RE GT2 Wing - pics
12-29-04, 10:10 AM
#26
Originally Posted by FDNewbie
And tear-drop shape is referring to what exactly? Are you talking about completely flat blades vs. slightly indented, so the edges are taller than the center? Or are you talking about that little 'raised' area in the middle where the air comes over the roof?
now turn that same shape upsidedown, and you will be making a low pressure zone under the wing, pulling it down.... so its making downforce.
12-29-04, 10:13 AM
#27
>>Regarding the gt wing with a hump in the middle, i've wondered for a long time what it's purpose is. Some people are saying it's for getting around regulations where rear wing height is limited. From my brief conversation with an aerodynamicist, he said the hump in the middle reduces rear wing drag slightly, he also says most 'hump' gt wing available to public is made incorrectly, but I couldn't understand what the correct shape he was describing from his hand movements =)
to my understanding is has to do with the shape of the car, for example, if you look at where the 'hump' in the middle of the wing it, is corresponds exactly to the shape of the cockpit roof shape. the roof causes the air to flow a certain way to the back of the car and the 'hump' in the wing it there to maximize that airflow, so the hump would be a bit different for a wing for antoher car. .... but im just speculating.
to my understanding is has to do with the shape of the car, for example, if you look at where the 'hump' in the middle of the wing it, is corresponds exactly to the shape of the cockpit roof shape. the roof causes the air to flow a certain way to the back of the car and the 'hump' in the wing it there to maximize that airflow, so the hump would be a bit different for a wing for antoher car. .... but im just speculating.
12-29-04, 03:06 PM
#34
Rotary Enthusiast
Originally Posted by damian
to my understanding is has to do with the shape of the car, for example, if you look at where the 'hump' in the middle of the wing it, is corresponds exactly to the shape of the cockpit roof shape. the roof causes the air to flow a certain way to the back of the car and the 'hump' in the wing it there to maximize that airflow, so the hump would be a bit different for a wing for antoher car. .... but im just speculating.
12-29-04, 03:57 PM
#37
1993 RX7 R1
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by damian
thanks, hope it works as good as it looks.
And I would think that a GT-C wing would work better in conjunction with the GTC nose.
But having said that, since you are adding a front splitter to the nose, the RE GT2 wing may balance things out better.
What I am really getting at is: Does anyone know of a way to measure downforce without using a wind tunnel? I did a search for "strain gauge" on Google and came up empty-handed.
12-29-04, 04:06 PM
#38
1993 RX7 R1
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alpine
All wings, even the ones from ebay have the tear drop shape, but having the tear drop shape is just the beginning of a wing design =)
Anybody know if any of the wings available for the FD were designed with NACA aerofoil designs?
12-29-04, 05:03 PM
#40
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by damian
'
well, im from mexico, so please refer to me as 'taco ricer' :-)
well, im from mexico, so please refer to me as 'taco ricer' :-)
Mmmm, Taco's....I'm supposed to have that later (its in the fridge).
So what next? A sideskirt that gives you better "Aerodynamicy"?
12-29-04, 07:23 PM
#42
Originally Posted by PhoenixDownVII
So what next? A sideskirt that gives you better "Aerodynamicy"?
12-29-04, 07:42 PM
#43
1993 RX7 R1
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alpine
We aren't traveling at super sonic speed or dealing with compressed air, imo the nasa airfoil test datas have little relevence to motorsport use.
Although it is true that NACA was the predecessor of NASA, I have a feeling you do not understand the importance of NACA in aerodynamics.
NACA, which stands for National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, catalogued a vast number of aerofoil profiles.
These aerofoil profiles and their corresponding lift coefficient can be used by anyone with rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics to design efficient wings for race cars.
I just wish that wing makers for "amateur racers" use NACA data to design wings and provide this data to consumers. But the manufacturers seem interested only in producing high profit products with no inherent engineering in the design. Perhaps this is because the consumers of these wings have no clue about aerodynamics anyway.
