0 views

Uploaded by aunbhutta

Subsonic analysis of the aircraft for the transport application

- AERONAUTICAl Syllabus
- WIND-TUNNEL-TECHNIQUE-NOTES-FOR-AERONAUTICAL-ENGINEERS-TP-1.pdf
- Lift and Drag Estimation
- Performance Testing of Facade
- Similarity Study on Snowdrift Wind Tunnel Test
- Freefall With Air Resistance
- 1 Advanced Computational Aerodynamics- 18 March 2012
- drag and lift on hydrofoil
- fluids Problems
- E1-Motion in Viscous Medium-Rev 1
- Flow Past an Aerofoil Lab Manual
- Worner - A Compact Introductions to the Numerical Modeling of Multiphase Flows
- Raa Bak Exercisea3
- Air Inlet in Jet Engines
- lift and drag chart final
- MW19_mid-term-exam2017.pdf
- p303ans
- CFX_Intro_13.0_WS02_Airfoil.ppt
- RDS Assignment
- Nozzle Des Moc[4838]

You are on page 1of 17

0.1

0.05

0

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-0.05 With Exhaust and

Intake

Cm

Intake

-0.2

-0.25

-0.3

AOA

0.15

With Exhaust and Intake

0.1

With Intake only

0.05

Without Exhaust and Intake

0

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-0.05

Cm

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25

-0.3

AOA

It can be observed that there is no significant change in lift and drag coefficients

due to exhaust nozzle integration with aircraft at supersonic speed. No major change in

66

overall lift of aircraft was observed in supersonic analysis with the change of mass flow

rate. This is due to fact that pressure change due to shock waves is much higher than the

pressure variation due to exhaust and intake ducts. Hence, the overall change is

negligible.

It can be observed that lift of the aircraft with exhaust configuration is slightly less

than other configuration (without exhaust). This is due to the fact that at supersonic speed

wave drag becomes prominent and hence it reduces the lift factor due to exhaust as well.

However, unlike in supersonic case at supersonic speeds, the effect of pitching moment

due to exhaust integration is not prominent. This is due to the fact that at supersonic

speeds pressure rise due to shock waves occurs at aircraft surface. The pressure rise

across the shock wave is much higher than the pressure variations around aircraft aft

body and exhaust nozzle. Hence the effect of pitching moment is not significant at

supersonic speed. For both mass flow rates, the longitudinal stability parameters are met,

however, there is a slight shift in trim point of aircraft.

The nozzle performance was predicted with high accuracy which was verified

through the results and plume structure observed. External flow analysis of similar aircraft

with intake has been carried out to analyze the flow behavior and calculate its

aerodynamic characteristics at different flow conditions [5]. The comparative analysis of

aerodynamic parameters calculated in this analysis is done with previous research in

which exhaust duct was not considered in analysis. For comparative analysis, results are

compared at previous research and Wind Tunnel Data.

67

Mach 0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

Wind Tunnel

0.2 (Blocked

CL

Model)

Wind Tunnel

0 (Open

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Intake) 10

CFD with

-0.2 Intake Only

Cfd with

-0.4 Exhaust and

Intake

-0.6

AOA

Mach 0.6

0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06 Wind Tunnel

(Blocked

CD

0.05 Model)

Wind Tunnel

0.04 (Open Intake)

Intake Only

0.02

Cfd with

0.01 Exhaust and

Intake

0

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

AOA

68

Mach 0.6

0.01

Wind

0 Tunnel

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 (Blocked12

Model)

-0.01 Wind

Tunnel

(Open

Intake)

Cm

Exhaust

and Intake

-0.03 CFD with

Intake Only

-0.04

-0.05

AOA

Mach 0.8

1.2

0.8

Wind Tunnel (Open

0.6 Intake)

CFD with Intake Only

CL

0.4

Intake

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

-0.2

-0.4

AOA

69

Mach 0.8

0.3

0.25

0.2

CD

0.15

Intake)

0.05 CFD with Intake Only

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

AOA

Mach 0.8

0.01

0

-7 -2 3 8 13 18

-0.01

-0.02 Wind

Tunnel

(Blocked

Cm

-0.03

Model)

Wind

-0.04

Tunnel

-0.05 (Open

Intake)

CFD with

-0.06 Intake

Only

-0.07

AOA

70

8.5.1 Subsonic Analysis

without exhaust configurations.

Figure 59 and 62 compares lift coefficients of CFD analysis with exhaust and intake

integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake integration only (without exhaust) (Config

2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3) at Mach No 0.6 and 0.8. The overall lift of aircraft of

Config 1 and Config 2 is greater than that of Config 3. However, the lift curve slope of all

configurations is similar. The variations between Config 1,2 and Config 3 results are due

to significant variation in Reynold number of actual flight conditions simulated in CFD

analysis and Wind Tunnel Tests. This aspect affects the boundary layer effects of both

these methods. Hence, a difference in coefficient of lift is observed between Wind Tunnel

Tests and CFD analysis is observed. The difference between the overall lift of aircraft

for Config 1,2 and 3 decreases with an increase in free stream velocity.

Figure 60 and 63 compares drag coefficients of CFD analysis with exhaust and

intake integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake integration only (without exhaust)

(Config 2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3). The overall drag of aircraft of Config 1 and

Config 2 is less than that of Config 3. However, the slope of all configurations is similar.

From the results it is evident that the coefficient of drag evaluated from CFD analysis is

lower than that of Wind Tunnel Data at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. Reasons

for difference is discussed in detail in Section 8.6.

Figure 61 and 64 compares lift coefficients of CFD analysis with exhaust and intake

integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake integration only (without exhaust) (Config

2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3). At subsonic speeds, a significant change in pitching

moment coefficient can be observed between Config 1 and Config 3. The overall slope of

coefficient of pitching moment for all configurations is quite similar, however, there is a

71

significant rise in zero lift pitching moment (Cmo) of aircraft due to exhaust nozzle which

helps in improving the longitudinal stability of aircraft and shifts the trim point of aircraft.

This aspect allows the aircraft to trim at positive angle of attack. This validates the

importance of including exhaust nozzle in analysis as the aircraft is longitudinally stable

at low speeds and moderate AoAs.

Mach 1.5

1

0.8

0.6

Wind Tunnel

(Blocked

0.4 Model)

CL

CFD with

0.2 Intake Only

0 CFD with

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Exhaust and14

Intake

-0.2

-0.4

AOA

Mach 1.5

0.25

0.2

0.15

CD

Wind Tunnel

(Blocked Model)

0.1

CFD with Intake

Only

0.05

CFD with

Exhaust and

Intake

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

Alpha

72

Mach 1.5

0.15

Wind Tunnel (Blocked

Model)

0.1

CFD with Intake Only

0.05

CFD with Exhaust and

0 Intake

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

-0.05

Cm

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25

-0.3

AOA

analysis with exhaust and intake integration (Config 1), CFD analysis with intake

integration only (without exhaust) (Config 2) and Wind Tunnel data (Config 3).

No significant difference was observed between co-efficient of lift in all three

configurations. This is due to the fact that at supersonic speed the pressure change

across the shock waves becomes more dominant and hence it reduces the lift factor

due to exhaust and intake integration in analysis.

Effect of drag is significant in supersonic conditions. This variation is due to Reynold

number difference between CFD analysis and Wind Tunnel Tests. Further details are

presented in Section 8.6 of this chapter.

73

8.5.2.3 Variation in Pitching Moment

The coefficient of pitching moment has surprisingly similar trend for all three

configurations. This is due to the fact that at supersonic flight conditions, the effect of nozzle

is not as prominent as in the case of subsonic flight regime. Also, Wind Tunnel model with

blocked intake creates additional shock structure which creates unusual pressure

distribution over the aircraft surfaces. This pressure difference is responsible for additional

pitching moment and hence the overall result is similar to CFD results.

8.6 Reasons for difference between CFD and Wind Tunnel Data

Wind Tunnel being a reliable and standard equipment for calculation of aerodynamic

characteristics of a body can be sometimes limited in analysis due to number of reasons.

Some of them are discussed below:

analysis and Wind Tunnel Tests. This aspect affects the boundary layer effects of both

these methods. Hence, a difference in aerodynamic coefficients is observed between

Wind Tunnel Tests and CFD analysis is observed.

Analysis of exhaust nozzle is one of the most difficult task in wind tunnel testing.

Presence of high temperatures and pressures make this task even more cumbersome.

