Note: I am not an Aeronautical Engineer. However I am a Pilot of 34 years, started as an Electrician in the shipping industry and was a truck owner/driver for 11 years who realised during the testing that there is a problem with current aerodynamics. I.E. Discovered how to use the boundary layer for the benefit of a moving bluff body / Heavy Vehicle and which would really help aircraft Fuselage drag (more than 64%).
There are many sites from Companies and Aerodynamic Engineers that claim low drag for vehicles etc, Without prejudice and with respect:- "If aerodynamicists and others since the 1940's can not get Heavy Vehicle Aerodynamics (trucks) to a Low Drag Coefficient Cd by now (2008). How and why would aircraft aerodynamics be at their most efficient?"
The reality for aerodynamics and current road vehicle fuel efficiency:- "Heavy Vehicles" with "High, grade-4" or good aerodynamics would currently lead to the same or higher fuel consumption. Here's why. Road Vehicles are stuck to the ground via the drive wheels, final drive line, differential, propellor shaft, gear box then the engine. Fuel consumption starts and ends with engine RPM's. I found that with high efficiency aerodynamics or "high, grade-4" the road speeds are higher and due to the compression ratio's and the way diesel burns (compared to gasoline/petrol) so are the engine RPM's. I.E. The drive times are lower, available power is much higher so going up steep hills was a breeze and getting into top gear was quicker and easier. However, for the same mileage at the same or higher speeds, also leads to the same or higher fuel consumption (rpm's/mile). This is a summary only, there is more to it. Lower fuel consumption can only be achieved with modification of the drive components.
However if a site/device claims lower fuel consumption, the "low, grade-2" aerodynamics may be slowing the vehicle down more, reducing the RPM's. On the other hand "lower, grade-1" or (Real bad aerodynamics):- slows a vehicle down and consumes more fuel to stay at a reasonable constant speed because the drag starting point is lower. Trucks in general have "low, grade-2" aerodynamics. However, I believe most aircraft have "lower, grade-1" (real bad) aerodynamics. Question to ask yourself on the first, second and third link below. Why do they call them "Boattail plates"? I have worked up close with shipping and boating for 16 years. Most boats or ships do not go over 30knots and only the older ones have double ends.
The grading system that I developed is spread over 100 percent or "relative drag" and there are 5 grades, 20 percent each. Because there can be good and bad in the same grade. Grade 1, being 1-20 percent being the lowest or "Real Bad Aerodynamics". Why start at 1 for lowest? That's where we are (cars,trucks & airplanes) now. With some luck in the near future we should see the way out of the hole. Copyright 2008
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-112.pdf
Many USA Government and Research Universities have spent a lot of Time and Money for the past 30+ years. My testing, discoveries, findings, development and further work took less than three months. Two aerodynamacists from UCLawrence Livermore could see that it would work. Here are a few links I found, check the dates. There are many new sites, In your browser type in:- "DOE heavy vehicle".
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/AeroTruck/HTML/E-38096.html
https://www.llnl.gov/str/May03/McCallen.html
http://people.clarkson.edu/~visser/research/drag/truck/
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/232778.pdf
http://www.tecplot.com/showcase/studies/case_study.aspx?issue=34&article=1
http://www.freightwing.com/test/NRC_Wind_Tunnel_Test_SAE_Paper.pdf
Questions answered here:-
Hi John. The 64% reduction calculation came from an MIT graduate and President of his own company. Second link above (in the group of six links), go down to truck in (a) Ames Research wind tunnel. The aft invention is his and the lower one under the truck is sold under Freight Wings- Washington State. http://www.freightwing.com/
Hi William. Thanks for the questions. Data:- 90km/h-(V1) to 110km/h-(V2) approx. The devices were originally made for Heavy Vehicle drag reduction. However they would decrease fuselage drag by more than 64%Cd. (There are some aircraft that do not need it - the exceptions). Wing drag reduction, I have a concept (untried) as it is more complex e.g. decreasing drag could also reduce lift as well, however there would be a trade-off. Needs testing first.
Hi again William. A new engine. The devices would increase airflow into the first blade. Each comp blade, front/rear rotor/stator would be reworked. The turbine blades some reworking. Exhaust would have increased speed and pressure with better blending and narrower focus at higher altitudes.
Hi Fred. Looking for Funding.