This morning I was astounded and then annoyed to read a leading manufacturer and designer of competitive oars – get the fundamental reason, the fluid dynamic reason, oars work – entirely wrong — to the detriment of the field.
Fluid dynamics can seem slightly difficult to understand, but with good explanations it can easily make sense. (The field is daunting to many due to the excessive use of math required to take courses barring entry to this priesthood. So lets see how well I can convey some math-free principles here.)
No. The truth is that in competitive rowing, oar blades operate almost wholly as a drag devices, like a traditional circular parachute, employing drag only – not at all like flying wings. (This is not true for all oars. Some oars not used for competitive rowing, such as Gondola oars, do use lift to a small degree.)
Competitive Racing Oars Don’t Employ Lift – Only Drag
The effective fluid dynamics, kinematics, of oar blades is based entirely in how they employ drag – not lift.
Yes, you could go way out on a limb and argue competitive rowing oars can be operated as lift devices with a horrific lift to drag ratio (of at best maybe 0.5-1) — but almost anyone can understand that’s just silly. No one in rowing competition operates oars at an angle of attack where any meaningful lift is generated. (Typically 3 to 7 degrees from vertical or roughly an 83 to 87 degree angle of attack.) In my opinion, no surface (wing or not) is employing lift until its lift exceeds its drag (an L-D ratio of 1-1 or a 45 degree angle of descent).
What’s more damning is that to employ lift – the oar blade would have to be operated at a small angle of attack – which with typical competitive rowing schemes would indisputably slow the boat down.
It is my opinion, that if competitive rowing DID genuinely employ lift surfaces to propel them, the boats should go dramatically faster. Which is why the Hobie Mirage drive is so amazingly fast with tiny wing surfaces and ordinary people operating them.
What makes the article even worse is the extremely misleading science experiment which demonstrates something that has nothing to do with, is contrary to, how oars are actually used. They show water running down the back of several oars to demonstrate how a vortex generator keeps fluid flow attached.
There is so much wrong with this, it makes my stomach churn.
1. Oar blades never USE the angle of attack shown in the pictures to propel a boat. Blades in competition are at right angles to the fluid flow – not the small angles of attack depicted. If the blades operated at the depicted angles of attack, the blades would be slicing horizontally (not vertically as is normal) in the lake or river – with nearly zero drag and almost total ineffectiveness.
If the picture was a reasonable analogy, it would show the blades horizontal to the water pouring out of the sink faucet. Of course then the flow attachment principle wouldn’t work – thereby showing the whole idea is a farce.
2. While vortex generators can indeed keep flow attached on Lifting Wings, there is no evidence they help with parachute (pure drag) operations.
3. With wings, detached flow is usually bad, but in parachute operations – detached flow might provide more drag – a benefit in this case. So oars might be worse off by employing vortex generators. (Parachute drag is primarily composed of Surface Area and a Drag Coefficient. Lowering the drag coefficient would make a parachute fall faster – not good for parachutists or rowing.)
4. Effective vs Efficiency: Because the article’s author believes lift is involved s/he claims the feature is more “efficient.”
Ow. No. The only thing a rower cares about is how much drag (lack of slip) blades can provide. Lift is simply not part of the equation, so there is no “efficiency” (a ratio using lift) to be calculated.
Oddly enough, an associated article on the same website gets a lot right – and thankfully never mentions “Lift.”
There’s more to cringe at (but I’ll stop after this one) — including the classic “[Delta wing] Aircraft designed to fly at greater angles of attack . . . ”
Wrong again. Aircraft are designed to fly at a range of air speeds and carry a payload range – not an angle of attack. Those air speeds often demand a wing design which can handle the dynamics – sometimes making a delta planform a good choice. A delta planform needs high angles of attack at low speeds. But as far as I know no Delta wing aircraft designer ever wanted the craft to fly at higher angles of attack because that causes several other problems.
I invite anyone to show an example of a aircraft explicitly “designed to fly at greater angles of attack” – other than for testing purposes.
End of rant.
Summary : Oars are Drag devices – Not Wings.