deturbulated std cirrus flies against Diana 1

[Jim Hendrix]

For the latest parallel flight of my deturbulated Standard Cirrus vs. a
modern glider, go to
http://sinhatech.com/SinhaFCSD-Progress-06072008.asp#article .

20 minutes of parallel flying should be enough to make the point.

Download and replay the logs in SeeYou, or what have you.

Jim Hendrix
Oxford Aero Equipment, LLC
417 N. 11th Street
Oxford, MS 38655

662-234-0492 voice
662-234-2195 fax

www.oxaero.com

[Herb]

On Jun 9, 2:59 pm, Jim Hendrix > wrote:
> For the latest parallel flight of my deturbulated Standard Cirrus vs. a
> modern glider, go tohttp://sinhatech.com/SinhaFCSD-Progress-06072008.asp#article.
>
> 20 minutes of parallel flying should be enough to make the point.
>
> Download and replay the logs in SeeYou, or what have you.
>
> Jim Hendrix
> Oxford Aero Equipment, LLC
> 417 N. 11th Street
> Oxford, MS 38655
>
> 662-234-0492 voice
> 662-234-2195 fax
>

Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this "exiting"
news that comes well timed after the June article in SSA magazine by
Bill Collum? Is anybody able to explain to me even in basic terms
what the physics behind the claimed effect are? Mr. Collums
explanations are not making any sense, he just throws aerodynamic
terms around and invents new ones such as "slip layer" that nobody
else has ever observed. How the deturbulator "detaches" the boundary
layer from the surface is a mystery and left to future generations of
physicists to explore.

The whole story reminds me actually of the Cold Fusion hype in the
early 90's: a desirable effect is found and described without
theoretical underpinning. In this case, the effect is found only on
one glider, Jim Hendrix' Cirrus and only in a small airspeed window,
make that exactly 51 knots. We are told that more research is needed
before other gliders can be blessed with this "textured tape
Deturbulator". Again, I'm skeptical by nature and this all just
smells of Voodoo science. The claimed L/D that "peaked" at 70 to 120
to 1 (Collum article) at least I can explain: over short distances in
convective air all our gliders reach those numbers. Hell, I flew last
weekend over 66 miles at an L/D of 125 without circling and at 90mph,
according to SeeYou. Maybe the reason is that I dumped my pee-bag out
the side window before that run and the hyper-viscous fluid affected
the drag of fuselage and empennage, who knows!?

This all is right now of no practical use to us. I could run all day
in Jim's Cirrus at 51 knots and still not make good speed going x-
country. In fact I would guess I spend about 30 seconds at that speed
on a typical 3 hour flight. Sorry for being so negative but again,
please show me the underlying effect. Saying we don't know right now
doesn't cut it. Come back when you can explain what you believe you
measured.
If this 'revolutionary' improvement is for real, Dr. Sinha will
shortly be a very rich man. Until then, good luck. His patent
application is pending and if you google the subject you will find
that nobody but the inventor has published on this subject. One would
guess that the aerodynamicists of the world would beat a path to his
door if they believed this to work.

[Michael Huber]

As far as I understand the claim is that the deturbulator reduces the wings
profile drag, and there is no effect on any other component of aircraft
total drag like induced drag, fuselage and empennage drag, interference drag
etc...

I would like to see an overview of the drag components of an unmodified
Standard Cirrus at 51kts. Then we could discuss how much reduction of
profile drag alone would be necessary to achieve the L/D ratios of 45, 70
and even 100 claimed by Jim Hendrix in postings to this thread.

Please note that I do not rule out that deturbulators (or this specific
deturbulator) might have positive effects on profile drag, but I strongly
doubt the measurement methods used and conclusions drawn from these.

Michael

[Brian Bange[_2_]]

Whether or not anything comes of the research, the post is interesting and
a lot more enjoyable to read about than what brand of wheel bearing works
best in glider trailers etc. I think most of us follow the story with
interest and wish he and Dr. Sinha well.

I received an email from Dick Johnson about a month ago on another subject
and he wrote "Maybe Deturbulators on the wing top surfaces, and
Turbulators on the wing bottom surfaces will be the next step?" So not
all the experts are completely shunning the deturbulator.

Brian Bange


>Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this "exiting"
>news that comes well timed after the June article in SSA magazine by
>Bill Collum? Is anybody able to explain to me even in basic terms
>what the physics behind the claimed effect are? Mr. Collums
>explanations are not making any sense, he just throws aerodynamic
>terms around and invents new ones such as "slip layer" that nobody
>else has ever observed. How the deturbulator "detaches" the boundary
>layer from the surface is a mystery and left to future generations of
>physicists to explore.
>
>The whole story reminds me actually of the Cold Fusion hype in the
>early 90's: a desirable effect is found and described without
>theoretical underpinning. In this case, the effect is found only on
>one glider, Jim Hendrix' Cirrus and only in a small airspeed window,
>make that exactly 51 knots. We are told that more research is needed
>before other gliders can be blessed with this "textured tape
>Deturbulator". Again, I'm skeptical by nature and this all just
>smells of Voodoo science. The claimed L/D that "peaked" at 70 to 120
>to 1 (Collum article) at least I can explain: over short distances in
>convective air all our gliders reach those numbers. Hell, I flew last
>weekend over 66 miles at an L/D of 125 without circling and at 90mph,
>according to SeeYou. Maybe the reason is that I dumped my pee-bag out
>the side window before that run and the hyper-viscous fluid affected
>the drag of fuselage and empennage, who knows!?
>
>This all is right now of no practical use to us. I could run all day
>in Jim's Cirrus at 51 knots and still not make good speed going x-
>country. In fact I would guess I spend about 30 seconds at that speed
>on a typical 3 hour flight. Sorry for being so negative but again,
>please show me the underlying effect. Saying we don't know right now
>doesn't cut it. Come back when you can explain what you believe you
>measured.
>If this 'revolutionary' improvement is for real, Dr. Sinha will
>shortly be a very rich man. Until then, good luck. His patent
>application is pending and if you google the subject you will find
>that nobody but the inventor has published on this subject. One would
>guess that the aerodynamicists of the world would beat a path to his
>door if they believed this to work.
>

[jb92563]

You guys are doing great R&D and have found something worth
investigating.

I know that everyone would buy a set of "Tapes" that would improve
their L/D 20%

I know a sailplane designer/manufacturer would jump at the chance to
improve performance that much these days
and I am sure there is activity on this we are not aware of in other
sectors as well.

Looking forward to seeing where this discovery takes us.

Be patient or offer to help if you can not stand the wait.

Ray

[Jim Hendrix]

Brian,

Bottom and top surface deturbulators has been a subject of discussion
between Sumon and me for a few years. He was against the idea for reasons
that were hard for me to grasp. But, later, when I did extensive oil flow
visualizations to find out why the present deturbulators were not working,
on a lark, I put oil on the bottom surfaces just to see if the transition
bubble was still there. I was shocked to see that the entire bottom wing
surface had the same non-streamed, mottled oil blotches as on the top
surface (and no hint of a bubble). Even without deturbulators, the bottom
surface was reaping the benefits of the leading edge tape step-down and (I
suppose) the modified flow pattern on the upper surface. At any rate, the
oil flows are clear and I wonder what would be achieved by altering
something so perfect?

BTW, I have a large number of these oil flow images at two speeds, 50 KIA
and 80 KIA. I plan to post them all with my interpretations when I get
the time.

Regards,
JEH

At 13:28 10 June 2008, Brian Bange wrote:
>Whether or not anything comes of the research, the post is interesting
and
>a lot more enjoyable to read about than what brand of wheel bearing
works
>best in glider trailers etc. I think most of us follow the story with
>interest and wish he and Dr. Sinha well.
>
>I received an email from Dick Johnson about a month ago on another
subject
>and he wrote "Maybe Deturbulators on the wing top surfaces, and
>Turbulators on the wing bottom surfaces will be the next step?" So not
>all the experts are completely shunning the deturbulator.
>
>Brian Bange
>
>
>>Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this "exiting"
>>news that comes well timed after the June article in SSA magazine by
>>Bill Collum? Is anybody able to explain to me even in basic terms
>>what the physics behind the claimed effect are? Mr. Collums
>>explanations are not making any sense, he just throws aerodynamic
>>terms around and invents new ones such as "slip layer" that nobody
>>else has ever observed. How the deturbulator "detaches" the boundary
>>layer from the surface is a mystery and left to future generations of
>>physicists to explore.
>>
>>The whole story reminds me actually of the Cold Fusion hype in the
>>early 90's: a desirable effect is found and described without
>>theoretical underpinning. In this case, the effect is found only on
>>one glider, Jim Hendrix' Cirrus and only in a small airspeed window,
>>make that exactly 51 knots. We are told that more research is needed
>>before other gliders can be blessed with this "textured tape
>>Deturbulator". Again, I'm skeptical by nature and this all just
>>smells of Voodoo science. The claimed L/D that "peaked" at 70 to 120
>>to 1 (Collum article) at least I can explain: over short distances in
>>convective air all our gliders reach those numbers. Hell, I flew last
>>weekend over 66 miles at an L/D of 125 without circling and at 90mph,
>>according to SeeYou. Maybe the reason is that I dumped my pee-bag out
>>the side window before that run and the hyper-viscous fluid affected
>>the drag of fuselage and empennage, who knows!?
>>
>>This all is right now of no practical use to us. I could run all day
>>in Jim's Cirrus at 51 knots and still not make good speed going x-
>>country. In fact I would guess I spend about 30 seconds at that speed
>>on a typical 3 hour flight. Sorry for being so negative but again,
>>please show me the underlying effect. Saying we don't know right now
>>doesn't cut it. Come back when you can explain what you believe you
>>measured.
>>If this 'revolutionary' improvement is for real, Dr. Sinha will
>>shortly be a very rich man. Until then, good luck. His patent
>>application is pending and if you google the subject you will find
>>that nobody but the inventor has published on this subject. One would
>>guess that the aerodynamicists of the world would beat a path to his
>>door if they believed this to work.
>>
>

[sisu1a]

> Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this "exiting"
> news that comes well timed after the June article in SSA magazine by
> Bill Collum? Is anybody able to explain to me even in basic terms
> what the physics behind the claimed effect are? Mr. Collums
> explanations are not making any sense, he just throws aerodynamic
> terms around and invents new ones such as "slip layer" that nobody
> else has ever observed. How the deturbulator "detaches" the boundary
> layer from the surface is a mystery and left to future generations of
> physicists to explore.

I'm not an aerodynamicist (and I'm not lecturing :-), but as I
understand it, the deturbulators work something like this. On a normal
(non deturbulated) wing, where the laminar separation occurs, there is
a major change in the airflow so it can get up and over the dynamic
obstacle the turbulence on the wing poses to the flow air . This
action of air flowing up and over the turbulent layer IS for all
intents and purposes assuming the shape of a completely new (and
undesirable) airfoil. What the deturbulators attempt to do is to tame
this turbulent layer, sculpting it into a more USEFUL aerodynamically
shaped interference by vibrating at certain frequencies to manipulate
the shape/size/location of this layer. From what I understand, the
individual deturbulator panels essentially flutter at the correct
frequencies to effect this change at certain speeds, which in this
early proof of concept tests seems to be around 51kts IAS.

> Again, I'm skeptical by nature and this all just
> smells of Voodoo science. The claimed L/D that "peaked" at 70 to 120
> to 1 (Collum article) at least I can explain: over short distances in
> convective air all our gliders reach those numbers. Hell, I flew last
> weekend over 66 miles at an L/D of 125 without circling and at 90mph,
> according to SeeYou. Maybe the reason is that I dumped my pee-bag out
> the side window before that run and the hyper-viscous fluid affected
> the drag of fuselage and empennage, who knows!?

That is why tests are being conducted where the modified Cirrus is
being flown wingtip to wingtip with gliders of KNOWN performances, to
eliminate the effects imparted on performance due to airmass
variations.

> This all is right now of no practical use to us. I could run all day
> in Jim's Cirrus at 51 knots and still not make good speed going x-
> country. In fact I would guess I spend about 30 seconds at that speed
> on a typical 3 hour flight. Sorry for being so negative but again,
> please show me the underlying effect. Saying we don't know right now
> doesn't cut it. Come back when you can explain what you believe you
> measured.

Historically, you will find many great contributions that began as
novelty ideas that appeared to the layman to have no practical value
and received much scoffing etc too. Perhaps the deturbulators will go
nowhere, or perhaps they may be the foundation of future aerodynamics.
I am glad someone is else dong the research to find out, that way I
can just fly, and perhaps benefit from this in the future.

Paul

[Doug Hoffman]

wrote:

>
>
> Jim, Interesting stuff. For the reasons stated previously
> that the
> flight envelope of comparison favors the Std. Cirrus and not
> necessarily the Diana, is there a plan to do a comparison
> between a
> detubulated Std. Cirrus vs another random 38yr old Std.
> Cirrus?

Isn't the Dick Johnson flight comparison using the same glider
with and without deturbulators the same thing? Perhaps better.
Dick's careful testing and conclusions have done more than
anything else to lend credibility, at least for me.

I would like to see more Johnson-style testing performed on
different glider types. Seems like to-date all glider data is
hinhes on this sole Standard Cirrus.
--
-Doug

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[[email protected]]

Jim, Interesting stuff. For the reasons stated previously that the
flight envelope of comparison favors the Std. Cirrus and not
necessarily the Diana, is there a plan to do a comparison between a
detubulated Std. Cirrus vs another random 38yr old Std. Cirrus?

[Jim Hendrix]

At 18:24 10 June 2008, wrote:
>Jim, Interesting stuff. For the reasons stated previously that the
>flight envelope of comparison favors the Std. Cirrus and not
>necessarily the Diana, is there a plan to do a comparison between a
>detubulated Std. Cirrus vs another random 38yr old Std. Cirrus?
>
>
>
>

I addressed the question of the differnce in best speeds of the two
aircraft earlier and concluded that it is essentially negligible.

However, in fact, all things permitting, I will try a Std. Cirrus vs. Std.
Cirrus flight this Saturday. The other aircraft is owned by Jim Maye. It
is serial number 30, whereas mine is #60. That is significant because
around #150 Klaus Holidhaus gave the wing an additional .75 degree twist.
Both gliders in the planned test will be the same. Both pilots too are...
ahum...well fed.

The main reason for this test is that people like to see differences
directly rather than implied. So, I am expecting to see #30 sinking
relative to #60. Then the problem will be that we will no longer be
flying in the same air and we will need to restart the test. So we may
have a series of short runs. I hope so at least.

If you don't hear from me early next week, it will mean that something
prevented the test, or it didn't work out as expected and I'm stalling
for time to figure it out and/or stage another engagement. I much prefer
reporting our successes than failures.

JEH

[Bill[_7_]]

"Herb" > wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this "exiting"
> news that comes well timed after the June article in SSA magazine by
> Bill Collum? Is anybody able to explain to me even in basic terms
> what the physics behind the claimed effect are? Mr. Collums
> explanations are not making any sense, he just throws aerodynamic
> terms around and invents new ones such as "slip layer" that nobody
> else has ever observed.

Herb,

I'm glad the Soaring article on Sumon Sinha's "deturbulator" technology got
you thinking. I am more engineer than reporter, so I apologize if my
explanations were a little unclear. I promise you that the term "slip layer"
is not a product of my over-active imagination (which can, admittedly, run
wild from time to time; wait until you read about my vision of a mid-21st
century sailplane in a future edition of Soaring), but is a formal concept
inherent in computational fluid dynamics. The "slip effect", for example, is
a recognized phenomenon of pipeline fluid flow and effects processes
utilizing non-Newtonian fluids in the petroleum, chemical, and food
preparation industries. Exactly how and under what conditions this effect
may apply to Newtonian fluids (i.e. "air") interacting with a single
boundary wall (i.e. "a wing") is open to question, and that is what Sumon
and Jim are investigating. Essentially, if they are able to successfully
leverage this effect in aerodynamic applications, it is possible that skin
drag may be reduced or virtually eliminated by forcing the boundary layer to
detach from the wing surface. In such a case, the energy-laden boundary
layer will not be in direct contact with the wing surface, but will instead
"slip" over a layer of static air, preventing the boundary layer from
"dumping" it's energy through micro-scale interactions with the surface over
which it is flowing. Obviously, as I mentioned in my recent article, a great
deal more research is required before any conclusions can be drawn. Only
time (and money) will tell if this phenomenon can be practically applied to
sailplane aerodynamics. I applaud Sumon and Jim for their innovation and
perseverance, and wish them well.

Thank again for your comments.

Bill Collum
"Tango X-Ray"




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[danlj]

On Jun 9, 8:09 pm, Herb > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2:59 pm, Jim Hendrix > wrote:
>
> > For the latest parallel flight of my deturbulated Standard Cirrus vs. a
> > modern glider, go tohttp://sinhatech.com/SinhaFCSD-Progress-06072008.asp#article.
>
> > 20 minutes of parallel flying should be enough to make the point.
>
...
>
> Am I the only one who is completely underwhelmed by this "exiting"
> news ...

