outlet, continuous of instantaneous and averaged physical quantities. With
the given CRIM wind tunnel, the maximum fan speed allowed to use for flow visualisation was 750 rpm,
therefore if the CFD flow visualisation was used, higher fan speed could have been used to measure
different parameters.
Water tunnel flow visualisation is another method that could benefit of using. It is very similar to wind
tunnels, however it used hydrodynamic principles with liquid dye to visualise how the airflow changes.
The object is fixed and the water flows around the object. The wake region will clearly be visible with
the vortices in the turbulent flow. The figure 04 below shows an experiment conducted with a car and
the vortices behind the car when the airflow turned into the turbulent. The aircraft could be set at the
high angle of attack and comprehend how it changes.
Figure 8-3: Flow visualisation for a car
8.3 Recommendation for Further Development

• The thesis researched in this topic can be used to determine any relevant aerodynamic
characteristic needed for RAF military trainee aircrafts during 1950s. These results measured
could be used in any research related to variants T.51 to T.55 models as they all share similar
design features and streamline of the cockpit.
• The wind tunnel used for this examination is CRIM tunnel. The pattern gathered can further be
reflected on the forces of aerodynamics. The Reynolds number experimented is 20,127,060
38
and 23,616,240, therefore the coefficient values can be used to compare any data collected for
similar Reynolds number under CRIM tunnel experiments.
• Furthermore, the critical stall angle for the Jet provost T5 model at 1,000 rpm is 12 degrees and
1,200 rpm are 10 degrees. Any aircraft’s wind tunnel testing with changing parameter of
airspeed can be equated against and discover how different airspeed affects the performance
of the aircraft between -2 and 15 degrees.
• When the different setting of horizontal stabiliser is set, the coefficient values are measured
again. A different aircraft with changeable horizontal stabiliser can use these results to see how
high or low the values can change to. Different airspeed can be included to change this system
too. Any further research to include testing the stability and control of the aircraft can be
measured against this.
• Any discovers made from flow visualisation for relevant Reynolds number or any aircraft with
chord length of 18.5 m, could be referred to have similar behavioural of this experiment with
airflow. Also, different type flow visualisation method could be used as such smoke or dye can
be experimented with to see if similar patterns show up or the different textures affect them
differently.
8.4 Project Management

