X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:26:26 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2o) with ESMTP id 4895398 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:14:39 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=qNOE5hgUoalOE6j86dz1djx+k+dTIqShRj9jayjyMyyQcbqijdtg9U+k1p65mtiz; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.194] (helo=[192.168.1.107]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Px66N-0006dS-IO; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:14:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [LML] LNC4 WINGLETS Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-60--803703945 From: Colyn Case In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:14:03 -0500 X-Original-Cc: cscheid@charter.net X-Original-Message-Id: <99917290-9D43-4250-A150-70278F6F46AE@earthlink.net> References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da940e1cf8c29efe51e42ed92de74a6d8b47a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.194 --Apple-Mail-60--803703945 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Carl, The short story is winglets don't help speed or efficiency in the = regime's IV's generally fly. They do add wetted area. See Fred Moreno's write up here which says why they slow you down: =20 http://www.lancair.net/archives/Drag_Reduction_Part_1.pdf Look for a post in the archives by Charlie Kohler which gives = with/without numbers. Basically you'll lose 10 knots at low altitude = and if memory serves, 4 knots indicated up high. You can also find a post, I think, by Joe Bartels talking about how much = nicer the roll response is without winglets. Stall speeds are lower but I've never heard that stall characteristics = are improved. High altitude stability is reputed to be better but I haven't found = anyone who has flown both to actually say that. Colyn On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Carl Scheid wrote: > I'm thinking of putting winglets on my IO 550 LIV. Can anyone help me = with the performance change I might expect. I have heard that stall = characteristics are improved? > Carl > =20 --Apple-Mail-60--803703945 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi = Carl,

The short story is winglets don't help speed or = efficiency in the regime's IV's generally fly.
They do add = wetted area.

See Fred Moreno's write up here = which says why they slow you down: =   


Look for a post in the archives by Charlie Kohler which gives = with/without numbers.   Basically you'll lose 10 knots at low = altitude and if memory serves, 4 knots indicated up = high.

You can also find a post, I think, by Joe = Bartels talking about how much nicer the roll response is without = winglets.

Stall speeds are lower but = I've never heard that stall characteristics are = improved.

High altitude stability is reputed to = be better but I haven't found anyone who has flown both to actually say = that.

Colyn

On Mar 8, = 2011, at 3:54 PM, Carl Scheid wrote:


= --Apple-Mail-60--803703945--