Quote:
Originally Posted by KamperBob
ETRW, I hear you. And I'm delighted to see your revolved model drawn up in solid works. Everyone I know who does simulation professionally validates the model first. If CFD on a highly developed template form confirms attachment that's good. If a slightly stubbier/steeper version (ie, violates template rules) shows separation that's better. Because then you can play with other geometries (ie, prismatic) with higher confidence in computed results. Of course wind tunnel, tufts and/or field tested MPG would wrap it all up with a bow on top. Filling an analysis hole is still an excellent contribution to our collective body of knowledge.  |
By the same logic I may as well CFD a sphere at various Re. I really can't explore every permutation with my old a$$ pc. I took the template for a test drive today...9 hours later it's still thinking. You may not hear from me for a while...
Some preliminary work suggests the template's nose should be pointy like Morelli, and not blunt.