I specifically mentioned “turbulent air” before you. This was my comment a while ago:
You whole argument is
The whole SMT canopy-spine shape is smaller and smoother. How should it not?
Are you agreeing with me then? Or are you still ignoring the bigger canopy and the duct in the rear?
I didn’t ignore it. Stop distorting things. The probe is more aerodinamic, altrough its a smaller detail all things considered, same with the MiG-35 having sensor prortusions under the fuselage that the SMT doesn’t like I explained to you with screenshoots.
You don’t see me shoving that again and again because its a minor thing considering the major differences are the canopy and then the extra duct in the rear where It probably breaks the would be laminar flow there again into turbulent flow.
No… The low pressure zone is right after the cockpit, and the zone near the end of the aircraft is where the air is trying to join again because it was compressed at the front, and depressed in the rear fuselage.
This whole concept is why the original mig-29 fuselage design was so good, with the added bonus of acting like a lifting body. You need to have low pressure zone above the fuselage but avoid turbulent airflow as much as possible, there you have lift. Same as a wing works.
You keep throwing turbulent airflow around and you don’t see how that intake would cause any issues?
I went mach 2 with 4x napalm attached when I made that post.
Also, you are agreeing with me that the drag is higher; glad to see so many of us in agreement.
Oh yeah that thing… surely if you slap giant (and fuel hungry) engine on light and thin airframe, it hitting a brick wall at around mach 1.05 is exactly what happens IRL, no doubt.
I kind of get them using drag as a “balancing value” in terms of how fast a specific plane should be going, but come on, when your balancing logic literally results in
light and slim airframe + huge engine = …slow speed?
something is messed up big.
For ordinary cars that’s mostly an aesthetic decision, but it can help separate the airflow in a more controlled way behind the car, and as a result, help avoiding turbulent air, and create downforce.
But those small trunk or roof lips we’re talking about for ordinary cars, the effect would be very tiny.
The golfball thing reminded me of that episode of mythbusters where they did a clay surface on a car with a similar surface shape as the golf ball ahah
It’s not really to create downforce, and it’s definitely not more aesthetic than a real aerodynamic decision in many cases. Toyota implemented this design on the Yaris to optimize drag and increase the mileage of the car for example. And they were definitely not trying to do a beautiful car
It’s true that on big hatchback cars the effect is smaller tho, and can be aesthetic.
In general, my point was that all the back and forth you had on the supposedly better or worse aero of each design is quite meaningless without empirical proof, as aerodynamics is one of the more confusing and unintuitive field of physics, and without proper comparative testing (either via wind tunnel or simulation), on the fly comparison is quite meaningless
Welp, that’s one mythbuster episode I have not seen !
Yes I fully agree, thats why I said in the beguinning that without any factual evidence this was just an exercise of guesswork.
I was just fighting ron’s claims by explaining that they were not even intuitive in the first place, so it is not reasonable to request that the MiG-35 fuselage should have less drag than the SMT for example, without evidence, of course.
Guys Ig I get some clue about the drag on 9.41 family. Here are two issues about MiG-35 and MiG29k VNE. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HA5eBaA6JChH https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lizEg8A9oUJz
If you read carefully, you can see that they accepts 29k’s top speed or say VNE at 1470 km/h (unlike other Fulcrums which have VNE of 1575 km/h) where the plane stops accelerating. Things on MiG-35, it becomes different. Tho the VNE (2205 km/h) on this is for different altitude, the issue also claims that 35 should reach to its top speed(2205 km/h) and stop accelerating. However, they nab the issue and states that MiG-35 can exceed its VNE limit since the thrust is available for that.
You know, gaijin doesn’t really get a chance to really run simulation and know the drags.They just fit the drags to their available datapoints. So to let 29k stop accelerating at their VNE, they must have given a higher fuselage drag co to 9.41 family, whose fuselage drag co should ve been close to 29m 9.15.
But since they offer a totally different explanation for 35, so I am wondering, is it like MiG-29k is also capable of accelerating beyond its VNE. The 1470 km/h is actually TAS limit.
I remember I think I did a bug report about the F-111’s top speed at 65,000 ft being 2.5+ when in game it can barely push M 1.0. The response was like: “We don’t adjust aircraft performance for these altitudes.” Off topic but it reminds me of that.