Hi Folks, the discussion about aero leads me to wonder if the classic
lakester with a body made from an aircraft drop tank isn't the best. I
assume many dollars were spent by the plane makers to find shapes that
are aerodynamically neutral, no lift forces in any direction, and
minimum drag.
Looks like these are still around. I suppose the tapered tail could be
cut off appropriately for chute mounting, with no aero harm, and a
push-bar with a roller on it out the back.
I am curious about the 100 inch minimum wheelbase for an XXF lakester,
that is a little shorter than stock '32 Ford roadster. I imagine the
shorter the wheelbase, the less stability the car has, and if it was
both light and powerful, the wheel-standing effect would come into play.
All things to think about, especially at Maxton with the good traction.
Jack Costella's car has a long sharp nose like an arrowhead, and the
cross section is as small as possible to cover the driver and engine
area. He gets tremendous results so the car "works". Perhaps the
airplane makers preferred the teardrop form for the drop tanks, because
it is shorter, and of comparable(?) aero efficiency
I think if I wanted to build a tank lakester, I'd go for the form with
the open rollcage and driver's head in the open. With the engine behind
the driver there is a tradition of reduced vehicle "feel" for the driver
so it would probably help if the driver has maximum vision.
Any aero people on this list who can tell us about the theory and
practice of belly tanks on planes??
Cheers Ardun Bill
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
///
|