Bush MiG!Seeing your model, I sure wish our field had some kind of smooth runway. I'm not quite liking the wheel size I need to roll over the sod with respect to the airplane.
View attachment 234188
I have looked at designing plastic springs a bit. My initial concept for the main gear on my F-104 used ABS for a leaf spring. The problem is that the stiffness of the plastic was too high relative to its yield strength, so either the gear wouldn't deflect enough to absorb much energy on softer landings, or it would break on heavier landings. I could have made the spring longer to get around the stiffness, but then you run into packaging issues.Do you use any other plastics even in small quantities... ABS, TPU, TPE, PC... etc?
I was thinking about a rising rate leaf spring might be useful. In ABS it would be quite resilient and PC would be able to make thinner and accomplish the same thing. They would be a whole lot lighter and than rubber bands, hinges and hooks... I would think. With your expertise in CFD, I'd imagine you have (or certainly could handle) non-linear FEM. You could set up cases for parked to any level of "bad" landing you think you'd be capable. (Me... I'd need air-bags and ejection seat) Although I think the FEM would be fun, I'd probably still just WAG it and permute it experimentally.
Obviously aspects of mains versus nose gear, lateral versus longitudinal, but you might even incorporate the gear door as part of the active spring... Something like this.
View attachment 234189
I want to experiment with TPU dampers, but I think you would still need a more conventional spring to return it to place (and the springs on the F-104 need an absurdly high rate for such a small footprint - I actually twisted three springs together in parallel to get it to work). Even with thicker walls, PETG is too porous so you would just lose all the air and have no spring force after a while. For this MiG, the tires are too small to do much of anything - they're most there to look cool. Pretty impressive that those wheels have survived three crashes. I hope the wheels I've designed hold up that well.Forgot to elaborate on the TPU/TPE. They might work great in an air-spring configuration... might make a great compression spring and replace something like your coiled spring in the F-104. You could even poke holes in it after printing to act as control orifices for damping like a air-shock-absorber. I've noted my tires in TPU do that naturally as I print single wall and the layering is rather porous. You squeeze them and they whistle. Perfect as shock absorption in my tundra tires.
This same wheel has now been on three crashed planes. Hard enough that I bent 1/8" music wire legs! The ABS spokes are quite fine at 0.8mm thick and yet they've taken a lot of abuse!
I did it intentionally to test the ABS wheels... That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
View attachment 234190
Bush MiG! View attachment 234193
I actually kind of want to try and fly it that way now, once I've tried it in the normal configurationI LOVE IT! A Mig as a tail dragger... PRICELESS!
Right now, I'm experimenting with PETG since it is less stiff than ABS and has better layer adhesion to try and get suspension in the nose gear on my F-104 since there isn't really space to package conventional springs.
If you have any recommendations for a free FEA software, I'd love to hear them. I did some looking a while back, but the best I could find was LISA which didn't offer enough nodes in the free version to do much of anything.
Yeah, Mecway is definitely pricey for something I would only get to use occasionally. It looks like sticking with hand calcs and experimentation is still the way to go. Fusion 360 does have an FEM module, but you have to use the subscription version, where I use the free version.I've only experimented with one roll of PETG. I didn't like because nothing sticks to it... glue or paint. BUT for your situation, I think it would be one of the best... only second to PC. Ever try breaking a CD/DVD?
I used Nastran professionally. Contract required it.
For my own use, I got Mecway when it was at version 0.9 and dirt cheap. The upgrades are free for life and its now up to version 18. It's also not cheap. It does all the things I've ever needed... Static, non-linear, dynamic, modal, buckling, orthotropic, anisotropic, and several things I've never used. I've also done some very large models even non-linear. - https://forum.flitetest.com/index.php?threads/inqd-turbo-storch.71382/page-4#post-737352
I've not checked it out, but I thought Fusion 360 had a FEM module.
I found an old bottle of blue paint. Turns out it doesn't stick to PLA. That happened before I even tried to fly it.Sorry to hear it... but at least you reached super sonic speeds first and blasted the paint off the tail!
