Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
Hey Jim,
There is no width ("d" in 2.5d on "Aerodynamic Streamlining Template") in my sketch.
The idea was to overlay the new and old one for comparison- to see if there's much difference. Now that I think about it again, the first sketch seems correct because I aligned the heights as one would with the AST to scale it to a vehicle.
I will wait to see what AeroHead says, but I figured that comparison was a first step that could be done in an attempt to help.
Thanks,
Kurt
|
Thanks Kurt,I appreciate your jumping in.
I went back to the original 'Template' format,incorporating the full,2.5:1 L/D body of revolution in which the mirror-image 'Diameters' (2 X H = D) are matched,as well as the position of maximum body cross-section (Max. body camber point ).
I've ignored the 'noses' per se,as they are always discounted in Fluid Mechanics,and rather place the greater emphasis on the aft-body portion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I compare the old with the new,I get a very close agreement in countours,except in the initial 20% or so of the contour,where the 'new' form is a bit 'faster.'
The 'rooflines' of the two 'Templates' eventually rejoin essentially and continue on maintaining a maximum 22-degree down-slope.
I'll continue my drawings and post Saturday.
My hope is to maintain the fidelity of D&F's original curvature,without introducing any 'bumps.'
Now having worked under higher magnification,the profiles are different enough that they don't combine until within the region of ground clearance,which is cut away.The images are posted now.The top image has hash marks designating the profile of the 1st-gen profile laid on top of the new 2nd-gen.It's much as you depicted it to be.