Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?

I have a Cherokee 180, with the short hershey bar wing. While I love
the plane, I always wish it could go a bit faster, or use a bit less
fuel to get to my destination.

I have followed the composite homebuilding movement for many years,
and am amazed at the sleekness of a composite wing. The wings on most
composites tend to be the complete opposite of a Hersey bar wing:
high aspect ratio, low thickness, no rivets, no screws for fuel
tanks,smooth curves faired into airframe, and streamlined landing gear
structure.

So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?

Nathan Young wrote:
I have a Cherokee 180, with the short hershey bar wing. While I love
the plane, I always wish it could go a bit faster, or use a bit less
fuel to get to my destination.

As a former PA28-180 owner, I can certainly agree with that.

I have followed the composite homebuilding movement for many years,
and am amazed at the sleekness of a composite wing. The wings on most
composites tend to be the complete opposite of a Hersey bar wing:
high aspect ratio, low thickness, no rivets, no screws for fuel
tanks,smooth curves faired into airframe, and streamlined landing gear
structure.

I'm no aerodynamicist, but I have a usenet-opinion. I think at Cherokee
airspeeds the effect of the screw and rivet heads is probably unmeasurable.

I'm not sure whether you're using 'composite' to mean the material from
which the wing is constructed, or the blending of different airfoil shapes.

I don't think the construction material has any effect on the
aerodynamics, but 'composite' materials may make it more economic to
manufacture complex shapes, and may reduce the weight of the resulting
structure.

If you are referring to blended airfoil shapes, look at the difference
between the fat-wing Pipers and the Archer II, Arrow II, etc.

So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?

I'm not volunteering to do the research, but I think with a little (or a
lot) of googling you can find the NACO airfoil on which the
constant-chord fat-wing Piper wing is based, and the NACO report has a
lot of detail about the characteristics of that airfoil. I've looked it
up before, but I've lost the reference.

Not news to you I'm sure, but there is more to wing airfoil choice than
minimizing drag.

At these speeds I suspect surface condition is a small part of the
overall drag.

However!

If the new wing were a couple hundred pounds lighter, then you'd
see some inprovement in speed.

It takes power to stay aloft.

The heavier the plane, the more power is required just to stay up.


Lighter is mo' betta!


Richard

I have helped rig many sailplanes, both composite and conventional aluminum
construction. In almost every case the metal wing are lighter then the
composite. (1-35 and HP-18 aluminum wings are lighter then ASW-20, ASW-27,
and LS-6 composite wings.)

It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped wing
to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have a
better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of the
wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage transition
allow faster speeds.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
news
At these speeds I suspect surface condition is a small part of the
overall drag.

However!

If the new wing were a couple hundred pounds lighter, then you'd
see some inprovement in speed.

It takes power to stay aloft.

The heavier the plane, the more power is required just to stay up.


Lighter is mo' betta!


Richard

Sailplanes are the key to understanding the advantages of composite
structures. Current sailplane design is several decades ahead of composite
airplane design in this area. Sailplane performance MUST come from
aerodynamics and structures since there is no other way to get it. (You
can't cover up a bad airframe design with more power)

Composites are indeed heavier than metal but if carbon fiber is used, not
that much heavier. The real payoff is in the extremely smooth surfaces that
promote natural laminar flow. The payoff is huge across the entire speed
spectrum but highest at the low speed end where the flow is less stable and
more likely to separate if the wing surfaces are rough.

The effect of weight and drag is easy to compute. Just divide the aircraft
weight by L/D ratio to get the drag. Weight has an effect but L/D has a
bigger effect. Slick, high aspect ratio wings are the future.

Bill Daniels


"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...
I have helped rig many sailplanes, both composite and conventional aluminum
construction. In almost every case the metal wing are lighter then the
composite. (1-35 and HP-18 aluminum wings are lighter then ASW-20, ASW-27,
and LS-6 composite wings.)

It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped
wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have
a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of
the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage
transition allow faster speeds.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
news
At these speeds I suspect surface condition is a small part of the
overall drag.

However!

If the new wing were a couple hundred pounds lighter, then you'd
see some inprovement in speed.

It takes power to stay aloft.

The heavier the plane, the more power is required just to stay up.


Lighter is mo' betta!


Richard

Bill Daniels wrote:
Sailplanes are the key to understanding the advantages of composite
structures. Current sailplane design is several decades ahead of composite
airplane design in this area. Sailplane performance MUST come from
aerodynamics and structures since there is no other way to get it. (You
can't cover up a bad airframe design with more power)

Composites are indeed heavier than metal but if carbon fiber is used, not
that much heavier. The real payoff is in the extremely smooth surfaces that
promote natural laminar flow. The payoff is huge across the entire speed
spectrum but highest at the low speed end where the flow is less stable and
more likely to separate if the wing surfaces are rough.

The effect of weight and drag is easy to compute. Just divide the aircraft
weight by L/D ratio to get the drag. Weight has an effect but L/D has a
bigger effect. Slick, high aspect ratio wings are the future.

The trouble is that a little bit of dirt, bugs or ice and you can lose a
lot of lift in a hurry. This may not be a big deal for gliders, but for
powered planes that fly in real weather a more tolerant airfoil isn't
such a bad deal.

