31 views

Uploaded by PenislandMoelester

Airfoil characteristics at deep stall angles
were investigated. It appeared that the
maximum drag coefficient as a function of
the airfoil upwind y/c ordinate at
x/c=0.0125 can be approximated by a
straight line. The lift-drag ratios in deep
stall of a number of airfoils with moderate
lower surface thickness coincide. It was
found that the lift-drag ratio of airfoils with
leading edge separation is independent of
aspect ratio. The lift-drag ratios of the
various sections of a non-rotating and a
rotating blade in deep stall coincide with
the two-dimensional curve.

- Aerospace Engineering Aerodynamics Lab Exercises
- Wind Turbine Final Report
- Numerical Investigation for Wind Turbine Blade For Higher Reynolds Number For Darrieus Rotor
- Aerodynamics CFD Project
- Cfdnotes False Theory of Flight
- AIAA 2011 1180 Stall Separation
- Design and Analysis of an Airfoil for Small Wind Turbines
- Aerodynamics review
- NACA airfoils post stall.pdf
- AD-2 MODEL EXAM.doc
- Aircraft Design Project 1
- Aerodynamic Design and Optimization of LR MUAV
- An Analysis of Lift and Drag Forces of NACA Airfoils Using Python
- Investigation in Thin Airfoil Theory
- AE-429-3
- Analytical Determination of the Load on a Trailing Edge Flap
- unit-66-tof-juny (1).docx
- User_Manual GH Bladed 3.51
- EGA324-C1-Surname-StudentID-000000(17-18)
- CFD Simulations of Flow Over Airfoils

You are on page 1of 8

W.A. Timmer

Delft University of Technology

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering

Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands

w.a.timmer@tudelft.nl

Abstract

Airfoil characteristics at deep stall angles

were investigated. It appeared that the

maximum drag coefficient as a function of

the airfoil upwind y/c ordinate at

x/c=0.0125 can be approximated by a

straight line. The lift-drag ratios in deep

stall of a number of airfoils with moderate

lower surface thickness coincide. It was

found that the lift-drag ratio of airfoils with

leading edge separation is independent of

aspect ratio. The lift-drag ratios of the

various sections of a non-rotating and a

rotating blade in deep stall coincide with

the two-dimensional curve.

Keywords: Airfoil characteristics, lift-to-

drag ratio, high angles of attack.

1 Introduction

During standstill, starts and stops, the

blade of a wind turbine is subjected to

large angles-of-attack. In these situations

the blade acts as a medium aspect ratio

wing. To calculate the blade loads, the

characteristics of blade segments are in

general related to the two-dimensional

aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoils

measured in the wind tunnel. There is

quite some uncertainty how to translate

the 2D characteristics to the non-rotating

blade loads, but even large discrepancies

exist in the data of two-dimensional wind

tunnel tests on airfoils at high angles of

attack. This is often the result of

differences in test setup, in the

measurement of the test section dynamic

pressure (due to blockage effects) and in

the applied wind tunnel wall correction

scheme. To be able to address these

uncertainties and to further map the DU

airfoils performance at Delft University of

Technology a number of wind turbine

airfoils have been tested at high angles of

attack for Reynolds numbers up to

Re=0.7x10

6

and results of tests found in

literature have been studied. A second

goal was to investigate if some general

description of airfoil key parameters would

be possible on the basis of the existing

data at high angles of attack.

2 Lift and drag data from

various sources

2.1 Measurements on NACA 0012

Fig. 1 shows measurements on airfoil

NACA 0012 from various sources

[1,2,3,4,5] in the Reynolds number range

from 500,000 to approximately 750,000.

The figure shows that in fact the only

agreement between the curves is the

value of the lift coefficient at 0, 23 and 90

degrees angle of attack. All other values

differ. The same mismatch can be found in

the drag data. It appears that testing the

same airfoil at high angles of attack not a

priori renders comparable results.

2.2 Non-symmetrical airfoils

In literature a number of studies can be

found dealing with wind tunnel

measurement of non-symmetrical airfoils

at high angles of attack. Most referenced

are the tests on NACA 63

2

-215 [6] and

LS(1)-0417 [7] and those on the NACA 44

series [8]. For these airfoils the lift and

drag at high angles of attack is depicted in

figures 2a and b.

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 71

NACA 0012

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

(

o

)

C

l

NACA [1], Re=500,000

ONERA [2], Re=550,000

Torino [3], Re=730,000

Sandia [4],Re= 620,000

NTUA [5], Re=760,000

Figure 1: Measured two-dimensional aerodynamic characteristics of airfoil NACA 0012

The data for the NACA 4418 airfoil are at a

much lower Reynolds number compared

to the other two, since the data in [8] for

the higher Reynolds numbers did not go

beyond 60 degrees. It appeared, however,

that there was no distinct difference

between the low and the higher Reynolds

numbers at high incidences. The tests on

the 18% thick DU-96-W-180 and the 30%

thick DU 97-W-300 were already published

in [9]. Figure 3 shows the airfoil

performance of both airfoils at a Reynolds

number of 0.7x10

6

. To the data in the low

drag region the classical wind tunnel wall

corrections for solid and wake blockage

and streamline curvature have been

applied. In case of leading edge

separation an alternative bluff body

correction has been used, following the

guidelines of Hackett and Cooper [10].

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-40 0 40 80 120 160 200

angle of attack

c

l

LS(1)-0417 NACA 63-215 NACA 4418

(a)

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 72

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-40 0 40 80 120 160 200

angle of attack

c

d

NACA 63-215 LS(1)-0417 NACA 4418

(b)

Figure 2: The lift (a) and drag (b) curves for three airfoils at high angles of attack. LS(1)-0417:

Re=0.67x10

6

, NACA 63-215: Re= 0.55x10

6

, NACA 4418: Re= 0.25x10

6

3 The maximum drag

coefficient

Apart from other distinct differences

associated with the airfoil maximum

thickness and the trailing edge thickness

figure 3 shows a noticeable difference in

the maximum drag coefficient of the

airfoils at 90 degrees and a very small one

at 270 degrees. However, figure 2b shows

larger differences between airfoils with

moderate thickness. Since all airfoils have

one relatively sharp edge when they are

placed normal to the flow, differences in

maximum drag are strongly related to the

contour of the leading edge coefficient.

-1.50

-1.25

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

-30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

angle of attack

C

l

C

d

DU 96-W-180 DU 97-W-300

Re=0.7x10

6

V

V

V

Figure 3: The performance of 2 DU airfoils at angles-of-attack ranging from 0 to 360 degrees

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 73

More in particular the thickness of the

upwind side close to the airfoil leading

edge is of interest here. In [11] Lindenburg

correlates the maximum value of C

d

to the

leading edge radius and the flow direction

at the trailing edge, also on the basis of

several other shapes found in literature

such as wedges and (half-)cylinders. A

simpler approach is followed here to find a

relation between the maximum value of C

d

and the airfoil contour.

In table 1 the maximum drag coefficient is

related to the upwind thickness of the

airfoil leading edge, taken as the y/c

ordinate at x/c=0.0125. The table is

graphically represented in figure 4.

Though the choice of this chord location is

rather arbitrary (and also the contour

gradient at some leading edge location

may work), here the study of Gault [12] is

followed, who correlated the stalling

characteristics of a large number of low-

speed airfoil sections with this ordinate.

Table 1: The maximum C

d

as a function of

the upwind thickness of the leading edge

This approach also worked quite well for

the angle of deep stall onset derived in [9].

The upwind contour of the airfoil is

important. As long as the downwind side

of the object does not project deep into the

wake it has virtually no effect on the

resulting drag coefficient. When the

relation is approximated by a straight line

the function reads:

C

d,max

=1.994-5.4375*y/c (1)

The predictive value of equation (1) is

3%, which is within the assumed

experimental error in the various studies.

