Hershey bar wing vs composite wing - how much drag?

"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

On Mar 28, 8:51 am, Nathan Young wrote:
I have a Cherokee 180, with the short hershey bar wing. While I love
the plane, I always wish it could go a bit faster, or use a bit less
fuel to get to my destination.

I have followed the composite homebuilding movement for many years,
and am amazed at the sleekness of a composite wing. The wings on most
composites tend to be the complete opposite of a Hersey bar wing:
high aspect ratio, low thickness, no rivets, no screws for fuel
tanks,smooth curves faired into airframe, and streamlined landing gear
structure.

So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?

I can't remember if it was Kitplanes or SportAviation that had a
recent article on a Piper knockoff being produced as a kitplane in
South Africa. That might be a good starting point for the difference
in performance between the different planes as well as a discussion of
the differences in design and construction. Much of the difference
has to do with better airfoil designs being used but also weight
differences.

On Mar 28, 6:51 am, Nathan Young wrote:
I have a Cherokee 180, with the short hershey bar wing. While I love
the plane, I always wish it could go a bit faster, or use a bit less
fuel to get to my destination.

I have followed the composite homebuilding movement for many years,
and am amazed at the sleekness of a composite wing. The wings on most
composites tend to be the complete opposite of a Hersey bar wing:
high aspect ratio, low thickness, no rivets, no screws for fuel
tanks,smooth curves faired into airframe, and streamlined landing gear
structure.

So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?

A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model.

Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron...

And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't
everyone?

On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:



A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model.

Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron...

And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't
everyone?

I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are
pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good
30 knots slower on the same fuel burn.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:



A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model.

Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron...

And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't
everyone?

I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are
pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good
30 knots slower on the same fuel burn.

-Robert

I agree with you but I'd bet insurance and the cost of up keep added because
of the retrac gear has a lot to do with it.

On 03/28/07 14:19, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Blanche wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:



A fast Cherokee is also known as a Mooney C model.

Hm...I always thought "fast cherokee" was an oxymoron...

And yes, I own a cherokee 180. Would I like faster? Sure! Wouldn't
everyone?

I think part of my point is that the price of the 180 and the M20C are
pretty close. I'm not sure why people choose the 180 when its a good
30 knots slower on the same fuel burn.

-Robert

I agree with you but I'd bet insurance and the cost of up keep added because
of the retrac gear has a lot to do with it.



Not to mention I could fit in a 180, but not a Mooney (although that is
changing...)

According to my copy of Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight mechanics By
McCormick pub by Wiley 1979 page 192.
"The rectangular wing used on many light single-engine aircraft, the induced
drag is seen to be about 6% or higher than that for the elliptical wing for
aspect ratios of 6 or higher"

The elliptical wing produces the minimum induced drag.
OTOH its dam all expensive to manufacture in sheet metal

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
I have a Cherokee 180, with the short hershey bar wing. While I love
the plane, I always wish it could go a bit faster, or use a bit less
fuel to get to my destination.

I have followed the composite homebuilding movement for many years,
and am amazed at the sleekness of a composite wing. The wings on most
composites tend to be the complete opposite of a Hersey bar wing:
high aspect ratio, low thickness, no rivets, no screws for fuel
tanks,smooth curves faired into airframe, and streamlined landing gear
structure.

So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?

Nathan Young wrote:


So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?

You may take the other side of your question.

You choose a composite plane (ie Lancair) with the same engine.
You take the 75% cruising speed of the lancair (V-lancair)
You take the Cherokee 75% cruising speed (V-cher)

If you want the same speed for your plane, you need more HP

The formula is HP=180 * (V-lancair/ V-cher)³

You may do the reverse: how many HP the lancair need for the Cherokee
speed....

You know the cost of drag....

But don't think all drag is from wing, part of drag is from fuselage and
a roomy fuselage will generate more drag.
But the comfort is in roomy fuselage


By
--
Volem rien foutre al païs!
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Philippe Vessaire wrote:

Nathan Young wrote:



So my question: How much drag does a wing on a Hersey Bar Cherokee
generate, and and hypothetically speaking, how much faster could the
plane go if it was retooled with a sleek, composite wing?


You may take the other side of your question.

You choose a composite plane (ie Lancair) with the same engine.
You take the 75% cruising speed of the lancair (V-lancair)
You take the Cherokee 75% cruising speed (V-cher)

If you want the same speed for your plane, you need more HP

The formula is HP=180 * (V-lancair/ V-cher)³

You may do the reverse: how many HP the lancair need for the Cherokee
speed....

You know the cost of drag....

But don't think all drag is from wing, part of drag is from fuselage and
a roomy fuselage will generate more drag.
But the comfort is in roomy fuselage


By

And a LOT of the drag is from cooling the engine!
There is an ideal place for big gains.

Richard