As shown in Appendix C, a Gantt chart was followed for the completion of this report. The model used
for the experiment analysis, such Jet Provost T5, it didn’t fit into the typical module that is used for every
CRIM tunnel experiment. The area where the stingers attach to the wing, the length was too small.
Consequently, the module used for automotive experiments had to be replaced. However, this delay
had a very insignificant effect on the project. Once the module was changed, all the experiment was
done, and collection of results didn’t take very much time to complete. Further completion of the report
was comparative of the results and discussions. Overall, the time management was done evenly and
was able to complete without any delay.
39
REFERENCES
[1]. Hall N. Types of Wind Tunnels [Internet]. Grc.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 12 November 2021].
Available from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/tuntype.html
[2]. Hall N. Closed Return Wind Tunnel [Internet]. Grc.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 6 October 2021].
Available from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/tuncret.html
[3]. Anderson J. Fundamentals of aerodynamics.
[4]. Aerodynamics of Flight. Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. 2016; 5:5-2 - 5-8.
[5]. Hall N. L/D Ratio [Internet]. Grc.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 20 November 2021]. Available from:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/ldrat.html
[6]. Wild F. What Are Wind Tunnels? [Internet]. NASA. 2018 [cited 19 November 2021]. Available
from: https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-are-wind-
tunnels-k4.html
[7]. Benson T. History of Wind Tunnels [Internet]. Grc.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 21 November 2021].
Available from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindTunnel/history.html
[8]. Sands K. Wright 1901 Wind Tunnel [Internet]. Wright.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 20 November
2021]. Available from: https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/tunnel.html
[9]. Hall N. Wright 1901 Wind Tunnel Results [Internet]. Grc.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 20 November
2021]. Available from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrights/results.html
[10]. Sands K. Wind Tunnel Test Models [Internet]. Wright.grc.nasa.gov. 2021 [cited 20 November
2021]. Available from: https://wright.grc.nasa.gov/airplane/models.html
[11]. Jet Provost [Internet]. BAE Systems | United Kingdom. 2021 [cited 03 October 2021].
Available from: https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/heritage/jet-provost
[12]. Chorlton M. The Jet Provost. Amberley Publishing; 2019.
[13]. Bilcliffe J. Jet Provost Fact Sheet - Military Airshows [Internet]. Military-airshows.co.uk. 2021
[cited 20 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.military-
airshows.co.uk/photographs/jpfactsheet.htm
[14]. Jane F, Taylor J. Jane's all the world's aircraft. London: S. Low, Marston & Co.; 1967.
[15]. Tabor A. Testing on the Ground Before You Fly: Wind Tunnels at NASA Ames [Internet].
NASA. 2021 [cited 20 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/ames/wind-
tunnels
[16]. Flow Visualization [Internet]. Aeronautics and Astronautics. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022].
Available from: https://www.aa.washington.edu/AERL/KWT/techguide/flowviz
[17]. British Aircraft Corporation Jet Provost T5A - RAF Museum [Internet]. RAF Museum. 2021
[cited 21 November 2021]. Available from:
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/british-aircraft-corporation-jet-provost-t5a/
[18]. NISHIMURA H. Wind Tunnel Experiment and Wind Tunnel Test. Wind Engineers, JAWE.
2014;39(4):333-334.
[19]. Reynolds number calculator [Internet]. Airfoiltools.com. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available
from: http://airfoiltools.com/calculator/reynoldsnumber
40
[20]. Reynolds Number [Internet]. Engineeringtoolbox.com. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available
from: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/reynolds-number-d_237.html
[21]. “Jet Provost T52 registered G-JETP.” UK Civil Aviation Authority Aircraft Register.
Retrieved: 3 July 2010.
[22]. How to Read a Cl v Alpha Polar Plot Chart | RC CAD2Vr [Internet]. Design to Flight - RC
CAD2vr. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available from:
https://www.rccad2vr.com/aeronautics/how-to-read-a-cm-v-alpha-chart
[23]. tips H, aircraft? W. What is drag polar in aircraft? – JanetPanic.com [Internet].
Janetpanic.com. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available from: https://janetpanic.com/what-is-
drag-polar-in-aircraft
[24]. Chandrasegaram V. Numerical Investigation on the Performance of a Port Fuel Injection SI
Engine over a Wide Range of Operating Conditions. 2020.
[25]. Morse W. Wing Pitching Moment Coefficient. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology. 1945;17(7):204-205.
[26]. Flow Visualization [Internet]. Grc.nasa.gov. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available from:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/tunvis.html
[27]. Shields P. The theory of Bernoulli shifts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973.
[28]. NACA 4412 (naca4412-il) Xfoil prediction polar at RE=1,000,000 Ncrit=9 [Internet].
Airfoiltools.com. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available from:
http://airfoiltools.com/polar/details?polar=xf-naca4412-il-1000000
[29]. The Drag Polar | AeroToolbox [Internet]. AeroToolbox. 2022 [cited 18 April 2022]. Available
from: https://aerotoolbox.com/drag-polar/
[30]. Thomas P. Fluid Lecture 19. 2021.
41
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]. Buckingham D. The wind tunnel. London: Remploy; 1979.
[2]. Goethert B, Nelson W. Transonic wind tunnel testing. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications;
2007.
[3]. Britton J, Dobson M. Notes on the internal drag, lift and pitching moment of a ducted body.
London: HMSO; 1972.
[4]. 4. Weick F, Scudder N. The effect of lift, drag, and spinning characteristics of sharp leading
edges on airplane wings.
[5]. Ravikumar R, Rathanraj K, Arun Kumar V. Experimental Studies on Air Foil Thrust Bearing
Load Capabilities Considering the Effect of Foil Configuration. Applied Mechanics and
Materials. 2015;813-814:1007-1011.
[6]. Military aircraft camouflage coating. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology.
2007;79(4).
[7]. 7. Chant C. Military aircraft. [Place of publication not identified]: Grange Books; 2001.
[8]. 8. Loves J. Military aircraft. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House Publishers; 2003.
[9]. 9. Clarke B. Jet Provost. Stroud: Amberley; 2008.
[10]. Air Corporations Act, 1949. Statement of guarantee given by the Treasury on 29th
September 1960, in pursuance of section 10 (1) of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, on loans
proposed to be raised by the British European Airways Corporation. Cambridge [England]:
Proquest LLC; 2007.
[11]. Skinner S. British Aircraft Corporation. New York: Crowood; 2012.
[12]. Noda H, Ishihara T. Wind tunnel test on mean wind forces and peak pressures acting on
wind turbine nacelles. Wind Energy. 2012;17(1):1-17.
[13]. Sunada S, Ozaki K, Tanaka M, Yasuda T, Yasuda K, Kawachi K. AIRFOIL
CHARACTERISTICS AT A LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER. Journal of Flow Visualization and
Image Processing. 2000;7(3):10.
[14]. Cox S, King J. Large-Reynolds-Number Asymptotics of the Berman Problem. Studies in
Applied Mathematics. 2004;113(3):217-243.
[15]. Takagaki N, Komori S, Suzuki N, Iwano K, Kurose R. Mechanism of drag coefficient
saturation at strong wind speeds. Geophysical Research Letters. 2016;43(18):9829-9835.
[16]. Numerical and Experimental Investigations on the Aerodynamic Characteristic of Three
Typical Passenger Vehicles. Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics. 2014;7(04).
[17]. Barbosa J, Govan A, Hewitt G. Visualisation and modelling studies of churn flow in a vertical
pipe. International Journal of Multiphase Flow. 2001;27(12):2105-2127.
[18]. Bryanston-Cross P. High speed flow visualisation. Progress in Aerospace Sciences.
1986;23(2):85-104.
42
APPENDIX A – Catia Drawing
A
4.7 THRO'
8.12 Front view
Scale: 1:1 4
4
17.92
8.92
30.91 Isometric view

