I worked in a lab with a couple of aerdynamicists back then. This is before CFD. They always described it as a "black art". They knew, respected, Vizard's knowledge of air flow, for indeed it was, and still is IMO a "black art". Why I still listen carefully when JDC speaks. That knowledge comes from years of work and close observation, you just can't replace those, many years of experience, and the knowledge gained, easily, even with CFD.
I worked 34 years as an aerospace engineer at the Lockheed Martin Low Speed Wind Tunnel (see my profile photo). When I was in grad school back in the mid-80's, we were told that in 10 years, CFD would replace the wind tunnel. By the mid-90's, CFD had advanced to the point that, in 10 years, the wind tunnels would be obsolete. In the mid 2000's, I worked on an F-16 project testing CFD-designed parts. Most of them didn't work and they were over-nighting us new parts to try almost daily, telling us that these were the latest updated parts that should work. We did eventually get parts that worked but CFD was still in developmental stages and needed 10 more years or so. By the time I retired last year, CFD had improved so much that in 10 years, wind tunnel testing will probably no longer be required. I can't tell you how many tests we ran to "validate and fine tune the CFD code," i.e., change the code so it matches the wind tunnel results. CFD has been somewhat helpful in gross configuration development but it will never replace the wind tunnel, just as the wind tunnel will never eliminate the need for flight test. There definitely is something to be said for the "black art" of airflow.
BTW, we had our own definition for CFD, Can't F'ing Decide..... Sorry for the rant, I'll get off my soap box now!
Show Posts
