Spotted in Mississippi

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by freebeard

It's easier to get a 50% improvement at the low end of the scale.

What's even better is, the monetary savings are significantly higher going from 14 to 21mpg, than from even 50 to 100.

[LostinTransit]

My fuel economy didn't go through the roof,. but I did gain about 5% increase

[aerohead]

Tracking the comments following my remark, it struck me that I've probably misinterpreted the ' 14-21' to have indicated ' 14-mpg CITY and 21-mpg HWY, not an improvement of 14-mpg HWY, to 21-mpg HWY attributed exclusively to the 'aeroshell' shown.
There's never been any CFD or empirical wind tunnel measurements published to my knowledge, which associate such a remarkable mpg increase with the addition of such a bedcover.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I guess y'all heard about the Ford Trimotor aircraft, which resorted to corrugated sheetmetal for its skin. Had it been detrimental aerodynamically-wise, I guess it would've never been used in aircraft. So if it's good enough for aircraft, why not trying a similar approach for a bedcover in a truck?

[freebeard]

Had it been detrimental aerodynamically-wise, I guess it would've never been used in aircraft.

But it was. It came and went like fixed landing gear.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I guess y'all heard about the Ford Trimotor aircraft, which resorted to corrugated sheetmetal for its skin. Had it been detrimental aerodynamically-wise, I guess it would've never been used in aircraft. So if it's good enough for aircraft, why not trying a similar approach for a bedcover in a truck?

The Trimotor and Junkers JU 52 both utilized corrugated sheet metal in their day, however, you'll notice that no contemporary aircraft incorporate it in their design.
If it's all you can 'budget' for, then it's 'way out ahead of nothing', but has no intrinsic advantage compared to 'smooth' surfaces.

[freebeard]

There is advantage structurally, but not aerodynamically.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

But it was. It came and went like fixed landing gear.

Or taildraggers for instance. The only new aircraft I see resorting to taildraggers are usually cropdusters.

[Piotrsko]

There's a pretty steep learning curve for the ground handling of a tail dragger, particularly at transition speeds. Requires the pilot to be able to predict sideways events otherwise you drag a wing tip or get sideways on the runway. Bad in high wing, worse in low wing and not Intuitive.

[freebeard]

A tail dragger without wings?



With tricycle landing gear, you can rotate into liftoff, but with a tail dragger wouldn't that drive the tail wheel back onto the ground? I haven't ridden in a light plane since the mid-70s.