I know, Mac. Surprising that they didn?t all fall out of the air!
Maybe there was little or no airflow separation because the brakes were well
clear of the wing surface when fully deployed.
Images 29 & 30 here
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/vulcan/walkaround.php
Mike
_
rchmailv2-kr/search.
> To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
> see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change
> options
>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: VULCAN b2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 162620 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://list.krnet.org/mailman/private/krnet_list.krnet.org/attachments/20141231/906b3fb1/attachment.jpg>
A little science from English researchers in 1957
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0323.pdf but I'm sure
there must be more recent published findings from elsewhere.
This suggests that a solid airbrake produces a bubble of reduced airflow
behind the brake with airflow velocity
any Test,however it is performed,gives a lot of informations! The
aerodynamic principles are always the same ,also in the case of the hot"
bellyboard -drag" discusion.For me it's important the location of the board and
I think the place underneath the rearspar is very well chosen ( far
The RAF Vulcan bomber had solid airbrakes-no holes (which enabled this 90
ton delta to descend vertically-..been there..)
Mac
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Herbert F?rle wrote:
>
> any Test,however it is performed,gives a lot of informations! The
> aerodynamic principles are always the
At 07:19 AM 12/31/2014, you wrote:
>A little science from English researchers in 1957
>http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0323.pdf but I'm sure
>there must be more recent published findings from elsewhere.
++
Mike,
Thanks
the only thing i could see as a variable, would be the wind traveling Up the
windshield and possible skipping over some of the board.
if the board is too short, you won?t have any results. Too tall may rip it off
the roof.
I can?t wait to hear the results.
> On Dec 31, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Adam
it would seem at least sufficient for our application.
Is there a way to check resistance while the board with holes is in the stowed
position?
> On Dec 30, 2014, at 7:17 PM, bjoenunley via KRnet
> wrote:
>
> Belly board holes or no holes;
>
> I have considered making a belly board with
It's a valid test. But "better" testing would be a few vacuum (they also
read a little bit of pressure) set up at strategic locations around the
test section.
While the holes might have more drag.. I bet the flat board causes a bigger
"high pressure" zone.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Adam
9 matches
Mail list logo
