[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*Look to THEORY OF FLIGHT,by Richard Von Mises, DOVER Publications, for an introduction to the concept of the streamline body, conceived in 1907,by Frederick W. Lanchester, who was one of only two people on Earth with a true command of aerodynamics, Ludvig Prandtl being the other.
*Airfoils have nothing to do with streamline bodies.
*And again, if you will re-visit 'THEORY OF WING SECTIONS Including a Summary of Airfoil Data, Appendix-IV, by Abbott and Von Doenhoff, you'll be re-acquainted with 118-families of airfoils, all of which are zero-lift, depending on angle of attack, also addressed in Von Mises work.
*Wait until you see the pressure profile over a streamline body and it's zero-lift before you condemn them.
*Yes, if properly gear-matched, a 10% drag reduction will approximately relate to a 5% improvement in constant velocity,55-mph, highway driving (not to be confused with any EPA Highway testing protocol);for any vehicle which has undergone only a shape change.
*As to 'Kamm' tails, technically, it would be 'Koenig' tail, as Reinhard Koenig-von Fachsenfeld holds the patent for the 'K' truncated tail. Kamm is given the credit, but he's really known for his low-drag cooling system. And yes, in the context of the model studies conducted at FKFS, the K-tail might as well be considered ideal.FKFS starts with the entire streamline body, then begins lopping off sections, documenting the drag change as a function of the degree of truncation.'Verjungunsverahaltnisses'. Hucho states that this is the only path to low drag, and the premise of aerodynamic streamlining.
* The Langenburg Castle K-car is not Kamm's K-5,Cd 0.23 car, it is the K-3.It was Jerry Sloniger of ROAD & TRACK,August,1982,page 66, who tracked down the proper nomenclature of these cars. Kaselbach is incorrect in his data presentation. Kamm's car was Cd 0.23,diesel-powered,overdriven,85-hp,and top speed of 113-mph.HOT ROD Magazine featured photos of the K-5 in 1963,depicting tuft-testing.The flow is virtually ideal up until it reaches the rear radii of the tail, something not depicted in in the FKFS drag tables.
*There is a perfect streamline template shape. Hucho gave us all the critical elements for its construction in his 2nd Edition of 1987.At 1/3rd-scale,it returned Cd 0.1201 at DARKO,with compromised wheel fairings. It's a sure thing. You don't have to worry about boundary layer or anything else.It's pre-tested, at any scale you choose, up to 250-mph.
*Would you like to show me where I've ever implied that box-cavities are a panacea?
* I have only recommended that people approach CAR and DRIVER, and see if they'll conduct the coastdowns at Chrysler Proving Grounds, E.Chelsea, Michigan.They know the SAE protocols,have scientific-grade weather system,and optical fifth-wheel, as well as access to Chrysler's all-wheel scales, a dedicated test-track, where they conduct the rapid, back-to-back coastdowns, plus custom software for the data reduction.Top speed is conducted on the 8-mile oval, with only stop-watch,and no aerodynamic excrescences of any kind. They tested my CRX in 1991,afer the speed record at Bonneville. Call for current pricing and availability.
*As to the wheelcovers, your messengers have yet to re-test previously-measured static structures on a rolling-road wind tunnel, and publish the discrepancy between the two readings. I've yet t see any bona fides,prima facie evidence for the superiority of aspirated covers,except in specific cases.And curiously, when GM,Ford,or Volkswagen set out to establish land speed records, their choice of wheelcover is the MOON disc, even though they have access to virtually any 'secret-weapon' design. And to the rotating wheel supremacy issue, Dennis Semanaitis,of ROAD & TRACK,August,1982.p.35,reported:'[Rotating wheel] Tests have shown that wheels and tires of an ordinary passenger car generate added drag of 0.005 or less....The idea of a moving belt has been explored,though most believe its complication outweigh any potential improvement in realism.'
Hucho, in 1987, states,'The rotation of the wheels isusually not taken into consideration in wind tunnel testing; testing is carried out with the wheels stationary.When the wheels are integrated into the body the roration of the wheels appears to have negligible influence upon the forces and moments acting upon the vehicle (Second Edition, page 419).

This is just a dump largely of misunderstandings, outdated references, and irrelevant citations.

To save time, I'll pick out just five completely wrong statements.

Originally Posted by aerohead

1. Airfoils have nothing to do with streamline bodies.

Well then, you must have a unique definition of what comprises a streamline body. Earlier you defined a streamlined body as one with attached flow. (Which is correct.) And aerofoils have attached flow. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by aerohead

2. Wait until you see the pressure profile over a streamline body and it's zero-lift before you condemn them.

I've seen lots. One example is a wing, and they allow aircraft to fly.

Originally Posted by aerohead

3. Yes, if properly gear-matched, a 10% drag reduction will approximately relate to a 5% improvement in constant velocity,55-mph, highway driving (not to be confused with any EPA Highway testing protocol);for any vehicle which has undergone only a shape change.

It doesn't even need any reference citations to prove this is absurd. (But as a bonus I previously gave two references that show this not to be the case.) Just think about it for a minute. Given that rolling resistance (the other determiner of fuel consumption) changes little with cars of different CD, how can this rule of thumb validly apply to cars that might vary in CD from 0.5 to 0.25? To put it simply, the proportional change might be to something making up half the total vehicle resistance, or one-quarter! And yet the outcome is the same?

Originally Posted by aerohead

4.The Langenburg Castle K-car is not Kamm's K-5,Cd 0.23 car, it is the K-3.It was Jerry Sloniger of ROAD & TRACK,August,1982,page 66, who tracked down the proper nomenclature of these cars. Kaselbach is incorrect in his data presentation. Kamm's car was Cd 0.23,diesel-powered,overdriven,85-hp,and top speed of 113-mph.HOT ROD Magazine featured photos of the K-5 in 1963,depicting tuft-testing.The flow is virtually ideal up until it reaches the rear radii of the tail, something not depicted in in the FKFS drag tables.

No test of any of these K cars in a modern wind tunnel has given what we would now call low drag values. Hardly surprising. And yet you still quote these drag figures as if they are valid. More spreading of misconceptions.

Originally Posted by aerohead

(5. As to the wheelcovers, your messengers have yet to re-test previously-measured static structures on a rolling-road wind tunnel, and publish the discrepancy between the two readings. I've yet t see any bona fides,prima facie evidence for the superiority of aspirated covers,except in specific cases.And curiously, when GM,Ford,or Volkswagen set out to establish land speed records, their choice of wheelcover is the MOON disc, even though they have access to virtually any 'secret-weapon' design. And to the rotating wheel supremacy issue, Dennis Semanaitis,of ROAD & TRACK,August,1982.p.35,reported:'[Rotating wheel] Tests have shown that wheels and tires of an ordinary passenger car generate added drag of 0.005 or less....The idea of a moving belt has been explored,though most believe its complication outweigh any potential improvement in realism.'
Hucho, in 1987, states,'The rotation of the wheels isusually not taken into consideration in wind tunnel testing; testing is carried out with the wheels stationary.When the wheels are integrated into the body the roration of the wheels appears to have negligible influence upon the forces and moments acting upon the vehicle (Second Edition, page 419)

Seriously, this is flat earth stuff.

Pick up any current textbook on car aero.

Talk to any current professional aerodynamicist.

Think for a moment why every major car manufacturer in the world has spent millions (billions?) upgrading their wind tunnels, or building new ones, that incorporate the facility to have turning wheels on their test cars.

And they're all wrong - because of something you read in Road and Track in 1982?