Date
1 - 20 of 43
Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1
|
Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
LMAO ... i gues i could just start putting math formulas up as i dont realy comunicate well with text, but thats no fun ... :)
Tri-Q1 <rryan@san.rr.com> wrote: Quarky, this is the first time you have made any cents. Ryan --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...> wrote: TWENETY ONE GIGAWATS !!!! (slides the spectacles deeper in his brow) .... im realy not that bad ... i have simply nothign better to do with my time right now except read my e-mail and plan out building my plane ... have to "veg" as long as i can wile i can ;) .. sorry guys ill shut up ... lol --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Tri-Q1 <rryan@...>
Quarky, this is the first time you have made any cents.
Ryan --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...> wrote: TWENETY ONE GIGAWATS !!!! (slides the spectacles deeper in his brow) .... im realy not that bad ... i have simply nothign better to do with my time right now except read my e-mail and plan out building my plane ... have to "veg" as long as i can wile i can ;) .. sorry guys ill shut up ... lol
|
|
|
|
Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
or just people are tired of hearing my 2 cents .. lol .. ONE POINT TWENETY ONE GIGAWATS !!!! (slides the spectacles deeper in his brow) .... im realy not that bad ... i have simply nothign better to do with my time right now except read my e-mail and plan out building my plane ... have to "veg" as long as i can wile i can ;) .. sorry guys ill shut up ... lol
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@bigpond.com> wrote: We are all sounding a bit past our use by date except maybe Jason is right (as yet untested). I sort of remember something like P1V1=P2V2 ie PV is constant in a given system and if the volume increases the pressure must decrease. The NACA vent allows the cross section ie volume to increase as the air flows in and than sucks more air in until stability is reached. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Muscat Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 2:39 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 im sure i have to brush up on my dynamics (statics is so much easier) but isnt there a distinction between pressure, and what i think you are refuring to "in the direction of flow" velocity? after all as the speed of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) increases, the pressure within that fluid decreases. The principle states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluids speed must be matched by a decrease in it's pressure. There is no refrence to the "vector" of the pressure difference, it is "with in" the fluid. ....sticky sticky ... larry severson <larry2@socal. <mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com> rr.com> wrote: Peter,No, the increased pressure is perpendicular to the direction of flow. It is reduced in the direction of flow. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal. <mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com> rr.com --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. --------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
We are all sounding a bit past our use by date except maybe Jason is right
(as yet untested). I sort of remember something like P1V1=P2V2 ie PV is constant in a given system and if the volume increases the pressure must decrease. The NACA vent allows the cross section ie volume to increase as the air flows in and than sucks more air in until stability is reached. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Muscat Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 2:39 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 im sure i have to brush up on my dynamics (statics is so much easier) but isnt there a distinction between pressure, and what i think you are refuring to "in the direction of flow" velocity? after all as the speed of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) increases, the pressure within that fluid decreases. The principle states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluids speed must be matched by a decrease in it's pressure. There is no refrence to the "vector" of the pressure difference, it is "with in" the fluid. ....sticky sticky ... larry severson <larry2@socal. <mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com> rr.com> wrote: Peter,No, the increased pressure is perpendicular to the direction of flow. It is reduced in the direction of flow. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal. <mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com> rr.com --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
|
|
|
|
Jason Muscat <fifty101fifty@...>
im sure i have to brush up on my dynamics (statics is so much easier) but isnt there a distinction between pressure, and what i think you are refuring to "in the direction of flow" velocity?
after all as the speed of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) increases, the pressure within that fluid decreases. The principle states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluids speed must be matched by a decrease in it's pressure. There is no refrence to the "vector" of the pressure difference, it is "with in" the fluid. ....sticky sticky ... larry severson <larry2@socal.rr.com> wrote: Peter,No, the increased pressure is perpendicular to the direction of flow. It is reduced in the direction of flow. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Larry Severson
Peter,No, the increased pressure is perpendicular to the direction of flow. It is reduced in the direction of flow. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com
|
|
|
|
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Earnest it is hard for me to grasp that the expanding airflow will increase
in pressure (but that's not your fault). Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MartinErni@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2006 11:03 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Peter, Actually when the air slows and expands the pressure increases. It is counter intuitive. Earnest
|
|
|
|
MartinErni@...
