News:



  • April 26, 2024, 05:52:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Wing Thickness  (Read 1093 times)

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6119
Wing Thickness
« on: May 13, 2018, 06:49:59 PM »
What is the average thickness of wings now days?  I am thinking 17% t 20% including flaps.  I don't get much on a search.  Anybody have a link to some recent discussions?  I tried posting this in the Design Forum with no luck.

Thanks
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Wing Thickness
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2018, 05:25:10 PM »
Some guys were saying they like the older designs better because, they cut through the wind real good.

Most of the "Newer Designs cut through the wind "better" if you power them properly!

In other words there's a lot more involved than the thickness of the airfoil!  Larger "tail volume is one of the important ones.  Most of the "older designs" are a little "short" in that requirement!

Randy Cuberly
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13739
Re: Wing Thickness
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2018, 05:50:40 PM »
Some guys were saying they like the older designs better because, they cut through the wind real good.

   If all you have is a Fox 35, that might be a good plan.

    Brett

Offline Ken Culbertson

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 6119
Re: Wing Thickness
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2018, 01:09:52 AM »
Some guys were saying they like the older designs better because, they cut through the wind real good.

Somehow I don't remember all of those old designs cutting through the wind all that well back when they were new designs.  The planes flew maneuvers well in wind but they bounced around like corks on a choppy pond in level flight.  It was the norm so judges did not take off as much as they would now.  The older designs with the older engines, even with modern controls, are no match for the newer designs and engines but I really miss the looks and diversity of the 60's and 70's.
AMA 15382
If it is not broke you are not trying hard enough.
USAF 1968-1974 TAC

Offline Don Jenkins

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 384
Re: Wing Thickness
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2018, 04:55:27 AM »
Somehow I don't remember all of those old designs cutting through the wind all that well back when they were new designs.  The planes flew maneuvers well in wind but they bounced around like corks on a choppy pond in level flight.  It was the norm so judges did not take off as much as they would now.  The older designs with the older engines, even with modern controls, are no match for the newer designs and engines but I really miss the looks and diversity of the 60's and 70's.

Get a set of plans for your favorite plane of the 60's and 70's and scale it up as necessary to get the nose and tail moment along with the air foil and tail volume of a modern plane and power it with a PA or ST. 60 or a Stalker .66 (or a thing that runs on a battery) that will pull a 65 ounce plane through the pattern.  Then have fun with it!

Don


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here