- Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)
Re: Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Other than the general comments about tailoring the elevator hinge moment, I fail to see the relevance of the NLF(1)-0115 or the AS504X to the Quickie line of aircraft. They suffer from the same complaint you have about the Roncz R1145MS except that they are not even of comparable thickness to the GU canard. Therefore, they would require extensive rework to the layup schedules, beyond just the tweak needed to adapt the GU layup schedules for the Roncz airfoil; these new airfoils you suggest would require re-engineered structure before they could be used, even if one were able to incorporate the (unobtainable) tapered tubular carbon spars. What am I missing here?
~David J. Gall
main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Friday, March 4, 2022 5:05 PMTo:
Re: [Q-List] Preliminary analysis of aerodynamics of sparrow strainers (or not)
In typical engineer fashion, I don't get the chance to do this at my day job and got my references confused. Appreciate the patience while I double-checked everything....
The NLF development papers are what mention the hinge moment concern. This is the airfoil Somers tweaked for the Lancair 360. You'll notice the Abstract points squarely at correcting the shortcomings in the GAW-turned-LS series of airfoils:
Totally agree that a new canard using the R1145MS is the "correct" solution. As Mike Dwyer rightly pointed out, that's not really practical for most of us with built hardware. Personally, at that point I'd rather just start a new design with known design allowables rather than guess at the QAC numbers (Waddelow). However, I will concede that if you have the fuselage shells the wing and canard are largely segregable.
Can you send me the Reynolds numbers, stock LS coordinates, and hinge location you're using as a baseline? XFOIL will calculate the hinge moments for speculative comparison (i.e. relative, not absolute design values).
Footnote: Selig worked with Somers on the NLF development (1995) and later had Ashok as a grad student (1998+), thus I view the AS504X and later airfoils as the current "gold standard" for EAB airfoil comparisons. The AS504X airfoils have the advantage of published (if primitive) wind tunnel test results as compared to the non-existent ones for the NLF(1)-0115.
#2827 (still thinking about planning on visualizing how to finish building)
Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.