Bugatti: Aero Beauty and Innovation
 

I have bee looking at 20's and 30's Bugatti cars recently and realizing how aerodynamic they were.

One of the most beautiful cars ever built: The type 57 SC Atlantic.

http://spbcar.ru/news/en/i/2009-04-11/rl-bugatti.jpg

http://images.drive.com.au/drive_ima...ntic_L_700.jpg

http://www.peugeotoeste.com.ar/blog/...ista-aerea.jpg

http://www.bellesdantan.com/Bugatti/...gatti57-03.jpg

1923 Type 32: This car must have seemed radical compared with the open wheel cars of the time.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-or...pe-32-tank.jpg

http://www.cbx.ro/uploads/pics/Bugat...tank_g3_01.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/161fa0w.jpg

http://timeout.watchprosite.com/img/...ge.1028981.jpg

There were lots of Aero designs in the 30s and I agree the Type 57 is superbly beautiful. When you also think back that Bugatti had twin cam 16v engines before WW1 you have to admire the design.

For aero with beauty though stay French (and yes this does pain me as an Englishman) however just google Robert Opron (especiall images). Citroen DS, CS, GS GSA and so forth.

http://www.bellesdantan.com/Bugatti/...gatti57-03.jpg

Why is it that if you take such a beautiful design and turn it around into a more aerodynamic configuration, that it looks incredibly dorky??

...looks like a "Batman Car" from the 1930's (ha,ha).

Ettore Bugatti was an innovator in many, many areas of automobile design and construction, as well as more generalized engineering pursuits.

Just one example: Because head gaskets were a failure point, his engines had none; the head and block were machined from a solid block. As was the crankshaft of course! Carving a hemispherical combustion chamber, valve seats, and so on into the far end of a cylinder bore required a great deal of invention in the area of machining.

The Type 35 won over 1000 races, in fact it is still winning vintage classes today. Alloy wheels in 1925!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...p_35A_1925.jpg

Agreed, The type 35 is also a gorgeous car. Amazing what one can do with copious amounts of cash.

I think the heads were scraped by hand to fit perfectly. Old school engineering but apparently hand scraping is still done when absolute accuracy is needed.

I think maybe this should be called "beauty and innovation" rather than "aero beauty and innovation".

While I have not located any drag specs for these two cars, plugging likely specs for the Atlantic into the performance calculator nets a likely Cd of worse than .50!

The tank looks great to me from the nose to the front of the cockpit, where it then proceeds to fall apart aerodynamically. (Armchair aero, I know, but what else is there?) I'd wager it has a poor Cd too.

perhaps they were aero for their time, frank. keep things in perspective.
you'd be pluggin in a ton of numbers to compare models of the same era.

The type 32 was racing against open wheel cars of the time so it would have had a lower Cd than those no doubt. The type 32 was built just two years after the Rumpler Tropfenauto.

(SHHH...Don't tell Hermie)

Then again, perhaps they weren't.

Odd to proclaim them "aero" in the absence of any evidence :confused:

My educated guesstimates put the Atlantic at Cd .65-.70, which is no better or worse than anything else of the era.

Blah blah blah...

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/image...abriolet_6.jpg

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/2...Cabriolet.html

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/image...abriolet_8.jpg

I proclaim, Hazzah!!!

http://www.bugattiaircraft.com/images/cance1.jpg

http://www.bugattiaircraft.com/plane.htm

Beautiful- no doubt! :thumbup:

Aerodynamic? You have brought exactly 0 to the table on that. :rolleyes:

Thanks for keeping score!

Critical, no doubt.

Constructive? You have brought exactly 0 to the table on that.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/image...abriolet_6.jpg

Is this off-roading Bugatti style?

...mid-engined aircraft = a French-version of the Bell P-39 Airacobra?

Really? I ran several sims on the aero calculator, after googling for what specs I could find.

If there's anything better out there, bring it!

Can you shed some light on how you realized they were aerodynamic? :confused:

I agree. :)

Waiting for something more constructive to come along... :rolleyes:

Looks like it. Interesting to note the wing positions which would have been due to different C of G/C of P.

It looks like the tail on the Bugatti would be a bit short and low on surface area to be as maneuverable as the spitfire. Just an eyeball judgement though. Too bad it never flew.

Also interesting is the low rudder. Would have to have pretty high gear not to scrape that on flare out.

The counter rotating props would have made take off less hazardous and easier on your right foot. The Spitfire tended to hasten an immediate exit stage left without full right rudder on take off.

The visibility would have been fantastic!

Here's the Spit fire:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3/SpitI19a.jpg

And the Aerocobra:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Airacobra.jpg

And the 100P. Mr. Bugatti liked to be different:

http://www.bugattiaircraft.com/images/cance2.jpg

The Bugatti has counter rotating props, and I like the folding landing gear covers. The engine seems to be pretty much in the rear -- it probably would be quieter in the cockpit? It seems like it would have a darn long drive shaft?

...looks like it was a "tail-dragger" landing gear configuration, with the "tail-wheel" being located *IN* the lower dorsal stabilzer.

Nobody is going to help educate me on this? I would love to be proven wrong so I can eat those words and apologize profusely.

