Aerodynamics thread

[Air Force Brat]

Is that what this argument is about? Because if you review what I've actually said I made no claim of the sort.

This sounds like our little buddy re-incarnated, lots of math and force diagrams, together with enough blah-blah to fill a couple of "portable krappers"????

 

[latenlazy]

This sounds like our little buddy re-incarnated, lots of math and force diagrams, together with enough blah-blah to fill a couple of "portable krappers"????

I'm just confused about why I'm even having this conversation, at this point, because he keeps attacking me on points I never even made, while completely ignoring the actual points I'm trying to make.

 

[vesicles]

Do you know what is model do not you? Model are representations of reality, but not the reality it self, you whole speech that by the way was way too long and boring honestly, goes to fail to say something very simple, if a mathematical model fails, is because the model is not correct, so then you have to modify the model, of course experimentation validates the model, however the language is math, not some obscure magical reality.

To put it simple, new equations are made when the original ones cannot explain reality and the model falls short, in example Maxwell equations that fixed some of the short comings of the Gauss, Ampere and Faraday`s laws.

What you are simply hiding is the fact, the whole language of engineering and science is Math, no modern theory is purely theoretical, since the scientific method demands experimentation.

Now no modern engineer will express his words with pure human language, you need Math, once the Math is clear, the theory can be expressed with words.


Here you have guys, how only say, due to their ignorance, that Math is not important, experimentation is everything, give me a break, engineering`s language and only real tool is math.

My goodness! It has been a while since the last time I encountered someone wth such polarized view. This and combined with your childish attitude toward people, with whom you disagree, suggests that you must be at most a freshman in college. A math major? Probably just finished a couple of 100-level math classes? While it is good you are so enthusiastic about what you study, being so close-minded like that is certainly not a good thing.

First of all, I never said anything like "theory is nothing and experimentalist is everything". If that's what you came up with after reading my "long" and "boring" post, I seriously doubt your choice of major. I wrote that long post for a reason. Go back and read it again and see if you can actually get it.

Secondly, write down the content of the last few of your own posts and show it to your math professors and see what hey think of your view on theoretical modeling. Btw, please be so kind to yourself and don't tell them you wrote that. If they found out, you won't get any chance of getting an internship.

FYI, I am not an engineer nor am I a pure experimentalist. I do both theoretical modeling and experiments. Judging from how you describe simulation and modeling, you have not done any actual modeling work. Probably just learned a few curve-fitting tricks from textbooks. It would be wise of you to listen to someone who has been there and done that.

I have broken up my paragraphs into short ones. Hopefully, it all help you comprehend what I am saying.

 

[Engineer]

Of course it is not. With current engines, J-20 is probably slightly faster then J-10, but wing loading is absolutely lower on J-10 . Also, with current engines J-10 has advantage in T/W . Therefore, I'm absolutely positive that J-10 would beat J-20 in close combat .

That argument doesn't work, since wing loading is a bad metric for gauging a modern fighter aircraft's performance. Indeed, J-20 is designed to be better than J-10, not only in speed but in maneuverability as well. This is evident from the degree to which vortex lift is used. You have the right to be absolutely positive about your assumption, but that can't make reality agree with said assumption.

Therefore, you admit that wing still generates most of the lift

Whether a wing can generate more lift or less lift does not change the fact that canard generates lift. Canard contributes to lift, end of story, regardless of how some people insist otherwise.

And btw, other fighters also use vortex lift, so any advantage from advanced could be just a "fraction from the fraction" to use your terminology.

Vortex lift is additive. That is, if a leading edge extension and a canard can each enhance lift by the same amount, then combining them together would result in twice as much additional lift.

Also, diagram shows that canards do not generate additional lift in normal flight (AoA close to zero), for obvious reasons.

The diagram shows canard generates additional lift when the aircraft's angle-of-attack is close to zero. The reason is that canard still generates vortex in that situation, thereby contributing to lift.

What your diagrams fail to show is increase of drag with deployed canards.

Diagram shows that with canards you could have better lift, but with more drag .

You are contradicting yourself. The reason this happens is because you are making up theories as you go along. The diagram shows canard can generate more lift with less drag, simply because the C[sub]L[/sub] versus C[sub]D[/sub] curve for canard is situated higher within the graph.

Purpose of canard is exactly that - convert more of the kinetic energy (speed) into potential energy (height via lift) . Nothing more, nothing less.

That's the purpose of a wing too, and it does not support the argument that canard contributes to more drag.

Energy transferred to vortex is lost to plane (less kinetic energy) . Purpose of capturing vortex is exactly that - to get part of that energy back to plane . Energy efficiency is a tricky question in this case, but I doubt it could be better then 80% .

Vortex energy is only loss when the energy is not recaptured. In the case of vortex lift by canard, the energy is recaptured to enhance lift. Even with an efficiency of 80%, a canard is still better since the efficiency would be worse without the canard. This is evident in the graph.

 

[F-15]

This sounds like our little buddy re-incarnated, lots of math and force diagrams, together with enough blah-blah to fill a couple of "portable krappers"????

good justifications to show you can not understand math, to put it in context many truck drivers can drive a car but it does not mean they can design and make a close circuit that controls the ignition of their cars.

Same you, you showed your credentials saying i am a pilot, but i am sure you can not really design a jet fighter, therefore you belittle math, instead of being humble and acknowledge Math is the real basis of aerospace engineering, your pride can more than your thirst of knowledge

 

[vesicles]

good justifications to show you can not understand math, to put it in context many truck drivers can drive a car but it does not mean they can design and make a close circuit that controls the ignition of their cars.

Same you, you showed your credentials saying i am a pilot, but i am sure you can not really design a jet fighter, therefore you belittle math, instead of being humble and acknowledge Math is the real basis of aerospace engineering, your pride can more than your thirst of knowledge

M goodness. Have you realized that you have been describing yourself?? Compared with you, Sheldon Cooper would be good ole humble Texan. So condecending! Such prejudice! Such elitist! Keep it up.

 

[F-15]

My goodness! It has been a while since the last time I encountered someone wth such polarized view. This and combined with your childish attitude toward people, with whom you disagree, suggests that you must be at most a freshman in college. A math major? Probably just finished a couple of 100-level math classes? While it is good you are so enthusiastic about what you study, being so close-minded like that is certainly not a good thing.



I have broken up my paragraphs into short ones. Hopefully, it all help you comprehend what I am saying.

Too much bragging, and credential status smearing, you know as i do, math is in everything, from the conversion of the F=ma to a differential equation, and i am not wrong, Maxwell`s equations show how mathematical models in Physics can be modified to fit reality better since Faraday`s law and ampere`s laws did not explain well the reality.

You are dodging well the ball, i will recommend you a bit of humility, since all mathematical modeling can change, that is the basis of science, but you won`t change the fact that the language of science is Math and the only thing you are doing is status boasting, Physics is math and engineering is math, math is the universal language of science

 

[F-15]

M goodness. Have you realized that you have been describing yourself?? Such prejudice! Such elitist! Keep it up.

look who is talking. the Guy who says i know more than you fresh man, what a hypocritical statement

 

[latenlazy]

look who is talking. the Guy who says i know more than you fresh man, what a hypocritical statement

...You do know some of the guys who're involved in this discussion are actually making a living off knowledge and experience you accuse they have no expertise in...right?

 

[vesicles]

Too much bragging, and credential status smearing, you know as i do, math is in everything, from the conversion of the F=ma to a differential equation, and i am not wrong, Maxwell`s equations show how mathematical models in Physics can be modified to fit reality better since Faraday`s law and ampere`s laws did not explain well the reality.

You are dodging well the ball, i will recommend you a bit of humility, since all mathematical modeling can change, that is the basis of science, but you won`t change the fact that the language of science is Math and the only thing you are doing is status boasting, Physics is math and engineering is math, math is the universal language of science

Show me what I have bragged?

Show me where I have dodged a ball? When and where did you actually throw me a ball? Did you just throw these phrases together without knowing what they mean?