Maybe there were some pics in brochures or commercials?

It usually shows airflows around the body...

Anyone?

never seen any, other than the fact of CX 0.31 which is pretty low drag. I suppose the LE/Plus-kit affected that some.. 0.305?

Autocar and FIAT quote 0.33 but I have seen 0.31 and 0.32 posted around the internet.

I was going to post on this general subject. I have always noticed with the Coupe, unlike any other car I have dad, when I look in rear view mirror in rain, I see the spray coming together (both sides pulling in) in a vortex. I asssumed this was the result of great aerodynamics. Other cars just show a mass of uncordinated spray, with no form or shape.

The coupe is just so special

Even 0,32 is just between Farrari Enzo (0,30) and Lamborghini (0,33)! ))))

The questions is that I'm in procees of making a custom kit for my coupe. Small wide body + diffusors + bottom panels etc.

Minimum of looking, maximum of efficiency on a track.

So my idea is to make small aerodinamic elements, that won't look like my grandma's favorite bench, but will do their job.

It's also higher than a Vauxhall Calibra The coop does well aerodynamically because of it's low frontal area of 21.6 feet. The CDA (CD x frontal area) is therefore pretty good in any company. The thing is, those cars that generate good downforce also produce more drag. A Noble M400 is a good extreme example. It's very good from 0-120mph and on track, but you only need to look at the post 120mph performance and top speed and you wonder where that 425bhp went. All that downforce starts to work against it, both in terms of drag and of course, extra 'weight'.



The question is, how will you ever know if it's working?

Well, we have a wind tunnel here in University of aviation )))

And also some elements will work in anycase - for example flat bottom o some rear diffusor. And they also look better then any spoilers etc...

Is your tunnel large enough to fit a coupe inside

They fit an airplane there ))))

Fancy putting one of our coupes in there? ;-)

I will better make a small model for tests )))) Always dreamed about it!

They do so with the planes development btw )

Yes, we have a model C-17 at work that was a wind tunnel model, quite expensive to build apparently as they are an exact aerodynamic model of the real thing.

Boeing didn't see the funny side of us trying to fly it across the room (which it didn't do very successfuly).

covered wheel rims will do a great job. flat fuel cap will add several km/h also

"Boeing Brick" catchy, much better than "panty liner" sorry "Dream Liner"

You wouldn't catch me in a dream liner- a fully composite aircraft. One of our mostly composite planes had a lightening strike the other week, it took out the radome at the front and the elevator at the rear ! They don't conduct electricity very well !

pure CF doesnt conduct electricity. CF sandwich with a wire mesh in between should, just like a Faraday cage.

as strict as the FAA are with these things, i cant believe Boeing would have overlooked this most well known lightning strike issue with the 787.

redd

Yep you've got it spot on Red, they lay a mesh under the upper composite layer, however, that mesh needs to be bonded at every single point throughout the entire airframe for it to work, also, think about this logically, pass a few million volts through a thin wire mesh that's encased in a substance that doesn't conduct so well.

I bet the structure will delaminate and lose all it's strength !

It's a problem with metal airframes too, rivets melt and reform with a lightening strike, a rivet that's done that offers no structural strength at all.

I'm not sure how far off topic we are at the moment. ? Has anyone had a lightening strike in a coupe, or to get it right back on track, has anyone had a lightening strike in a wind tunnel

hehe sorry. i go all tingly whenever anyone starts talking aero...

redd

I love that bubbly chocolate too

I once saw one coming for me in the rear view mirror but, luckily, I was already in third...