Although high pressures could be analyzed at nozzle section, but this requires extra

accessories and equipment with standard wind tunnel. These type of analysis is usually

done using cold flow to keep the temperatures in limit. Hence, there always exist some

assumptions and inaccuracies in Wind Tunnel analysis of jet nozzle. Furthermore,

integration of nozzle with aircraft model poses serious challenges for wind tunnel analysis

as external flow is operating at different conditions than internal flow through intake, engine

area and exhaust nozzle.

boundary conditions were imposed for external surfaces and internal flow. This feature

74

helped in capturing large pressure and temperature gradients throughout the flow

effectively. This aspect was almost impossible to analyze in wind tunnel testing. Therefore,

analysis results of CFD are more reliable than wind tunnel results in this case.

The comparative analysis of drag coefficients clearly showed that the drag of Wind

Tunnel analysis was higher than CFD analysis. One of the main reason for this deviation is

due to the model of aircraft used for Wind Tunnel Analysis. The intake duct for wind tunnel

test is modeled generally diverts the flow coming towards the duct due to uncontrolled mass

flow rate of air inside the duct area, however, for CFD analysis mass flow rate at compressor

inlet was controlled by boundary conditions. Hence, CFD analysis models the flow

accurately. In CFD analysis, the flow passes through intake, engine bay and then exhausts

into free stream through nozzle with controlled temperatures and pressures. However, it

was not possible to maintain the same temperatures and pressures in Wind Tunnel Tests.

Also, deficiencies in surface finish of model produces additional unwanted drag in wind

tunnel analysis. The wind tunnel model was built with landing gear and secondary doors.

These additional surfaces further added to overall drag of aircraft.

In Wind Tunnel Testing, due to blocked intake on aircraft model additional viscous

and wave drag is produced. Although, wave drag is generally produced in supersonic

flight conditions, but even at high subsonic speeds local Mach No reaches above 1 and

wave drag is produced in these conditions as well. The effect is prominent at high

subsonic speeds and supersonic speeds. The rise in drag is significant and may reach

up to 3 to 4 times the subsonic drag. The magnitude increases at high supersonic speeds.

In this research, exhaust nozzle and intake duct geometries were integrated with

aircraft model. Both internal and external flows were simulated for detailed analysis. Due

to open intake and exhaust for CFD analysis, the flow passes through the aircraft intake

duct and nozzle without any significant hindrance. Hence, additional drag is not produced

unlike the case of Wind Tunnel. At high supersonic speeds, the shock waves formed on

aircraft surfaces does not cause abnormal pressure change inside nozzle or intake duct.

75

Hence, overall drag of CFD simulation is much less than that of Wind Tunnel Tests. The

difference between drag increases significantly at high supersonic speeds.

Drag polar was evaluated from CFD analysis and was plotted with Mach No

variation as shown below:

Drag Polar

0.8

0.6

0.4

M 0.6

CL

0.2

M 0.8

0 M 1.5

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

-0.2

-0.4

CD

8.7.1 Analysis

Dynamic pressure is the main contributor in lift generation in this case. The

dynamic pressure is directly proportional with flow velocity. As it is inversely proportional

to the CL, its value will decrease at higher Mach numbers at the same altitude. From the

graph it is evident that the coefficient of drag is higher in supersonic conditions. This

additional drag is due to formation of shock waves causing wave drag. The coefficient of

drag starts to increase rapidly at transonic regime due to drag divergence effects. The

sudden rise in pressure difference before and after shock waves causes a strong

imbalance on aircraft surfaces in the drag direction which increases the overall drag of

the aircraft.

76

8.8 Lift to Drag Ratio vs AOA

Lift to Drag ratio was evaluated from CFD analysis and was plotted with angle of

attack variation as shown below:

15

10

5 M 0.6

M 0.8

0 M 1.5

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

-5

-10

From the graph, it is evident that the peak value of lift to drag ratio at subsonic

conditions is much higher than that of supersonic regime. This is due to the fact that the

value of drag is higher at supersonic speed and hence the ratio of lift to drag decreases

significantly at similar AoA.

77

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Introduction

This research was initiated with an aim to perform composite analysis and

characterization of intake and exhaust effect on aerodynamic behavior of a supersonic

aircraft through Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis. The idea was to calculate

and perform a comparative analysis of aircraft with and without nozzle configuration.

