EXCELLENT!!! Thank you very much! :rockon:
MAD myth debunking props to you!:beer: Way to bring the quality, no BS tech!:thumbsup::bowdown:
..
In search for more aero
- Thread starter racebronco2
- Start date
EXCELLENT!!! Thank you very much! :rockon:
MAD myth debunking props to you!:beer: Way to bring the quality, no BS tech!:thumbsup::bowdown:
..
Thanks for the info. Will be doing some reading.
Ok
I've read all 3 and I still don't know if they have proven anything.
I can lift just about anything with a blast of air. Ask anyone in Oklahoma.
There has to be more to it than just directing an airstream. A vacuum cleaner can lift a rock. There is no air under it, but it lifts into the VACUUM or low pressure area.
As far as having a closed system to prove Bernoulli, you don't need one.
Put a piece of paper on the edge of the table. Get down and blow across the top. It will lift, AFTER it flutters. You know forming a shape like a airfoil....
We all know you can affect a change in direction by changing angle of attack. Everyone has held their hand out the window and felt it lift and dive.
Question is it the wind changing direction , or the vacuum lifting?
There probably isn't one answer.
I've read all 3 and I still don't know if they have proven anything.
I can lift just about anything with a blast of air. Ask anyone in Oklahoma.
There has to be more to it than just directing an airstream. A vacuum cleaner can lift a rock. There is no air under it, but it lifts into the VACUUM or low pressure area.
As far as having a closed system to prove Bernoulli, you don't need one.
Put a piece of paper on the edge of the table. Get down and blow across the top. It will lift, AFTER it flutters. You know forming a shape like a airfoil....
We all know you can affect a change in direction by changing angle of attack. Everyone has held their hand out the window and felt it lift and dive.
Question is it the wind changing direction , or the vacuum lifting?
There probably isn't one answer.
I'm glad you read it david, it just gave me a headache:shrug:
To that point, I think that is one of the best ways to understand how a plane actually lifts off the ground. I am not an aeronautical engineer by any means, but after working many, many years on a lot of flight lines and watching all manner of airframes lift off the ground (some loaded to the gills with explosives), lift-off has always seemed to be a combination of "angle of attack" and "speed" versus any pronounced shape of the wing.
DEBUNKING 8 COMMON AVIATION MYTHS by Austin S. Collins
Even a perfectly flat “wing,” such as a board, will generate lift. All you need is a relative wind of sufficient speed and a positive angle of attack within the correct range.
This is the best quote out of all of the reading material provided above (to me). When an airplane takes off, the use of flaps, spoilers, flaps and elevators are used to change the shape of the wing and/or the angle of attack against the incoming air stream. By tilting the nose of an aircraft up, you effectively throw the bottom of the wing into the wind while the engines increase your speed and forces the plane up into the air.
The same thing you hand does when you put it outside the window. You don't feel a vacuum on the top of your hand, you feel pressure against the bottom of your hand which forces your hand up. It is the pressure against the "angle of attack" that makes the upward or downward movement of the wing.
You can make anything fly with enough angle and speed. An F-16 isn't called a long-dart for nothing; kill the engine and it will drop like a rock --- yes, I have witnessed it first hand.
So, to me, the result of down force from a spoiler or wing on the back of a car is the result of getting something up into a significant amount of airflow (high enough) and giving it the proper angle of attack to do some good, without causing too much drag.
***The above statements are my opinions. Take them or leave them***
I agree, it is intuitive that air pressure will lift. Witness hurricanes or tornadoes. But I question if air against something explains everything.
Just as "established theory" says airplanes can't upside down, these guys theories- just like the others- don't take into account vacuum lift. (Remember the rock?)
I'm guessing BOTH play into the equation, air pressure under the wing and vacuum above/ behind. Also their explantion doesn't explain stall angle being less than 90 degrees.
Statistics, damn statistics, and lies. :dw:
Just as "established theory" says airplanes can't upside down, these guys theories- just like the others- don't take into account vacuum lift. (Remember the rock?)
I'm guessing BOTH play into the equation, air pressure under the wing and vacuum above/ behind. Also their explantion doesn't explain stall angle being less than 90 degrees.
Statistics, damn statistics, and lies. :dw:
I found those (at least the last two) a good read.
The reason I left the stock "handle" that Ford put on the rear of my car is because I really don't believe that planes can fly. :shrug:
The reason I left the stock "handle" that Ford put on the rear of my car is because I really don't believe that planes can fly. :shrug:
I will vouch for that. ;-)
I agree. I believe it's a combination of pressures, wing design, and angle of attack.
So how goes that diffuser? Entering the free market yet?
I have to apologize, but coming from the F-16 maintenance community, your highlighted quote above made me fall out of my chair laughing. What exactly do you do on the flightline? Just curious.
Now, just my thought but it seems we are starting to stray from one key thing. We are starting to compare supersonic aircraft wing design with an automobile that if it is lucky will break 160mph for a few seconds to a minute. The wing design of a Cessna 152 or even a B-52 is drastically different than an F-16. Look at the top speed, cruising speed, and takeoff speeds. Notice how the leading edge of the wing near the tips tilt down when parked on the ground on the F-16? I am not talking about the leading edge flaps either, look at the missile launchers on the wingtip. That wing is designed for high speed efficiency and manuverability. Now take a Cessna wing, it is almost a pure lift design. It is not designed to be speed efficient. Flip the wing of a Cessna upside down and it creates a bunch of downforce. I just think we are straying from the point that we are discussing automotive aerodynamics and not aircraft although they do share a ton of common information.
