[AR] Re: Concussion Wind tunnel
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 06:56:36 -0700
In my experience FEA is good for perfection. If you can manufacture
something perfectly it works fairly well. If there are any flaws in your
manufacturing well, the results are not valid.
I think you need both! Right now the best I can do for FEA is
Solidworks and that's good enough for me on the surface if I can verify
and enhance that with real wind tunnel data I figure for a lot less
money I can do about as good as anyone.
Monroe
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: Concussion Wind tunnel
> From: Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, September 03, 2014 8:54 pm
> To: "arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> There are times when wind tunnels give much better data than FEA, but
> for modeling something that is rotationally symmetric through a small
> range of operable flight angles the data from FEA is going to be a lot
> more accurate than something like trying to use an explosion as a very
> transient wind tunnel.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdRZQCGs84I
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 9:32 PM, David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Monroe L. King Jr. wrote:
> >> Well for a ducted rocket or ram jet project. I want to see here the
> >> shock waves are forming to design the inlet to work at different
> >> velocities.
> >
> > Ah, I was wondering what you were up to: that does sound like the sort
> > of thing where shock wave visualization might be interesting.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -dave w
> >
Other related posts:
