Go Back   The Ford Barn > General Discussion > Model A (1928-31)

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2013, 10:38 PM   #1
Jim Huseby
Senior Member
 
Jim Huseby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 361
Default aerodynamics

Does anyone have figures on the comparison of coefficient of drag on both a '30 town sedan and a '31 with slant windshield (and no wind-catching visor)?
Jim Huseby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 10:53 PM   #2
Jim Huseby
Senior Member
 
Jim Huseby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 361
Default Re: aerodynamics

Does anyone have figures or calculations indicating the HP required to push say a '30 model A coupe at 35 mph to 70mph in mph increments of 5? Assume conditions at sea level, 70 deg F., 70% RH with 35 psi in 475-500x19's and 600 wt gear lube at operating temp, no drag in brakes, etc.
Jim Huseby is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Old 06-26-2013, 11:15 PM   #3
Rock Hornbuckle
Senior Member
 
Rock Hornbuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Noxon Montana
Posts: 532
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Huseby View Post
Does anyone have figures or calculations indicating the HP required to push say a '30 model A coupe at 35 mph to 70mph in mph increments of 5? Assume conditions at sea level, 70 deg F., 70% RH with 35 psi in 475-500x19's and 600 wt gear lube at operating temp, no drag in brakes, etc.
Almost everything that any engineer ever thought of, or worked on will have charts, graphs and tables with results/measurements/calcs, .etc. I would try googling aerodynamics. You might be surprised, someone probably tested automobiles of various shapes and recorded the results. Let us know what you find. 600w is not wt. it's a part number. It's might be difficult to ascertain bearing drag/friction. You might also try to locate a wind tunnel that would be willing to test your car. I think many here on the barn might be interested in how wind drag on our A's fare compared to a modern car. Good luck
__________________
'31 Fordor Deluxe 2W Briggs 170-B / blackwalls
'41 Fordor Deluxe / 2-duece flattie
'66 1/2 Dodge Charger
'14 100th Anniversary Challenger Limited Edition.

Semper Fidelis
Rock Hornbuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 12:09 AM   #4
1931 flamingo
Senior Member
 
1931 flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: new britain,ct 06052
Posts: 9,389
Default Re: aerodynamics

WHY ??
Paul in CT
1931 flamingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 12:13 AM   #5
Rock Hornbuckle
Senior Member
 
Rock Hornbuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Noxon Montana
Posts: 532
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1931 flamingo View Post
WHY ??
Paul in CT
It may be related to his driving a speedster. just a hunch
__________________
'31 Fordor Deluxe 2W Briggs 170-B / blackwalls
'41 Fordor Deluxe / 2-duece flattie
'66 1/2 Dodge Charger
'14 100th Anniversary Challenger Limited Edition.

Semper Fidelis
Rock Hornbuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 03:49 AM   #6
Tom Wesenberg
Senior Member
 
Tom Wesenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 27,582
Default Re: aerodynamics

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Years ago I saw an article where someone rigged their Model A to drive backwards, claiming it had less wind resistence that way.
Tom Wesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:38 AM   #7
Rock Hornbuckle
Senior Member
 
Rock Hornbuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Noxon Montana
Posts: 532
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg View Post
Years ago I saw an article where someone rigged their Model A to drive backwards, claiming it had less wind resistence that way.
that's really getting inovative!
__________________
'31 Fordor Deluxe 2W Briggs 170-B / blackwalls
'41 Fordor Deluxe / 2-duece flattie
'66 1/2 Dodge Charger
'14 100th Anniversary Challenger Limited Edition.

