SOILD WING WEIGHT , AS HEAVY AS A TANK ??????????????

[daytonalo]

Let me start off saying that this is not directed at anybody , I'm just making a statement . I'm finishing up working on Rene's wing and nose , and just got done drilling and tapping the solid wing . As we all said before it is heavy , well I think I have a little credibility around here , and let me tell you after bolting this wing together then just lifting it as a completed unit , my reaction was WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me tell you that I'm no weakling , I can bench 315 and this thing is absolutely absurd . Just placing each upright on qtr , you can see the qtr deflect . I have a solid wing and it will go to machine shop  to remove 35-40 lbs . I think installing a solid in my opinion is just plane insane !!!!!!! Just one guy's view after working with it . Larry

[UFO]

Should have made it out of Styrofoam much easier to handle.

[daytonalo]

I didnt make it , just paid to machine the surfaces , and drill and tap it .Larry

[GeneralLeeTESH]

Solid Wings create MORE downwards Compression-Loads on the rear quarter panel, so I recommend ADDITIONAL trunk bracing added (as shown in picture below) to accomidate for it! I bought a SOLID Wing off this site from a guy here in WASH. for my "DUKETONA". I weighed each cast piece-the wing weighs 89.7 LBS. Original ones were roughly half that-because they were hollow-cast. I wrote a letter of concern to the solid wing maker. Here it is below. He responded with kind words and added some helpful Chrysler history:
I am an Engineer, with some experience in designing/calculating the Bending-moment LOADS aerodynamically on the 737NG Winglet. I weighed the ALL Aluminum Wing. Each Upright is 30.4 # and the center Wing is 28.4 #  totaling 89.2 # .   Your WING is 3 times the FACTORY weight Hollow cast-Aluminum WING. My concern for you is the overal side-loads the Wing experiences Aerodynamically and the Tension LOAD at the Upright panels at the front and the COMPRESSION Loads at the BACK of each upright panel. My recommendation-are WING Washers at LEAST 3/16 inch thick and the first two "3/8 inch STUDS" be 2.0 inches long, the third stud (as you progress rearwards) be 1.5 " grip length in the Upright panels and the last stud a length of 1.0".  I recommend-all the hardware use GRADE 8 high strength steel hardware and embedd within the Aluminum SS Helicoils at the grip lengths recommended. I recommend on the Upper Sail panel-to Wing joint- 3/8 coarse Grade 8 or better high strength steel capscrews with lock washers, and their grip length be at LEAST 2.0". I recomment the embedded Helicoild into the Aluminum for added strength ! Your WING is 3 times the FACTORY weight Hollow cast-Aluminum WING.
Please take this as constructive advice...The Solid Aluminum wing should also have an added upright BRACE at the backside truss bracing (factory installed) for the downward COMPRESSION forces experienced.
His response:
All this is good stuff and I thank you for all this advice.

Keep in mind that the wing weight of 89 pounds verses 55 pounds of the original wing. Are you telling me that the original wings are only 32 total pounds or roughly 11 pounds each piece? Have you weighed an original wing? That is not what my original wing weighs. My numbers are roughly 20 pounds for the uprights and 15 for the horizontal. Aluminum 6061 is .1 pounds per square inch. Your numbers would have the wing very very thin. Most castings (uprights) require .25 thick or just under to flow.
Next: If the solid wing only weights 40 pounds more or twice as much - understanding that is only 20 pounds per side additional weight - also understanding that the wing bracing was designed to handle 150 MPH @ 400 pounds down force - also understanding that 99% of the people using this wing will never reach these down force loads - So 40 pounds more vs 400 pounds? -  Also my 25 year experience (real life no theory) and 9 Daytonas later; and not having any problems using no trunk bracing with solid wings including hitting speeds of 120 MPH  - my conclusion is there is no problem with using just the factory bracing with any additions.I also understand engineers, I come from a family of them (smile). You can have a room full of them and not one will agree. It has a lot to do with personality, (laws of physics and geometry aside, smile).
I am glad to see someone understands this dynamic with these wings. What I understand the engineers at Chrysler did was to transfer this load from the down force created at the back of the wing to the tension created in the vertical bracing (the front one). My concern at looking at that bird wing bracing in your pic is at the bottom of the bracing. The L bracket (base) will torque or bend forward. It appears that maybe a Daytona wing brace was used instead of the Bird brace (longer). Chrysler engineers tested these wings with only wing washers originally, but when the speeds exceeded 180 MPH they found the back trunk (quarters) buckling (at the rear base of the upright). Even then it was not catastrophic but needing attention. Only then was the trunk bracing added.This is fun stuff. Again, thank you for the insight. Please respond if you think I am missing something.

[daytonalo]

AS a new member , we all know that already , been discussed 800 times before . We all know the differences , I didn't make it , just paid to drill and tap it . I make a-piilartrim , trunk hinges , and scissor jacks for daytona. I will tell the story one more time , I looked into having the wings cast as orig and tooling was 25 k , that said this is only option at the moment for us . My statement was only about static weight and don't want to get into aero part , that is a given . Larry

[Troy]

1. I don't recall anyone saying they weren't heavy (at least 30-40 pounds more than an original).
2. They are obviously strong enough for some pretty large men to sit on them without destroying the back end of the car (there's plenty of pictures).
3. From some basic calculations I've run a race Daytona could generate more than 700 pounds of downforce in addition to the weight of the wing.
4. I'm not sure I see a problem with the front-to-rear integrity of the wing even with the heavier weight. I wonder about the side-to-side movement under hard cornering though. I'd have to think that cornering loads on the track would be higher than most "normal" people would experience but perhaps the aerodynamics come into play there as well.

Any way, yes, I believe a solid wing is heavy. If you'd like to buy 180 hollow extruded center sections I can get them relatively cheap. I can't find anyone with a large enough press that will do a limited run (they sell this stuff by the pound and they all have minimum orders).

And where are the pictures you slacker?

Troy

[GeneralLeeTESH]

Yes-SIDE Loads area concern! If not braced for side-loading-"flutter" can possibly cause damage, due to the amplification of natural frequencies-which do not dampen-out. The side braces on the wing washers coupled to the trunk lip side rails should take up most side loads for the lighter stock wing. It is the heavier wing I am concerned about; esp. if it comes off while someone is cornering quickly causing side-loading on the uprights and it could snap off and hit a pedestrian, etc.

[Troy]

You seriously think the side loads are enough to "snap" it and cause injuries to pedestrians? How fast are you driving through congested areas? I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic here (really) but aluminum is some pretty sturdy stuff and grade 8 bolts aren't anything to laugh at either. I'd almost be willing to sacrifice a solid wing to our metallurgists at work just to see how much it takes to mangle one (if there's that much concern). For some reason I doubt that all the research in the world won't sway some people's opinions so I'm not about to spend money on it. I know the cast aluminum is more brittle than extruded but the original uprights were cast as well (the part we're worried about here) and they have many years of use/abuse on them at this point. Dane has been making these wings for a while now and I know the cars using them get driven. Surely someone would have reported a crack, break, dent, or even unusual swaying at some point.

Troy

[BigBlockSam]

Should have made it out of Styrofoam much easier to handle. 

i agree that you should use the trunk braces with these solid wings and use metal wing washers like the originals , that are welded to the trunk rail . thats what the factory did to help with side to side motion .
  i know of several people who use these wings with home made fiberglass wing washers and have had no problems and have had there cars for yrs .    Rene

[69_500]

I'm still confused over the statement of benching 315 lbs, and then calling an 89 pound wing absurd. Something doesn't add up there to me.

I don't think that a solid wing would hurt the quarters in any way shape or form. Now I wouldn't recomend sitting on the wing, without the trunk braces. However with the trunk braces installed, solid wing, or hollow wing, what would it matter. Nothing.

[hotrod98]

I sat my solid aluminum wing on my car and the quarters didn't deflect at all. I'll use wing washers and braces of course and try not to slide around any corners. With that horizontal blade bolted up tight, I doubt that you'll see much side to side deflection.
BTW, didn't we cover this a couple of times last year and the year before that?  The great wing debate goes on..and on...and on. 

[daytonalo]

For the record , the wing brace only bolts to 20 gauge trunk sheet metal . All I wanted to say about the wing was , no way in hell on my car , wouldn't be able to sleep at night .

[GeneralLeeTESH]

PLEASE-use Stainless Steel helicoils when putting the 3/8 inch steel studs into the solid aluminum wing. Loc-tite them into place, also! THIS PREVENTS "DIS-SIMILAR-METALS" Corrosion in the future, and adds strength to your installation.

[69_500]

 

[BigBlockSam]

also! THIS PREVENTS "DIS-SIMILAR-METALS"   

i use anti seize anytine i bolt together two differant metals. Rene