REAR WINDOW SPOILER

Hi all, I purchased the rear window spoiler from Spoiler Kings, No deal with them, but a nice added feature, what do you think of this, i like!

 

It is the art of having your dream car, and it looks like you do, personalize your car however you want. We need guys, gals to move the hobby forward. Good Job!

 

You'll have to remove it when you install the louvers

 

The aerodynamic benefit of said piece would be IMHO a bit of downforce there that would interfere with the airflow being used for downforce by the tail spoiler, a device that verifiably produces a total net downforce on the rear part of the car, per Dodge's wind tunnel numbers.

The front of the car has a small bit of lift. Cars need more downforce in the rear than the front for high-speed stability, or they become like the famous-for-being-unstable-at-speed shovel-nosed Lamborghini Countach, with lots of front downforce and plenty of rear LIFT, which was what made it unstable at high speeds.
The aerodynamic design of the Countach scooped air from up high, near the roofline, and forced it down to exit low at the back of the car. This was and is a disastrous design for aerodynamic stability.

In direct contrast, the Testarossa is like a rolling bank vault for stability at high speeds, scooping air low at its sides, near the ground, then exhausting said cooling air out the top of the rear engine hatch and at the very rear of the car. The air pressed it down in the rear, as all cars should behave.

BTW, the Hellcat is steady at high speeds, (verfied at 180mph on the tarmac) also, not at all like the 1971-Era roadrunner, which, with its front nose shape, invited air to get under the front and more than over the hood, and caused the front end to be quite light at higher speeds. (over 125 mph) It became VERY easy to move the steering wheel of a 1971 GTX/Roadrunner/Satellite at high speeds, as there was so much lift taking weight off of the front end.

Form is not function. Also, the two-scoops hood and the Demon barn-door-scoop hood produced more lift over the front end than the first-generation Hellcat masterpiece of a hood.

 

The Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt had even better engine-air-ram than the Hellcat, with its weird porous felt snorkle leading to the back of the grilled air intake/marker light.

The Thunderbolt, in stark contrast, had TWO large dryer-duct-style hoses going from former headlight openings directly to a sealed air plenum over the carburetors.

In addition to this, it had a backwards-facing teardrop-shaped hood bulge over the high-riser carbs and manifold that was far enough forward to exhaust air from under the hood, reducing underhood pressure somewhat.


I was disgusted once to see such a scoop on the hood of a 1972-era Satellite/Roadunner/whatever. I briefly mentioned it to the owner, and he boasted "Oh, yeah, it's functional."

I don't recall if I noted that it was designed to get air out from under the hood, not feed air to the carburetor, as it was too far forward to use the high pressure pocket at the base of the windshield as did the Corvettes with their Cowl Induction hoods.

The mammoth scoop on the hood of the Two-Lane Blacktop's '55 chevy street/strip car as ofa Grumpy Jenkins style. (Known as the Grump Lump)





Exact dimensions of said scoop, from the movie car:

This used a large opening facing the windshield and a small one facing the front to provide "If the front don't do it, the rear will" fresh-air provision for rhe tunnel ram and two carbs.

Corvette:

 

On another note, I had a 1971-era B-body with an actual dryer duct running from right by headlights to where it was sealed to the air cleaner snorkel.

At elevated speeds, I noticed taking your foot off the throttle did not result in the same deceleration as it did when I had no such ram air setup. The only thing I changes was that air ram hose, and it so changed the intake air pressure to the carburetor that the engine drop in power when you stepped off of the gas at higher speeds was much less dramatic. If I had it to do, the ram air for the Challenger would use two ducts, from both the inner grilled lights with their inside diameters opened up to just inside the ring of LED's. But, that has already been finalized.

NACA ducts are BAD designs for feeding air to an engine's induction system, as the NACA duct is designed for very little presure change and high airflow, which you want for radiators and coolers, NOT for dramatically increasing the pressure to the induction system for greater intake charge density. THAT is done by a scoop. It's why fighter jets have two massive holes in the front, facing the airstream, to feed their engines.

A jet engine that provides STATIC thrust of around 30,000 pounds using air fed to it at 14.7PSI (sea level) can get quite a bit more thrust at higher speeds for two reasons:
A) air pressure change of an air ram varies as the square of the velocity encountered
B) The reduction in pressure BEHIND the jet engines grows in magnitude as speed increases, also.

IF the fuel provided can take advantage of the increased air mass, then I theorize with double the air mass, it should produce at least double the thrust, as the pressure behind the motor is decreasing, also.

Rockets and jets do not get better thrust if there is greater pressure behind the motor, as the thrust is a function of the mass times the VELOCITY of the escaping exhaust. A rocket will always produce more thrust in a vacuum than in atmosphere, as the escaping exhaust has only itself to get in the way of its rearward acceleration in the engine nozzle.

So, since at 100mph, the air pressure increase is 0.375 PSI, at 500mph, the increase would be 25 times greater, resulting in a presure boost of 9.375 PSI, which is a 63 percent increase in air pressure at sea level. This would, in theory, produce 63 percent more thrust, so a 30,000 pound thrust engine would produce over 49,000 pounds of thrust at 500mph, if the provided fuel was matched to the provided air.

 

Excellent! Rare has it been since 1971 for designers to be given the freedom to actually design something that the people want, not what some kiddy-diddling Epstein blackmail-owned politician gets paid to dictate, such as the EV's.

Here I have a video of Elon Musk stealing from the poor so the rich California snots can buy Teslas: