Can someone tell me where to find the original Nada Report for

>>8943652

first result on google you fucking fagguette

maybe you shouldn't google so much gay porn.

>>8943655
ORIGINAL Naca Report, not a third party one bud

>>8943652
Run your own simulation in Abaqus or other CAE of your choice famalam

>>8943681
I have developed my own Matlab code for the analysis, but I want to determine the error in the lift coefficient when compared to the original experimental naca report, I've found 2406 and 2409 but anything for the 2408

>>8943716
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930082240.pdf

Here's the C_L-AoA curve and the C_L-C_D curve on page 33 of the PDF. Took me 2 secs. Since you have your own code, just find the pressure coefficient distribution and integrate to compare lift coefficient and various AoAs.

Btw, panel codes a shit.

after all this time, why do we still not truly understand how flight works, /sci/?

>>8943742
Something, something, Bernoulli, something.

>>8943768
huh?

>>8943724
I already have some experimental graphics from "theory of wing section by IRA. H. ABOTT, but thanks mate, I glanced over that pdf before but couldn't find the airfoil graphs, my fault.

>>8943742
We do understand it

>>8943724
I know panel codes are shit but im getting 0.5% error compared to theoretical lift coeff, more than enough for the application I want it for

>>8943807
Wrong.

>>8943826
>Wrong.
what did he mean by this?

>>8943768
>Bernoulli
best equation ever

>>8943807

This 80-ton chub of metal, seat cushions, and Bloody Mary mix has no right to be soaring through the sky, but along comes Newton explaining something about the air flow over the wing creating an uplift or some such shit, none of which makes a lick of sense, but you got 82 passengers back there who believe it so fiercely, the plane continues its journey safely.
Now, what's keeping us aloft? Faith or Newton?

>>8943838
Are you high?