Wing-Lift-Increasing Idea.

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

I am a scratchbuilder. So I thought of this new wing design, which will increase lift, without increasing surface area of the wing, and expanding the capabilities of the wing. The idea is very simple. What is only needed is the wing that is at least 1 centimeter thick (this size allows optimum performance for my idea). You make constant holes along the leading edge of the wing (at least 3 mm in diameter), and constant holes at the back part of the wing ONLY on top part of the wing. My other suggestion is to place a motor in the wing, so it will make a better performance for sucking in the air through the leading edge holes. As a result, the air is sucked in (no matter with/without the engine) through leading edge holes and bursts out on the wing-top holes (those hole must be at most 4 mm in diameter). The increased airspeed on the top part of th ewing will decrease the pressure, and if you already know how lift is created by the air(aero)foil, you would see the lift increases by 1.5 or even 2 times (if the engine is installed, fo 2 times more). Now, you might say that the extra air will disturb the airflow. It won't. I said before that the holes must be installed in the back part of the wing. You maybe already know, but in the back of the wing there is practically no air, because of the downwash and friction and pressure effects (about those you may ask me personally). So the extra air will not only increase wing lift and not disturb the airflow, but it will make the whole wing/air(aero)foil useful, nat waisting any material and adding surface area/weight. I find this idea very useful in my own plane designs (I don't do ARF planes and kits). Try it out, give comments, ask questions.

[fychan]

Call me stoopid, but if it's going to double the lift from the wing, why aren't commercial airliners using it to carry more people / luggage / cargo? Come to that, why haven't the military adopted the design if it's so simple and would allow them to almost double their ordenance(sp?) load?

[supercruiser]

How about some pictures of your wing?

[cdwheatley]

fychan makes a good point. If, by some inexplicable chance, the entire aviation industry and military have somehow missed this 'simple' idea and yet you alone have suddenly stumbled upon it then why are you blabbing about it on an internet forum?! Surely if this really IS such a revolutionary idea wouldn't it be a good idea to patent it or something before going public?!

P.S. by the way, it's 'ordnance'!

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

fychan makes a good point. If, by some inexplicable chance, the entire aviation industry and military have somehow missed this 'simple' idea and yet you alone have suddenly stumbled upon it then why are you blabbing about it on an internet forum?! Surely if this really IS such a revolutionary idea wouldn't it be a good idea to patent it or something before going public?!

P.S. by the way, it's 'ordnance'!

Well, all of you are definitely strong believers that aviation is supposed to use everything a person cloud discover, that only 'chosen ones' work in that field. I myself am studying for an aircraft designer/airplane designer job. I am also a business student, so I hope making my own aircraft prioducing company. Aviation always has time to improve, and maybe noone there has thought of my 'simple' idea there yet. So I hope to be the first one to come up with it. Many people (and more than you think, believe me) think that today's aviation has reached the point where it is at it's peak. Well, it isn't. Really, my opinion is that it will be at it's peak when a plane uses at most 3000 pounds of fuel, carrying 500 passengers, to circle the world. And when the same plane can go inot the outer space to the moon, and we don't use 30-story high rockets to launch a laughably small capsule with 2-5 men inside, which isn't even 2 story and is with one room only. People right now are very engaged in fuel-efficient planes, that carry up to 1000 people. And guess what? They think about the engines. But they really forget that it is not only the engine that can make a plane fuel-efficient. And when I become an airplane designer and have my own company I found, I promise you I won't think like that. I will try the untried designs, and will do everything I can to make aviation a step better. Because even that knew Boeing 787 'DreamLiner' won't bring anything knew to aviation but a lower-cost tickets. But that is all not helping. I will make the design noone has ever tried, and that design will really push aviation a couple of steps forward. What do you say?

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

How about some pictures of your wing?

I don't have any pictures of the wing. I built it a year or something near that ago. I am working on plans for my new plane, that will include that idea I have developed. I will send the pistures of that wing once I am done with everything and actually built the plane (in summer most likely).

[cdwheatley]

I say good luck to you . And if you ever do manage to revolutionise air travel with your ideas I'll remember that I heard it here first!

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

I say good luck to you . And if you ever do manage to revolutionise air travel with your ideas I'll remember that I heard it here first!

Thanks, I appreciate that. What are some of your ideas? What planes have you built? Have you done jets? I am working on electric jet plans right now. It's a near-scale of F-16C, though I made some changes and applied the idea I described in the piece to it's wings. It's not big. 63 cm in length I think (don't wnat to look at the plans right now, I am doing my homework). What you got?

[lennyz]

DANIEL---MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHYSICS INVOLVED IN CREATING LIFT IS VERY BASIC. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE AIRFLOW GOING FASTER OVER THE TOP SURFACE AS COMPARED TO THE LOWER SURFACE IS WHAT CREATES THAT LIFT. THIS IS MY VERY BASIC CRUDE NON COLLEGE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT CONCEPT. HOW DRAWING OR PASSING AIR THROUGH THE WING CAN AFFECT THE SPEED OF THE AIR GOING OVER THE TOP OF THE WING, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT ALSO OCCURS TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE SOME PRETTY SOPHISTICATED DUCTING TO CONTROL THAT AIRFLOW. AND IF YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT GOES TO THE AIR EXITING THE WING WILL CREATE A SUCTION TO DRAG MORE AIR ACROSS THE WING, IT SEEMS THAT YOUR EXIT PORTS MAY HAVE TO BE DIRECTIONAL AND OR CONTROLLED FOR VOLUME. THAT IS A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLICATIONS FOR A BUNCH OF GUYS BUILDING STICK & TISSUE MODELS FOR DISPLAY AND FLYING

