---------------------------------------------------------- Lightning-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 03/26/07: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:18 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction From: "Scotty" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:44 AM PST US From: "Pete" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:11 AM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:57:08 AM PST US From: "stay@caithness.com.au" Subject: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:20:05 AM PST US From: N1BZRich@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:29:16 PM PST US 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:46:08 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:09:29 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: Re: Lightning-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:43:33 PM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: Drag Reduction From: "Scotty" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:22 PM PST US From: "Brian Whittingham" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: 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" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message lightning-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Lightning-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/lightning-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/lightning-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.