Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Special Interests and Events
Open Track Racing
In search for more aero
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="01Cobra896" data-source="post: 6808012" data-attributes="member: 30883"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="01Cobra896, post: 6808012, member: 30883"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Special Interests and Events
Open Track Racing
In search for more aero
Top