Chuckjr wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 01:57
AR3-GP wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 23:57
BlueCheetah66 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 23:56
I guess the whole development path with the downwashing sidepods has been in maximising the undercut and flow into that region. An 'overbite' inlet would seemingly backpedal on that development, and I would be surprised if that is what the design actually is. It seems that people have just seen Dr Obbs theorize that its this design and people have just accepted it
I personally drew my own conclusion that it was overbite based on the photos.
This is very convincing:
https://i.postimg.cc/k4gN7ps2/image.png
I'm also confused by why you think the overbite does not support downwash.
Look at the O in the word Oracle.
Just above and to the left of the O, I’m assuming is a square mirror.
From the bottom of that square mirror there is a slightly bent horizontal dark line that runs to what would be the inside shoulder of the side pod.
Is that a shadow or an inlet edge beginning for an underbite?
Quit it! Its 100% sure an underbite. The inlet is on the top of the sidepod as expected. The mirror stays are used as a spoiler above the inlet, hence the inlet is obscured behind the mirror supports.
Chasing shadows and pixels on side views won't show them.
RB was sis-limited before. The obvious best place for the inlet lip extension is as high as it can go.
The whole point is that the increased stagnation area of a regular inlet messes up the flow to the beam wing. Right now, like AMR, it's coanda fed. If the stagnation area increseases, coanda decreases. Less stagnation, clean air.