"cavelamb himself" wrote ...
At these speeds I suspect surface condition is a small part of the
overall drag.

However!

If the new wing were a couple hundred pounds lighter, then you'd
see some inprovement in speed.

It takes power to stay aloft.

The heavier the plane, the more power is required just to stay up.


Richard,

That's not really true for a light airplane. The only place weight shows up
in the drag equation, and thus the power equation, is in the induced drag
term.
But,because the wing on a light airplane is relatively large, the induced
drag at cruise is small. Cruise induced drag is lift coeffients squared
divided Pi e Aspect Ratio. Light airplanes cruise at small lift coeffients
of around 0.1 to 0.2. It can be shown that they will fly the farthest on a
pound of fuel at L/D max. Lift coeffients around 0.6 to 0.8. So, an
increase in airframe weight doesn't increase the cruise power requirements
very much.

Of course, an light airplane could be designed to fly at L/D max but the
wing would be tiny and you'd pay for it on the slow speed end. With a
single engine and relatively inexperienced pilots, it would be a handful at
slow speeds. Both the BD-5 and the Questar venture are examples of under
winged airplanes that have poor engine out safety records.

Where weight does show up is in climb performance. One of the things that
make an airplane "fun" is how well it climbs. You don't spend much time
there in a cross country flight, but a large high aspect ratio wing with
lots of power will give the pilot the feeling that the airplane is a good
flying airplane.

One of the problems I've had in the past is how much should a designer try
to protect a future user of a product? I've decided that a minimalist wing
is a bad design in the light plane market.

Rich