[aerohead]

1) Rocketail is a fixed auxiliary-wing, high-lift device, with ancestry back to G. Lachmann & Handley Page Aircraft Company.
2) It is a 'staggered vane' device, borrowing from a slotted, Fowler-Flap wing of high camber.
3) outside a very narrow design window, these can be very high drag, and very low efficiency.
4) they are designed for 'flight' conditions, away from Earth's ambient turbulent boundary layer, and certainly, away from any anthropogenic turbulence.
5) as reported by Hucho , Schlichting, and Hoerner, staggered vanes were investigated by Frey, and reported on in ' Reduction of Drag by Means of Guide Vanes, Forschung Ingenierwesen, 1933 p. 67, 1934, p. 105, and March 1983, pp 67-74.
6) From Hucho: ' guide vane's drag exceeded any base pressure-related drag reduction. All attempts to apply the results achieved on two dimensional aerofoils to three dimensional bodies in close ground proximity have so far failed.
7) Rocketail could simply be a more elaborate and sophisticated version of the same wrongness.
8) Rocketail adds frontal area
9) Rocketail adds its own profile drag
10) Rocketail adds its own interference drag
11) Rocketail affects only 43% of the wake. 57% is unaffected at all
12) Injecting a high-velocity curtain of air into a horizontal avalanche of turbulence does not undo the turbulence
13) the energy required to create the curtain creates an energy deficit at its source.
14) The pressure at Rocketail is no higher than at the separation line.
15) Injecting a low-pressure, shearing jet into a low pressure turbulent wake, and increasing base pressure would defy the laws of physics?
It's incumbent upon the creators of Rocketail to better explain the mechanism by which it lowers drag.
If staggered vanes previously failed, then, by adding whipped cream and a cherry on top and expecting better results, what alteration to the laws of physics have undergone change to allow this discrepancy?