Semper Fidelis
Rock Hornbuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:37 AM   #8
mass A man
Senior Member
 
mass A man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Danvers, Ma.
Posts: 711
Default Re: aerodynamics

Jim may have a valid point. How many of us have tried to open up the windshield while tooling along at only 35 MPH? It's almost impossible, at least with one hand! I was very surprised how much wind force is against that windshield. The slant sedans, sans visor and canted w/s frame may provide some streamlining, but I still have to think only a bit, maybe 5%, taking the whole front end in consideration.
mass A man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:19 PM   #9
Jim Huseby
Senior Member
 
Jim Huseby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 361
Default Re: aerodynamics

Even though I build speedsters pretty much full time, I don't have one for myself right now, as I was behind on delivery and sold my demonstrator to a waiting customer. Also the deer are thick here so I feel safer in my CCPU with a fairly stout wind shield and posts. Chances of surviving a deer collision with no windshield are slim. But anyway, it takes noticeably more HP to push the truck at 60 to 65 than the speedster. The speedster, with less HP, would just keep accelerating right up to the point (about 75 mph) when I remembered I was winding up a nearly stock lower end and would back down to about 55. But it didn't seem to need a lot of HP to cruise above 60 or so. In my ccpu, you can feel the "barrier" at about 63 mph and its no fun to mash the gas just to prove how fast the truck can go. With a "97" on it, it wasn't noticeable, but I'm back to the sweet running single B carb and I think more sensitivity to strain on the engine.
So I'm thinking now about fuel mileage, or actually fuel wasted and unnecessary strain on the engine to push a frontal profile that has been compared to the side of a barn through the wind at 45-60 mph. I'd like to have precise measurements rather than my own rampant speculation, but here is some speculation anyway. I can't push the windshield out at 20 or so mph which makes me wonder how much HP it uses up at various speeds. Of course, it is only a small portion of the overall drag situation I did some aerodynamic study and experimenting, with measurements, when we were racing sports cars in the 70's (and also made some horrible and embarrasing blunders in this area, that I could tell you about but not right now). So I have some ability to almost see what air is doing as it moves past various shapes. And I can almost see the air slamming against the windshield, then deflecting up to the visor where it curls around forward and around and hits the WS again. I punched the visor full of louvers (slats, for you pilots, as the idea was to relieve trapped pressure and promote laminar flow over the apex), knowing it wouldn't make any measureable difference, but just couldn't stand the idea of trapped air and extreme turbulence there. You would be horrified to know that I've made a couple of '29 slant windshields with no header and no visor out of tudors just to see if it makes a difference. One, I slanted so far back that the windshield had to be opened to get clearance between the glass and the steering wheel. Well, now that you're thoroughly disgusted with me, tell me what you've done to significantly improve your A mileage and what mpg you're getting.
Jim Huseby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:27 PM   #10
spdway1
Senior Member
 
spdway1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicopee, MA
Posts: 1,381
Default Re: aerodynamics

Craig and Eddie!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SeeingAmericaBackwards_zps9d01aa25.jpg (62.1 KB, 82 views)
spdway1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 09:54 PM   #11
SeaSlugs
Senior Member
 
SeaSlugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Central, IL
Posts: 3,968
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Huseby View Post
Even though I build speedsters pretty much full time, I don't have one for myself right now, as I was behind on delivery and sold my demonstrator to a waiting customer. Also the deer are thick here so I feel safer in my CCPU with a fairly stout wind shield and posts. Chances of surviving a deer collision with no windshield are slim. But anyway, it takes noticeably more HP to push the truck at 60 to 65 than the speedster. The speedster, with less HP, would just keep accelerating right up to the point (about 75 mph) when I remembered I was winding up a nearly stock lower end and would back down to about 55. But it didn't seem to need a lot of HP to cruise above 60 or so. In my ccpu, you can feel the "barrier" at about 63 mph and its no fun to mash the gas just to prove how fast the truck can go. With a "97" on it, it wasn't noticeable, but I'm back to the sweet running single B carb and I think more sensitivity to strain on the engine.
So I'm thinking now about fuel mileage, or actually fuel wasted and unnecessary strain on the engine to push a frontal profile that has been compared to the side of a barn through the wind at 45-60 mph. I'd like to have precise measurements rather than my own rampant speculation, but here is some speculation anyway. I can't push the windshield out at 20 or so mph which makes me wonder how much HP it uses up at various speeds. Of course, it is only a small portion of the overall drag situation I did some aerodynamic study and experimenting, with measurements, when we were racing sports cars in the 70's (and also made some horrible and embarrasing blunders in this area, that I could tell you about but not right now). So I have some ability to almost see what air is doing as it moves past various shapes. And I can almost see the air slamming against the windshield, then deflecting up to the visor where it curls around forward and around and hits the WS again. I punched the visor full of louvers (slats, for you pilots, as the idea was to relieve trapped pressure and promote laminar flow over the apex), knowing it wouldn't make any measureable difference, but just couldn't stand the idea of trapped air and extreme turbulence there. You would be horrified to know that I've made a couple of '29 slant windshields with no header and no visor out of tudors just to see if it makes a difference. One, I slanted so far back that the windshield had to be opened to get clearance between the glass and the steering wheel. Well, now that you're thoroughly disgusted with me, tell me what you've done to significantly improve your A mileage and what mpg you're getting.
yea they look about as aerodynamic as a jeep wrangler (maybe find cd stats on them? about as similar as your going to get) they too have a mostly flat windshield roughly the same size, huge flat front and grille, front fenders that catch air, high ground clearance like an A, and about as boxy as the car bodies. the 4.0 straight 6 they had gets about 18mpg...

i think with the A efficiency is going to depend on tire PSI, how efficient the engine is running (like advance/reatrd exactly spot on for peak power output), driver style, and elevation and how exact the fuel air mix is to a given elevation and temperature.

i feel aerodynamics for an A are about as good as a garden shed and not a whole lot you can do to it short of making your own body like a dome/jellybean (think geo metro or small hatchback shape)
__________________
1929 Model AA - Need long splash aprons!
SeaSlugs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 03:52 AM   #12
Allanw
Senior Member
 
Allanw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 298
Default Re: aerodynamics

If you looking at reducing drag on a Model A, reducing the frontal area is what you want to do! Those posts above, talking about the windscreen etc are spot on.

You not going to be able to reduce the Cd much, but if you can reduce the frontal area, the HP you have will be more effective at moving the vehicle. For economy, you'd have to go slower :-) The increase in HP required to increase speed is very exponential.

A slight tangent: I find it hilarious how car makers spout off about the Cd of the cars they make. The thing is, without knowing the frontal area, the Cd is just a number. You can't use it as an absolute comparison car to car. The only way to compare is to know the frontal area, and the Cd:

Example:
1990 Range Rover Wagon Cd= 0.45 Frontal Area=29.1 sq feet Cdxsq ft=13.1

1990 BMW 325i Convertible Cd= 0.45 Frontal Area=20.9 sq feet Cdxsq ft=9.41

The BMW is still a LOT easier to push through the air!
__________________
Allan
'29 Tudor, Canadian RHD
Whangarei, NZ
"Duct Tape can't fix stupid, but it can MUFFLE the sound"
Allanw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:46 AM   #13
Jim Huseby
Senior Member
 
Jim Huseby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 361
Default Re: aerodynamics

I'm liking these responses. Any practical measures or mods that were doable by 1931 or at least no later than 1945 would be interesting to me. I would like to know what fuel mileage some of you are getting and how you're doing it. I can tell you (you already know) that an A engine with larger valves, ported, port-matched, 7:1, etc. is very sensitive to ign. timing and very sensitive to any variation in timing cyl-cyl (slightly inaccurate dist cam or worn dist)
Jim Huseby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:55 AM   #14
Dave in Boise
Senior Member
 
Dave in Boise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 330
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdway1 View Post
Craig and Eddie!!
Easy enough to do for anyone who has accidentally put in their Ring and pinion in backwards during a rebuild.. (lol)

- Dave
Dave in Boise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:11 AM   #15
Napa Skip
Senior Member
 
