karoliina.t.salminen
Well-Known Member
Some people would say that a conventional configuration with one fuselage instead of two would have less wetted area and what not, but is that really the case with Boomerang? I don't think so. Boomerang is highly efficient in its class, it goes very fast with relatively low power - despite it has "two fuselages", or rather because of it. If it was a conventional twin, it would have three pods. I also recall Burt mentioning in Oshkosh that multiple pod configuration comes partly from reducing induced drag by reducing load from the center and distributing it more evenly across the span.
So if we consider a HALR type aircraft where the idea is to fly with relatively low amount of thrust available possibly at high altitude and rather large amount of fuel needs to be carried. Induced drag is important consideration. Long wing span causes problems to the center section of the wing due to centralized loading. However, if you trick it by distributing the weight to two or more pods (or possibly alternatively blend them into wing), what would be wrong on that? More intersection drag? For example Global Flyer has three pods and John Roncz also says it is to reduce drag. When reducing drag this way will create more drag, where is the sweet spot?
So is there a rule of thumb for "yes" and "no" or is this only about case by case analysis (count wetted area, weight etc. for different alternatives and then compare which wins for particular use case?)?
So if we consider a HALR type aircraft where the idea is to fly with relatively low amount of thrust available possibly at high altitude and rather large amount of fuel needs to be carried. Induced drag is important consideration. Long wing span causes problems to the center section of the wing due to centralized loading. However, if you trick it by distributing the weight to two or more pods (or possibly alternatively blend them into wing), what would be wrong on that? More intersection drag? For example Global Flyer has three pods and John Roncz also says it is to reduce drag. When reducing drag this way will create more drag, where is the sweet spot?
So is there a rule of thumb for "yes" and "no" or is this only about case by case analysis (count wetted area, weight etc. for different alternatives and then compare which wins for particular use case?)?
