New Vent!

On Dec 7, 12:47*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
Do you blokes suffer from major flatulence problems? Seems a lot of effort
to remove air from the cockpit but I could understand if the air was
contaminated in some way :-)

At issue is that ventilation air tends to pressurize the cockpit, and
then leak out around the canopy perimeter. Anywhere that there is air
escaping through the canopy frame gap, that leak will trip the
boundary layer and increase drag. If you can keep the cockpit at lower
than ambient pressure, you run a good chance of maintaining laminar
flow across the gap between the fuselage and the canopy, which can
result in several more square feet of laminar flow than you had
previously.

I happen to think that many original designers got it right; that the
most effective vent is back at the base of the rudder, where it is
convenient to exhaust air around the rudder cable horns.
Unfortunately, something often got lost in translation, and most
production gliders allow too little exhaust area through the vertical
fin spar, causing inadequate ventilation flow and too much cockpit
pressure. They also offer many restrictions on the path from the
cockpit to the tailboom, which reduces the flow rate.

So I think that these trendy exhaust vents, while perhaps not the best
possible solution, are still a lot better than you can get without
removing the rudder and doing some relatively major surgery on the fin
spar.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

On Dec 8, 11:20*am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:47*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:

Do you blokes suffer from major flatulence problems? Seems a lot of effort
to remove air from the cockpit but I could understand if the air was
contaminated in some way :-)

At issue is that ventilation air tends to pressurize the cockpit, and
then leak out around the canopy perimeter. Anywhere that there is air
escaping through the canopy frame gap, that leak will trip the
boundary layer and increase drag. If you can keep the cockpit at lower
than ambient pressure, you run a good chance of maintaining laminar
flow across the gap between the fuselage and the canopy, which can
result in several more square feet of laminar flow than you had
previously.

I happen to think that many original designers got it right; that the
most effective vent is back at the base of the rudder, where it is
convenient to exhaust air around the rudder cable horns.
Unfortunately, something often got lost in translation, and most
production gliders allow too little exhaust area through the vertical
fin spar, causing inadequate ventilation flow and too much cockpit
pressure. They also offer many restrictions on the path from the
cockpit to the tailboom, which reduces the flow rate.

So I think that these trendy exhaust vents, while perhaps not the best
possible solution, are still a lot better than you can get without
removing the rudder and doing some relatively major surgery on the fin
spar.

Thanks, Bob K.http://www.hpaircraft.com

.... and as JS pointed out, many of us fly where it is REALLY hot, with
ambient temperatures of 43c, 110f, and closed cockpit temperature over
55c, 130f. It doesn't take long at that temperature to ruin an
otherwise great flying day.

What keeps rain, wasps, mice, etc. from entering the vent hole when on
the ground?

On Dec 9, 3:11*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
What keeps rain, wasps, mice, etc. from entering the vent hole when on
the ground?

We don't have mice running around on our launch grid and rarely grid
in the rain. Guess I just didn't think
about those problems.
UH

At 08:11 09 December 2010, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
What keeps rain, wasps, mice, etc. from entering the vent hole when on
the ground?



Canopy cover?

My two cents:

- complementing the post by Bob Kuykendal, and as an example, the air
passage though the tailfin spar of an LS8 is comprised of three small
holes with a combined area of barely 3 square inches. Added to the other
constrictions along the way, this means the ventilation pressure drop
occurs mostly after the cockpit. Thus, of course the cockpit will stay
significantly above ambient pressure in an unmodified LS fuselage.

- regarding the reingestion of ballast water (or pee...) at the end of the
tailboom, perhaps it is linked to lower pressures at the top end of the
rudder hinge? The location of the horizontal tailplane on the Genesis
would suggest suction occurs there.

- finally, and after applauding the designers of all these fine new
outlets, perhaps the next step is to locate the inlet in a neutral or even
a low pressure area? Why, you may ask? Because there is no reason in
principle to pursue the highest possible ventilation pressure drop.

With a nose inlet and a turtleneck exit, the total ventilation pressure
drop approaches twice the dynamic pressure of the outside free flow (i.e.
the pressure coefficients may approach +1 at the nose and -1 at the
turtleneck). The power lost to the ventilation flow is the product of this
pressure drop by the flow rate, e.g. at 100 kts a flow rate of 20
litres/second costs 30 Watts. This power is subtracted from the
performance of the glider.

If the inlet is located instead in a neutral pressure area (and the
cross-sections are suitably sized), the same cooling flow will cost only
15 Watts - and the cockpit will achieve an even lower pressure than
before, which is doubly good for performance!

Going further: an inlet may even be located in a moderately negative
pressure area (I envision exchanging the pop-out window for a small
naca-entry connected to a small eyeball vent). The Cp at this location is
about -0.7; with partial pressure recovery, perhaps we get -0.3 in the
cockpit. As the pressure at the turtleneck exit remains even lower, it is
still possible to create an effective airflow. Result: the most
energy-efficient ventilation possible.

Sounds counterintuitive, but should work and be easy to implement in a new
design (existing designs may be constrained by the impossibility of
increasing the cross-section of inlets).

My two cents:

- complementing the post by Bob Kuykendal, and as an example, the air
passage though the tailfin spar of an LS8 is comprised of three small
holes with a combined area of barely 3 square inches. Added to the other
constrictions along the way, this means the ventilation pressure drop
occurs mostly after the cockpit. Thus, of course the cockpit will stay
significantly above ambient pressure in an unmodified LS fuselage.

- regarding the reingestion of ballast water (or pee...) at the end of the
tailboom, perhaps it is linked to lower pressures at the top end of the
rudder hinge? The location of the horizontal tailplane on the Genesis
would suggest suction occurs there.

- finally, and after applauding the designers of all these fine new
outlets, perhaps the next step is to locate the inlet in a neutral or even
a low pressure area? Why, you may ask? Because there is no reason in
principle to pursue the highest possible ventilation pressure drop.

With a nose inlet and a turtleneck exit, the total ventilation pressure
drop approaches twice the dynamic pressure of the outside free flow (i.e.
the pressure coefficients may approach +1 at the nose and -1 at the
turtleneck). The power lost to the ventilation flow is the product of this
pressure drop by the flow rate, e.g. at 100 kts a flow rate of 20
litres/second costs 30 Watts. This power is subtracted from the
performance of the glider.

If the inlet is located instead in a neutral pressure area (and the
cross-sections are suitably sized), the same cooling flow will cost only
15 Watts - and the cockpit will achieve an even lower pressure than
before, which is doubly good for performance!

Going further: an inlet may even be located in a moderately negative
pressure area (I envision exchanging the pop-out window for a small
naca-entry connected to a small eyeball vent). The Cp at this location is
about -0.7; with partial pressure recovery, perhaps we get -0.3 in the
cockpit. As the pressure at the turtleneck exit remains even lower, it is
still possible to create an effective airflow. Result: the most
energy-efficient ventilation possible.

Sounds counterintuitive, but should work and be easy to implement in a new
design (existing designs may be constrained by the impossibility of
increasing the cross-section of inlets).

My two cents:

- complementing the post by Bob Kuykendal, and as an example, the air
passage though the tailfin spar of an LS8 is comprised of three small
holes with a combined area of barely 3 square inches. Added to the other
constrictions along the way, this means the ventilation pressure drop
occurs mostly after the cockpit. Thus, of course the cockpit will stay
significantly above ambient pressure in an unmodified LS fuselage.

- regarding the reingestion of ballast water (or pee...) at the end of the
tailboom, perhaps it is linked to lower pressures at the top end of the
rudder hinge? The location of the horizontal tailplane on the Genesis
would suggest suction occurs there.

- finally, and after applauding the designers of all these fine new
outlets, perhaps the next step is to locate the inlet in a neutral or even
a low pressure area? Why, you may ask? Because there is no reason in
principle to pursue the highest possible ventilation pressure drop.

With a nose inlet and a turtleneck exit, the total ventilation pressure
drop approaches twice the dynamic pressure of the outside free flow (i.e.
the pressure coefficients may approach +1 at the nose and -1 at the
turtleneck). The power lost to the ventilation flow is the product of this
pressure drop by the flow rate, e.g. at 100 kts a flow rate of 20
litres/second costs 30 Watts. This power is subtracted from the
performance of the glider.

If the inlet is located instead in a neutral pressure area (and the
cross-sections are suitably sized), the same cooling flow will cost only
15 Watts - and the cockpit will achieve an even lower pressure than
before, which is doubly good for performance!

Going further: an inlet may even be located in a moderately negative
pressure area (I envision exchanging the pop-out window for a small
naca-entry connected to a small eyeball vent). The Cp at this location is
about -0.7; with partial pressure recovery, perhaps we get -0.3 in the
cockpit. As the pressure at the turtleneck exit remains even lower, it is
still possible to create an effective airflow. Result: the most
energy-efficient ventilation possible.

Sounds counterintuitive, but should work and be easy to implement in a new
design (existing designs may be constrained by the impossibility of
increasing the cross-section of inlets).

On Dec 9, 3:11*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:
What keeps rain, wasps, mice, etc. from entering the vent hole when on
the ground?

The same thing that keeps them from coming in through: the apple core
window, the nose vent, the spar carry through, the wheel well, ie.
nothing :-)

Look at it this way - when the ship's assembled and on the line,
there are lots of easier ways for varmints to get in. When it's
disassmbled in the trailer, there are huge holes where the wings used
to be.

On Dec 9, 1:36*pm, Papa3 wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:11*am, "Matt Herron Jr." wrote:

What keeps rain, wasps, mice, etc. from entering the vent hole when on
the ground?

The same thing that keeps them from coming in through: *the apple core
window, the nose vent, *the spar carry through, the wheel well, *ie.
nothing *:-)

Look at it this way - *when the ship's assembled and on the line,
there are lots of easier ways for varmints to get in. *When it's
disassmbled in the trailer, there are huge holes where the wings used
to be.

Well rain could be an issue in flight particularly if all the inlet
vents are closed to keep the water out. Maybe the MkII version will
have a remote controlled closing flap.

I'm more interested in real performance numbers though. I don't mind
getting the back of my head wet a couple of times a year for a gain 50
fpm at 90 kts. 0.001 fpm at 90 kts and maybe it's not worth the risk
of getting wet.

Andy