khjdsahjdhjas

© All Rights Reserved

4 tayangan

khjdsahjdhjas

© All Rights Reserved

- Design of a Low-Cost Easy-to-Fly STOL Ultralight Aircraft in Composite Material
- depressor
- Boomerang Educators Guide
- 5. Thin Airfoil
- Propeller Design
- Analysis of Ground Effect on a Symmetrical Airfoil
- NASA-TN-D-8524
- Fokker Cold Weather Operations
- Review on Performance and Working of Wells Turbine for Wave Power Conversion
- AERO3630-Lec_Lifting Line_Finite Wing Theory
- Modi 1997
- 467219
- GO KART PDF
- f-cp090601e3.en
- An Exploratory Investigation of a Slotted Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoil
- NACA Technical Note 2440
- Advanced Manoeuvres
- KCT-Regulation 2013-B.E Aeronautical Syllabus
- AIAA-1985-360-751
- Understanding Flight 2001 Appendex

Anda di halaman 1dari 40

Abstract

The complex commercial computational fluid dynamics software fluent offers a

convenient way to model fluid dynamics problems. This study involved a two

dimensional airfoil NACA 4412. The purpose was to reproduce published or

experimental data for NACA4412 in the subsonic flow regimes in order to become

familiar with fluent, and to establish a verified solution method. We use k-

turbulence model. The results were computed and compared with published or

experimental data. For all of the cases considered, the comparisons showed

excellent agreement among the results, with the predicted section lift coefficients

being within 10% of the measured values.

Introduction

Advances in computing technology and software have revolutionized the

design process of engineering vehicles such as air craft and automobiles. In

the area of fluid dynamics, there are many commercial computational fluid

dynamics (CFD) packages available for modeling flow in or around objects.

The first step in modeling a problem involves the creation of geometry and

meshes with a preprocessor. GAMBIT is a program that can be employed to

produce models in two and three dimensions, using structured or

unstructured meshes, which can consist of a variety of elements, such as

quadrilateral, triangular or tetrahedral elements. Once a grid has been

developed, a solver, such as, multi-physics FEMLAB and FLUENT, is

employed to solve the governing equations of the problem. In this

investigation FLUENT was employed, which uses a finite volume scheme to

solve the continuity, momentum and energy equations with the associated

boundary conditions. The purpose of this investigation was to become

familiar with GAMBIT and FLUENT, develop a solution method and verify it

with published data for various two dimensional airfoils, in subsonic flow

simulation involved the NACA 4412. The computed solutions were

presented and were shown to compare very well with published data, with

the difference between the predicted and experimental section lift

coefficients being within the set bounds.

Overview of a NACA 4412 Airfoil

An airfoil is defined as the cross section of a body that is placed in an airstream in order to produce a useful

aerodynamic force in the most efficient manner possible. The cross section of wings, propeller blades, windmill

blades, compressor and turbine blades in a jet engine and hydrofoils are examples of airfoils.

The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a United State federal agency founded on March

3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was

dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA). The NACA airfoils are airfoil shapes for aircraft wings developed by NACA. The shape of

the NACA airfoils is described using a series of digits following the word "NACA." The parameters in the numerical

code can be entered into equations to precisely generate the cross-section of the airfoil and calculate its

properties.

Leading edge: The leading edge is the part of the wing that first contacts the air; alternatively it is the foremost

edge of an airfoil section.

Trailing edge: The trailing edge of an aerodynamic surface such as a wing is its rear edge, where the airflow

separated by the leading edge rejoins.

Chord Line: It is a straight line connecting the leading and trailing edges of the airfoil.

Mean Camber Line: It is the locus of points, midway between the upper and lower surfaces. Its exact shape

depends on how the thickness is defined.

Camber: It is the asymmetry between the top and the bottom surfaces of an airfoil. An airfoil that is not

cambered is called a symmetric airfoil. Camber is usually designed into an airfoil to increase the maximum lift

coefficient. This minimizes the stalling speed of aircraft using the airfoil. Aircraft with wings based on cambered

airfoils usually have lower stalling speeds than similar aircraft with wings based on symmetric airfoils. The

camber of an airfoil can be defined by a camber line, which is the curve that is halfway between the upper

( ) and lower ( surfaces of the airfoil. To fully define an airfoil we also need a thickness

function T(x), which describes the thickness of the airfoil at any given point. Then, the upper and lower surfaces

can be defined as follows:

= Z(x) +

= Z(x) +

Chord: it refers to the imaginary straight line joining the trailing edge and the center of curvature of the leading

edge of the cross-section of an airfoil. The chord length is the distance between the trailing edge and the point

on the leading edge where the chord intersects the leading edge. The wing, horizontal stabilizer, vertical

stabilizer and propeller of an aircraft are all based on airfoil sections, and the term chord or chord length is also

used to describe their width. The chord of a wing, stabilizer and propeller is determined by examining the plan

form and measuring the distance between leading and trailing edges in the direction of the airflow.

