• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Cover my gear legs or not

The shock strut that extends between the axel and hyrosorbs take a heck of a beating especially on heavy skis or tires. On rough hard ground or on big rocks or snow or ice the shock strut takes a pounding and failures at the hydrosorb end of the shock struts are not uncommon. They first appear as a bulge circling the strut near the hydrosorb end. This area is under the hydrosorb cover and if it is an aluminum cover it can’t be easily inspected With soft covers it can be inspected easily.

Gear also takes a beating and covered gear can’t be adequately inspected.
 
If your gear leg gets even slightly tweaked you will see wrinkles in the fabric. When you uncover it the tubes will not look damaged.
 
I've wondered about different options for increasing airspeed, so appreciate this discussion. A number of things have been discussed, but they're likely not cumulative. Seems like temporary fairings for gear legs, bungee/hydrasorbs, wing strut fittings, tailsprings(?) could be made from carbon fiber or Kydex. Paperwork probably wouldnt be an issue as they'd be easily removed. That way we could put them on when making a long trip, and take them off before our friends see us.

Jim

heres another experiment with bungee fairings.
made out of kydex with intention to later fabricate with carbon fiber.
Thought was to greatly reduce the size of existing (stock) covers as well as keep an aerodynamic shape.
The covers “telescope” with the movement of hydrosorbs.

frustrating with F/P prop to get good feedback on progress.
My best, and very unscientific method was to fly beside another cub, whom I fly with often, and compare speeds and tach settings after mods were applied.
My best guess, covered gear and bungees, yielded about 4 mph difference at 2400 rpm. (But now I may also be burning less fuel at same rpm ??..)

6DD3312C-8C12-414A-B7DB-A163C6F331B2.jpeg

D8EB9C7A-1954-4CAD-9127-E63555F84ED9.jpeg

23494C26-8443-4B18-BA72-CF3C2D02FFC4.jpeg



7CCDF571-0572-4A0F-9D6A-BA5D6CC1CEC3.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 6DD3312C-8C12-414A-B7DB-A163C6F331B2.jpeg
    6DD3312C-8C12-414A-B7DB-A163C6F331B2.jpeg
    398.4 KB · Views: 357
  • D8EB9C7A-1954-4CAD-9127-E63555F84ED9.jpeg
    D8EB9C7A-1954-4CAD-9127-E63555F84ED9.jpeg
    148.6 KB · Views: 184
  • 23494C26-8443-4B18-BA72-CF3C2D02FFC4.jpeg
    23494C26-8443-4B18-BA72-CF3C2D02FFC4.jpeg
    165.8 KB · Views: 198
  • 7CCDF571-0572-4A0F-9D6A-BA5D6CC1CEC3.jpeg
    7CCDF571-0572-4A0F-9D6A-BA5D6CC1CEC3.jpeg
    303.8 KB · Views: 212
If you added up the time to build, install and make the money for the gear fairings it would be 10 times more than going 1 or 2 miles an hour faster.

How are you going to get in the airplane with no lower step ? If you are on 31s or 35s it is not happening.

My wheels, brakes and brake lines stay attached to my + 6" Summer landing gear. That saves me several HOURS of messing around every year. The gear has a single low step, which is plenty, on 35s. The long upper aluminum steps add 4.12 pounds !!!!!!!

My + 8" Winter gear has a fuel step, where the gear attaches to the fuselage. You can't fuel a ski plane, even on standard gear, without the ski/fuel step. The gear doesn't have the brake mount plate and the axle is several inches shorter. Each side is 1.3 pounds lighter. Way less torque.

Moving the wheels and skis outside of the slipstream gives more speed gain than any fairing. I think Mackey kept extending the gear to +12 ?? and the speed kept going up.

Jonny O
 
I simply put the Atlee Dodge full length step on my gear with the fairings on, gives one the forward part of step in front of the gear and aft of the gear, same as on gear with no fairings.
John
 
One thing I've thought about looking into is building a set of landing gear using streamlined tubing... Of course you'd have to match or preferably exceed the strength of the original Piper gear, I just think it would be interesting to know what kind of speed gain you'd see. Plus, it would look kinda cool!
 
That would require some engineering for the stresses involved with the differences in the tubing shapes and if your airplane is certified, another whole ball of wax. If you would really like to try it, get some balsa wood from a hobby shop, stick it on the trailing edges, shape it, and wrap it with a fabric of your choice. This is how it was done 100 years ago.
 
I've thought about mocking it up with balsa wood, but the profile would still be thicker than streamlined tubing. Of course this would only be for an experimental, and I realize that it would take more engineering than I'm capable of, and it would for sure be more expensive than its worth! It's just an idea I've thought about, but doubt I'll ever pursue it. Maybe someday I'll get bored enough to streamline it with balsa and get some real idea of what kind of gains could be seen.
 
I wouldn't be too concerned about the thickness as long as you stretched out the chord. I have heard but can not tell you definitively, that a Blimp is the most aerodynamic shape. With that in mind keeping the same relative shape would be efficient.
 
Interesting that a blimp is considered so efficient... Would that shape be as efficient at higher speeds? In the world of long range shooting, the most efficient bullets are those with a long, sleek, profile, with a long boattail... I'm sure as speeds go up, the gain of having a higher ballistically coefficient profile is greater, so at cub speeds, it may not matter too much if the airflow is cleaned up a little bit, or a lot. The cub airframe may be inefficient enough that big gains are unbelievable by simply changing the landing gear.
I'd like to know how much the PA-11 gained when they switched from round lift struts to the streamlined ones in 1948...?
 
To my point earlier about difficulty measuring the effectiveness of streamlining mods with fixed pitch prop and no M/P gauge.
In simple terms:

Let’s assume you take off towing a small banner, (parasitic drag)
you level out at 2400 rpm and record a speed of 80 mph.

Second flight, take off without the banner, level off 2400 rpm and record a speed of 85 mph.
The banner cost you 5mph right?

Now take off with the banner, level 2400 and drop the banner in flight. What happens? Speed increases as expected but so does your RPM, Now you are at 2500rpm at 90 mph - AT THE SAME POWER SETTING.

How much speed did the banner really cost you?
 
Last edited:
If you would like something to do while we are under quarantine, here is some reading materiel.

Blimp effect: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/shaped.html

https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/21597/what-is-the-optimal-streamlined-shape

https://www.papertrell.com/apps/pre...tent/SC/52caff9682fad14abfa5c2e0_default.html
For speeds lower than the speed of sound, the most aerodynamically efficient shape is the teardrop. The teardrop has a rounded nose that tapers as it moves backward, forming a narrow, yet rounded tail, which gradually brings the air around the object back together instead of creating eddy currents.
At high velocities, such as a jet airplane or a bullet may travel, other shapes are better. For turbulent flow, the least drag comes from having a blunt end, which intentionally causes turbulence. The rest of the air then flows smoothly over the region of turbulence behind the object.

Richard Whitcomb is credited with the area rule concept for high speed airplanes. If you reverse his wasp waist shape by maintaining the cross sectional area including the wings, you will discover a close resemblance to a blimp shape. Take the cross section area of each station for the entire fuselage length of the entire airplane and reduce those numbers to individual circles. What does it look like, a teardrop?
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter5.html
 
Lol, if we're not dreaming up ways to make a cub fly slower, we're dreaming up ways to make it go faster.....
 
I have this tubing on hand....same effective dia., (1'' I think, I didn't bother to measure it, but will later) one streamlined, one not. The actual diameter shouldn't matter much, but what should, will be the difference in drag/force, as measured on a digital fish scale, with the same lengths relative to a pivot point, stuck out the sunroof of my '99 Toyota RAV4, going 80 MPH. Yes, the aero forces over the the 4's hood will be different then the slipstream behind a prop, but at least it will give me an excuse to see if the RAV4 can even hit 80, I will report back.

IF I get pulled over by an Idaho state trooper, I will link to this thread to explain, but I think that's unlikely.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200413_113853425.jpg
    IMG_20200413_113853425.jpg
    70.6 KB · Views: 153
I have this tubing on hand....same effective dia., (1'' I think, I didn't bother to measure it, but will later) one streamlined, one not. The actual diameter shouldn't matter much, but what should, will be the difference in drag/force, as measured on a digital fish scale, with the same lengths relative to a pivot point, stuck out the sunroof of my '99 Toyota RAV4, going 80 MPH. Yes, the aero forces over the the 4's hood will be different then the slipstream behind a prop, but at least it will give me an excuse to see if the RAV4 can even hit 80, I will report back.

IF I get pulled over by an Idaho state trooper, I will link to this thread to explain, but I think that's unlikely.

If they’re both the same length, lodge the bottom of each on your armrest/center console if you can, and measure the pull from a specified height above the bottom.

If they’re different lengths you’ll get skewed results.

Also, for S&Gs, run the aero tube backwards.
 
The tests will be identical, in pivot points, and lengths exposed to the airflow. The only variable will be the ambient wind effects, but that should be minimized by doing it on a long straight stretch of I-15, within a few minutes duration, early in the morning, so stable as the air gets here. I have a very accurate and consistent cruise control on the Toy, and it will be implemented.

The last time I did a similar test, was before cheap digital scales and car sun roofs were common, or at least I had them. The test involved just sticking out the side window similar lengths of round and streamlined tubing, at 45 mph. The difference was so dramatic, though without any precise documentation (just the strain on my elbow) that since then (35 years ago), I have sought to reduce needless drag any time I can. Big tires aren't needless, goes without saying.
 
