![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
J. Nieuwenhuize wrote, On 7/7/2014 12:13 PM:
I asked around a bit in Delft. Seems no documented in-flight tests have been done, at least I couldn't get hold of them. Surprising given how simple that'd really be, though a respirator might be advisable... Problem of course is that in wind tunnels we don't have seems, nor are levels of ambient turbulence anywhere as low as in the atmosphere. I guess Britton is referring to wind tunnels tests like these performed in Delft? http://www.dropbox.com/s/354b4wpodglrw7j/Untitled.jpg There it's just the effect of the wing/fuselage intersection that pushes the transition point forward. What I'm wondering about is whether flow over the canopy looks anything like the above test, or we basically have a mostly turbulent canopy, with turbulent wedges originating from all over the canopy seam. Because if that's the case, a fully flush canopy (that by definition would have to slide fwd for ingress) would cause a major drag reduction. Something like the MOBA: http://www.dropbox.com/s/vozyc6qby8x...bafullview.jpg Based on a conversation with Gerhard Waibel 10-15 years ago, the modern glider canopy is almost entirely laminar. The yaw string will cause a wedge of turbulent flow behind it; consequently, he recommended attaching the yaw string as far aft as possible. I've observed evidence of his statement when in flying cool, humid conditions. A wedge of condensation will form inside the canopy, behind the yaw sting, but nowhere else (except possibly some of the rearmost portions of the canopy). I attribute this to the turbulent air cooling the canopy under it more than the laminar air elsewhere. It's my understanding a well-done canopy seam at the front does not trip the laminar flow into turbulent flow, because the expanding cross-section of the fuselage in that area produces pressure distributions that promote laminar flow. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1 - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laminar flow demo? | CaveLamb | Home Built | 6 | October 28th 10 05:04 PM |
Oil for flow vis | Steve Leonard | Soaring | 0 | December 6th 07 12:40 AM |
Cherokee 140 - LASAR vs. Powerflow vs. Laminar Speed Kit | EridanMan | Piloting | 23 | June 29th 06 04:43 PM |
Cherokee 140 - LASAR vs. Powerflow vs. Laminar Speed Kit | EridanMan | Owning | 23 | June 29th 06 04:43 PM |
V8 fuel flow | Robert Bates | Home Built | 34 | January 24th 05 03:41 AM |