Re CAD...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls
What kind of software are you using
|
Sorry, should have said "CAD", in quotes. With a nod to Craig Vetter, I was talking about "Cardboard Aided Design".
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Darin,the tuft images look great.They may be a little "nervous" in places,but they're mostly pointed "back" which means attached flow and no circulation.
|
Thanks for the input, Phil.
I'm a little nervous about those nervous looking side tufts. It's clear I could increase the top taper - those tufts are laying almost still right to the transom.
What I don't know - and maybe you or Bob can tell me - is this: should my goal be to taper as much as possible until
I actually see evidence of separation through circulation/reverse flow, and then back off a bit?
In other words, will we achieve favorable drag results even as we increase the amount of "nervousness" in the tufts (evidence of tubulence and a thickening boundary layer) through further tapering?
It's clear I can taper the top more. Not sure about the sides though. Maybe you can decide when I post some video this week.
Quote:
|
Many of the concept cars have "apparent" angles which are pretty steep until you figure what happens with their active suspensions,with dropped noses kicking their hineys up to a "shallower" angle.
|
Given that Cd is supposedly constant in the range of speeds where road vehicles operate, why would a vehicle want to actively adjust its angle of attack? Is the nose up/tail down attitude a concession to low speed driving for clearance, making the top angle aerodynamically sub-optimal until the nose goes down?