Interesting Aerodynamic Cars (Mike Vetter's ETV, also Avion)

[Charlie Cheap]

Originally Posted by aerohead

By 1934-1/2, Carl Breer and his team had cut its drag from Cd 0.51, to Cd 0.244.
They didn't publish the results until a couple of weeks after Pearl Harbor. Folks had that to think about as we entered the Second Global Petroleum War, as we failed to learn from the first one.

WWII was a fight for POWER, which required the need for petroleum. Japan had none and Germany had very little. Petrol was a secondary fight that became necessary after both did not manage to get enough during their first fight to steal it. Had Germany been able to make enough man-made-fuel/synthetic fuel, they would have probably won a lot of land before stopping or being stopped.
The Japanese Bushido code, Germany being embarrassed by the loss of WWI, and Italy's Mussolini all wanted POWER, and they understood oil was necessary to win. I agree it became a war for oil, but the desire for POWER will still be with us after an alternative is found.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by redneck

.Sadly, there are no wind tunnel pics of the BAT cars.

Maybe something will pop up in the future, we can only hope.

I have never seen smoke in a wind tunnel actually expose a vortex.

The only time I've seen a vortex exposed was in the Aerodynamic Oddity thread video posted via NCAC 1941 with a wand and long feather like tuft strings twisting about a cube.

Sure I've seen still photos, and laser pulse images, and CFD images, just not rolling film footage of smoke in a wind tunnel.

Link:
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...-35653-50.html

Originally Posted by kach22i

An even better video, at the 1:15 mark is a simple device used to examining eddies and vortexes - something smoke really doesn't do well in my opinion.

Taking the Air (1941) NCAC

[sgtlethargic]

Is the Cd known and undisputed for a BAT car?

If the curlers were effective, you'd think other cars would have them.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Is the Cd known and undisputed for a BAT car?

If the curlers were effective, you'd think other cars would have them.

Don't go throwing logic into the automotive industry, you will only turn away disappointed.

[freebeard]

If the curlers were effective, you'd think other cars would have them.

What I find as much interesting as the tumblehome would be the slots. Are there other examples? The only one I can think of is the Oscar-class Belogrod submarine:


https://maritime-executive.com/media...rod.09eb88.jpg

These have active control surfaces. Maybe a Modern BAT would have active aero as well?

[Bicycle Bob]

Originally Posted by freebeard

These have active control surfaces. Maybe a Modern BAT would have active aero as well?

I'd sure like to see somebody race a car with a vertical fin to produce side force directly instead of an inverted wing to complicate matters with downforce. The Dodge Daytona, which had large fins supporting its wing, was considered impossible to spin. Active fins would probably need computer control, but they could also sail in crosswinds, reducing fuel needs.
I also Really wish that Colin Chapman had built a bit of compliance into his original wing mounts, which went straight into the hub carriers instead of the chassis. The rigid structure proved fragile and got direct mounting banned, even though it was far more sensible overall.

AFAIR, The BAT cars were built to study the effect of increased surface area foremost. Road & Track had a decent article on them long ago.

[sgtlethargic]

I started a BAT thread:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post635459

[samwichse]

A 1969 Falcon racecar vs the 1962 Falcon is was based on. Loving that kammback.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by samwichse

A 1969 Falcon racecar vs the 1962 Falcon is was based on. Loving that kammback.

How and where did you find the Falcon racecar?

[sgtlethargic]

>>>