What the heck is with the stock wing..

jdc1687 · 17 June 2005

xsn said:

haha!!

Well, I don't really want to get a new wing for my car; don't get me wrong. I've never really been one for aftermarket body parts; they always seem to look weird IMHO.

However, in looking at the spoiler it looks like it does nothing. However, I have learned two things from this thread.

The bottom of the spoiler is curved, making it an inverted wing
Even a spoiler alone can change drag co-efficient by creating turbulence(I don't really understand this, but it makes some sense)

I do like the look of the NSX-R wing, and NSX-R hood, but I'll go with other performance mods before those..

Brakes, then tires, then engine, then, we'll think about the body panels

-Jer

Spinner · 17 June 2005

xsn said:

The F40 and F50 are similar with the NSX in a way that the spoiler is part of the body...not something "tacked" on later. Sure you have the GT versions of the 575 and etc with the "stuck on" spoilers. But those won't be production versions. Enzo wanted the "whole" car to be part of the aerodynamic package (undercarriage, hood, vents etc). Alot of cars with spoilers nowadays, don't really have the "complete package"

Although I must say, I think he age his own words with the intro of the f40 right before his death. Now the Dodge Charger on the other hand...

skyguy · 18 June 2005

Eh...Hum.

I have been a professional Pilot for many years and have studied aerodynamics extensively. The "wing" is indeed a wing. The reason it looks so demure is due to drag. Two kinds of drag; Parasite and induced. Parasite drag increases at a greater rate than lift as the airspeed increases. i.e.; say 50 MPH 5 units of lift and 10 units of parasite drag. At say 100 MPH 10 units of lift and 40 units of drag.
That's just numbers pulled out of nowhere, but it gives an example of how parasitic drag increases more than lift as speed increases.
So, the "wing" is not a high lift device, (thin) in order to prevent parasitic drag at high speeds. Yes, the "wing" does work, and yes, it is curved on the bottom to increase down force at high speeds. The "wing" I’m sure is mostly effective at higher speeds. Any questions class?....Yes you, there in the back................

Jets flown as Captain
Boeing 747-200/100
DC-10 -10/30
Boeing 737-200/300/500/700
Cessna Citation-500
Skyguy

nsxhk · 18 June 2005

skyguy said:
Eh...Hum.

The "wing" I’m sure is mostly effective at higher speeds. Any questions class?....Yes you, there in the back................

Please define 'higher speeds'. over 100mph?

Henry.

skyguy · 18 June 2005

nsxhk said:
skyguy said:

Eh...Hum.

The "wing" I’m sure is mostly effective at higher speeds. Any questions class?....Yes you, there in the back................

Please define 'higher speeds'. over 100mph?

Henry.

Click to expand...

Henry,

Dunno. Honda engineers have those magic numbers. My guess and it is a WAG would be about 100 MPH and up. As a rule, I try and not do math in public!

SugrueNSX · 18 June 2005

skyguy said:
Eh...Hum.

I have been a professional Pilot for many years and have studied aerodynamics extensively. The "wing" is indeed a wing. The reason it looks so demure is due to drag. Two kinds of drag; Parasite and induced. Parasite drag increases at a greater rate than lift as the airspeed increases. i.e.; say 50 MPH 5 units of lift and 10 units of parasite drag. At say 100 MPH 10 units of lift and 40 units of drag.
That's just numbers pulled out of nowhere, but it gives an example of how parasitic drag increases more than lift as speed increases.
So, the "wing" is not a high lift device, (thin) in order to prevent parasitic drag at high speeds. Yes, the "wing" does work, and yes, it is curved on the bottom to increase down force at high speeds. The "wing" I’m sure is mostly effective at higher speeds. Any questions class?....Yes you, there in the back................

Jets flown as Captain
Boeing 747-200/100
DC-10 -10/30
Boeing 737-200/300/500/700
Cessna Citation-500
Skyguy

Sir, I don’t think that any of this is particularly relevant to the original question but it seems you are indeed pulling numbers out of somewhere. Is it not true that both parasitic drag and lift increase at the SAME rate as airspeed increases? That rate being the square of the airspeed?

