![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After three years of working to configure Sumon Sinha's deturbulator
tapes for my Standard Cirrus, we finally brought it to Caddo Mills for one of those Johnson flight test evaluations. He and Jeff Baird flew it six times with those shiny silver strips on the wings, then three times without. What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out. Dick, as usual, will tell it straight. Will you laugh? Will you be dumbfounded? Will you believe? Jim Hendrix |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim,
Is it a passive system, no current? Mike OxAero wrote: After three years of working to configure Sumon Sinha's deturbulator tapes for my Standard Cirrus, we finally brought it to Caddo Mills for one of those Johnson flight test evaluations. He and Jeff Baird flew it six times with those shiny silver strips on the wings, then three times without. What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out. Dick, as usual, will tell it straight. Will you laugh? Will you be dumbfounded? Will you believe? Jim Hendrix |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I should have acknowledged that the testing at Caddo Mills is funded by the Dallas Gliding Assocation (DGA). They perform a great service for the soaring community by sponsoring Dick Johnson's flight test evaluations. Jim Hendrix On Dec 29, 7:37 pm, "OxAero" wrote: After three years of working to configure Sumon Sinha's deturbulator tapes for my Standard Cirrus, we finally brought it to Caddo Mills for one of those Johnson flight test evaluations. He and Jeff Baird flew it six times with those shiny silver strips on the wings, then three times without. What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out. Dick, as usual, will tell it straight. Will you laugh? Will you be dumbfounded? Will you believe? Jim Hendrix |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike,
Yes, it is passive. Dr. Sinha started his research with active surfaces. He used them both as sensors to frequency content in the flow and drivers to control the flow. He eventually learned that you can dispense with the complications of electrical control simply by using the energy present in the flow-surface interaction. Think of filtering attached turbulence flows into frequencies that are hard to maintain down stream. Jim On Dec 29, 8:23 pm, "Mike" wrote: Jim, Is it a passive system, no current? Mike OxAero wrote: After three years of working to configure Sumon Sinha's deturbulator tapes for my Standard Cirrus, we finally brought it to Caddo Mills for one of those Johnson flight test evaluations. He and Jeff Baird flew it six times with those shiny silver strips on the wings, then three times without. What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out. Dick, as usual, will tell it straight. Will you laugh? Will you be dumbfounded? Will you believe? Jim Hendrix- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That link refers to the preliminary data from Dick, as I viewed it.
You will have to get Dick's evaluation directly from him, hopefully at the convention. I am am an optimist. As such, I want to think that the old question "Does it work?" will now change to "How well does it work?" That should produce a lively debate since what you believe depends highly on your interpretation of the data we to date from an as yet unperfected device that exhibits large anomalies depending on temperature, humidity, rate of change of altitude and on airspeed. The problem is "How do you pick meaningful data about a changing phenomenon out of sink rate measurements that always contain scatter and bias from convection in the air?" Jim Hendrix (The Johnson deturbulator flight tests were sponsored by Dallas Glider Association.) On Dec 30, 11:44 am, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote: On 29 Dec 2006 17:37:16 -0800, "OxAero" wrote: What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out.Or readhttp://sinhatech.com/SinhaFCSD-Progress-12132006.asp -A -- Hvis bruger et anti-spam program, der spammer os andre i hvert eneste indlęg, ser jeg ikke dine indlęg. Jeg filtrerer dem bort. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() OxAero wrote: After three years of working to configure Sumon Sinha's deturbulator tapes for my Standard Cirrus, we finally brought it to Caddo Mills for one of those Johnson flight test evaluations. He and Jeff Baird flew it six times with those shiny silver strips on the wings, then three times without. What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out. Dick, as usual, will tell it straight. Will you laugh? Will you be dumbfounded? Will you believe? Jim Hendrix It is nice, but will it work on something other than an antique glider? Is it better than just putting on zig-zag tape? The tests are interesting, but mean nothing without direct comparisons to standard treatments and on a modern airfoil. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The point is well taken that the Cirrus has a rather thick "first generation
