top of page
FSAE
FRONT
WING
STUDY
Personal project done to establish a data-driven geometric guideline for designing FSAE front wings.
THE PROBLEM
Finding the optimal gap and overlap between two aerodynamic elements.
Overlap
Gap
Airfoil:
S1223
Main Plane
Chord: 300mm
AoA: 5° (optimal - airfoil database)
Flap
Chord: 150mm
AoA: 38.3° (5° from main plane upwash)
OPTIMAL DESIGN
DP29
Highest Downforce
Highest Aerodynamic Efficiency
Gap:
50mm
Overlap:
30mm
Downforce:
150.3N
Aerodynamic Efficiency:
6.32
DP29 was selected as the best-performing sampled configuration, producing the highest downforce and aerodynamic efficiency among the 42 CFD design points.
DESIGN SPACE
DESIGN
Gap:
0mm - 70mm
Overlap:
0mm - 50mm
42
evenly distributed data points
CFD METHODLOGY
Enclosure:
2,000mm x 6,000mm
Solver:
ANSYS Fluent
With the geometry, mesh, and CFD setup complete, ANSYS was used to perform an automated parametric sweep across all 42 design points.
Velocity:
14 m/s
Elements:
38,000
Moving Ground:
14 m/s
RESPONSE SURFACE
Polynomial regression models were fitted to the CFD data to predict mainplane and flap lift and drag across a dense gap–overlap grid, generating continuous response surfaces from the 42 CFD samples.
The response surfaces identified gap as the dominant design variable, producing strong gains in downforce and aerodynamic efficiency as it increased. Drag exhibited a nonlinear response, while overlap had a comparatively smaller influence across the investigated design space.
UNDERSTANDING THE FLOW
Â
The velocity contour below highlights the key flow features driving DP29’s aerodynamic performance.
Strong acceleration beneath the mainplane generates the majority of the aerodynamic loading, while the inter-element slot directs higher-energy flow toward the flap, supporting flow attachment and allowing the downstream element to generate additional downforce.
The pressure contour above shows how the flow field translates into aerodynamic loading, with low-pressure regions beneath the elements creating the pressure differential responsible for downforce. The mainplane exhibits the stronger pressure differential, consistent with its larger contribution to the total aerodynamic load.
Mainplane Downforce:
125.2N
Flap
Downforce:
25.1N
Total Downforce:
150.3N
Downforce Split:
83%/17%
DP29 achieved the highest downforce and aerodynamic efficiency of the 42 evaluated configurations, with the majority of aerodynamic loading carried by the mainplane.
CONCLUSION
Â
The study demonstrated the sensitivity of a two-element front wing to inter-element positioning. Gap emerged as the dominant design variable, while overlap provided secondary control over aerodynamic performance, highlighting the importance of optimising the elements as a coupled aerodynamic system.
bottom of page