[aerohead]

In the now-closed thread: ' Why don't vehicles have aerofoils...', at # 201 (permalink) Julian Edgar returned to disparage the DARKO Wind Tunnel once again.
1) DARKO was a 'curved-wall' wind tunnel.
2) According to Hucho, test vehicles, in excess of 20% blockage return perfectly acceptable drag coefficients if tested at zero-yaw, and if a blockage ratio calibration model, tested in a large-scale wind tunnel is employed in data reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) From the video ' Streamlined Toyota T-100 in Wind Tunnel', anyone may observe that I personally moved the smoke wand to the ceiling of the DARKO tunnel, expressly to demonstrate that there was no constrainment of the streamlines, as might be feared in a 'small' wind tunnel.
4) Anyone may also notice that DARKO has no provision for yaw testing, only zero-yaw.
5) Anyone who read the report about the DARKO testing, is also familiar with the fact that a Toyota Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Blockage Calibration Model was used in advance of the T-100 testing at DARKO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) With respect to the A2 Wind Tunnel, it is of an 'adaptive-wall' design with movable test-section surfaces.
7) Models used within 'adaptive-wall' wind tunnels may have blockage in excess of 30% and return perfectly acceptable Cds according to Hucho, as long as tested at zero-yaw, and with a blockage ratio calibration model from a large wind tunnel.
8) Any observer of the A2 Wind Tunnel will immediately notice that it has no provision for yaw testing.
9) The same large-scale blockage-ratio calibration model as used by Don Sherman et al., in the CAR and DRIVER 'Drag Queens' article, from the A2 Wind Tunnel is the same calibration model as used for Spirit of EcoModer.com at DARKO.