Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Aerohead emphasizes getting your shape "close". Julian emphasizes "testing".
Both are right.
Unfortunately, they have been butting heads. Though we have all benefited from their contributions, it does take some filtering to see the value. Julian does not get a pass for his veiled put downs of those "deemed" less capable than he and his cadre of experts. Neither does Aerohead. If you spank one, you should spank the other.
I've worked on aerodynamic projects. You start with theory and mathematical models to get the shape "close". Then you test and measure.
Few who read this forum will ever get to complete a clean-sheet project from start to finish but they can divine information from both viewpoints.
|
All I can say is, get as close as possible.
It's a known quantity. Hucho knows it, and he wrote that it's basically the only path to really low drag in a 3-D body. NASA ( NACA ) knew it in the 1920s. Lay knew it. Reid knew it. Heald knew it. Henninger knew it. Kamm knew it. Tremulis knew it. Korff knew it. The EPA knows it.
All the theory and testing is already baked in. Shape is everything. It starts and ends with shape. And all shapes are not created equal.
It took from 1974, to when I first published about the 'template' before I felt I'd completely vetted it. It's not some random, wishful, pluck-it-out-of-thin-air construction. Everything is straight out of Hucho's text, among others.