• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

ACHIEVING THE BEST REFLEXED AIRFOILS FOR FLYING WING USE IN THE SMALL PLANE CATEGORIES

WINGITIS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
999
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Hello folks

After starting these discussions within the thread:

Flying wing as cheap and simple option for basic fun flying

We were taking up to much space discussing Airfoils and associated things so the intention is to bring the conversation here.

I will bring across some of the topics and data we have already discussed in the next day or two.

The premise is, can we gather the best of the FW airfoils(FOR RIGID WINGS) into one place where they can be tested against a uniform set of criteria for comparison and this may drive two outcomes:

1: Others may see the FW Reflexed airfoils that are available so they may perhaps choose one that best fits their application

2: Work can be done to perhaps progress to a better generation of FW airfoils as we get into the 100 year interval since the Horten and Munk M6 type of airfoils were promulgated.....

The idea being that XFLR5(ALTHOUGH NOT PERFECT) is used as the common test tool.

NOTE: You can use PNG2PDF on their website to take XFLR5 PRTSCREENS and combine them into PDF's to provide better quality viewing on this board.

Please provide the CL, CM, CD and LD images in that order in the PDF's.

Limit the number of airfoils tested in each series to 10, it can get messy after that.....

The base settings(WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME) to test airfoils against for comparison purposes are currently:

ANALYSIS = TYPE1
MACH = 0.1
AOA = -5 to +20
RN = 3,000,000
TE = 0.2 UNLESS IT IS ALREADY LARGER (SO NO POINTY TAILS YOU CANNOT BUILD THEM ANYWAY)
NCRIT = 9
TRIP LOCATIONS = CURRENTLY UNDER DISCUSSION

For your own purposes you can use what you want but please use these settings when posting results in here.



JUST A THOUGHT, what say you?

Regards,

Kevin Gill
Wellington
New Zealand

WARNING: YOU MUST NOT USE ANY OF THESE AIRFOILS ON ANY HUMAN CARRYING AIRCRAFT WITHOUT ENGAGING APPROPRIATE DESIGNERS AND ANALYSIS TOOLS TO COMPLETELY VALIDATE REAL WORLD USAGE(THIS MEANS ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY IS ON YOU AS INDIVIDUALS)

The comparison of airfoils with base known ones that are well documented in previously issued NACA papers does allow for conclusions to be drawn against other airfoils created but this is an academic activity as far as this thread is concerned and airfoils should only be tested on non-human carrying models, which can be largish ones if required using the available autonomous technologies in a regulated manner taking into account the laws of your country.

For people not familiar with the Reynolds Number and how it is derived and applies to your airfoil and usage I have attached this simple self explanatory calculator:
 

Attachments

  • MICROLIGHT REYNOLDS NUMBER CALCULATOR READBACK.xlsx
    11.4 KB · Views: 62
Last edited:
Top