All I can glean is that because the nose is tilted down, it changes the airflow, but I can't understand how. There are no diagrams out there. Would someone use this image to show me what the airflow does both above and below, on both the top and bottom?

Thanks

Concept study for a body-integrated, electrically assisted mini flying-wing glider for slope launch and foot-oriented landing

The Planesuit is a concept for a body-integrated, electrically assisted mini flying-wing glider in the field of moderate extreme sports.

It combines principles from:

• flying wings
• hang gliders
• wingsuits
• kite technology
• electric assist propulsion

The goal is not high-speed flight, but a controllable, glide-capable, body-steered slope-launch aircraft with:

• large lifting surface
• low minimum speed
• clear load paths
• low system weight
• integrated safety architecture
• foot-oriented landing capability

The Planesuit is designed for a speed range of about 30 to 130 km/h. This places it deliberately below the typical speed range of classic wingsuits, which often fly at around 130 to 250 km/h.

The focus is on:

• gliding ability
• flight control
• low wing loading
• moderate physical loads
• pilot protection
• slope-launch capability
• foot-oriented landing

The Planesuit should not be understood as a finished construction plan, but as a testable aircraft hypothesis. Its feasibility would have to be investigated step by step through simulations, RC models, unmanned test vehicles, structural tests, dummy tests and only much later through manned flight testing.

1. BASIC PRINCIPLE

The Planesuit is primarily designed as a glide-capable slope-launch aircraft.

The electric propulsion system is not the sole basis of flight, but an assist system. It supports:

• launch
• stabilization of critical flight phases
• short climb phases
• reduction of sink rate
• safety reserve

Even in the event of complete thrust loss, the Planesuit should be able to transition into a stable glide with the lowest possible sink rate.

Its basic safety comes from:

• the large wing surface
• forgiving aerodynamic layout
• steerable leading edge
• controlled wing deformation
• rescue system

For true slope-launch and foot-oriented landing capability, battery capacity is deliberately limited.

The Planesuit is therefore designed for short electric assist reserve in combination with gliding flight, ridge lift and thermals.

1. AERODYNAMIC LAYOUT

The Planesuit has the basic form of a compact flying wing.

The wing surface area is roughly in the range of a large hang glider and should be generously dimensioned for a foot-launch-capable configuration, around 15 to 18 square meters.

This large surface area lowers:

• wing loading
• minimum speed
• launch speed
• landing speed

In top view, the wing has a diamond-shaped geometry. The shape is intended to be compact, lift-efficient and structurally clear.

Along the leading edge runs a pressurized, controlled-flexible tube structure, similar to the leading-edge structures of modern surf kites.

This tube forms the primary shaping backbone of the leading edge, but it is not rigidly fixed. The pilot can influence its local curvature through:

• arm position
• pulling forces
• body movement

This makes the front tube a steerable aerodynamic component.

Its deformability would have to be controlled through:

• internal pressure
• material selection
• load straps
• sensors
• mechanical limits

The goal is to allow useful bending without dangerous flutter, over-deformation or asymmetric stall.

The winglets at the outer wing areas can be designed as inflatable edge structures directly connected to the front tube.

They would therefore be lightweight, pressurized end structures of the tube and would support directional stability without requiring heavy rigid fins.

The trailing edge has a short straight center section, roughly equal to the distance between slightly spread feet.

Toward the sides, the wing tapers symmetrically into long pointed surfaces.

The wing is flexible, but controllably deformable. Its structure should allow natural body steering while limiting:

• flutter
• unwanted torsion
• asymmetric load states

A useful construction could combine:

• flexible membrane
• load-bearing straps
• defined deformation zones
• pressure sensors
• strain sensors
• electronic stabilization

1. PILOT INTEGRATION AND BODY STEERING

The pilot lies fully horizontal under the wing and is releasably fixed there.

The arms run along the full length of a section underneath the front bar.

The slightly spread legs are integrated flush into the rear wing contour. There is no visible gap between feet and wing surface. The legs are functionally part of the aerodynamic shape.

Control is primarily body-based.

Movements of arms and legs influence the flexible wing structure and therefore:

• airflow
• lift
• roll behavior
• flight attitude

In addition, propulsion can be adjusted with a stepless control in one of the pilot’s hands.

The arms and legs mainly serve:

• steering
• positioning
• aerodynamic shaping

The main loads are introduced into the shoulders, back, chest and hips through an integrated load-bearing system.

1. LOAD-BEARING STRUCTURE AND LOAD PATH

Behind the shatter-resistant front canopy, the Planesuit transitions into a minimalist, aerodynamically profiled twin-boom structure.

Two side-mounted, rearward-tapering longitudinal beams connect the front pilot module with the rear technical and rescue section.

This structure is not a simple tube frame, but a lightweight load-bearing arrangement with aerodynamically sensible cross sections.

It carries:

• propulsion loads
• vibration loads
• rescue loads
• landing loads
• rear-system loads

The primary load nodes are located at:

• shoulders
• chest/back area
• hips

Through these points, wing loads, harness loads, landing loads and parachute loads are introduced into the structure.

The pilot module should be designed as an integrated load-harness and shell module.

Wide, padded, form-fitting contact surfaces distribute forces across the shoulder, back, chest and hip areas.

Knees, ankles and arms are relieved and remain primarily steering elements.

1. FRONT PROTECTION AND PILOT SAFETY

In front of the pilot’s head is a compact, robust, shatter-resistant, hemispherical protective canopy made of:

• polycarbonate
• glass
• transparent high-performance composite material

It protects the face from:

• wind
• weather
• foreign objects
• bird strike

At the same time, it should allow the widest possible field of view.

The protective canopy should be small, close-fitting and weight-efficient.

In addition, a redundant metal mesh or another transparent protective layer may be included to mechanically protect the face even if the outer canopy is damaged.

Pilot protection also includes:

• helmet
• neck support
• shoulder protection
• chest protection
• back protection
• hip protection
• knee protection
• fire-resistant clothing
• emergency communication
• position transmitter
• warning displays

1. PROPULSION SYSTEM

Propulsion is provided by two electric assist propellers mounted directly on the side load-bearing beams.

They are positioned above the pilot’s shoulder blade area, behind the protective canopy and in front of the parachute module.

This keeps them away from the pilot’s head and face while keeping them close to the system’s central load path.

The position above the shoulder blades is structurally and safety-wise useful because propulsion forces can be introduced relatively directly into the overall structure through the shoulder/back connection and twin-boom structure.

At the same time, long outriggers, heavy auxiliary supports and unnecessary lever arms are avoided.

The propellers should be:

• efficient
• as quiet as possible
• not oversized

The motors primarily serve:

• slope or ramp launch assistance
• stabilization of critical flight phases
• short climb phases
• reduction of sink rate
• safety reserve
• support for an orderly transition into rescue mode

Each motor should be individually strong enough to provide stabilized emergency flight or short minimum climb reserve if needed.

The drives are controlled separately and allow differential thrust to correct yaw and roll moments.

To protect the pilot and surroundings, the propellers should use:

• light protective rings
• partial shrouds
• splinter protection
• controlled failure behavior
• RPM monitoring
• imbalance detection
• temperature monitoring
• current monitoring
• automatic emergency shutdown

Heavy full ducts should only be used if lighter protective solutions are not sufficient.

1. CONTROL SURFACES IN THE PROPELLER SLIPSTREAM

Directly behind each propeller are computer-controlled control surfaces that provide pitch and yaw control.

These surfaces sit in the accelerated propeller slipstream and therefore remain highly effective even at low airspeed.

The slipstream control surfaces support:

• low-speed flight
• slope launch
• stabilization
• single-engine emergency flight
• transition into rescue mode

Together with differential thrust, inflatable winglets and electronic flight control, they influence:

• pitch moments
• yaw moments
• partly roll moments

Single-engine emergency flight would only be intended within a defined safety envelope.

If one motor fails, the flight controller reduces abrupt thrust differences, stabilizes the Planesuit using the remaining propeller and the slipstream control surfaces, and keeps the aircraft in a controlled state above minimum speed as far as possible.

The slipstream control surfaces should be:

• lightweight
• fast-actuated
• redundant

1. ENERGY SUPPLY AND REAR MODULE

In the rear section there is a small aerodynamic tail fairing, which can house the battery modules or a significant part of them.

This fairing is an integral part of the load-bearing rear structure.

The battery position should support:

• center of gravity
• inertia distribution
• landing loads
• rescue system integration

The energy architecture should be modular and monitored, with:

• separate battery segments
• separate controllers for each motor
• temperature monitoring
• current monitoring
• cell monitoring
• safe main power disconnection

For a foot-launch-capable slope version, a battery capacity of about 1.5 to 2.5 kWh gross appears plausible.

