Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3236373839404142
Results 616 to 620 of 620

Thread: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

  1. #616
    Moderator autoreply's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Posts
    10,557
    Likes (Given)
    241
    Likes (Received)
    2204

    Re: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

    Quote Originally Posted by cheapracer View Post
    Besides blatantly not true verified by hundreds of motorsports crashes every year
    We're talking about airplanes here however. Those structures you mention work just fine. If strong enough however they'll be prohibitively heavy, which is why we don't see them in airplanes. Maintenance on a crop duster is a good teacher there.
    [...]no one, including you, is building aircraft with Formula 1 spec baked carbon fibre monocoques that have had millions spent on development inclusive of crash testing. Their builds include strict regulations as to where thicknesses and weights are applied - the weight and style of build is simply out of the question for an aircraft period.
    You're entitled to your opinion of course.

    Unfortunately for you, most LSA's and microlights use exactly the same materials they use in F1. T700/T1000 are common in both. Same for resins. Same for prepregs and manufacturing methods. Same for test labs even.

    F1 is 700kgs with a 150kg power/drive unit, so that's 550kgs/1200lbs for a small single seat airframe, empty, no engine, etc - not going to happen.
    An F1 monocoque is roughly the same mass as a sailplanes ahead-of-wing fuselage mass or me. Both work fine. Pretty sure that safety cockpit design and test expenses are pretty similar.

    Fortunately for us, much of those test reports are more or less public (many via the Idaflieg) and thus we don't have to do anywhere near as much testing ourselves.

    Sure, there's the myth of incredible complexity in making such "high-tech" parts. Having witnessed several such parts being designed and built, I could build every single one of those within tolerance in my shed, except for the lack of an autoclave. Even that is changing with a major shift to OOA, notably infusion.


    Back to the real topic; I'd simply copy the structural layout of the Lange Antares or the ASW27. As good as it gets and calculating the required lamina thicknesses is pretty straightforward since the loads are too.

    For crushing, alternating layers of foam with thin layers of glass is pretty light and very simple to tailor to your specific loads. It's also very easy to implement in the rest of the design, which is the biggest difference with almost every other approach (alu foam, collapsable seat supports and so on)
    Kennis vermenigvuldig je door het te delen.
    (You multiply knowledge by dividing it)

  2. #617
    Moderator Topaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    12,166
    Likes (Given)
    6745
    Likes (Received)
    3766

    Re: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

    Gentlemen: Might you please break this discussion off into its own thread? Thanks.
    "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." - Henry David Thoreau

    Design Project: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider
    Discussion Thread for the Project: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

  3. #618
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,053
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    25

    Re: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

    Well, I have to admit I haven't read this whole thread. I HAVE read the design thread.

    Topaz:
    I know you've already decided on an airfoil, but I think there MAY be better choices, especially if you don't like building flaps. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	polars for Topazs cheap motorglider.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	95.0 KB 
ID:	57799
    The polars on some of the airfoils above are reduced to correspond with the reduced chords you could use due to their higher maximum lift. To be fair, you'll have to look at the numbers for correspondingly high lift coefficients, and reduce the drag coefficient corresponding to the reduced chords. For instance, if we wanted to compare the Eppler 749 to the Wortman airfoil at a Cl of 1 with flaps, we'd look at the Eppler's figures for a Cl of 1.32. That's about 0.011. However, due to the reduced chord, we'd multiply by 0.76, giving an equivalent Cd of 0,0084, compared to the Wortman's 0.008. The Wortman is using flaps, though, where the 749 is not, so in the real world it might be a wash. Similarly, the Wortman, at 0 flap, has a Cd of about 0.005. The E749, at a Cl of 0.26, has a corrected Cd of .005 too, or close to it. I threw in the Ara D 20 percent because of the obvious structural advantages of a 20 percent airfoil. Plus the magnitude of the pitching moment is much less than the E749, which is worse than the Wortman. You'll find that the Ara D looks good thinned to 15 percent as well, and in both cases seems to work well with flaps, if you are so inclined. But there may be better options with flaps. Another advantage is that upper surface transition is much sooner, meaning less area to make smooth enough to be laminar. Maybe the rear 60 or more percent could be fabric covered to save weight. The Ara's shape is simpler than the others too. Be sure to cut down the trailing edge width. The Ara was, I think, designed for a wind turbine or propeller, so, unfortunately, the thinner versions are meant for higher Reynolds numbers.

    You might also be interested in my hobbyhorse airfoil (I didn't design it, I just like it), the FZX ng-7, which I think is found on the Xfoil Yahoo group. Another one, with the silly name of Yahoo! AF Group Hi Lift GAV 4, is found on, surprise surprise, the Airfoil Yahoo group.

  4. #619
    Moderator Topaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    12,166
    Likes (Given)
    6745
    Likes (Received)
    3766

    Re: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

    Oops. Somehow this post slipped "below the fold" on the New Posts search without me seeing it. Sorry for the delayed replay.

    Thanks for the suggestions, lr27. I'm a little confused by the mention of "reduced chord" and changing the wing geometry for these new airfoils. My wing loadings, chord, span, and area are set by the performance requirements of the airplane, and an airfoil chosen to suit, rather than the other way 'round. That process is detailed in the design thread.

    In the end, I'm very happy with my choice of the FX79. It meets my design requirements, and is a known and understood quantity. I just don't feel the need to go through the airfoil analysis process again, when I already have something that meets my requirements very well. If you'll recall, exceeding the design performance requirements is not a plus for this project. I want something that performs exactly to the specifications and requirements I've layed out - not worse, and not better.
    "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." - Henry David Thoreau

    Design Project: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider
    Discussion Thread for the Project: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

  5. #620
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,053
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    25

    Re: Discussion: Conceptual Design of an "Inexpensive" Single-Seat Motorglider

    Topaz,

    You can change the wing loading depending on maximum lift. The higher the maximum Cl, the less area you need to get the stall down to a reasonable speed. Let's say you had a 100 square foot wing on your airplane, and you wanted to keep the stall the same while switching from a 4412 to, for some reason, an 009. The max Cl for the 4412, according to Profili, is about 1.7 at a Reynolds number of 1.5 million, but the 009's is only about 1.1. Seems to me that you'd have to increase the wing area by 1.7/1.1 or 55 square feet! Of course, that would increase the Reynolds number, so you might not have to add as much if you did it by enlarging the chord, but it would still be a substantial amount.

    One of the other advantages I think you might be able to get with these other airfoils (not the 4412, but the ones I mentioned in an earlier post) is a broad enough lift range that you didn't need flaps. You wanted simple and cheap, right? The other is less area that has to be critically smooth, since the flow goes turbulent anyway at something like 35 or 40 percent chord on the top.

    It seems to me that one can't really divorce airfoil from wing area.

    What am I missing?
    Last edited by lr27; January 14th, 2017 at 05:55 PM. Reason: eliminate duplicate sentence, clarified what I meant by "other airfoils"

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 68
    Last Post: November 29th, 2016, 02:32 PM
  2. Another "napkin sketch" - single seat composite microlight/LSA - AirFlo v1.0
    By Floydr92 in forum Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: August 24th, 2014, 11:14 AM
  3. "New Design Concepts" and "Project underway" sections
    By flyvulcan in forum Feedback and Suggestions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: May 17th, 2012, 07:35 PM
  4. Converting two-seat glider into single-seat motorglider
    By cluttonfred in forum General Experimental Aviation Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 5th, 2010, 09:26 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 21st, 2008, 01:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •