314
D. Subramanian et al.
a Reynolds number of 10
5 with the k-ω SST turbulence model. First-order upwind
discretization scheme was used, and Green-Gauss cell-based method was used to
compute the gradient. A grid convergence study was conducted to find the number
of elements required, as shown in Fig. 2c. The solutions obtained from the CFD
analysis were validated using the experimental data of Mueller et al. [2]. The CFD
results closely match with the experimental results as evident from Fig. 2d.
4 Results and Discussion
In this section, the effectiveness of the manta planforms is estimated by comparing
their aerodynamic performance to that of the base Zimmerman planform. First, the lift
coefficients are compared, as they are important for take-off and gliding performance
and hence directly affecting the endurance of the MAV. Figure 3a represents a plot
between lift coefficient and angle of attack and from the plot, lift curve slope for the
base Zimmerman planform is calculated as 0.582π. In comparison, the Manta A wing
planform has a lift curve slope of 0.984π and the Manta B has a lift curve slope of
(a) Angle of attack vs C L
(b) Angle of attack vs C D
(c) C D vs C L
(d) Angle of attack vs C L /C D
Fig. 3 Comparison of aerodynamic performances of Zimmerman, Manta A and Manta B planforms
D. Subramanian et al.
a Reynolds number of 10
5 with the k-ω SST turbulence model. First-order upwind
discretization scheme was used, and Green-Gauss cell-based method was used to
compute the gradient. A grid convergence study was conducted to find the number
of elements required, as shown in Fig. 2c. The solutions obtained from the CFD
analysis were validated using the experimental data of Mueller et al. [2]. The CFD
results closely match with the experimental results as evident from Fig. 2d.
4 Results and Discussion
In this section, the effectiveness of the manta planforms is estimated by comparing
their aerodynamic performance to that of the base Zimmerman planform. First, the lift
coefficients are compared, as they are important for take-off and gliding performance
and hence directly affecting the endurance of the MAV. Figure 3a represents a plot
between lift coefficient and angle of attack and from the plot, lift curve slope for the
base Zimmerman planform is calculated as 0.582π. In comparison, the Manta A wing
planform has a lift curve slope of 0.984π and the Manta B has a lift curve slope of
(a) Angle of attack vs C L
(b) Angle of attack vs C D
(c) C D vs C L
(d) Angle of attack vs C L /C D
Fig. 3 Comparison of aerodynamic performances of Zimmerman, Manta A and Manta B planforms