View Single Post
Old 12-18-2009, 07:45 PM   #347 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
Nerys's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
OK that inflatable wing. THATS BAD ASS!! but note he said low reynolds numbers.

Remember when they said a bee aerodynamically could not fly? well they are right. It can't. IF you apply normal aerodynamic laws to the situation.

what they later discovered is that when you drop the reynolds numbers (IE small things) the rules do not apply the same way. its a "different" set of rules in force on smaller scales.

that wing would not be as aerodynamic on a 747 since the reynolds number of a 747 puts it into the realm of NORMAL aero rules.

I believe our cars would definately be in the "normal" realm.

that wing is also taking advantage of the same process a golf ball uses. if you make the air more turbulent IE add "energy" it can remain attached over a greater divergent angle IE the round shape of the golf ball or this inflatable wing.

metrompg already has attached flow so he would gain NO advantage from adding energy to the air stream. it would only hurt him.

what is interesting is that you might be able to make a boat tail HALF as long as metrompg's and yet be ALMOST as effective as his if you add the dimples on the latter half of your tail. the increase energy would allow the airstream to approximate the effect of his longer tail without the need for the longer tail.

whether this is possible how much effect it would have and how precise you would need to be I have no idea. BUT thats the idea anyway.

I am really stoked about that inflatable wing! I am already envisioning my L1 project using those! got to see if I can figure out how they made it rigid!
  Reply With Quote