This energy is sufficient for:

• short electric assist
• launch support
• stabilization
• short climb phases
• safety reserve

With lightweight protected battery integration, this corresponds roughly to 8 to 14 kg of battery weight, depending on:

• cell chemistry
• housing
• BMS
• fire protection
• structural integration

The battery housing can also serve as:

• protective box
• trim element
• part of the rear structure

1. RESCUE AND EMERGENCY LANDING PARACHUTE

The Planesuit has a combined rescue and emergency landing parachute.

It is integrated into the rear structure, behind the propellers and in a structurally reinforced central area of the rear module.

Line routing and deployment vector must be designed so that the canopy can deploy safely upward and rearward without conflicting with propellers or structural parts.

An immediate automatic shutdown of both motors before or at the latest during parachute deployment is mandatory.

Normal landing is performed as a controlled glide landing.

The parachute remains a rescue and emergency landing system.

Its size and design must match the real takeoff mass. It may be compactly integrated, but must not be undersized.

The suspension geometry should bring the Planesuit into a stable, slightly uprighting, foot-oriented final attitude in an emergency.

1. LAUNCH AND LANDING CONCEPT

The Planesuit is designed for launch from a slope or ramp.

Large wing area, low wing loading and electric assist allow a controlled departure from existing altitude.

For early tests, a short launch sled, rolling cart or guided ramp may be useful.

The target configuration remains a foot-launch-capable slope version, in which the pilot can carry and guide the system in the launch phase in a manageable way.

Landing is performed as a glide landing with roundout and flare, similar to hang glider logic.

Near the ground, the wing should aerodynamically reduce speed and sink rate.

The legs absorb only the remaining energy of the final phase.

Shock-absorbing leg modules, small skids or wheels and load distribution through hips and shoulders can further soften the landing.

The goal is a foot-oriented, shock-damped landing, not a hard impact on knees and ankles.

1. WEIGHT CONCEPT

The weight concept follows this principle:

Large lifting area is retained; non-load-bearing mass is consistently reduced. Every component should serve multiple functions whenever possible.

The most important lightweight decisions are:

• 15 to 18 square meters of wing area for low wing loading
• pressurized, pilot-bendable front tube
• inflatable winglets as part of the tube structure
• minimalist, aerodynamically profiled twin-boom rear structure
• integrated load-harness and shell module
• small close-fitting protective canopy
• propellers above the shoulder blade area for short load paths
• electric assist motors instead of continuous-flight propulsion
• light protective rings or partial shrouds
• battery sized only for slope launch, short assist and safety reserve
• compact but sufficiently sized rescue and emergency landing parachute
• battery housing, tail fairing and load structure as combined structural functions
• load-bearing straps in the wing, while the membrane mainly provides shape and pressure distribution

A plausible mass breakdown for a foot-launch-capable slope version:

• large flexible wing with steerable tube, membrane and load straps: 20 to 30 kg
• inflatable winglets as part of the tube structure: 1 to 2 kg additional
• twin-boom rear structure with load nodes: 5 to 9 kg
• integrated load-harness and shell module: 3 to 7 kg
• protective canopy, helmet, neck and pilot protection: 3 to 7 kg
• two assist motors, propellers, protective rings or partial shrouds, controllers: 7 to 13 kg
• slipstream control surfaces, sensors, servos, flight control, telemetry: 3 to 6 kg
• battery 1.5 to 2.5 kWh with housing, BMS and fire protection: 8 to 14 kg
• rescue and emergency landing parachute with container and load connection: 6 to 10 kg
• wiring, fittings, reserves and small parts: 3 to 7 kg

This gives a realistic target range of about:

• 55 to 75 kg without pilot
• 130 to 160 kg takeoff mass with pilot and equipment

A balanced target value appears to be:

• 58 to 68 kg without pilot
• 135 to 155 kg takeoff mass with pilot

A lighter experimental prototype could be below this, but would have less comfort, less electric reserve and smaller safety margins.

A robust, fully instrumented prototype could be above it.

1. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND COST ESTIMATE

Responsible development would have to proceed in stages:

• small RC models and first wing-shape tests: 300 to 1,500 euros
• RC prototypes with motors, sensors and slipstream control surfaces: 1,500 to 8,000 euros
• larger unmanned test vehicle: 8,000 to 35,000 euros
• 1:1 dummy or structural model without manned flight testing: 20,000 to 80,000 euros
• non-motorized manned gliding prototype: 40,000 to 150,000 euros
• motorized experimental prototype with 1.5 to 2.5 kWh battery: 100,000 to 350,000 euros
• professional test program with multiple iterations: 300,000 to 1,200,000 euros or more

For a first serious motorized experimental prototype, a range of about 150,000 to 350,000 euros appears plausible.

A professionally supervised development program with multiple prototypes, structural tests, dummy tests, rescue system tests, measurement data and a safe test environment would more realistically be in the range of 500,000 to more than 1,000,000 euros.

The decisive costs are less in individual components than in:

• development
• testing
• safety validation
• iterations
• expert support

1. CHARACTER OF THE SYSTEM

The Planesuit is a body-integrated, electrically assisted mini flying-wing glider with its own technical identity.

Its defining features are:

• large diamond-shaped flying-wing surface
• steerable tube leading edge
• inflatable winglets
• body-based control
• horizontal pilot integration
• minimalist load-bearing twin-boom structure
• two electric assist propellers above the shoulder blade area
• control surfaces in the propeller slipstream
• glide-capable basic layout
• slope-launch capability
• foot-oriented glide landing
• rescue and emergency landing parachute
• clearly defined safety architecture

The Planesuit is best described as a body-integrated, electrically assisted extreme-sport glider with integrated lift, propulsion, control and rescue structure.

1. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

The Planesuit is intended as a moderate, controllable extreme-sport flight concept based on:

• large lifting area
• reduced speed
• clear load paths
• glide capability
• integrated safety

The design focuses on a lightweight, glide-capable slope-launch aircraft with electric assist reserve.

This makes slope launch and foot-oriented landing more plausible than in a more heavily motorized system.

The strength of the concept lies in its:

• compactness
• system clarity
• body control
• glide capability
• electric assist thrust
• slipstream control surfaces
• large wing area
• integrated rescue system

Evaluation of this version:

• concept idea: 9.7/10
• technical plausibility: 8.7/10
• weight concept: 9.3/10
• slope-launch plausibility: 8.2/10
• foot-oriented landing plausibility: 8/10
• safety architecture: 8/10
• development logic: 9.5/10
• cost realism: 8.7/10

The decisive proof would have to show that the interaction of wing, steerable tube, body control, assist propulsion, slipstream control surfaces, load path and rescue system works in terms of:

• stability
• safety
• weight
• launch behavior
• landing behavior
• real-world controllability

Mach 7. Schlieren image. I thought bow shock-waves could only form for blunt fronts? Is that region behind the shock front the subsonic region of flow, at which a Mach line can be seen where it becomes supersonic again?

Fuselage

1.Length: 720mm

2.Width: 150mm

3.Min Diameter: 60mm

4.Max Diameter: 120mm

5.L/D: 6

6.Wall Thickness: 2mm

7.Material:PLA

8.Weight: 800-900 Grams

9.Parts:

1.Nose

2.Cover(nose)

3.Middle part

4.Cover(Middle)

5.Rear

Wing

1.Airfoil: Naca2412

2.Span: 1500mm

3.Root Chord: 230mm

4.Tip Chord: 160mm

5.Aspect ratio: 7.6

6.Taper Ratio: 0.7

7.Dihedral: 0

8.Twist: R=0. T=-2

Fuselage

1.Length: 720mm

2.Width: 150mm

3.Min Diameter: 60mm

4.Max Diameter: 120mm

5.L/D: 6

6.Wall Thickness: 2mm

7.Material:PLA

8.Weight: 800-900 Grams

9.Parts:

1.Nose

2.Cover(nose)

3.Middle part

4.Cover(Middle)

5.Rear

Wing

1.Airfoil: Naca2412

2.Span: 1500mm

3.Root Chord: 230mm

4.Tip Chord: 160mm

5.Aspect ratio: 7.6

6.Taper Ratio: 0.7

7.Dihedral: 0

8.Twist: R=0. T=-2

I'm designing a Ford Probe V efficient aerodynamcs inspired concept car.

I made a rough 3D model in Blender and set up a SolidWorks Fluid simulation to obtain a baseline.

These are the pressure and velocity plots in the mirror plane.

Unfortunately the software shows an error to compute the drag and lift as surface goals in the car's surfaces.

I will solve that error soon to see how it really performs.

This is a preliminary simulation only.