Peter,
Actually when the air slows and expands the pressure increases. It is counter intuitive. Earnest
|
|
|
|
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Sure Larry well the idea is that we want the airflow to expand, slow down
and therefore reduce pressure which will suck more air into (or from in this case) the orifice. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of larry severson Sent: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 7:57 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 When I look at the pic it seems to show that not only is the submergedinlet (which is an exit) reversed but also the entry ramp is reversed so ittapers outwards moving aft, not inward. Ie the exit flow is allowed to expandwhich would induce more flow out of the exit. Maybe we are both right.Going from wide to narrow aft (not what you are proposing) has been tried and demonstrated to NOT work. http://home. <http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/nacaducts/index.html> hiwaay.net/~langford/nacaducts/index.html Scroll down and see the failed effort. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal. <mailto:larry2%40socal.rr.com> rr.com
|
|
|
|
Larry Severson
When I look at the pic it seems to show that not only is the submerged inletGoing from wide to narrow aft (not what you are proposing) has been tried and demonstrated to NOT work. http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/nacaducts/index.html Scroll down and see the failed effort. Larry Severson Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 968-9852 larry2@socal.rr.com
|
|
|
|
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
One Sky Dog,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
When I look at the pic it seems to show that not only is the submerged inlet (which is an exit) reversed but also the entry ramp is reversed so it tapers outwards moving aft, not inward. Ie the exit flow is allowed to expand which would induce more flow out of the exit. Maybe we are both right. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of oneskydog@aol.com Sent: Monday, 25 September 2006 9:06 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1
In a message dated 9/20/2006 11:52:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com writes: Dave thinking some more, if the cowl exit is shaped as a reversed naca inlet I think that would do the job, as the airflow expands aft pressure is reduced to suck more from inside the cowl. Peter NACA submerged inlets do not work in reverse. Irv Culver said if you do not know how to end it just cut it off. What you need is a converging chanel to collect the air direct it and accelerate it up to free stream velocity into the low pressure area. A truncated square slit works as good as anything according to Horner. Regards, One Sky Dog
|
|
|
|
In a message dated 9/20/2006 11:52:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
peterjfharris@bigpond.com writes: Dave thinking some more, if the cowl exit is shaped as a reversed naca inlet I think that would do the job, as the airflow expands aft pressure is reduced to suck more from inside the cowl. Peter NACA submerged inlets do not work in reverse. Irv Culver said if you do not know how to end it just cut it off. What you need is a converging chanel to collect the air direct it and accelerate it up to free stream velocity into the low pressure area. A truncated square slit works as good as anything according to Horner. Regards, One Sky Dog
|
|
|
|
Yeah your fillet is wider after your mod, Sam. Even more reason not
to mess with it. If you could flow it, you would probably get ever better air adhesion than me. Can't you wax it up real good in the areas your are concerned about and do a test. You will be surprised! Jim P. --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@...> wrote: you do. I did change it a couple years ago when I redid the upper surface tothe canard (after this linked photo was taken).http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/aircraftdetail/06sparrowstrainer.jpg elevator, so it attaches more like that Lancair. Might be good for a knotor so. all sorts of turbulence here. The underside looks pretty turbulent, also.so many cracks in that 21 year old lacquer paint I am afraid it wouldpermanently give my buggy a spider web look. Then I'd have to change the nameto Brown Recluse, or some such thing.inches, inboard end, so there might be more real estate to accept a moregentle curve at the canard/fuselage joint.Behalf Of Jim PatilloLS1 the canard/fuselage area of you plane?am I missing here? Did I not do the flow test properly? Isn't the goalto have a canard fuselage junction that has a smooth attached uniformair flow to the rear? I would presume if we have the same stylecanards, they should behave similarily. In which case there may be no needto revisit that area. Seriously what am I missing from my conclusion,I always look forward to more work.canard. That's whereI need the improvement.