Man I hope I don’t get detention for this!

Regards,

Patrick

Meeyatch1 · 18 June 2005

jdc1687 said:
...The only thing it does in so far as I can tell is hold the third brakelight.. Insight please as this is really bothering me.

On mine it holds a couple of drinks, a burger, and a blueberry muffin. If that is not useful I do not know what is. LOL!!

jdc1687 · 19 June 2005

Meeyatch1 said:
On mine it holds a couple of drinks, a burger, and a blueberry muffin. If that is not useful I do not know what is. LOL!!

I hadn't considered that option; good plan

SkyGuy, thanks for the information. I don't know anything about areodynamics; besides the fact that a teardrop shape is good for a submarine!!!

I am much happier to know the rear wing actually does something.. Thanks guys!

-Jer

skyguy · 19 June 2005

SugrueNSX said:
Sir, I don’t think that any of this is particularly relevant to the original question but it seems you are indeed pulling numbers out of somewhere. Is it not true that both parasitic drag and lift increase at the SAME rate as airspeed increases? That rate being the square of the airspeed?

Man I hope I don’t get detention for this!

Regards,

Patrick

Aerodynamic Efficiency: An optimum efficiency performance of an airplane requires maximum lift at minimum drag. The aerodynamic efficiency is defined as the ratio between the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient. It is expressed in the mathematically form:

AE =CL / CD

Where AE = L/D CL = Lift coefficient CD = Drag coefficient

It follows that L/Dmax = CLmax / CDmin

SugrueNSX · 19 June 2005

skyguy said:
Aerodynamic Efficiency: An optimum efficiency performance of an airplane requires maximum lift at minimum drag. The aerodynamic efficiency is defined as the ratio between the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient. It is expressed in the mathematically form:

AE =CL / CD

Where AE = L/D CL = Lift coefficient CD = Drag coefficient

It follows that L/Dmax = CLmax / CDmin

Anyone can quote out of a text book but your graph clearly shows the x axis is for angle of attack which on an NSX is fixed so it’s irrelevant to our argument.
It is very obvious that you are very confused when it comes to grasping even the basics.
You said “an airplane requires maximum lift at minimum drag” but it is obvious to anyone with any common sense that as you increase the airspeed you increase the lift and the drag for any given angle of attack at the same time.
I don’t want to get into a fluid dynamics war with you . (what are you going to bring up next, boundary layers?) I’m not trying to embarrass you but if you are going to give a physics lesson please take the time to get it right. I’m sorry to flame you but I can’t stand misinformation.
Please have the grace to admit that you were wrong rather than confuse the issue.
As I said before parasitic drag and lift increase at the square of the air speed.
This is at odds with you original statement. Do you deny this?

Regards,

Patrick

khappucino · 19 June 2005

haha can we get some laminar flow induced by the flux capacitance of the optimus prime shaped tetrahedron :biggrin:

ANYTIME · 19 June 2005

jdc1687 said:
OK..

The stock wing bothers me. It does nothing. It is flat, it does not offer downforce.

The only thing it does in so far as I can tell is hold the third brakelight.. Insight please as this is really bothering me.

andreas wing holds more than the brakelight!

skyguy · 19 June 2005

Patrick:" irrelevant to our argument".

I didn't know it was an argument, I thought we discussed topics here.

Patrick: "It is very obvious that you are very confused when it comes to grasping even the basics".

Humm, I've been flying airplanes for 25 years as my profession. Been to countless professional airline ground schools, recurrent training, etc. Interesting opinion considering my background.

Patrick: "You said “an airplane requires maximum lift at minimum drag”

"You said" is from a Pilots web here I did quote from this web source as a reference. I'm assuming they have some slight form of "common sense."

Patrick: "but it is obvious to anyone with any common sense that as you increase the airspeed you increase the lift and the drag for any given angle of attack at the same time".

where did I say lift and drag don't increase as airspeed increases?

Patrick:" (what are you going to bring up next, boundary layers?)"

Please keep the "discussion" professional and try and not react on emotion without the benefit of intellect.

