Owl airfoil aerodynamic noise sources and performance compared to hawk and NACA0012 airfoils for low Reynolds applications
Abstract The investigation of low Reynolds number flows is crucial, particularly for applications such as wind turbines and small-scale UAVs. This study compares the owl airfoil with the NACA0012 and hawk airfoils through wind tunnel testing, utilizing pressure sensors and force balance to examine t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06309-x |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract The investigation of low Reynolds number flows is crucial, particularly for applications such as wind turbines and small-scale UAVs. This study compares the owl airfoil with the NACA0012 and hawk airfoils through wind tunnel testing, utilizing pressure sensors and force balance to examine the aerodynamic noise sources and aerodynamic performance of the airfoils. A total of six airfoils were investigated at various Reynolds numbers from 44 × 103 to 160 × 103, considering the glide flight envelop for various owl species. Wind tunnel test results showed higher Cl and L/D ratio for the owl airfoil, outperforming the NACA0012 and hawk airfoils by up to 6.7% and 44.1%, respectively. This is attributed to the optimal camber of the owl airfoil compared to the two other airfoils, and its lower relative thickness too. This helps flight with this airfoil at lower AOA, which reduces noise. In addition, the stall angle for owl airfoil was ranging from 8° to 15° higher than NACA0012 airfoil, which stalled at 10°-11°, and higher than 6° to 12° hawk stall angle. This feature allowed owls to perform efficient flights in glide phase at lower AOA that minimized the main aerodynamic noise sources such as the separations and pressure fluctuations. Pressure measurements represented the initiation of LSB for the owl airfoil at around AOA = 6° to 10° at different Reynolds numbers, while the hawk airfoil shown the presence of LSB starting from AOA = 0°. A detailed analysis of the pressure fluctuations showed that the owl airfoil had fewer sources of aerodynamic noise, such as LSB, stall phenomena, and separated shear layers, on both its upper and lower surfaces, compared to other types of airfoils. Additionally, an analysis in the frequency domain showed that the amplitude of FFT for NACA0012 and hawk airfoil is generally higher compared with the owl airfoil. These findings shed light on the aerodynamic characteristics and noise generation mechanisms of owl airfoil for future research and design considerations. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2045-2322 |