Quote:
|
I assume the Geodisic dome concept is only for modeling purposes, with all the varying panel angles that would be probably be more complex than doing compound curves.
|
Actually just the opposite. The 4v octahedral dome has 512 vertexes, and the shape I evolved has a void on the bottom so it's only 448 vertexes. That would fit in a spreadheet, higher frequency means smoother shapes although the count goes up fast. I think at 4v it would be like the dimples on a golf ball, but I can't find any info on frequency vs Reynolds number. Think F-117.
Your most recent post is all about the limitations of 3rd hand Cartesian coordinates. The solution used in naval Architecture is loft lines. Those are still only accurate to the limitations of the drafting methods. One could define the shape geodesically, then use software to slice it into layers like NeilBlanchard has. The octa symmetry has 90° corners at the middle sides so you could stretch it a little to the front to get the bluff body, then droop the nose to lower the stagnation point and stretch more to more to the rear with a truncation. Width and height can be de-coupled. And the 'equator' can be lowered, all because of the octahedral symmetry.
As for the 22° vs 25° debate, I start blocking it out. A gathering angle at the rear of 45° means 22 1/2° and that's close enough for me. I don't get what you mean by the cylinder to reattach flow, but that's OK.