Sign in to follow this  
Cruss

What is a "Wing Glove"

Recommended Posts

Hi all! 

I'm currently working on RO config files for the awesome Shuttle Orbiter Construction Kit made by @benjee10 

I've derived values based on the wing parts of Benjee's mod but I found this picture: 

Spoiler

nv2lAMe.jpg

Now, in this picture under GEOMETRY, then sweep, it states the leading edge sweep and instead of the trailing edge sweep, it lists a value for a "wing glove".

What is a wing glove lol? Google kinda fails me. Even more confusing, further down, under MAC, there is a DIHEDRAL value, for the trailing edge...

I'm kinda trying to use this data itself or, at the very least, use it to see if I did my calculations correctly, I derived a MAC of 13m+-. This discrepancy is probably due to the rescaled model or my stiff blender measuring skills. Hence I'm considering using these values instead.

Anyone who knows?

 

Edit: 

It seems wing gloves are used for heat protection and in the case of the orbiter it seems to refer to the strake/front section of the delta wing. I assume I can't use these values properly then given FAR's trapezoid approximation. The aft section of the delta wing from this mod seems to have a slightly different angle. 

Edited by Cruss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the sweep angle of 81*, I'd guess its the leading edge root extensions. Also a guess: it might be called  "wing glove" because it incorporates what would traditionally be the wing-body fairing into its construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Going by the sweep angle of 81*, I'd guess its the leading edge root extensions. Also a guess: it might be called  "wing glove" because it incorporates what would traditionally be the wing-body fairing into its construction.

I found this:

Spoiler

BT2jJ9B.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL#NASA_testing

And to quote a post on this forum:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=841589

Spoiler

Backing up a bit.

In the context of a production airplane, a "glove" is anything that fits closely over the airplane surface. The pneumatic de-ice boots found on the wing leading edges of some non-turbine airplanes are sometimes called "de-ice gloves."

In airplane test, a "glove" is a temporary aero shape applied over some part of the underlying structure.

The glove can be as close as possible to the shape & finish of the underlying structure, just providing a thin space to install sensors & leads. Or it can be some different shape or finish, where the whole point is to have different airflow there vs normal. Then you go fly the plane that way and measure the differences between the gloved test area and the normal case.
 

Perhaps the diagram I found is from a relatively early design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wing glove is the first, highly swept part of the wing. You can't simulate single-piece Space Shuttle wings with FAR. That is a known and annoying limitation, and is why the wing is split into multiple pieces in some mods. 

Quite frankly, I stopped bothering with FAR a while ago. It's performance-heavy, voxelization can be glitchy, and its handling of wings is hopelessly limited. Back when it was being worked on, I hoped voxelization would be applied to wings (so the plugin could figure out their shape from the model), but since this turned out not to be the case, I've simply stuck with stock aerodynamics. They're not perfect, but they provide a surprisingly similar experience, you need either FAR's own graphing tools or a long experience with serious flightsims to notice the difference.

TL;DR: Stick with stock aero, RO shouldn't really need FAR anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Wing glove is the first, highly swept part of the wing. You can't simulate single-piece Space Shuttle wings with FAR. That is a known and annoying limitation, and is why the wing is split into multiple pieces in some mods. 

Quite frankly, I stopped bothering with FAR a while ago. It's performance-heavy, voxelization can be glitchy, and its handling of wings is hopelessly limited. Back when it was being worked on, I hoped voxelization would be applied to wings (so the plugin could figure out their shape from the model), but since this turned out not to be the case, I've simply stuck with stock aerodynamics. They're not perfect, but they provide a surprisingly similar experience, you need either FAR's own graphing tools or a long experience with serious flightsims to notice the difference.

TL;DR: Stick with stock aero, RO shouldn't really need FAR anymore.

Very informative!

About the FAR limitation, I realised this, although it really means you can not model such a one piece wing very accurately, when I derived my values, it was essentially for a wing with a larger front section than the model is. If it wouldn't cause too much drag or heat during launch/reentry, I probably wouldn't be bothered by it. It shifts the aerodynamic center a bit forward, which could be a good thing.

I won't disagree on the voxelization and performance heaviness. This mod shows some assymmetry in the left and right side of the cargo section. I never pay too much attention to voxelization though. So I can't compare how severe it is really.

I do have quite a bit experience flying flight/combat sims and I always felt FAR was quite the upgrade compared to stock aerodynamics. Especially in terms of aerodynamic failures. I should also add that while I do have RO, I generally spend little time building rockets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original stock aero was ridiculously bad. FAR was a good workaround for anybody who cared.

The new aero is still not correct but much better. It's not as immersion-breaking as it used to be. I still like FAR because it still does a better job at making things that look aerodynamic act aerodynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, old aero was a joke. At the time, you needed FAR to have anything approaching a realistic experience. RO with souposphere was completely unplayable due to the sheer dV requirements it resulted in. This stopped being the case with 1.0. FAR does a decent job if you're making planes with procedural wings. If you're mostly doing rockets, it just gives you a performance hit, and for shuttles, it only works properly with mods that have multipart wings. I hoped for a wing code rewrite, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Yeah, old aero was a joke. At the time, you needed FAR to have anything approaching a realistic experience. RO with souposphere was completely unplayable due to the sheer dV requirements it resulted in. This stopped being the case with 1.0. FAR does a decent job if you're making planes with procedural wings. If you're mostly doing rockets, it just gives you a performance hit, and for shuttles, it only works properly with mods that have multipart wings. I hoped for a wing code rewrite, but I don't think that's going to happen.

I rely on b9 pwings for the majority of the time yeah! 

My biggest issue with stock aero was simply the way drag is calculated. 

I measured/calculated the wing values like this:

Spoiler

azxWNtX.jpg

Which is indeed not as aerodynamical but it might just work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this