You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
On a propeller, when I input the expanded airfoil sections at different radial positions the final geometry does not appear to be converted back from the expanded sections (so the sections seem planar rather than radial sections concentric to the propeller axis). I am attaching a comparison below of the blade CAD and the Paraview ouput from FLOWUnsteady (not to scale). Am I missing anything obvious? Thanks for taking a look!
PS. This is a marine propeller. I noticed that the validation references (E. J. Alvarez & A. Ning (2020), "High-Fidelity Modeling of Multirotor Aerodynamic Interactions for Aircraft Design," AIAA Journal.) mention a similar marine propeller (INSEAN 779a). Was there any workaround used for the geometry?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The blade definition assumes that the user will input airfoil section from the Cartesian reference system rather than a streamtube (or meridonial) reference plane. FLOWUnsteady was developed for aircraft rotor/propellers and wind turbines, which typically have a low solidity distribution away from the root, however, the numerical method should work relatively well for marine applications.
I'm sure others would appreciate you developing the capabilities of defining the blade from those streamtube reference planes!
On a propeller, when I input the expanded airfoil sections at different radial positions the final geometry does not appear to be converted back from the expanded sections (so the sections seem planar rather than radial sections concentric to the propeller axis). I am attaching a comparison below of the blade CAD and the Paraview ouput from FLOWUnsteady (not to scale). Am I missing anything obvious? Thanks for taking a look!
PS. This is a marine propeller. I noticed that the validation references (E. J. Alvarez & A. Ning (2020), "High-Fidelity Modeling of Multirotor Aerodynamic Interactions for Aircraft Design," AIAA Journal.) mention a similar marine propeller (INSEAN 779a). Was there any workaround used for the geometry?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: