Well.. I haven't spent $$$ on it but SolidWorks now comes w/ a version of

CosmosFloWorks in the package in 2008..  I've got the software so I may give it

a whirl.. I was waiting to test it before I commented but.. since people are talking

directly about it..  :-)

 

Jarrett

 

Jarrett,

I'm not implying that CFD isn't fun to play with, and if you have CFD available go for it! Just don't expect to learn anything more than gross trends for design purposes. I have been involved in several internal flow designs where we used "expert" PhD types for analysis using high end programs like Fluent. In the end you still wind up in the lab with modeling clay to make things work right. Even if you know what you are doing and have good data to plug into the models (heat exchanger data, boundary layer conditions at the inlet and exit, pressure and temperature conditions, prop wake effects, etc) you are still limited by your fabrication capacities. Most of us don't have the ability to build an optimum heat exchanger. We have to use what is available off the shelf. So the system will be optimized for readily available exchangers, not the optimum. Then what level of fabrication accuracy is available for the duct work. Most of us carve some foam and slather some fiberglass on it. We don't use a 5 axis router to make a mold from a highly refined CFD model and vacuum bag some duct work. To get the 5% extra you might get from accurate CFD analysis is going to take a lot of testing to get data to "correct" the CFD model and then a lot of high end fabrication. All for....5-10% gain.....maybe.

CFD has it's place. Primarily in very specialized areas of design engineering like turbo machinery. In these cases building and testing prototypes is so expensive, you can afford to hire the brain/computing power to develop the models and test/refine them.  Each new real world test results in tweaking all the fudge factors for the models specific use....and there are a lot of fudge factors. 

In our application, you would be better off with a pencil, paper, calculator, and a copy of Kucheman and Webber, plus a thermo 1 text book and a pile of old NACA reports. You are going to have to do this anyway as a gut check for your CFD models. If you don't you will be off down the rabbit hole with no trail of bread crumbs.......trust me.

In the end you will still have to test to refine. Best to avoid analysis paralysis from the get go. One test can invalidate years of mental gymnastics.

Our understanding of physics is still limited, especially non-steady state, non linear things like turbulence. Of course the people who sell the software will never admit this......but it is the truth. Models are models and reality trumps all.

FWIW

Monty