Napa Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Napa CA
Posts: 412
Default Re: aerodynamics

HP v RPM and RPM v SPEED.jpg

Also see "The Ford Model 'A' Engine" on page 123 of Volume 7 of "How To Restore Your Model A" which provides horsepower and torque vs rpm (corrected to 29.2" Hg and 60 F).
__________________
Skip Keyser
Napa Valley A's
Olympic Vintage Auto Club (1980-1982)
MARC of San Diego (1977-1978)
MAFCA (since 1978)
MARC (since 1977)
----------
Model A owners belong in their Model A’s; Model A’s belong on the road.

Last edited by Napa Skip; 06-28-2013 at 10:25 AM. Reason: typo
Napa Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:15 PM   #16
redmodelt
Senior Member
 
redmodelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 6,339
Default Re: aerodynamics

I seem to recall that the selling point of the Chrysler Airflow was that most car of the time were more aerodynamic going backwards.
redmodelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 10:58 PM   #17
columbiA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 1,746
Default Re: aerodynamics

On my 30 coupe with OD,The original style w-s wiper arm assy would get ripped off by turbulence at 60,but at normal cruising speed of 45,it was fine.I now leave the wiper arm off & use Rainex.--Problem solved!
columbiA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 11:49 PM   #18
Pete
Senior Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wa.
Posts: 5,374
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Huseby View Post
Does anyone have figures or calculations indicating the HP required to push say a '30 model A coupe at 35 mph to 70mph in mph increments of 5? Assume conditions at sea level, 70 deg F., 70% RH with 35 psi in 475-500x19's and 600 wt gear lube at operating temp, no drag in brakes, etc.
By doing a search for Cd and frontal area I found data for many cars but nothing for old cars. By doing some seat of the pants interpolation it looks like it takes about 450 hp at the rear wheels to go 150 mph in a model A sedan.
We know from talking to many people that a model A with a slightly modified engine (so called touring) will go approx. 75 mph. These engines usually develop around 60 to 70 hp. With a couple of data points you can guestimate a curve.
I can tell you that the 450 for 150 is fairly close because the SBC in one of my A's (stock body 2 door) pushed a 38 Chev coupe 154 at Bonneville and it will go 140 by GPS on the stretch of road I have to test on.(still accelerating)
The wind noise and buffeting at 140 is quite loud even through a helmet and ear plugs.
I think the easiest way to get the data you want is to get one of your cars on a chassis dyno and get hp at a given mph. Then you can figure in the frontal area/Cd. This will get you practical data but a wind tunnel would be the last word.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 12:31 PM   #19
Tom Wesenberg
Senior Member
 
Tom Wesenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 27,582
Default Re: aerodynamics

Here is some front end airflow for you.
I spotted this in front of a repair shop in Brainerd, Minnesota.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Boatruck.jpg (49.2 KB, 32 views)
Tom Wesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 02:36 PM   #20
roccaas
Senior Member
 
roccaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,300
Default Re: aerodynamics

And how about the fenders scooping air at higher speed - poor man's power steering.
__________________
20 years ago we had Johnny Cash, Steve Jobs, and Bob Hope. Now we have no Cash, no Jobs, and no Hope...please don't let Kevin Bacon die!
roccaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 10:17 PM   #21
Special Coupe Frank
Senior Member
 
Special Coupe Frank's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northeast Penna
Posts: 2,108
Default Re: aerodynamics

A little automotive history here...

From the beginning of Chrysler Corporation ( 1924 ) until the early 1950's, the companies cars were largely defined by their trio of lead engineers: Carl Breer, Fred Zeder, and Owen Skelton, whom Walter P. Chrysler liked to refer to as his "Three Musketeers".

All three gentlemen had worked in the automotive industry since the early 1910's, and cut their teeth at firms such as Chalmers, Studebaker, and Packard, before joining forces under Walt Chrysler.