|
|
|
|
Doug Humble <hawkidoug@...>
I just thought of another thing to keep in mind about a side exiting cowl. Don't forget you have a cabin inlet in that general area as well. Oil down the side may enter here and, on the positive side, let you know you have a problem.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Doug "Hawkeye" Humble A Sign Above www.asignabove.net Omaha NE N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harris To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:27 PM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Dave thinking some more, if the cowl exit is shaped as a reversed naca inlet I think that would do the job, as the airflow expands aft pressure is reduced to suck more from inside the cowl. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of darichardson75 Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:44 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 That Quickie picture is one interpretation of how to make that gill. I'm hardly a Quickie expert but I belive I've seen some that are more squared or slightly flaired like a dust pan. That just caught my eye because it looked like the oil on my plane and what Jim's photos showed as well. To answer your question, I'm not sure. What I have seen is a sloped ramp. I'm sure those NACA folks looked at that configuration, though. Paul's point about the CO making its way in via the NACA inlet vent may be an issue. What I noticed on the oil that was sucked out of the cowling was that it went under the bottom of the plane between the aft surface of the canard and the main gear leg on my Tri-Q2 on both sides. I did't see the left or right swirl exactly that Pat was talking about. It just seemed to follow the area above the canard and then gently rolled underneath. I don't know if I answered your question or not or just gave your more questions. Dave Richardson --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...> wrote: > > Thanks Dave. I see that the quickie gill installation is channeled to exit > above the canard . I did not think of that, it would be more effective. But > is that a naca inlet being used as an outlet?? > > Peter > > > > _____ > > From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of > Dave Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:43 PM > To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 > > > > Hi Peter, > > Very nice Jab installation. Those are an excellent alternative. Just > wish the price were a little more affordable. > > You can just see what I was talking about in the upper right photo shown > on this web site > > _____ > > From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@ > <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:31 AM > To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 > > Dave, I made gills for cooling the Norton and have kept them for the > Jabiru > 3300 installation. I was not aware of Burt's work. I cut "D" shaped > panels > from the rear side cowl one each side and glassed the "D" reversed > inside > the cowl to make inverted "gills". I think they produce no drag and > located > in this low pressure area they work well. But I have retained the shroud > and > tunnel underneath. When the shroud is closed I get a cruise CHT of > 239degF > when ambient is about 77degF. These gills show up in the pics file for > VHONQ > Oskar. > > Peter > > _____ > > From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: > Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of > Dave Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 1:19 AM > To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com > <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 > > Hi Jim, > > I had similar results in some "unscheduled" oil flow tests on my Tri-Q2 > with an LS1. The specific point I saw was the arched clean area about > 4-5 inches above the canard / fuselage intersection. I always wondered > what the air was doing right in the contour between the canard and > fuselage. Some had suggested that it was compressing the air there > which would cause drag and less of a V shape and more of an L shape > there would help. That is a compound low pressure area from the canard > shape as well as the fuselage shape. In fact, it is low enough to suck > loose oil from inside the cowling (hence my "tests"). You know I think > Burt and co. really had it right on the Quickie by putting the major > cowling exit air out over the canard through those gills. On the Q2/xx > we try to dump the cooling air out into a high pressure area under the > fuselage and we have these two nice low pressure areas. I'm sure there > are other considerations, though. The Eagle 150 uses this area for > their cooling air exit. > > Anyway, thanks for sharing the photos. > > Dave Richardson > > Tri-Q2 825DR 69 hrs. > > > > > > > > >
|
|
|
|
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Dave thinking some more, if the cowl exit is shaped as a reversed naca inlet
I think that would do the job, as the airflow expands aft pressure is reduced to suck more from inside the cowl. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of darichardson75 Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:44 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 That Quickie picture is one interpretation of how to make that gill. I'm hardly a Quickie expert but I belive I've seen some that are more squared or slightly flaired like a dust pan. That just caught my eye because it looked like the oil on my plane and what Jim's photos showed as well. To answer your question, I'm not sure. What I have seen is a sloped ramp. I'm sure those NACA folks looked at that configuration, though. Paul's point about the CO making its way in via the NACA inlet vent may be an issue. What I noticed on the oil that was sucked out of the cowling was that it went under the bottom of the plane between the aft surface of the canard and the main gear leg on my Tri-Q2 on both sides. I did't see the left or right swirl exactly that Pat was talking about. It just seemed to follow the area above the canard and then gently rolled underneath. I don't know if I answered your question or not or just gave your more questions. Dave Richardson --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...