The Wright brothers used to rig up a balance on the handlebars of a bicycle, before they built their wind tunnel. I don't think they got any absolute values but they could see differences at bicycle speeds. Now 20 bucks on ebay gets you .o1 gm. Amazing that they could work thru the scale factor with their tiny tunnel with enough confidence to say that all the current lift tables compiled by their heroes were guesswork.

The fineness ratio comes down to the fragility of the trailing edge. One investigation might be leaving a wrapped sleeve loose enough to see the spiral slipstream place the sleeve at the correct angle, is it big enough to worry about.
 
I am nearing the end of clearing 30 acres of sage brush, and need to keep after it as I am piling it up and burning it, and of course need to do so before things totally dry out and create an unacceptable hazard. Two days ago, we had snow on the ground so the risk was minimal! So the test is on hold for a few days, just about 100+ years after the Wright Bros. came to what no doubt will be similar conclusions, drag sucks.
 
The tests will be identical, in pivot points, and lengths exposed to the airflow. The only variable will be the ambient wind effects, but that should be minimized by doing it on a long straight stretch of I-15, within a few minutes duration, early in the morning, so stable as the air gets here. I have a very accurate and consistent cruise control on the Toy, and it will be implemented.

The last time I did a similar test, was before cheap digital scales and car sun roofs were common, or at least I had them. The test involved just sticking out the side window similar lengths of round and streamlined tubing, at 45 mph. The difference was so dramatic, though without any precise documentation (just the strain on my elbow) that since then (35 years ago), I have sought to reduce needless drag any time I can. Big tires aren't needless, goes without saying.

Testing completed, sort of. It all looked good in the shop, with a big block of wood lashed down to the seat, and then a welded structure to pin the base of the test tubes. One unexpected thing, was that I could take the load off the load cell by partially closing the sun roof, then turn the cell on (it has an awkward button to do this, and it auto shuts off after a few seconds, plus the readout was at an angle and hard to read). Both tubes with 36" long, both pivoted at the same location at the end, and the load cell was hooked the same, about 6" up from the pivot point.

First the streamline tube: at 60 mph, I was first starting to realize that getting the load cell booted up, messing with the sun roof, and then craning my neck to see the digital readout, while talking on the cell phone and drinking coffee, left over little of my attention to my driving. No helper, other then dog in back. Just kidding about the cell phone...., but after getting into the rumble strips on the shoulder a few times, I seemed to get a reading of under 2 pounds. Thinking that must not be right, I felt the force manually, and to my surprise it was about 2 pounds. Not much at all, point being. With the round tube, I got about 9 pounds, but I stress that it was an intermittent reading, hard to see, and meanwhile I was back into the rumble strips. This fish de-lier has an irritating feature, if you turn it on with the load attached, it confuses it, you need to boot it up with no load, and apparently it was a bit much for my hand/eye coordination to do this at 80 mph, my second test. I quit while I was ahead, I have a CDL license to protect, and started thinking that what I was doing could be construed as inattentive driving by a state trooper with no aerodynamic interest or a sense of humor. Traffic was very light of course, no danger to anyone else, just me. The other thing, there is no real question that round tubing is a LOT draggier, thank you Wright Bros., who had a better testing setup then I did, 100 + years later!

Long story short, not wanting to spend any more time dicking around in the shop with the setup, and too cheap to buy a more appropriate scale, I went old school.

At 80 mph, holding on to the very end of the 36" streamline tube, I could quite easily hold it vertical in the slipstream, kind of amazing how little force it took actually. With the round tube, and still with pretty good hand/forearm strength from a lot of years swinging a hammer, no way could I hold it vertical. The best I could do was about 15 degrees off vertical, and that only with a lot of torquing on my wrist. So, no numbers worth anything, sorry about that, but the wrist-o-meter told me that the round tube is many times the drag of the streamline, it's not subtle at all, it was a dramatic difference. As I already have streamlined and covered gear, even my bungee/airshocks and cabane, I am obviously biased, and none of the "test" results surprised me at all. I take that back, I was not surprised on how draggy the round tube was, I WAS surprised by how low drag the streamline stuff was. That same streamline tubing, I had in the junk drawer from 40 years ago, either hang glider or ultralight vintage, is what I used to fair my cabane, and I'm not sure where I can get anymore.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200418_080827212_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20200418_080827212_HDR.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 132
I would think that that area your trying to test in would be a low pressure area behind the windshield?

Glenn
 
Maybe close to the skin, but the top of the tubes are high enough that a significant part of them should be in free-stream air.
 
As a test to form a taper try some thin bendable material like polycarbonate - lexan or ? - and bend a 2 to 3" per side V strip in a brake. Attach the open end to the rear of the tubing with nylon ties via holes on both sides of the V. Warm the material before shaping.

Gary
 
Back
Top