Standard mean chord: Standard mean chord (SMC) is defined as wing area divided by wing span.

SMC =

Where, S is the wing area and b is the span of the wing.

MAC =

Where, y is the coordinate along the wing span and c is the chord at the coordinate y.

MAC is the chord of a rectangular wing, which has the same area, aerodynamic force and position of the center

of pressure at a given angle of attack as the given wing has. In simple words, MAC is the width of an equivalent

rectangular wing in given conditions.

Thickness: The thickness of an airfoil varies along the chord. It may be measured in either of two ways:

1. Thickness measured perpendicular to the camber line (American convention).

2. Thickness measured perpendicular to the chord line (British convention).

The four digit series NACA airfoils have NACA XXXX nomenclature where each digit(X) defines specific

specification of the airfoil. The profile of the airfoil is defined by each digit as follows:

2. Second digit describing the distance of maximum camber from the airfoil leading edge in tens of

percentages of the chord.

3. Last two digits describing maximum thickness of the airfoil as percent of the chord.

For example, the NACA 4412 airfoil is symmetrical, has a maximum camber of 4% located 40% (0.4 chords) from

the leading edge with a maximum thickness of 12% of the chord (it is 12% as thick as it is long). Four-digit series

airfoils by default have maximum thickness at 30% of the chord (0.3 chords) from the leading edge.

The formula for the shape of a NACA 00XX foil (symmetric foil with no camber), with "XX" being replaced by the

percentage of thickness to chord, is:

( ) ( ) ( )

c is the chord length, x is the position along the chord from 0 to c, y is the half thickness at a given value

of x (centerline to surface), and t is the maximum thickness as a fraction of the chord.

The asymmetric foils NACA 4 digit series foils use the same formula as that used to generate the 00XX symmetric

foils, but with the line of mean camber bent. The formula to find the mean camber line for a cambered 4-digit

NACA airfoil is:

( )

{

( )

For this cambered airfoil, the coordinates and ( , of respectively the upper and lower airfoil surface,

become:

, ,

Where,

Problem

To determine the drag coefficients and lift coefficients for different angles of attack and to find the stall angle for

flow of air around a NACA 4412 Airfoil using Fluent and comparing the results with the reliable experimental

data.

Parameters considered :

Flow regime : Subsonic

Fluid : Air

Pressure : 101,325 Pa

Density : 1.2250 kg/

Temperature : 288.16 K

Kinematic Viscosity : 1.4607e-05

Free stream velocity : 50 m/s

Flow model : k- turbulence

Mach Number : (Free Stream Velocity)/Speed of Sound = 50/340.29 = 0.1469

Reynolds Number : 34950

Solution

We start by generating a mesh in GAMBIT for an airfoil. This mesh can then be read into FLUENT for fluid flow simulation. In

an external flow such as that over an airfoil, we have to define a far-field boundary and mesh the region

between the airfoil geometry and the far-field boundary. We have to place the far-field boundary well

away from the airfoil since we'll use the ambient conditions to define the boundary conditions at the far-field.

The farther we are from the airfoil, the less effect it has on the flow and so more accurate is the far-field boundary

condition.

GAMBIT Procedure

We create a new directory called airfoil and start GAMBIT from that directory by typing gambit -id airfoil at the

command prompt. Under Main Menu, select Solver FLUENT 5/6 since the mesh to be created is to be used in

FLUENT 6.0.