12-29-04, 09:27 PM
#45
i am not 100% sure, but i am almost certain that this new wing i have could be referneced via a NACA 'aerofoil profiles'. I'm not as smart as the guys that just build space ship one, but I am smart enough to know that after looking at the shape of teh wing in detail, it was not hacked together, there was some though involved here.
Originally Posted by Mr. Stock
That is your opinion and it reflects your lack of knowledge in aerodynamics.
Although it is true that NACA was the predecessor of NASA, I have a feeling you do not understand the importance of NACA in aerodynamics.
NACA, which stands for National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, catalogued a vast number of aerofoil profiles.
These aerofoil profiles and their corresponding lift coefficient can be used by anyone with rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics to design efficient wings for race cars.
I just wish that wing makers for "amateur racers" use NACA data to design wings and provide this data to consumers. But the manufacturers seem interested only in producing high profit products with no inherent engineering in the design. Perhaps this is because the consumers of these wings have no clue about aerodynamics anyway.
Although it is true that NACA was the predecessor of NASA, I have a feeling you do not understand the importance of NACA in aerodynamics.
NACA, which stands for National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, catalogued a vast number of aerofoil profiles.
These aerofoil profiles and their corresponding lift coefficient can be used by anyone with rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics to design efficient wings for race cars.
I just wish that wing makers for "amateur racers" use NACA data to design wings and provide this data to consumers. But the manufacturers seem interested only in producing high profit products with no inherent engineering in the design. Perhaps this is because the consumers of these wings have no clue about aerodynamics anyway.
12-29-04, 09:32 PM
#46
>>But having said that, since you are adding a front splitter to the nose, the RE GT2 wing may balance things out better.
exaclty mr.stock, this was the reason... the front end of my track car turns in like a **** and is very stable in high speed turns, especialy now with the undertray/splitter..... the rear is a little more 'active'......so want a bit more down on the rear but didnt want to add a ton of drag at the same time (ie... too aggressive angle of attack on the old wing making more downforce but a lot more drag), so a better wing was the solution... now if this is a better wing or not will be determined on the track...since i dont have a wind tunnel handy :-)
...and by the way, i dont know what the hell im talking about...for real... this is all speculation...i just babling cuz it fun :-)
in the end the true test is turn one at BIR, if the car feels stable in the turn at 160+ or whatever, then ill be plenty happy :-)
also the 'kink' at RA, you dont want ur rear loose in there.... or you turn your car into a ping pong ball real quick.
exaclty mr.stock, this was the reason... the front end of my track car turns in like a **** and is very stable in high speed turns, especialy now with the undertray/splitter..... the rear is a little more 'active'......so want a bit more down on the rear but didnt want to add a ton of drag at the same time (ie... too aggressive angle of attack on the old wing making more downforce but a lot more drag), so a better wing was the solution... now if this is a better wing or not will be determined on the track...since i dont have a wind tunnel handy :-)
...and by the way, i dont know what the hell im talking about...for real... this is all speculation...i just babling cuz it fun :-)
in the end the true test is turn one at BIR, if the car feels stable in the turn at 160+ or whatever, then ill be plenty happy :-)
also the 'kink' at RA, you dont want ur rear loose in there.... or you turn your car into a ping pong ball real quick.
12-29-04, 09:42 PM
#47
Originally Posted by Alpine
We aren't traveling at super sonic speed or dealing with compressed air, imo the nasa airfoil test datas have little relevence to motorsport use.
Many of the documented NACA airfoils aren't designed for high speed flight. Plus, our cars are faster than many small general aviation planes.
12-29-04, 09:48 PM
#48
Originally Posted by Mr. Stock
What I am really getting at is: Does anyone know of a way to measure downforce without using a wind tunnel? I did a search for "strain gauge" on Google and came up empty-handed.
If the wing used a NACA airfoil profile and it was constant down the length of the wing, it would be fairly simple to calculate the downforce created at different speeds.
12-29-04, 11:59 PM
#49
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by damian
...and by the way, i dont know what the hell im talking about...for real... this is all speculation...i just babling cuz it fun
Yea, I'd say in the end the true test will be on the road course, if you feel a difference and whatnot. The proof is in the pudding...