Timeline for Why is it harder to maintain laminar flow on larger aircraft?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2020 at 23:04 | comment | added | Robert DiGiovanni | @ABJX if only we could see the actual flow, "laminar flow" would be near impossible near the surface, where air struck by the wing surface is accelerated and deflected. Terminology aside, flow separation is what we do not want. Much depends on Reynolds number, and Mach number as well. As Peter pointed out in his link, laminar flow is a reality for the underside of the wing, and supercritical design sadly parts with camber that serves so well at higher subsonic Mach numbers. When I began studying airfoils, I thought battleships had it wrong. Now, perhaps not! | |
| May 3, 2020 at 19:50 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @ABJX you are correct. | |
| May 3, 2020 at 15:57 | comment | added | Abdullah is not an Amalekite | Thats what i was wondering after reading this answer. so far as i knew, there are laminar boundary layers - the best kind - then turbulent. The only thing that goes beyond that is separated layer, where flow at skin is moving upwind. Am i correct? what's going on in this answer? | |
| May 3, 2020 at 15:54 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | when you write "boundary layer" you sure mean "turbulent boundary layer". There is always a boundary layer, and it is either laminar or turbulent. | |
| May 3, 2020 at 15:19 | history | answered | Robert DiGiovanni | CC BY-SA 4.0 |