Integration of intake duct and exhaust nozzle with aircraft required numerical simulation

of both external and internal flow. Numerical modelling of exhaust nozzle required

determination of different parameters (pressure, temperature, nozzle pressure ratio etc)

for accurate analysis. Due to unavailability of exact engine performance parameters at

different flow conditions, the complexity of research increased manifold. Hence, complete

mathematical modelling of aircraft engine (RD-93) was carried out analytically to

determine the nozzle input parameters. Research was successfully completed and all the

objectives were accomplished which were set at the beginning of this research.

9.2 Conclusions

The analysis was carried out at three different Mach Numbers (0.6, 0.8 and 1.5) at

five different angle of attack (-4, 0, 4, 8,12) and two mass flow rates (design and off design

mass flow rates). Hence, a total of 30 simulations were carried out during the research.

The external flow conditions were kept consistent with the previous research [5] for

detailed comparative analysis. Pressure distribution, shock structure and shear stress

over different aircraft surfaces and through the intake and nozzle were analyzed in detail.

Some of the important conclusions drawn for this research are presented below:

software for RD-93 engine. The extracted values of thrust from analytical model

was compared with already available thrust data from OEM. The results were in

good agreement with available data and hence the analytical model was

considered feasible for further utility for research.

78

2. From the analysis it was observed that the exhaust nozzle is under-

expanded at subsonic conditions at all different AOAs. This fact can be observed

by the flow inside the jet flow, the flow is expanded rapidly and causes the pressure

to fall below ambient pressure, and hence compression waves are formed to

increase the pressure according to ambient pressure.

calculated analytically and by CFD analysis at subsonic Mach No. whereas the

difference between the results reduced to 18% at Mach 1.5. The variations

between the results are due to the fact that the analytical calculations were based

on perfectly expanded nozzle, whereas from the CFD analysis it is evident that the

nozzle is under expanded at these flight conditions.

to exhaust nozzle integration with aircraft was observed. A significant change in

pitching moment coefficient was be observed. This fact authenticated the

importance of exhaust nozzle integration in overall aerodynamic behavior

estimation of aircraft.

integration was not prominent. This is due to the fact that at supersonic speeds

pressure rise due to shock waves occurs at aircraft surface. The pressure rise

across the shock wave is much higher than the pressure variations around aircraft

aft body and exhaust nozzle. Hence the effect of pitching moment is not significant

at supersonic speed.

6. The overall lift of aircraft calculated by CFD analysis was greater than that

of Wind Tunnel Data. However, the lift curve slope of all configurations is similar.

The overall drag of aircraft calculated by CFD analysis was less than that of Wind

Tunnel Data. However, the slope of all configurations is similar.

be observed between CFD analysis and Wind Tunnel Data. The overall slope of

79

coefficient of pitching moment for all configurations is quite similar, however, there

is a significant rise in zero lift pitching moment (Cm o) of aircraft due to exhaust

nozzle which helps in improving the longitudinal stability of aircraft and shifts the

trim point of aircraft.

8. Parameters such as Lift to Drag ratio and Drag Polar were also calculated

and analyzed in details.

CFD analysis provided an effective solution of analyzing complex flow inside the

exhaust nozzle and flow downstream of exhaust nozzle. The results were in good

agreement with available Wind Tunnel Data, OEM data and analytical calculations.

Hence, the aim of this research was successfully achieved.

9.3 Recommendations

Some of the recommendations drawn during the course of this research and for

future research are presented below:

flow downstream of exhaust nozzle in takeoff and landing configurations.

2. Similar type of analysis may be carried out for different aircraft as well with

exhaust nozzle and intake duct integration.

3. Analytical model of RD-93 may be further utilized for design changes and

modifications in engine components.

computers.

80

Bibliography

1. Li, W., et al., Integration of Engine, Plume, and CFD Analyses in Conceptual Design of Low-Boom

Supersonic Aircraft. AIAA Paper, 2009. 1171.

2. Adamson Jr, T., On the structure of jets from highly underexpanded nozzles into still air. Journal

of the Aerospace sciences, 2012.

3. Albini, F.A., Approximate computation of underexpanded jet structure. AIAA Journal, 1965. 3(8):

p. 1535-1537.