6.64 Scale: 1:1 3
3
1.5 THRO'
6.31
44.18 4 THRO' NOTES:
All dimensions are in mm
4
23.05 THRO' General Tolerance is +/-0.1
All the holes penerated are through the whole shape
2
2
2 THRO' 2.09 DRAWING TITLE
Wing mount for Wind Tunnel
12.62
SIZE DRAWN BY
1
1
Top view 10.64 A4 Nilogy Sripathmanathan

Scale: 1:1 SCALE 1:1 MATERIAL DATE SHEET 1/1
Brass 10/12/2021
D A
1
APPENDIX B – Second set of data collected
Second set of data collected at 1,000 rpm

Airspeed Angle of attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of drag Coefficient of pitching
(m/s) (degrees) (CL) (CD) moment (Cm)
14.94436 0 0.021754209 0.008011 -8.32E-07
14.971 -2 0.001544114 0.006959 1.11E-07
14.82792 2 0.041049366 0.009298 -2E-06
14.84346 4 0.057213718 0.010867 -1.74E-06
14.86887 6 0.071846082 0.012789 -1.54E-06
14.82131 8 0.087484896 0.015427 -1.46E-06
14.68772 10 0.103180027 0.018433 -1.5E-06
14.74187 12 0.103153926 0.023787 -1.45E-06
14.85993 14 0.096362237 0.029878 -2.19E-06
14.73429 15 0.097878114 0.032507 -2.42E-06
Second set of data collected at 1,200 rpm

Airspeed Angle of attack Coefficient of Lift Coefficient of drag Coefficient of pitching
(m/s) (degrees) (CL) (CD) moment (Cm)
18.2736 -2 0.002428904 0.006662 1.76E-07
18.22879 0 0.021070159 0.007664 2.72E-07
18.27092 2 0.040674685 0.008989 5.15E-08
18.33279 4 0.057763722 0.01062 9.38E-08
18.26442 6 0.072333081 0.012645 1.66E-07
18.20078 8 0.087880971 0.015203 3.47E-07
18.21153 10 0.102628447 0.018044 3.64E-07
18.19694 12 0.100405865 0.023806 -2.85E-07
18.2671 14 0.096878993 0.029573 -9.74E-07
18.23991 15 0.098643524 0.032044 -1.93E-06
1
Graph representing coefficient of lift against angle of attack

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1,000 rpm 1,200 rpm
Graph representing coefficient of drag against angle of attack
Coefficient of drag against Angle of Attack

0.035
0.03
0.025
Coefficient of drag (CD)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1,000 rpm 1,200 rpm
2
Graph representing coefficient of pitching moment against angle of attack
Coefficient of pitching moment against Angle of Attack

0.000001
0.0000005
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-5E-07
-0.000001
-1.5E-06
-0.000002
-2.5E-06
-0.000003
3
APPENDIX C – Gantt Chat

9/21 10/21 11/21 12/21 1/22 2/22 3/22 4/22 5/22
26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1
Final Year Project start end 94%
Project Outline 27/09/21 01/11/21 100%

Project Title 27/09 27/09 100%
Literature Research 28/09 06/10 100%
Project Background 04/10 10/10 100%
Introduction 09/10 13/10 100%
Aims and Objectives 14/10 18/10 100%
Resource Analysis 19/10 24/10 100%
Gantt chart 17/10 28/10 100%
In text Citation and Reference 29/10 30/10 100%
Updating Logbook 01/10 30/10 100%
Proof reading 31/10 31/10 100%
Project Outline Deadline 01/11 01/11 100%
Progress Review 02/11/21 29/11/21 100%

Research and Background 02/11 07/11 100%
Data Request from RAF/ BAE Systems 08/11 11/11 100%
Visit to RAF 12/11 12/11 100%
Literature writing 10/11 15/11 100%
Sample Data Research 15/11 19/11 100%
Wing bolt design 23/11/21 27/11/21 100%
Measurement of Wing Bolt 23/11 23/11 100%
3D Model of the Wing bolt 24/11 25/11 100%
Technical Drawing 26/11 27/11 100%
Discussion Preparation 25/11 28/11 100%
Updating Logbook 15/11 28/11 100%
References 27/11 29/11 100%
Project progress Deadline 29/11 29/11 100%
Report 30/11/21 17/04/22 100%

Machining 30/11 13/12 100%
Literature research 30/11 05/12 100%
Reviewing objectives 14/12 19/12 100%
Take measurements for wind tunnel 15/12 22/12 100%
Christmas holiday 23/12 27/12 100%
Methodology writing 28/12 30/12 100%
New Year's Holiday 31/12 02/01 100%
Methodology research 03/01 07/01 100%
Report Writing 09/01 18/01 100%
Methodology research 19/01 28/01 100%
Studying polar diagrams 29/01 02/02 100%
Analysis other aerodynamics results 01/02 06/02 100%
Wind Tunnel Experiments 07/02/22 14/03/22 100%
First data collection 07/02 09/02 100%
Flow Visualisation 10/02 14/02 100%
Calculations 14/02 24/02 100%
Second data collection 28/02 03/03 100%
Comparing Data 04/03 14/03 100%
Horizontal stabiliser experiment 07/03 11/03 100%
Results Analysis 02/03 15/03 100%
Discussing results 10/03 17/03 100%
Conclusions 18/03 31/03 100%
Report Writing 27/02 23/03 100%
Referencing 26/03 14/04 100%
Proof Reading 13/04 17/04 100%
Report Deadline 17/04 17/04 100%
Defence and Presentation 18/04/22 03/05/22 0%

