Howard is right on the aero of the tank. The other big reason is you could
buy them for $15 to $25 at surplus yards all over LA after the war.Being a
two piece shell it made the ideal lakester to fab a simple frame for and go
race.
Glen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nafzger" <nafzger@vtc.net>
To: <ardunbill@webtv.net>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Aero Effects
> Bill,
> I'm an amateur at this stuff but have read a lot and asked a million
> questions to try and learn. I have a book on Automotive aerodynamics that
> says a teardrop with the round end forward has a cd of approx. .05 and if
> you turn that around with the point forward the cd goes up to approx. .4
due
> to the trailing turbulence. It also says the teardrop shape is inherently
> stable. Any Aerodynamicists out there have different info? Just because
it's
> in print doesn't mean it's always correct.
> Howard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ardunbill@webtv.net>
> To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 9:58 AM
> Subject: Aero Effects
>
>
> > 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
///
///
|