James,
My take on ground clearance and NT is that NT works well because it keeps
the vast majority of the air out from under the car. Put a car close to the
ground and put air under it and it will resemble the operation of an
airplane. Or at least a ground effects vehicle.
Jack, did I do this right?
Skip
At 01:13 PM 1/14/03 -0500, Waldron, James wrote:
>Howard,
>
>For the continuing thrash about this:
>Can I infer from your message that there is an assumption that a
>teardrop is the perfect shape? I realize that the practicalities
>of fitting an engine and driver into that shape will deform it
>and induce additional drag.
>
>I also agree with you that the frontal area will ultimately be
>subject to the widest thing that has to fit into it (engine or
>driver body part).
>
>May I draw some general 'guidelines' from the list advice
>on this issue? (with commentary)
>
>1. Frontal area needs to be kept to the absolute minimum;
>This is critical.
>
>2. Shape of the vehicle should be teardrop;
>Extensions to the body shape should be limited,
>The back slope of the body may have to be modified to prevent
>lift, or another lift spoiling/counteracting mechanism must be fitted,
>Some sort of stabilizing fin (or other mechanism) must be fitted
>for directional stability. (I've read on this list that belly tanks
>need this.) Convergence rate on the back end needs to be the magic
>6 degree angle curve.
>
>3. Length of the vehicle should be minimized;
>Stability considerations may require more than optimum length.
>
>What else?
>
>NT appears to run very close to the ground (almost a half teardrop).
>Anyone like to comment on ground effect or compression of air under
>the vehicle?
>
>Thanks,
>Jim.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed
/// what is needed. It isn't that difficult, folks.
|