4. Hussain, F., Compressible aerodynamic analysis of external flow field around a modern fighter jet

configuration, in IAA. Air Univeristy, Islamabad.

5. Hassan, S., J. Masud, and O. Khan, Intake and Airframe Characterization through Composite CFD,

in AIAA. 2015.

6. Shishir A., M.A., Scott M., Validation of Inlet and Exhaust Boundary Conditions for a Cartesian

Method, in 22nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit 2004: Rhode Island.

7. Mc Ghee, R.J., Jet-plume-induced flow separation on a lifting entry body at Mach numbers from

4.00 to 6.00. 1970.

8. DalBello, T., et al., Computational study of axisymmetric off-design nozzle flows. AIAA paper,

2004. 530: p. 2004.

9. Pandya, S.A., S.M. Murman, and M.J. Aftosmis, Validation of inlet and exhaust boundary

conditions for a Cartesian method. AIAA Paper, 2004. 4837: p. 2004.

10. Elmiligui, A., K. Abdol-Hamid, and S.J. Massey, PAB3D Simulations for the CAWAPI F-16XL. AIAA

Paper, 2007. 491.

11. Lamar, J.E. and K.S. Abdol-Hamid, USM3D unstructured grid solutions for CAWAPI at NASA LaRC.

AIAA Paper, 2007. 682: p. 8-11.

12. Mattingly, J.D., Aircraft Engine Design. 2nd ed. 2002.

13. Gamble, E., D. Terrell, and R. DeFrancesco, Nozzle selection and design criteria. AIAA Paper,

2004. 3923: p. 1-11.

14. Stitt, L.E., Exhaust nozzles for propulsion systems with emphasis on supersonic cruise aircraft.

1990.

15. MORAN, J.P., Similarity in high-altitude jets. AIAA Journal, 1967. 5(7): p. 1343-1345.

16. Peters, C. and W. Phares, The structure of plumes from moderately underexpanded supersonic

nozzles. 1970: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

17. Schoones, M. and W. Bannink, Base Flow and Exhaust Plume Interaction. 1998, Delft University.

18. Cain, T.M., An experimental study of under-expanded jets. Oxford Univ Report, 1992. 1.

19. Simons, G.A., Effect of nozzle boundary layers on rocket exhaust plumes. AIAA journal, 1972.

10(11): p. 1534-1535.

20. Boynton, F.P., Highly underexpanded jet structure-Exact and approximate calculations. AIAA

Journal, 1967. 5(9): p. 1703-1704.

21. Korst, H., et al., Simulation and Modeling of Jet Plumes in Wind Tunnel Facilities. Journal of

Spacecraft and Rockets, 1981. 18(5): p. 427-434.

22. HUBBARD, E.W., Approximate calculation of highly underexpanded jets. AIAA Journal, 1966.

4(10): p. 1877-1879.

23. Chernyi, G.G., Introduction to hypersonic flow. 2013: Academic Press.

24. Moran, J.P., Mixing layers for highly underexpanded supersonic jets in hypersonic streams.

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1974. 65(01): p. 153-175.

25. Garcia, R.G., CFD simulation of flow fields associated with high speed jet impingement on

deflectors. 2007.

81

26. Krzywoblocki, M., Jets-review of literature. Jet Propul, 1957. 26: p. 760-779.

27. Anderson, A.R., Characteristics of free supersonic jets exhausting into quiescent air. Journal of

Jet Propulsion, 1955. 25(1): p. 13-15.

28. Seddon, J. and L. Haverty, Experiments at mach numbers from 0.5 to 1.8, on side intakes of

normal-shock type without boundary layer control. Part I. the nature of pre-entry flow and its

effect on pressure recovery. 1954: Ministry of Aviation.

29. Owen, P., The Flow in an Axially Symmetric Supersonic Jet from a Thornhill, CK Nearly-Sonic

Orifice into a Vacuum. Aero. Res. Council Report. 9.

30. Love, E.S., et al., Experimental and theoretical studies of axisymmetric free jets. 1959.

31. Snedeker, R.S., A study of free jet impingement. Part 1. Mean properties of free and impinging

jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1971. 45(02): p. 281-319.

32. Dash, S., H. Pergament, and R. Wilmoth, Prediction of nearfield jet entrainment by an interactive

mixing/afterburning model. 1978.

