A:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardell
.....fluidynamic description ...."wing" and the 1/2 cover
|
B:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
....scale model testing....... wing and bed cover combination.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we have two means and methods with the same end result.
A: computer model (fluidynamic description) and 1/2 bed cover (aft half, right?).
B: scale mode and full bed cover.
Like I mentioned, older/earlier reports recorded a great increase in lift. I can only assume that there must have been some slight but important changes to the roof wing/spoiler for the results to have turned around so.
I bet (one dollar) based on my own experiences, that the roof garnish now has an air-gap between it's leading edge and the cabin roof.
EDIT-1:
Feysal Ahmed Adem
B.S., Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, 1999
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...1-a-19525.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
Did some more research. Pages 55-58, the conclusion on "rear roof garnish" is not exactly what I had in mind. Their "garnish" is set at a 12 degree downward angle, and I'm guessing about 6 inches deep.
PDF link:
http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlu...pdf?sequence=1 |
This is not one of the Texas Tech papers, apologies to anyone I may have mislead.
I should note that the roof garnish has been reported to be 24"-32" not 6" deep.