either way I think they outsmarted themselves with their "radical" compressor design (beeing at the rev limit and, well is it working?)...Brian Coat wrote:"Is there any evidence they are using an axial compressor ? Personally I doubt as I don't think you can generate the pressure ratio needed."
Should we entertain the possibility that it might be more radical than this?
I apologize for misquoting you once again. My eyes wanted to see something more interesting than what was actually there.trinidefender wrote:Variante you really do seem to have a knack for misquoting and/or misunderstanding me ya know. At no point did I say that in certain conditions will the vortex change direction. Actually at first look, this idea seems very unlikely.variante wrote:It is, but it doesn't talk about rake condition or CoP moving about... Unless i missed those parts. Even if tose parts are present, i suspect they couldn't help us more than our intuition, as the shown experiment are quite basic, generic and...ancient (as 99% of the essays)bhall II wrote:Is that not the one with a section on diffuser ride height/angles?
And i agree with your interpretation. Getting deeper into the topic would be interesting, as the actual behaviour of underfloor airflows is an unknown even to most aero engineers.bhall II wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the main idea is that the use features like those seen below is a way for designers to maximize sealing/suction in a way that takes advantage of the naturally occurring parabolic flow structures under the floor.
Trinidefender mentioned reading about changing of vorticity under certain condition, which is a pretty curious aspect. It would be interesting...
You guys should visit the Honda PU thread. It was determined that within the realm of industry solutions the compressor is more like a "Mixed Flow" compressor. This looks similar to a regular centrifugal compressor on the outside but on the inside the geomoetry is slightly different, with an ejection angle oblique to the rotation axis instead of at 90 degrees. The advantage of this is increased flow per rotation which allows you to make the compressor smaller.Brian Coat wrote:"Is there any evidence they are using an axial compressor ? Personally I doubt as I don't think you can generate the pressure ratio needed."
Should we entertain the possibility that it might be more radical than this?
PlatinumZealot wrote:You guys should visit the Honda PU thread. It was determined that within the realm of industry solutions the compressor is more like a "Mixed Flow" compressor. This looks similar to a regular centrifugal compressor on the outside but on the inside the geomoetry is slightly different, with an ejection angle oblique to the rotation axis instead of at 90 degrees. The advantage of this is increased flow per rotation which allows you to make the compressor smaller.Brian Coat wrote:"Is there any evidence they are using an axial compressor ? Personally I doubt as I don't think you can generate the pressure ratio needed."
Should we entertain the possibility that it might be more radical than this?
Well we all know an Axial compressor won't work for obvious reasons. So it narrows down to a either a specially designed centrifugal one or a mixed flow one. Haven't seen anybody come up with another reasonable Idea yet.AxialTurbine wrote:PlatinumZealot wrote:You guys should visit the Honda PU thread. It was determined that within the realm of industry solutions the compressor is more like a "Mixed Flow" compressor. This looks similar to a regular centrifugal compressor on the outside but on the inside the geomoetry is slightly different, with an ejection angle oblique to the rotation axis instead of at 90 degrees. The advantage of this is increased flow per rotation which allows you to make the compressor smaller.Brian Coat wrote:"Is there any evidence they are using an axial compressor ? Personally I doubt as I don't think you can generate the pressure ratio needed."
Should we entertain the possibility that it might be more radical than this?
Whilst a mixed flow impeller is not out of the question, I'm not really convinced of the benefit even if it can provide more flow, the difference in diameter will be very small to a radial in the order of a few millimeters or the price will be paid in pressure ratio capability. Also by definition the compressor stage probably grows in length as the diffuser is now also angled.
Whilst other designs are possible a well designed radial compressor and well designed radial turbine are hard to beat for performance or compactness. It's not impossible in an f1 application that something else might be better its just I think you have a very hard time proving it.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
