I got them from a glider Co. Wings & Wheels But $$$ oh well :!
I'm sure you have a spread sheet on your data. Now Howard unless you have a wind tunnel equipment in your garage and sophisticated equipment your blowing smoke.
These and their placement are more in line with what we were talking about. (http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37158.0;attach=154029;image)
But then again without wind tunnel testing equipment its all a SWAG. And the GUESS being the biggest part of this experiment.
That's how Science is done.
Google worked! VD~ Steve
http://wingsandwheels.com/tapes-seals/turbulator-tape.html (http://wingsandwheels.com/tapes-seals/turbulator-tape.html)
Curiously seems to me is trial and error is first then some spread sheet to follow.
...and the second thing was they are placed ahead of the high point of the wing causing laminar flow. But I cant prove any of this.
I sure couldn't prove that.
I got them from a glider Co. Wings & Wheels But $$$ oh well :!
Have I missed something in these conversations?
How thick are those things?
Curiously seems to me is trial and error is first then some spread sheet to follow.
Charles, perhaps if you disable the Safe Search function on your computer, you could follow the link that Steve gave you. Better yet is the question, "how thick should they be?" This will require a little more research, but a clue is here on this thread.
Well, when you know how thick they should be, let me know. I can get paintable material up to 5 mils thick.the point Charles,, is that you asked a question to which, if you are attempting to market something,, you should be prepared to do the research,, as I and many others have told you,,, use a little innitiative man,,
AND, can provide only what is needed for any given model.
the point Charles,, is that you asked a question to which, if you are attempting to market something,, you should be prepared to do the research,, as I and many others have told you,,, use a little innitiative man,,
Only the most fundamental, most often repeated thing.
All one has to do is measure the thickness.
Well, Howard, that was helpful. I probably should have asked why VG's are superior to turbulators, but I don't understand why localized high energy whirlwinds are better than just affecting the airflow across the span. If that still offends, 'guess I'll go back out and miss some more.
The FF guys do their experiments in a way that may (or may not) prove useful for CL Stunt experiments.
For example, when you're putting turbulators on the wing of a FF, you find that when you get it/them in the right place, you suddenly need to add incidence, because it starts diving. You can also do some interesting things by putting turbulators on one wing and not the other, or only out toward the tips.
For stunt, I'd put a turbulator on the top of (for instance) the stabalizer and see if it changes the inside/outside corner. Or put a turbulator on only the inboard wing, but not the outboard...don't forget to add tipweight to compensate. I'm pretty confident that it will prove interesting, maybe even educational. Especially if you are using a nice lightweight hardpoint handle. y1 Steve
Better looking than mouse turds on the wing. LL~ Steve
I think what I'm going to do on my next ship is a strip of horribly orange peeled paint along the LE! (Or just back from it)It's always seemed funny to me. As a kid and through the teen years I built countless 1/2a ships as well as the larger stuff and without fail the ones I went to great pains to put on a slick pretty finish never flew as well as the ones that we just put on enough dope to resist fuel for a while. The cruddy ones always flew best. One might look into why a golf ball is full of divots. I'm told of an auto study where a really rough body got better milage than a slick one.
I inherited a ship that is very poorly built with lots and lots of orange peel in the paint job and it flies great. Probably the best flying ship I have and the good thing is I don't have to worry about smashing it to bits! y1
Excellent for practicing those low bottoms. Heh, heh!
Jerry
Well, when you know how thick they should be, let me know. I can get paintable material up to 5 mils thick.
AND, can provide only what is needed for any given model.
Could it be that the surface finish needed for max appearance points is actually degenerating flight qualities? Who's going to be the first to mist their model with something lumpy to see if you get better corners?
OK, Charles, here you go. From the link Steve gave you, you know how thick the expensive stuff is. This link (and JavaFoil, also from Dr. Hepperle's site) will tell you how thick to make turbulators and where to put them for a specific model: http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/turbulat.htm
Thanks for that Howard. A bit hicker than I thought.
Than I thought, too. If I can figure it out, I'll put in Igor's turbulator location, then work backwards to see what it's for.
All this science and math is well beyond me. n~