On Thursday 13 January 2005 14:27, Christian Mayer wrote: > Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb: > > On January 12, 2005 06:07 pm, Christian Mayer wrote: > >>I see more problems with the correct shape of the wings. The > >> models won't get it right and using just some NACA profiles > >> won't work with the higly optimized profiles of modern > >> aircrafts (like those from Airbus). > > > > I am pretty confident that my models can make it through the > > program, since wing geometry is the first thing I look for. > > I don't know about others though. > > The general wing geometry (i.e. the stuff you get from an > 3-view) is one thing. The the real profile of the wing is > crucial here - and it's AFAIK kept as an trade secret. > > On modern aircraft (like all Airbus modells and the newer > Boeing ones) these are extremely optimized to be able to fly > at high speeds efficently. > > Your models also won't have enough detail (= polygons) to > reflect that geometry in the needed detail (or they would be > bad models for visualisation...) > > CU, > Christian
I've thought about this for a few years now and although I had similar concerns about the accuracy of the aerofoil at first I don't think it's important now. If you supply a highly accurate (read high resolution) aerofoil definition to an FDM solver/engine it's going to result in a correspondly high processing requirement. As the aerofoil would only be required to establish the characteristics, or properties, of the flight surface, it might be better to just skip the aerofoil stuff and either supply those co-efficients directly, or generate them from other known characteristics instead. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
