It was particularly surprising for me to read that the Dr.1 had a very low drag coefficient compared to contemporary types.This research relates to improving the efficiency of flow in a turbine exhaust, and thus, that of the turbine and power plant. It discusses the Fokker airfoils and the fallacy of increased drag. The leading edge is important.Īs long as the leading edge on a thick airfoil is not blunt, the drag for that wing will be comparable to drag for a thinner wing.Īctually, I've seen some pretty conclusive evidence that a thicker airfoil does not increase drag to any noticeable point.Ĭheck out this chapter (2) from a NASA report ( Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft ) on aircraft design. Unfaired wheels, OTOH, present a lot more surface area to the wind. The air hits that point and then flows gently around.
Wheel fairings come to a point that's, at most, one or two square inches in area. IOW, how much area is presented to the wind at one time. The key, as I learned it in physics class in high school, was that drag is all about the surface area at the point of resistance. On a similar note, have you ever noticed how big fairings that cover landing gear wheels are? I always used to wonder why they were so big and how they could possibly provide less drag than the much smaller wheels they cover. The NASA report authors speculate that early designers used a thin airfoil either (a) because they believed (incorrectly) that the thinner airfoil resulted in less drag, or (B) because birds have a thin airfoil and it made sense to copy them. It was particularly surprising for me to read that the Dr.1 had a very low drag coefficient compared to contemporary types.īasically, the thicker airfoil was a win/win decision: it gave better handling at low speeds, and did not increase drag. It would have been interesting to see how the Buzzards, large numbers of Snipes, and Sunbeam F2b's would have handled successive developments of the DVII.Īctually, I've seen some pretty conclusive evidence that a thicker airfoil does not,/i> increase drag to any noticeable point.Ĭheck out this chapter from a NASA report () on aircraft design: It wasnt as fast as the more powerful and thinner airfoiled Spad or SE5a but that didnt seem to hamper it in aerial combat. The DVII seems to be a pretty good and balanced design for its time, it appeared to do a lot of things well. The DrI had three thick wings which means a tonne of drag and part of the reason why it was so slow in comparison to other aircraft. The trade off with a thick airfoil is drag. Part of the reason for it's brick reputation. An aircraft with thin aerfoils like the Spad had poor low speed handling and hence a high stall speed. The DVII handled well at close to stall speeds, the "hang on to its propeller" stereotype and was a strong performer at height. Sopwith Camels could dive away from a DrI without worry.
With three thick wings generating lift it was also why the Dr1 was not a strong diver. The Fokker DrI which had three thick wings was a strong climber and highly manouvreable. A thicker airfoil generally means better handling at low speeds or pressures.
0 kommentar(er)