First, right off the bat, you're completely right that this isn't really an adequate representation if I wanted to get great numbers. This model is not expected to be that accurate and is more for flow visualization. As a hobbyist, I don't have the resources to make it much better. You can actually see that the sealed nose cone has a predicted flow, probably due to a mesh issue, and I can't do anything about it since I'm right at the 200,000 node limit of Simflow. And the EDF unit isn't modeled at all. So while the model can help me see major issues, it isn't good enough for precise fine tuning and I haven't even tried to use it for that.With all the analytical on the front-end, do you have a plan to be able to quantify the results on the back-end? Seat of the pants is a little too qualitative... especially when the butt isn't in the airplane. As we all have experienced at one time or another putting a lot of thought/work/money/effort into something always makes us say that, "It is so much better." I'm not talking specifically about you here on this project. I see all the time... someone buys a new car (after replacing a two year old one of the same make) and its sooooo much better. It's human nature to justify large doses of thought/work/money/effort. Again... not you, in fact... I'm hoping you have more concrete plans to quantify the results because you went to this much effort on the front-end.
You've mentioned in previous posts about telemetry and even load-cells on motors. I've been thinking about pressure sensors for pitot tube and gathering data... mainly just for airspeed and altitude, but you might consider those for your projects as well... say, in the ducting area.
I really wonder if the Mathematical models you are using are really taking into account the hugely significant boundary layer based on scale. My first thought would be the layering of the 3D print would cause separation at the very beginning and you have total turbulent flow even within the shock-cone's region... giving up all hope of it being smooth somewhere inside. Although I know the CFD theory is sound, I'm dubious that modeling accuracy is not able to represent your actual airplane.
I have no formal training in CFD, but I do have quite a bit in the theory and practice using FEM. I can express it best by an example. Modeling a crack (or any high stress concentration region) in FEM can totally defeat a rookie engineer.
View attachment 234779
The top model would give a stress concentration of 2.0. The bottom would give significantly higher, but not anywhere near the theoretical value of infinity! And that is long before we'd get into non-linear plasticity effects and how they skew the results. Point being, from my position (the cheap seats ) if you're not modeling the actual 3D printed layers in the model's geometry, I would suspect that you're not giving the CFD enough detail to do its job on your airplane model.
Have you done a detailed model of say... just the inlet and run the grid resolution up into the millions of elements modeling every 3D print layer and see if you keep or lose laminar flow? For all I know... it wouldn't surprise me if you get into some shark-skin phenomenon and actually have better flow than a mirror finished duct!
I do have plans in the works to build a sensor package for external aerodynamics that will carry probably 8 pressure transducers, as well as an accelerometer for all 3 axes and a GPS, but that is still a ways out and would only be for much bigger planes than this
I want to make something that is aerodynamically unstable in all axes fly, but that is a very long term project
The short version is that the CFD is something I do for fun and isn't meant to be all that accurate. It lets me visualize the flow far better than I could without it and well enough to say that the new duct will be much better than the old, by some unknown amount.
I've only just started looking into it myself. This pack including a transducer, pitot tube, and tubing looks promising (Amazon.com: QWinOut PX4 Differential Airspeed Pitot Tube + Pitot Tube Airspeedometer Airspeed Sensor for Pixhawk PX4 Flight Controller : Toys & Games ) but it's too expensive if I'm getting 8, so I'm still looking myself.I've just barely started down this route. By chance... do you have any suggestions on extremely small / light weight tubing. Silicone type fish tubing is too heavy. The lightest (off-the-shelf) I've looked at is the fridge ice-maker tubing, or the small, black drip tubing. But I'd like to go smaller and lighter than those.
\
I've only just started looking into it myself. This pack including a transducer, pitot tube, and tubing looks promising (Amazon.com: QWinOut PX4 Differential Airspeed Pitot Tube + Pitot Tube Airspeedometer Airspeed Sensor for Pixhawk PX4 Flight Controller : Toys & Games ) but it's too expensive if I'm getting 8, so I'm still looking myself.