>>13042527Anon, I did not say that there was no turbulence. I said there is Low turbulence from a relative perspective. At low reynolds numbers such as those in such thin air, there is a lesser impact of turbulence compared to other flow regimes - not zero.
Also, How do you not "believe" it spins at 2400? That is a low number for any rotational device, easily obtained. I googled the DJI phantom, a popular commercial video drone, and it has propellers that spin at 7000 rpm at hover in much thicker air.
Also, anon, the density of air does not ramp up or down fast enough for the density difference at ground level or 1m off the ground to be noticeably different. You are clearly showing that you know almost nothing about fluid dynamics. There is no density boundary layer on earth's surface, or by extension mars, where the density is appreciably different than a meter off ground. In fact the difference in pressure, and by extension density, across one meter of altitude is so small that it would barely register on a barometer.
>>13042580>>13042592 2400RPM/60 = 40 rev/s
0.3m half blade radius * 2pi = 1.88495m circumference
40 rev/s * 1.88495m circumference = 75.398 m/s flow velocity at half blade radius, which i am (admittedly very roughly) using to average the flow difference across the rotating blade. Propeller theory is complicated and I'm just providing a napkin number to say "there is no scientific reason an aircraft could not fly on mars using aerodynamic propulsion"
>>13042599Anon, I don't think you understand the mathematical/fluid dynamics definition of turbulence relative to reynold's number, density, and other parameters. You also have not provided a single numerical response to back up your claims other than "it's wrong because I say so"
