Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.5) with ESMTP id 774552 for rob@logan.com; Sun, 06 May 2001 15:47:59 -0400 Received: from trex.uia.net ([207.67.168.3]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 01:20:45 -0400 Received: from office (38.GST.ONT.cyberg8t.com [207.67.188.38]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f465Sgf62255 for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 22:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com From: "Curtis M. Longo" To: Subject: AELLC Winglets Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:26:40 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010506040511.AAA10731@pop3.olsusa.com> X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Eric, You obviously know your aero but you need to take another look at Bernie's work over the last few years. He has made major fuel burn improvements with his blended GII winglet over the factory Gulfstream winglets. As is with everything in engineering the proper answer to any of this is, " it depends", on the conditions flown, span loading, flutter margins, structural margins, etc.... As I stated in my previous post, the cruise lift coefficients of the Lancair IV are below that which are necessary to make a winglet very effective for cruise. However, they do have other benefits for the Lancair IV that make them worth investigating. I have also done trade studies of simple span extensions with raked tips and winglets and the only reason for opting for the winglets over the span increase was to buy back some of the parasite drag that you can not get with tip extensions alone. You do carry a structural weight penalty but it is minor and there is sufficient structural and flutter margins in the Lancair IV wing to allow the change. We did both an FEA and flutter analysis on the wing with winglets on and winglets off. With the addition of winglets, Lancair's or AELLC's, the limit flight loads are reduced to 3.8g. Reducing limit loads is standard procedure for this type of modification. Obviously if one could start over you would change things in the wing design and use a different tip. Yes, winglets are band aids just like other after the fact modifications. Before I quantify the improvements of the new winglet design I would like to have my numbers backed up by real world flight data. I am perhaps a bit more skeptical than you concerning academic experts. I have known many a professor to be proven incorrect after real world flight data is taken and analyzed. They seem to forget things like Reynolds number scaling and manufacturing tolerances. I understand your reservations and would appreciate your patience until I have some initial flight test data. At that point we could talk in more detail with real numbers. Curtis M. Longo EMail: avi@uia.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>