{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02183984116479153, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1214574898785425, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Drag reduction: enticing turbulence, and then an industry

We examine drag-reduction proposals, as presented in this volume and in general, first with concrete examples of how to bridge the distance from pure science through engineering to what makes inventions go into service; namely, the value to the public. We point out that the true drag reduction can be markedly different from an estimate based simply on the difference between turbulent and laminar skin friction over the laminarized region, or between the respective skin frictions of the baseline and the riblet-treated flow. In some situations, this difference is favourable, and is due to secondary differences in pressure drag. We reiterate that the benefit of riblets, if it is expressed as a percentage in skin-friction reduction, is unfortunately lower at full-size Reynolds numbers than in a small-scale experiment or simulation. The Reynolds number-independent measure of such benefits is a shift of the logarithmic law, or ‘ΔU+’. Anticipating the design of a flight test and then a product, we note the relative ease in representing riblets or laminarization in computational fluid dynamics, in contrast with the huge numerical and turbulence-modelling challenge of resolving active flow control systems in a calculation of the full flow field. We discuss in general terms the practical factors that have limited applications of concepts that would appear more than ready after all these years, particularly riblets and laminar-flow control.