Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2014, 06:04 PM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 11,229
Thanks: 17,998
Thanked 5,976 Times in 3,633 Posts
Fairing Well,NASA truck aerodynamics

Here's a link to NASA's book about their truck aerodynamic research at Edwards Air Force Base,by Christian Gelzer.
All I can say is WOW!
http://history.nasa.gov/monograph46.pdf

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
BamZipPow (08-06-2014), ECONORAM (09-05-2015), Frank Lee (08-05-2014), nemo (08-05-2014), nemobuscaptain (06-05-2015), slowmover (06-06-2015), user removed (08-05-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-05-2014, 07:44 PM   #2 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: anderson, sc
Posts: 14

Z - '04 chevrolet silverado 1500 Z-71
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks aerohead. A ton of information and a lot of food for thought.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2014, 08:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,503
Thanked 276 Times in 226 Posts
Wow, a good 75 pages of images and diagrams.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2014, 10:20 PM   #4 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 44
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts
Not that there hasn't ever been any money wasted by the gov't, but every now and then you come across something where you just have to say, "as a taxpayer, I got my money's worth out of that". Thanks for the link.
__________________
Regards,
Carl Ijames carl.ijames xx@xx verizon.net delete the xxs
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2014, 12:20 AM   #5 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,732

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,507 Times in 2,194 Posts
Generally I found it to be a very interesting read.

However, as I plowed through it I noticed statements that were "red flags" to me:
pg 14: 1914 Ricotti wasn't just plans; it was built.
pg 15: Odd how the early aero heavyweights were omitted- Jaray, Porsche, etc.
pg 16: Retractable gear doesn't matter on planes going less than 250mph?? Wrong!
pg 23: Rounded rear corners on "shoebox" better than sharp? Really?
pgs 41-42: Yah, the chopped-off tail worked just as well because the full tail tapered too rapidly- that's why the separation was so bad.
pgs 50-51: Ignorant candy-arse truckers :/
pg 59: COE inherently less aero? Pointy nose better? Less frontal area? From what I've been taught, that's all B.S. Footnote had it right: better ride.
pg 66: Tire nitrogen? Air tabs? Eyebrow rising; starting to lose me...
pg 67: Generate lift, reduce trailer weight 15% = more efficiency? Uh-Oh. How much more of this article is suspicious or worse yet, garbage?
pg 78: Efficiency = effeminate; inefficiency = macho... TRUTH! SUVs and PUs...

There was more good than bad by a long shot though; to list the good would test my and anyone's A.D.D.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (08-06-2014)
Old 08-06-2014, 08:47 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,291

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 29.72 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 51.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 406
Thanked 597 Times in 437 Posts
^^ Too right!

Speaking specifically to your point regarding page 16, about retractable gear making no difference:

My favorite airplane (in the private plane sector), the Cessna 182, is also available in a retractable gear design. That alone makes it unique, you don't often see private planes available in both styles.

The fixed gear 182 has a cruise speed of 140 knots, the retractable model - same power - has a cruise speed of 156 knots. That's over 10% more speed. The rate of climb is over 10% better as well, even though the RG plane weighs more.

I do like the 182. It's a very handsome plane, especially in flight with the gear retracted. It comes close to embodying the old "if it looks right, it is right" maxim vis--vis small planes.
__________________




Lead or follow. Either is fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2014, 11:22 AM   #7 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Motor City
Posts: 249
Thanks: 0
Thanked 177 Times in 114 Posts
This paper is a few years old. And some of the stuff in it is decades old. Still a great recent look at a lot of work NASA has done. I've had it saved on my computer for a while. I'm sure it's been mentioned here before, or I wouldn't have known about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
pg 14: 1914 Ricotti wasn't just plans; it was built. ...
You must be quoting page numbers in the pdf, not the actual report? (They don't match up.) Just to be clear.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2014, 12:48 PM   #8 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,732

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,507 Times in 2,194 Posts
^Yes.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2014, 07:26 PM   #9 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,732

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,507 Times in 2,194 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by page67
...and led to as much as a 15% drop in the weight of the trailer by generating lift, improving vehicle efficiency."
So I looked up Bob Englar and I doubt he's naive. I think this is a garbled-up editing error and I postulate the intended statement was something like, "...and led to as much as a 15% drop in lift on the trailer, improving vehicle efficiency."
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2014, 11:37 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 16,080
Thanks: 4,223
Thanked 5,417 Times in 4,312 Posts
Quote:
pg 67: Generate lift, reduce trailer weight 15% = more efficiency? Uh-Oh. How much more of this article is suspicious or worse yet, garbage?
That's Englar. Active aerodyamics via pumped air. He found he could effect plus/minus drag and lift by valving the slots on the four rear sides; All on to go, sides off to stop, top off (I think) for lift and bottom off for downforce (or vice versa).

The fuel savings comes from reduced tire sidewall flex, while retaining the ability to quickly drop the load for better braking.

Appendix B is more than I wanted to know about reducing shrinkage on the way to the slaughterhouse.


Last edited by freebeard; 08-06-2014 at 11:42 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com