The most aerodynamic shape possible

[NeilBlanchard]

A bullet is much lower drag if it was moving backwards -- the blunt end in front and the taper to the rear.

[bandit86]

I always wondered why a pointy nose was not good, after all you have to cut through the wind. Like a jet, if it had a pointy nose it could slip through the air easier. Must be an aerodynamic conspiracy with nature

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by taper41

Is there anything that is more aerodynamic than the airfoil shape?

does something that perfectly flat that runs horizontally (something like the shape of a CD) more aero dynamic?

Think Zen. The most aerodynamic shape is the one that isn't there..........

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

A bullet is much lower drag if it was moving backwards -- the blunt end in front and the taper to the rear.

only when subsonic

[NeilBlanchard]

Right, a pointy nose only helps above ~250MPH. Below that speed, a bullet is lower drag going backward.

"Cutting through" the air is not really how it works, below ~250MPH. It is far more important how cleanly the air is allowed to return to place as the vehicle moves through it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by ecomodded

The bullet, could be the most aerodynamic shape.
With bullet shaped wheel covers a projectile shaped car could drive.

*The bullet depicted has a sub-transonic drag coefficient of Cd 0.147.
*In ground proximity,and sectioned longways to create a 'template',the bullet would have Cd 0.294.
* Adding wheels would get Cd 0.334- 0.344.
* It would have a lot of wetted area for its frontal area,and like your VW,without a tail,only mediocre Cd.
* The 'Template' would produce Cd 0.12-0.13,depending on wheels/tires

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

A bullet is much lower drag if it was moving backwards -- the blunt end in front and the taper to the rear.

Yes,but then we'd have to put nose fins on it to keep the nose behind the tail.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by bandit86

I always wondered why a pointy nose was not good, after all you have to cut through the wind. Like a jet, if it had a pointy nose it could slip through the air easier. Must be an aerodynamic conspiracy with nature

The sharp nose is critical for supersonic flight,which is ruled by shockwaves.
When you consider that much sporting ammunition 'flies' faster than a Lockheed SR-71,you realize the importance of the nose.
Below 250 mph,a convex hemispherical nose is the choice for low drag,especially in crosswind conditions.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The sharp nose is critical for supersonic flight,which is ruled by shockwaves.
When you consider that much sporting ammunition 'flies' faster than a Lockheed SR-71,you realize the importance of the nose.
Below 250 mph,a convex hemispherical nose is the choice for low drag,especially in crosswind conditions.

OK, setting aside the crosswind aspect, how come no modern sailplane has a hemispherical nose? After all, back in the '30s most of them did, but now none do, so why did the designers consistently go with more pointed shapes?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Otto

OK, setting aside the crosswind aspect, how come no modern sailplane has a hemispherical nose? After all, back in the '30s most of them did, but now none do, so why did the designers consistently go with more pointed shapes?

*I don't 'know' the answer to your question.
*I suspect,that since it's an aircraft,operating in 'flight' conditions,the designer may be attempting to delay the transition to turbulent boundary layer as far back on the fuselage as possible.
*With area-ruling/Whitcomb-waisting/Coke-bottling/sectional density/inverse pressure gradients......... we could locate the position of max cross-sectional area and first minimum pressure, and see if this is 'where' the nose actually ends on the fuselage.If so,then this is exactly what they intended.
*It would be a 'laminar' design,allowing a long region of favorable pressure gradient which could sustain a laminar boundary layer way back on the fuselage,and thereby significantly reduce skin friction,which is all an aircraft has basically.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't do this on cars,as the air itself coming at the car is already turbulent due to viscous shearing forces present in ground proximity,something aircraft don't have to deal with.Abbott and von Doenhoff have very strong language when addressing this situation.