It is interesting to note that a comparable

solution can be found when two

extremities between walls are considered:

a flat plate with two sharp edges normal to

the flow with a C

d

of 1.98 [13] having a

y/c=0 and a half-cylinder with the round

side pointing upwind with a drag

coefficient of 1.16 [13], having a y/c

ordinate at the x/c=0.0125 location of

0.1576. If we assume the maximum drag

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

y/c at x/c=0.0125

Cd,max

Cd,max = 1.994-5.4375*y/c

Figure 4: The relation between airfoil

leading edge thickness and the C

d,max

coefficient of all the airfoils lying on the

straight line between these two points, the

airfoils are related by

C

d,max

=1.980-5.203*y/c (2)

The value of the maximum drag coefficient

at 90 degrees for the DU 96-W-180 airfoil

(y/c=0.01533) using equation (2) is 1.90,

which is less than 1 % off the measured

value given in table 1. However, strictly

speaking the half-cylinders C

d

is too low

to be in table 1, since it has one rounded

upwind edge more than the airfoils. In

equation (1) also recent wind turbine

airfoils are included with a thickness

ranging from 0 to 30% and it seems

unlikely that other dedicated wind turbine

airfoils falling into this range will have a

maximum drag coefficient departing

appreciably from this relation.

4 The relation between lift

and drag at high angles.

According to equation (1) the maximum

value of the drag coefficient will not

exceed 2.0. However, as is also shown in

figure 2b, in literature (e.g. ref [3]) a

number of test campaigns report values

well over 2.0. This may be the

consequence of an erroneous recording of

the forces or the test section dynamic

pressure (including correcting thereof for

wind tunnel wall effects), or an

insufficiently long time averaging, since

the flow is highly unsteady at these

angles. An error in the dynamic pressure

of 4 to 5% may easily lead to values above

2. In general the measurements are

performed with a balance system and the

y/c at

Airfoil x/c=0.0125 C

d-max Ref.

Flat plate 0 1.980 [13]

NACA 63-215 0.01793 1.960 [7]

LS(1)-0417, 90 degr. 0.02129 1.877 [6]

LS(1)-0417, 270 degr. 0.03011 1.800

DU 96-W-180, 90 degr. 0.01533 1.914 [9]

DU 96-W-180, 270 degr. 0.02072 1.832

NACA 0012 0.01894 1.914 [5]

NACA 0018 0.02841 1.800 [14]

DU 91-W2-250 0.03100 1.859 [14]

DU 97-W-300, 270 degr. 0.03069 1.806 [9]

DU 97-W-300, 90 degr. 0.03327 1.845

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 74

coefficients result from dividing the forces

by q*S, S being the model area. With a

dynamic pressure error the coefficients

from these tests may give a deviant

picture of the characteristics in separate lift

and drag graphs, but the value of the lift-

to-drag ratio does not show this error.

Since most test data have been corrected

with the classical method of Maskell, in

[10] labelled as the first step in the two-

step method of Hackett, the data have

been corrected for wake blockage only

and the corrections are applied as a

dynamic pressure change. Taking the lift-

drag ratio this correction and also a

possible error in the dynamic pressure will

cancel out.

4.1 Origin of lift and drag at deep

stall angles

The origin of both the lift and the drag

forces lies in the pressure distribution of

the airfoil, which is severely dominated by

the separated region of the upper surface.

As was already mentioned before in this

paper the upper surface thickness of the

airfoil can be neglected when the airfoil is

positioned normal to the flow. In fact, with

leading edge separation present on the

upper surface this must also be true for

angles in the entire deep stall region. The

normal force is very strongly related to the

upper surface average pressure level,

which in its turn is directly related to the

angle of attack. The lower surface is

completely laminar, and its contribution to

the overall drag force is very small. This

may lead to the assumption that for airfoils

with moderate thickness of the lower

surface and camber the lift-drag ratios

may be the same. In figure 5 the lift-drag

ratios for 3 airfoils with a thickness

ranging from 12% to 18% is shown as a

function of the deep stall angle.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

angle of attack (degr.)