To specify the airfoil geometry, we'll import a file containing a list of vertices along the surface and have GAMBIT

join these vertices to create two edges, corresponding to the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil. We'll then

split these edges into 4 distinct edges to help us control the mesh size at the surface. The chord length, c for the

geometry is 1. Next, we create the far field boundary by creating vertices and joining them appropriately to form

edges. We create vertices by clicking Operation Tool Pad Geometry Command Button Vertex Command

Button Create Vertex. We create the vertices by entering the coordinates under Global and the label

under Label. Then we create the edges and the arcs by clicking Operation Tool Pad Geometry Command

Button Edge Command Button Create Edge. The edges we created are joined together to form faces. Two

rectangular faces lie to the right of the airfoil. The third face consists of the area outside of the airfoil but inside

of the semi-circular boundary. We create the faces by clicking Operation Tool Pad Geometry Command

Button Face Command Button Form Face. This brings up the Create Face from Wireframe we select edges

in order to form a face.

We mesh each of the 3 faces separately to get our final mesh. Before we mesh a face, we need to define the

point distribution for each of the edges that form the face. We select the mesh stretching parameters and

number of divisions for each edge based on three criteria:

1. We cluster points near the airfoil since this is where the flow is modified the most. The mesh resolution as

we approach the far field boundaries can become progressively coarser since the flow gradients approach

zero.

2. Close to the surface, we need the most resolution near the leading and trailing edges since these are

critical areas with the steepest gradients.

3. The transitions in mesh size should be smooth. Large, discontinuous changes in the mesh size would the

mesh size significantly decrease the numerical accuracy significantly decrease the numerical accuracy.

The edge mesh parameters we use for controlling the stretching are successive ratio, first length and last length.

We mesh the edges by selecting Operation Tool Pad Mesh Command Button Edge Command Button

Mesh Edges. We enter a ratio of 1.15 which means that each mesh division will be 1.15 times bigger than the

previous one. We enter 45 for Interval Count. GAMBIT creates 45 intervals on this edge with a successive ratio of

1.15. After the appropriate edge meshes were specified, we meshed the faces by clicking Operation Tool Pad

Mesh Command Button Face Command Button Mesh Faces. Next, we will split the top and bottom edges

of the airfoil into two edges so that we have better control of the mesh point distribution. We do this because we

use a non-uniform grid spacing for x<0.3 and a uniform grid spacing for x>0.3. To split the top edge, we select

Operation Tool Pad Geometry Command Button Edge Command Button Split/Merge Edge. We then

specify the Boundary Types. We label the boundaries as farfield1, farfield2 and the airfoil surface as airfoil. We

create groups of edges and then create boundary entities from these groups. We do that by selecting Operation

Tool Pad Geometry Command Button Group Command Button Create Group. After grouping each of

the edges into the desired groups, we assign appropriate boundary types to these groups by selecting Operation

Tool Pad Zones Command Button Specify Boundary Types. Type of the airfoil surface is Wall. Types of

Farfield1, farfield2 and farfield3 groups are Pressure Far field in each case. We save our work and then export the

mesh by selecting Main Menu File Export Mesh.

FLUENT Procedure

The mesh created in GAMBIT can now be read into FLUENT which will then run the geometry through the

numerical analysis. We open FLUENT and select the 2D double precision operation (2ddp) for two dimensional

operations. The Gambit mesh is read into FLUENT by selecting File Read Case and selecting the mesh file

airfoil.msh. We make certain that the FLUENT window doesn't display any error messages after reading in the

mesh file. First we check the mesh by selecting Grid Check. This conducts a thorough check of the mesh to

make certain no errors are present and the displayed information is consistent with our expectations of the

airfoil grid. Then we analyze the grid by selecting Grid Info Size and see whether the surfaces farfield1, farfield2, etc.

correspond to the right values by selecting and plotting them in turn. We also zoom into the airfoil to see whether the

nodes are clustered at the right places. The solver to be used on the geometry can be changed by going to Define

Models Solver. The solver is pressure based, formulation is implicit, space is 2D, time is Steady, Velocity

formulation is Absolute, Gradient option is Green-Gauss Cell Based and Porous Formulation is Superficial

Velocity.

Then we check that the energy equation is deselected by selecting Define Models Energy.

Next, we set the viscous model by selecting Define Models Viscous.

We use the k-epsilon model. The k- model uses two transport equations to represent the turbulent viscosity. It

is often used in engineering problems since it performs well for a broad range of turbulent flows. Two variants

with better performance are offered in fluent, notably the renormalization group (RNG) and realizable k-

models. The realizable k- model was adopted due to its improved performance in flow areas where vortices and

rotation are present. the C2-epsilon value is 1.9, TKE Prandtl number is 1 and TDR Prandtl number is 1.2. We

select Standard wall functions for the near wall treatment.

The fluid material that is to be used in this analysis is air and the fluid properties can be set by selecting Define

Materials.

Air should be the default setting. The density of the air is 1.225 kg/ and is constant. The dynamic viscosity is

1.7893e-05 and is also constant. With these values set, we click Change/Create and close the materials

window.

We set the operating conditions next. We do it by selecting Define Operating Condition. This opens a new

window where the operating pressure can be set. The operating pressure is kept at 101325 Pa.

The next step is to set the boundary conditions for the boundaries that were defined in GAMBIT. This is done by

selecting Define Boundary Conditions.

We set farfield1 and farfield2 to the velocity-inlet boundary type. For each, we click Set. Then, we choose components

under Velocity Specification Method a n d s e t t h e x - a n d y - c o m p o n e n t s t o t h a t f o r t h e f r e e

s t r e a m . F o r d i f f e r e n t a n g l e s o f a t t a c k ( A O A ) , t h e x a n y y components would be different, for

example, for angle of attack 1.2, x-component is 50*Cos(1.2) and y-component is 50*Sin(1.2). We set farfield3 to

pressure-outlet boundary type and set the Gauge Pressure at this boundary to 0.

We can now set the solution controls. We do that by first selecting Solve Control Solution. The solution

relaxation for each parameter can be changed in this window. Generally the only time these relaxation

parameters need to be changed is if repetitive oscillations begins to occur on the coefficient of lift and drag plots.

The discretization schemes can be modified. We change the pressure discretization value to Presto and

momentum to second order upwind and leave all the other values set to their default settings.

Next we initialize the solver by selecting Solve Initialize Initialize. In the compute from dropdown list we

choose farfield1. This will automatically insert values into all 40 the remaining text boxes in this window. These

values correspond to the farfield1 boundary settings. We select Init and then close the window.

Next we need to set the convergence criteria by setting the residual values. We do this by selecting Solve

Monitors Residual. The minimum convergence criterion should be set to 1x10-6 for each residual.

In order to directly monitor the lift coefficient being experienced by the airfoil, we select Solve Monitor

Force. With the force monitors window open we select lift for the coefficient to be monitored. Under options we

check the print and plot boxes and for wall zones we select the airfoil profile. The lift is the force perpendicular to

the direction of the free stream. We have to set the force vectors corresponding to the angle of attack for which

the model is going to be calculated. For example, for an angle of attack of 10 the x-force vector should have a

value of -sin(10) = -0.17365 and a y-force vector of cos(10) = 0.9848.

Similarly, we set the Force Monitor options for the Drag force. The drag is defined as the force component

in the direction of the free stream. So under Force Vector, for the above case, we set x-force

vector to Cos (10) = 0.9848 and y-force vector to Sin (10) = 0.1736. We turn on only Print for it.

Next, we set the reference values. All force monitor calculations for the model will use these values. We select

Report Reference Values. In the compute from dropdown menu we select farfield1 and for reference zone we

select fluid. While this will set most of the reference values correctly, the actual dimensions of the airfoil

geometry have to be set independently. Since the chord length of this procedure is one meter and the depth is

one meter, the default values are correct. From dropdown menu we select farfield1 and for reference zone we

select fluid. We have to note that the reference pressure is zero, indicating that we are measuring gauge

pressure.

Now our model is ready to be solved. We save the case file before we start the iterations by selecting File Write Case. To

solve, we select Solve Iterate. Since convergence criteria were defined, we have to choose a relatively large

number of iterations to make certain a solution has time to converge. We set the number of iterations to 650,

1000 and 2000 for different angles of attack. We leave the other values in this window at their default values.

We begin the iteration process by selecting iterate. Once the model finishes iterating we check the accuracy of

the results.

Lift Coefficient Plots for various Angles of Attacks

Angle of Attack: 13 Angle of Attack: 14

Scaled Residuals

Angle of Attack: 13 Angle of Attack: 14

Velocity Vectors for different Angles of Attack

Angle of Attack: 0

Angle of Attack: 4

Angle of Attack: 6

Angle of Attack: 8

Angle of Attack:10

Angle of Attack: 12

Angle of Attack: 13

Angle of Attack: 14

Angle of Attack: 15

Angle of Attack: 16

Angle of Attack: 18

Simulation Results at the Stall Angle

1. Static Pressure:

2. Pressure Coefficient:

3. Dynamic Pressure:

4. Total Pressure:

5. Velocity Magnitude:

6. Velocity Vectors:

7. X-Velocity:

8. Y-Velocity:

9. Residuals:

11. Drag Coefficient:

13. X-Y Plots:

Airfoil:

Default Interior:

Far field 1:

Far Field 2:

13.2. Pressure Coefficient:

Airfoil:

Default Interior:

Far Field 1:

Far Field 2:

Results

The graphs for lift coefficients for various angles of attack were plotted.

