This is an idea I've had for a long time and finally found time to build it. CloudFoil allows you to check your Xfoil results against high-fidelity full RANS CFD simulations in minutes. Because the simulations run in the cloud, simulations can be kicked off from any device including your laptop, tablet, or phone. I believe CloudFoil sports the best user interface in the industry for airfoil analysis, and it's designed to be used by experts and novices alike.

Check it out at www.cloudfoil.com when you get a chance. I hope it helps you guys design something awesome.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • and 3D also, my sample experiment with Gerris


  • Hey guys, take a look at Michael Selig et al's work at UIUC.  They have a whole bunch of information and wind-tunnel test data for low-speed low-Re aerofoil data that you can use to validate this CFD package and other stuff besides.

    Hat's off to the UIUC guys for publishing so much wonderful material and also to Blucraft for pushing the boundaries of analysis tools for the great unwashed. 

  • I agree with the need to benchmark some of the more common airfoils. I do have a link on there to some work that the SU2 developers did to validate the back-end code (http://su2.stanford.edu/documents/SU2_AIAA_SciTech2014.pdf), but I'd like to add more airfoils to that. Problem is I'm absolutely swamped right now. Would someone be interested in a free license for a week or two to run some validation cases?

  • To add to Martin's comment, I would also like to see many other polars, to include the infamous RG15 that is widely used both in the UAV, and high performance sailplane world.
  • Wow, this is very cool!

  • I would like to see a comparison between cloudfoil, xfoil and wind tunnel results.

    Please post cl/cd polars for the SA7035 airfoil (or any other low Reynolds number airfoil) at Re=100 000.

  • My CAD Drones Community would love this!  Great up the great work Blucraft.

This reply was deleted.