new wingtip design

interesting article about a potential winglet replacement for jets.

I personally think that winglets have more sex appeal though, especially maughmer's.

http://www.gizmag.com/minix-wing-tip...ynamics/15526/

At 20:24 27 February 2015, ND wrote:
interesting article about a potential winglet replacement for jets.

I personally think that winglets have more sex appeal though, especially
maughmer's.

http://www.gizmag.com/minix-wing-tip-vortex-aircraft-
aerodynamics/15526/

That's quite old ,has it moved on ?
Anything that improves performance is worth a try .And something that
makes it easier to fit the covers is a bonus.

It's an almost 5 year old article.

Never heard of it before, it was so good, we all would have likely heard more about it.

My understanding is the tip vortex is based mostly on wingloading, the higher the loading the worse the vortex is (everything else remaining the same).
Some airfoils & aspect ratio's are worse than others in terms of vortex with a similar wingloading. And yes, speed has an effect as well.

I would like to see the actual tests performed between a "plain tip", winglet and this device.

I did a Google search for "Minix wing tip"

Came up with....

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22M...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

This page (out of the 1st link) is sorta interesting (it's on page 3 of the above search).

http://www-mip.onera.fr/projets/Wake...Durston%5D.pdf

Most of the pages are old, the "newer ones" basically regurgitated the older info......

Curious on what others here think/feel/know......

On 2/27/2015 3:20 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
I did a Google search for "Minix wing tip"

Snip...


Curious on what others here think/feel/know......


Think/feel...
These sorts of things are what happens when intuition is applied inaptly, kind
of like those early schemes proposing ways for making balloons dirigible, i.e.
steerable...you know, oars and sails and the like. How does this magical
"unwinding" device go about capturing the entire pressure differential between
bottom & top of the wing so's to prevent vorticity developing? Methinks at the
very least a considerably larger bell-mouth is in order to have potential for
ANY detectable vortical disruption. :-)

Quite Possibly/Presumably In the "Know Dep't." (Copied from comments)
"I tested this device for my university thesis and it done nothing at all but
to increase drag due to the extra skin friction drag caused by a greater
surface area. The vortices do not reduce because the design considers the
physics on too primitive and intuitive a level."
James Fletcher
26th March, 2012 @ 01:58 pm PDT

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 3:25:30 PM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 2/27/2015 3:20 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
I did a Google search for "Minix wing tip"

Snip...


Curious on what others here think/feel/know......


Think/feel...
These sorts of things are what happens when intuition is applied inaptly, kind
of like those early schemes proposing ways for making balloons dirigible, i.e.
steerable...you know, oars and sails and the like. How does this magical
"unwinding" device go about capturing the entire pressure differential between
bottom & top of the wing so's to prevent vorticity developing? Methinks at the
very least a considerably larger bell-mouth is in order to have potential for
ANY detectable vortical disruption. :-)

Quite Possibly/Presumably In the "Know Dep't." (Copied from comments)
"I tested this device for my university thesis and it done nothing at all but
to increase drag due to the extra skin friction drag caused by a greater
surface area. The vortices do not reduce because the design considers the
physics on too primitive and intuitive a level."
James Fletcher
26th March, 2012 @ 01:58 pm PDT

Excellent discussion of "Common Misconceptions in Aerodyanmics" Worth the time to listen to the whole thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCK...bn0iDCBbgpLbX6

Craig

As a non-scientist/engineer, it baffles me that we are able to build amazingly sophisticated airplanes, yet, as the lecturer demonstrates, there is a huge amount of confusion over how to explain why a wing produces lift, and many of our common assumptions are simply wrong, i.e., the reason(s) for accelerated airflow over the top surface (which intuitively has never made sense to me). Engineers designing airplanes are themselves still arguing over whether it's more about Bernoulli or the downward-turning force or Coanda effect. Yet, I'm still able to get from one coast to another at 35,000 feet traveling at 600 mph, while sipping coffee and watching a movie.

I've been flying airplanes professionally for close to forty years and sailplanes for fun. I spend a lot of time looking at the wing trying to understand how it works. In the end, I conclude it's all magic. I kinda like that.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:02:08 -0800, mmartin46 wrote:

I've been flying airplanes professionally for close to forty years and
sailplanes for fun. I spend a lot of time looking at the wing trying to
understand how it works. In the end, I conclude it's all magic. I
kinda like that.

I've never forgotten one cloudy day with a low overcast. I was in a car,
driving away from Heathrow toward Chobham Common, which put us directly
under the approach to Heathrow, when a 747 dropped out of the overcast on
finals. For a few seconds it was heading for us, grabbing the bottom of
the cloud and flinging it at the ground: it was like watching a waterfall
beneath its wing.

That sight made me realise two things: that a 747 really does weigh a
couple hundred tons and that the reaction from deflecting that huge mass
of air downward has more than a little to do with keeping it in the air.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On 2/28/2015 4:48 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:02:08 -0800, mmartin46 wrote:

I've been flying airplanes professionally for close to forty years and
sailplanes for fun. I spend a lot of time looking at the wing trying to
understand how it works. In the end, I conclude it's all magic. I
kinda like that.

I've never forgotten one cloudy day with a low overcast. I was in a car,
driving away from Heathrow toward Chobham Common, which put us directly
under the approach to Heathrow, when a 747 dropped out of the overcast on
finals. For a few seconds it was heading for us, grabbing the bottom of
the cloud and flinging it at the ground: it was like watching a waterfall
beneath its wing.

That sight made me realise two things: that a 747 really does weigh a
couple hundred tons and that the reaction from deflecting that huge mass
of air downward has more than a little to do with keeping it in the air.


Agreed...and for the sake of pub discussions, I think it's entirely
sufficient. Where the explanation quickly becomes complex is when we attempt
to mathematically analyze lift, because so far no single approach numerically
addresses lift creation's entire problem. Bernoulli and Coanda are probably
the most commonly known "incomplete applications" among the pub set; both are
concisely eviscerated (more accurately, bounded) by Dr. McLean in his
conceptual assessment of each's ability to address the physical situation.
Anyhow, fun to contemplate for those so afflicted...

Bob W.