By 1930, Chrysler Corporation was firmly established as one of the industry leaders.

Always looking to improve the product, Carl Breer became focused on improving the speed and efficiency of Chrysler Corp autos. His team took some wooden and clay models of current production designs ( c. 1930, here, still in the "upright box" era), and placed them in a wind-tunnel, and measured air-flow and drag characteristics.

They were a little surprised to find that the conventional closed-bodies of the time had less drag when placed rear-end first in the wind-tunnel.

Further investigation and research led to a "streamlined" car project, the first prototype was a homely beast named the Trifon, around 1932.

The end-result was indeed the Airflow line of unit-body, streamlined cars available in Chrysler and De Soto, from 1934-37. These vehicles had very respectable drag coefficients, even into the 1970's.

Breer and co. continued to experiment with improving the Airflow's aerodynamic qualities, the most "slippery" being a version with a long, tapering tail, like an airplane fuselage. While it gave great performance numbers, it was deemed impractical as a production feature.

Other variations included front-wheel drive versions, and a radial-engine version.

After 3 years of dismal sales, Chrysler abandoned the Airflow line, and concentrated on building conventionally styled cars, since that's what the public seemed to desire, in spite of the Airflow's numerous engineering achievements.

For anyone who wishes to learn more about the early auto industry, and the origins of Chrysler Corporation, I would recommend Carl Breer's memoir: "The Birth of Chrysler Corporation and its engineering legacy"; a really neat look into the first 50 years of the American auto industry.

The "take-away" I get from the Airflow experiments is that the drag created by pre-1934-'35 auto bodies is not so much from the frontal area, but from the negative air pressure ( "vacuum" ) created by the abrupt end of the boxy sedan body... ( think of the turbulence immediately behind big boxy semi-trailer...). While the Airflow and similar cars did try to "soften" the front profile to reduce initial wind resistance, they definitely tapered the rear section of the body down gradually to minimize drag.

Sorry I don't have any hard numbers or graphs, but some of the empirical / anecdotal information might be useful...

After the Airflow, the next big winners in aerodynamic auto design were the step-down Hudson in 1948, and the Nash Ayrflyte in 1949....
Special Coupe Frank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 09:46 AM   #22
Richard Lorenz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 447
Default Re: aerodynamics

This information is only loosely related to the subject, but about 10 years ago I made some calculations to compare Model A performance with and without an overdrive. The calculations required some assumptions, so the results are only approximate. The calculations assume that a stock engine is being used.

With an overdrive (Mitchell ratio), you will get better gas mileage below 53 miles per hour, but lower gas mileage above that speed.

If the top speed of the car is 62 mph without overdrive, the top speed with overdrive would be 63 mph.

My conclusion is that there is not much benefit having overdrive when operating at high speed. Many people claim that their car is much quieter with an overdrive, but the air noise from my '29 Tudor is such that I can hardly hear any engine noise when on the highway.
Richard Lorenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Old 07-03-2013, 02:32 PM   #23
TerryH
Senior Member
 
TerryH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Fountain Valley, Calif.
Posts: 937
Default Re: aerodynamics

I have had a Mitchell in my 1930 Town Sedan for over 6 years now, and have gone on several tours with it, as well as lots of town and freeway driving in S. California. From my experience there is a very big difference in my restored car, from original to having the overdrive.....much quieter at 55-60 mph and obviously less strain on the engine. I have also gotten very good mileage when driving at a steady 60 mph on trips....not worse.
TerryH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 06:52 PM   #24
Allanw
Senior Member
 
Allanw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 298
Default Re: aerodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryH View Post
less strain on the engine.
Depends how you look at that.

At the same speed, the HP required to move the car is the same - you just have to make more HP per firing stroke at lower RPM.
__________________
Allan
'29 Tudor, Canadian RHD
Whangarei, NZ
"Duct Tape can't fix stupid, but it can MUFFLE the sound"
Allanw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.