Is Aerodynamic Design influenced by the Animal Kingdom?

[godlameroso]

An F1 front wing has a variety of jobs to do all of which bird wings can do, and in a more efficient manner.

I look forward to seeing the data to back up that assertion.

It's simple physics, an F1 car can't produce meaningful lift until 80 or so kph, a bird can produce meaningful lift at speeds as low as 3 kph due to active aero and low weight and as high as 380kph which is about 25kph faster than any F1 car can go. A peregrine falcon will easily outmanouver an F1 car at any speed, it's wingspan is roughly in line with a 2016 F1 front wing and it's weight is ~.9kg, plus active aero. To think an F1 car is better aerodynamically is sheer insanity, power wise an F1 car takes it though. The power units are the most interesting part of the car to me, aero is too easy.

[Tommy Cookers]

a gravity-powered peregrine falcon can do quite well till the gravity motor stops after a few seconds

an F1 car can maintain 4.5 g centripetally at 160 mph for 45 mins
a PF cannot ever do this unless in gravity-powered mode (when the duration would be about 15 seconds)

gravity-powered that high-altitude Austrian skydiver went supersonic, a PF couldn't do that

planes (eg U-2, gliders, some drones) are better aerodynamically (evidenced their glide angle of over 50:1) than a PF

[godlameroso]

a gravity-powered peregrine falcon can do quite well till the gravity motor stops after a few seconds

an F1 car can maintain 4.5 g centripetally at 160 mph for 45 mins
a PF cannot ever do this unless in gravity-powered mode (when the duration would be about 15 seconds)

gravity-powered that high-altitude Austrian skydiver went supersonic, a PF couldn't do that

planes (eg U-2, gliders, some drones) are better aerodynamically (evidenced their glide angle of over 50:1) than a PF

PF can't reach the altitude of a ballon. Better aerodynamically is a stretch, maybe in a specific fixed condition sure. Remember a bird wing has many overlapping vortecies and flow structures, and the animal is constantly adjusting it's wings, body and tail. The wings have both active and passive flow control devices. Under self powered flight a PF can pull 16g's more than 3x what an F1 is capable of, or just about any man made flying object(maybe some alien craft can do better). Most fighter airframes can't withstand that kind of load.

[3jawchuck]

....
Better aerodynamically is a stretch, maybe in a specific fixed condition sure.
....

Indeed, birds are aerodynamically better suited to flying than F1 cars are. Who could have imagined.

What argument are you making now? Originally you started with stating F1 cars use aerodynamic appendages that are found on birds. You showed several pictures of birds and cars with similar looking shapes on them but that clearly serve different purposes. You were shown evidence to the contrary and you have still not provided anything to back up your claims. What do you want? Discussion would require more than you making blind assertions without evidence.

[netoperek]

Almost a contender. Front wing looks ok, but the shark fin is illegal now, isn't it?

[J.A.W.]

a gravity-powered peregrine falcon can do quite well till the gravity motor stops after a few seconds

an F1 car can maintain 4.5 g centripetally at 160 mph for 45 mins
a PF cannot ever do this unless in gravity-powered mode (when the duration would be about 15 seconds)

gravity-powered that high-altitude Austrian skydiver went supersonic, a PF couldn't do that

planes (eg U-2, gliders, some drones) are better aerodynamically (evidenced their glide angle of over 50:1) than a PF

Actually T-C, the falcon is a high-speed flight hunting raptor, it adopts the form of a guided missile,
with wings folded in to operate as vestigial fin-control, rather than as a primary lift device.

U2's, gliders & the like are better compared with the albatross, while other seabirds which dive-bomb
into the briny, such as the gannet, are sort of 1/2 'n' 1/2, as far as chord/span ratio goes - per the falcon.

All human skydivers who have achieved 'supersonic' speed have only done so by wearing a full pressure suit,
& falling from well above the height of atmospheric density which normally causes enough drag to prevent
this.. in point of fact, a falcon so equipped, dropped from that altitude, could do the same..

[J.A.W.]

Maybe some future gene splicing for drivers?

The drivers are catty enough now, imagine some big cat genes in them - they'd be unmanageable!

Yeah, to be sure, the bio-boffins would want to be certain they were gaining the cat-quick reaction times,
accurate visual-musculoskeletal vectoring, proprioception capabilities, etc, & not too much aggression..

See the vid below, the mean-as panther really wants what that poor white bitch is holding, just imagine if
it was Lewis deciding he 'deserved' the victory trophy from Seb on Sunday, & jumped him like that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nozQP6zY_34

[Just_a_fan]

Under self powered flight a PF can pull 16g's more than 3x what an F1 is capable of, or just about any man made flying object(maybe some alien craft can do better). Most fighter airframes can't withstand that kind of load.

They could, easily, be built to do so. The MSX-R (a RedBull racing series aircraft) has max loading capabilities of +/-14g after all. The problem isn't the airframe, it's the bag of water at the front handling the controls. Humans don't perform well at such high g-loadings, unsurprisingly.

[johnny comelately]

Under self powered flight a PF can pull 16g's more than 3x what an F1 is capable of, or just about any man made flying object(maybe some alien craft can do better). Most fighter airframes can't withstand that kind of load.

They could, easily, be built to do so. The MSX-R (a RedBull racing series aircraft) has max loading capabilities of +/-14g after all. The problem isn't the airframe, it's the bag of water at the front handling the controls. Humans don't perform well at such high g-loadings, unsurprisingly.

see my indy car post where they were blacking out

[johnny comelately]

Maybe some future gene splicing for drivers?

The drivers are catty enough now, imagine some big cat genes in them - they'd be unmanageable!

Yeah, to be sure, the bio-boffins would want to be certain they were gaining the cat-quick reaction times,
accurate visual-musculoskeletal vectoring, proprioception capabilities, etc, & not too much aggression..

See the vid below, the mean-as panther really wants what that poor white bitch is holding, just imagine if
it was Lewis deciding he 'deserved' the victory trophy from Seb on Sunday, & jumped him like that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nozQP6zY_34

i posted a link in the tabboooo driver thread about daniel ricciardo's reaction time training(average article but better than nothing...when we have nothing)
https://www.redbull.com/sg-en/daniel-ri ... t-training

[Just_a_fan]

It's simple physics, an F1 car can't produce meaningful lift until 80 or so kph, a bird can produce meaningful lift at speeds as low as 3 kph due to active aero and low weight and as high as 380kph which is about 25kph faster than any F1 car can go.

The key phrase here is "active aero". The bird is "allowed" to have active because it only has to follow the laws of physics. The F1 is forbidden from using active aero (the DRS doesn't really count here) by the rules of the competition.

If the teams were allowed to use active aero, we'd see a wholly different set of performance figures. I'd love to see an active aero F1 car. I'd go so far as to bet that, gloves off, an F1 car wouldn't rely on such things as big front and rear wings. They'd be using the underside much, much more. Something no bird can do.

On airplanes, where the wings are allowed to change shape to suit the flight regime, we see vehicles capable of flying at low speeds and at supersonic speeds in the same airframe - watch typical airshows where airplanes with thrust vectoring fly at very slow speeds and yet can also do twice the speed of sound (or more). We also see vehicles with wings so good they are almost impossible to land - the U2 just doesn't want to settle to the ground, for example, and is basically flown on to the runway.

[J.A.W.]

Under self powered flight a PF can pull 16g's more than 3x what an F1 is capable of, or just about any man made flying object(maybe some alien craft can do better). Most fighter airframes can't withstand that kind of load.

They could, easily, be built to do so. The MSX-R (a RedBull racing series aircraft) has max loading capabilities of +/-14g after all. The problem isn't the airframe, it's the bag of water at the front handling the controls. Humans don't perform well at such high g-loadings, unsurprisingly.

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..

[johnny comelately]

The 2001 Season became a embarrassment for CART. At their event in Texas, the cars were so fast and the banking was so steep that the G-Forces were causing drivers to fall unconscious, leading to the race’s cancellation.

[Tommy Cookers]

a 14 g default/normally certified plane will not break until 21 g is reached ..... 14 g means 14 g + 50%

your airliner is certified +3g and recent ones may not even give the 50% margin
afaik no fighter is designed for more than +9 g and recent ones (I guess) try to prevent the pilot calling for more

like an F1 car the g availability depends greatly on speed
blacking out is full loss of vision but still conscious and functioning (g-loc means unconscious and is serious)
fighter pilots pressure-breathe oxygen and wear g suits to the armpits
RB racers have g suits to waist level (and briefly peak about 11g seen on my tv a few years ago)

straining does work but remember it's what killed Elvis

[godlameroso]

Under self powered flight a PF can pull 16g's more than 3x what an F1 is capable of, or just about any man made flying object(maybe some alien craft can do better). Most fighter airframes can't withstand that kind of load.

They could, easily, be built to do so. The MSX-R (a RedBull racing series aircraft) has max loading capabilities of +/-14g after all. The problem isn't the airframe, it's the bag of water at the front handling the controls. Humans don't perform well at such high g-loadings, unsurprisingly.

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..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKqt05iR9WI

25G's in a stoop.