• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

How about this way to reduce induced drag:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

HumanPoweredDesigner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
1,030
Location
Arizona
I once alluded to this before, but now I'll through it out there to get some feedback, (since I no longer plan to use this design for other reasons):

Di = Cl^2*(a bunch of other stuff), says the books and years of testing.

I conjecture that Cl = Cl top + Cl bottom, and that Di actually is (Clt^2 + Clb^2)*(a bunch of other stuff), since the pressure on bottom can't possibly know what is going on with the pressure on top. I suspect that Di = Cl^2 because airflow is proportional to the square (I think I remember that right) of the pressure gradient with respect to spanwise distance, and induced drag comes from the spanwise flow of air. And we know how to minimize squares: try to get the same lift by making the bottom lift more or suck less so the top is not so big a gradient getting squared.

Look at two wings going the same speed with the same overall coefficient of lift:

Airfoil 1 is convex on bottom and has 13.5 pounds per square inch down there, compared to 14 pounds ambient, and 13 pounds per square inch on top, for a total lift of 0.5 pounds per square inch.

Airfoil 2 is flatter on bottom, and has 14 pounds per square inch on bottom, and 13.5 pounds per square inch on top, for a total lift of 0.5 pounds per square inch.

Airfoil 1 has twice the pressure gradient on top as airfoil 2, and also has a pressure gradient on the bottom.

One other thing I don't understand though is how air flows outboard under the wing and inboard on top, yet Orion says many times that there is suction under the wing that is just not as big as the suction on top of the wing. I suspect it really depends on the type of wing, and he is especially right about convex bottomed faster wings, but not about concave bottomed slower wings. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Back
Top