A drag issue : to bungee wings or not to bungee

[Dr Wu]

To those like Doc & Wu who fiercely defend their choice, I'm glad you enjoy your bungeed wings, its always nice to find gear you like.


I might as well brand Dr Wu an OMS secret agent out to convert all of us since he gets paid $1000 everytime someone buys an OMS wing.

I have already dumbed down my statement once for rox@ucf11. I'm afraid you are going to force me to resort to drawing you pictures.

I have in no way defended the use of a bungee wing in this thread.

I simply stated I don't believe this "test" was ever conducted.

Once again:

There is zero evidence the data from this "study" (which is the topic of this thread) exists or has ever existed.

 

[mitsuguy]

I have already dumbed down my statement once for rox@ucf11. I'm afraid you are going to force me to resort to drawing you pictures.

I have in no way defended the use of a bungee wing in this thread.

I simply stated I don't believe this "test" was ever conducted.

Once again:

There is zero evidence the data from this "study" (which is the topic of this thread) exists or has ever existed.

Is that really all ya got? I mean, seriously...

Aside from your own beliefs (and the fact that the results of this test contradict what you believe), do you have any real reason to doubt the test happened?

Why is it so hard to believe that a folded, rough surface has more drag than smoother shapes underwater???

 

[The Chairman]

Perhaps people who use certain equipment get a little tired of the same old red herrings being thrown up by people who, in many cases, haven't any significant personal experience with the gear in question

Bingo, Yahtzee, We have a winner!

Far from being a fierce defender of the OMS bungeed wing, I just hate Shenanigans presented as fact. Unlike most posting in here: I have actually dove the bungeed wing on multiple occasions. I can promise you that they are fine for the use they were designed for. Relegating them to being "portable cushions for homeless people" or "speculating about the personality and physical characteristics of the rocket scientist who had designed these wings" is nothing but an arrogant and inflammatory attack on those who do dive them. While the OP only quoted the letter, the attacks on the "BWOD" have been as incessant as they are short sighted.

 

[Dr Wu]

mitsuguy

At this point I assume you are being deliberately obtuse. No one able to operate basic scuba is this ignorant.

Is that really all ya got? I mean, seriously...

Aside from your own beliefs (and the fact that the results of this test contradict what you believe),

Where did I state a belief in anything other than the existence of this "test"?

....do you have any real reason to doubt the test happened?

Yes. The total lack of any evidence or data.

Why is it so hard to believe that a folded, rough surface has more drag than smoother shapes underwater???

I have no idea. That's why I avoided commenting on that issue.

Are there any other issues that have nothing to do with my comments you would like to discuss?

 

[The Chairman]

Aside from your own beliefs (and the fact that the results of this test contradict what you believe), do you have any real reason to doubt the test happened?

An engineer does a test and does not provide any data? Shenanigans. Major Shenanigans. Why would you accept such a thing without a shred of real evidence. Or maybe you just accept everything you read on the internet? You know, for a dollar I can tell you if you have a tendency to be gullible. For $100, I can administer the whole test.

 

[Dr Wu]

Why would you accept such a thing without a shred of real evidence.

Because their desire to be "right" outweighs their desire to be smart.

It's a common affliction.


The "evidence" from this "test" "proves" what they already "know".

 

[TSandM]

I don't think they did a "test" -- It sounds to me like some guys had access to a wind tunnel and though this would be fun. Nobody was gathering data. It wasn't science. It was amusement.

 

[The Chairman]

It wasn't science.

Bingo, Yahtzee, we have a winner! Pseudo science and wacky what if scenarios used in place of real logic and facts cause a few of us to cry Shenanigans.

 

[Dr Wu]

I don't think they did a "test" -- It sounds to me like some guys had access to a wind tunnel and though this would be fun. Nobody was gathering data. It wasn't science. It was amusement.

Recently, myself and several engineering colleagues were performing wind
tunnel tests on a new airfoil, under design within our division at
Grumman Aerospace. Somehow the subject of technical diving and buoyancy
compensation systems came up. We got to talking about the drag profiles
on certain manufacturers brands of BCs and one of the guys suggested that
we run some actual aerodynamics tests. A couple of the engineers are big
time mixed gas wreck divers with lots of experience on deep wrecks such
as the Doria and Republic. They were touting the benefits of the OMS
bungeed wings and I was arguing that the Dive Rite wings provided a
vastly improved knife edge profile with far less drag.

A simple surface area calculation showed that the bungeed wings had an
area of over 12 square feet inflated. This is over 4 times the area of
the Dive Rite wings. The huge box like profile caused immense drag and
horrendous turbulence when we observed it in the wind tunnel. The bungee
cords caused massive vorticial eddies all along the wings. It was very
interesting to observe the colored smoke trails streaming in chaotic
cyclonic patterns around the brightly colored bungees. It was almost
psychedelic. These results were in stark contrast to the Dive Rite wings
which showed very little turbulence and almost hydrodynamic behavior such
that the wings probably generate lift when there is current flow across
them. Needless to say, the extra inflator assembly on the OMS wings
created marked disturbances in the laminar flow field of the trace smoke.
When the wings were in the collapsed state the turbulent patterns were
even more spectacular, clearly discrediting the myth that the bungees
reduce drag by supposedly decreasing the surface area.

After the tests there were no more arguments except about what other uses
these wings might be put to. One of the guys suggested we employ them as
portable cushions for homeless people, another suggestion involved using
them as toxic waste storage containers.

There was much discussion and speculation about the personality and
physical characteristics of the rocket scientist who had designed these
wings. I suspect that the same individual carries a fire extinguisher in
the front seat of his car along with the spare gas can.

Rick

 

[Dr Wu]

Bingo, Yahtzee, we have a winner! Pseudo science and wacky what if scenarios used in place of real logic and facts cause a few of us to cry Shenanigans.

They could have saved Grumman Aerospace a ****load of money wasted in wind tunnel time by simply tossing each wing out a second story window and timing which hit the ground first. The results would be at least as accurate.