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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sinha FCS Deturbulator update
Well, here goes. I'll understand, or try to anyway, if my friends, who used
to think of me as a reasonable, level headed kind of guy, turn and run when they see me coming down the street. Maybe it really didn't happen. Maybe it was only a dream. Maybe it was a calculation error or equipment failure. Maybe someone who really knows how to test aircraft can see a flaw big enough to make it all go away. Maybe I'll just end up with egg on my face and that will be that. But I keep sitting here, looking at this graph, in disbelief. I built the drag rake, constructed and calibrated the pressure sensor, flew the test flights, crunched the numbers, plotted the graphs. I can't just write this off as a kooky claim by someone I never heard of. You have that luxury, not me. Sumon, Dr. Sinha, my long time friend and hydrodynamics professor at Ole Miss, told me a few months ago that he thought we could get 25% profile drag reduction on my Standard Cirrus wing. "Yea, sure," I thought. "We,ll see." He had already demonstrated 18% on an NLF0414F airfoil last year in Starkville, MS. And we easily got the same number at some airspeeds on the first attempt with my glider which has a very different airfoil. "That was about it," I thought. "We lucked into the sweet spot and we probably can't do much better than that." Then, two days ago, last Saturday, October the 18th, Sumon thought he'd try a little modification. I knew before landing that there was some improvement, about 0.12 volts on the pressure sensor at 100 kts and much smaller improvements at low speeds. (With this sensor, 1 volt is 1 inch water gauge pressure.) When I got home and processed the data, there it was. We had essentially doubled the drag reduction we were seeing at speeds over 70 kts and we exceeded 26% improvement at two points, one being the highest tested speed, 100 kts. The average from 50 to 100 kts was 23.7%. We had also corrected a low speed roll off so that we now saw basically flat drag reductions, as a percentage of clean wing values, at all airspeeds from 40 to 100 kts. Maybe it's a fluke, some huge error. Maybe we won't be able to repeat it and that will be that. Or, maybe it's real. For the full details you can take your browser to www.oxaero.com and click the Sinha Deturbulator and Test Results links. So there it is. Don't expect me to defend it. I'm happy to let time be the judge. Fire away! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , jeh1941
@bellsouth.net says... So there it is. Don't expect me to defend it. I'm happy to let time be the judge. Fire away! How about a picture of the device? An explanation of how it works? Results of polar measurements confirming the probe results? An explanation of why you think the pressure measurements the probe measures are directly proportional to drag when it is in only 40% of the "flow"? Why you didn't use little pitot tubes (instead of holes in a block) on the drag rake, as Althaus thinks is necessary? -- !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply directly Eric Greenwell Richland, WA (USA) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Screw that...
Where can we buy it Al "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message .. . In article , jeh1941 @bellsouth.net says... So there it is. Don't expect me to defend it. I'm happy to let time be the judge. Fire away! How about a picture of the device? An explanation of how it works? Results of polar measurements confirming the probe results? An explanation of why you think the pressure measurements the probe measures are directly proportional to drag when it is in only 40% of the "flow"? Why you didn't use little pitot tubes (instead of holes in a block) on the drag rake, as Althaus thinks is necessary? -- !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply directly Eric Greenwell Richland, WA (USA) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You gotta spell things out for us slow kids in the back of the class. Is
the practical relevance that a 40:1 ship becomes a 40:.75? Are you moving the polar curve, flattening it, both, other? Will it fit in a Christmas stocking? Brent "Jim Hendrix" wrote in message .. . Well, here goes. I'll understand, or try to anyway, if my friends, who used to think of me as a reasonable, level headed kind of guy, turn and run when they see me coming down the street. Maybe it really didn't happen. Maybe it was only a dream. Maybe it was a calculation error or equipment failure. Maybe someone who really knows how to test aircraft can see a flaw big enough to make it all go away. Maybe I'll just end up with egg on my face and that will be that. But I keep sitting here, looking at this graph, in disbelief. I built the drag rake, constructed and calibrated the pressure sensor, flew the test flights, crunched the numbers, plotted the graphs. I can't just write this off as a kooky claim by someone I never heard of. You have that luxury, not me. Sumon, Dr. Sinha, my long time friend and hydrodynamics professor at Ole Miss, told me a few months ago that he thought we could get 25% profile drag reduction on my Standard Cirrus wing. "Yea, sure," I thought. "We,ll see." He had already demonstrated 18% on an NLF0414F airfoil last year in Starkville, MS. And we easily got the same number at some airspeeds on the first attempt with my glider which has a very different airfoil. "That was about it," I thought. "We lucked into the sweet spot and we probably can't do much better than that." Then, two days ago, last Saturday, October the 18th, Sumon thought he'd try a little modification. I knew before landing that there was some improvement, about 0.12 volts on the pressure sensor at 100 kts and much smaller improvements at low speeds. (With this sensor, 1 volt is 1 inch water gauge pressure.) When I got home and processed the data, there it was. We had essentially doubled the drag reduction we were seeing at speeds over 70 kts and we exceeded 26% improvement at two points, one being the highest tested speed, 100 kts. The average from 50 to 100 kts was 23.7%. We had also corrected a low speed roll off so that we now saw basically flat drag reductions, as a percentage of clean wing values, at all airspeeds from 40 to 100 kts. Maybe it's a fluke, some huge error. Maybe we won't be able to repeat it and that will be that. Or, maybe it's real. For the full details you can take your browser to www.oxaero.com and click the Sinha Deturbulator and Test Results links. So there it is. Don't expect me to defend it. I'm happy to let time be the judge. Fire away! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I've already stuck my neck out and estimated the effect on a 15 m glider
like mine. You can read that at www.oxaero.com, near the bottom of the page on Dr. Sinha. In about a week I hope to have a good baseline polar for my ship, then we will apply a full span treatment, inner panels first, and see what we get. JEH "303pilot" brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom wrote in message ... You gotta spell things out for us slow kids in the back of the class. Is the practical relevance that a 40:1 ship becomes a 40:.75? Are you moving the polar curve, flattening it, both, other? Will it fit in a Christmas stocking? Brent |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How long will it last ( UV degredation, trailer rash etc )?
How's it fitted? I sent a mail to the inventor of this system about a year ago and didn't even get a response. If you want to market the system you will have to spill the beans on price etc! Ian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ian,
Don't know about UV yet. It is delicate and will require TLC. It sticks on much like turbulator tape and gap seals. Price will be geared to performance. Jim "tango4" wrote in message ... How long will it last ( UV degredation, trailer rash etc )? How's it fitted? I sent a mail to the inventor of this system about a year ago and didn't even get a response. If you want to market the system you will have to spill the beans on price etc! Ian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ahhhh
Nothing to do with the cost of production so much as what the market will stand? I see that the US military have a vested interest in the patents having supplied funding for the development. What percentage will they get from sales? Could be interesting. The US government may prohibit the sale of this item to outside countries under some 'export of technology' legislation. Ian Man, the soaring season is a long way off! "Jim Hendrix" wrote in message . .. Ian, Don't know about UV yet. It is delicate and will require TLC. It sticks on much like turbulator tape and gap seals. Price will be geared to performance. Jim "tango4" wrote in message ... How long will it last ( UV degredation, trailer rash etc )? How's it fitted? I sent a mail to the inventor of this system about a year ago and didn't even get a response. If you want to market the system you will have to spill the beans on price etc! Ian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"tango4" s comments read:
Man, the soaring season is a long way off! A true statement there never was! At the rate that u.r.a.s.b is going there won't be any sane pilots left come spring ... quite funny though ;-) -- Tim - ASW20CL "20" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
At 06:54 22 October 2003, Tango4 wrote:
Ahhhh Nothing to do with the cost of production so much as what the market will stand? I see that the US military have a vested interest in the patents having supplied funding for the development. What percentage will they get from sales? Could be interesting. The US government may prohibit the sale of this item to outside countries under some 'export of technology' legislation. If that were the case, the FAI should ban it from international competitions and world record claims. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|