Teardrop trailer aerodynamic advice

[Tugger]

There is a number of very early 20th century videos on Youtube,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6RzO_p0SYs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnMDXaCIzY

And the same stuff 100 years later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NPNiyR5cWo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F73zn1cLNr4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1gEXs_gna4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Sepx2h_Tw

[Tugger]

How do you get to do "fake science" as opposed to "doing real science"?

And exactly who is the recognised authority that you had brought in to determine the difference?

And exactly what is the difference between doing "unrecognised fake science" and "recognised real science" - as going by your own expert standard?

[Tugger]

Here is a really good fake scientist, doing fake science, that is not recognised.

He like me, is a total phoney, in terms of aerospace engineering, and putting payloads into orbit as well.

Speaker Bio:
Doug McLean is a retired Boeing Technical Fellow. At Boeing, he worked on CFD codes for transonic wing design, codes for airplane spanload optimization including the effect of structural weight, novel wingtip devices to reduce induced drag, transonic airfoil technology, swept-wing laminar flow, turbulent skin-friction reduction, and pressure-sensitive paint. He received a B.A. in physics from the University of California at Riverside in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences from Princeton University in 1970. He is the author of Understanding Aerodynamics - Arguing from the Real Physics (Wiley, 2012), which is intended to promote greater physical understanding of aerodynamics. He has designed his own model airplanes since he was a youngster and held a national record in the Pennyplane class of indoor rubber-powered models.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Published on Oct 21, 2013
Doug McLean, retired Boeing Technical Fellow, discusses several examples of erroneous ways of looking at phenomena in aerodynamics, that have either taken hold in parts of the aerodynamics community or have been expressed in books or papers by other authors. These examples are mostly about interpreting the basic physics of the phenomenon in question.
Most are from his book Understanding Aerodynamics - Arguing from the Real Physics, but a couple of them are new. Examples will include ways of explaining the lift of a wing or the thrust of a rocket in intuitive physical terms, interpretations of the induced drag of a wing and how tip devices such as winglets work, widespread misunderstandings of how lift is manifested in the global flowfield around a wing, the common pitfalls of discussing pressure drag and thrust, and common misunderstandings of the accuracy of CFD.
Although these topics involve a wide variety of physical phenomena, Dr. McLean will attempt to identify the common threads. An appropriate subtitle for this talk would be An Argumentative Aerodynamicist Gets Old and Cranky and Takes Issue with Just About Everyone.
Sponsored by the Aerospace Engineering Department (Welcome | Aerospace Engineering) as part of the 585 Lecture Series.



MORE: Watch additional Lectures On Demand or join the discussion at http://mconnex.engin.umich.edu/lectures/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCK4lJLQHU

[freebeard]

He like me, is a total phoney, in terms of aerospace engineering, and putting payloads into orbit as well.

Speaker Bio:
Doug McLean is a retired Boeing Technical Fellow. .... He received a B.A. in physics from the University of California at Riverside in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences from Princeton University in 1970. He is the author of Understanding Aerodynamics - Arguing from the Real Physics (Wiley, 2012)

B.A., Ph.D., published author? He might object to your calling him a 'total phoney'. Not to say there aren't aerodynamic concepts that never found favor in the mainstream.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/technolog...sa-wing-design

The Prandtl-D wing lay dormant from the 1930s to today. Nothing more complicated that increased wingspan and wash-out at the tips.

[Hersbird]

From what I have seen most science these days is far from science. Maybe it would be better to start out with an open mind rather then start out with a thesis. It used to be a scientist was just as happy to prove himself wrong, now it seems they will do whatever it takes to end up at the "truth" they know exists before they even start.

[seifrob]

Come on, tugger. You are making quite useful thread a rubbish. Go express yourself to facebook, if you don't want to be of any help to subject.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

From what I have seen most science these days is far from science. Maybe it would be better to start out with an open mind rather then start out with a thesis. It used to be a scientist was just as happy to prove himself wrong, now it seems they will do whatever it takes to end up at the "truth" they know exists before they even start.

That's what led Bucky Fuller to Synergetics. He said (of experiments) "You never learn less."

seifrob — The answer to rubbish speech is more speech. I like the thread's subject. What do you think of this?


DREAMLINER

I like the way the trailer is shaped like the prow of a ship to part the wake of the tow vehicle. If you go to the linked page you see the box trailer donor and the fat-fendered street rod tow vehicle.

Tugger — I for one appreciate your link to the GM Streamlines video (a Jam Handy Organization production) if nothing else.

But, based on other's feedback, time to up you game, bucko.

[Tugger]

I was in a meeting of crazies recently - who respond to things the way that crazies do.

LOL

When faced with statistics, facts and hard work, the entire meeting erupted into them showing the world, what kind of characters they were.

Dishonest, lazy, manipulative, selfish, nasty, self centered ingrates.....

Having torpedoed their own futures, they though their delusional insanity, that waving good bye as they sank below the waves, was the same as saying "Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out..."

In 3 to 5 months time, most of these losers will be dead and buried or gone.

I like nasty losers - they are good to laugh at.

In the meantime, I shall continue on in my work as an aerospace engineer, and you can all enjoy each others company.

[freebeard]

I'm getting a lot of false equivalence and projection in that, but... whatever.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Tugger

I was in a meeting of crazies recently - who respond to things the way that crazies do.

LOL

When faced with statistics, facts and hard work, the entire meeting erupted into them showing the world, what kind of characters they were.

Dishonest, lazy, manipulative, selfish, nasty, self centered ingrates.....

Having torpedoed their own futures, they though their delusional insanity, that waving good bye as they sank below the waves, was the same as saying "Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out..."

In 3 to 5 months time, most of these losers will be dead and buried or gone.

I like nasty losers - they are good to laugh at.

In the meantime, I shall continue on in my work as an aerospace engineer, and you can all enjoy each others company.

*Aeronautical engineering and automotive engineering diverged by 1922.
*Fineness ratios of wings and fuselage essentially guaranteed attached flow,and the focus for drag reduction was reducing surface friction drag,as there was no pressure drag.
*Automotive drag is governed by pressure drag,which is a function of flow separation.
The premise of automotive drag reduction is the reduction or elimination of flow separation.
*Since the atmosphere on the ground is already turbulent

we can't do anything about turbulent boundary layer-induced surface friction,so we concentrate on separated flow.You cannot have a 'laminar' body in ground proximity unless you drive below 20-mph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to table-top aerodynamics,here's an example:
*a 1:24-scale model requires a 480-mph airspeed in the test section to establish 'dynamic similarity/verisimilitude,and a turbulent boundary layer (which is what we have above 20-mph).
*if you were to blow a 480-mph wind over the model you'd be into transonic flow, compressibility effects,and shockwave drag,which never occur with a road vehicle.
*According to Ockham's razor,we don't need to carry the discussion any further.