A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Blow holes vs turbulaator tape.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #3  
Old October 24th 16, 01:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Michael Opitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Blow holes vs turbulaator tape.

At 23:54 23 October 2016, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Just curious if there is research that compares blow holes versus

tabulator
tape as to effectiveness and drag? i.e., are the bow holes worth

the
maintenance or is tape effectively just as good? Does the new

Ventus have
tape or blow holes?


That subject goes back over 30 years. As I recall, the blowholes
would be better performance-wise if they could be regulated to blow
really strongly at low speeds, and then blow only a little at higher
speeds. To do this, one needs a large inlet to supply enough air to
the ducts at thermalling speeds. Then, you have to shut that
supply down to a trickle when cruising at higher speeds. This goes
backwards to just having a fixed size inlet that is not adjustable in
flight. One would have to have an extendable scoop on each wing
that the pilot could extend and retract depending on airspeed to
achieve this.

Anyway, the Z-tape works pretty well, is cheap to install, and is
easy to maintain. The blowholes are labor intensive both in
construction ($) and in maintenance.

I had DG-300 serial number 2, which was one of the first gliders
with this technology. Back in 1983-1985, I did side by side
comparison tests with the blowhole system working on the regular
fixed size inlets. Then, I repeated the (side by side) tests with the
inlets removed (to nullify the blowholes), and used Z-tape for the
turbulation instead.

I could not see any measurable performance difference between
blowholes (with fixed size inlet) and Z-tape. There were arguments
about the Standard Class rules to the point that there would have
been protests filed if I had come up with and used a variable inlet
scoop, so I left it alone.

So, long story short. The Z-tape is a lot cheaper and easier, and
yields good results. If you are in a class which would allow inlet
size adjustment in flight, and you have lots of money to pay for the
installation, and lots of time to spend maintaining all of of those tiny
holes, then you might see a marginal improvement over Z-tape.

That's how I remember it, although it was a long time ago, and the
blowhole technology may have gotten better.....FWIW

RO

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another Blow to Airbus a[_3_] Piloting 52 August 19th 10 10:49 AM
To blow or not to blow... Dallas Piloting 50 February 15th 08 12:57 PM
oil blow out IO-360 Robert M. Gary Piloting 18 July 17th 06 04:44 PM
oil blow out IO-360 Robert M. Gary Owning 18 July 17th 06 04:44 PM
When Poorboys drill holes ...was: Drilling holes in steel tubing wright1902glider Home Built 4 November 4th 05 01:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.