View Single Post
Old 01-21-2013, 06:47 PM   #396 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,861
Thanks: 23,922
Thanked 7,207 Times in 4,640 Posts
2D vs 3D

Quote:
Originally Posted by HydroJim View Post
Freebeard-
Based on your chart, a shape with a height/length ratio of 1:4 is better than the template's ratio 1:2.5. Why then is the template only 1:2.5?

If I remember correctly, I think it has to do something with the 1:4 template being too impractical because it's so long. But I was wondering if there was another reason.
The 2D flow drag minimum for struts or symmetrical wing sections is 1:4.
The 3D flow drag minimum for a streamline body of revolution which also respects W.A.Mair's 22-degree max.boat tail tangent angle is around 1:2.5.
1:2.1 is shown as the drag minimum for free flight in Hoerner's report but it violates the rear contour for flow attachment in a bluff body.
Some use the 1:4 contour in plan-view.
If you were doing something like Aptera or the Edison car,the 1:4 strut might be the way to go,as this would be pretty much 2D flow around the wheels.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote