My turbo-delsol- aero mods

[discovery]

Very nice, gives me a though to start my own boat tail. Keep up the good work

[MetroMPG]

Sorry, joining the party late...

Originally Posted by jedi_sol

In my old kammback thread, I was told the transition should be 10* to keep attached airflow.

That's a rule of thumb for the initial transition. If you taper gradually (ie curve), you can apparently go up to 22* with attached flow (assuming the upstream flow is clean).

Also, I was told by MetroMPG that the transition from the top to the side should be rounded, which i haven't figured out yet. Otherwise (correct me if im wrong MetroMPG) it would create vortices (spelling?) in that area.

Yes. The images Cd made would yield better results than the initial mockup - glad to hear those are being copied. You want an organic shape so pressure recovery is gradual, not hard corners which could trip the flow and cause early separation.

The exception is the very rear surface (what I call the transom - where the tail lights go). You can chop that off clean and have hard corners there.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by discovery

Very nice, gives me a though to start my own boat tail. Keep up the good work

Thanks, its been a pain but I'm sure when its all done it will be worth it.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Sorry, joining the party late...



That's a rule of thumb for the initial transition. If you taper gradually (ie curve), you can apparently go up to 22* with attached flow (assuming the upstream flow is clean).

Yes. The images Cd made would yield better results than the initial mockup - glad to hear those are being copied. You want an organic shape so pressure recovery is gradual, not hard corners which could trip the flow and cause early separation.

The exception is the very rear surface (what I call the transom - where the tail lights go). You can chop that off clean and have hard corners there.

Thanks for all the input.

Its about time you joined the party.lol

I need all the help I can get.

[cfg83]

pgfpro -

Originally Posted by pgfpro

Yes that was me I borrowed a hatch off a MX-3 and its way off.

I could make it work but there wouldn't be much left of the original hatch after I got done with it. LOL

That's too bad, because it looks so good from the side :



CarloSW2

[Cd]

Just curious about which areas of the hatch were off from the MX-3.
Unless the hatch was too wide, it seems that you could modify the C pillars and the edges of the hatch to meet.
I know that you would have to do some build up or cutting between the two components, but I'm just curious about where they don't match up.

Also, I wanted to add that the corkscrew effect in the picture that I was talking about was mainly due to the angle of the shot. It looked a lot worse than it really is now that I look at it again.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

Heres another pic of the roof line. You can see it better from this angle. Its very slight in the transition, but mabye it needs to be more level with the roof line???

It's hard to tell without being right there looking at it but the side I can see has reflex curvature,cupping toward the inside instead of out.
The line should look like that of an ellipse,with almost zero curvature where the tail begins,then gently becoming more and more curved,the further back you go.
I don't have Mair's chart in front of me,but I believe the curvature could possess the 22-degree angle at a length equal to the height of the car ( around 50-inches.1250mm downstream ).
These curves are already cheating the air as much as possible.If you go below the minimums you'll guarantee separation with severely compromised performance.
Remember,Kamm said to follow the path to wherever you want to cut the body off,but you've got to stay on the path.
If you haven't seen the aerodynamic streamlining template,I recommend you do.It will explain the origins of the art and give you good science with which to compare your work.
Really like what you're doing!

[MetroMPG]

This is the template Phil is talking about. (I've learned to listen to him - he's been studying this stuff for a while now.)

[jedi_sol]

I found this from one of aerohead's old threads over this summer.

Someone wanna take a stab at this? I'm not sure my version is correct.

[pgfpro]

Originally Posted by Cd

Just curious about which areas of the hatch were off from the MX-3.
Unless the hatch was too wide, it seems that you could modify the C pillars and the edges of the hatch to meet.
I know that you would have to do some build up or cutting between the two components, but I'm just curious about where they don't match up.

Also, I wanted to add that the corkscrew effect in the picture that I was talking about was mainly due to the angle of the shot. It looked a lot worse than it really is now that I look at it again.

Yes it was to wide. So as soon as I realized that I would have to replace the glass I gave up.

Thanks though it was a great idea!!!