Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugger
Who's manuals of genius are you trolling to come up with statements like this from?
"*Aeronautical engineering and automotive engineering diverged by 1922."
That makes as much sense are sticking enough apples up your bum to puke up apple pies.
I think you like to make up crap, to try and win your own arguments, by sounding important to yourself.
LOL
The rest of it is total bull**** too.
A relatively stable air flow at desk fan speeds from a ceiling extraction fan and a partially open window (venturi), with an incense stick for the smoke, will perfectly and adequately demonstrate boundary separation and the turbulence of drag.
An aerodynamically smooth object will flow through the air nicely, and a shoe box won't....
Hence the issue of making a box trailer, in the general profile of a nuclear submarine - of which there are countless examples all around us.
Rounded fronts, blended leading in and out tapers, and a tapered tail... with smooth surfaces all over....
I am so awesome. And I know it.
|
*If you'll review your fluid mechanics text,you'll remember that your constant,stable drag coefficient cannot be achieved until your Reynolds number is supercritical and you have a fully turbulent boundary layer.
*Since Reynolds number is a function of vehicle length,velocity,and kinematic viscosity,you can compute that,say,a 1:24-scale model would require a test section air velocity of 480-mph.
*From your fluid mechanics text,you'd also be reminded that for road vehicles in ground proximity,that you'd be operating in a compressible-flow regime and have supersonic shockwaves forming on your model,something which never happens to a 1:1-scale vehicle at legal posted speeds.
Since your degree in aeronautical engineering was predicated upon a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering,all is needed for you ,is to re-visit your reference library.
* I'm using my FLUID MECHANICS with Engineering Applications,by Franzini et al..
Any text in Fluid Mechanics will suffice.