Results and Conclusions

When we ran our program, we left many of our variables constant to control the numbers and keep the objects in relation to one another. Two of such variables, mass and velocity, were left constant to get only one unknown (the drag), though they can be easily changed by the user. By inputting these as well as the basic shape and dimensions, into our program we were able to input our altitudes. Then the user defines the number of altitudes being tested. With all of the variables inputted the program will calculate the amount of drag on the respective object. We copied the drag numbers outputted, graphed, and charted them. After the numbers had been graphed we could see that all corresponding spans had corresponding drag amounts. These graphs showed that our box rapidly increased in drag with altitude. The cylinder and the cone increased at a lesser rate than the box, though at a similar rate with each other. Though the rate was similar, the cone still had less drag.! This supported our hypothesis that the cone would have a lesser drag. Though determining the amount of drag may seem easy, we ran into many problems. One of the largest problems is verifying the amount of drag. To overcome this obstacle we instead printed out the coefficient of drag and compared it to a chart in Marks’ Mechanical Engineers’ Handbook. Part of this massive barrier was also defining the Oswold efficiency factor, a factor usually determined through wind tunnel experimentation. We estimated this number, changing in until we achieved the correct coefficient of drag. If we were to have more time on this project we would probably use a wind tunnel to determine the Oswold efficiency factor and the coefficient of drag.




Go back to final report table of contents.
Go back to home page.