Matt

Hi,

I don't see why a composite should be heavier:

For carbon composite, the Young's modulus is ~70GPa for a density of 1.3
g/cm3. Al has the same Young's modulus but twice the density (2.7
g/cm3). For glass the strength is about half but again the weight is
halved too -so it's not a gain over Al. I think the composites excel in
their lack of rivets and joining pieces tho...

Cheers MC


Composites are indeed heavier than metal but if carbon fiber is used, not
that much heavier. The real payoff is in the extremely smooth surfaces that
promote natural laminar flow. The payoff is huge across the entire speed
spectrum but highest at the low speed end where the flow is less stable and
more likely to separate if the wing surfaces are rough..

Bill Daniels


"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...
I have helped rig many sailplanes, both composite and conventional aluminum
construction. In almost every case the metal wing are lighter then the
composite. (1-35 and HP-18 aluminum wings are lighter then ASW-20, ASW-27,
and LS-6 composite wings.)

It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped
wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have
a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of
the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage
transition allow faster speeds.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
news
At these speeds I suspect surface condition is a small part of the
overall drag.

However!

If the new wing were a couple hundred pounds lighter, then you'd
see some inprovement in speed.

It takes power to stay aloft.

The heavier the plane, the more power is required just to stay up.


Lighter is mo' betta!


Richard



------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

("Wayne Paul" wrote)
It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped
wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have
a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of
the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage
transition allow faster speeds.


Can you reword this (for some of us "Huh?" lurkers) especially the wing to
fuselage transition part?

How good/efficient are Cherokee, Ercoupe, Cessna (aluminum & rivet) wing
root fairings vs. what could be achieved with complex composite shapes?

Same question with the wing shape - to hold up the same plane, ALL else
being equal?

So ballpark - how much more efficient would the use of complex composite
construction (wings and wing root transition areas) make these planes - ALL
else being equal?

WAG - same power, weight, fuselage, etc - what improvements would these
planes see in speed, climb, stall, or fuel burn numbers?

Thanks.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Wayne Paul" wrote)
It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped
wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing
have a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag
of the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage
transition allow faster speeds.


Can you reword this (for some of us "Huh?" lurkers) especially the wing to
fuselage transition part?

How good/efficient are Cherokee, Ercoupe, Cessna (aluminum & rivet) wing
root fairings vs. what could be achieved with complex composite shapes?

Same question with the wing shape - to hold up the same plane, ALL else
being equal?

So ballpark - how much more efficient would the use of complex composite
construction (wings and wing root transition areas) make these planes -
ALL else being equal?

WAG - same power, weight, fuselage, etc - what improvements would these
planes see in speed, climb, stall, or fuel burn numbers?

Thanks.


Montblack

Let me make this as simple as possible by simply giving you an example. My
HP-14 (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Borah_Mt.JPG) has a 52 foot
wingspan. The wings were built with flush rivets and have been smoothed by
adding an epoxy/balloon mixture. This is mid 1960 construction techniques
using aluminum construction. My lift to drag ratio is around 36 to 1.
However, new modern sailplanes with composite construction and modern
airfoils that only have 15 meter (just under 50 feet) wingspan have glide
ratios of around 48 to 1.

So with both of my old HP-14 and an ASW-27 (http://tinyurl.com/8lecz) loaded
to have a gross weight of 800 lbs. At best glide speed my HP-14 would have
about 22 lbs of drag while the ASW-27 would have less then 17 lbs of drag..
So the ASW-27 is 30% more efficient then my 14. If my wings did not have
flush rivets and were not smoothed the difference would be even greater.

The same is true with power aircraft. Just compare the Flight Design CT
(http://www.flightdesignusa.com/) with a Cessna 152 or a Cirrus with any
earlier conventionally constructed aircraft of similar weight and
horsepower.

To take these in steps, the wing is the most important, the fuselage shape
is also important and the junction between the wing and fuselage. I am
familiar with a smooth wing metal sailplane that was re-winged with a modern
airfoil. The new wing, has the same area and span. The original
wing/fuselage combination produced a 38 to 1 glide ratio. The updated
combination produced a 42 to 1 glide ratio. That is a 10 percent
improvement. Going from a round riveted wing to a modern airfoil should
provide a 15+% improvement.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"

In article ,
"Montblack" wrote:

("Wayne Paul" wrote)
It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped
wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have
a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of
the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage
transition allow faster speeds.


Can you reword this (for some of us "Huh?" lurkers) especially the wing to
fuselage transition part?

How good/efficient are Cherokee, Ercoupe, Cessna (aluminum & rivet) wing
root fairings vs. what could be achieved with complex composite shapes?

Same question with the wing shape - to hold up the same plane, ALL else
being equal?

So ballpark - how much more efficient would the use of complex composite
construction (wings and wing root transition areas) make these planes - ALL
else being equal?

Paul,
Go to airliners.com or any other site that will have "new" and "old"
airplanes. Pay particular attention to the wing-fuselage junction.
On the old airplanes, the fuselage seems to be just stuck to the wing.
On the new aiplanes, there are HUGE fillets fore and aft of the wing.
This really became a design consideration in the mid-1980's.