×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

fenders vs. no fenders

fenders vs. no fenders

fenders vs. no fenders

(OP)
which one is more aerodynamically efficient? and no speculation, either. I have a friend that says that no fenders are more efficient cause of more surface area, and stuff, while I can swear I remember reading about an aerodynamicist who said that open wheel designs are inferior because the 4 protruding wheels disturb the air flow severely. anyone know?



Joseph.

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

no fenders is more efficient because of more surface area??? no

more surface area = more drag

The only example I can think of with fast cars with no fenders are the F1 cars, and they're not meant to be fast in a straight line, they're meant to take corners at 3 Gs of lateral force, stop HARD and accelerate fast, and the best way to do that is to get rid of all possible weight.

seriously fast ground vehicles like jet powered cars for record attempts have wheel fairings (or fenders if you must) over their tires or wheels, that is if their wheels are exposed at all. Your friend has little common sense IMO.

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

I know that Cessna 172s are faster by the book by a couple of knots when they have the wheel/tires fairings on as opposed to exposed wheels/tires.

jetmaker

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

How many airplanes have exposed wheels?

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

btrueblood,

Can't tell if that is an actual question, or you are just pointing out that most airplanes retract their wheels to get them out of the airstream.

Anyways, it is a good point to show why most airplanes try to have retractable gear.  The tradeoff in performance is often weighted against expense, weight, and system complexity.

jetmaker

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

Fairings are great if all you plan on landing on are relatively solid surfaces.

Take it into the bush, and the fairings get clogged with mud.

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

The answer is probably more down to how the fenders (or wheel fairings) are designed, and how this affects the airflow.  For example, a typical road saloon (sedan) has a Cd of around 0.3 or less.  An open-wheeled F1 car has a Cd of around 0.7.  However, the Caterham 7 road car has faired wheel arches, and has a Cd of 0.7 too, because of the aerodynamic characteristics.  Equally, the earlier LeMans cars of the 1990's were hyped as F1 cars with closed cockpits and covered wheels - and generated more downforce for less drag - more akin to a Cd of 0.3 to 0.4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients
Also note the huge flares on the Caterham shown here, which add to the drag:
http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/preowned.html

RE: fenders vs. no fenders

The question is too general to really get a meaningful answer in general.  1/2 * Cd * area * rho * v^2 is the equation to look at.  And the key is that you want to minimize the Cd * area product.

You can do silly things to a design, e.g., use a flat-front box for a fairing, which will result in cruddy performance even relative to a naked wheel.  You can use a bicycle racing wheel, which will probably beat any fairing you might try to design for it.

That said, you can clearly relate a normal tire to the standard ball-nose projectile with a flat tail, and a fairing to a high performance ogive nose and boat-tail projectile and guess what, that larger frontal area ogive and boat-tail wins by a wide margin, because it does a substantially better job of reducing flow separation and drastically cuts Cd, while the tire has a Cd that's nearly 1.  That's why there are no blunt-nosed supersonic ammunition.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources