Formula SAE: Aerodynamic Package

Status Report 2

Gabrielle Godette Joseph Whiteman

Chelsea Newnam Forrest Copeland

Carmen MonteCalvo Cushmeer Sargent

Donald Engler Matthew Calvert

Mason Rusch John Anderson

Aaron Baker

Rear Wing: We have been redesigning our wing to test if a single wing system is more aerodynamically efficient than a double wing system. We have also been testing if the Eppler

423 airfoil is better than the Eppler 420 airfoil for the single wing system. From our designing and testing we have determined that a single wing system is more aerodynamically than the two wing system we were using and that the Eppler 423 is a better airfoil than the Eppler 420. We believe that our current design is at a point where we can 3D print our design and wind tunnel test it.

Front Wing/ Nose Cone:

The final front wing design, ready to be 3D printed, remains relatively unchanged with respect to its basic shape. Over the past few weeks, more research and analysis was performed using Xflyr software. This software provides more accurate results for flow analysis compared to

SolidWorks CFD, and also allows for easier comparisons for airfoils. Analysis on four different airfoils was conducted, the list being based upon some of the most commonly used airfoils in the industry. As initially thought, the E420 airfoil produced the best results for the application in which it is used in the front wing. Following the newly found research, the wing elements were made as large as competition rules allow, while having flap chord length to be 30% of the total chord length. Through trial and error testing, the main wing and flap angles were optimized to be at 7 degrees and 30 degrees respectively. This geometry proved to provide the best downforce to drag ratios. As part of the optimization process, the gap geometry between the elements was also revised to have a converging shape. Lastly, the end plate size was increased, as to prevent unwanted air from being drawn into the low pressure pocket created on the underside of the element. Mounting methods remain unfinalized as priority has shifted from design work to wind tunnel testing of quarter scale models mounted to a metal frame.

Undertray/ Diffuser: The undertray is in its final design stage, all the dimensions will be reviewed for a final time before splitting up and sending out to 3D print. The undertray cannot be too close to the ground or obstruct the placement of the suspension, the frame, or the engine. After this week, all dimensions will be finalized and sent to print in parts. After smoothing the part, it will be combined into the full piece and attached to the scale frame model. When all pieces are printed and placed onto the frame, then the wind tunnel testing will begin to receive more data on the overall design.

Sidepods:

The side pod design was rebuilt using a short side pod design, which consists of an exposed undertray section leading to the large entrance of the side pod, then a decreasing cross section until the exit. This design type typically shows a slight increase in downforce and a major increase in heat transfer versus the traditional design, which is small inlet, large center section, small outlet. This project was cancelled due to a concurrent project from the club being responsible for potential changes in radiator dimension, which would cause the side pod design to become outdated, and necessitate another complete restart of the design.