C

l

/ C

d

NACA 0012

NACA 63-215

DU 96-W-180

Ideal flat plate

Figure 5: The lift drag ratio of three airfoils

with varying thickness at high angles of

attack compared to ideal flat plate theory.

As can be concluded from the graph the

lift-drag ratio for the three airfoils compare

quite well, but differ from the value shown

by ideal flat plate theory as given in:

C

l

=2*sin*cos (3)

C

d

=2*sin

2

(4)

In the angle of attack range from 30 to 80

degrees the airfoil curves coincide. The

solid line is the trend line of NACA 63-215.

4.2 The effect of aspect ratio

If the lift-drag ratios for different airfoils

coincide this may also hold for the lift-drag

ratio of the same airfoil but with different

aspect ratio. Induced effects of aspect

ratio will obviously change the flow field

but, since the entire upper surface flow is

dominated by a separated flow region, the

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

angle of attack

C

l

AR=oo

AR=12

AR=6

NACA 4418

Re=250,000

(a)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

angle of attack

C

d

AR=oo

AR=12

AR=6

NACA 4418

Re=250,000

(b)

Figure 6: The lift (a) and drag (b) data of

airfoil NACA 4418 [8] for various aspect

ratios.

resulting ratio of the forces may very well

be of the same order as in the two-

dimensional case.

In figure 6 the lift and drag curves of airfoil

NACA 4418 [8] for various aspect ratios

are shown. The lift curve for aspect ratio 6

lies well below the two-dimensional

configuration and the drag for AR=6 is

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 75

more than 35% lower compared to the

infinite aspect ratio.

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

angle of attack

C

l

/ C

d

AR=oo

AR=12

AR=6

Figure 7: The lift-drag ratios for three

aspect ratios of airfoil NACA 4418 [8]

Figure 7 demonstrates the lift-drag ratio of

the configurations depicted in figure 6. The

graph shows that the lift-drag ratio for

aspect ratios 12 and 6 coincides with the

curve for two-dimensional flow.

5 Blade forces on a non-

rotating blade.

Since figure 7 confirms that the lift-drag

ratios of the two-dimensional configuration

and the various aspect ratios give the

same result, the assumption can be made

that the same relation holds for the two-

dimensional value of an airfoil and the

non-rotating blade.

In figure 8 the lift and drag coefficients at

three blade stations are shown for the

NREL UAE phase VI blade measured in

the NASA Ames wind tunnel at Langley,

USA. The curves are taken from [15],

where the measured pressure distributions

were coupled to the right angle of attack

by corrections on the local inflow angle

measured with a 5-hole probe. These

corrections include angle of attack

changes due to the upflow in front of the

airfoil calculated by the Biot and Savart

law and smaller corrections due to a 0.9

degree blade pitch misalignment, a 5-hole

probe misalignment and the difference in

twist between the location of the probe

and the nearest blade station at which the

pressure distributions were measured. By

iteration the lift and drag coefficients were

calculated from the estimated angle of

attack and the airfoil normal and tangential

force coefficients from the pressure

distributions. Not all data points for the

non-rotating blade are shown here. For the

higher angles averaged data points were

presented in [15] and they were also used

in the graphs of figure 8. Also in the figure

the two-dimensional characteristics as

measured in the CSU-wind tunnel [15].

The CSU wind tunnel data show a two-

dimensional C

d

at 90 degrees well over 2.

On the basis of figure 4 a C

d,max

of 1.913

would be expected (y/c=0.01504).

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

angle of attack

C

l

30% section

63% section

95% section

CSU 2d-data

S809

(a)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

angle of attack

C

d 30% section

63% section

95% section

CSU, 2d-data

S809

(b)

Figure 8: The lift (a) and drag (b) curves

for the non-rotating blade [15] and the two-

dimensional characteristics at a Reynolds

number of 500,000 from the CSU wind

tunnel.

Since the blade in the non-rotating

configuration is a wing of finite length the

resulting lift and drag force coefficients

show much lower values in the deep

stalled region compared to the 2d case.

End effects seem to be more visible in the

30% section data than at the 95% station.

The maximum lift at the 63% and 95%

sections is much higher than in the 2d

case. This is believed to be caused for the

greater part by the difference in Reynolds

number. The non-rotating blade

measurements were made at an average

wind velocity of 30.2 m/s. This results in

the Reynolds number varying between

1.4x10

6

at the root to 0.75x10

6

at the tip.

Measurements from the Delft University

wind tunnel at a Reynolds number of

1x10

6

gave a maximum lift coefficient of

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 76

1.061, quite close to the value at the 63%

section (1.10)

5.1 The ratio of the lift and drag

forces

As was the case with the different aspect

ratios in figures 6a and 6b the

characteristics of the various blade

sections differ quite a bit, especially if we

look at the deep stall region when leading

edge separation is present between 20

and 60 degrees.

For the three sections of figure 8 the lift-

drag ratios are displayed in figure 9,

together with the two-dimensional

characteristic from the CSU wind tunnel

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

20 40 60 80 100

angle of attack

Cl/Cd

30% section

63% section

95% section

2D data , CSU

Airfoil S809

Figure 9: The lift-drag ratios for 2d and the

various blade sections of the NREL phase

VI blade.

The figure demonstrates a good

agreement between the lift-drag ratios of

the two-dimensional curve and of the

various blade stations in the range from 35

degrees to 85 degrees. The same holds

for the 47% and 80% span sections, which

for clarity reasons have not been plotted in

the graph. End effects are noticeable in

the onset of leading edge separation for

the 30% and 95% blade stations, since

their deep-stall angle lies between 30 and

35 degrees compared to the two-

dimensional value of 20 degrees.

6 Blade force ratios on a

rotating blade.

In [16] Tangler and Kocurek come to the

conclusion that the lift-drag ratios of the

five different blade sections of the UAE-

experiment in the rotating situation closely

follow flat plate values. In the light of the

fact that the l/d of airfoils in deep stall differ

from the flat plate values (figure 5) but that

on the other hand the non-rotating values

coincide with the two-dimensional curve

(figure 9) it seems logic to compare the lift-

drag characteristics of the five blade

sections in the rotating situation with the

values for the two-dimensional airfoil.

Figure 10 gives the lift curves for 4 of the 5

sections of the UAE-H experiment, for

which the lift and drag have been derived

from the measured pressure distributions

with the method described in chapter 5.

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

[deg]

C

l

r/R=30%

r/R=47%

r/R=63%

r/R=80%

2d wind tunnel

S809

(a)

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

[deg]

C

d

r/R=30%

r/R=47%

r/R=63%

r/R=80%

2d wind tunnel

S809

(b)

Figure 10: The lift and drag curves for a

number of sections of the UAE-rotating

blade.

Augmented lift is clearly present in the

figure as compared to the two-dimensional

curve from the CSU wind tunnel. However,

also the drag for the 30% section is

significantly higher relative to the two-

dimensional case.

Figure 11 shows the lift-drag ratios for the

section of figure 10. The graph

demonstrates that the lift-drag ratio of the

rotating sections eventually all coincide

with the two-dimensional curve. The 30%

section is projected to touch the 2d curve

at about 55 degrees, while the other three

sections all fall on this curve at 35

degrees. It appears that when the airfoil is

in deep stall, i.e. the boundary layer

separates from the leading edge, it makes

no difference if the blade rotates or not,

the ratio of the lift and drag forces will be

the same since they originate from the

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 77

pressure distribution dominated by the

suction surface pressure

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 [deg.]

C

l

/C

d

r/R=30%

r/R=47%

r/R=63%

r/R=80%

CSU, Re=500,000

rotating blade

Figure 11: The lift-drag ratios of 4 sections

of the UAE rotating blade compared to the

2d wind tunnel curve.

