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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Jay wrote:
You bring up a good point about sailplane wings having the best L/D ratios. But why not take each of those sailplane wings and put one over the top of the other? Because a single wing of equivalent area but longer span will be more efficient in terms of drag. Biplanes are a simple, but inefficient, way of getting more lift from wing area when an increase in span is not feasible. The are not, nor in general are they intended to be, "low drag." You mentioned the interference drag, so how far do wings need to be vertically separated for a given airfoil and stagger for this effect to be negligable? *negligible?* Some *large* fraction of the span. At a minimum. Some airplanes are able to use the interaction for benefit, but it's usually for things like lift improvement at high AOA. Drag reduction requires doing things at the tips to make the wings 'think' they are longer and thus have a higher AR. Just slapping another wing on there ain't gonna do it. Sometimes the rat maze requires the rats (RAH) to back up and choose another path, which in the short term means he is actually retreating from the cheese (speed). And knowing where to depart from the maze requires either a foundation in basic principles or blind luck. Given the well- known relationship between drag and aspect ratio, these principles lead most people *away from*, not *to* biplanes for drag reduction. How 'bout a challenge: I can show you mathematically and using physical relationships why (without aerodynamic treatments like winglets or conjoined wings) two wings will produce more drag than a single wing of equivalent area but higher aspect ratio. Your challenge: Prove the physics wrong. Show how a second wing will result in less drag. Show me the math. Dave 'usenet wind tunnel' Hyde |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
Maybe with todays technology that could be achievable.But for right now all I can do is repeat what one of my Aero teachers said " the Indians knew which end of the arrow to put the feathers" and "when did you ever see birds with their tails where their beaks oughta be?" Although flying wings are achieving with computers flight efficiency that here to fore was impossible with pilot only control systems. Northrop was farther advanced with airframes then the electronics industry was with computers. See ya Chuck I wonder what one could do with a canard if you eliminated the need to have the main wing stall before the canard? Seems like a fly-by-wire sort of system could sense when the wing was about to stall and limit canard up-travel to prevent it happening. Or the plane could incorporate a system to provide sudden downforce if the plane started to pitch up (compressed-air jets in the nose, etc.). Seems a pity that you have to avoid operations at the wing's highest efficiency points in an otherwise efficient design. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hyde says...
Don't bet any big money cause Dave (usenet wind tunnel) Hyde is right. Just think, if he was wrong we'd be seeing Biplane Boeing 777's,these guys spend millions to get a couple percent increased efficiency on their transports. Better believe if a biplane was more efficient they'd be doing it. No if's, ands, or buts. :-) Chuck(Lewis 10X10 wind tunnel) S How 'bout a challenge: I can show you mathematically and using physical relationships why (without aerodynamic treatments like winglets or conjoined wings) two wings will produce more drag than a single wing of equivalent area but higher aspect ratio. Your challenge: Prove the physics wrong. Show how a second wing will result in less drag. Show me the math. Dave 'usenet wind tunnel' Hyde |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Hyde says...
Yup that sure would have changed that Turkeys perspective.He no longer was seeing where he was going but where he was. Chuck (I turkey hunt with a shot gun) S ChuckSlusarczyk wrote: "when did you ever see birds with their tails where their beaks oughta be?" When I drove through a turkey at 65 mph. Dave 'last thing on his mind' Hyde |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"John Oliveira" wrote in message ... | The only one I know of is the Lionheart - Semi Replica of Beech Stagger | Wing. | | Fast, caries high load, round engine. Looking at Griffon's web site lately, they seem to talk about the Lionheart in only a historical context and customer support. It does not appear that they are producing kits any more. The Lionheart is (was) an exceptionally pretty airplane. It seemed that the cabin load and volume were comparable to a Cherokee Six. IIRC (and I don't always) Kitplane wrote a pilot report and had some adverse comments regarding stability or handling but I sensed they were hopeful those things could be resolved; some of the problem perhaps being related to mis-rigging after the plane was painted. There were built two aircraft built by folks other than the company that were lost in accidents on the runway although (again relying on memory) one occurred on takeoff and one on landing. Sadly, one was on its maiden flight. I don't recall any common root or contributory causes. I tried to go by and see the prototype once when I was in Huntsville, AL but I had no luck. Take care . . . John |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"John Oliveira" wrote in message ... | The only one I know of is the Lionheart - Semi Replica of Beech Stagger | Wing. | | Fast, caries high load, round engine. Looking at Griffon's web site lately, they seem to talk about the Lionheart in only a historical context and customer support. It does not appear that they are producing kits any more. Follow-Up Message. I looked at the NTSB site and gear design was mentioned in the findings for both Lionheart accidents. I'm not an engineer, so I leave it up to the rest of you to consider the information. Sad though because I still think it was a drop-dead beautiful airplane. John |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Hyde wrote in message ...
Thanks for taking the time to make insightful comments on the discussion. Because a single wing of equivalent area but longer span will be more efficient in terms of drag. Biplanes are a simple, but inefficient, way of getting more lift from wing area when an increase in span is not feasible. The are not, nor in general are they intended to be, "low drag." You must understand that when I say "biplane" I'm not talking about a Jenny or Spad, I just mean an airplane that meets the requirement of having 2 lifting surfaces. I understand those early designs were optimized for the heavy powerplants and weak construction materials of the era, and had high drag wings that developed a lot of lift at low speeds. *negligible?* Some *large* fraction of the span. At a minimum. Some airplanes are able to use the interaction for benefit, but it's usually for things like lift improvement at high AOA. Drag reduction requires doing things at the tips to make the wings 'think' they are longer and thus have a higher AR. Just slapping another wing on there ain't gonna do it. Okay, I think you nailed the departure of my logic from yours. I don't believe that span is in the formula (at least not in high order). I think its a function of the airfoil dimensions (chord, thinkness, shape) and stagger. I do realize that near the fusalage/tip there is disturbance but this diminishes as you move away on the span. Imagine that you're an air molecule; how do you know if you're 5' or 10' along the wing? You don't, when the wing comes along, you just move along the bottom or zip across the top. I know that the rule of thumb is higher aspect, higher efficiency (L/D), but this is only part of the story. That rule makes an assumption of a single wing. That is to say, assuming you only have a single wing, and you need to decide how you can distribute your square feet of area, you'd pick a long skinny wing. And knowing where to depart from the maze requires either a foundation in basic principles or blind luck. Given the well- known relationship between drag and aspect ratio, these principles lead most people *away from*, not *to* biplanes for drag reduction. Thats the problem with rules of thumb, often the people using them forget the assumptions that went into the rule. How 'bout a challenge: I can show you mathematically and using physical relationships why (without aerodynamic treatments like winglets or conjoined wings) two wings will produce more drag than a single wing of equivalent area but higher aspect ratio. Your challenge: Prove the physics wrong. Show how a second wing will result in less drag. Show me the math. That sounds like a fun challenge. I think we're going to have to speak in realtionships instead of mathematic expression because we're using the usenet as our white board. Okay, why don't you start off by showing me how span comes into the relationship of air moving over a wing's airfoil. Dave 'usenet wind tunnel' Hyde There was someone that commented that if 2 lifting surfaces made sense, you'd see the 777 with 2 wings because they're Boeing and have lots of money and super human engineers. I've worked for lots of companies like Boeing (but not them because they tried to low ball me) and they're made up of regular guys like you and me. Many of them have interests and responsibility outside of designing the best aircraft ever, and really just want to pay their bills and go home and have a beer. You work as one guy in a huge machine where decisions are often made on what's politicaly the best answer rather than what's technically best. You get one tiny componant of this huge project. These kinds of organizations often punish risk taking in that there is no upside pay-off if you're right. But if you're wrong, and it was because you did something different than before, you get hammered. So the larger the project, the more conservative the approach tends to be. Remember, bean counters hate risk of any kind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a fast light plane | Dave lentle | Home Built | 2 | August 6th 03 03:41 AM |
Glass Goose | Dr Bach | Home Built | 1 | August 3rd 03 05:51 AM |