View Single Post
Old 09-13-2020, 09:36 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 452

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 33.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 54
Thanked 79 Times in 63 Posts
So what you are saying is that if the advice is deemed as flawed it shouldn't be followed? And if it is followed, then it has no advantage? This is what I mean by something is better than nothing. A "flawed" template is better than no template at all, no?

Should this guy be shot down because his shape didn't meet your idea or Aerohead's idea of the template? I'm sure it could be improved on and needs much refining. People here at EM would share their opinions and knowledge. I have a feeling your only advice would be to buy your book.

I think the "template" we have recognized at EM was designed to be a "smidgeon more conservative" rather than a shape that is "right on the ragged edge of flow seperation."

I wish I could find the drawing of AST-II. It might be more to your liking as I believe it was a bit steeper than AST-I. I also believe someone here stated that "The AST-II is the second-most aggressive profile and fits standard rooflines with rapid descending contours. The AST-I fits more conservative contours."

According to a guy name Hucho, the most aggressive profile was by some other guy named Buchheim. I think that Hucho guy wrote a book also. Too bad he isn't around anymore. I'd bet he'd share his knowledge here in the Wiki section.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Aerocap.JPG
Views:	9
Size:	141.3 KB
ID:	29128   Click image for larger version

Name:	Aerocap 2.JPG
Views:	9
Size:	140.9 KB
ID:	29129  

Last edited by hat_man; 09-13-2020 at 10:04 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hat_man For This Useful Post:
aerohead (09-16-2020)