S. No Angle of Attack Iteration Continuity X-Velocity Y-Velocity k Epsilon Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient

1 0 650 2.58E-04 6.94E-08 5.04E-08 4.75E-08 4.96E-08 0.5633 0.0107

2 4 650 2.35E-04 6.95E-08 5.36E-08 3.99E-08 5.10E-08 0.9763 0.0133

3 6 650 2.05E-04 7.06E-08 4.56E-08 5.24E-08 5.15E-08 1.1743 0.0154

4 8 650 1.78E-04 6.90E-08 4.98E-08 5.14E-08 5.32E-08 1.3636 0.0181

5 10 650 1.49E-04 7.10E-08 5.11E-08 3.69E-08 4.02E-08 1.5374 0.0212

6 11 650 1.37E-04 6.96E-08 5.00E-08 5.45E-08 4.64E-08 1.6170 0.0232

7 12 650 1.29E-04 6.99E-08 4.86E-08 5.36E-08 6.30E-08 1.6805 0.0254

8 13 650 1.19E-04 7.07E-08 4.93E-08 4.93E-08 5.61E-08 1.7535 0.0278

9 14 650 1.11E-04 7.28E-08 5.16E-08 1.36E-07 4.52E-08 1.8045 0.0309

10 15 650 1.07E-04 9.08E-08 6.12E-08 6.92E-07 4.79E-08 1.8372 0.0346

11 16 1000 7.92E-03 1.38E-05 7.89E-06 2.54E-03 7.10E-06 1.8417 0.0385

12 17 1000 1.72E-02 4.85E-05 2.82E-05 6.33E-03 1.10E-05 1.8467 0.0558

13 18 1000 2.53E-02 8.95E-05 5.30E-05 9.85E-03 1.28E-05 1.8816 0.0683

2.0000 1.8816

1.84171.8467

1.80451.8372

1.7535

1.8000 1.6805

1.6170

1.6000 1.5374

1.3636

1.4000

1.1743

1.2000

Lift Coefficient

0.9763

1.0000

0.8000

0.5633

0.6000

0.4000

0.2000

0.0000

0 4 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Angle of Attack ()

The results did not match with the reference experimental data. To increase the accuracy of the model, the number of

cells that exist around the airfoil surface has to be increased. To do that, we select Adapt Boundary. Adapting

the cells around the boundary of the airfoil geometry breaks each of the boundary cells into four cells resulting in

a denser mesh. Under boundary zones we select airfoil and we click the mark button. A note pops up in the main

FLUENT window indicating the number of cells to be adapted. To adapt these cells we simply click the adapt

button in the boundary adapt window and select ok in the adapt warning window. After the adapt process is

complete the main FLUENT window prints out the results of the adapting process. Now that the mesh is denser

the model is reinitialized and then we repeat the iteration process.

We adapted the mesh for angles of attack greater than and equal to 12 and plotted the graph of lift coefficient

for different angles of attack.

S. No Angle of Attack Iteration Continuity X-Velocity Y-Velocity k Epsilon Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient

6 12a 1000 1.45E-04 7.18E-08 5.66E-08 4.99E-08 5.37E-08 1.6460 0.0269

7 13a 2000 1.31E-04 6.95E-08 5.33E-08 5.24E-08 5.45E-08 1.7073 0.0299

8 14a 2000 1.21E-04 7.12E-08 5.39E-08 5.23E-08 4.95E-08 1.7434 0.0336

9 14.5a 2000 1.20E-04 7.01E-08 5.13E-08 5.07E-08 4.78E-08 1.7487 0.0358

10 14.6a 2000 1.18E-04 7.08E-08 5.21E-08 1.69E-07 6.33E-08 1.7540 0.0363

11 14.7a 2000 1.61E-04 1.22E-07 8.27E-08 1.30E-05 8.80E-08 1.7548 0.0366

12 14.8a 2000 2.77E-03 3.48E-06 1.98E-06 7.59E-04 1.78E-06 1.7546 0.0367

13 14.9a 2000 5.68E-03 7.12E-06 4.17E-06 1.54E-03 3.96E-06 1.7545 0.0362

14 15a 2000 7.29E-03 9.99E-06 5.82E-06 2.00E-03 4.50E-06 1.7520 0.0359

15 15.5a 2000 1.29E-02 1.97E-05 1.14E-05 3.38E-03 7.99E-06 1.7508 0.0363

16 16a 2000 1.80E-02 3.33E-05 1.91E-05 4.63E-03 9.98E-06 1.7507 0.0363

17 17a 2000 2.66E-02 6.95E-05 4.06E-05 7.04E-03 1.18E-05 1.7234 0.0408

18 18a 2000 2.92E-02 1.16E-04 7.05E-05 1.30E-02 1.59E-05 1.7012 0.0964

19 20a 2000 3.76E-02 1.73E-04 1.20E-04 1.40E-02 2.10E-05 1.5961 0.1040

Lift Coefficient v/s Angle of Attack (after adaptation)

2.0000

1.8000

1.6000

1.4000

1.2000

Lift Coefficient

1.0000

0.8000

0.6000

0.4000

0.2000

0.0000

0 4 6 8 10 11 12a 13a 14a 15a 16a 17a 18a 20a

Angles of Attack ()

Lift Coefficient v/s Angle of Attack

1.7560E+00

1.7555E+00

1.7548

1.7550E+00 1.7546 1.7545

1.7545E+00 1.7540

1.7540E+00

1.7535E+00

1.7530E+00

1.7525E+00 1.7520

1.7520E+00

1.7515E+00

1.7510E+00

1.7505E+00

1.7500E+00

Lift Coefficient

1.7495E+00

1.7490E+00 1.7487

1.7485E+00

1.7480E+00

1.7475E+00

1.7470E+00

1.7465E+00

1.7460E+00

1.7455E+00

1.7450E+00

1.7445E+00

1.7440E+00

1.7434

1.7435E+00

1.7430E+00

1.7425E+00

1.7420E+00

14a 14.5a 14.6a 14.7a 14.8a 14.9a 15a

Angle of Attack ()

The comparisons showed excellent agreement among the results with the predicted section lift coefficients. Lift

coefficient curve has stall angle 14.7 in simulation and 14 in experimental data, thus the error is 5% which is

within the accuracy bounds. The lift force decreases after stall angle. In aircraft application if the lift coefficient

increases with increase in attack angle over stall angle that represents danger.

References

1. Abbott, I.H., and Von Doenhoff, A.E., Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data, Dover

Publications, Inc., New York, USA, 1959.

2. Daniel Norrison and Eddie, Fluent Simulation of Airflow around Airfoil, RMIT University, Australia, 2006.

3. David Heffley, Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA 4412 Airfoil, Baylor University, 2007.

4. Shan, H; Jiang, L; Liu, CQ, Direct numerical simulation of flow separation around a NACA 0012 airfoil, Nov

2005.

- Design of a Low-Cost Easy-to-Fly STOL Ultralight Aircraft in Composite MaterialDiunggah olehmycrowsobt1
- depressorDiunggah olehJithin P N
- Boomerang Educators GuideDiunggah olehAviation/Space History Library
- 5. Thin AirfoilDiunggah olehSerdar Bilge
- Propeller DesignDiunggah olehAnenas Balan
- Analysis of Ground Effect on a Symmetrical AirfoilDiunggah olehAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- NASA-TN-D-8524Diunggah olehzainalson
- Fokker Cold Weather OperationsDiunggah olehjfa
- Review on Performance and Working of Wells Turbine for Wave Power ConversionDiunggah olehInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- AERO3630-Lec_Lifting Line_Finite Wing TheoryDiunggah olehOliver Janev
- Modi 1997Diunggah olehsalman
- 467219Diunggah olehinam vf
- GO KART PDFDiunggah olehShlok Dixit
- f-cp090601e3.enDiunggah olehWeirp
- An Exploratory Investigation of a Slotted Natural-Laminar-Flow AirfoilDiunggah olehAndre Coraucci
- NACA Technical Note 2440Diunggah olehlufabao
- Advanced ManoeuvresDiunggah olehJosh Haslemore
- KCT-Regulation 2013-B.E Aeronautical SyllabusDiunggah olehVigneshSankar
- AIAA-1985-360-751Diunggah olehchengsukun
- Understanding Flight 2001 AppendexDiunggah olehNayot Tientong
- MODULE 1Diunggah olehammar
- lift.pptDiunggah olehPradeepkumar Chikkamath
- Ifju US European MAV PresentationDiunggah olehamir_karimi
- Iaetsd-jaras-stall Characteristics of Single and Multi-elementDiunggah olehiaetsdiaetsd
- energies-06-02784Diunggah olehRafael Zanetti
- Taper PointsDiunggah olehpete pans
- References for VAWT performanceDiunggah olehPrabhjot Singh Sahi
- solar car(1)Diunggah olehMuhammad Rozairin
- FIR07_vanBreugelDiunggah olehPaul Ryndel Sonquipal Baquial
- Basic UnitsDiunggah olehvimala

