Oh damn that's trippy how you can move the camera haha I am the airfoil
0990 chonker
hbrav 7 hours ago [-]
I have a background in fluid dynamics and may be interested in helping with this. Is there a way for me to contact you?
rbrownrw8 7 hours ago [-]
Do you have Reddit by chance? Feel free to DM me u/Creative_Walrus_5197
rbrownrw8 7 hours ago [-]
(and I'll give you my email just want to avoid too much spam)
hbrav 7 hours ago [-]
I've sent you a message.
addaon 5 hours ago [-]
Unless you're planning to resolve the boundary layer and model separation (good luck...), you'd probably be better off using panel methods than NS. Look at XFoil or JavaFoil for available implementations.
addaon 5 hours ago [-]
Also, it looks like you might have a bug in generating the airfoil shape. An airfoil like the 8412, while extreme, is well-defined and constructible from NACA-style combination of thickness and camber forms; but you show it as having a "kink" on the bottom surface, which is definitely not correct.
rbrownmh 57 minutes ago [-]
I may have fixed 8412 :)
observationist 4 hours ago [-]
841220 is interesting, if you want to see what a borg cube aerodynamics might look like.
addaon 3 hours ago [-]
841220 is, sadly, not a legal NACA airfoil designator.
There are three major families of procedurally-defined NACA airfoils -- four-digit like the 2412, five-digit like the 23012, and the 6-series like the 64A012.
It looks like this site only expects the four-digit form, and is mis-parsing anything other than that -- which is a pity, because one of the uses of a tool like this is to get a sense of /why/ the 23012 is similar CLmax to the 2412, but with lower moment and a more sudden stall. If nothing else, input validation is necessary!
rbrownmh 59 minutes ago [-]
Added validation and looking into fully supporting the 5 digit codes - thanks for the feedback!
rbrownmh 4 hours ago [-]
LOL and it's also completely vertical
rbrownmh 4 hours ago [-]
Good catch - I'll look into fixing this. thanks!
addaon 2 hours ago [-]
Yep. If you're generating them yourself, you'll probably want to be careful to follow the NACA method for combining camber and thickness profiles -- basically, running a circle of thickness-profile-defined diameter along the camber line and unioning the areas. The alternative (which is these days sometimes called the Riblett approach) is just to define the airfoil as the camber line plus or minus half the thickness vertically at each point -- which often leads to better airfoils for many purposes, but will disagree with available NACA data, especially w.r.t. nose radius (and thus, critical angle for airfoils which stall near the nose).
If the goal is to allow a user to compare the properties of different airfoils, there's a lot to get right to make sure they actually know what airfoils they're comparing. The alternative is to allow airfoil selection from one of these sites [1][2], which also allow a link to provide comparative analysis.
I just pushed an update using spalart-allmaras turbulence model (somewhere in between NS and panel methods). Also updated the controls to use arrow keys :)
Rendered at 00:25:13 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Seafloor LOD (infinite terrain generator): https://github.com/kanakawai-maui/seafloor-lod
Olelo Honua (free LLM-enabled translation tool): https://www.olelohonua.com/
http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/naca4digit
0990 chonker
There are three major families of procedurally-defined NACA airfoils -- four-digit like the 2412, five-digit like the 23012, and the 6-series like the 64A012.
It looks like this site only expects the four-digit form, and is mis-parsing anything other than that -- which is a pity, because one of the uses of a tool like this is to get a sense of /why/ the 23012 is similar CLmax to the 2412, but with lower moment and a more sudden stall. If nothing else, input validation is necessary!
If the goal is to allow a user to compare the properties of different airfoils, there's a lot to get right to make sure they actually know what airfoils they're comparing. The alternative is to allow airfoil selection from one of these sites [1][2], which also allow a link to provide comparative analysis.
[1] https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html [2] https://bigfoil.com/