Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis
Is that a pointy nose I see?
Why does it have louvres instead of a smooth rear window though?
|
WOW! Sorry I missed this from so very long ago!
Yes,it is a 'pointy' nose.And after revisiting Fachsenfeld's book of 1951 I have a different take on it.
It is the only reference I've seen in which a 'teardrop' was tested 'backwards,' with the pointed end into the airstream.
It's drag is about 29% higher than when going the other direction,but when lowered into ground proximity,and after wheels are added,the drag is less than 15% higher.
The other thing to consider,is that Mercedes-Benz was approaching transonic flow,whereas some parts of the car would be experiencing compressabilty effects and the nose would play a greater role.
What's curious,is that the next year,in 1979,for the C-111 IV,Mercedes shortened and flattened the nose (more like Porsche's 'Flachbau-Schnoz)and then extended the boat-tail almost all the way to 1,500 mm.
Even festooned with all the extra down-force winglets,the C 111 IV measured no higher drag than the III with no wings,but shorter tail,and with extra power pushed above 250 mph for the 1st time.
'Pointy' is okay aerodynamically,but from an automotive standpoint it may not share the architectural caveats allowed the traditional 'teardrop 'forebody,and the necessary windshield angles might render forward vision an optical impossibility.Hucho touches on this aspect of vehicular design.