Originally Posted by aerohead
* The raw pressure data I'd theoretically measure would have no context, unless we had the actual axle loads.
* You'd want to take the curb-weight, plus all passengers, plus luggage / cargo, up to full-rated allowable gross weight, determine from the front/rear weight bias, the actual static axle loading, compared to any 'lift', whether positive or negative; and 'see' what that looked like.
* And it may not have registered, that a streamline half-body begins its boat-tailing at the drivers shoulder, at the roof apex.
* The boundary layer doesn't 'grow' as with conventional bodies. The velocity gradient is continuously falling, across a diminishing cross-section, while maintaining a gently-increasing pressure gradient, which the boundary layer 'loves.'
* By default, being 'streamlined', the profile cannot trigger separation. There is no pressure drag. Only friction drag, and that is at the observable minimum of all bodies, by definition.
* You might be surprised by a streamlined half-body.
* According to the airship designers, at zero-yaw, a streamline body of revolution produces zero-lift.
* 100% full, local atmospheric pressure is acting on the nose.
* At a 2.5:1 L/D ratio, perhaps as high as 91% of local barometric pressure is available over the aft-body.
* This would be the same for the half-body.
* The diffuser would counteract any rear lift.
* Hucho stated that , for passenger cars, neutral lift is a perfectly acceptable target.
* A dorsal appendage could address any crosswind / gust issues. It won't be long before roadside meteorological monitoring stations will communicate, directly, in real-time with vehicle AI, providing 'guidance' with respect to any problematic weather scenarios.
|