X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:15:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m28.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.9] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 935306 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:46:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.222.697655b (4410) for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:45:11 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <222.697655b.31032467@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:45:11 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Winglets versus Wingtips X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1137822311" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5300 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1137822311 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charlie, I thought that a winglet was equivalent to a wing extension - the benefit (beyond the change in aspect ratio) was that the wing didn't have to actually be longer (read stronger, too) and the winglet would have lower drag than the extension because tip vortices were reduced. Of course, that meant that there would be greater drag than the wing without either the extension or the winglet. Perhaps the IVP wing should have been shortened if winglets were to be utilized. I just read a short and interesting discussion of winglets at _http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2001/AS/htww.html_ (http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2001/AS/htww.html) It also noted that careful design and testing would be required. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) PS It was nice meeting you at Sebring. -------------------------------1137822311 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charlie,
 
I thought that a winglet was equivalent to a wing extension - the benef= it=20 (beyond the change in aspect ratio) was that the wing didn't have to=20 actually be longer (read stronger, too) and the winglet would have lowe= r=20 drag than the extension because tip vortices were reduced.  Of cou= rse,=20 that meant that there would be greater drag than the wing without either the= =20 extension or the winglet.  Perhaps the IVP wing should have been shorte= ned=20 if winglets were to be utilized. 
 
I just read a short and interesting discussion of winglets at
 
= http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2001/AS/htww.html
 
It also noted that careful design and testing would be required.
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL=20 (KARR)
 
PS It was=20 nice meeting you at Sebring.

 -------------------------------1137822311--