- We criticize state-of-the-art. Yes, but so does AIAA itself.
- A slip boundary condition is unphysical. Wrong: In slightly viscous flow the skin friction is small and slip models small skin friction.
- Drag originates from no-slip boundary layers. Wrong: We compute drag matching observation using slip without boundary layers.
- Our computed solutions of Navier-Stokes/slip don't match observations. Wrong: Both lift and drag are within measurement tolerance for the whole range of angles of attack including and beyond stall.
- Separation with slip is not described. Wrong: We give a clear mathematical analysis of separation in slightly viscous flow supported by computation and observation based on a fundamental instability of potential flow.
- We contribute to confuse students and mislead the public. Wrong: Our theory is the first theory which can be effectively presented in education and to the general public.
- There is nothing wrong with Kelvin's theorem. Yes, there is when wellposedness is taken into account, and this is necessary in a theory about physics.
- The code is not documented and private: Wrong: The code (Unicorn) is part of the open source project FEniCS with solid documentation. Any interested can replicate our computations.
- The authors have not studied the literature enough. Wrong: We have scrutinized most of the books and scientific articles on the subject carefully.
- The authors have not discussed with their aerodynamics colleagues at KTH. Wrong: Extensive discussion have taken place over a long period of time.
torsdag 23 augusti 2012
10 Bad Reasons for AIAA to Reject New Theory of Flight
Here is list of bad arguments used to motivate rejection of our article New Theory Of Flight submitted to AIAA: