Re: strum Re: Stick to business
".....No-one building a plane/rocket/artillery shell sets out to re-test Newton or Einstein. Instead, he/she relies on consensus amongst those who have studied those theories....." Sorry, but that is a complete load of cobblers. There are many examples in recent history where the scientific consensus has said a development is "impossible", only for empirical testing to show the development is actually not just possible but overturns scientific convention. There are also plenty of cases where designs built to conventional rules have failed at the test stage because developments have out-stripped the old science. One example is the relative failure of early supersonic aircraft, such as the Convair F-102 interceptor, which would not fly at the Mach speeds predicted by their designers using conventional scientific rules. It took the (re)discovery of the "area rule" of aerodynamics - by Richard Whitcomb at NACA, through wind-tunnel experimentation - to provide the redesign guidance that finally allowed the F-102 to be successful. It is still true today that those developing new planes, rockets and shells do a LOT of testing as that is THE ONLY real way to show actual performance and reliability.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
