VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #31  
Old 06-18-2016, 01:10 AM
Marc Bourget Marc Bourget is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stockton, California
Posts: 323
Default

Bill L said: " Reynolds numbers show that the flow in the fins is well into turbulent flow even with low speed climbs (5.5" pressure drop)."

What will Reynolds calcs show us as to how low of a pressure drop will still produce turbulence?

If pressure recovery ranges between .6 and .85 and 100 mph gives us 4.94" H2O, we're down to 3" with a poor cowl installation.

So, what can we count on ??

thanks, btw.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-18-2016, 06:06 AM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Bourget View Post
If pressure recovery ranges between .6 and .85 and 100 mph gives us 4.94" H2O, we're down to 3" with a poor cowl installation. So, what can we count on ??
Let's polish a few points.

4.94" available Q would be at sea level, so at any realistic altitude (or high density altitude), theory says we don't even have that much.

The stated velocity of 100 MPH (87 knots) is somewhat slower than normal RV climb speed. It does illustrate how difficult the cooling issue can become with STOL aircraft, IF they are expected to maintain high AOA and full power for an extended period. It's not a problem for either if we're just doing a quick climb to clear the trees.

A subtle detail...velocity for Q calculations assumes true airspeed, not indicated airspeed. Readers doing pressure measurements must convert to TAS when calculating available Q, or the pressure recovery ratios will appear better than they really are.

On the positive side, we usually assume steady state level flight when calculated available Q. With an RV, the given 87 KTAS in level flight would be at a very low power setting, thus there would be little velocity in the propeller outflow. A climbing RV with a big motor at 27/2700 and 87 KTAS would have quite a lot of prop outflow. The trick is to harvest that outflow velocity as increased upper plenum pressure. So far, it appears there is a lot of variation in this area. RVs with inboard inlet area (closer to the spinner) and prop blades with inefficient blade root airfoils (like the round roots seen on some composite CS props) are not going to get much increased Q due to prop outflow. Efficient inboard blade sections and good outboard inlets can harvest quite a lot. The 390/Hartzell BA/outboard low ratio inlet combination is picking up about 33% compared to Q due to aircraft velocity alone.

CR3405, prop outflow as a function of blade radius:

__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390

Last edited by DanH : 09-03-2018 at 06:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.