Test currently used scaling guidelines and see if they can be improved

[avikde]

• test the "guidelines" for scaling from Noah

Follow ons:

• maneuverability criteria - Add maneuverability criterion - generate new traj #87
• scaling etc. Even without maneuverability, propose specific manufacturing step with param opt #88

[avikde]

Got these components

Traj0

Opt @ 0.3

2.61981 19.0112 1.12077 5.88714 5.68815

Opt @ 0.5

2.61249 19.0111 1.12201 5.85188 5.66124

Opt @ 0.7

2.68869 19.0112 1.09229 6.35143 5.45953

Opt @ 1.0

3.84079 19.0113 1.02177 11.4648 7.87815

Conclusion

• opt @ 1.0 compare to traj0 is a good one to put up
• inertial roughly canceling stiffness - that is the definition of resonance. I.e. this is finding resonance correctly

[avikde]

Comparing Noah sizing relation 8d36c20

traj0

param = [3.07261 19.0111 1.10365 7.89476 6.67355], Iw = 2.6048738163297656, optal = 0.8

param = [4.60893 19.0112 0.868932 14.472 8.13797], Iw = 4.6145108467009495, optal = 1.2

param = [6.14524 19.0111 0.519425 17.9337 5.91936], Iw = 4.903880751307845, optal = 1.6

Conclusion

• at some point more act force is required. what is it cancelling? See notes - this is answered
• What does it mean that this is going against the Noah sizing model? Is this valuable?

Conclusions 2:

• coupling can be clearly seen
• if possible to make wings clearly more lift possible

[avikde]

Depth is more important than breadth... should try and push this to conclude a specific manufacturing step.