Man, you guys cease to amaze me.

beautiful but
 

she's a beauty,but I suspect separation at the headlight bezels,everything behind the windshield would be in separated flow,and too much air would be going underneath.And I bet that's a nasty undercarriage.

heres a real old aero car, and USA made to boot
 

Buckminster Fullers Dymaxion car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhSonPwM8zE

Ceiling cat finds the greatest stuff!

http://gi253.photobucket.com/groups/...O/Bad_Post.jpg
yous trollin'
lol.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...r/31010001.jpg

See this? It's aero.

Why?

Cuz I said so.

Now that's trollin'! LOL :p

Clearly it is.

It has the wheel covers, as well as the "plate in front of the larger object" technique (the tank on the front to split the high speed air).

I bet that thing has a top speed of 24, now, instead of 21. :thumbup:

Note the skinnier than standard tires and the front aerofenders too!

The trolls have been fed. ;)

The "Tank" type 32 was built just one year after Jaray applied for his patent on vehicle aerodynamics (which was granted in 1927). The "Tank" was panned at the time by the French press for it's looks. I'm trying to find out if it had a flat belly pan. Apparently it was "interesting" to drive...

[IMG]http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-or...pe-32-tank.gif[/IMG]

I just found a new book on the type 32 written by Diego Ratti. From the preview:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-or...-picture-1.png

[IMG]http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-or...-picture-3.png[/IMG]


AHA!
From:the Bugatti revue: Bugatti Aircraft

http://www.bugattirevue.com/revue4/oshkosh1.gif

Found a couple of shots of the interior showing how the driver literally sat in the engine compartment. The co-pilot was saddled with the exhaust pipes, poor bugger.

http://www.herbytoys.com/images/CarS...ttiType32a.jpg

I believe this is a faithful replica. I'm trying to find out if it had a full belly pan. I can see glimpses of it in this photo:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/...8a20f4faec.jpg

And a bonus video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5m9VpPouIY

The Bugatti type 32 was built for the 1923 French Grand Prix. Incidentally, in the same year, Tatra, famous in aero circles for their aerodynamic cars of later years came out with this car:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../d/df/T-11.JPG

The first Jaray licensed streamliners wouldn't show up until twelve years later in 1934 starting with the T77

Oh, I agree. I realize that a lot of these cars were aerodynamic styling exercises that's why I titled the thread "Aero Beauty and innovation" and not Aero, Beauty and Innovation"

I also did not make any claims as to these car's Cds, low, high or otherwise. The first sentence in the thread was meant to convey that I was discovering the aerodynamic aspects and technical innovations of Bugatti cars.

I didn't even attempt to make guesses as to their Cds as these would prove to be totally unreliable.

I'm still looking for Cd and frontal area numbers but haven't found any.

"...I titled the thread "Aero Beauty and innovation" and not Aero, Beauty and Innovation"


"I have bee looking at 20's and 30's Bugatti cars recently and realizing how aerodynamic they were."

Sorry, comma or no comma, that looks like a claim that these cars are/were aero.

And when I tried to apply some logic to that claim, the response was to throw gas on the fire.

And there we are. :thumbup:

If your intention was to say "Bugatti's were styled to look sleek" or "Art Deco" then that's what you would have said, right?

Apology accepted.

If English is your second language, I understand.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/wp-cont...008/02/001.jpg
Photos: Bugatti 100 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
http://www.youngeagles.org/wallpaper...lpaper1280.jpg
http://www.solatechnical.com/daisey-.../bug100-15.jpg

Good find. What a gorgeous machine. Apparently, the slots on the leading edge of the tail surfaces are the engine cooling intakes.

I also read that the dual prop shafts pass under the armpits of the pilot. Talk about an intimate connection with your machine.

The lack of a bump type canopy would have made it very slippery. Too bad it never flew. If I had the wads of cash required, I'd have one built. Perhaps not with balsa wood, though.

I found a shot that shows a bit of the belly pan on the T-32 The salient question on this car is whether the air would reattach behind the cockpit.

http://www.barchetta.cc/All.Ferraris...atti-t32-6.jpg

numbers
 

I've never run across any quanta for these cars,although GOOGLE never ceases to amaze,so perhaps at some point we may get some hard numbers.
Hucho did make a comment with respect to the 'tank' in his 2nd edition,and wrote that he believed the car would probably suffer separation in the area where the windscreen would typically be and never recover.
I've been spending time with Jaray's development model and I am convinced that even in separated flow,the aft-body still performs a beneficial function.
Without a technical term to draw on,I'm refering to it as 'stuffing the wake.'
And it's a concept aerodynamacists stumbled onto when testing convertibles with the top down.
By placing manikins in the open car they were able to measure lower drag do to this 'stuffing,' and I think that the aft-body of the Bugatti 'tank' is helping to perform this function.
All,except the last of Jaray's models( the full-tail) suffer separated flow very early on the body but do not suffer the drag as would occur at the same point for a Kamm chop,so the tail must serve drag reduction even though it's less than ideal.I believe it's true of all pseudo-fast-back cars.
I'm going to look at R.G.S.White's 'Method of Estimating Drag Coefficients' at some point,'n see if it might offer some insight into the early cars.
The main working page from it is in the Phil Knox Aerodynamic Photos Album somewhere.