I Hope thats Pefectly Clear , then .
Adding camber doesn't necessarily reduce aerodynamic drag; it depends on the airfoil shape. If too much camber is added, the flow over the airfoil may not stay attached to the wing even at an angle of attack of zero. When this occurs, we say the flow has separation over the airfoil, if the entire top of the wing has separation, the wing is stalled. Wings with camber don't as a result have the ability to produce more lift in general. As an example, the C-5 is a heavy lift aircraft used by the US military; in order to produce the lift needed, one might think it uses a cambered wing, but its wing is symmetrical. Cambered wings will produce lift at zero angle of attack, but as mentioned, too much camber can also be a bad thing.
CRIKEY .
GAP Vs Chord was regarded as ' the issue ' due to ' interfearance ' , as they called it . Generally Acepted Gap ( Between Wings ) should exceed ( Dimension of ) Chord , to avoid
interaction between the airflow of the ' stack ' . Presumed to cause problems . Likely as at its inset irregular , thus oscillatory .
Maybe withem closer it doesnt , even if it is ' interfearance ' ing , or Interacting , more correctly . ( oops a pun ) .
A merely personal perspective is it aint neccesarilly neccesary to get optimum lift . As thered be a fair bit available . If looks ( amoungst other things - Like Center of drag per wing vertical distribution , and its constancy
)
wernt considered .
Thus do we consider it Two Monoplanes Flying in Fixed Formation , or Seperate from a mono plane .
A Split Monoplane would have ' outside camber ' / ' Flat Inside ' ( or the reverse ) wings , if the projected area ( with no stagger )
was considered purly as in plan view .
Or perhaps more sensably Two Planes (
Bi Plane ! ) of half the thickness of a monoplane ( approx ) viewd same .
Id Think Thick Wings , to avoid interfearance , like Biggles . Would Need a Gap exceeding 10 x the Thickness ( Thereabouts ) of a wing .
Whats BIGGLES Doing in a salmson B2 .
U S Air Service used these in France , in ' the great war ' . Great for the industrialists obviously . But im not to sure who else benifitted from it .
Were Americans Subjected to the whiles of BIGGLES , or is that more a Empire & King sort of delusion .
Be Straightforward to base one on , having strong ties to America . Especially when the petrol ran out and you had to jump .
U.S. Mail Plane .
Youll Note this is a good Kiwi Pilot .Actually gives you some idea of ' visualiseation ' of the airflow over one of these , as it gets a bit out of whack here & there .
Did a Mercury Tiger Moth from kit that WON Junior Scale at the N.Z. Nats . ( It was The Only Entry
)( said in Mag " It Flew Well " DONT BELIVE ALL YOU READ . Bloody Apalling .
UNTILL I put a OS 10 in it & a BellCrank & Elevators .
Demo at the Primary School , on a r idge so often a breeze there , Had Me Trying a Loop then A Lap Inverted . No Bother . with the free flight declanage & Flatt Bottomed wings .
Engine Cut upwind , and as the fields were manicured had a half lap run to downwind , stop , and drop the tail . Another Total Fluke. unpublished this time .
Have a plan & Two OS 10s. Only one should be necessary .
Old Tyme , Theres a De H 82 with big elevators ( as they did then ) & NO Flaps , But A symetrical Airfoil about almost 3/4 I think ish thick . Maybe for a .15 ?? , will tryn digit outn getta picture , for here . Of The Plan. and Date .
as they say its a ' Stunt ' plane . Model Aircraft or Aeromodeller . 1954 or 6 maybe .
Topic: Precision Aerobatic capable biplane. (Read 22214 times)