# FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 September 1, 2005, 10:55 FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #1 MATT Guest   Posts: n/a IS PHOENICS CAPABLE TO SIMULATE THE FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCARFT? IF SO, THEN HOW? THANKS

 September 1, 2005, 16:16 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #2 Mick Guest   Posts: n/a Yes, I have found that high speed flows are quite visous though. There will be some publications in the PHOENICS journal I am sure. There is a F1-VWT (Virtual Wind Tunnel) variant of the software that might lend itself more easily to problem set up. I must admit that I have not used this variant yet. Essentially Import CAD geometry, crunch a very very fine mesh close to the surface, solve for the "static temperature" formulation, choose appropriate turbulence model and set appropriate boundary conditions maybe for total pressure and total temperature. Experts and UNI Depts who specialise in aerodynamics tend to have their own in-house codes specificially designed for this purpose as this is I believe quite a niche problem area.

 September 1, 2005, 16:23 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #3 Mick Guest   Posts: n/a vicious not visous, wrong spelling sorry!

 September 4, 2005, 00:53 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #4 MATT Guest   Posts: n/a thank you for your info. one more thing, do u know any paper or website that i can refer to.

 September 4, 2005, 05:18 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #5 MATT Guest   Posts: n/a cartesian vs bfc, what the difference? in my case which one should i use?

 September 4, 2005, 13:29 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #6 Mick Guest   Posts: n/a hello, Cartesian mesh-> This would mean that the solution domain was represented by brick elements. However at the surface of your aeroplane the curvature would be handled by these bricks being cut so that part of the 'brick cell' would be air and the other part solid aeroplane. The aeroplane would come from a CAD geometry and the mesh thrown over the solution domain with the cut-cells being automatically picked up by the code. BFC grid -> Fits 'body-fitted' cells around your aeroplane so that the cells are skewed to represent the geometry of the aircraft. The geometry would be represented by points lines and surfaces from which meshed frames can be generated. This might work well if a decent mesh can be made. Very loosely speaking if the cells are not at a skewed angle of < 30 degrees (from normal), although solutions can be obtained on grids were cells are considerably more skewed. With BFC creating the mesh is a considerable part of the overall solution time. Other Pros and Cons to be considered are that with BFC, (to my knowledge), all the turbulence models should be available, however with the cartesian cut-cell method only the high-Re KEMOD turb models have as yet been developed to work with the cut cells. As for papers, I will try and find some references when I get near to some PHOENICS journals.

 September 5, 2005, 22:50 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #7 MATT Guest   Posts: n/a thanks for your info. 1)cartesian grid, then use elliptic staggered . 2)bfc grid, then use elliptic gcv. is it the correct setting?

 September 6, 2005, 08:25 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #8 mick Guest   Posts: n/a 1/ yes absolutely. 2/ Should try both, Elliptic-Staggered and GCV, its just a click of the button through the menu panels.

 September 12, 2005, 08:17 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #9 MATT Guest   Posts: n/a Do u have any ideas about the solution domain size compare to aircraft size? Is it ok if I set the aircraft size as 5%, compared to the domain size?

 October 27, 2005, 13:43 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #10 PattiMichelle Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Mick - do you know if the higher-order schemes were fixed in 3.6.0?

 November 1, 2005, 04:47 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #11 tom Guest   Posts: n/a Patti, I have the corrected earexe that CHAM sent me following the v3.6.0 HOCS fix. I'll send it to you if you want it! Tom

 November 1, 2005, 11:07 Re: FLOW OVER COMPLETE AIRCRAFT #12 Patti Sheaffer Guest   Posts: n/a That's OK - I just wanted to make sure you had it...