Front nose design and stability and gas mileage?

I guess that most of us would not buy an RV totally for gas mileage either. I have another friend that says "when it needs fuel, I fill up", but I have to keep within a budget to do what I want to do. I think about fuel mileage more when I'm on a trip with the camper than when driving the car. By doing a few small things, I was able to get my mileage from 9 to about 9.9 mpg. It doesn't sound like much, but a trip a couple of years ago that cost about $6000 in fuel ended up being a savings of about $600 of what it would have cost. $600 paid for about 3 weeks of camping for me.

It's all about aerodynamics.

It works!!! Use to fly for a living so have some experience...but that was awhile back.

:B

When we trade our 28ft flat nosed TT for a 36ft 5th with the contoured nose and weighing almost twice as much, I noticed about a 2 mpg difference to the good in mpg. I also noticed the truck doesn't work as hard to keep the 5th moving down the highway.

gmcsmoke wrote:
Fuel mileage while pulling a 5 ton box down the road. Ha ha

I average around 12.2 to 12.5 MPG with a round corner 6+ ton box!

Chris

MookieKat wrote:
I am seeing that the newer nose design is rounded whereas the older ones are big and flat.

Has anyone hauled both types with the same TV and seen a difference in stability or gas mileage?

My low-profile, square-front Komfort, produces very noticeable turbulence, and can suck fairly heavy stuff right out of my truck bed. Anything, front or back, that reduces turbulence, increases aerodynamics, thus efficiency. I'd almost bet that I wouldn't see =any= decrease in mileage were I pulling a comparable-weight current rig that's 12-18" taller than my '04 Komfort.

Lyle

We traded our Arctic Fox 24-5N (about 26', 7,500 lbs) for an AF 29 5T (31', 9,500+ lbs)with a rounded cap in June and my calculations appear to show an increase of about 1/2 to 3/4 MPG with the same TV, although we have only towed the new AF about 3000 miles vice about 24,000 for the old one. The 29 5T is at least 1 foot taller, 6" wider and, of course, heavier by about 2000#. I don't worry about fuel "economy", if I did, we probably wouldn't go anywhere with it. I don't know if that settles the issue for the OP, but I'm convinced of the advantages of an aero cap....

Trailer height will also have a lot to do with it. Every foot of added height adds 8 square feet of front to push through the air.

Aerodynamic variables consist of much more than just the front nose shape plus mileage will vary drastically with varying average speed.

Bottom line, we don't purchase our campers based on fuel economy.

Just my $0.02...

Fuel mileage while pulling a 5 ton box down the road. Ha ha

I guess if you spend all your time in one campground and not drive much, the savings would be insignificant. I probably spend more time watching fuel mileage than most and I believe that aero is probably more important than weight on long trips like Interstate driving (talking couple thousand pounds). A friend of mine just traveled about 1000 miles to trade his small tt with a big flat front end on a Cougar 5er that weighs about 3000 lbs. more. He got about 2mpg more on the return trip with the 5er.