Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
I did do the calcs. All flavors. I'm not comfortable otherwise. There hasn't been 100% consensus between aeronautical engineers on flat-plate coefficients, so that's been problematic.
Larry Mauro, one of three aeronautical engineers I know, uses 1.0/ sq-ft, designing airplanes. Glynn B. used 1.15 at NASA, as was used in Fluid Mechanics we took at Texas Tech. Chris is a supersonic aeronautical guy and doesn't use 'em at all. Some, at the time of Zeder's paper were using Cd 1.0. Some were using Cd 1.15. Since Alex lived in both worlds, I figured I'd just defer to him. Alex also helped with Alexander Gustave Eiffel's coefficients. I'm certain that his calculus was way better than mine.
|
I don't understand. The K value doesn't appear to have thing to do with Cd for flat plates.
"Drag coefficients are shown as 'K', which is in lb sq feet (mph)^2"
Why aren't they talking of the frontal area of the car? ie lbs drag per square foot of frontal area * (mph)^2.
I am no mathematician but I would have thought the conversion of that to Cd would be fairly straightforward.