You are right on that, but still, if we talk about the height of rib
somebody can be confused with the vertical thichness of the rib. So what is
the problem with using the term camber? If you just explain it, it is not
difficult, isn't it?
2010/1/15 Bill Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
>
>
> This method of describing the % camber may be more correct but I fail to
> see why it should be applied to a single surface airfoil as is used on
> indoor models. Since the upper and lower surfaces are for all practical
> purposes identical then the camber line would also be identical to the upper
> surface.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Kevin Lamers <kevin.lamers_at_gmail.com>
> *To:* Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2010 9:15 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Dang it....
>
>
>
> I think it's much better to learn newcomers the right terms and
> nomenclature, instead of starting with easier terms that are more confusing.
> This will prevent a lot of misconceptions.
> So Ren:
> There are two values that describe a airfoil (a wing section, or rib),
> these are the thickness and camber. Thickness is the distance from the upper
> to the lower surface of the rib, generaly we speak about the maximum
> thichness. For example, a thickness of 5% at a 20cm chord (length of a rib)
> means a maximum thickness of 1cm.
> The camberline represents a line axactly inbetween the upper and lower
> surface. This line has a slight curvature. The highest point of this line in
> the max. camber and is also denoted as a percentage of the chord.
> You can see these terms also in the next picture:
> http://airfoils.worldofkrauss.com:8888/images/airfoil_definitions.png
>
> Kevin
>
> 2010/1/15 ray_harlan <rbharlan_at_comcast.net>
>
>>
>>
>> For a newcomer, I think we should be talking about max rib height. Since
>> the airfoil section essentially has zero thickness, then this height is the
>> same as camber. But that is an aero engineering term that modellers may not
>> be familiar with. The commonality of modelling terms may be a bit different
>> on the other side of the pond.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "John Barker" <john.barker783_at_...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ray and Fred
>> > I don't want to be picky but should we be talking about camber instead
>> of thickness. Those of us who have been dabbling in these things for years
>> have shorthand ways of talking that we all understand but Ren, being a
>> newcomer, may be puzzled, particularly after the correction from degrees to
>> percent.
>> > John
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Jan 16 2010 - 01:39:59 CET
