What? (dang) Another assumption bites the dust. (I noted that
your web reference says this misconception is common enough to
have made the 'bad science' page)
Thanks - neat thing about this list is that I learn something new
every day.
Can I assume that a teardrop is still a good aerodynamic shape?
What is the 'best' aerodynamic shape? Does the best shape change
as frontal area changes? (I realize that ground effects will
require a change to the perfect free air shape.)
Are we back to a belly tank with a stabilizing fin?
If raindrops were teardrop shaped, would they pelt the living
daylights out of you if caught in a downpour?
Thanks,
Jim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Siewert [mailto:mdsiewer@ucalgary.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: Teardrop red herring?
I keep seeing the tear-drop referrenced as a natural aerodymamic
shape. It bugs me. 'cause raindrops are pretty much spherical.
Liquids take on a spherical shape when falling through air, that's how
lead shot is made.
http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/my_pages/raindrops/raindrop.htm
--
--
Michael D. Siewert
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed
/// what is needed. It isn't that difficult, folks.
|