> wrote: to exit above the canard . I did not think of that, it would be moreeffective. But is that a naca inlet being used as an outlet??[mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf Of Dave Richardsonintersection LS1 Just wish the price were a little more affordable.shown on this web siteintersection LS1 the Jabirushroud andfor VHONQintersection LS1 Tri-Q2 with an LS1. The specific point I saw was the arched clean areaabout 4-5 inches above the canard / fuselage intersection. I alwayswondered what the air was doing right in the contour between the canard andcanard shape as well as the fuselage shape. In fact, it is low enough tosuck loose oil from inside the cowling (hence my "tests"). You know Ithink Burt and co. really had it right on the Quickie by putting themajor cowling exit air out over the canard through those gills. On theQ2/xx we try to dump the cooling air out into a high pressure area underthe fuselage and we have these two nice low pressure areas. I'm surethere are other considerations, though. The Eagle 150 uses this area for
|
|
|
|
Sam Hoskins <shoskins@...>
Hi Jim,
I did see your photos. I think I have a wider fillet radius than you do. I did change it a couple years ago when I redid the upper surface to the canard (after this linked photo was taken). Here is my wing root before the repair: http://home.mchsi.com/~shoskins/aircraftdetail/06sparrowstrainer.jpg I want to change where the fillet joins the fuselage, aft of the elevator, so it attaches more like that Lancair. Might be good for a knot or so. Though I have not done the oil flow bit I suspect that there is all sorts of turbulence here. The underside looks pretty turbulent, also. BTW, I am not too crazy about doing the oil flow test. There are so many cracks in that 21 year old lacquer paint I am afraid it would permanently give my buggy a spider web look. Then I'd have to change the name to Brown Recluse, or some such thing. If I had it to do over, I might shorten the elevator by about two inches, inboard end, so there might be more real estate to accept a more gentle curve at the canard/fuselage joint. Does that make any sense? Sam _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Patillo Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:26 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Hello Sammy, I believe you have the same style LS1 I have. Have you oil flowed the canard/fuselage area of you plane? I did and just published some pictures in the photo section. What am I missing here? Did I not do the flow test properly? Isn't the goal to have a canard fuselage junction that has a smooth attached uniform air flow to the rear? I would presume if we have the same style canards, they should behave similarily. In which case there may be no need to revisit that area. Seriously what am I missing from my conclusion, I always look forward to more work. Regards, Tell your lovely bride I said hi! Jim P --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com, shoskins@... wrote: That's where I need the improvement.
|
|
|
|
David Richardson
That Quickie picture is one interpretation of how to make that
gill. I'm hardly a Quickie expert but I belive I've seen some that are more squared or slightly flaired like a dust pan. That just caught my eye because it looked like the oil on my plane and what Jim's photos showed as well. To answer your question, I'm not sure. What I have seen is a sloped ramp. I'm sure those NACA folks looked at that configuration, though. Paul's point about the CO making its way in via the NACA inlet vent may be an issue. What I noticed on the oil that was sucked out of the cowling was that it went under the bottom of the plane between the aft surface of the canard and the main gear leg on my Tri-Q2 on both sides. I did't see the left or right swirl exactly that Pat was talking about. It just seemed to follow the area above the canard and then gently rolled underneath. I don't know if I answered your question or not or just gave your more questions. Dave Richardson --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@...> wrote: to exit above the canard . I did not think of that, it would be moreeffective. But is that a naca inlet being used as an outlet??Behalf Of Dave Richardsonintersection LS1 Just wish the price were a little more affordable.shown on this web siteintersection LS1 the Jabirushroud andfor VHONQintersection LS1 Tri-Q2 with an LS1. The specific point I saw was the arched clean areaabout 4-5 inches above the canard / fuselage intersection. I alwayswondered what the air was doing right in the contour between the canard andcanard shape as well as the fuselage shape. In fact, it is low enough tosuck loose oil from inside the cowling (hence my "tests"). You know Ithink Burt and co. really had it right on the Quickie by putting themajor cowling exit air out over the canard through those gills. On theQ2/xx we try to dump the cooling air out into a high pressure area underthe fuselage and we have these two nice low pressure areas. I'm surethere are other considerations, though. The Eagle 150 uses this area for
|
|
|
|
Hello Sammy,
I believe you have the same style LS1 I have. Have you oil flowed the canard/fuselage area of you plane? I did and just published some pictures in the photo section. What am I missing here? Did I not do the flow test properly? Isn't the goal to have a canard fuselage junction that has a smooth attached uniform air flow to the rear? I would presume if we have the same style canards, they should behave similarily. In which case there may be no need to revisit that area. Seriously what am I missing from my conclusion, I always look forward to more work. Regards, Tell your lovely bride I said hi! Jim P --- In Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com, shoskins@... wrote: That's where I need the improvement.
