On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 14:42, Jon Stockill wrote:
> I bet you're running norton internet security aren't you :-)

Nope: Mozilla 1.7.3 on linux.

> You'll need to fix your ad blocker.

Wasn't aware I was running with anything much more than standard Mozilla
defaults. I'll take a look sometime.

> [...] did have the advantage 
> of having "new" rather than "recycled" materials.

And presumably they used "proper" tools, not home-made ones. 

> > Nothing scientific though. I'll do it again and publish the URLs, but
> > I've not got time right now. I've got just one URL to hand:
> > 
> > http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/WWII/colditz/info/info.htm
> The diagram on that page would give you a starting point.

Yes, well, that's exactly what I *did* use as a starting point! The
diagrams in Pat Reid's book included the front elevation as well, plus
make it a bit more clear that the area of the rudder was 16.6sq ft, not
166sq ft(!) which is what it seems to say on the reproduction diagrams
on that web page (and others).

Next time you're in the War Museum, see if you can work out where the
passenger sat. I've assumed for now that he was squished in behind the
pilot, but it's a guess. He can't have gone side-by side with the pilot,
the fuselage is too narrow.

Also, next time you're there, take a set of giant external calipers (!)
to the wing and try and get several readings of wing thickness starting
at the leading edge and working back to the trailing edge every foot or
so along the chord. Then we could try and find a close match amongst the
NACA standard airfoils and thus get a closer idea of lift vs. alpha and
drag vs. alpha and stall characteristics from the published figures.

Pat Reid already stated (in "Latter Days") that the bottom of the wing
was flat, so just the thicknesses ought to suffice.

Chances are that Best and Goldfinch used a standard airfoil from the
book in the castle library. It's just a case of finding which one.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to