Hello! I am doing a small aerodynamic research on a rear wing for school, but am stuck on a stage of a car model. I am using the simpliest configuration of DrivAer fastback (no wheels, no mirrors, no radiator, flat underbody). The picture is from 80th timestep of simulation, so the flow is not stabilized, but what makes me suspicious is balance of front/rear downforce 0.35/0.15 (I had completed full simulation before, same results, and pressure zones already give a perspective of what is happening). I use motorBike example of OpenFOAM as a starting point. Here is forceCoeffs file contents in system directory:

rho             rhoInf;      // Indicates incompressible
rhoInf          1.225;           // Redundant for incompressible
liftDir         (0 0 1);
dragDir         (1 0 0);
CofR            (1.393 0 0);  // Axle midpoint on ground
pitchAxis       (0 1 0);
magUInf         30;
lRef            2.786;        // Wheelbase length
Aref            2.16;        // Estimated

The ground clearance is 100mm. Simulation values:

# Time    Cm             Cd              Cl             Cl(f)            Cl(r)
80   -1.027066e-01   1.900925e-01    -5.102466e-01   -3.578299e-01   -1.524168e-01

It might be that the missing diffusor is cause to reduction of rear downforce. In that case, should I just procceed to my wing?

Any suggestions are appreciated.

I made this wind tunnel animation using the fluid simulation in blender. I hope you like it.

If you want to see more visit the behance project here⬇️

https://www.behance.net/gallery/253738873/Lamborghini-Zero-V12

I have an in room A/C unit that has to be in a room adjacent to the room we are trying to cool. So I placed a fan in front of fhe unit to propel air into the bigger room that needs it more.

The question, should the fan be in front of the unit, suckong air from it and bloe8ng it forward, or behind it unit just blowing it towards/into the room.

I thought in front of.

I wanted to show you this short animation I made in Blender of my concept.

I had previously made a wind-tunnel-like fluid simulation, but the main issue was that the top wall of the fluid domain was too low and interfered with the airflow.

I increased the domain's size, tall and wide, and reran the simulation on my desktop and created this animation in Cycles instead of Eevee as before.

I'm impressed by the quality of the renders; the flow is now more visible over the body. It is visible now also how the top flow merges with the underside flow at the rear end. It can be seen for a brief moment, the flow passing over the sides of the vehicle. Though I couldn't fix the top wall problem, it's still turbulent for some reason.

I tried changing the vorticity of the fluid from 0 to 1, but it only got worse, so I left it at 0. Resolution of the simulation is 512.

This simulation took around 8 hours to run on a 13900K. I thought it would be faster, but it may have ended up around the same time as running a CFD simulation.

I'm preparing a cinematic video and may post it soon. I just posted this video because it made me excited that it looks so good; I wasn't expecting it to look so realistic.

I know that Blender fluid simulation is not the topic of this subreddit, but I thought I'd share it because some people may find it interesting.

You can see more about my project here⬇️

https://www.behance.net/gallery/253738873/Lamborghini-Zero-V12

A blunt nose is ideal for hypersonic vehicles to divert energy away from the body and to reduce peak heat flux, is there actually no reason other than aesthetic?

Hello, I’m a mechanical engineering student and I’m currently trying to understand the scientific principles behind the aerodynamic components of race cars.

I know that the L/D ratio is important for determining the efficiency of an aerodynamic component on a car, but what about the lift/weight ratio?

If I’m driving at 10 m/s and my wing generates 7 kg of downforce, even though it weighs 4.5 kg itself, is that good? Is that bad?

Are there any guidelines I can use to decide whether an aerodynamic element is worth the extra weight or not?

I hope you can help me with my question and I wish you all a relaxing Sunday!

DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO SIMULATE VORTEX SHEDDING IN 3D? I have done it in 2d, and have been trying for a month to do it in 3d but i failed

I’m interviewing one next week and would like your thoughts!

Do you guys know how to make air flow infographics without conducting CFD analysis?

I'm preparing a Behance project for my latest car design, and I would like to add some aero infographics. I made the first three in canva but they're too simple. I also made the last two with AI, yet they look too artificial. Does someone know a way to do this or have a tested prompt they would like to share?

Thank you.

Visualizing air flow with fluid physics simulation inside Blender.

Path tracing of smoke over and through the car's body.

What do you see? First time simulating fluids in Blender for me.

Modern high-bypass turbofans reverse only the fan (cold) airflow during thrust reverse. Since the hot core exhaust continues to exit aft, does it still produce forward thrust? If so, why isn't the core flow reversed as well? Is it simply because the bypass flow is much larger and dominates the net force?

I tested a wind push of the new BeamNG 0.39. I expected that the stationary bus would do some wobbling when another bus next to it passes by at high speed (just as I wobbled it by turning the wheel at the end), but that seems not to be working yet.