I have an idea about tornado interceptors, could it work?

[Tony F]

I've been watching a lot of stuff about tornado interceptors like the Dominator and had an idea for a different way to keep them stable. I wanted to post it here to see what you all think, since you're the experts.



I was watching Formula 1 and learned how their floors create "downforce" to suck the car to the track at high speed. I wondered if you could use a tornado's own insane wind to do the same thing to an interceptor. My thought is to add a special floor and side panels that deploy to channel the wind underneath, creating suction to help hold the vehicle down faster than spikes can deploy.



The problems I know about (and my attempts to fix them):

I know the two biggest issues right away are debris wrecking everything and wind coming from the side and flipping it.



·For debris, I thought a heavy-duty angled grate at the front could block or deflect the big stuff (even if it messes with the airflow a little).

·For side winds, I'm not totally sure. Maybe the side panels could help, or it needs a different shape.



I'm not saying this is a perfect design—it's just a concept I've been turning over in my head. I don't have the math or software to test it, which is why I'm asking here.



I do have some questions. 1. Has anyone ever tried or modeled using aerodynamics like this for an interceptor?

2. What's the main reason this wouldn't work in the real world

3. If it's a totally bad idea for a big truck, could the concept work for a smaller, unmanned drone?



I'd really appreciate any feedback, even if it's to tell me why it's impossible. I'm just trying to learn.

 

[Dan Robinson]

There are some proven designs already out there. Tim Samaras' "turtle" probes are likely the ideal shape for violent tornado impacts. TIV2 survived direct impact from a high-end EF3. The OTUS project has custom-built drones that have flown through several significant tornadoes.

 

[Jamie H]

For me, you’re talking about utilising high speed, high performance aerodynamics in situations which are far from stable, which is where problems would arise.

Cars like F1 generate downforce because they’re moving quickly and aside from wind direction shifts (which don’t happen rapidly) can be plotted well. And even then, with recent ground effect cars, they had trouble stopping the low pressure centres collapsing and reattaching.

In a tornado you’d have a car not moving fast enough to generate any meaningful aerodynamics and approaching a tornado the wind direction and speeds change. Unless you had a computer system which could monitor and adjust flaps and the like, you’d quickly find yourself in trouble.

I suppose a way to think about this is NASCAR and Indycar. Both of those series have had problems in the past when cars spin, as the sudden change can easily lift and flip the car into the air.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The flaw with this theory is when something, e.g., debris hits the vehicle and the ground effect is broken -- it becomes a piece of flying debris. Both Formula and Indy drivers have been injured and killed when this happens. The other problem is debris flying at over 200mph impacting the vehicle, e.g., a telephone pole. Lastly, the occupants will remain in motion if a vehicle is rolled, sustaining serious or deadly injuries, especially spine and head injuries as seen with other vehicles hit by tornadoes. NASCAR goes to great lengths to protect drivers from such velocities, including helmets and Hans devices. The promotion of a vehicle being "tornado proof" is a joke and only for show and drama.

Ultimately, there is zero scientific data need to drive into to a tornado, except for entertainment. Probes, drones and similar remote devices can do the job without risking lives. Every legitimate scientist I've spoken to agrees.