Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
Well, you're on your own.
I have already said how the head of Jaguar aero described flow attached through the action of downwash as 'attached flow', and today I noticed that the Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles (5th edition P 37) does the same. In describing the tuft pattern on the Adler (1930s?) the book says:
On both sides the vortices roll up, pull down the flow coming over the roof, and keep it attached until the lower end of the slant.
So you can either be big enough to admit your mistake and correct it, or you can do as you have always done in the past and just say that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
|
1) If that's the case, then It's my opinion that, the head of Jaguar aerodynamics has done a great injustice to the audience.
2) There's a REASON why the term 'downwash' exists.
3) There's a REASON why the term 'attached flow' exists.
4) To use the two interchangeably is a disservice to the aerodynamics community.
5) Providing his actual quote would help isolate and reveal any potential opportunity for mistranslation. In a trial, it would be submitted within the prosecution's brief, as evidence, during the discovery process.
6) The observation about the Adler does not validate your claim whatsoever.
7) The tufts orientation is fully explained within the context of separated flow phenomena, by default.
8) I've made no mistake. I know exactly what I'm looking at.
9) While I understand your experience, I also understand that your conclusion comes from a position of underinformed observation.