Sucked wing idea

[ringo]

Manchild can you draw a picture including the wing?
I am kind of confused as to what is happening.

Is is a span wise slit, maybe on the vertical part of the wing, facing forward? That takes the air, turns it 180 degrees and carries it back to the engine air box?

Though the pressure on the wing is high, it is really static pressure, the velocity pressure is low. static + velocity = total pressure.
It's needs some momentum to turn 180 degrees. The suction from the engine could help somewhat, but i am not sure if the high pressure on the wing would form a ram effect, all because of the 180 degree turn. But who knows? maybe it can.

[wesley123]

ringo, now you say that i dont udnerstand anything anymore of the idea, is the duct on the top wing? or is it on the bottomside? If it is on the top side i doubt it will really work, as i can beleive in some way those central 15 cm ducts share the same function in some way

[Carlos]

Yes your right wesley 123 - I am OT, the circulation control wing and blown flap is the F-duct - I missed that conversation - and brought the references up... from frustration - there is something very wrong in F1 aero engineering circles when 2 novice like Manchild and I can arrive at ducting schemes ( and Manchild's nosecone iinvention) ahead of teams with massive staffs, funds and world class wind tunnels ... now that I have gone so much off topic I'll have to toss out a last intriguing concept then vow to stay on subject from here on:

I am very sure the principal could be applied to F1.
DESIGN OF A CIRCULATION CONTROL STERN PLANE FOR SUBMARINE APPLICATIONS
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... etTRDoc.pd

[manchild]

Manchild can you draw a picture including the wing?
I am kind of confused as to what is happening..

I'm not an aero guy so I'm only guessing the position of the slit. Perhaps it should be near the leading edge. I'm not sure. Just thinking out-loud.

[autogyro]

I was just looking at the 1938 De Haviland Albatross airliner design.
That had four piston engines (Gypsy 12s), cooled from airscoops on the wing leading edge which reversed the flow through 90 degrees, the flow also fed the air intakes. Fully encased engines with very low drag. 530hp each for take off.
Practicaly all modern F1 aero has been done before, if not before WW2 then during it.
I suppose an aircooled F1 engine could also be so encased, doing away with the side pod radiators and having air fed from the roll bar scoop.
The sizes and power does not look disimilar.
Exit of air would be strait down the middle, hmmm

[Belatti]

I suppose an aircooled F1 engine could also be so encased, doing away with the side pod radiators and having air fed from the roll bar scoop.
The sizes and power does not look disimilar.
Exit of air would be strait down the middle, hmmm

I know this is OOT, but could not avoid mentioning it.
Autogyro, check this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7766&start=15
The riff raff idea precisely...

Ps: Manchild, you better patent this one...

[majicmeow]

Im not an aero guy either, but wouldnt having the slit on the top surface of the wing DECREASE the amount of air that flows over the panes and therefore reduce downforce?

Also, to me, that looks like it would create a low pressure area on the top surfaces of the wing...

I understand sucking the air out from under the wing, or behind the panes to create a low pressure zone under the wing to increase downforce, but I'm not "getting" these last two pictures...

Help?

[Giblet]

Neat idea, but unfortunately my blanket is wet and in need of being draped over something. The engine moves, and acts as a pump, therefore becoming an actively controlled aerodynamic device.

[Ciro Pabón]

I'm soooo glad of the desert of ideas we've been plodding through during the last months coming to an end that I don't know what to say.

[Steven]

Neat idea, but unfortunately my blanket is wet and in need of being draped over something. The engine moves, and acts as a pump, therefore becoming an actively controlled aerodynamic device.

I don't think that will be a problem, otherwise the airbox could be considered an actively controlled aerodevice too (as it sucks air and hence reduces car drag)

What I was wondering though is the effect of this system on rear downforce. A wing's downforce is partially generated from a pressure difference above and below the wing. If you'd take away some airflow above the wing, part of this downforce will disappear. You'd still have some downforce due to the wing's angle of attack obviously.

From what I understand here is that this system will reduce downforce and drag everywhere around the circuit (as revs hardly have anything to do with speed), and then I wonder if it wouldn't just be better to lower the rear wing a bit if less downforce is needed anyway...

[manchild]

What I was wondering though is the effect of this system on rear downforce. A wing's downforce is partially generated from a pressure difference above and below the wing. If you'd take away some airflow above the wing, part of this downforce will disappear. You'd still have some downforce due to the wing's angle of attack obviously.

If a slit would suck the air in, than it would prevent air from slipping away from wing in natural way. Think of it as Gurneyflap that creates no drag realtive to normal Gurneyflap. Air that was sucked in from the top of the wing, would be replaced by more air per time unit. By my opinion that has identical effect as increasing the angle.

Try visualizing it trough this - imagine a car standing in place. No movement, no inertia, air speed=0. Engine is sucking the air in airbox - the force created by it affects the car in which direction? Moves it forward, right? Now, if there's be slit on wing sucking the air coming from direction of car movement, that would reduce the drag while maintaining or increasing downforce relative to conventional wing.

[allstaruk08]

heres the link aswell incase you cant see the picture http://yfrog.com/f/08scan285201016h9m38sj/

oh and sorry if you got loads of messages it took me about 15 attempts to get the picture up lol

[Giblet]

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to beat this idea down on merit, cuz I think it is quite ingenious, but looking at it from the FIA point of view, the primary reason for the air intake is to give the engine air. It needs it to breathe. It's oveall size is written in the regulations. The engine does not effect the air box, the air box feeds the engine.

If the engine is feeding the wing as a pump is OK, then logic would say that a fan would be OK as well, but it clearly is not allowed as we learned from Brabham many years ago. The engines only function can be to drive the wheels.

The genius behind the fduct was that there was no moving part whatsoever, the engine moves, and contributes the the aero of the car.

If the FIA can deem a mass damper an aero device, then an engine pumping air to a wing _could_ be as well.

I still think massive kudos to Manchild are well deserved, and this is a second notch on his slide rule, Ferrari nose hole being the first in my tenure here.

[allstaruk08]

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to beat this idea down on merit, cuz I think it is quite ingenious, but looking at it from the FIA point of view, the primary reason for the air intake is to give the engine air. It needs it to breathe. It's oveall size is written in the regulations. The engine does not effect the air box, the air box feeds the engine.

If the engine is feeding the wing as a pump is OK, then logic would say that a fan would be OK as well, but it clearly is not allowed as we learned from Brabham many years ago. The engines only function can be to drive the wheels.

The genius behind the fduct was that there was no moving part whatsoever, the engine moves, and contributes the the aero of the car.

If the FIA can deem a mass damper an aero device, then an engine pumping air to a wing _could_ be as well.

I still think massive kudos to Manchild are well deserved, and this is a second notch on his slide rule, Ferrari nose hole being the first in my tenure here.

its sucking air from under the wing not pumping it to the wing or atleast thats how i interpreted the guys idea lol but like you say the FIA would probably class the engine as a movable aero device and ban it

[Giblet]

Yes you are right I think. I misspoke and was thinking about the fduct as I typed it for some reason.

Still, like you agree, I feel the FIA would call the engine's side effect as an air pump to actively control aero in the same way that the "cooling fan" of the BT-46 had a side effect of sticking the car to the road illegal for obvious reasons.