View Single Post
Old 07-30-2009, 01:59 AM   #25 (permalink)
theycallmeebryan
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 389

2003 Ninja EX250 - '03 Kawasaki Ninja EX250
90 day: 78.57 mpg (US)

Saturn - '99 Saturn SL1 Base
90 day: 47.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 25
Thanked 58 Times in 37 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
I've been thinking that we should do a separate thread exclusively for wing sections.I've been playing a game of catch up,reading a little deeper into my texts and see the wings with mixed feelings.Here are some random observations1) wings operate in free air which is virtually turbulence free.(2) automobiles operate in air which is all turbulence.(3) Virtually all the drag of a wing (unless it stalls) is skin friction.(4) Only about 7% of an automobiles drag is from skin friction,with 55% from profile drag.(5) Wings reach their lowest Cd(min) at aspect ratios of 4-5,and "practical" aspect ratios for wings are in the range of 3-9,and as high as 20 for sailplanes.(6) a wing used for a automobile body could have only a fractional aspect ratio,its tabular data unusable according to Abbott and von Doenhoff.(7)"Flight" Reynolds numbers of 6-million can be achieved at Re 2,000 due to turbulence in ground-effect,and at 20-mph.(8) What would otherwise be a "laminar" wing in free air,will transition to turbulent boundary layer at normal automotive ground clearance and low road velocity.(9) crosswinds would be the same as angle of attack change to a vertical wing section,Cl would quickly climb,as would drag( for example,a Clark-Y in a 17-degree relative wind would see a 180% drag increase),creating a pitching moment about the aerodynamic center.(10)0.0005-inches roughness or less is permissible for at the leading edge of a laminar wing,so dried bug juice and insect remains would be enough to scuttle the low drag of these high performance sections,not to mention free turbulence.----------------------------------------------------- Wings are great and I love what they do.I'm just having a time of it trying to wrap my brain around using their performance criteria in the context of an automotive body.Jaray's form does resemble a Clark-Y from the side,but with all the rounding off of edges on the side and nose,"pumpkin seed" seams a better fit for a descriptor.With the "mirror-image" my brain sees the body of a "pair-of-grins" falcon in full stoop at 250-mph.
I understand that the NACA 6-series wings, and pretty much all foil shapes, produce the lowest drag while in flight, where air is less turbulent and there is no ground deflection.

Since these shapes are so susceptible to imperfections (bug guts, cracks in shape, roughness in shape, etc), what then would be the optimal shape for a road vehicle? Is it worth even attempting to use a low drag foil shape, like the NACA 6-series, on a road car at that rate? Are you suggesting that a simple shape following the template you have posted would have less drag and more laminar flow than a car designed around a NACA foil, considering every day road conditions?

Would it be safe to say that a shape which has the least average drag from -10 degrees to 10 degrees would be the optimal to select for a road vehicle?
__________________
Doing my part to reduce dependence on OIL
Doing my part to reduce congestion
And enjoying it!

If you have to use your brakes, you are driving too fast!

My 101.5 MPG 2003 Kawasaki Ninja 250




Crude Oil Price Today
  Reply With Quote