Patrick: " I’m not trying to embarrass you"

If this is not an attempt at embarrassment with the personal comments, ("grasping even the basics"- "It is very obvious that you are very confused when it comes to grasping even the basics".) I don't know what is? Again, posts without personal comments are prime to disagreements.

Patrick: "As I said before parasitic drag and lift increase at the square of the air speed."

I don't see where I disagreed with this statement?

I do not disagree with all you have said. If you wish to further this topic lets be gentlemen and spare the Prime members the rhetoric of this off topic post and I would be more than willing to discuss this via private message method.

Regards,

Skyguy

MCM · 19 June 2005

On a technical note, my wife put it best.
Really looks cute with the "little flippy thing" in the back.
I tend to agree.

SugrueNSX · 19 June 2005

Patrick:" irrelevant to our argument".

I didn't know it was an argument, I thought we discussed topics here.

OK it’s irrelevant to our “discussion” then.

Patrick: "It is very obvious that you are very confused when it comes to grasping even the basics".

Humm, I've been flying airplanes for 25 years as my profession. Been to countless professional airline ground schools, recurrent training, etc. Interesting opinion considering my background.

I have no doubt that you are a fine pilot

Patrick: "You said “an airplane requires maximum lift at minimum drag”

"You said" is from a Pilots web here I did quote from this web source as a reference. I'm assuming they have some slight form of "common sense."

Nothing wrong with the resource but they are showing how L over D changes at various angles of attack and we are arguing, sorry discussing how lift and drag increase with airspeed.

Patrick: "but it is obvious to anyone with any common sense that as you increase the airspeed you increase the lift and the drag for any given angle of attack at the same time".

where did I say lift and drag don't increase as airspeed increases?

From your original lesson Quote That's just numbers pulled out of nowhere, but it gives an example of how parasitic drag increases more than lift as speed increases. End Quote.

Patrick:" (what are you going to bring up next, boundary layers?)"

Please keep the "discussion" professional and try and not react on emotion without the benefit of intellect.

Fair enough

Patrick: " I’m not trying to embarrass you"

If this is not an attempt at embarrassment with the personal comments, ("grasping even the basics"- "It is very obvious that you are very confused when it comes to grasping even the basics".) I don't know what is? Again, posts without personal comments are prime to disagreements.

I apologize

Patrick: "As I said before parasitic drag and lift increase at the square of the air speed."

I don't see where I disagreed with this statement?

Again, From your original lesson Quote That's just numbers pulled out of nowhere, but it gives an example of how parasitic drag increases more than lift as speed increases. End Quote.

I do not disagree with all you have said. If you wish to further this topic lets be gentlemen and spare the Prime members the rhetoric of this off topic post and I would be more than willing to discuss this via private message method.

I would be happy do discuss aerodynamics with you offline.

Regards,

Patrick

Autophile · 19 June 2005

SugrueNSX, be careful buddy, before you embarrass yourself.

For example, you are still confused about skyguy's comment "That's just numbers pulled out of nowhere, but it gives an example of how parasitic drag increases more than lift as speed increases." That doesn't bode well for your argumentative standing.

Also, I recommend trying a more tactful approach when discussing things on internet forums. It will generally be to your favor.

SugrueNSX · 20 June 2005

SugrueNSX, be careful buddy, before you embarrass yourself.

OK

For example, you are still confused about skyguy's comment "That's just numbers pulled out of nowhere, but it gives an example of how parasitic drag increases more than lift as speed increases."

Again, my point is that parasitic drag does NOT increase more than lift as speed increases.
What makes you think I’m confused?

Also, I recommend trying a more tactful approach when discussing things on internet forums. It will generally be to your favor.

Thanks for the advice.

Regards,

Patrick

MCM · 20 June 2005

I am sure its design its functional and was wind tunnel tested along with everything else on this car. But at what point does the wing/spoiler actually come into play?
(Guys with the slide rules stand up) 100 mph? 130 mph? 150 mph?
Just curious. :redface:

NSX-Racer · 20 June 2005

MCM said:
But at what point does the wing/spoiler actually come into play?

