Aerofoil Decision Matrix

The aerofoil for the final glider design was chosen using a decision matrix, whereby two desirable
aerofoils were directly compared. The aerofoils selected to be analysed, based on preliminary memo
research, were as follows:

1. S1223 Aerofoil

2. MA409 Aerofoil

The criterion for the analysis were defined:

Criteria Definition
Lift Does the aerofoil generate sufficient lift for the glider?
Drag Is wing drag minimised with this aerofoil design?
Durability Is the design of the aerofoil such that it can withstand landing impact?
Ease of How easy is it to accurately manufacture the aerofoil?
Manufacturing
To accurately weight the criteria, a pairwise comparison was undertaken. A 1 denotes that the criteria
is considered more important, whilst a 0.5 denotes an equal weighting of the corresponding criteria

Criteria Lift Drag Durability Ease of Sum Weighting

Manufacturing
Lift - 1 0.5 1 2.5 41.67%
Drag 0 - 0.5 0.5 1 16.67%
Durability 0.5 0.5 - 1 2 33.33%
Ease of 0 0.5 0 - 0.5 8.33%
Manufacturing
The normalised rank scores for each of the criteria are defined quantitatively/ qualitatively in the table
below.

Rank Lift Drag Durability Ease of

Manufacturing
1 >1N >2N Catastrophic damage Impossible
2 1N-2N 2N-1.5N Major damage Challenging
3 2N-2.5N 1.5N-1N Minor damage Neutral
4 2.5N-3N 0.5N-1N Superficial damage Easy
5 >3N <0.5N No damage Prefabricated
 Criteria Weighting Benchmark S1223 Aerofoil MA409 Aerofoil
(W) Score (S) S x W Score (S) S x W Score (S) S x W
Lift 41.67% 3 1.25 4 1.67 3 1.25
Drag 16.67% 3 0.5 2 0.33 2 0.33
Durability 33.33% 3 1 4 1.33 2 0.67
Ease of 8.33% 3 0.25 2 0.167 3 0.25
Manufacturing
Sum - 3 - 3.5 - 2.5

Sensitivity Analysis

The S1223 aerofoil was selected given its higher overall weighted score compared to the MA409
aerofoil. The S1223, with its significantly more cambered design causes airflow to travel over the top
surface of the wing at a certain angle faster than that under the bottom surface to assist in the
generation of lift. The MA409 aerofoil does not offer this increased amount of lift, with a similar drag
coefficient acting on the glider. The thickness of the S1223 also offers durability benefits over the
MA409 which has a significantly thinner front and trailing edge. The only potential drawback of the
S1223 is the more complex shape which will reduce the ease of manufacturing and the ability to
produce an aerofoil that is consistent with theoretical designs.