- CV (97)Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- CV (98)Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- CV (99)Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- CV (28)Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Verbal AnalysisDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Upload 1Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- CV (1)Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Master Cr Mistakes of All TestDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 15 aug rtrnDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- dhdhdhDiunggah olehBalachandar Sathananthan
- 21 Jul Elec BillDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Air RecieptDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- GMAT RescheduleDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- HDFC Bank JulyCredit CardDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Https Www.irctc.co.in Eticketing PrintTicketDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Irctc 4 Septbct Nzm BackupDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 1 AUGUST TEST ANALYSIS.docDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Test 4 AnalysisDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 25 Aug VerbalDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 23 AUGUSTDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 11 August GMAT Club AnalysisDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 10 AUGUSTDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 7 August Test VerbalDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- 6 AUGUST TEST 1Diunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- GMAT Old Test Revision Upto 13 July or SoDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- Rc Improvemet 29 OctDiunggah olehprasant goel
- 21 OctoberDiunggah olehprasant goel
- 10 OCTDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL
- CostDiunggah olehMANOUJ GOEL

- B737 CL GEN FAM.pdfDiunggah olehMichael N Sara-Anne Furmanski
- NR 322106 Aircraft Design PracticeDiunggah olehSrinivasa Rao G
- Reggiane Re.2005 Basic DataDiunggah olehpurn prakash
- CASI Revision 3 PaperDiunggah olehYoun Seok Choi
- Partialflap TN Web Screen FlttstDiunggah olehNamrah Khan
- Multirole Fighter Aircraft ADPDiunggah olehgthivi
- Aeorfoil at Low Speeds With Gurney FlapsDiunggah olehKevin Carvalho
- MODULE 1Diunggah olehammar
- NASA Wing reserchDiunggah olehjustincosgrove
- Sizing and Balance Module Development for Aircraft Conceptual DesignDiunggah olehajayrai1986
- Subsonic Midterm ExamDiunggah olehDemetrio C. Villanueva III
- Homework 5Diunggah olehscribdrnv
- Brizzolara_Manoeuvring Simulation Ships PODS (6)Diunggah olehStefano
- Wing Load CalculationDiunggah olehNurfarina Hussein
- aerodynamics-of-hang-glider.pdfDiunggah olehNeetu Sharma
- 2014DBF MilitaryIsntituteofScience&Technology Dreamer'SfinDiunggah olehNurul Huda Toyon
- SA6Diunggah olehSubayyal Ilyas
- Uncertainty Analysis of Various Design Parameters on Winglet PerformanceDiunggah olehZakria Toor
- CH601XL en LoadAnalysis v1 3Diunggah olehOlli1974
- 008_Chapter 2_Exercises_(01-10-2013)Diunggah olehSusmitha CL
- A Knowledge Based Approach for Automated Modelling of Extended Wing Structures in Preliminary Aircraft DesignDiunggah olehOSCARDELTA
- Example Aircraft Design ProcedureDiunggah olehVijay Gorfad
- heli-defsDiunggah olehKhanShinwari
- AHM560_FlyOne.pdfDiunggah olehMiss khokhar
- CATIA Tutorial 1-Parameters Wings EmpennageDiunggah olehJavier Cisneros
- Airfoil CalculatorDiunggah olehVolkanGün
- International Towing Tank Conference ITTC Symbols AndDiunggah oleh3332009
- QDB 15 POFDiunggah olehant
- Theory practice of aeromodellingDiunggah olehParam Mitra
- 3-s2.0-B978012397308500009X-mainDiunggah olehDuzzys