Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
It's not hard to understand. The smaller the wind tunnel, the less it can be relied on for accuracy.
Every credible technical reference states that; to suggest otherwise is simply to mislead.
It's the major reason why no major car manufacturer, race team, etc, uses small wind tunnels to test full-size vehicles. Instead, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars building huge wind tunnels.
This isn't a new idea - Volkswagen built their full-size wind tunnel in 1966.It had a 5 per cent blockage factor.
I won't bother contributing further to the thread: night doesn't become day just because someone here says so.
|
1) there's context associated with 'small'. Curious that you don't recognize that when it's dropped directly in your lap.
2) you've dodged an explanation for curved-wall tunnels.
3) you've dodged an explanation for adaptive-wall tunnels.
4) you've dodged an explanation for using 'any' wind tunnel for iterative testing of the same vehicle under different body configurations.
5) Sad that Hucho's textbook has been downgraded to uncreditable.
6) Would you like to tell us the size of the actual air jet inside those 'huge' tunnels. Do you actually believe that what you see is all test section jet?
7) Does Volkswagen test at yaw angles?
8) Do you think the frontal area of a Vanagon Westfalia Campmobile and Cd 0.51 might have some bearing on the jet size requirement and yaw-testing area consideration of a wind tunnel design. And underutilization of same tunnel, when smaller test vehicles are inside?
9) How about size requirements for a passenger car towing a caravan RV travel trailer? And it's wastefulness when testing smaller vehicles?
10) You have a track record of dodging direct questions. The implications aren't pretty.