Increasing Miss Americas speed

[John]

Re: Increasing Miss Americas speed

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24621[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]24622[/ATTACH]
The high pressure area at the back of the bubble canopy disappears and the low pressure area at the top of the canopy is reduced.

Quite remarkable how good the aero is on the Mustang considering it was designed so many years ago. The lift on the wing carries right over the canopy. What kind of speed was your CFD run set to?

In regards to incidences, how was Dago set up? ...wasn't the main wing incidence stock...? I imagine they may have changed the engine setting as much as they could...? ...Spoke to Skip one year, but did not ask him about those items, it was more about how he flew the airplane and the engine and prop combo.

[toldjaso]

Re: Increasing Miss Americas speed

The razorback versions were faster than the bubble canopy versions on most planes (P-47, P-51, even the older Cessna 172 and 182) (before Omnivision), and so on. Most speed increases were from more horsepower in the engines with later models. The bubble canopy was to see who was sneaking up behind you.
Put simply,"a straight line is still the shortest distance between two points", as was pointed out to me by DC when working on American Spirit's turtledeck.
The sexy turtledeck and race canopy usually has at least three curves on each side when you look at the outline from the front, more surface area (drag) than say the turtledeck on a P-51A.
They had to add a dorsal fin for stability on the P-51D due to cutting down the height of the turtledeck.

Some people put raised turtledecks on their RV-4's and RV-8's to get a little more speed. (Harmon Rocket).

Or so I believe it to be.

[knot4u]

Re: Increasing Miss Americas speed

The razorback versions were faster than the bubble canopy versions on most planes (P-47, P-51, even the older Cessna 172 and 182) (before Omnivision), and so on. Most speed increases were from more horsepower in the engines with later models. The bubble canopy was to see who was sneaking up behind you.
Put simply,"a straight line is still the shortest distance between two points", as was pointed out to me by DC when working on American Spirit's turtledeck.
The sexy turtledeck and race canopy usually has at least three curves on each side when you look at the outline from the front, more surface area (drag) than say the turtledeck on a P-51A.
They had to add a dorsal fin for stability on the P-51D due to cutting down the height of the turtledeck.

Some people put raised turtledecks on their RV-4's and RV-8's to get a little more speed. (Harmon Rocket).

Or so I believe it to be.

American Spirit, that's a project I haven't thought about in a looong time. I was friendly with Dave back then even though I was involved with the bearcat and was invited to his home in the valley to see it. After being cleared by a pair of friendly ridgebacks we walked into "the barn" and there was an airplane sitting there. It certainly looked like it would be fast. My only question was where he planned to put the nose landing gear? I'm sure he had a plan, but whatever it was it wasn't obvious. I liked Dave a lot and I'm glad I was able to work with him, your quote about a straight line being the shortest distance is perfectly juxtaposed with another qoute of his regarding a short cut being the longest distance between two points.

[CubersWrist]

Re: Increasing Miss Americas speed

Quite remarkable how good the aero is on the Mustang considering it was designed so many years ago. The lift on the wing carries right over the canopy. What kind of speed was your CFD run set to?

In regards to incidences, how was Dago set up? ...wasn't the main wing incidence stock...? I imagine they may have changed the engine setting as much as they could...? ...Spoke to Skip one year, but did not ask him about those items, it was more about how he flew the airplane and the engine and prop combo.

I used 430mph

I know they scanned Dago with the intentions of adjusting the incidence angles.

The turtle deck curves would be from the trade off between frontal area and skin area. This difference in design is really obvious when you compare IF1 #31 to IF1 #11