Main Article Content
The purpose of this research is to make a very small unmanned aircraft as a teaching aid in aerospace engineering workshops, because of its very small size, this type of unmanned aircraft is abbreviated as Micro Air Vehicle, this MAV is only operated at low Reynolds numbers. MAV development research for smaller sizes continues to be carried out such as the Micro Glider. In this study, the author uses the Computational Fluid Dynamic method and the software used ANSYS Fluent and compares the existing DATCOM data, the author simulates the 4 types of airfoils into a wing object. The results of this study can be seen that based on the average deviation diff value that has been obtained in a population to determine the error from the comparison of the reference airfoil lift coefficient and its FFP by comparing the two methods, namely the IISHI airfoil reference geometry is 6.22% while the FFP is is 11.25% and the SD 7037 airfoil reference geometry is 3.71% while the FFP is 2.11%. Then for the comparison of the maximum lift to drag ratio values, it is obtained that the airfoil reference geometry (SD 7037) has a value of = 9.96 while the airfoil reference geometry (IISHI) has a value of = 8.81. In the Folded Flat Plate airfoil geometry (SD 7037) it has a value of = 7.61 while the Folded Flat Plate airfoil (IISHI) has a value of = 7.37. Then for the visualization of fluid flow can be obtained, namely the results of visualization of fluid flow in several parts of the angle of view / plane of the wing geometry when the AoA is high, namely the root plane to the half wing plane. early, while the geometry of SD 7037 (airfoil reference) is not easy to occur early turbulence flow. Second, that in general the fluid flow pattern seen in the FFP airfoil geometry (FFP IISHI) has the most dominant turbulence flow pattern (very much/large) while the FFP airfoil geometry (FFP SD 7037) has very little/small turbulence flow pattern..