airtabs

pianotuna wrote:

mobeewan wrote:
Maybe Airtabs with nitrogen in the tires and dryer sheets you could get say maybe 50 mpg improvement.

Only if you light the dryer sheets on fire and then drop them down your pants.

Now your talking beans first. That would get some hydrogen for a little added thrust.

profdant139 wrote:
Here's a link to a NASA study of Airtabs:

NASA

The real issue is cost vs benefit. For long-haul truckers, even a fractional increase in mpg justifies the expense. (And yes, we often see trucks with Airtabs.) For recreational RVers, it is a closer call -- how many miles would you have to drive in order to break even?

However, if the Airtabs not only increase mpg but also improve handling, then the cost may well be justified. That is a matter of personal preference.

you do know its about 200 bucks CDN to do the back of a travel trailer . we spend more money on lawn chairs ;)

Steve

The problem with any of this stuff is payback.

If you are putting aero gadgets on your trailer is like putting lipstick on a pig.

A trailer is super dirty aero wise. If you fix one thing there are 50 more things you can't fix. The wings we saw in the 70's were a prime example. How many wings do you see anymore? There is a reason.

This Caterpillar study show what is big in fuel savings As you can see, the way you drive your rid has the biggest fuel savings. Up to 20%. That's a very large savings. Route can be up to a 20% savings too. Between route and how you drive you can save a lot of fuel.

If you want to save fuel the best way is to slow down and drive sensible and pick the best route.

mobeewan wrote:
Maybe Airtabs with nitrogen in the tires and dryer sheets you could get say maybe 50 mpg improvement.

Only if you light the dryer sheets on fire and then drop them down your pants.

Maybe Airtabs with nitrogen in the tires and dryer sheets you could get say maybe 50 mpg improvement.

To me they look like Naca Scoops used on aircraft, we used them on helicopters. I'm not an Areo guy but I think a Gurney flap on the trailing edge of an air foil on top of the rear cap might have a greater effect. We used this on the Horizontal stabilizer of the S-76 model. It is hard to compare the higher speeds of an aircraft to an RV traveling at 60 mph but I'm sure it would at least keep the rear window clean. Kind of like ram air/CAI on a MH it adds more HP mostly from cooler air very little from the ram effect unless you go 100 mpg plus but still worth doing.

Thanks for the input everybody. Got nothing better to do this winter. Might install some and see what happens. The NASA article was very interesting.

Here's a link to a NASA study of Airtabs:

NASA

The real issue is cost vs benefit. For long-haul truckers, even a fractional increase in mpg justifies the expense. (And yes, we often see trucks with Airtabs.) For recreational RVers, it is a closer call -- how many miles would you have to drive in order to break even?

However, if the Airtabs not only increase mpg but also improve handling, then the cost may well be justified. That is a matter of personal preference.

TravelinDog wrote:
Airtabs are nothing more than snake-oil designed to lighten your wallet.

That is not my experience with them. I would buy them again--unless I could find something better.

air tabs work, but dont expect a mirical. my buddy ut them on his 5th wheel and picked up 1 mpg, but noted the biggest improvment was in the handling when passing a rif or in high winds. they basicly work like vortex generators on a planes wing tips, this disrupts the airflow and reduces the low pressure drag area behind the trailer which reduces the drag. depending on what your towing they can make a big difference or a little difference. I would suspect the lowest fule milage in crease would be on a conventional trailer and the best on a truck camper. the trailer has two large drag zones, one behind the truck and another behind the trailer so you would have to fix both to get a biger increase. the camper only has one. a fith is inbetween as the nose of the trailer is closer to the truck reducing the size of that drag area.

Steve