Conformal Mapping of Aerofoil at incidence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conformal mapping of an aerofoil at incidence, exploring whether the Joukowski transformation is applicable or if alternative methods exist. The scope includes theoretical aspects and practical applications related to fluid dynamics and aerodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the conformal mapping of an aerofoil at incidence and questions the use of the Joukowski transformation.
  • Another participant suggests that the Joukowski transformation is indeed the correct approach, linking it to complex numbers and conformal mappings, but expresses uncertainty about their recollection.
  • A third participant shares a link to a resource that may provide additional information on the topic.
  • A later reply indicates a belief in a specific mathematical formulation for the transformation but notes issues with their program when applying incidence, leading to unexpected results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no clear consensus on the use of the Joukowski transformation, as some participants express uncertainty and others provide differing perspectives on the formulation and its application.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention issues with specific mathematical formulations and programming challenges, indicating potential limitations in their understanding or application of the transformation at incidence.

PhysicsIsFun
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know what the conformal mapping of an aerofoil at incidence is?
Does it use the Joukowski transformation? Or something else..

Thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I don't remember this for sure but I believe it IS the Joukowski transformation. The trans. uses complex numbers with the circle and all that and conformal relates to a complex trans. and I don't remember studying other uses for it, so I'm probably right but don't shoot me if I'm not. :wink:
 
Hmm thanks guys for the confirmation. I believed it to be:
w=z*exp(-i*alpha)+(exp(i*alpha)*b**2/z)
as it says but my program still doesn't work. It can plot zero incidence fine but then goes crazy and makes weird sausage things when I add incidence... oh well I'll sleep on it maybe
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K