Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus from Oz
Now this is an OT thread worth following!! Good onya, Lars. Life's too short not to try projects that stimulate and excite.
Now a question about the undercarriage and parasitic drag. I realise that most light aircraft don't have retractable landing gear - I suppose, too expensive, added weight and no room for it to fold into. You can probably add to that, one more thing to go wrong, added complication, etc.
My question is about how the aircraft design compensates for the significant parasitic drag produced by the fixed under carriage (even with the faired wheel cowlings). How the design compensates to enable neutral and balanced flying and light feel on the controls?!?
Or am I over thinking it?
Keep posting photos, Lars...
|
Markus, answering your second question first... slider. As you shall see in photos I'll post eventually. Gotta go to a friend's wedding tomorrow in San Francisco. Likely about 36 hours of party so I'm not sure when I'll be in good condition to put up more pics
As for the gear, below 200-ish miles (that would be the British version) per hour, retractable undercarriage carries a lot of penalty in complexity without a significant gain in performance. Witness some of the recent designs such as aircraft from Cirrus and what used to be Lancair/Columbia, now Cessna. They motor right past similarly powered and equipped Beechcraft Bonanzas. For a plane like I'm building, the lack of complexity is a major selling point.
I recommend that you never accept a ride in any Vans Aircraft product. Especially if you enjoy control harmony and a sweet, balanced feel. Because if you do, you are likely to see your bank account wither quickly. Ask me why I know
