View Single Post
Old 03-31-2009, 10:25 AM   #19 (permalink)
Shawn D.
Harebrained Idea Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 211

The White Car - '84 Mercedes-Benz 300td
90 day: 28.84 mpg (US)

The Blue Car - '86 BMW 535i
Last 3: 23.86 mpg (US)
Thanks: 19
Thanked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Armchair Aerodynamicists Say The Funniest Things

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingbird View Post
But it is not the teardrop tapering OUTLINE that is important, it is the overall cross section profile area that needs to taper to be better aerodynamically.
The theories & logic some of Y'all come up with are pretty hilarious -- do not mount it backwards. Mounting it backwards will not only look ridiculous, you'll be creating a stagnation area all along the upright edge that is not there when mounted properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingbird View Post
It is due to this reason that some early fast fighter aircraft fuselages had a strange 'dimple' at the point where wings met the fuselage The wings added a sudden additional area when cross section is considered. That prevented the aircrafts to overcome drag particularly flying close to Mach1 figure. the trick designers used there was to give a 'dimple' in the fuselage, that reduced sudden increase in the cross-section area. This helped push aircrafts to higher speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtec-e View Post
Whoaaaa!!! There's a random nugget of knowlege! Thanks!
Unfortunately, that nugget is taken out of context and is merely iron pyrite, not the gold it seems. The transonic area rule has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this antenna -- a normal roadgoing car way down low in the incompressible flow region.
__________________

  Reply With Quote