Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
I'm waiting to learn the bounds of discussion. Everyone else just Thanked you and moved on.
Old Tele man -- your joke lives on in email notifications.
|
*At the Aerodynamic Streamlining Template Part-C thread there were some questions about how the aft-body plan profile would be addressed for streamlining,when considering the AST.
*I felt that this topic deserved it's own dedicated thread so it didn't get buried at the other thread,which is running to many,many pages now.
*I wanted to plant the seed of the discussion with images of how this task has been approached by others,some of which include drag coefficients which elude to how successful a particular profile turned out.This will save me millions of words.
*I'll attempt an independent 'square-to-round' thread as well in the near future after I'm more confident about some of the geometry/area data.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The major theme is that whether we stick with the original frontal/rearward vertical elevation profile of our candidate vehicle,or morph it from,say,square-ish,to more 'round-ish',we should not allow the cross-sectional area to ever vary any more than that of the streamline body of revolution of near fineness ratio 2.5:1,to protect the velocity/static pressure profile.(which protects the boundary layer from separating)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*keeping track of the areas may entail breaking each cross-section into elements of squares,rectangles,circles,and elliptical areas.Which should be easier than ever with online calculators.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Most production vehicles have bodies which attain roof convergence before side body convergence and when viewed from above will have to respect the fact that the plan-view streamlining will have to lag behind that of the roof/greenhouse.