These should explain a lot.

 

That's what we needed. I was surprised to see the C1 cd figure so bad. After that wind tunnel test seeing the windscreen coping a beating by the wind it doesn't surprise me. The C2 lift is amazing ! The c4/5/6 are real slippery buggers ah. Interesting thread. Stewy

 

That big anchor held the front end down better than a small block.

 

Well, the E's monocoque (aircraft-style) chassis-body was an advancement over Corvett's body-on-frame construction. It had discs and IRS before Chevy adopted them. And the C4 (sort-of) tilt front end arrived 23 years after the E pioneered that kind of engine access.

But I'd take a C2 anyway. Less to go wrong, and MUCH simpler to fix when it did.

 

The Sting Ray shape was that of an inverted airfoil. The idea was to create downforce with that shape. Frank Winchell's comment years later was something like "We were clueless about ground effects. It would have worked if it were 50 feet off the ground!."

They probably did their high-speed testing on a banked track, where the lift was masked by additional downforce due to the banking.

Barry Bock ran a 396 Sting Ray coupe at Bonneville in 1965 to 170 mph and didn't have a blowover...

 

THIS is how they tested the C2:
http://bangshift.com/blog/Incredible...us-Duntov.html

 

GM has been known for years to offer too many "Gimmicks and Gadgets"
in lieu of functionality..

 

I was following a local made car the other day. The latest offering from the factory is to put a rear defuser under the car. Most Race cars seem to be running them. The car was a GM Corvette motored, Holden Special Vehicle that we make. It pumps out 410 bhp and it ain't a shabby car. While I was following this car I noticed the rear diffuser was flexing so much it was acting as a parachute. When we pulled up at the lights I signaled the guy to pull over. I told him he was going to loose his rear diffuser. He got out and I showed the guy that it was going to come off. When we pulled at it it wouldn't budge ? I got under the car and pulled at it real hard and it only moved slightly ? I was shocked and he was telling me the fuel economy was real bad. I told him while he was traveling at 50 mph it was flexing half a foot and more.
It was the first time I have ever thought about the air that travels under a car. I never realized that it was so significant. Even the add on diffuser from GM doesn't work and it's all for a look. I would say at 150 mph this rear diffuser would of torn off for sure acting like a parachute !
I'm not surprised that the C2 has a large amount of air pushing under the car after looking at this other scenario !
Here is a picture of a rear diffuser. Stewy

 

way back in 1964, i had just picked up my 64 roadster. on one occasion, i cranked it up to 125mph from champaign ill to rantoul. that's when the front lifted off and got my attention. not very scientific, but it was a reality check.
dick

 

Managing the airflow under the car and how it exits at the rear provides more downforce (on an all-out racing car like a Formula 1 or Indy car) than the front and rear wings produce, with far less drag for the amount of downforce produced. That's why the FIA rules are so specific about ground clearance and rear diffuser designs.

 

I'm a little puzzled by any Wind Tunnel testing being done by Lockheed Aircraft in Marietta, Georgia in 1956. Not saying it's not possible.

Government owns the property know as Air Force Plant 6. Plant 6 was closed in 1946 and remained closed until Lockheed rented it in 1951 to do AC modification work.

My career with Lockheed at Plant 6 Marietta, GA did not start until Feb of 1963, so I could be wrong. To my knowledge the government did not build a Wind Tunnel on the Plant 6 campus. Never saw a building that came close to resembling base design needed to support fans large enough for up to 200 MPH wind test.

Lockheed did not opened their Commercial Low Speed Wind tunnel built on property they own adjacent to Plant 6 until 1967.



Are you sure testing location is correct for date it took place?

I could probably verify I'm right or wrong. I know one manager that transferred from Lockheed's old Burbank Plant in 1951 to run manufacturing planning devision that would know as he spearheaded the Plants Museum effort, plus Air Force files on Plant 6 should list building.

If you think "Government Bail Outs" and "To Big to Fail" is new, you might want to take a look at article below...LOL

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/n....jsp?id=h-1337

 

Could well have been a different tunnel in 1956; I know we rented the Lockheed tunnel in Marietta many times in the late 60's - early 70's (for $16,000 per day) before we built our own full-size tunnel at the GM Tech Center.