33. Dash, S.M., D.E. Wolf, and J. Seiner, Analysis of turbulent underexpanded jets. I-Parabolized

Navier-Stokes model, SCIPVIS. AIAA journal, 1985. 23(4): p. 505-514.

34. Chuech, S., M.-C. Lai, and G. Faeth, Structure of turbulent sonic underexpanded free jets. AIAA

journal, 1989. 27(5): p. 549-559.

35. Woodmansee, M.A., J. Dutton, and R.P. Lucht. Experimental measurements of pressure,

temperature, and density in an underexpanded sonic jet flowfield. in AIAA Fluid Dynamics

Conference, 30 th, Norfolk, VA. 1999.

36. Brown, G.L. and A. Roshko, On density effects and large structure in turbulent mixing layers.

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1974. 64(04): p. 775-816.

37. Steffen, C., D. Reddy, and K. Zaman, Numerical modeling of jet entrainment for nozzles fitted

with delta tabs. AIAA Paper, 1997: p. 97-0709.

38. ANSYS(R). 2016; Available from: http://www.ansys.com/Products/Fluids/ANSYS-Fluent.

39. Pletcher, R.H., J.C. Tannehill, and D. Anderson, Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer.

2012: CRC Press.

40. Blevins, R.D., Applied fluid dynamics handbook. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984, 568

p., 1984. 1.

41. Spalart, P.R. and S.R. Allmaras, A one equation turbulence model for aerodinamic flows. AIAA

journal, 1992. 94.

42. Kim, S.-E., D. Choudhury, and B. Patel, Computations of complex turbulent flows using the

commercial code FLUENT, in Modeling complex turbulent flows. 1999, Springer. p. 259-276.

43. Kalitzin, G., et al., Near-wall behavior of RANS turbulence models and implications for wall

functions. Journal of Computational Physics, 2005. 204(1): p. 265-291.

44. Mattingly, J.D. and H. Von Ohain, Elements of propulsion: gas turbines and rockets. 2006:

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Reston, Va, USA.

45. Jaw, L.C. and J.D. Mattingly, Aircraft engine controls: design, system analysis, and health

monitoring. 2009: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

46. Engine, J.A. RD-93 2015; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33#RD-93.

47. Technologies, K. RD-33 Engines. 2015; Available from:

http://www.klimov.ru/en/production/aircraft/RD-33-family/.

48. Etkin, B. and L.D. Reid, Dynamics of flight: stability and control. Vol. 3. 1996: Wiley New York.

82

- AERONAUTICAl SyllabusUploaded byNaresh Jonna
- WIND-TUNNEL-TECHNIQUE-NOTES-FOR-AERONAUTICAL-ENGINEERS-TP-1.pdfUploaded byRamji Veerappan
- Lift and Drag EstimationUploaded byRj Jagadesh
- Performance Testing of FacadeUploaded byVivek G. Abhyankar
- Similarity Study on Snowdrift Wind Tunnel TestUploaded byZainul Faizien Haza
- Freefall With Air ResistanceUploaded bySab95
- 1 Advanced Computational Aerodynamics- 18 March 2012Uploaded byAravind Boilla
- drag and lift on hydrofoilUploaded bymohammedfouda
- fluids ProblemsUploaded byhamidreza_m85
- E1-Motion in Viscous Medium-Rev 1Uploaded byAbner Lim
- Flow Past an Aerofoil Lab ManualUploaded byLaw Zhan Hong
- Worner - A Compact Introductions to the Numerical Modeling of Multiphase FlowsUploaded bystelasience
- Raa Bak Exercisea3Uploaded byNeeth
- Air Inlet in Jet EnginesUploaded byJeevaramnivas
- lift and drag chart finalUploaded byapi-107279294
- MW19_mid-term-exam2017.pdfUploaded byahndrash
- p303ansUploaded byDipto
- CFX_Intro_13.0_WS02_Airfoil.pptUploaded byvicky3000
- RDS AssignmentUploaded byMerium Fazal
- Nozzle Des Moc[4838]Uploaded byFahad Abdullah
- adpaper.pdfUploaded bysumitsaha263
- iv force and acceleration 3 30 17Uploaded byapi-262586446
- YuLaugaHosoi06Uploaded byamal
- 19930088768.pdfUploaded byMauro Oliveira
- Alternative FuelsUploaded byPrawin Lukanus Santhanaraj
- Newtonian Mechanics5.pdfUploaded byderbewalebel
- 2010_Closures for Coarse-grid Simulation of Fluidized Gas-particle FlowsUploaded bypsnmurthy333
- NAFEMS2013 092713 White Paper ReviewUploaded byangelus256
- s7August2017Uploaded byRakesh Nair
- Journal)Uploaded byGs Arun Gs