7 Conclusion

A number of experimental airfoil

characteristics at high angles of attack

found in literature have been studied, with

a focus on the maximum drag coefficient

and the lift-drag ratio. Furthermore the

effect of aspect ratio and a rotating and

non-rotating blade on the lift-drag ratio of

the blade airfoil has been presented. From

the study the following conclusions can be

drawn:

The relation between the

maximum drag coefficient and the

y/c ordinate of the upwind airfoil

contour at x/c=0.0125 can be

approximated by a straight line:

C

d,max

=1.994-5. 4375*y/c

The lift-drag ratios for a number of

airfoils with a moderate lower

surface thickness coincide at deep

stall angles

The measured lift-drag ratios of an

airfoil in deep stall is independent

of aspect ratio.

The lift-drag ratios of the various

sections of the non-rotating and

rotating NREL UAE phase VI

blade in deep stall coincide with

the 2d experimental curve.

References

[1] C.C. Critzos, H.H. Heyson, R.W.

Boswinkle Jr. Aerodynamic

characteristics of NACA 0012 airfoil at

angles of attack from 0 to 180

degrees. NACA TN 3361, 1955

[2] P. Poisson-Quinton, A. de Sievers.

Etude aerodynamique dun lment

de pale dhlicoptre. Agard

Conference Proceedings No. 22, Fluid

Dynamics of rotor and fan supported

aircraft at subsonic speeds, pp. 4.1 -

4.35, September 1967.

[3] G. Massini, E. Rossi, S. DAngelo.

Wind tunnel measurements of

aerodynamic coefficients of

asymmetrical airfoil sections for wind

turbine blades extended to high angles

of attack. EC DG-XII Contract number:

EN3W - 0018 - I, Conclusive Rapport.

ENEA - Comitato Nazionale per la

Ricerca e per lo Sviluppo dellEnergia

Nucleare e delle Energie Alternative,

Roma.

[4] R.E. Sheldahl, P.C. Klimas.

Aerodynamic Characteristics of Seven

Symmetrical Airfoil Sections Through

180-Degree Angle of Attack for Use in

Aerodynamic Analysis of Vertical Axis

Wind Turbines. Report SAND80-2114,

Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque,

March 1981.

[5] A. Michos, G. Bergeles and N.

Anthanassiadis, (National Technical

University of Athens) Aerodynamic

characteristics of NACA 0012 airfoil in

relation to wind generators. Wind

Engineering Vol. 7, No. 4 pp. 247-261,

1983

[6] D. Satran and M.H. Snyder. Two-

dimensional tests of GA(W)-1 and

GA(W)-2 airfoils at angles-of-attack

from 0 to 360 degrees. Wind Energy

report no. 1, Wind Energy Laboratory,

Wichita State University, Kansas, USA,

January 1977

[7] A.W. Bloy and D.G. Roberts,

Aerodynamic characteristics of the

NACA 63

2

-215 aerofoil for use in wind

turbines, Wind Engineering Vol. 17,

No.2, 1993, pp.67-75

[8] C. Ostowari, D. Naik, Post Stall

Studies of Untwisted Varying Aspect

TORQUE 2010: The Science of Making Torque from Wind, June 28-30, Crete, Greece 78

- Aerospace Engineering Aerodynamics Lab ExercisesUploaded byHassanKhan
- Wind Turbine Final ReportUploaded byPrafitri Kurniawan
- Numerical Investigation for Wind Turbine Blade For Higher Reynolds Number For Darrieus RotorUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Aerodynamics CFD ProjectUploaded byBrehnden
- Cfdnotes False Theory of FlightUploaded bypreetham108
- AIAA 2011 1180 Stall SeparationUploaded byGhada Orabi
- Design and Analysis of an Airfoil for Small Wind TurbinesUploaded byaravindkumar03
- Aerodynamics reviewUploaded byaerogem618
- NACA airfoils post stall.pdfUploaded byEmilio Berny
- AD-2 MODEL EXAM.docUploaded byVinod Balakrishnan
- Aircraft Design Project 1Uploaded bysangeetha_baskaran96
- Aerodynamic Design and Optimization of LR MUAVUploaded byMatthew Austin
- An Analysis of Lift and Drag Forces of NACA Airfoils Using PythonUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Investigation in Thin Airfoil TheoryUploaded bycher
- AE-429-3Uploaded byRidzuan 'vladimir'
- Analytical Determination of the Load on a Trailing Edge FlapUploaded byPablitox84
- unit-66-tof-juny (1).docxUploaded byMohammed Rizwan
- User_Manual GH Bladed 3.51Uploaded byDavid Maldonado
- EGA324-C1-Surname-StudentID-000000(17-18)Uploaded byijaz afzal
- CFD Simulations of Flow Over AirfoilsUploaded byahadtk1
- Designing the Human-Powered Helicopter- A New PerspectiveUploaded bygreghgradwell
- MAE 5120 Henderson's _paper (1)Uploaded byHarika Prakash
- Uav Cfd AnalysisUploaded byRanjeet Singh
- Jaa Principles of Flight DemoUploaded bymacromolecule
- Analysis+of+Non Symmetrical+Flapping+AirfoilsUploaded byAsif Hameed
- FTFS Chap15 P071Uploaded byAbdulAbdul
- Aerodynamic Performance Optimization of Wind Turbine BladesUploaded byARUNVINTHAN
- 5serieswUploaded byAyman Zarefy
- Basic aerodynamicsUploaded byaerogem618
- IATS09_06-01_1290Uploaded bysokak009

- Capacitive tactile sensor array for touch screen applicationUploaded bystatack
- Capacitive tactile sensor array for touch screen applicationUploaded bystatack
- Capacitive tactile sensor array for touch screen applicationUploaded bystatack
- 111hw1_solUploaded byKrishigan Nageswararajah
- 111hw1_solUploaded byKrishigan Nageswararajah

- Lesson 3- PMI RMP Principles and Concepts Updated Commentsinclusion V1Uploaded bytucd2k42
- Answers to Chapter ExercisesUploaded byIbad Desmukh
- Chapter 14.pptUploaded bySaranya Teddy
- JARGANUploaded byChittaranjan Pani
- A14HVUploaded byadriantxe
- SRM2601ES_020100Uploaded byDaryl Forman
- Tutorial.RyanGossel.4x4x4Uploaded bySon Chansovannarith
- 155741320 Pipeline Coatings May 2012Uploaded bymabrouk2013
- Aug. 13, 2016Uploaded byThe Delphos Herald
- GATE Solved Question Papers for Metallurgical Engineering [MT] by AglaSem.ComUploaded byaglasem
- Extra Credit - MidTerm (1)Uploaded byDave Howard
- tn331_aci_floor_design_040509_11.pdfUploaded bysebastiantobon85
- CVCUploaded byluckytung07
- KPT FraxPlorerUploaded byLuis Tovar
- 101 Analysis Bedtime Stories (Epsilon Red Riding Hood)Uploaded bybeemis
- 07SAB012 - Misufdse of Rapid Exit TaxiwaysUploaded byMuhammad Ali Hafeez
- Linguistic structuralism.docxUploaded byKausar Ullah
- TOC Analyzer 550Uploaded byChan Sow Wan
- Image Processing Utilization in Banana Profiling in Cavendish Subgroup for ExportUploaded byeve
- Green ChemUploaded byDênisPiresdeLima
- Honeywell 997 Install GuideUploaded byAlarm Grid Home Security and Alarm Monitoring
- Jail Management Information System. a CAUploaded byDon Baraka Daniel
- 32255114 Fashions of a Decade the 1990sUploaded byJose Kouassi
- Ifma 16 Theme 5 Education and Training 860 Strategic3805Uploaded byNQ Hoa
- ELEMENTS OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING MECHANICS PRAKASH, M. N. SHESHA , MOGAVEER, GANESH B.Uploaded byPHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
- Conquering Medical Math(1)Uploaded byCatlyn Chatpman
- Johann Sebastian BachUploaded bymargreen5
- FPEMUploaded byJaya Chandra Reddy
- EEE Books AuthorsUploaded byViswanath Nt
- ThunderstruckUploaded byHamilton Moraes