aeronautical simulation..

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by scifes, Jun 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    hello all..

    i'm not sure if this should be here or in Intellegence and Machines or the Computer subforums..

    i want to design something that'll penetrate the atmosphere and reach a point with zero g..

    i'v settled on solid works for the model design..mainly because i heard it includes the physical properties of the material used in the model..(friction, density, and many other physical coefficients), that's true, right? and if you know any program with the same feature please tell me about it..

    the program i'm actually inquiring about is one in which i can open my saved model and apply mechanical operations on it..mainly thrust and lift and the lot..something similar to what a spaceship or a rocket might experience..

    it doesn't have to to have all those functions built in..if it has simple basic stuff like force, speed, acceleration and the such.. i GUESS it would be ok..
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Depending on exactly what you want out of it (and which version of SolidWorks) Cosmos is a motion package that's part of SolidWorks.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,730
    FEA analysis can be applied to almost any digital model. It's usually a separate program.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    i actually have COMSOL demo discs from long ago..i ruled them out as useless cuz they seemed very complicated at that time..i guess i'll give them another look..

    as for FEA analysis..-visiting uncle google-
    ..
    ACTUALLY ROCKS!! COMSOL too, i remember COMSOL as text and line based, it's how i envisioned FEA too, but they seem fairly visual, just how i like them..

    i'll look more into these..hope they're not too advanced for me..
    from wiki;
    @COMSOL
    i guess i'll go with Structural Mechanics Module + Material Library..

    @FEA..nopies..it's ugly..lots and lots of equations..i run away from math without looking back..a GUI would be optimum..


    but one small big problem with both of these, also present in solid works..

    they're too mild..too peaceful, lazy..i'm looking for something to try out BANGS and BOOMS..that's why i said "aeronautical"..as in "send things flying"..

    unless i'm being a child and failing to see the bigger picture..that the bangs and booms are analyzed and done in slow motion in the like of the suggested programs and so seem boring..

    i had something like this in mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :
    http://www.phunland.com/wiki/Home

    TRUST ME IT'S WORTH DOWNLOADING...DON'T MISS IT..
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,730
    Good luck with that.
     
  9. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    COMSOL is not Cosmos, Cosmos is integrated with SolidWorks.

    Er, COMSOL is an FEA package.

    They're "too mild" because they're designed to be looked at to spot potential problems

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    they run the action s l o w l y.
    What you seem to be looking for is something on the order of a flight sim editor - X-Plane* may be what you're after, or Aircraft Factory**.

    Correct, because that's what those packages are designed for - analysis, not "pretty pictures"***.
    And it's highly unlikely you'll get hold of a genuine "bangs and booms" software set (i.e. explosion modelling), the two I'm aware of are licensed ONLY to large professional organisations (or NATO-associated professional organisations) and cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.

    * X-Plane is a combined flight sim and aircraft designer (AFAIK you can do rockets as well).
    ** Aircraft Factory is a (fairly simple) modelling system that is compatible with Microsoft Flight Sim and Combat Flight Sim, but isn't tremendously accurate on weights, moment arms, flight physics etc etc.
    *** I've lost count of the number of times my ex-managing director has narrowly skirted instant death from showing potential customers round and asking me to pull up a "pretty picture" to show said customer what we made and how it worked.
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
  11. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    DAMN..so FEA is a technique..
    it seems the more a program appears to be distinctive fro FEA the easier it woul be..

    besides, what simulation techniques are there which are easier than FEA based?


    one word: awesome..
    i'm in the procces of getting me a copy, might not help in my project..but is fun enough.
    the aircraft factory is an ambigous title to find on the internet and seems associated with old versions of Flight Simulator..

    i'd better keep my mouth shut.
    just give me their names:mufc:


    i've also got hold of a Matlab copy.. i was told it's an all in one pakage..and i know it's a language "spoken" by a great portion of engineers world wide..
    but i want to hear what you guys have to say about it..is it good for simulation?
     
  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Of course it's a technique: FEA = Finite Element Analysis.

    Build one and test it to destruction.

    Ha! You wish.
    You won't find a bootleg torrent download of them, and unless/ until you get NATO military accreditation AND ~$30,000 you're just sat hoping...
    I haven't even found a "Janet and John" version of the software.

    Strangely I find that it's scientists that use Matlab and MathCAD that's used by engineers.
    I wouldn't be without MathCAD.
     
  13. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    i know, that's what wiki says, but the name indicates nothing with the way programs are called these days..


    lol you're tempting me..but with all the BANGS and BOOMS i'm not sure i can go beyond the first test

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    loool.. aww man thanks for bursting my bubble..but it's interesting to know you've walked the path i intended to before me..
    but still, i would like the names if it's possible..PM them if you have to..

