## 3 Calculation Results and Analysis
### Analysis of Fluid Film Flow Characteristics  
Despite the dearth of empirical evidence on the flow attributes of wing-shaped liquid films, [PERSON] et al. [42] have substantiated the precision of utilizing the Euler-Euler approach integrated with the EWF model in resolving overflow pressure drop and liquid film thickness through both empirical investigations and numerical simulations of a columnar gas-liquid cyclone separator. Thus, this paper posits that the pertinent flow characteristics of the wing-shaped liquid film derived from this approach possess a certain degree of referential significance.  
Figure 12(b) exhibits a range of fluid film thicknesses (\(h_{l}\)) within distinct LWC conditions in the vicinity of the airfoil, whereas Figure 12(a) presents the distribution of these values on the y-axis. The presented diagrams depict a positive correlation between the LWC and the thickness of the film on the wing. It is evident that as the LWC increases, so does the film thickness. Furthermore, the data indicate that the increase in film thickness is more prominent near the leading edge of the wing. As shown in the Figure 12(a), the wing height is approximately 0.18 m, and the magnitude of the increase in film thickness from position \(-0.04\) m on the lower surface and position 0.03 m on the upper surface to the leading edge  
Figure 12: Analysis of flow field characteristic.  
position (accounting for 38.9% of the total wing height) is significantly increased. When the LWC increases from 0.2 g/m\({}^{3}\) to 1 g/m\({}^{3}\), the film thickness increases from 0.1 \(\upmu\)m to 0.5 \(\upmu\)m.  
According to the data presented in Figure 12(c), an increase in LWC results in an augmentation of the flowing velocity of the fluid film on the wall, which can be attributed to the effect of the flow field. To facilitate the comparative analysis, this paper expands the wing model by two times in the y-axis direction, resulting in Figure 12(d). From the illustration, it is evident that the augmentation of the LWC results in a progressive expansion of the fluid film's flow spectrum along the airfoil wall.  
This paper is computed at an AOA of 6 degrees; hence, the flow coverage of the fluid layer on the lower surface of the wing is greater compared to that on the upper surface. From the Figure 12(d), it can be seen that when the LWC increases from 0.2 g/m\({}^{3}\) to 1 g/m\({}^{3}\), the film flowing velocity has the following trends on the airfoil: in the altitude direction, the upper surface limit of the film velocity streamline extends from position 0.03 m to position 0.07 m, and the lower surface limit extends from position \(-0.04\) m to position \(-0.08\) m (lowest end of the airfoil). In the chord length direction, the increasing magnitude in the streamline limit of the liquid film velocity on the lower surface is greater, increasing from the initial 0.15 m position to the 0.4 m position (chord length 1 m), while the streamline limit on the upper surface only increases from the 0.05 m position to the 0.15 m position.  
As such, while the wall water-drop collection coefficient remains unaffected by the LWC, its elevation results in an increase in film thickness, flow velocity, and scope, con  
Figure 13: Analysis of fluid film flow characteristics.  
sequently leading to an augmented water impacting the wing surface. This phenomenon bears noteworthy implications on the icing pattern distribution across the wing surface.