I have used the same grid from ICEMCFD. and then employed CFX5.7 and CFD-Fastran to solve the areodunamics coeeficiences(just like Cl,Cd,Mz.....). But results from this two solver were not agreed with the experiment datas,and they were not agree with each other????????? I want to know why????

It's reasonable of the differences results you've got by experimental & numerical methods. There may be many reasons for thoes differences. 1)different boundary conditions between CFD & experimental, especially when the flow is turbulent. 2) different solving methods of CFDs. 3) uncertainty of experiments. 4)numerial errors. And so on... Basically, the experimental results are more relialbe.

I have done (many) aerodynamic simulations with both CFX and CFD-Fastran. In my experience I was able to get good agreement with subsonic experimental and "standard" published results for Lift and Moment from both codes. Drag is much more difficult, because very few turbulence models can approximate the effect of transition. CFX's transition model does a better job of this than the others though. We did try CFX on transonic flows, and it wasn't as satisfactory as Fastran.

Thank you,Charles,I agree with you,I have tried and found that,after i refined the grid.Drag changed a lot.Lift and Moment agreed much better.