|
|
|
|
Steve <sham@...>
TEST
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Richardson To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 (Sorry keyboard misfire on the last post.) Here is a link to a Quickie photo. http://members.shaw.ca/ghillsden/page5.html The shape shown is a ramped channel cut into the side of the fuselage with the thin end aft that contours over the canard and the thick end inside the cowling. That contour example looks just like how the oil flowed out of my cowling and over and above the canard area. If you also look in the photo section of the Q-List you will see some Q2 fluid dynamic images. The side shot shows the nice low pressure area above the canard and aft of the firewall. If I understand this correctly, having the ramp extend into that low pressure area will help draw the air out of the cowling because it will be the path of least resistance. If you also look at the fluid dynamic shot of the bottom of the Q2/xx you'll see the high pressure area aft of the firewall in line with the forward edge of the canard that most Q2/xx's try to dump their cooling air into (the path of most resistance). If you look at the Files section of the Q-List and open up the Side Cooling folder Larry Koutz placed there you'll see what they did on the Eagle 150 to get the air into the area above the canard as well as Larry's manometer investigations of that area on his Q200. Some of practical issues associated with actually implementing something like this might be: 1) How big do they need to be? 2) Is there going to be any rudder pedal interference? 3) Keeping sufficient structure to keep that area strong and supporting the firewall and canard attachments. 4) Possible streaks down the side of the plane from oil out of the engine compartment 5) Getting the guts up to cut the fuselage and firewall Dave Richardson Tri-Q2 825DR 67 Hrs. _____ From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:31 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Dave, I made gills for cooling the Norton and have kept them for the Jabiru 3300 installation. I was not aware of Burt's work. I cut "D" shaped panels from the rear side cowl one each side and glassed the "D" reversed inside the cowl to make inverted "gills". I think they produce no drag and located in this low pressure area they work well. But I have retained the shroud and tunnel underneath. When the shroud is closed I get a cruise CHT of 239degF when ambient is about 77degF. These gills show up in the pics file for VHONQ Oskar. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Dave Richardson Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 1:19 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Hi Jim, I had similar results in some "unscheduled" oil flow tests on my Tri-Q2 with an LS1. The specific point I saw was the arched clean area about 4-5 inches above the canard / fuselage intersection. I always wondered what the air was doing right in the contour between the canard and fuselage. Some had suggested that it was compressing the air there which would cause drag and less of a V shape and more of an L shape there would help. That is a compound low pressure area from the canard shape as well as the fuselage shape. In fact, it is low enough to suck loose oil from inside the cowling (hence my "tests"). You know I think Burt and co. really had it right on the Quickie by putting the major cowling exit air out over the canard through those gills. On the Q2/xx we try to dump the cooling air out into a high pressure area under the fuselage and we have these two nice low pressure areas. I'm sure there are other considerations, though. The Eagle 150 uses this area for their cooling air exit. Anyway, thanks for sharing the photos. Dave Richardson Tri-Q2 825DR 69 hrs.
|
|
|
|
Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
Thanks Dave. I see that the quickie gill installation is channeled to exit
above the canard . I did not think of that, it would be more effective. But is that a naca inlet being used as an outlet?? Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Richardson Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:43 PM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Hi Peter, Very nice Jab installation. Those are an excellent alternative. Just wish the price were a little more affordable. You can just see what I was talking about in the upper right photo shown on this web site _____ From: Peter Harris [mailto:peterjfharris@ <mailto:peterjfharris%40bigpond.com> bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:31 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Dave, I made gills for cooling the Norton and have kept them for the Jabiru 3300 installation. I was not aware of Burt's work. I cut "D" shaped panels from the rear side cowl one each side and glassed the "D" reversed inside the cowl to make inverted "gills". I think they produce no drag and located in this low pressure area they work well. But I have retained the shroud and tunnel underneath. When the shroud is closed I get a cruise CHT of 239degF when ambient is about 77degF. These gills show up in the pics file for VHONQ Oskar. Peter _____ From: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Dave Richardson Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 1:19 AM To: Q-LIST@yahoogroups. <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> com <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Air Flow at canard - fuselage intersection LS1 Hi Jim, I had similar results in some "unscheduled" oil flow tests on my Tri-Q2 with an LS1. The specific point I saw was the arched clean area about 4-5 inches above the canard / fuselage intersection. I always wondered what the air was doing right in the contour between the canard and fuselage. Some had suggested that it was compressing the air there which would cause drag and less of a V shape and more of an L shape there would help. That is a compound low pressure area from the canard shape as well as the fuselage shape. In fact, it is low enough to suck loose oil from inside the cowling (hence my "tests"). You know I think Burt and co. really had it right on the Quickie by putting the major cowling exit air out over the canard through those gills. On the Q2/xx we try to dump the cooling air out into a high pressure area under the fuselage and we have these two nice low pressure areas. I'm sure there are other considerations, though. The Eagle 150 uses this area for their cooling air exit. Anyway, thanks for sharing the photos. Dave Richardson Tri-Q2 825DR 69 hrs.
|
|
|