![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
smjmitchell wrote...
I agree there is no way that you can accurately simulate the behaviour of an airplane without the use of derivatives. That's not my point. My point is that if you're going to trust the results of _any_ design and analysis software you better understand what it can do and how it does it. Particularly if your design steps outside the bounds of what's 'typical' and thus might violate some of the assumptions that went into the software. Kinda what you said early on, I think. All the "real" simulators work this way. Quite a few of very good sims use the base parameter in something like a table lookup, and avoid stability derivatives for anything but linear analysis. Dave 'Bode' Hyde |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I wrote:
If you're doing a non-derivative design and want some hope at all of being close... smjmitchell ... I agree there is no way that you can accurately simulate the behaviour of an airplane without the use of derivatives. If your statement above was in respose to my "non-derivative" statement, I wasn't referring to stability derivatives, I was referring to a design that's derived from a prior design, i.e. evolutionary. Accurate simulation without the use of stability derivatives is easy if you have estimated aero data. Dynamic derivatives make it easier, but often times damping derivative estimates are so inaccurate you might as well not use them anyway. But having said all this, a simulation of a lightplane-envelope-type airplane is not required before building one. Personally I'd spend the time trying to get good aero estimates or hard data (truck testing, R/C, etc) than in tweaking a sim...and you need the hard data to do real tweaking anyway. For home-design type stuff I use a CAD package(*) - designCAD right now, but I've been know to use AutoCAD. Aero analysis is back-of-the envelope. Structures so far is TLAR, but before I cut metal I will have a professional FEA done by a non-advocate. I haven't gotten to the engines yet :-) The stuff I use at work is a little more detailed and somewhat more accurate (and far more specialized), but the results are usually pretty close to the home-done level stuff, which is where we start anyway. (*) and I barely scratch the surface of its capability. Dave 'engineer, professional and amateur' Hyde |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But having said all this, a simulation of a lightplane-envelope-type
airplane is not required before building one. Personally I'd spend the time trying to get good aero estimates or hard data (truck testing, R/C, etc) than in tweaking a sim...and you need the hard data to do real tweaking anyway. I agree ... there is no point in trying to simulate the flight characteristics of a light airplane via a simulator. You gotta make a choice. Do you want to be a scientist and analyse the thing to death or do you want to build and fly it in a reasonable time. Most light aircraft are evolutionary in design and that together with conventional design practises (there are huge amounts of data out there in the public domain) eliminates the need for all this advanced analysis. After all the vast majority of the certified light planes currently flying were designed on drawing boards, using simple analysis methods and emphirical data without CAD, panel codes and FEA. Also all these advanced tools have NOT really resulted in any significant advances in the state of light plane performance, safety, styling, cost etc. You simply don't need all this stuff - well OK some of it is nice to have - but lets be honest you can do the job without it and really for a amateur designer it would be better to forget it. By the time you learn the software, do the analysis, puzzle over the results, redesign etc and then build the thing you will be an old man. Better just to dust off the old drawing board and get on with the job using simple conservative calculations and comparative design methods. Quite a few of very good sims use the base parameter in something like a table lookup, and avoid stability derivatives for anything but linear analysis True but that is doing the same job as a derivative ... it is providing a relationship between some state of the airplane (i.e. alpha, beta, control deflections etc) and the forces acting on it (X,Y,Z,L,M,N). A derivative is linearised where as the look up table approach can include the nonlinearities. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hardware and software for motion platform | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | November 4th 04 10:57 PM |
Aircraft Design 1942 flying boats FA | Sally | Home Built | 0 | August 19th 04 06:49 PM |
amateur design consultant? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 14 | June 30th 04 01:34 AM |
ANNOUNCEMENT - Flight Dynamics Software | J2 Aircraft Information | Home Built | 3 | June 8th 04 11:52 PM |
Carbon Spar design and construction workshop | Marske Flying Wings | Home Built | 0 | September 18th 03 05:47 PM |