Also curious as to which of these would be best?

Is the GTC300 too much without big power upgrades??

 

I would think the lifting line theory would be all you would need in this case since we certainly aren't worried about stall. It is fairly accurate at predicting lift well past any angle of attack we would use on an automotive wing and very accurate at calculating drag. While i have limited experience with CFD i am also an engineer and you don't have to assume everyone on the internet is talking out their ass (although its usually a safe bet )

 

Why wouldn't you be worried about stall? A lot of car wings do run in stall. In many cases people are more than willing to trade higher drag for more downforce. Heck, all spoilers work that way.

 

the definition of stall is increasing the angle of attack to the point that downforce decreases.... i doubt many people intentionally run their wing in stall

Edit: i think were all on the same page

 

You caught me. I confess.

The point here is that lifting line only gives you induced drag, but the form drag from a race car wing is often a lot more than it is from a nice clean airplane wing. Airplanes care a lot more about L/D than cars do. Cars often trade L/D for max L. Max L happens at stall.

 

Let's back up. I don't want to get into a pissing match about shit nobody here really cares about anyway.

I seriously doubt that APR's colorful fluid dynamics is much better than ROM for the drag, but I could be wrong. They probably have a better handle on the lift, at least in a clean airflow.

FYI, the dang Web didn't even exist when I was in school, much less Google.

 

true you will get your maximum downforce from any wing immediatly before the stall point however if you have your wing at this angle of attack you should have bought a bigger wing and run it at a smaller angle as you will always get a better L/D that way.

no question that the CFD they have done assume clean air which obviously is not the case but any other advertised wing numbers would be assuming clean air as well... i didn't mean to jump on you like that but for a second i just figured you were some kid trying to be an internet hero, im not on this forum much so im not familiar with your name... turns out you have plenty of good posts and are the real deal

 

You guys realize the APR GTC series is not a straight airfoil, right? It has a twisted cord, and the twist is not conveniently centered near the CP. Don't forget about the end plates.

A CFD calculation on this wing is not trivial. I doubt even APR has the data on the actual wing shape.

 

CFD can still be performed on a wing like that and being that aero is their only business they probably have done it

 

Why do you assume that? To me, that sounds a bit to much like the strut bar argument. If J's puts it on their race car, it must work, right?

Not necessarily. APR wings look good, real good. So good I worry that their designs are function following form. The tech articles on their website don't convince me. It seems like they are written for the average ricer who doesn't even have a clue what a wing is supposed to do. For these guys, a pretty wing will sell.

If they really did all this design work, why don't see I numbers or graphs of CD, CL, L/D? Where are the CFD visualizations? Maybe the answer is simply that they have it, but don't want to share it on the internet for some reason. But I'd rather not give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to see some hard numbers with some actual information on their source.