Re: original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD


L Koutz <koutzl@...>
 

Doug
There is nothing wrong with the Gu25 WITH VG's.
It is a cheap and easy fix to loss of laminar flow that occcurs with any
debris on the canard.
From my viewpoint you either have the VG's or you are going to scare
yourself -REALLY BAD sometime or other flying with that wing. There is
nothing sacred with placement. I have seen the VG's several places,
different spacing, size etc. Some people are discussing that subject. And
there is a "recommended" place for them. But these planes ARE called
Experimental so adventuresome individuals try different placements. Nuff
said, but just my opinion ( and 15 years of listening) as I don't own one
and have never flown one.

The LS-1 is different.
It does not need VG's to fly OK.
But I am trying to fix a problem that most drivers don't even know they
have. In my plane there is a loss of lift from the top of the elevator when
the elevator goes down even the least little bit. I figure if I can get the
lift back I can land slower, and GOD knows we could use a plane that lands
slower. Plane flys OK but I want more. It's not a problem.
It's just that a few of us want to know how the airflow is traveling over
the canard and don't really know how to figure it out and really all the
canards are similar but not EXACTLY the same so everyone's flows are
slightly different. Anyway, it is not a PROBLEM. We are just trying to
figure airflow out for optimum speed. We are Experimenting! Just my
thoughts.
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Fortune" <pentam@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 10:20 PM
Subject: [Q-LIST] original canard airfoil & VG's vs using the NASA
LS(1)-0417 MOD


A newbie question:

This rain & bug problem with the original Glasgow University
GU25-5(11)8 airfoil canard was supposed to be fixed with
the new 1981 NASA LS(1)-0417 MOD airfoil. (See Homebuilt
Aircraft Magazine March 1984 page 34).

Is this not the case? If it is the fact that the second airfoil
(or perhaps an even more recent one) fixes such a hazardous
problem (never mind the benefits of less drag), why don't
people abandon the bandaids and do "the correct thing"?

Or should I assume that anyone today building Quickies
does use the NASA canard airfoil, and the only people
discussing the VG (vortex generators) are the people who
have decided against building new canards for their older
Quickies?

Doug





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://web2.airmail.net/qba321tm/q-page1.html



Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.