The statement associated with the right illustration, is it completely true? I can see where the louvers reduce the size of the vortex (drag), but in fact, does reducing the size of vortices equate to more downforce?Crucial_Xtreme wrote:
Hey wow, small world. I wrote that paper. That wing is currently (today I think) getting tested in germany for road legal certification (autoban speeds). I think that image was a low iteration count meant for pretty pictures and protecting IP. Of course we did sweeps at all the flap angles. Stall is around 45 IIRC, main plane is fixed.hardingfv32 wrote:Note how the pressure actually looks lower near the end plates. I question the commonly given reason for the endplate louvers.
By hardingfv32 at 2012-03-26
By making a given wing set up more efficient (less drag for the downforce produced (a better L/D)) you can run more wing and thus gain downforce. Improved L/D means better d/f or less drag (or something in between). I think this is what they mean although they appear to be conflating the two issues.hardingfv32 wrote:
The statement associated with the right illustration, is it completely true? I can see where the louvers reduce the size of the vortex (drag), but in fact, does reducing the size of vortices equate to more downforce?
hardingfv32 wrote:The louver theme is getting extreme. Why bother with with the end plate above the main element? Is it requiered by the rules?
Why doesn't the end plate seal the bottom of the second element/flap? I though that an end plate on the low pressure side of a wing was always a benefit.
[img]http://www.formula1.com/wi/sutton/2012/ ... 25.jpg[img]
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 2 guests