That physical model is a core part of their calculation. Right now I’m saying they’re measuring a trapezoid, not a square, and you’re insisting that I can’t know they’re measuring a trapezoid and not a square because I’m not “going through the process of their calculations”, but no amount of “calculation process” will make a trapezoid into a square.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Aerodynamics thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
I don’t need to speculate on anything. They give you the visual output of the model they’re using. I’m not imagining the shape of the model. It’s right in front of us. I could go in depth on all the assumptions they’re actually making in the paper when they decided to go with such a simplified model, but it’s pretty unnecessary when those simplifications are represented in a visual output.So you are essentially *speculating* on how they did their calculations, but without actually *knowing*. How much faith should be placed on such a claim?
What’s unreasonable about recognizing that the physical model some paper uses isn’t representative of the real thing?Come on. You know what you are doing. Academic papers canbe right or canbe wrong. But your claim is even less reasonable.
Do I need to do calculations to show you a square isn’t the same shape as a trapezoid?Then please show some calculations to debunk their model as grossly inaccurate. Otherwise, your claim is just some other speculations. And please don't try to make your claim sound anymore legitimate.
You have no understanding of how the model works; i.e, the software they're working with may not need a detailed three-dimensional image.
The other thing is, the F-16 isn't actually that agile. It's supposed to have a max STR of 18 degrees, whereas the Rafale is reputed to have a 22-24 peak STR. The only advantage of the F-16 is that its peak cornering speed occurs around Mach .9, whereas Rafale and other fighters peak out earlier at around 700-800 km/h.
The other thing is, the F-16 isn't actually that agile. It's supposed to have a max STR of 18 degrees, whereas the Rafale is reputed to have a 22-24 peak STR. The only advantage of the F-16 is that its peak cornering speed occurs around Mach .9, whereas Rafale and other fighters peak out earlier at around 700-800 km/h.
Do I need to do calculations to show you a square isn’t the same shape as a trapezoid?
Yes. For aerodynamic contribution to drag at supersonic speeds.