Now, from reading this thread multiple times, it seems that getting any substantial gains in aerodynamic efficiency and good downforce out of the shape of the 99-04 Mustangs is a fight of how much money you have or how good your fabrication skills are and if you still want it streetable. Most people can make very good gains by adding a 00R splitter on the front and reinforcing it to handle the forces put against it and installing a good quality wing on the back of the car that stands at least 10" off the rear deck. Now, if you wanted to go further to help your car, you can smooth the bottom of the car out, install better ducting for the radiator intake side, and add vortex generators. Then, if you want to push the envelope, design a diffuser for the rear and redesign the hood. Am I correct in my thinking? Just a rambling thought here.
The correct tense is "did on the flightline". I was involved with electronic warfare and countermeasures for quite a few years on A-10s, F-16s, C-130s, B-52s and the RC-135 Rivet Joint (those that know will understand what this platform is).
All good points.
Note good down force = Drag somewhere- both in aircraft wings and automobile wings. If we were only interested in speed, no wing would work best, but since we want to turn.. and not fly, we are interested in inverted "tradtional" style wings. The not flying comes into play when we start talking about flat bottoms. We were working the Petite Lemans years ago when the Porsche(s) twice in 2 years -lost air over the top at turn 8 and caught air underneath- flat surface into the wind with ALL kinds of aero stuff to no avail.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xvai7iuubA"]YouTube - Dalmas and Auberlen blowover at Road Atlanta[/ame]
The hump at 8 is no longer there.
Note good down force = Drag somewhere- both in aircraft wings and automobile wings. If we were only interested in speed, no wing would work best, but since we want to turn.. and not fly, we are interested in inverted "tradtional" style wings. The not flying comes into play when we start talking about flat bottoms. We were working the Petite Lemans years ago when the Porsche(s) twice in 2 years -lost air over the top at turn 8 and caught air underneath- flat surface into the wind with ALL kinds of aero stuff to no avail.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xvai7iuubA"]YouTube - Dalmas and Auberlen blowover at Road Atlanta[/ame]
The hump at 8 is no longer there.
I know about all those platforms. Guess you got out a while ago.
Interesting how too much speed, very good downforce aero and a bump disturbing everything can have a drastic outcome.
oH, THANKS!
Now the government is going to have to kill everyone on this forum because we know about the platform, too!
:bash:
;-)
Now the government is going to have to kill everyone on this forum because we know about the platform, too!
:bash:
;-)
Look what I just found at s2ki.com Pretty damn sick if you ask me.
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=601484
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=601484
Lots of trick parts like that are made for imports.
I wouldn't doubt that we would never see that made for a Mustang, unless it was a one-off piece.
BTW, this shouldn't be a surprise, and isn't really any tech, but I thought it was cool because I experienced it.
We were at Summit Point over the weekend running laps on the Shenandoah circuit with the Mercedes Benz group. The BMWCCA was on the main track (faster speeds) and running some races. We went over to watch some during lunch.
While myself and 2 buddies were in my friend's car, sitting on the bridge over a section where speeds are around 80 in my Cobra, a few of the BMW full race cars (Class B, maybe-BIG rear wings) went under the bridge.
There was a WHOOMP!! The bridge, the car, and us in it were all raised by 4 inches or more. We gasped. It happened over and over again. I know they're pushing some air in front, but I'll bet the bulk of the force that was lifting us was the rear wings pushing a constant wall of air upwards.
It was glorious.
We were at Summit Point over the weekend running laps on the Shenandoah circuit with the Mercedes Benz group. The BMWCCA was on the main track (faster speeds) and running some races. We went over to watch some during lunch.
While myself and 2 buddies were in my friend's car, sitting on the bridge over a section where speeds are around 80 in my Cobra, a few of the BMW full race cars (Class B, maybe-BIG rear wings) went under the bridge.
There was a WHOOMP!! The bridge, the car, and us in it were all raised by 4 inches or more. We gasped. It happened over and over again. I know they're pushing some air in front, but I'll bet the bulk of the force that was lifting us was the rear wings pushing a constant wall of air upwards.
It was glorious.
Uh. All this time I thought BMW's sucked.
Now we find out they really blow.
Who knew?
No doubt where the air goes if you have ever seen a F-1 or GTP car running in the rain. The mist just lifts 10-20 feet in the air. Cool indeed.
Now we find out they really blow.
Who knew?
No doubt where the air goes if you have ever seen a F-1 or GTP car running in the rain. The mist just lifts 10-20 feet in the air. Cool indeed.
LOL
Well that, too, but working corners at Daytona 24, IMSA, and F-1 in the rain, you can see the mist get sucked out from under the diffusers and curtails over and around the wings.
I remember one year at Indy, coming down Hulman straight, the curtails off the wings with just the humidity.
Well that, too, but working corners at Daytona 24, IMSA, and F-1 in the rain, you can see the mist get sucked out from under the diffusers and curtails over and around the wings.
I remember one year at Indy, coming down Hulman straight, the curtails off the wings with just the humidity.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
