rtfm
Well-Known Member
Hi,
I am facing a dillema I did not think would eventuate: How best to design (both from a minimum drag and an aesthetic point of view) cowl cheeks on the Razorback.
The reason I did not think I'd have to address this issue is that I had planned on using the Thunder Chief engine, which is extremely narrow, and fits nicely inside the cowl (apart from the "Thunder Hump" I had to add. However, since I've not been able to raise Tom since 6 Jan, and I can't wait any longer with the plug, I have decided to substitute his engine with the Great Plains flywheel drive VW conversion, which while a bit heavier, is a lot cheaper, readily available and well proven.
However, being a flat four, it sticks out of the cowl by about five inches either side. So now I have to add cowl cheeks.
I have two options:
Option 1:
Sticking closely to the design cues of the Personal Cruiser, instead of trying to "pretend" the cheeks don't exist by faring them into the rest of the cowl, I can make the cowl cheeks a bold design statement. The Personal Cruiser makes no apology for the cheeks. And I really like the bold look they have achieved. And this would be relatively easy to do, even at this stage of the plug preparation.
Option 2:
Follow the design philosophy of Cory Bird or Mike Arnold (AR6) in which the cowl cheeks are so highly fared into the cowl, that they almost cease to exist as entities in their own right.
Both design approaches have their aesthetic appeal, but the AR-6 approach results in lower drag.
The question is, how much less drag? Would the difference in the two cheek designs even be noticeable? Often we agonise over details which in the end make bugger all practical difference. Is this one of these?
So I guess I'm asking two questions:
Question 1:
Would the drag penalty of the Personal Cruiser style cheeks be large enough to bother about?
Question 2:
What is your personal aesthetic preferance? What gets your motor ticking over?
Thanks guys,
Duncan
I am facing a dillema I did not think would eventuate: How best to design (both from a minimum drag and an aesthetic point of view) cowl cheeks on the Razorback.
The reason I did not think I'd have to address this issue is that I had planned on using the Thunder Chief engine, which is extremely narrow, and fits nicely inside the cowl (apart from the "Thunder Hump" I had to add. However, since I've not been able to raise Tom since 6 Jan, and I can't wait any longer with the plug, I have decided to substitute his engine with the Great Plains flywheel drive VW conversion, which while a bit heavier, is a lot cheaper, readily available and well proven.
However, being a flat four, it sticks out of the cowl by about five inches either side. So now I have to add cowl cheeks.
I have two options:
Option 1:
Sticking closely to the design cues of the Personal Cruiser, instead of trying to "pretend" the cheeks don't exist by faring them into the rest of the cowl, I can make the cowl cheeks a bold design statement. The Personal Cruiser makes no apology for the cheeks. And I really like the bold look they have achieved. And this would be relatively easy to do, even at this stage of the plug preparation.
Option 2:
Follow the design philosophy of Cory Bird or Mike Arnold (AR6) in which the cowl cheeks are so highly fared into the cowl, that they almost cease to exist as entities in their own right.
Both design approaches have their aesthetic appeal, but the AR-6 approach results in lower drag.
The question is, how much less drag? Would the difference in the two cheek designs even be noticeable? Often we agonise over details which in the end make bugger all practical difference. Is this one of these?
So I guess I'm asking two questions:
Question 1:
Would the drag penalty of the Personal Cruiser style cheeks be large enough to bother about?
Question 2:
What is your personal aesthetic preferance? What gets your motor ticking over?
Thanks guys,
Duncan
