Which cone is less affected by drag?

Top.

Has more room to dissipate the air. Same reason jets get wider as you go from front to back

top cone

>>8786103
>Has more room to dissipate the air
what do you mean?

>>8786072
bottom cone is closer to the aerodynamic teardrop shape (blunt forward, boat-tail in back)

But maybe the sharp corners create so much turbulence that it doesn't matter.

Experiment! If you have two cones, try dropping them from a building (with a string attached at the back so they retain their orientation) and see which one hits the ground first!

>>8786138
I think this is right but I can't find any references about drag coefficient of cones in reverse

I think with the bottom cone you get less of a flow separation effect because the sides of the cone slope away gently from the point of separation allowing the air to cling better to the cone and produce less wake. With the top cone the flow separation is more abrupt.

My intuition is that the overall difference is not large though.

>>8786138
Teardrop isn't aeeodynamically optimal shape at all.

>>8786138
>try dropping them from a building
Try to not drop them into someone's head.

>>8786072
This is a very interesting question. At high speeds we might expect that the vacuum behind the cones will produce roughly the same drag since the tail of the bottom simply won't make that big of a difference. On the other hand at high speeds the bottom cone will clearly be much worse as it has to speed up the air in front of it to it's own velocity, whereas the top cone only has to partial speed up the air.

On the other hand at lower velocities we might expect that the drag from a vacuum behind the cones drastically changes for the two as the tail behind the bottom cone will make it much less.

Now that I think about it, this is why raindrops have a tail behind them: there's a vacuum behind them pulling the raindrop.

>>8786349
>>8786072
Set up guestimate equations for how much drag comes from the vacuum, and how much comes from hitting air straight on. I suspect that the optimal shape will change depending on velocity.

File: BoatRebuild15.jpg (104KB, 794x595px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 794x595px

>>8786072
bottom.

while the flat face isn't ideal, bottom slowly decelerates the air so you're not left with eddies/turbulent flow in the back, and hence the pressure difference in smaller. just look at most airplane profiles. the front is more blunt, while the tail always ends more gradually. the hypermiling civil also looks similar.

>>8786367
I'm not convinced an object the size of a plane is comparable to an object 2 inches long

>>8786378
>What is a non-dimensional quantity in the drag coefficient for $200 please

>>8786416
He obviously was referring to ratios

>>8786191
He probably means airfoil, which is quite an optimal shape in most applications.

File: muthafuckin cone on my muthafuckin head.jpg (25KB, 428x577px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 428x577px

>>8786237
>Try to not drop them (cones) into someone's head.

>>8786506
that guy should sue

>>8786349
Raindrops aren't actually teardrop shaped though.

https://youtu.be/46otS0Wjz-E?t=1m

File: F-23A 4-view small.gif (415KB, 1504x1013px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1504x1013px

>>8786103
>Same reason jets get wider as you go from front to back
No, they APPARENTLY get wider for the sake of stability. In ACTUALITY, once you look past the extremities of the tail group, their cross-sectional distribution is roughly cigar-shaped in accordance with the Whitcomb Area Rule. Pic related.

Now, that doesn't mean the top triangle isn't less draggy (it is), but your analogy doesn't fit.

>>8787652
stop CAPITALIZING your words
you FUCKING illiterate

File: drag-cone.jpg (35KB, 550x438px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 550x438px

>>8786072
top.