glass" profile. It does produce both top and bottom separation bubbles, and these tend to move, making the exercise of removing them more difficult. This is why you will seldom see a std Cirrus with deturbulator tape - it does not appear to work very well except at specific speeds. I agree it may be harder to show large improvements on better behaved airfoils, but I suspect the old Wortman is a good place to find out if it works in difficult conditions. I presume Dr Sinha had a reason for choosing it beyond availability. In fact it does not have a separation bubble, but will have a transition bubble (If it had a separation bubble no one would want to fly it) The Laminar transition is relative stable and moves only about 3% to 5% chord, top and bottom at all normal operating speeds. There are two thing that can help improve "that airfoil" reduce the size of the transition bubble and reduce the thickness of the turbulent boundary layer. That this may be the case can be seen by the rather large improvement in lower speeds and less so at a higher speeds. I doubt a modern airfoil can be improved much in this way. How can a 90% laminar flow surface be improved, compared to the 40% on the Cirrus wing. There is still the top surface of a modern wing airfoil, but even there 66% can easily be obtained. I could see an application right there for a 1% improvement. Since a lot of competitor will spent $1500 plus on winglets to get a 1% point improvement, I would not be surprised to see this enhancement appearing on newer gliders some time in the future on the competition scene, if it works, the price is right and is easily maintained. Udo |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 1, 10:36 am, "Udo" wrote:
The point is well taken that the Cirrus has a rather thick "first generation glass" profile. It does produce both top and bottom separation bubbles, and these tend to move, making the exercise of removing them more difficult. This is why you will seldom see a std Cirrus with deturbulator tape - it does not appear to work very well except at specific speeds. I agree it may be harder to show large improvements on better behaved airfoils, but I suspect the old Wortman is a good place to find out if it works in difficult conditions. I presume Dr Sinha had a reason for choosing it beyond availability.In fact it does not have a separation bubble, but will have a transition bubble (If it had a separation bubble no one would want to fly it) The Laminar transition is relative stable and moves only about 3% to 5% chord, top and bottom at all normal operating speeds. There are two thing that can help improve "that airfoil" reduce the size of the transition bubble and reduce the thickness of the turbulent boundary layer. That this may be the case can be seen by the rather large improvement in lower speeds and less so at a higher speeds. I doubt a modern airfoil can be improved much in this way. How can a 90% laminar flow surface be improved, compared to the 40% on the Cirrus wing. There is still the top surface of a modern wing airfoil, but even there 66% can easily be obtained. I could see an application right there for a 1% improvement. Since a lot of competitor will spent $1500 plus on winglets to get a 1% point improvement, I would not be surprised to see this enhancement appearing on newer gliders some time in the future on the competition scene, if it works, the price is right and is easily maintained. Udo To further emphasize Udo's point, for the Antares: The boundary layer remains laminar up to 95% of the wing chord on the lower surface of the wing, at which point turbulent flow is triggered using turbulator tape in order to avoid laminar separation bubbles. Research performed for Lange Flugzeugbau have shown that there is no discernable difference in performance between a well designed turbulator tape and triggering the boundary layer through blowing. On the on the upper surface, the boundary layer remains laminar up to 75% of the wing chord. This is the highest value currently available. How much savings could be obtained in this case, and what would be its impact on the glider performance ? Perhaps someone more expert than I could calculate this. We could ask Loek Boermans perhaps... Best Regards, Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1. Yes, it was first tested for velocity profile on an NLF-0414 laminar
wing (http://sinhatech.com/SinhaBackground.asp). 2. Much better than zig zag. 3. Work has started on a SparrowHawk configuration. Jim Hendrix On Dec 31 2006, 10:14 pm, wrote: OxAero wrote: After three years of working to configure Sumon Sinha's deturbulator tapes for my Standard Cirrus, we finally brought it to Caddo Mills for one of those Johnson flight test evaluations. He and Jeff Baird flew it six times with those shiny silver strips on the wings, then three times without. What did they learn? Come to the Convention in Memphis to find out. Dick, as usual, will tell it straight. Will you laugh? Will you be dumbfounded? Will you believe? Jim HendrixIt is nice, but will it work on something other than an antique glider? Is it better than just putting on zig-zag tape? The tests are interesting, but mean nothing without direct comparisons to standard treatments and on a modern airfoil. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFI without commercial? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 75 | December 8th 10 04:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
ramifications of new TSA rules on all non-US and US citizen pilots | paul k. sanchez | Piloting | 19 | September 27th 04 11:49 PM |