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

DANIEL---MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHYSICS INVOLVED IN CREATING LIFT IS VERY BASIC. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE AIRFLOW GOING FASTER OVER THE TOP SURFACE AS COMPARED TO THE LOWER SURFACE IS WHAT CREATES THAT LIFT. THIS IS MY VERY BASIC CRUDE NON COLLEGE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT CONCEPT. HOW DRAWING OR PASSING AIR THROUGH THE WING CAN AFFECT THE SPEED OF THE AIR GOING OVER THE TOP OF THE WING, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT ALSO OCCURS TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE SOME PRETTY SOPHISTICATED DUCTING TO CONTROL THAT AIRFLOW. AND IF YOUR LINE OF THOUGHT GOES TO THE AIR EXITING THE WING WILL CREATE A SUCTION TO DRAG MORE AIR ACROSS THE WING, IT SEEMS THAT YOUR EXIT PORTS MAY HAVE TO BE DIRECTIONAL AND OR CONTROLLED FOR VOLUME. THAT IS A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLICATIONS FOR A BUNCH OF GUYS BUILDING STICK & TISSUE MODELS FOR DISPLAY AND FLYING

It really isn't Lennyz.You say it will create more drag. It won't. And that can be made with also a very simple tool. You know those bottles of ketchup? You know how they have mess-free caps? Well, there is this simple little device/tool/piece whatever you may call it, that is installed in the cap. It doesn't ket the ketchup go out. So, if you flip the piece, completely opposite will happen. So, we inctall those pieces on each whole on the top of the wing. As a result, no air will be able to go inside the wing, but the air sucked in from the leading edge of the wing will freely travel out of the wing!!!! And yes, we can always install air-intake filters, but they will be not as much needed. I must have to say (but what my grandpa never allows to say about anything in the world), that we don't need as much accuracy in aircraft MODELS than in planes themselves. The engine that is installed in the wing itself is pretty much a filter, for it works at a constant rate all the time. Inside, there isn't any airflow, so filters won't be need. And outside, again, we don't aquire as much accuracy. Of course, for a real plane, we will need filters. But that is to develop when I will actually design the real aircraft with a team.

Sincerely,

Daniel.

[fychan]

Ok, I'm stoopid

Entirely unrelatedly (I guess) the New Scientist has an article on this exact same concept this week concerning laminar airflow over the wing, and how the multiple small holes in the leading edge with the trailing edge vents decrease the turbulance of the air over the wing, and thus decrease the drag.

There's an article in wiki about laminar air flow here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar

But I recommend the article in the NS - it's much clearer in its descriptions and how a conservative aerospace industry has ignored the research done into this idea in 1987 due to the falling fuel prices.

I owe you an apology for my derision Daniel....

[fychan]

I got the relevant part from the article online:

...

Yet there is no shortage of innovative ideas out there. In some cases they have even made it to flight tests. Take drag control, for instance - a technique that improves efficiency by reducing friction between a plane and the air. For minimal friction, the thin layer of air closest to the surface of an aircraft should flow smoothly - something engineers call laminar flow. In practice, however, this boundary layer flowing around a jet's wings can easily become disturbed and peel away from the surface. This creates turbulence that can account for up to 40 per cent of a plane's total drag.

To eliminate this, engineers have investigated an idea called laminar flow control. Put tens of thousands of tiny holes along the top of an aircraft's wings and a fan inside can suck the disturbed boundary layer back towards the wing. This removes the fuel-wasting turbulence, leaving a smooth flow in its place (see Diagram).

From the late 1970s onwards, the aircraft industry worked hard on laminar flow control, from theory to flight tests, to the point at which the technique could reliably reduce drag by up to 20 per cent on everything from fighter jets to airliners. But work halted in the 1990s when fuel prices dropped. "We stopped doing the research because the cost of installing and maintaining the suction system didn't pay for itself over the life of the plane," Bushnell says. Complications such as the need to clear dust, insect remains and ice from the holes increased the cost of the system.

...

Taken from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325921.600

[lennyz]

AFTER READING THE EXCERPT FROM THE ARTICLE POSTED ABOVE I MUST ADMIT, THAT MAKES SENSE. MAYBE I MISINTERPRETED YOUR EXPLANATION OF YOUR DESIGN. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PICTURES OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND HEAR HOW IT PERFORMS.
GOOD LUCK

[supercruiser]

It appears to me that we are talking about two different variations of a design concept. The suction boundary layer control has been researched, as the article points out for a few decades. In the mid 1960's there was the X-21A aircraft that had an operational bleed-air driven suction boundary layer control system. As alluded to in the Bennett Daviss article, it was a maintenance headache. The x-21a had 800,000 or so tiny holes in the wing surface.

However, Daniel first mentioned what I would call a passive system for boundary layer control. Using the (relatively) high pressure at the leading edge of the wing to reenergize the boundary layer at the upper wing, trailing edge through holes in the wing structure. A test using model aircraft might be useful to see if the theory is plausible. With radio controlled models and live telemetry( available at your internet hobby shop) to a laptop; much data could be gained from field tests. Yes, there would be technical difficulties like scale effect and such.

[Daniel, a scratchbuilder]

Ok, I'm stoopid

Entirely unrelatedly (I guess) the New Scientist has an article on this exact same concept this week concerning laminar airflow over the wing, and how the multiple small holes in the leading edge with the trailing edge vents decrease the turbulance of the air over the wing, and thus decrease the drag.

There's an article in wiki about laminar air flow here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar

But I recommend the article in the NS - it's much clearer in its descriptions and how a conservative aerospace industry has ignored the research done into this idea in 1987 due to the falling fuel prices.

I owe you an apology for my derision Daniel....

It's ok. Thanks for the article. It's interesting. I'm actually glad that the idea was researched, but not operated on yet. So I got a chance to continue it.