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 » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why don't wings have dimples 2



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 23rd 09, 01:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Anyolmouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2


"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Dancing Fingers wrote:
The thing of it is that the car they used, as I remember, also had a
very aerodynamic shape and it still helped.


Disagree - it was not "aerodynamic" on the downstream side.

Do you recall when they showed the wind tunnel and water tank tests?

Do you
recall seeing that there was an area behind the car with turbulent

air?
Well if the car had been elongated so that the body tapered off such

that
it filled that area of turbulence, then I suspect they would have

gotten
different results.

Check out the following site:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/shaped.html

Notice that the prism has a slightly lower drag coefficient than the

flat
plate. As that web site states "Comparing the flat plate and the

prism, and
the sphere and the bullet, we see that the downstream shape can be

modified
to reduce drag."


I wonder if they would have gotten the same results by attaching a foil
to direct some of the air down from the trunk to make the turbulent area
smaller. Back in the '70s an uncle of mine attached one to the rear of
his station wagon to keep the rear window cleaner. He swore it helped
his gas mileage as well.

--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo

Anyolmouse

  #12  
Old October 23rd 09, 02:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Dancing Fingers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2

I'm just wondering if any aero student, for their senior or masters
project, ever built a model with dimples and put it in a wind tunnel.
Remember the Mythbusters didn't expect this results based on the dirty
car which got worst mileage. This would suggest that a deliberately
designed airfoil, with certain embedded geometric shapes, could effect
drag under certain conditions.


Chris
  #13  
Old October 23rd 09, 03:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
vaughn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2


"bildan" wrote in message
...
Aerodynamisists have been trying to create "surface treatments" to
improve laminar flow for a century. So far, the mirror smooth
surfaces of sailplanes are best.


There is a guy, a Dr. Sinha, (http://sinhatech.com/) claiming to have
something called a "deturbulator" which is a sort of flexible tape
stuck on wing surfaces. If it works, and survives the rigors of
actual flight operations, it might be a big deal. I wouldn't hold my
breath.


Actually turbulator tape is fairly common stuff on sailplanes In comes in a
zig-zag pattern or with dimples. Scroll halfway down this page to see the
stuff: http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page29.htm
Google "sailplane turbulator tape" for more info.

Vaughn




  #14  
Old October 23rd 09, 04:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Wayne Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 905
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2


"vaughn" wrote in message ...

"bildan" wrote in message
...
Aerodynamisists have been trying to create "surface treatments" to
improve laminar flow for a century. So far, the mirror smooth
surfaces of sailplanes are best.


There is a guy, a Dr. Sinha, (http://sinhatech.com/) claiming to have
something called a "deturbulator" which is a sort of flexible tape
stuck on wing surfaces. If it works, and survives the rigors of
actual flight operations, it might be a big deal. I wouldn't hold my
breath.


Actually turbulator tape is fairly common stuff on sailplanes In comes in a
zig-zag pattern or with dimples. Scroll halfway down this page to see the
stuff: http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page29.htm
Google "sailplane turbulator tape" for more info.

Vaughn


It should be noted the exact placement location of "sailplane turbulator tape" varies dependent on the airfoil. The first turbulator tape I place of my HP-14 ruddervators was the "dimpled" variety. (It is less expensive then the zig-zag.) I couldn't see much improvement. That wasn't the case when I upgraded to zig-zag. I only have turbulator tape on the ruddervators. Adding turbulators to the wing airfoil has shown only marginal performance improvement, so I haven't bothered.

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F



  #15  
Old October 23rd 09, 05:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2

On Oct 23, 5:22*am, "Anyolmouse" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message

.. .





Dancing Fingers wrote:
The thing of it is that the car they used, as I remember, also had a
very aerodynamic shape and it still helped.


Disagree - it was not "aerodynamic" on the downstream side.


Do you recall when they showed the wind tunnel and water tank tests?

Do you
recall seeing that there was an area behind the car with turbulent

air?
Well if the car had been elongated so that the body tapered off such

that
it filled that area of turbulence, then I suspect they would have

gotten
different results.


Check out the following site:


http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/shaped.html


Notice that the prism has a slightly lower drag coefficient than the

flat
plate. As that web site states "Comparing the flat plate and the

prism, and
the sphere and the bullet, we see that the downstream shape can be

modified
to reduce drag."


I wonder if they would have gotten the same results by attaching a foil
to direct some of the air down from the trunk to make the turbulent area
smaller. Back in the '70s an uncle of mine attached one to the rear of
his station wagon to keep the rear window cleaner. He swore it helped
his gas mileage as well.

--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo

Anyolmouse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yeah, in the ?50s? the 'Kamm back' was tried on several makes. Hope
that "kamm" is the correct spelling.

Harry K
  #16  
Old October 23rd 09, 05:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2

On Oct 23, 5:22*am, "Anyolmouse" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message

.. .





Dancing Fingers wrote:
The thing of it is that the car they used, as I remember, also had a
very aerodynamic shape and it still helped.


Disagree - it was not "aerodynamic" on the downstream side.


Do you recall when they showed the wind tunnel and water tank tests?

Do you
recall seeing that there was an area behind the car with turbulent

air?
Well if the car had been elongated so that the body tapered off such

that
it filled that area of turbulence, then I suspect they would have

gotten
different results.


Check out the following site:


http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/shaped.html


Notice that the prism has a slightly lower drag coefficient than the

flat
plate. As that web site states "Comparing the flat plate and the

prism, and
the sphere and the bullet, we see that the downstream shape can be

modified
to reduce drag."


I wonder if they would have gotten the same results by attaching a foil
to direct some of the air down from the trunk to make the turbulent area
smaller. Back in the '70s an uncle of mine attached one to the rear of
his station wagon to keep the rear window cleaner. He swore it helped
his gas mileage as well.

--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo

Anyolmouse- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Ooops that was not a foil, it was a 'chopped' off back. And I think
it was in the 60s.

Harry K
  #17  
Old October 23rd 09, 07:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
cavelamb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2

Dancing Fingers wrote:
I'm just wondering if any aero student, for their senior or masters
project, ever built a model with dimples and put it in a wind tunnel.
Remember the Mythbusters didn't expect this results based on the dirty
car which got worst mileage. This would suggest that a deliberately
designed airfoil, with certain embedded geometric shapes, could effect
drag under certain conditions.


Chris


It's not that simple and straight forward.

What SIZE dimples?
Diameter?
Depth?
Located WHERE?


  #18  
Old October 24th 09, 11:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Dancing Fingers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2

It's not that simple and straight forward.

What SIZE dimples?
Diameter?
Depth?
Located WHERE?


I thought that was the point of research project? Why do golf balls
have dimples in the size and geometry that they do and go from there.
Didn't the the old German Stork have a very rough surface in the nose
area? May thy knew something that we overlook?
  #19  
Old October 24th 09, 04:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default Why don't wings have dimples 2

On Oct 24, 3:28*am, Dancing Fingers wrote:

I thought that was the point of research project? *Why do golf balls
have dimples in the size and geometry that they do and go from there.
Didn't the the old German Stork have a very rough surface in the nose
area? *May thy knew something that we overlook?


Your general thesis that there is some ancient mystery to aerodynamics
that is not well understood by modern aero engineers and not well
modeled by modern CFD software is humorous but not enlightening.
TANSTAAFL and all that.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" covered it pretty well when he wrote:

The dimples in a golf ball help reduce drag by making
the boundry layer turbulant which helps it flow just a
little further around the back side and reduce the area
behind the ball where the air flow is seperated (compared
to a laminar boundry layer). Also, the dimples work only
across a limited range of Reynolds numbers (less than
3*10^5).


That's pretty much all there is to it. Where you can get laminar flow,
you hang onto it as long as you can because it offers the lowest drag.
Where the laminar flow starts to stagnate and threatens to form a
separation bubble, you trip it over into turbulent with a feature such
as a vortex generator, a turbulator, a dimple, or whatever, because
turbulent flow has less drag than separated flow.

Thanks, Bob K.
 




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
Dimples On Model Aircraft Could Greatly Extend Range Bret Cahill Aviation Marketplace 26 September 24th 09 02:15 AM
Dimples On Model Aircraft Could Greatly Extend Range Bret Cahill Home Built 47 November 9th 08 11:23 PM
PC-9 with all the wings :-) Glenn[_2_] Aviation Photos 1 August 19th 07 01:52 AM
Why don't wings have dimples? Dancing Fingers Home Built 56 June 17th 06 11:54 PM
X-Wings and Canard Rotor Wings. Charles Gray Rotorcraft 1 March 22nd 05 01:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.