Aerodynamics Matter !!

Quality Johnson wrote:

gmw photos wrote:

Ron-C wrote:

gmw photos wrote:
regarding real world aero effects on fuel mileage. ... Rounded front end, rounded corners similar to an Airstream design ( except the back, which is square ). Approx same weight as the camper. I get approx 1.5 mpg more pulling the horse trailer with same truck, same speeds.

I suspect that the back shape has more influence on the drag force than the front although everyone seems to focus on making the front nice and round. Your TV has already punched the hole. It is more likely the back creating suction with the wall behind you.

Ever see an airplane or fish with a flat tail section?

Ron, I suspect you are very much correct on the comment about the flat back of my horse trailer. That's why I mentioned it in my post, because for instance, comparing it to an Airstream, the rest of the horse trailer is similar. The A/S has the advantage of both the trailing roof and side walls being rounded.

Reduced frontal area and a nice long tapering tail would of course be ideal from and aero standpoint. Looking at pictures of the Concorde is a perfect example of optimum shape ( for aero ).

The shape of the Concorde is intended for supersonic flight. You will find that subsonic and supersonic aerodynamics are quite different.

....ok....not to start an argument here, but let's consider the fluid dynamics of slower speeds: look at how "fast fish" have evolved. Slim at the nose, tapered at the back.

The bottom line is, much could be done to make RV's more aerodynamic, by changing how air is managed at the front, side, bottom and rear. How many of these compromises the buying public is willing to accept is another question.
In my case, improving fuel economy towing my camper is not high on my list, simply because I only tow about 10K miles per year. The $$ savings would not be huge for me.

But, I applaud Ron's efforts in trying to come up with forward thinking solutions.