Is Aerodynamic Design influenced by the Animal Kingdom?

[godlameroso]

They are, they're pulling water towards the flick up in ground effect. The same function the flickups on the F1 car do but with air. The sting ray ripples it's flick ups, on an F1 car they're stationary but fulfill the same function, to extract fluid, and lower the pressure at the leading edge of the floor.

Flickups on an F1 car are driven by the sidepod displacing fluid. Where's the sidepod on a stingray?

Don't need it, they don't have power units, and higher viscosity of water combined with low weight means it can do more with less. In a way the F1 car has higher potential due to the extra aero surfaces but has to deal with far more weight, I do give the cars a lot of credit for being as efficient as they are with their constraints.

[godlameroso]

That's the really obvious thing. Knowledge and understanding are not fundamental in doing.

I know engineers that highlight this concept all too well.

[PhillipM]

Don't need it, they don't have power units, and higher viscosity of water combined with low weight means it can do more with less. In a way the F1 car has higher potential due to the extra aero surfaces but has to deal with far more weight, I do give the cars a lot of credit for being as efficient as they are with their constraints.

In that case they would have smaller flickups for their wingspan, not proportionally far bigger.
Even your own reasoning doesn't stand up.

[Maritimer]

I have a suspicion if you polled F1 designers about whether they design their cars based on animals they would just laugh. Correlation is not causation. If feathers and extra appendages were that vital to flight why aren't insects covered in them as well?

[godlameroso]

I have a suspicion if you polled F1 designers about whether they design their cars based on animals they would just laugh. Correlation is not causation. If feathers and extra appendages were that vital to flight why aren't insects covered in them as well?

Different Reynolds number, less weight, insects move their wings faster as well. It's more efficient for their size, at a certain scale feathers become more efficient.

Let them laugh, after they violently oppose the concept I'll feel vindicated.....again.

[godlameroso]

Don't need it, they don't have power units, and higher viscosity of water combined with low weight means it can do more with less. In a way the F1 car has higher potential due to the extra aero surfaces but has to deal with far more weight, I do give the cars a lot of credit for being as efficient as they are with their constraints.

In that case they would have smaller flickups for their wingspan, not proportionally far bigger.
Even your own reasoning doesn't stand up.

It does, the proportion of their wingspan is the most efficient ratio in relation to their weight, metabolism, movement speed etc. That doesn't change the dynamic principle being used.

[Maritimer]

I have a suspicion if you polled F1 designers about whether they design their cars based on animals they would just laugh. Correlation is not causation. If feathers and extra appendages were that vital to flight why aren't insects covered in them as well?

Different Reynolds number, less weight, insects move their wings faster as well. It's more efficient for their size, at a certain scale feathers become more efficient.

Let them laugh, after they violently oppose the concept I'll feel vindicated.....again.

If feathers make a body more streamlined why don't aquatic animals have them? There are also insects bigger than some birds, birds that flap their wings faster than some insects. Bats don't have feathers, either. Flying foxes are the size of eagles and have bare wings, for example.

[johnny comelately]

What a reveal of human nature this thread has been(get it)
What is the name (even though it was cobbled) of the thread?
There is so much hair splitting going on y'all will be bald.
So give it up fellas.

And shoot an email off to Newey, A. and ask him the exact question and tell him it is to settle a bet that has a slab of beer riding on it and he'll be sure to answer.

[PhillipM]

It does, the proportion of their wingspan is the most efficient ratio in relation to their weight, metabolism, movement speed etc. That doesn't change the dynamic principle being used.

What about the fact they're actually flapping it up and down for propulsion and form counter-rotating vortexes behind them on both sides of their body which have no relation to generating downforce or sealing a floor edge

It's for propulsion, nothing to do with ground effect - as soon as they don't want thrust they flatten them out ffs

[godlameroso]

I have a suspicion if you polled F1 designers about whether they design their cars based on animals they would just laugh. Correlation is not causation. If feathers and extra appendages were that vital to flight why aren't insects covered in them as well?

Different Reynolds number, less weight, insects move their wings faster as well. It's more efficient for their size, at a certain scale feathers become more efficient.

Let them laugh, after they violently oppose the concept I'll feel vindicated.....again.

If feathers make a body more streamlined why don't aquatic animals have them? There are also insects bigger than some birds, birds that flap their wings faster than some insects. Bats don't have feathers, either. Flying foxes are the size of eagles and have bare wings, for example.

They do, in even smaller scales(pun intended). Yep and those birds are tiny(humming bird). Bats have hairs and they're not as good a flyers as birds in similar size, not just because they lack feathers but because bird wings have more passive and active flow control structures to ensure flow stability. There are birds that easily fly 100's of kilometers, flying mammals aren't built for that kind of migration that's why they all end up clumping together.

[johnny comelately]

It does, the proportion of their wingspan is the most efficient ratio in relation to their weight, metabolism, movement speed etc. That doesn't change the dynamic principle being used.

What about the fact they're actually flapping it up and down for propulsion and form counter-rotating vortexes behind them on both sides of their body which have no relation to generating downforce or sealing a floor edge

It's for propulsion, nothing to do with ground effect - as soon as they don't want thrust they flatten them out ffs

call an ambulance for phillipm, he's just accross the road from boothy, suspected heart attack from frustration

[Maritimer]

Different Reynolds number, less weight, insects move their wings faster as well. It's more efficient for their size, at a certain scale feathers become more efficient.

Let them laugh, after they violently oppose the concept I'll feel vindicated.....again.

If feathers make a body more streamlined why don't aquatic animals have them? There are also insects bigger than some birds, birds that flap their wings faster than some insects. Bats don't have feathers, either. Flying foxes are the size of eagles and have bare wings, for example.

They do, in even smaller scales(pun intended). Yep and those birds are tiny(humming bird). Bats have hairs and they're not as good a flyers as birds in similar size, not just because they lack feathers but because bird wings have more passive and active flow control structures to ensure flow stability. There are birds that easily fly 100's of kilometers, flying mammals aren't built for that kind of migration that's why they all end up clumping together.

Scales =/= feathers. If feathers were such an advantage other animals would have evolved analogous features for reducing drag in air/water. You're over thinking this a bit. Feathers are simply one possible way of achieving something, and it wasn't even flight in the beginning; that came loooooong after the fact. And to your point about flying mammals not travelling far, you might want to look into that. Bats migrate just as much as birds, flying long distances has very little to do with physiology and more to do with getting into air currents. Butterflies migrate further than just about any bird species out there and they aren't exactly the peak of aerodynamic design

[godlameroso]

If feathers make a body more streamlined why don't aquatic animals have them? There are also insects bigger than some birds, birds that flap their wings faster than some insects. Bats don't have feathers, either. Flying foxes are the size of eagles and have bare wings, for example.

They do, in even smaller scales(pun intended). Yep and those birds are tiny(humming bird). Bats have hairs and they're not as good a flyers as birds in similar size, not just because they lack feathers but because bird wings have more passive and active flow control structures to ensure flow stability. There are birds that easily fly 100's of kilometers, flying mammals aren't built for that kind of migration that's why they all end up clumping together.

Scales =/= feathers. If feathers were such an advantage other animals would have evolved analogous features for reducing drag in air/water. You're over thinking this a bit. Feathers are simply one possible way of achieving something, and it wasn't even flight in the beginning; that came loooooong after the fact. And to your point about flying mammals not travelling far, you might want to look into that. Bats migrate just as much as birds, flying long distances has very little to do with physiology and more to do with getting into air currents. Butterflies migrate further than just about any bird species out there and they aren't exactly the peak of aerodynamic design

I dunno man, penguins are pretty fast in the water.

[Maritimer]

They do, in even smaller scales(pun intended). Yep and those birds are tiny(humming bird). Bats have hairs and they're not as good a flyers as birds in similar size, not just because they lack feathers but because bird wings have more passive and active flow control structures to ensure flow stability. There are birds that easily fly 100's of kilometers, flying mammals aren't built for that kind of migration that's why they all end up clumping together.

Scales =/= feathers. If feathers were such an advantage other animals would have evolved analogous features for reducing drag in air/water. You're over thinking this a bit. Feathers are simply one possible way of achieving something, and it wasn't even flight in the beginning; that came loooooong after the fact. And to your point about flying mammals not travelling far, you might want to look into that. Bats migrate just as much as birds, flying long distances has very little to do with physiology and more to do with getting into air currents. Butterflies migrate further than just about any bird species out there and they aren't exactly the peak of aerodynamic design

I dunno man, penguins are pretty fast in the water.

And so are dolphins. My Reddit half truths aren't wrong

[J.A.W.]

Doubtful about -ve "14G", J-a-f - but certainly back in the day - the WWII Hawker Tempest fighter was also built to hack a +ve 14G "max loading" too - to preserve the pilot, even if he'd momentarily 'blacked out'.

& FWIW, the R-B race planes carry G-telemetry which disqualify the pilot who exceeds the rules set G-factor..

Source of the loading figures: http://airrace.redbull.com/en_US/article/planes

Ta for that, doubts resolved.. stands to reason, given the stunts/inverted flight - 'pushing the envelope'.