[arthoung]

Hi,
I'm working on the modeling of the 737-700 wing actually and I'm looking for some ideas to get different methods.
I want to extract Cl and Cd of that wing. For the moment I work on XFLR5, and I think about using the Prandt's theory to get those coefficients.
Got ideas?
Tell me
Thanks
Ben

[cfd_newbie]

Hi,
To my knowledge XFLR5 is based on simpler methods like panel, Lifting line theory. These can give you reliable results of C_L and C_D only in the lower range of angle of attack. For the higher angle of attacks (where there are complicated phenomena like stall, separation, reattachment etc.) you will have to use higher fidelity methods like CFD.
Hope this info is useful.
Raashid

[ChrisDanger]

Originally Posted by arthoung

Hi,
I'm working on the modeling of the 737-700 wing actually and I'm looking for some ideas to get different methods.
I want to extract Cl and Cd of that wing. For the moment I work on XFLR5, and I think about using the Prandt's theory to get those coefficients.
Got ideas?
Tell me
Thanks
Ben

If you want to compare methods then XLFR5 might be a good option. I'm doing a similar thing, where I'm comparing XFoil (viscous and inviscid subsonic), TSFoil (inviscid transonic), and CFD. See here for some more available software: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MRsoft.html

Unless you're comparing methods I wouldn't expect valid results from XFLR5 (if you're modeling cruise conditions or similar). Maybe Drela's MSES/MISES transonic code would help if you can get hold of it. Or just go for a CFD solution? As cfd_newbie said, at high angles of attack, as well as high mach numbers (M > 0.5 depending on airfoil and aoa), realistic results will deviate from the potential theory behind XLFR5.