No, you are not the only one who is underwhelmed by this. I spoke to
an aerodymicist who has a wind tunnel (I don't have permission to say
who, so I won't) who has more than once offered Dr. Sinha his wind
tunnel for formal testing - and even thought the offer had been
accepted once - but the offer hasn't resulted in any testing there. I
was also told the Dr. Sinha got the ear of Boeing management, and
there was collegial discussion among aerodynamicists, but whether
Boeing did any tests was unknown to my informant.

The tests done by Dick Johnson, and a side-by-side flyoff, aren't
science; they're anecdote. Interesting anecdote, though...

When we see some systematic wind-tunnel studies, we will have a better
idea how to define the role of these strips.

A key comment in this discussion, by Mr. Hendrix, with respect to the
science, is
"To be brutally frank, it’s taking a long time to develop this
technology
because neither Sumon nor I are very disciplined in our methods ..."

Good science is really hard to do well, and does require disciplined
methods.

Dan Johnson

[Doug Hoffman]

danlj wrote:


> The tests done by Dick Johnson, -snip- aren't
> science; they're anecdote.

I disagree. An important part of science is careful measurement
and quantification of an observed phenomenon. Dick Johnson's
careful, systematic measurements are far more than just anecdote.
Are they the whole story? Of course not. Who said they were?

You say you have knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes
and this causes you to question the practices of the deturbulator
inventor. Fine. But are you also saying that Richard Johnson's
measurement techniques and results, not just on the deturbed
Cirrus, are not carefully done and we should dismiss his work?
If so that is a strong statement and I can't say I agree with it.

--
-Doug

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jonas Eberle]

So the patenting is going on?
I hope that after securring the idea by a patent, Mr Sinha will be
more open to the aerodynamically interested.

I do not want to be harsh, but so far it sounds more like a marketing
issue to me. The mystic and uncertainity is only hurting the impatient
glider pilots, not Mr Sinhas interests.

If there is a phenomenon (and I believe you there is), there should be
no problem in investigating it: Find professors of aerodynamics to
tell their students about it, get some thesis`s about it written.
Encourage pilots to try it on their planes. Have the OSTIV be informed
(next meeting is during the WGC in Lüsse). Invite fly&study groups
like the German Akafliegs to try it hands-on. I hope all this will go
on when Mr Sinhas interestes are securred.

This is not about manpower. It is about deciding between money and
pioneering a new phenomenon.

[Jim Hendrix]

Jonas,

Your comments are on target. Dr. Sinha has only recently yielded to
pressure for full disclosure. A poignant moment was in 2007 when Dick
Johnson presented his report at the SSA Convention and leaned on Sinha to
let him tell about the leading edge tapes. Now he is now holding back
nothing fundamental to what he is doing.

We just submitted an abstract to the AIAA that tells everything in the
clearest language yet. Esteemed aerodynamicists will criticize it, as
they have in the past, for lack of rigorous methodology and definitive
information about the flow-surface interaction, as well as overall wing
aerodynamics. But my view is that facts are facts. Facts do not have to
be blessed by an eminent scientist to be real. Data speaks for itself to
those who listen. The same goes for the quality of the data. Look at my
data (e.g.,
http://sinhatech.com/SinhaFCSD-Progress-Johnson-Details.asp#article) and
you will find plenty of evidence that this phenomenon cannot be written
off to convection in the air, etc.

I agree with you, let the academic community do the fundamental work that
Sinha and I are not doing. Much needs to be done, it will take many years
and I expect it will branch out into other related methods. I have every
confidence that this will indeed happen, when the academic community is
convinced that there really is something here. Meanwhile, my aim
continues to be to amass so much data that the sheer weight of it will
become undeniable.

Jim Hendrix


At 14:37 16 June 2008, Jonas Eberle wrote:
>So the patenting is going on?
>I hope that after securring the idea by a patent, Mr Sinha will be
>more open to the aerodynamically interested.
>
>I do not want to be harsh, but so far it sounds more like a marketing
>issue to me. The mystic and uncertainity is only hurting the impatient
>glider pilots, not Mr Sinhas interests.
>
>If there is a phenomenon (and I believe you there is), there should be
>no problem in investigating it: Find professors of aerodynamics to
>tell their students about it, get some thesis`s about it written.
>Encourage pilots to try it on their planes. Have the OSTIV be informed
>(next meeting is during the WGC in L=FCsse). Invite fly&study groups
>like the German Akafliegs to try it hands-on. I hope all this will go
>on when Mr Sinhas interestes are securred.
>
>This is not about manpower. It is about deciding between money and
>pioneering a new phenomenon.
>