From my understanding it's "into play" at every speed but with my track experience (comparing stock and R wing) I'd say you won't notice a significant effect below about 80 miles cornering speed and much more on straight line speed. Of course professional drivers (and testers) may feel it earlier than me as a weekend warrior. I just take maximum cornering speeds at a given corner and overall laptimes as a measure - not really scientific, I know. I posted the scientific wind tunnel numbers at 200 km/h earlier in this thread.

AFAIK there are no real life comparisons with a NSX on a track with stock wing and without any wing.

Meeyatch1 · 20 June 2005

I personally just adjust the kinuter valve on my coolant hose relief flap and call it a day.

dave22 · 20 June 2005

liftshard said:
I believe it's a spoiler, not a wing.

Hmmm. I always thought that if no air passed under it, it was a spoiler. Like this:

So I thought the NSX had a wing, since air passes between it and the body of the car.

Have I always been wrong?

SugrueNSX · 20 June 2005

MCM said:
I am sure its design its functional and was wind tunnel tested along with everything else on this car. But at what point does the wing/spoiler actually come into play?
(Guys with the slide rules stand up) 100 mph? 130 mph? 150 mph?
Just curious. :redface:

Short answer: I don’t know.

Long answer: A slide rule is not going to be much use. What we need is a wind tunnel or someone who has the data from the wind tunnel testing.
NSX racer posted some data up above on this thread.
It’s kind of complex because the “wing” may do many things including reducing overall drag of the car, increasing high speed stability and adding down force to counteract the lift that is generally present in a road car.
How much down force the wing is producing is dependant on the airfoil section, and the size and shape of the wing and the angle of attack the air speed etc.
What we do know is that if the wing is producing 1 unit of lift at 10 mph and it will be. Then it will be producing 4 units of lift at 20 mph and 16 units at 40 mph and 64 at 80 mph and 256 units at 160 mph.
Because it goes up at the square of the airspeed.
So it’s not like the wing switches on at some point. It just gets progressively more effective. And how much down force do you need before you can say the wing has “come into play” or before you can tell the difference? 2 lb, 20 lb, 50 lb. I don’t know but I guess we would all rather have even 5 lb of down force rather than 5 lb of lift. Would we not?

Regards,

Patrick

ajnsx · 20 June 2005

100 mph? 130 mph? 150 mph?

On a rally website they mentioned after 60km/h wings became effective.

liftshard · 20 June 2005

dave22 said:
Hmmm. I always thought that if no air passed under it, it was a spoiler. Like this:

So I thought the NSX had a wing, since air passes between it and the body of the car.

Have I always been wrong?

Well, it'd only be a wing if it generates lift. Otherwise, it'd be cosmetic, like virtually all spoilers out there.

I doubt the NSX's "wing" is purely cosmetic. But, if you look aft in the side mirrors, you can see the upcurvature at the rear end of the car. As for whether the NSX sh!t generates lift or merely spoils the airflow, I got no clue.

The only thing I care about right now is a full-size pic of whoever that chick is sitting on it in that avatar.

Patdeisa · 20 June 2005

The stock wing is likely used more as a spoiler than a wing, however it probably accomplishes both to some extent. Take a look at a wind tunnel picture of the NSX:

You can see how the air right before the wing starts to curve up slightly and stay together, keeping a smoother airflow. If it wasn't for the wing, the airflow would get "cloudier," indicating a more turbulent flow, and would adhere to the body more, giving it a further distance to travel and thus more lift. Keeping the flow more straight across the rear of the car reduces drag and lift at speed, which should definitely be noticeable in a wind tunnel above 50mph or so. Most manufacturers design spoilers or wings to work well at the typical speed of operation, 60-70 mph. However, as the NSX is a performance oriented car, the design may be adjusted for higher speeds.

What the heck is with the stock wing..

jdc1687

Spinner

skyguy

nsxhk

skyguy

SugrueNSX

Meeyatch1

jdc1687

skyguy

SugrueNSX

khappucino

ANYTIME

skyguy

MCM

SugrueNSX

Autophile

SugrueNSX

MCM

NSX-Racer

Meeyatch1

dave22

SugrueNSX

ajnsx

liftshard

Suspended

Patdeisa

Similar threads