Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
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.
|
It's not hard to understand. Attached flow is attached flow. Sometimes attached flow is caused by downwash.
As in
Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles (5th edition P 37):
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.
As in, what Adrian Gaylard wrote to me (the quote is in my book):
With an effective backlight angle approaching 30 degrees, it’s often better to separate it as the drag can be lower for a fully separated rear flow, compared to one where rear pillar vortices are keeping the rear screen flow attached on a high screen angle.
Unfortunately this is yet another example where you make up your own definitions of words, and not follow what is in the technical literature.
And, once someone makes up their own definition of technical terms, it's not too many steps to then making up theories that revolve around those wrongly defined words.