Why is coefficient drag bad in S2000?
11-27-2007 | 07:29 AM
#61
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
I haven't had practical use for a wing on my car, but I've definitely felt the difference in an S that had one on the track.
I'm more inclined to want a small spoiler for aesthetics than a big wing for the occasional periods when I'm driving 130mph.
I'm more inclined to want a small spoiler for aesthetics than a big wing for the occasional periods when I'm driving 130mph.
11-27-2007 | 08:30 AM
#62
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,581
Likes: 0
From: Tampa Florida
Originally Posted by MikeyCB,Nov 27 2007, 11:23 AM
I'm hesitant to believe that we just lucked into having an aerofoil design that works well. A plane doesn't only fly in 1 orientation, but it does fly in one most efficiently with the lowest fuel consumption and requirement of thrust to maintain flight
I sure am inclined to think that even a wedge-shaped wing would function with enough forward thrust, just very inefficiently. I think it's proven that the aerofoil creates a low air pressure zone on top, causing the wing to be more inclined to "rise." Yes, a plane will fly upside-down but not without some flaps aimed to direct air to combat the force of gravity, as well as the low pressure zone that is now on the bottom (because the aerofoil is upside down).
I'm all theory and speculation on this because I'm not an engineer, but I'd like to think I'm not a dummy.
Drive on the highway with your hand out the window of your car. Aim it up, it will rise. Aim it down, it will drop. Your hand is no aerofoil so obviously that's not the only reason for a plane to fly. It's just a more efficient design to create that lift, or maybe better phrased as a lack of downward pressure on top.
I sure am inclined to think that even a wedge-shaped wing would function with enough forward thrust, just very inefficiently. I think it's proven that the aerofoil creates a low air pressure zone on top, causing the wing to be more inclined to "rise." Yes, a plane will fly upside-down but not without some flaps aimed to direct air to combat the force of gravity, as well as the low pressure zone that is now on the bottom (because the aerofoil is upside down).
I'm all theory and speculation on this because I'm not an engineer, but I'd like to think I'm not a dummy.
Drive on the highway with your hand out the window of your car. Aim it up, it will rise. Aim it down, it will drop. Your hand is no aerofoil so obviously that's not the only reason for a plane to fly. It's just a more efficient design to create that lift, or maybe better phrased as a lack of downward pressure on top.
Very good explaination.
11-27-2007 | 08:46 AM
#63
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by duboseq,Nov 27 2007, 11:30 AM
Very good explaination.
I'd love to hear from someone with real education/knowledge of this sort of thing, though I realize I'm kind of taking the thread off track from it's original purpose. Maybe that's alright since the original question has already been answered.
11-27-2007 | 10:20 AM
#64
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
From: IN THE HOOD
Originally Posted by MikeyCB,Nov 27 2007, 10:23 AM
I'm hesitant to believe that we just lucked into having an aerofoil design that works well. A plane doesn't only fly in 1 orientation, but it does fly in one most efficiently with the lowest fuel consumption and requirement of thrust to maintain flight
I think it's proven that the aerofoil creates a low air pressure zone on top, causing the wing to be more inclined to "rise."
Your hand is no aerofoil so obviously that's not the only reason for a plane to fly. It's just a more efficient design to create that lift, or maybe better phrased as a lack of downward pressure on top.
I think it's proven that the aerofoil creates a low air pressure zone on top, causing the wing to be more inclined to "rise."
Your hand is no aerofoil so obviously that's not the only reason for a plane to fly. It's just a more efficient design to create that lift, or maybe better phrased as a lack of downward pressure on top.
11-27-2007 | 10:47 AM
#65
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by smurf2k,Nov 27 2007, 01:20 PM
that is correct. so much so, in fact, that i would venture to say that a an airplane can fly upside down... just not as efficiently as it would normal-side-up
11-27-2007 | 05:11 PM
#67
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by duboseq,Nov 27 2007, 05:30 AM
For the physics guys, a question:
The pricinple that explains how airplane wings generate lift is well known, however, why is it that airplanes are able to fly up-side down when that is actually a contradiction to the same principle?
I never understood this.
The pricinple that explains how airplane wings generate lift is well known, however, why is it that airplanes are able to fly up-side down when that is actually a contradiction to the same principle?
I never understood this.
This is a pretty good explanation. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/lift.htm
11-27-2007 | 05:21 PM
#68
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by MikeyCB,Nov 27 2007, 08:23 AM
I'm hesitant to believe that we just lucked into having an aerofoil design that works well.
Originally Posted by MikeyCB,Nov 27 2007, 08:23 AM
I sure am inclined to think that even a wedge-shaped wing would function with enough forward thrust, just very inefficiently.
Your speculation is correct, in that cambered airfoils are more efficient at creating lift in the range of AOAs that they are designed for. This is countered by them being much less efficient when off-design.
Acrobatic planes almost always use symmetric airfoils for their wings. These planes literally fly just as efficiently upside down as rightside up.
Most other planes are designed to be much more efficient in their normal orientation, but even so many can still fly upside down.
The whole reason why planes fly is that they push air down. Cambered airfoils help the wings to do that, but the most direct reason the do it is the angle of attack.
11-27-2007 | 05:28 PM
#69
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Nov 27 2007, 08:11 PM
The well-know explanation for lift is about as accurate as the well-known understanding of evolution. Which is to say, it's almost completely inaccurate.
This is a pretty good explanation. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/lift.htm
This is a pretty good explanation. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/lift.htm
Something I couldn't really visualize without some kind of science backing it up.
11-30-2007 | 04:28 PM
#70
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,187
Likes: 3
Well, I'll try to sum up the answer to the OP's question:
Think of a head-on picture of the s2000. Make that into a flat plate. The area if that is your frontal area, which is a great quick and dirty indicator of drag. The other big thing is how it slopes. Looking at the front of the S2000 (MikeyCB's avatar is great for this by the way), the hood slopes gradually, but the bumper and the windshield are pretty close to straight up. That makes the wind have to move pretty close to straight out, or 90 degrees off course, as in a flat plate.
Anyways, if you take that frontal area, the Cd, and the formula quoted before (by the way, rho is the density of the fluid, or air), you get your drag force in pounds.
But remember the small planform area (thats your head-on area) of the S2000 is just as important as the Cd itself, so the fact that it's not a big car will make up some for the high drag coefficient.
Think of a head-on picture of the s2000. Make that into a flat plate. The area if that is your frontal area, which is a great quick and dirty indicator of drag. The other big thing is how it slopes. Looking at the front of the S2000 (MikeyCB's avatar is great for this by the way), the hood slopes gradually, but the bumper and the windshield are pretty close to straight up. That makes the wind have to move pretty close to straight out, or 90 degrees off course, as in a flat plate.
Anyways, if you take that frontal area, the Cd, and the formula quoted before (by the way, rho is the density of the fluid, or air), you get your drag force in pounds.
But remember the small planform area (thats your head-on area) of the S2000 is just as important as the Cd itself, so the fact that it's not a big car will make up some for the high drag coefficient.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
05TurboS2k
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
31
09-03-2010 08:37 PM