![]() ![]() ![]() The 2412 having a curved lower shape will reguire some jigging of some form. The ClarkY should have the advantage in lower landing speeds and ease of building. So the 2412 will be more capable if you start doing much inverted flying or general stunting. Both are 12% or very close to it (11.7 for ClarkY). It has 1.92% camber compared to the Clark Y's 3.43%. I would say the 2412 is a better choice for your model.Ģ412 was a commonly used airfoil in many of the more succesful early RC birds of the 50's and 60's so you won't go too far wrong if you use it for your model. 2412 stalls at 12 degrees AOA with lift coef of 1.2. Clark Y stalls at 10 degrees AOA with lift coefficient of 1.0. I just looked deeper into my collection of data and found a hand drawn graph comparing Clark Y and 2412 at Reynolds number of 80,000-model size data. If you need stations to plot the airfoil you can send a PM and I will copy for you. I too (like Tall Paul) suspect the 2412 would work well on your model. I have used NACA 23018 on an original design (looks similar to an amateur designer although much thicker) and it flew very well including aerobatics. Your stall speed will depend on model weight and wing area. The data I have shows the stall at 20 to 22 degrees angle of attack for Reynolds number of 3 to 8 million with a lift coefficient of 1.4 to 1.6. I have some other data and modeling experience that tells me that airfoil results at modeling dimensions follow similar patterns. I am a chemical engineer so I can't stand behind any aeronautical calculations. The NACA 2412 data is given at a Reynolds number of 3,120,000 and may not be accurate for model sizes. The sense that first the lift value increases and then it decreases.I have a book on airfoil sections for full sized aircraft. It also behaves like symmetrical airfoil in Top surface of airfoil even at zero angle of attack. In case of asymmetrical bending we can see that the zone of low pressure is more above the where the difference of pressure is alsoĬontours of static pressure at 0° angle of attack for asymmetrical aerofoil. Lift force magnitude even at 0° angle of attack. In that the upper and lower flow velocity are different in magnitude producing a significant 5 shows the behavior of a chambered airfoil, which differ from the symmetrical one To make this report clean and organized, the configuration will be shown in Will be analyzed, and for this analysis will be used 0° angle of attack, this configuration willīe exposed. In fluent it is needed to configurate all the variables on the environment and on the object that Named as the aerofoil including the blunt rear end. The rear part of the mesh and geometry diagram is the outlet of the flow from the aerofoilĮnvironment while the upper, front and the lower parts represent the inlet. The mesh part is a simple concept but can be a timeĬonsuming if the geometry of the object is complex. It can be verified with orthogonal quality in the fluent tool to see if the mesh is good to Near the airfoil is good to have a lot of cells in a size that fits the geometry well (Fig. Rectangle with dimensions of 15 meters radius and 15 meters height by 25 meters length Handling to make a good mesh suppoting output, and this preparation involves the creation ofĪ controlled environment around the object under analysis such as a semicircle extending a Website and plotted the geometry using ANSYS geometry tool that also needs proper The aerofoil coordinates were taken from a generic aerofoil generator in an aerofoil tools Procedures followed when analysing the flow, simulating the flow and the environment anĪerofoil is subjected to during flight and how it interacts with the air through which it flows. The procedure and aerodynamicĬharacteristics are the same as for analyzing airfoils for wings. ![]() In this report we will show the aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 2414Īerofoil through the use of ANSYS Fluent tool. This document presents the analysis of the flow over a NACA 2414 aerofoil at 0° angle ofĪttack. ZIMBABWE NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING NAME: JONAS MUSARURWA LEVEL: 3 : MODULE: COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS MODULE CODE: DAE 315 LECTURER: MR T NJENDA DUE DATE: 29 - 04 - 2021 COMMENTS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |