|
Post by barbarian on Sept 12, 2011 19:09:53 GMT -5
A marketing failure, but an engineering and aesthetic tour de force.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 19:15:02 GMT -5
A style far ahead of it's time. Beautiful!
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 12, 2011 19:38:33 GMT -5
The split screen hints at its age. I can only concur with Wayne's post "A style far ahead of it's time. Beautiful!" Perhaps, though, we should add 'too' in for it to become "A style too far ahead of it's time." I wonder if that's why it was a commercial failure.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 12, 2011 19:51:52 GMT -5
One sweet looking car and just a great colour too. The background looks interesting also, where was this?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Sept 12, 2011 21:26:56 GMT -5
Commemorative Air Force Museum in Addison, Texas, just north of Dallas.
Well worth a visit if vintage aircraft appeal to you.
And yes, the Airflow was so far ahead of it's time, people shied away from it.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 13, 2011 2:08:19 GMT -5
What a masterpiece of automotive design.
Is that what is called Streamlining?
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2011 12:23:25 GMT -5
That's a later Airflow. The early ones (1934) had a different grill . The car had several problems probably the biggest being that it was introduced in the depths of the Great Depression. In addition, designers put too much of the weight on the rear axle (up to 75 percent when the car was loaded). On rainy roads the front wheels tended to float--not a good thing. The Chrysler and Desoto Airflows were made from 1934 to 1937 (actually I don't think the Desoto Airflow lasted that long). I think the Airflow was on of the first cars with a solid metal roof. Most cars in those days had a hole in the top of the metal body and it was covered with a rubberized cloth.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Sept 13, 2011 13:18:20 GMT -5
Hi gang, Sorry to disagree and throw a spanner in the works, but I have to disagree with almost everyone else about the aesthetic appeal of the later Chrysler Airflow. Sorry it’s a fairly long ramble, but I get the impression that many people are just following others in describing the Airflow as beautiful. I agree that when it first appeared in 1934 the styling was - how shall I describe it? – Radical. And yes, it was streamlined. Chrysler built a number of scale models of the body to test for air drag in wind tunnels. It pointed the way forward, but I have some criticisms. The first is hanging on to side running boards. Why? They served no useful purpose other than to link the front and rear wings (fenders). My second criticism is the front end. To me, this is a mess on the later models. It’s as if the stylists lost their way and didn’t know what else to change after doing away with the “flat” radiator grille of the 1934 design. After providing an elegant long bonnet (hood) and an equally elegant “waterfall” radiator grille the stylists chose to retain mounting the headlights in the side panels of the hood which extended down to the front. This worked fine with the original 1934 “flat” radiator grille but was right out of place with the long waterfall grille. Then, Oh dear, we’ve forgotten the front fenders (wings). Better keep them the same as the 1934 design where they worked well with the front-end styling. But they didn’t work with the later waterfall radiator grille and inset headlamps. They’re just planted on the sides and linked to the side panels of the hood by a couple ugly fairings that don’t help the overall effect at all. An engineering tour de force? Oh yes, here I have to agree. The engineers pioneered a torsionally very rigid monocoque (chassis and body all in one) structure and pushed the heavy engine forward to give a longer passenger compartment that allowed everyone to sit inside the wheelbase. Can't agree with you, Wayne, that the Airflow had too much weight at the back. The change in weight distribution was remarkable. With passengers it was not far short of 50/50 front and back instead of the traditional “two-box” design where the rear passengers sat over the back axle and the weight distribution was roughly 70-75% rear, 25 to 30% front. This meant stiff rear springs that gave rear-seat passengers a harsh ride and, combined with the rear-biased weight distribution meant that the back end lost traction and went often went sideways on even a mildly slippery bend. “Taking a right-hand bend on left lock” was not as uncommon as might be thought. The monocoque construction was subjected to a smear campaign by other makers suggesting that without a substantial chassis it was weak. In a publicity film, (movie)Chrysler pushed an Airflow over a cliff and then got in and drove it away to prove that it wasn’t, but a lot of the mud still stuck. By contrast to older designs, the Airflow had a much better polar moment of inertia that with “a wheel at each corner” improved the handling tremendously. The principle was followed by European designers after the war but in the meantime US auto stylists had gone barmy with huge front and rear overhangs. When the trunk (boot) was loaded with heavy luggage, polar moment of inertia went up the spout and once again the back end drifted out all too readily. Spectacular in the hands of stunt drivers in movie car chases, but a matter of don’t try this at home. Monocoque construction was ignored and instead we got massive chassis, X-braced in an attempt to give the car torsional stiffness. All this achieved was to make the car heavier and worsen the fuel consumption – the gas guzzlers. But what the heck? Petrol (gasoline) was cheap enough. General Motors hung on the monocoque idea, but only as far as the front of the body. Forward of that was the front-end of a conventional chassis. This design was taken up by Vauxhall in the UK in its DY and DX models of the late 1930s to provide a base for independent front-wheel suspension (but that’s another story). Oh yes, the Airflow was indeed an engineering tour de force but this has been almost completely overshadowed by its radical styling. Radical for 1934. It’s a pity that in 1937, before the Airflow went out of production, Chrysler’s stylists didn’t look at the styling ideas coming out from the relatively tiny maker Willys. The front-end styling of the Willys Kingston sedan of the late 1930s went a little aglee on the nose of the hood, but the idea of fairing the headlamps into the front wings (fenders) pointed the way to much more elegant front-end styling, ignored in the US but taken up in Europe, particularly in the UK. I wonder if that type of front end might have given the Airflow a new lease on life? Note that all four doors are front-hinged. No "suicide" front opening doors. But why, oh why, retain the archaic running boards? Elegant treatment of the front wings (fenders) and headlamps on the late 1930s Willys Kigston Sedan. Ignored by US makers but taken up by UK stylists after the war.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 13, 2011 15:08:41 GMT -5
"But why, oh why, retain the archaic running boards?"Peter, Peter, PeterW, The running boards were essential elements.Can you envision a cop in a Hollywood movie with gun drawn, shouting "Follow that Car!" and hopping onto a running board that wasn't there? It would really accelerate the wear on his shoes. I still like the car despite the swastika in the rear window. It was probably used in a spy movie. I would love to run my hand over that sleek hood (boot) above the headlight. Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 13, 2011 15:19:32 GMT -5
Useless piece of information #142:
You know in the old films when you see someone clinging on to a car as it speeds off, the person then flying as (usually) he holds on. Well, it has been estimated that the car would have to be doing about 200mph before a person would take off (without the use of wings that is).
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Sept 13, 2011 17:46:23 GMT -5
Ooh, Mickey, you are a card!
PeterW
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Sept 13, 2011 19:59:38 GMT -5
Hi All! Those are both beautiful automobiles! I've always been interested and quite taken with the designs of the 30s. Art Deco, Streamline, Bauhaus, right up to mid-century modernist, I love it all. If I had a chance to own one, as if THAT is ever going to happen , I'd want a "Graham Sharknose" It's a great machine, and is supercharged to boot Doug
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 13, 2011 20:07:03 GMT -5
Useless piece of information #142: You know in the old films when you see someone clinging on to a car as it speeds off, the person then flying as (usually) he holds on. Well, it has been estimated that the car would have to be doing about 200mph before a person would take off (without the use of wings that is). Dave, I don't remember seeing movies like that except the great Keystone Cops silent films. But one thing that always fascinated me about movie cars is how their tires screeched, when they accelerated or stopped or made a turn, on gravel or dirt roads and even on a sandy beach. I still don't think that is possible. Mickey
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 13, 2011 20:16:12 GMT -5
Doug, Please don't hate me for this but I guess beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. "If I had a chance to own one, as if THAT is ever going to happen , I'd want a "Graham Sharknose"
I would not classify your "Jaws" as horrible, just ugly. But then I like bumble bees and snakes and grasshoppers. Mickey
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Sept 13, 2011 21:38:05 GMT -5
That's OK Mickey, My taste in automobiles has always tended towards the "odd" side I've had a DAF, a Citroen Dyane, a 3cyl. Saab, and quite a few other ugly ducklings. At one point, I even starting searching for a Citroen AMI. Haven't found one yet, they're as rare as Hens teeth, but as far as ugly goes, they've got to be somewhere near the top ;D Doug
|
|