3DFoil results compares well with experiments from
N.A.C.A Report No. 647, 1938, Figure.[1].
We used 3DFoil to perform aerodynamic simulations for a rectangular wing based on a NACA 0012 airfoil. Results were compared with a NACA experiment performed in 1938, Ref. [1]. NACA tested a full sized wing with a span dimension of 36 feet and chord of 6 feet. The tests were performed in a full scale wind tunnel. We compared the results of 3DFoil, our vortex lattice package, against the experiments conducted on the NACA 0012 version of the wing. The results show excellent agreement between 3DFoil and the experiments for the lift and drag coefficients.
Figure [1]. NACA Report No. 647, 1938.
Figure [2]. Lift vs. angle of attack (degrees). 3DFoil (blue); Experiment (orange)
Figure [3]. Drag vs. angle of attack (degrees). 3DFoil (blue); Experiment (grey)
References:
Goett, H. J., & Bullivant, W. K. (1938). Tests of NACA 0009, 0012, and 0018 airfoils in the full-scale tunnel. Washington, DC, USA: US Government Printing Office.
3DFoil empowers engineers, designers and students alike to design and analyze 3D wings, hydrofoils, and more. The software seamlessly blends speed and accuracy, using a vortex lattice method and boundary layer solver to calculate lift, drag, moments, and even stability. Its user-friendly interface allows for flexible design with taper, twist, and sweep, making it ideal for creating winglets, kite hydrofoils, and various other aerodynamic surfaces. Notably, 3DFoil surpasses traditional 2D analysis by considering finite wing span for more realistic performance predictions, helping users optimize their designs with confidence.
See also: https://www.hanleyinnovations.com/3dwingaerodynamics.html
Visit 👉 Hanley Innovations for more information
Hi Dr. Hanley,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, congratulations on your efforts over the years to keep aerodynamics and CFD simple.
Looking at this post and such results, I can't help but wonder once again why an inviscid flow solver (at least for CL) agrees perfectly with experimental (viscous) data even without additional BL calculations (I guess in this example you coupled a BL solver since CD agrees well). But going back to CL, maybe the fluid viscosity doesn't contribute to the lift and it is generated by a purely inviscid mechanism? What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Carlos,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. For the wing, the driving CL modifier is the aspect ratio. The vortex lattice code captures the correct behavior even at very low aspect ratios (AR). Other approximate codes, like lifting line theory, etc. work only for moderately high to high AR. In addition, the MultiSurface Aerodynammics/3DFoil codes have empirical models that approximate transition effects on the boundary layer and a stall model that makes multiple wing analysis with interactions very fast and fairly accurate.
Thanks again. Please let me know if you have follow-up questions.