    (groan) now you're telling me?
    so you say math works..good for simulations and easier than COMSOL.
     
  14. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Ah, okay.

    That's why the programmes were developed - and they're made to run slowly (well simulate slowly) so that the exact pattern of failure can be seen.

    I'll see if I can find them: it's a while since I looked - and I gave up in the end because there was no way I could get hold of them: not even my contacts could get me a copy.
    At one time there was a free copy of CHAM Phoenix (Sp? they may have spelt it differently for the programme) available on the net, but it was DOS-based. Might be worth a search for you.

    Maths ALWAYS works!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    One reason I love MathCAD so much is that I got a 60% discount - there are limited use versions available as testers, (at the time I stated you had to get them on floppy) and I got each version as it came out, after a couple of years I ended up on their "preferred scientist/ engineer" list and qualified for discount. Nice.
    http://www.adeptscience.co.uk/lp/ma...5=2794030194&gclid=CJGLn-D_wJsCFY4U4wodMkPQEA

    You can also sign up for the newsletter, Adept Scientific do a number of engineer-friendly software packages Vis Sim being another I use.
     
  15. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    i'll appreciate it if you do..
    CHAM seems v.interesting..i'll look more into it..nothing indicates i have to run it with DOS commands..
     
  16. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    MathCAD is the engineering counterpart for Matlab.
     
  17. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    i'll take your word for it and settle with it..i hope it has from math only a little more than it's name..i HATE math..
     
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The entire programme is designed for engineering mathematics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,410
    Are you really talking outside the sun's sphere of influence - i.e. interstellar distances?

    Bear in mind that anything can be launched into space, given sufficient thrust behind it.
    And you should question whether working out detailed analysis of structural coefficients will be of any use, when you could just make an assumption of the overall coefficient for the vehicle - where cross-sectional shape is also important.

    And remember that once out of the atmosphere there is no real need to consider drag / friction unless you're really going for realism and are in low-earth orbit.

    You need to also bear in mind the specific impulse of your fuel source.
    This, together with the various rocket equations, will determine what velocity you can achieve. The faster you want to go, the more fuel you need, the more it weighs, the more fuel you need etc...

    So are you really just after a program to see if a given structural design can withstand the pressures/heat of a launch?

    Otherwise I remain somewhat confused as to your ultimate objective here?
     
  20. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
  21. lindapret88 Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    I am not so knowledgeable about this matter. So i have to learn it. Thanks for the post.

    htt p://pret-auto.org taux pret auto[/u]
     
  22. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    :jawdrop:
    i just want to design something that passes a simulation suggesting it'll actually reach there, the physical manufacturing, actual launch, and a mission or purpose are still far away:bawl:..interstellar he says


    very very very interesting, never thought of that..seems like a big shortcut, and a smart way to tackle the monster knot of things to consider, i just hope i don't find out it's useless in the end :grumble:

    out the atmosphere, out of mind...i don't care if it smashes into a GPS satellite..
    that's where my creativity kicks in..
    mm, bring soup, read has finished, bring bread, soup has finished, bring soup, again bread has finished...

    ...velocity..

    i don't care much for speed, just as long as it reaches there, i'm actually even considering a balloon..

    a program to suggest my Solid Works design will reach a hight of zero g..withstand whatever that needs..

    for some reason that link is blocked..our university has a nasty proxy..
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,410
    Scifes, you keep mentioning zero-g - yet nothing in our solar system is under the effect of zero-g until it escapes the sphere of influence of our sun. Everything that orbits the sun is under the effect of the sun's gravitational influence (g = c.275 m/s2) and everything that orbits the earth or is on earth is under a gravitational acceleration of c.9.8 m/s2.

    To determine whether or not you'll get where you want to go you only really need to consider velocity.
    Anything less than 11.2 km/s would see you end up in orbit around the earth.
    The shuttle usually gets to around 7.5 km/s or so.
    A velocity of 11.2 km/s will enable you to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth, but you'd still be caught in orbit around the sun.
    A velocity of just under 618 km/s would see you escape the solar system.
    Anything over 1,000 km/s might even see you able to escape the galaxy, given sufficient time.

    So once you know what speed you're looking for, strap on a rocket and fire away.

    And a balloon will not reach orbit - it can never go fast enough.


    And there is no height with zero-g... "g" is the acceleration due to gravity, which for the Earth is 9.81 m/s2.

    I think what you mean is that you wish to achieve orbital velocity (i.e. "weightlessness") - which for a low-earth circular orbit is roughly 7 km/s2.

    Or if you are after just a few seconds of it where you top out an aircraft within the atmosphere and let it free-fall for a while... this is somewhat less.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page