aerochristian
Active Member
Hey guys,
I've seen it talked about it quite heavily on here concerning laminar vs "turbulent" airfoils and also I've heard it talked about quite heavily that the laminar is a poor choice for slower aircraft, (150mph or so) and especially metal stol aircraft due to bugs, rain, sudden loss of lift, poor laminar shape, etc.
Why then does the Pilatus Porter and Sonex, two of the more popular airplanes with great pilot handling reports, both in different ends of the "use spectrum", also both metal (poor laminar shaping ability), choose such an airfoil....the naca 64 series?
Seems like Sonex would want a who cares how good you build cause its got a soft break, no surprises stall for the common man and Pilatus would want a high lift, who cares about rain and bugs or shape (rivets, metal) performer.
What gives?
I've seen it talked about it quite heavily on here concerning laminar vs "turbulent" airfoils and also I've heard it talked about quite heavily that the laminar is a poor choice for slower aircraft, (150mph or so) and especially metal stol aircraft due to bugs, rain, sudden loss of lift, poor laminar shape, etc.
Why then does the Pilatus Porter and Sonex, two of the more popular airplanes with great pilot handling reports, both in different ends of the "use spectrum", also both metal (poor laminar shaping ability), choose such an airfoil....the naca 64 series?
Seems like Sonex would want a who cares how good you build cause its got a soft break, no surprises stall for the common man and Pilatus would want a high lift, who cares about rain and bugs or shape (rivets, metal) performer.
What gives?
