I've been wondering how this feature actually helps efficiency of a wing.
For example an image taken at Monza, the Ferrari rear wing sporting the upward leading edge, while MVR's wing is more straightforward.
At a guess, I'd say it's to help clean up the flow from the DRS activator. By shortening the chord locally you will alter the way the flow leaves the trailing edge. Probably helps to reduce turbulence from the DRS activator and thus improve overall efficiency.
Erm, ignore all of that. I was thinking about the v in the trailing edge. D'oh!
Last edited by Just_a_fan on 04 Oct 2011, 19:27, edited 1 time in total.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Cant explain why it done but we have data from our like sports car 9similiar to radicals etc) we see an increase in straight line speed and G number up when using a small nose up. So far only 2 degrees played with.
Just know its works for us, I thought it must have something to do with staying attached to underside of the wing better
I would say that the angle of attack of the Ferrari wing is still negative (ie normal) or neutral and it just has a much higher camber than the Virgin wing.
That Virgin wing can't be making much DF at all, in comparison.
"Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words." - Chuang Tzu
The bottom of the wing is like a half venturi.
The throat of the venturi, where there is the lowest pressure, would be in the middle of the wing for a curved lipped wing.
The curve make sense but it's difficult to fully expound on it.
It is more to control the pressure zones around the wing. These wings are generated from the characteristics, which is the reverse method from the clasical way of wing design.
Ussualy you make a wing then test it. You then get the characteristics, such as pitching moment Cl, Cd and where it is produced.
Nowdays, you decide what Cl and Cd you want and where you want it along the wing, and the airfoil is generated.
The curved leading edge is simply a result of the desired characteristics.
I was wondering this myself, especially with F1 wings having the belly in them.
edit:
to add to the venturi explanation, the air keeps accelerating towards the middle of the wing, where the hump is, so the speed increases and pressure drops. For a non curved front the air doesn't accelerate for as much.
If you imagine it as an upside-down airplane wing, it doesn't seem counter-intuitive (at least to me), or at least less so. To [needlessly?] elaborate, if an airplane wing's leading edge was dipped down a little (instead of up in the F1's case) it wouldn't look absurd because isn't it meant to divide the airflow by two differing paths? And the top of a plane wing is the convex part.
You might be surprised, but I'm actually not an aerodynamacist, but does this make sense?
It's just liebeck's airfoil (highly cambered profile designed for maximum lift).
Not used in aircrafts due to high drag coeff, but very common in race cars.
produces fair amount of downforce even at 0 AoA.
shelly wrote:ringo, the lowest pressure line is near the leading edge even for a cambered wing. Forget Venturi.
Yup.
Ringo, the method you state is not incorrect, I believe it's known as inverse design? Developed initially whilst looking at transonic aerofoils. However turbine, and compressor blades have probably found the best use of such methods.
Leading edge droop on A/C reduces the peak suction magnitude, and in doing so reduces what would be a large adverse pressure gradient.
@tomba: I think flow detachment on top of mainplane in design condition (DRS closed) is quite unthinkable; it is less unlikely with DRS open - off design condition
I thought so, but perhaps it's even interesting to have flow seperation there, reducing the amount of generated downforce and drag at higher speeds. Just guessing though...
