If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
("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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote: A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model. Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron... And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't everyone? I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good 30 knots slower on the same fuel burn. -Robert |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model. Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron... And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't everyone? I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good 30 knots slower on the same fuel burn. -Robert I agree with you but I'd bet insurance and the cost of up keep added because of the retrac gear has a lot to do with it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
On 03/28/07 14:19, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote: On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model. Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron... And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't everyone? I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good 30 knots slower on the same fuel burn. -Robert I agree with you but I'd bet insurance and the cost of up keep added because of the retrac gear has a lot to do with it. Not to mention I could fit in a 180, but not a Mooney (although that is changing...) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
"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" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
On Mar 28, 2:27 pm, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 03/28/07 14:19, Gig 601XL Builder wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model. Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron... And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't everyone? I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good 30 knots slower on the same fuel burn. -Robert I agree with you but I'd bet insurance and the cost of up keep added because of the retrac gear has a lot to do with it. Not to mention I could fit in a 180, but not a Mooney (although that is changing...)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You do have to be a bit tall to fly a Mooney. I'm 6'4" and fit fine but my partner is 5'10" and has a tough time reaching the rudders. -Robert |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:51:57 GMT, 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. With about 375 hours in a Cherokee 180 and about 1200 in a straight tail Beechcraft (Debonair) my take it this. I like the 180 better than the Archer even though the Archer lookes nicer with that taper wing and is a bit faster. That constant cord, thick wing makes the 180 one of the most docile airplanes you will find and it still has pretty good performance. Very good climb and tremendous at getting into short fields with the steep descent. I can't see as a gallon or two over the range of the Cherokee, or Archer is going to be worth worrying about....although we did have one guy land ours with 1/2 gallon of fuel on board (all in one tank). He'd flown the same trip (St Louis Mo to Midland, MI) so many times he never paid any attention to the time and this time coming home he had one bodatios head wind. (and a LOT OF LUCK! Having flown Both the 180 and the Deb in torrential rain I can say I'd much prefer a thicker windsheild to prettier wings. It was deafening! As to fuel, we flew the 180 down to Muncie IN to pick up the Deb. My friend took off well ahead of me, but I passed him before we reached Ft Wayne. I was back in Midland, had the Deb put away in the hangar and was having a cup of coffee in the terminal building when I head him call in. When they filled the Cherokee up, I found I had used less than one gallon more to cover the same route at close to 190 MPH. I had to ferry the Deb up to HTL to have some work done on the gear which meant leaving it down. Now that's using gas. The speed was about the same as the Cherokee but burning about 14 1/2 GPH. 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 I'm glad you said most. I'm building a Glasair III and a high aspect ratio it doesn't have. Wing span is a tad over 23' with a 4' wide fuselage in the middle so that makes each wing about 9 1/2 feet long. It also has almost 30# per square foot of wing loading on that tiny wing but it sure does go. Built like a tank too. If you think the 180 has a steep descent you should fly a G-III once. :-)) Normal is about 2000 fpm power off. 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? That's a diffiuclt question to answer because there are so many variables. You could easily end up with a wing that could travel far faster than the rest of the structure could handle. On the Cherokee the landing gear presents a lot of drag. To maintain at least the handleing characteristics of the Archer you probably ould not get much faster than an Archer. To simply replace the wing with a composit one of the same design would most likely make little difference. All airplanes are a group of compromises. The 180 is the only plane I've ever flown where I could put it into a full stall, hold the elevator full up and still use the ailerons in turns. (with careful application) Almost any changes are going to result in a plane that is less forgiving. It's very difficult to hold the Deb in a stall without having it drop a wing. It's like balancing on a tight rope and if you touch an aileron to raise a wing, that wing will instead go down (abruptly) and you will most likely roll into a spin. Speed comes at a price. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?
("john smith" wrote)
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. Wheel pants, gap seals, ....and HUGE new fiberglass fillets (fore and aft). Are they part of everyday speed-mod packages? If so, what is the "anecdotal" gain, after installing (just) them? I've read reports on wheel pants, on gap seals, and on Power Flow exhaust systems, but not on aftermarket fillets for the GA fleet. http://www.powerflowsystems.com/ Montblack airliners ...net? :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
fixed wing or rotary wing? | Craig Campbell | Rotorcraft | 23 | March 27th 07 06:16 AM |
High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa? | Jack Allison | Owning | 99 | January 27th 05 11:10 AM |
composite wing, wing spars | Dave Schneider | Home Built | 4 | May 21st 04 05:35 AM |
Fuel Dip Tube for Hershey-bar Wing Cherokees? | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 3 | May 3rd 04 10:29 PM |
Mylar tape wing seals - effect on wing performance | Simon Waddell | Soaring | 8 | January 1st 04 03:46 PM |