P 4/5 in wind tunnel

Three things...

1. Much too Short. :whip:
2. I'd love to see the results. :anxious:
3. How cool is it when your job involves taking a file an wailing on such a creation! (I'd actually imaged the shape was created by taking a solid block of CF and rubbing down with olive oil & naked Italian super models but I digress).
 
Three things...

1. Much too Short. :whip:
2. I'd love to see the results. :anxious:
3. How cool is it when your job involves taking a file an wailing on such a creation! (I'd actually imaged the shape was created by taking a solid block of CF and rubbing down with olive oil & naked Italian super models but I digress).

:)

We were going for several things. Firstly we wanted to maximise engine/oil/brake cooling without adding excessive drag or disrupting the air. We also wanted to tune out wake turbulence. Next we wanted to balance the down force and add some without over stressing suspension for the street. In the end we did pretty well. We lowered the Cx vs the Enzo, increased downforce, and was able to make the nose more suitable for the street while maintaining downforce.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3574.jpg
    IMG_3574.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 441

Fran Hall RCR

GT40s Sponsor
Jim,
what was you eventual lift vs drag coeffiecient?..and your overall DF?
I am running some high end CFD on the SL-C at the moment so your benchmark would be informative..
PM would be great..
 
Jim,
what was you eventual lift vs drag coeffiecient?..and your overall DF?
I am running some high end CFD on the SL-C at the moment so your benchmark would be informative..
PM would be great..

Cx was about .3 We were making about 1000 lbs of downforce at 150 mph. We could have made more but didn't want to increase springs for the street. At 200 on the banking we put the rt rear fender into the tire compressing the body about 2 inches.

The springs are fine for the street but you'd want more for racing.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0522 (2).jpg
    IMG_0522 (2).jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 315
  • IMG_0524 (2).jpg
    IMG_0524 (2).jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 337
  • IMG_2668 2.jpg
    IMG_2668 2.jpg
    235.8 KB · Views: 352
Last edited:

Steve Briscoe

Lifetime Supporter
Jim-
You're right. We protect history and pass it on. In the end, we don't own it. It's always fun to see this peace of history.
 
Cx was about .3 We were making about 1000 lbs of downforce at 150 mph. We could have made more but didn't want to increase springs for the street. At 200 on the banking we put the rt rear fender into the tire compressing the body about 2 inches.

The springs are fine for the street but you'd want more for racing.


Wow I think those are good numbers considering the lack of wings and other visually obtrusive aero devices.

I read (and need to re-read) an article in Bernoulli on the aero development of the FXX which had also the aim of bettering the Enzo drag and down force wise. It's interesting to see the completely different approaches in shape to achieving the close to the same goal.
 
Wow I think those are good numbers considering the lack of wings and other visually obtrusive aero devices.

I read (and need to re-read) an article in Bernoulli on the aero development of the FXX which had also the aim of bettering the Enzo drag and down force wise. It's interesting to see the completely different approaches in shape to achieving the close to the same goal.


A big part of reducing drag was decreasing inlets and enlarging exits. The Enzo had too little exit so at high speed the air flow reverted backwards out of the inlets.

P 4/5 does have a large front canard and a larger rear spoiler which raises at speed. We had to beef up the spoiler mechanism to take the added load.

The high exhausts also back fill the hole left by the cockpit and the mirrors are aero devices which trim the wake vortexs.

Best
 
Back
Top