05-21-2010, 07:27 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,256
Thanks: 24,382
Thanked 7,359 Times in 4,759 Posts
|
Chrysler Airflow arrives today
SAE Paper# 410139 arrived today in the mail.
The paper is by brother of one of the fellows who worked for Carl Breer,designer of the Airflow.
In 1934-1/2 the Airflow was 're-streamlined',with Cd dropping from 0.51,to 0.244.
Fuel economy at 80-mph went up 57%.
This paper was presented at SAE semi-annual meeting,June 4,1941.
By this time,Chrysler had a Cd 0.244 car which required no added length as was needed in 1934.
I'll digest the thing,update my drawings and do a complete thread ASAP.
Aerodynamics.It doesn't work! Wouldn't even consider it!
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
05-21-2010, 08:20 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 491
Thanks: 170
Thanked 69 Times in 44 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
SAE Paper# 410139 arrived today in the mail.
The paper is by brother of one of the fellows who worked for Carl Breer,designer of the Airflow.
In 1934-1/2 the Airflow was 're-streamlined',with Cd dropping from 0.51,to 0.244.
Fuel economy at 80-mph went up 57%.
This paper was presented at SAE semi-annual meeting,June 4,1941.
By this time,Chrysler had a Cd 0.244 car which required no added length as was needed in 1934.
I'll digest the thing,update my drawings and do a complete thread ASAP.
Aerodynamics.It doesn't work! Wouldn't even consider it!
|
I don't those number make sense in the context of modern streamlined vehicles. .244 from an Airflow when the Insight 1 is .25 and the new E class MB is .24
Hucho (Yes I bought the book.) makes the comment in his history section that the historical numbers are somewhat suspect because of the improvements in measurement technology.
Not saying that the Airflow didn't achieve some good numbers, but I seriously doubt that it is as good or better than modern efforts
|
|
|
05-21-2010, 08:37 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
...beats walking...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
|
...what? a meter or foot in 1941 wasn't as accurate as a meter or foot is in 2010?
Last edited by gone-ot; 05-22-2010 at 06:18 PM..
|
|
|
05-21-2010, 09:59 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Aero Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 59
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
Any pics of this slim and slippery beast?
__________________
1994 electricfly EV conversion 36V/450A/60km/h
1997 Suzuki Sprint hatch (parts car?)
1998 Geo Metro sedan 1.3L auto (the wifes)
2009 GMC Sierra 27us/mpg best yet (still workin on it)
|
|
|
05-21-2010, 11:14 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,527
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 6,976 Times in 3,612 Posts
|
Looking forward to the details, Phil. I didn't even know they slippified an original Airflow.
|
|
|
05-22-2010, 03:02 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,256
Thanks: 24,382
Thanked 7,359 Times in 4,759 Posts
|
calendar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimepting
I don't those number make sense in the context of modern streamlined vehicles. .244 from an Airflow when the Insight 1 is .25 and the new E class MB is .24
Hucho (Yes I bought the book.) makes the comment in his history section that the historical numbers are somewhat suspect because of the improvements in measurement technology.
Not saying that the Airflow didn't achieve some good numbers, but I seriously doubt that it is as good or better than modern efforts
|
Perhaps you missed the historical context of the Cd benchmark,1934 vs 2010.
That's a lot of wasted hydrocarbons in the meantime.
|
|
|
05-22-2010, 03:12 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,256
Thanks: 24,382
Thanked 7,359 Times in 4,759 Posts
|
pics
Quote:
Originally Posted by swede
Any pics of this slim and slippery beast?
|
swede,I had done some preliminary drawings based on dimensional reports of the mods and from Chrysler Historical Dept. photos published in Hemmings: Specialty Vehicle magazine article.
The photos are all orthogonal and contain zero true-length architecture,so it's virtually impossible to reconstruct the car's form accurately.
This is what led me to SAE,hoping that their paper might show accurate views.It DOES NOT! Which sucks bigtime!
Al is going to help me with some pdf files which will allow larger ( I hope ) images than the jpgs I've been posting.
It will take awhile.
|
|
|
05-22-2010, 03:34 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,256
Thanks: 24,382
Thanked 7,359 Times in 4,759 Posts
|
lubridynamified!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
Looking forward to the details, Phil. I didn't even know they slippified an original Airflow.
|
Yeah Darin,this is the first documented account of an aero-modded vehicle I've stumbled across.
The paper runs to 7-pages.What I had hoped for the most,an accurate scale representation of the car,is not included.
I'll spend a little time going over the numbers.It's all in aerospace terminology,with square feet of flat-plate equivalency rather than frontal area Cd.
I have a technical drawing of the car in elevation,some orthogonal photos,and some renderings I questimated from published data.
The data looks pretty good.They used a number of different ways to generate the values and covered correlation factors between wind tunnel results and full-scale tests,dynamometer tests,and top speed,etc..
Perhaps Saturday Night Live can get Tom Hanks to do a new character,'Mr. Long-term Memory Loss',playing a Chrysler CEO.
|
|
|
05-23-2010, 10:01 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 491
Thanks: 170
Thanked 69 Times in 44 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Perhaps you missed the historical context of the Cd benchmark,1934 vs 2010.
That's a lot of wasted hydrocarbons in the meantime.
|
Correct! I hadn't thought about it in that context
|
|
|
|