- Apportioning BlameUploaded byaunbhutta
- China’s Top UniversitiesUploaded byaunbhutta
- Associate Professor Alex Ng Researcher ProfilesUploaded byaunbhutta
- Completing the E Conditions DossierUploaded byaunbhutta
- ConfidentialUploaded byaunbhutta
- CAP 1220Uploaded byaunbhutta
- wwwcsdgovpkoutlets1aspx.pdfUploaded byaunbhutta
- IMG-20180927-WA0050Uploaded byaunbhutta
- E ConditionsUploaded byaunbhutta
- Operation of Experimental Aircraft Under E ConditionsUploaded byaunbhutta
- Collapse of Passenger BoardingUploaded byaunbhutta
- Extension in BOIUploaded byaunbhutta
- AppendixUploaded byaunbhutta
- PAF TeamUploaded byaunbhutta
- Civil Aviation AuthorityUploaded byaunbhutta
- Reasons of Collapse of PassengerUploaded byaunbhutta
- Computational Model and Solver SetupUploaded byaunbhutta
- RD 93Uploaded byaunbhutta
- Pressure DistributionUploaded byaunbhutta
- Thrust CalculationUploaded byaunbhutta
- Aircraft Modeling and MeshingUploaded byaunbhutta
- Composite AnalysisUploaded byaunbhutta
- cad analysisUploaded byaunbhutta
- MS Thesis Report Final-Arsalan Arif 131215 MS-8 4.pdfUploaded byaunbhutta
- MS Thesis Report Final-Arsalan Arif 131215 MS-8 2Uploaded byaunbhutta
- MS Thesis Report Final-Arsalan Arif 131215 MS-8 2.pdfUploaded byaunbhutta

- GiantUploaded byYücel Kaosjunkie
- Pumps MrplUploaded byAnnamalai Palaniappan
- Lib.frank.whiteUploaded byLuis Fernando Sánchez Rodríguez
- O-31Uploaded bysam_senthil_68841
- Pitot Tube StandartUploaded bydesrytandi
- Commercial GTL Project Opens in Southeast TexasUploaded byKaren Xiomara Angarita Guerrero
- Air Vacuum ValvesUploaded bymariuspi
- ASHRAE Terminology_Complete ListUploaded bywado11
- symbols.pdfUploaded byAyman Esa
- pump calc example.xlsxUploaded byMohammad Usman Habib
- LT1 - BoilerUploaded byMichael Anthony Denubo
- CCI HIPPS Reference List Rev18Uploaded byOrkhan Seyidov
- AVU-II Skill Development (2008-09).pdfUploaded bymujeebmehar
- Assignment and Its Solution_airstandardcycle and VapourcycleUploaded byMatthias
- Retrograde Condensation (2).docUploaded byToyin
- Determine Flow Back Volume to SurfaceUploaded byMufti Ghazali
- Compressible FlowUploaded byAnonymous a4Jwz14W
- viking pumps.pdfUploaded bylavascudo
- American Marsh SremUploaded bydiuska13
- Spe 89866-Cap Pressure in TgsUploaded byKald Fahme
- Ex Per 2Uploaded byAnil Solanki
- 25Uploaded byThiện Nguyễn
- PCS0316H_tcm29-2720Uploaded bysyailendra dyan
- Chemistry 6 Properties of MatterUploaded byam2030
- GX-8000 Maintenance ManualUploaded byDeb Dash
- TEG Water EquilibriumUploaded bylakonas_740
- Domain ProjectUploaded byPatel Avani
- EX-0035 Drilling - English API Formula Sheet ThUploaded byPavin Pirom
- Physics Investigatory ProjectUploaded byKishore Kumar Robinho
- Bfp ProblemsUploaded byShameer Majeed