Create Presentation 18/04 26/04 0%
Prepare questions 27/04 30/04 0%
Analysis results 25/04 30/04 0%
Further Reading 30/04 02/05 0%
Defence Deadline 03/05 03/05 0%
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Aerodynamics of The Jet Provost

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerodynamics of The Jet Provost

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT REPORT

BEng (Hons) Aerospace Systems Engineering with Pilot

Name: Nilogy Sripathmanathan

19th April 2022

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING DEGREE/DEGREE WITH HONOURS

BEng Individual Project Report

WIND TUNNEL AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISATION OF THE

Student Full Name: NILOGY SRIPATHMANATHAN

Student Registration Number: 17046894

Date: 19th April 2022

Lastly, I am much obliged to acknowledge my appreciation to Vinoth Chandrasegaram and Varunika

DECLARATION STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... iii

Figure 1-1: Close Return Wind Tunnel [2] ............................................................................................... 1

Table 3-1: Models Tested in Wrights wind tunnel [10] ............................................................................. 9

1.1 Project Background

Figure 1-1: Close Return Wind Tunnel [2]

1.2 Project Aims

1.3 Project Objectives

Equation 2-1: Lift Force [3]

Equation 2-2: Drag Force [3]

2.2.1 Parasitic drag

2.2.2 Induced Drag

2.5 Lift/Drag Ratio

Equation 2-5: Lift/Drag Ratio, (L/D)max, Minimum drag condition [5]

Equation 2-6: Coefficient of Lift, Equation 2-7: Coefficient of

Figure 2-1: Representation of CD against angle of attack [4]

3.1 History of Wind tunnels

Figure 3-1: Wright Brothers’ Wind Tunnel [8]

3.2 Aerodynamic numerical analysis of 1901 glider

Figure 3-2: First recorded data of wind tunnel experiment [9]

3.3 Models that were tested in the first wind tunnel

4.1 Jet provost

4.2 Design of the Aircraft

4.3 Exported variants of Jet Provost to other militaries

Ex-RAF XP666, XP684, XR652,

Re-serialled as 101 to 108 and

4.4 Engine performance of Jet provost T.Mk

4.5 Armament of Jet Provost

• 18 x 8 cm Hispano – Suiza 11.9 kg rockets

Figure 4-3: Three view diagram of Jet Provost T. Mk 5 [14]

5.1 Aircraft Setup

Figure 5-1: Catia Screenshot of wing mount

30.91 Isometric view

Top view 10.64 A4 Nilogy Sripathmanathan

Figure 5-2: CAD drawing of wing mount

Figure 5-3: Jet provost Model used in the experiment

Figure 5-4: Filed model of wing mount

Figure 5-5: Model fitted into the wind tunnel

5.2 Horizontal Stabiliser

The wind tunnel testing was used to

5.3 Relevant Reynolds number and air foil

Equation 5-1: Reynolds number [20]

Figure 5-8: Calculation of Reynolds number for 1,000 rpm [19]

Figure 5-9: Calculation of Reynolds number for 1,200 rpm [19]

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of Airspeed Angle of Coefficient of

15.18240268 -2 0.000587885 18.13576388 -2 0.001291

15.14183507 0 0.02041113 18.14192936 0 0.019967

15.06315642 2 0.039387873 18.11339641 2 0.039782

15.12798033 4 0.055433087 18.13692006 4 0.056443

15.01063009 6 0.070937676 18.10799323 6 0.071743

14.95184332 8 0.086243392 18.07940673 8 0.087327

15.01807861 10 0.100012995 18.00230704 10 0.101869