Recent content by boneh3ad

I spend my days on mostly fluid physics, not actual flight. And my original background was mechanical engineering, not aerospace. I have some nefarious plans to expand into actually flying things in the future, so I'm just exploring what options are out there as references to help get me up to...

Well sure. I just didn't know if anyone more familiar with the field had any suggestions about which options are better than others.

I am looking for recommendations for reference/textbooks on flight dynamics.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "experimentally minded books." Any good experiment still needs a good theoretical background to make sense of the data. The only real book about fluid mechanics experiments, broadly, is probably the Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics. It's a...

Davidson has a book that has some alternative approaches to those of Pope that may be worth a look. You can also take a look at some of the older works like Batchelor or Hinze or the two-volume beast that is Monin and Yaglom (though their goal is the statistical treatment of the problem)...

You are correct, it does not apply to adiabatic, irreversible processes. But that's kind built right into the word itself: isentropic. That implies the process must be constant-entropy, i.e., reversible. I don't immediately know why the site you link is using it without specifying the...

Just remove the question from "defense contractors" and think about it for any job in engineering. The engineering challenges at, say, Ford, are still going to be more complex than what a student typically sees in school. I don't know of any mechanical engineering programs that have required...

I just can't help but wonder how this passed peer review in an actual journal. It's a fun exercise, but contributes nothing to the field.

I mean, the definition of a blast wave requires it to be supersonic. It will eventually weaken into an acoustic wave. So that was pretty silly by said poster.

"...truth ... is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations..." - John von Neumann, 1947

This is also just a scaled technology demonstrator. Boom intends to build a 64-80 passenger airliner that may or may not incorporate sonic boom mitigation technology used by the X-59 (assuming Boom doesn't fold at some point and the X-59 is successful, of course).

Speed actually helps you here. The air gets thinner, sure, but as you move faster, you can ingest a larger volume per second, which can at least partially make up for lower density. There's still a limit, of course.

"News" articles citing no sources other than Chinese state media should be treated as what they are: propaganda. Interesting Engineering is not a serious source of journalism and has published loads of nonsense in the past.

Yeah I already told you I'm pretty sure there was a sign error somewhere. If I get the chance, I'll go back and find the error. Either way, I still don't understand the obsession of finding ##Q##.

I just looked at my solution and clearly I screwed something up because it predicts flow and a lifting of the cap when there is zero pressure in the pipe. Ha! Looking for where I likely made a typo, probably won't get to it until later.