You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The tail cone sizing also is defaulting to using the skin bending stress limit to size the tail cone that needs to resist shear due to the vertical tail generated torsion:
The shear strength (depending on the material) can be a fair bit lower than the YTS which would mean that the cone skin thickness is not adequately sized per the current code.
A little concerned that I'm misinterpreting something about the conceptual abstraction of the smeared out semi-monocoque design so I've reached out to Mark to confirm. Will update the issue accordingly.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Mark says this is tricky and is just one sizing criteria he used - the real cone sizing might be more complex and he's not really sure what sizes the skin gauge. Updated the cone to use the materials type for consistency in #57 and will look to see if any comparably tractable approach is recommended in the literature to better size the tail cone.
The tail cone sizing also is defaulting to using the skin bending stress limit to size the tail cone that needs to resist shear due to the vertical tail generated torsion:
TASOPT.jl/src/structures/fuseW.jl
Lines 139 to 142 in 90a11ce
and
TASOPT.jl/src/structures/fuseW.jl
Lines 259 to 269 in 90a11ce
The shear strength (depending on the material) can be a fair bit lower than the YTS which would mean that the cone skin thickness is not adequately sized per the current code.
A little concerned that I'm misinterpreting something about the conceptual abstraction of the smeared out semi-monocoque design so I've reached out to Mark to confirm. Will update the issue accordingly.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: