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

Hard wax v/s liquid wax



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 30th 18, 02:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:20:29 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mercredi 29 août 2018 13:42:25 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie a écritÂ*:

Read up on turbulators. They're not needed on modern airfoils,


Except that ALL modern airfoils use turbulators.


I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the wings are small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents which pressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics of the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this particular modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least). ;-)

Remind me - how did we get from talking about waxing onto the subject of turbulators? ;-)
  #12  
Old August 30th 18, 03:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:59:34 -0700, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net
wrote:

Remind me - how did we get from talking about waxing onto the subject of
turbulators? ;-)


....via the Dimpled Golfball highway


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
  #13  
Old August 30th 18, 03:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

Le jeudi 30 août 2018 15:59:36 UTC+2, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net a écritÂ*:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:20:29 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mercredi 29 août 2018 13:42:25 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie a écritÂ*:

Read up on turbulators. They're not needed on modern airfoils,


Except that ALL modern airfoils use turbulators.


I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the wings are small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents which pressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics of the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this particular modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least). ;-)


Turbulators are either zig-zag / dimple tapes (all non-Schleicher), or blow holes (Schleicher). Both do the same job.

  #14  
Old August 30th 18, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Michael Opitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)


I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the

wings
ar=
e small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents

which
p=
ressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics

of
=
the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this
particul=
ar modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least).

;-)


And what is the purpose of pressurizing the ailerons and flaps??
Could it be to actually pressurize the blow hole turbulators (which
some manufacturers have substituted Z-tape or dimple tape for
because of ease of construction and reduced maintenance
issues)????

RO

  #15  
Old August 30th 18, 04:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 9:59:36 AM UTC-4, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:20:29 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mercredi 29 août 2018 13:42:25 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie a écritÂ*:

Read up on turbulators. They're not needed on modern airfoils,


Except that ALL modern airfoils use turbulators.


I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the wings are small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents which pressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics of the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this particular modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least). ;-)

Remind me - how did we get from talking about waxing onto the subject of turbulators? ;-)


Your glider uses blow turbulators, located at the proper point, which happens to be on the control surfaces.
To ensure full flow and pressure to the NACA inlets Schleicher puts double thickness zig zag tape in front of the inlets. This trips the flow to turbulent and ensures the effectiveness of the NACA inlets as a supply source.
UH
  #16  
Old August 30th 18, 06:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Foster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 354
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 8:37:17 AM UTC-6, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le jeudi 30 août 2018 15:59:36 UTC+2, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net a écritÂ*:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:20:29 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mercredi 29 août 2018 13:42:25 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie a écritÂ*:

Read up on turbulators. They're not needed on modern airfoils,

Except that ALL modern airfoils use turbulators.


I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the wings are small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents which pressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics of the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this particular modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least). ;-)


Turbulators are either zig-zag / dimple tapes (all non-Schleicher), or blow holes (Schleicher). Both do the same job.


Which again comes back to the smoothness of the wing surface as it potentially relates to dimples in a golf ball. With a rough wing surface (from sanding?), would that have the same effect on the surface boundary layer potentially? Would there be a part of the airfoil that would benefit more from such a treatment? And thus, how important to polish the surfaces to a mirror finish?
  #17  
Old August 30th 18, 06:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

Didn't Dick Johnson run some tests on a Pik-20 that suggested that smooth but not polished was very slightly better than waxed to a mirror finish?

One would think that an Akaflieg would have looked at this in a wind tunnel.

My gut feeling is that the mirror finish doesn't really help, but is "expected", much like T-tails; but that if you can feel the roughness with your hand it will hurt the performance "a bit", whatever that is.

Anyway, it's more fun to win in a ratty looking glider than to lose in a perfect one ;^)

Kirk
  #18  
Old August 30th 18, 06:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 374
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 2:59:36 PM UTC+1, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:20:29 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mercredi 29 août 2018 13:42:25 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie a écritÂ*:

Read up on turbulators. They're not needed on modern airfoils,


Except that ALL modern airfoils use turbulators.


I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the wings are small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents which pressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics of the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this particular modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least). ;-)

Remind me - how did we get from talking about waxing onto the subject of turbulators? ;-)


With modern glider aerofoils having such long laminar flow on the lower surface the blowholes on the various ASW-type ailerons/flaps *are* the turbulators on the wing aerofoil. Same as the JS aerofoil with blowhole turbulators at 95% chord which happens to lie on the flaperons.
  #19  
Old August 30th 18, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 1:02:35 PM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 8:37:17 AM UTC-6, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le jeudi 30 août 2018 15:59:36 UTC+2, OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net a écritÂ*:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:20:29 AM UTC-5, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mercredi 29 août 2018 13:42:25 UTC+2, Martin Gregorie a écritÂ*:

Read up on turbulators. They're not needed on modern airfoils,

Except that ALL modern airfoils use turbulators.

I am pretty certain that on my ASW-27B the only turbulators on the wings are small 2cm wide sections just in front of the underside NACA vents which pressurize the ailerons and flaps. I can only guess at the aerodynamics of the turbulator's purpose here but this might be an example of this particular modern airfoil NOT needing turbulators (per Schleicher at least). ;-)


Turbulators are either zig-zag / dimple tapes (all non-Schleicher), or blow holes (Schleicher). Both do the same job.


Which again comes back to the smoothness of the wing surface as it potentially relates to dimples in a golf ball. With a rough wing surface (from sanding?), would that have the same effect on the surface boundary layer potentially? Would there be a part of the airfoil that would benefit more from such a treatment? And thus, how important to polish the surfaces to a mirror finish?


There isn't a meaningful benefit beyond the smoothness of a 400 grit finish, other than easier cleaning and longevity. Waviness and correct shape are more important.
Some airfoils like a little roughness. My old PIK-20 was a bit better with 400 surface than polished. When it would drop off in climb, I'd scuff with 400 back about 4 inches and the climb got better. I haven't see any other airfoils that showed that characteristic.
FWIW
UH
  #20  
Old August 30th 18, 08:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Hard wax v/s liquid wax (and turbulators)

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

"It's more fun to win in a ratty looking glider than to lose in a perfect
one"


Dan Sazhin, I think you need to put that on a tee shirt!
 




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
Saturn V S-IC Stage Liquid Oxygen Tank 6414299.jpg [email protected] Aviation Photos 0 April 12th 07 01:32 AM
Saturn I Liquid-Oxygen (LOX) Tank 6000382.jpg [email protected] Aviation Photos 0 April 10th 07 09:59 PM
Liquid oxygen equipment for glider Bruno Maes Soaring 14 February 25th 07 05:46 PM
Liquid Shim Boelkowj Home Built 1 April 17th 04 06:30 AM
Liquid to liquid coolers Paul Millner Home Built 2 July 5th 03 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 PM.


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