Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:50 AM - Re: Drag Reduction (Scotty)
2. 06:20 AM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (Pete)
3. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (Brian Whittingham)
4. 06:57 AM - Lower Form Factor (stay@caithness.com.au)
5. 07:20 AM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (N1BZRich@AOL.COM)
6. 12:29 PM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (Kayberg@AOL.COM)
7. 12:46 PM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (Brian Whittingham)
8. 01:09 PM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (Brian Whittingham)
9. 01:43 PM - Re: Drag Reduction (Scotty)
10. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Drag Reduction (Brian Whittingham)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Pete, Nick, and Brian,
2 questions:
1. Since there would be (minor or major?) modifications to the airframe, could
the plane be restored to original if the slick mod did not work as advertised?
2. Would it be a good idea, for us, the buyers, and benefactors of this mod to
contribute enough money for the mod to be made to the test plane at Shelbyville?
I would kick in for the project, and I am still in the deciding stage.
This would definitely make me a purchaser if it worked.
Scotty
--------
Old pilots remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102988#102988
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Once we find out what these "slick mods" are we might be able to make an
intelligent decision as to the cost / benefits of these mods.
Right now we don't have anything to go on.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scotty
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction
Pete, Nick, and Brian,
2 questions:
1. Since there would be (minor or major?) modifications to the airframe,
could the plane be restored to original if the slick mod did not work as
advertised?
2. Would it be a good idea, for us, the buyers, and benefactors of this mod
to contribute enough money for the mod to be made to the test plane at
Shelbyville? I would kick in for the project, and I am still in the
deciding stage.
This would definitely make me a purchaser if it worked.
Scotty
--------
Old pilots remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102988#102988
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Scotty,
The device that I'm talking about is removable, at least unless you
wanted to move them. There has to be testing for where they need to be
located on the wing. I believe in previous testing with sailplanes they
found that if they were installed on top and bottom of the wing it was best.
Testing would mean moving them around, doing oil flow experiments to see
where the seperation occured etc. So, yes, it could be made removable.
The idea behind the good doctor's idea was that where the airflow becomes
turbulent, is similar to sound waves that have peaks and valleys. He then
thought about how we now have white noise generators for sound which emits
the equal and opposite sound and cancels it out. So by mounting his devices
a little behind where the boundary layer becomes turbulent, he set up a
completely passive device that will basically vibrate at the opposite
frequency and amplitude, which dampens out the rolling effect that you see
with drag. It doesn't keep the boundary layer attached, but simply dampens
out where it wants to seperate, reducing drag in that area. Active boundary
layer controls (through tiny holes in the wings, either sucking or blowing
air along the surfaces) has found huge gains in efficiency by keeping the
boundary layer more laminar further back along the wings.
I have followed his research since before there was any test data and I was
extremely skeptical. However, with pictures and technical reports published
in peer reviewed journals, and people inviting him to do big talks at
aerodynamics convensions, along with the test data that he took on
sailplanes has made me a believer. It is a complete unknown what will
happen at speeds closer to 200mph on a plane with an engine. Really the
wing doesn't know that there's an engine out there, but the fact that we'd
be going at least 50% faster than the test gliders makes a big difference.
I'm anxious to see what Nick and Pete say and see if we can get the doctor
to come up. Brian W.
From: "Scotty" <mr.scotty@earthlink.net>
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction
Pete, Nick, and Brian,
2 questions:
1. Since there would be (minor or major?) modifications to the airframe,
could the plane be restored to original if the slick mod did not work as
advertised?
2. Would it be a good idea, for us, the buyers, and benefactors of this mod
to contribute enough money for the mod to be made to the test plane at
Shelbyville? I would kick in for the project, and I am still in the
deciding stage.
This would definitely make me a purchaser if it worked.
Scotty
--------
Old pilots remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=102988#102988
_________________________________________________________________
5.5%* 30 year fixed mortgage rate. Good credit refinance. Up to 5 free
quotes - *Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2a5d&s=4056&p=5117&disc=y&vers=910
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Lower Form Factor |
Hi Brian,
A reduction in form factor of that magnitude would be a
"must have" for anyone looking at the Lightning, because
let's face it, anyone contemplating the Lightning is doing
so because of its already impressive performance. The
adrenalin factor knowing you have the fastest little
skyrider around naturally appeals to all of us. Something
like $2000 extra is definitely worth it. The extra range
due to better cruise would be a great offset against the
slightly lower fuel capacity of the Lightning vs other
aircraft. My only concern would be the effects of its
slipperiness on the stall?
Cheers,
Proud winners of the Barossa Wine and Tourism 2006 Award for
Service Excellence !
Irene Scott Smith & Paul Smith
Caithness Manor
12 Hill St West
Angaston South Australia 5353
Phone +618-8564 2761
Mobile 0421 330 614
Cancellation Policy: If you cancel within 14 days of your
arrival date, your deposit will not be refunded. We will
transfer or refund your deposit if you change or cancel
with more than 14 days notice.
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Sounds like a "poor man's" BLC (boundry layer control) like we had on the
F-4. It only came on when the flaps / slats were down / out, but did help
reduce stall speed in the landing configuration by helping to keep the airflow
attached. I suspect he is using some sort of "turbulator tape" installed span
wise on the wings to achieve the same effect. It will probably lower the
stall speed AND decrease the drag at top end therefore resulting in a higher
cruise speed or same cruise speed at less power. Should be a win / win
situation.
Brian, I left a roll of one type of this tape with Nick when I was there
last fall. It was in the box with the gap seal material roll. There are
several types of turbulator tape - the one I left was more for use in front of
control surfaces to make them more effective - such as rudder, elevator, and
ailerons. For you golfers out there, it apparently is the same principal
that makes dimples on golf balls the best design.
Blue Skies,
Buz
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
In a message dated 3/26/2007 9:21:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pete@flylightning.net writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" <pete@flylightning.net>
Once we find out what these "slick mods" are we might be able to make an
intelligent decision as to the cost / benefits of these mods.
Right now we don't have anything to go on.
Pete
I suppose I must throw some sufficiently chilled H2O upon the flames.
I think it is significant that the drag reductions being discussed were
achieved at low speed; glider speeds. Airflow at higher speeds takes on a
different density as I understand it.
Look at it another way. If the major plastic airframe manufacturers,
Cirrus, Columbia, etc COULD achieve sufficient speed increases, they would have
done it. From my reading of Kent Paser's book, the Lightning could only be
refined slightly to achieve some speed increases, in the neighborhood of 5-10
mph.
I do understand that Brian thinks differently. I wish him all the best. I
would love to be proven wrong. But since the days of Jim Bede, to John
Monnet, etc, there are some who claim the moon in terms of speed but it only seems
to occur when they measure it.
Bert Rutan is given credit for building efficient airplanes, but I
discovered the Whitman Tailwind was just as fast as a Long Eze of the same horsepower.
I am building one of his early designs, the Buttercup. It was capable of
140 mph with an 85 hp engine....and was built in 1937!
I am all for improvements. But as Kent Paser noted, once you have made
some of the major cleanups, allof which the Lightning has, the next few MPH
come slowly and at a much greater cost.
Doug Koenigsberg
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Doug,
As I stated before, I have no idea what the particular change that I
mentioned would do. I would hope in an increase in efficiency, but without
doing the flight testing, we have no way of knowing. The particular type of
technology that I mentioned has only been invented recently. I won't say
here what exactly the modification is, but it is a different approach to
aerodynamics I can assure you. Also, I had suggested that the guys at Arion
could do the flight testing, with the devices in place to INDEPENDENTLY
verify the results. That way if it did or did not work, we'd know, before
it was ever offered to any customer. Obviously if it doesn't it isn't a
product that you'd want to offer to customers.
I'm not coming from the point of view of an owner trying to make my own
plane faster. I don't own a Lightning. I'm not coming from the background
of the Arion guys. I'm not trying to sale planes or parts. I am simply
coming from a background of research. Now part of that means that I am
coming into this unbiased on whether it would work or not. Sure, I'd be
impressed if it did, but from a research standpoint it's almost as exciting
if it does not, and figuring out why it does not. I just wanted to see if
this guy did want to test on a Lightning and if it did turn out to
positively effect performance, would it even be something that people
wanted, and what do people want in performance. I could go out and design a
new Concord, but there's no market for it, so it's not feasible. I'm
interested to see one of these devices in real life and see if it is durable
enough to be considered feasable. The F16 with boundary layer control (big
suction device and 1000's of tiny holes drilled into the wing) turned out to
be extremely effective and impressive, but is totally not feasible as bugs
would plug up the holes.
One thing that I know for certain, you can't say it won't work, unless you
test it and verify that it doesn't. Brian W.
From: Kayberg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction
In a message dated 3/26/2007 9:21:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pete@flylightning.net writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" <pete@flylightning.net>
Once we find out what these "slick mods" are we might be able to make an
intelligent decision as to the cost / benefits of these mods.
Right now we don't have anything to go on.
Pete
I suppose I must throw some sufficiently chilled H2O upon the flames.
I think it is significant that the drag reductions being discussed were
achieved at low speed; glider speeds. Airflow at higher speeds takes on a
different density as I understand it.
Look at it another way. If the major plastic airframe manufacturers,
Cirrus, Columbia, etc COULD achieve sufficient speed increases, they would
have
done it. From my reading of Kent Paser's book, the Lightning could only
be
refined slightly to achieve some speed increases, in the neighborhood of
5-10
mph.
I do understand that Brian thinks differently. I wish him all the best. I
would love to be proven wrong. But since the days of Jim Bede, to John
Monnet, etc, there are some who claim the moon in terms of speed but it
only seems
to occur when they measure it.
Bert Rutan is given credit for building efficient airplanes, but I
discovered the Whitman Tailwind was just as fast as a Long Eze of the same
horsepower.
I am building one of his early designs, the Buttercup. It was capable
of
140 mph with an 85 hp engine....and was built in 1937!
I am all for improvements. But as Kent Paser noted, once you have made
some of the major cleanups, allof which the Lightning has, the next few
MPH
come slowly and at a much greater cost.
Doug Koenigsberg
_________________________________________________________________
Its tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMMartagline
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Doug,
I would actually hope more for efficiency than speed. Speed will come
with efficiency, but things like fuel burn, range, and endurance are what I
like. You know, you could do XXX Mph, but if you do XXX - 20mph you'll save
maybe 2.5 Gph fuel burn, or whatever that might be, and still get the lower
fuel burn at the previous speed. Yes, I do realize the faster you go the
more it takes to make a plane go faster. Brian W.
From: Kayberg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction
In a message dated 3/26/2007 9:21:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pete@flylightning.net writes:
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" <pete@flylightning.net>
Once we find out what these "slick mods" are we might be able to make an
intelligent decision as to the cost / benefits of these mods.
Right now we don't have anything to go on.
Pete
I suppose I must throw some sufficiently chilled H2O upon the flames.
I think it is significant that the drag reductions being discussed were
achieved at low speed; glider speeds. Airflow at higher speeds takes on a
different density as I understand it.
Look at it another way. If the major plastic airframe manufacturers,
Cirrus, Columbia, etc COULD achieve sufficient speed increases, they would
have
done it. From my reading of Kent Paser's book, the Lightning could only
be
refined slightly to achieve some speed increases, in the neighborhood of
5-10
mph.
I do understand that Brian thinks differently. I wish him all the best. I
would love to be proven wrong. But since the days of Jim Bede, to John
Monnet, etc, there are some who claim the moon in terms of speed but it
only seems
to occur when they measure it.
Bert Rutan is given credit for building efficient airplanes, but I
discovered the Whitman Tailwind was just as fast as a Long Eze of the same
horsepower.
I am building one of his early designs, the Buttercup. It was capable
of
140 mph with an 85 hp engine....and was built in 1937!
I am all for improvements. But as Kent Paser noted, once you have made
some of the major cleanups, allof which the Lightning has, the next few
MPH
come slowly and at a much greater cost.
Doug Koenigsberg
_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference.Make every IM count for the cause of your choice.
Join Now.
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
It is cliche to say, but people used to swear no one would ever fly in a heavier
than air machine. Now look at us, right in our own garage.
I have a friend who is in the aerospace research department at Ga. Tech. They
are testing in a wind tunnel a helicopter type machine that is directionally controlled
by sound waves. I have questioned him two or three times trying to
understand the physics, but it is WAY WAY over my head. He talks and it goes
into the PFM realm very quickly.
Keep pushing Brian. The door will open someday, by you or someone else.
Scotty
--------
Old pilots remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103064#103064
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Drag Reduction |
Thanks for the vote of confidence Scotty. I by no means suggest that I
fully understand anything about flying. I have got several people from
Middle Tennessee State University aerospace department helping me out, and a
guy from the Penn State aerospace dept. helping me out with my gap seal and
hinge fairing experiment. I'm like you on the next wave of drag reduction,
can't say I understand it at all. Another good reason for testing. If I
can see results, I don't have to necessarily understand it to realize what
the results are saying. Brian W.
From: "Scotty" <mr.scotty@earthlink.net>
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction
It is cliche to say, but people used to swear no one would ever fly in a
heavier than air machine. Now look at us, right in our own garage.
I have a friend who is in the aerospace research department at Ga. Tech.
They are testing in a wind tunnel a helicopter type machine that is
directionally controlled by sound waves. I have questioned him two or three
times trying to understand the physics, but it is WAY WAY over my head. He
talks and it goes into the PFM realm very quickly.
Keep pushing Brian. The door will open someday, by you or someone else.
Scotty
--------
Old pilots remember when flying was dangerous and sex was safe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103064#103064
_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|