Results of Theodorsen and Garrick Revisited

Evidence is presented that some of the flutter boundaries (for the 2- and 3-DOF, 2D airfoil in incompressible, inviscid flow) found in the NACA reports by Theodorsen and Garrick are in error, and that many other might also be in error. It is suggested that the state of computational capabilities tha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Journal of aircraft 2000-09, Vol.37 (5), p.918-920
1. Verfasser:	Zeiler, Thomas A
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Exact sciences and technology Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications) Physics Solid mechanics Structural and continuum mechanics Vibration, mechanical wave, dynamic stability (aeroelasticity, vibration control...) Vibrations and mechanical waves
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:	Evidence is presented that some of the flutter boundaries (for the 2- and 3-DOF, 2D airfoil in incompressible, inviscid flow) found in the NACA reports by Theodorsen and Garrick are in error, and that many other might also be in error. It is suggested that the state of computational capabilities that existed at the time the original NACA reports were prepared contributed in large measure to the errors. It is recommended that all of the plots in these classic and historically important NACA documents be recomputed and published. (CSA)
ISSN:	0021-8669 1533-3868
DOI:	10.2514/2.2691