>>13129866Yes, the boundary layer concerns viscosity and produces most of the total drag, but the solution of the subcritical flow considers the fluid inviscid, with the only "acknowledgement", for a lack of better words, of viscosity being summarized in the Kutta condition.
Yeah it's different branches of fluid mechanics. You basically studied hydraulics, which concerns flow in a conduit, and viscosity is always taken into account, with piezometric losses influencing flow, and flow influencing piezometric losses; aerodynamics on the other hand has different boundary conditions that produce different simplifications of the initial N-S equations. I think the middle ground between aerodynamics and hydraulics lies in turbomachines' rotor blades design.
>>13129876I never studied non newtonian fluids, so I don't really know their quirks, but shockwaves are literal discontinuities where everything about your flow field goes to shit, and I doubt you can apply any non-newtonian fluid model to their behaviour. It's more likely you can use the shockwave model developed for supercritical airflows and apply it to your average blood, oil, whatever.
>>13129907>i'm pretty sure it's due to the shape of the wingCorrect.
>if the wing was angled forward, you'd accelerate downwardsOn first approximation, yes. There are some cases where this isn't necessarily true.
>part of it is because you're going forward. lift isn't generated if nothing is movingCorrect. Everything beyond that sentence is wrong.
>>13130142Except there's also a pond above the rock, 'cause you know: there's air all around. Now you're back at square one, congratulations retard.
>>13130512>In order to mold to the shape of the wing, the lines on the bottom have to squish together. The lines above the wing have to stretch apart.It's quite literally the opposite.
