How does APR GTC-300 Wing Rank up?
#23
Ignoring airfoil. When wing is mounted on floor in a wing tunnel. A 3d wing will achieve zero down force when middle half is pointed up 4 degree and the sides are pointed down 4 degree. That can't be very aerodynamic comparing to a 2d wing at zero degree.
So I don't think it is fair to compare a 2d against 3d wing in a wind tunnel. In theory a 3d wing is designed so when sides are zero degree, the middle part is pointed up also parallel to the air stream, achieving zero down force (again ignoring air foil). a 2D wing will have to have its wing pointed up 4 degree, so middle is 4 degree down compared to incoming air stream over the top, sides are pointed UP 4 degree, not very aero.
again, this is what 3D wing claims. all theory.
So I don't think it is fair to compare a 2d against 3d wing in a wind tunnel. In theory a 3d wing is designed so when sides are zero degree, the middle part is pointed up also parallel to the air stream, achieving zero down force (again ignoring air foil). a 2D wing will have to have its wing pointed up 4 degree, so middle is 4 degree down compared to incoming air stream over the top, sides are pointed UP 4 degree, not very aero.
again, this is what 3D wing claims. all theory.
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember CFD data can't really be compared directly unless they are done by the same engineer. Assuming that engineers did it.
Also, CFD data for wings are not accurate without testing the car as well. But, it's better than nothing I guess...
Also, CFD data for wings are not accurate without testing the car as well. But, it's better than nothing I guess...
#25
Registered User
Originally Posted by BKL,Oct 29 2009, 03:22 AM
Remember CFD data can't really be compared directly unless they are done by the same engineer. Assuming that engineers did it.
Also, CFD data for wings are not accurate without testing the car as well. But, it's better than nothing I guess...
Also, CFD data for wings are not accurate without testing the car as well. But, it's better than nothing I guess...
#26
Originally Posted by bellwilliam,Oct 27 2009, 07:34 PM
not sure if it is fair to compare the two. Kognition is a 2D wing vs. 3D for GTC300.
CFD works, so does real track testing, and so does wind tunnel testing. We use CFD before we go to the track and test a new wing.
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kognition,Nov 28 2009, 01:00 AM
There is no such thing as a 2D wing. All wings have three dimensions: Width, Height and Depth. 2D would be a piece of paper for a wing.
CFD works, so does real track testing, and so does wind tunnel testing. We use CFD before we go to the track and test a new wing.
CFD works, so does real track testing, and so does wind tunnel testing. We use CFD before we go to the track and test a new wing.
Which CFD software do you guys use for the analysis of your wing elements?
#28
Originally Posted by BKL,Nov 28 2009, 12:31 PM
By "3D" he is referring to a spanwise twist. The term "3D" is more of a marketing term , as usual
Which CFD software do you guys use for the analysis of your wing elements?
Which CFD software do you guys use for the analysis of your wing elements?
I use Multisurface Aerodynamics, and Visual Foil. Both from Dr. Patrick HanleyHanley Innovations
I started recently working with a lead aerodynamics designer for Northrop Grumman by the name of Barnaby Wainfan on Chris Rado's new AWD TC time attack car. So i kind of have a mentor of sorts.
#30
I just noticed that PTUNING advertises here. They just brought home the Mod FWD championship in Redline time attack with one of our wings. Great bunch of dedicated track junkies there.