Use the submenu "current operating point / export"
This thread may help https://sourceforge.net/p/xflr5/discussion/679396/thread/9be8b00b/
in xflr5, the local lift coefficient is defined as the projection of the strip force on the wind normal, i.e. is the vertical component of the pressure forces. I suppose that in AVL it is the projection on the surface normal. By the way, for a stand-alone wing, it is more nteresting to use the panel method.
in xflr5, the local lift coefficient is defined as the projecjection of the strip force on the wind normal, i.e. is the vertical component of the pressure forces. I suppose that in AVL it is the projection on the surface normal. By the way, for a stand-alone wing, it is more nteresting to use the panel method.
Great job, thanks.
It seems OK to me. The lift curves and the streamlines make sense, whether using VLM or panel methods, and there is a difference when the twist angle is changed. I suppose the difference with AVL comes from the way the methods are implemented in each program. on the second matter, the method to construct the 3d geometry was changed in v6.14 for wings with inverse dihedral like yours. I suppose this one reason for the difference of Cm coefficient. I improved the method again in v6.33
It seems OK to me. The lift curves and the streamlines make sense, whether using VLM or panel methods, and there is a difference when the twist angle is changed. I suppose the difference with AVL comes from the differences in the way the methods are implemented. on the second matter, the method to construct the 3d geometry was changed in v6.14 for wings with inverse dihedral like yours. I suppose this one reason for the difference of Cm coefficient. I improved the method again in v6.33
yes, 3D panels is the way to go; the drawback is that it's only available for standalone wings. If you need the values, export the operating point to a text file. don't know