low aspect ratio ultralight
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
low aspect ratio ultralight
After decades of thinking high aspect ratio wings were needed my view now is low aspect ratio is best for an ultralight. There is a small group of designers thinking about low aspect ratio, including Barnaby Wainfan who built the Facetmobile and also gives talks at the Oshkosh forums about the advantages of low aspect ratio (AR).
Some major advantages of low AR are:
1) much lower weight wing with less spar load.
2) very good stall/spin resistance.
3) more compact overall.
4) more manueverable.
5) less gust reaction from lower lift slope curve.
My question is:
Are the aspect ratio charts in textbooks like THEORY OF WINGS SECTIONS based on wings of equal area or wings of same span?
It is not specified in the book.
An aero-engineer told me it does'nt matter in a wind tunnel. But it sure matters on the full size. I am confused. Any thoughts are appreciated.
slowrotor
Some major advantages of low AR are:
1) much lower weight wing with less spar load.
2) very good stall/spin resistance.
3) more compact overall.
4) more manueverable.
5) less gust reaction from lower lift slope curve.
My question is:
Are the aspect ratio charts in textbooks like THEORY OF WINGS SECTIONS based on wings of equal area or wings of same span?
It is not specified in the book.
An aero-engineer told me it does'nt matter in a wind tunnel. But it sure matters on the full size. I am confused. Any thoughts are appreciated.
slowrotor
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
Originally Posted by slowrotor
Are the aspect ratio charts in textbooks like THEORY OF WINGS SECTIONS based on wings of equal area or wings of same span?
It is not specified in the book.
An aero-engineer told me it does'nt matter in a wind tunnel. But it sure matters on the full size. I am confused. Any thoughts are appreciated.
slowrotor
It is not specified in the book.
An aero-engineer told me it does'nt matter in a wind tunnel. But it sure matters on the full size. I am confused. Any thoughts are appreciated.
slowrotor
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Not a TP but I've flown microlights of both styles:
AX3 - 50hp low aspect ratio 390kg MTWA
Chevvron 2-32 - 32hp high aspect ratio 390kg MTWA
The AX3 was much more fun to fly as it's shorter wingspan allowed more responsive roll rates; in comparison the Chevvron roll rate was much slower to the point of being like a Wessex ie move the stick and wait for the response!
The Chevvron encountered ground effect when landing even with flaps or airbrakes (it had three types of wing, one of them clean and the others with either flaps or trailing edge brakes) but the AX3 was very easy to land with neither of these; I used to demonstrate how you could level off at about 2 feet and it would land itself when ready. The AX3 was also less prone to gust reaction and much easier to handle in a crosswind. Having said all that, the Chevvron had a much higher cruising speed in spite of lower power, and hence was a better cross country machine, especially if you climbed to about 4 or 5 thousand.
AX3 - 50hp low aspect ratio 390kg MTWA
Chevvron 2-32 - 32hp high aspect ratio 390kg MTWA
The AX3 was much more fun to fly as it's shorter wingspan allowed more responsive roll rates; in comparison the Chevvron roll rate was much slower to the point of being like a Wessex ie move the stick and wait for the response!
The Chevvron encountered ground effect when landing even with flaps or airbrakes (it had three types of wing, one of them clean and the others with either flaps or trailing edge brakes) but the AX3 was very easy to land with neither of these; I used to demonstrate how you could level off at about 2 feet and it would land itself when ready. The AX3 was also less prone to gust reaction and much easier to handle in a crosswind. Having said all that, the Chevvron had a much higher cruising speed in spite of lower power, and hence was a better cross country machine, especially if you climbed to about 4 or 5 thousand.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Interesting replies.
My plan is to build an ultralight with an aspect ratio 2.5 wing.
AR 2 or 3 is very common in RC models and the aircraft have amazing performance. But not much in full scale at AR 2.5 that I know about.
I have run many simulations with X-plane and it works well. But still one wonders why others have not built planes with AR 2 or 3.
The Wright brothers found that AR 6 was much better than their early AR 3 glider. But they had increased the span. And span is the major factor for induced drag.
I think an ultralight with low span loading and wide chord would have low induced drag. With sufficient span the low aspect ratio is really not a factor.
It is just the result of adding area.
slowrotor
My plan is to build an ultralight with an aspect ratio 2.5 wing.
AR 2 or 3 is very common in RC models and the aircraft have amazing performance. But not much in full scale at AR 2.5 that I know about.
I have run many simulations with X-plane and it works well. But still one wonders why others have not built planes with AR 2 or 3.
The Wright brothers found that AR 6 was much better than their early AR 3 glider. But they had increased the span. And span is the major factor for induced drag.
I think an ultralight with low span loading and wide chord would have low induced drag. With sufficient span the low aspect ratio is really not a factor.
It is just the result of adding area.
slowrotor
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
From: Ireland
Speaking of x-plane and microlights, I wondered what the maximum level flight speed of a 450kg VLA would be, so I designed a rough model. It has an 80hp engine (neglecting cooling drag for the moment, also with retractable gear and a NACA23-016 shaped fuselage (carbonfibre, 0.012 Cd without any antennae, pure aerofoil shape)) the wings are NACA23016 (root) and NACA0009 (tip) with 1 degree of washout. Horizontal tail surfaces don't exist, the elevator is part of the aerofoil-shape fuselage. It's taildragger until I can figure out how to curb the psuedo-groundloop behaviour of the nosedragger!
Some interesting results...
(All results are at MAUW)
212KTAS at METO (1800ft, ISA standard)
184KTAS at 75% (1800ft, ISA standard)
1700fpm ROC @ 86KIAS
Stall is elevator limited at around 55kts (power off, flaps up)
Stalls at 28kts (power on, flaps down)
Just an excercise, but an interesting one!
(And yes, I know the Cd is very low, should be around 0.017, but it's only a rough model)
Some interesting results...
(All results are at MAUW)
212KTAS at METO (1800ft, ISA standard)
184KTAS at 75% (1800ft, ISA standard)
1700fpm ROC @ 86KIAS
Stall is elevator limited at around 55kts (power off, flaps up)
Stalls at 28kts (power on, flaps down)
Just an excercise, but an interesting one!
(And yes, I know the Cd is very low, should be around 0.017, but it's only a rough model)
Last edited by Confabulous; 5th June 2006 at 20:48.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Originally Posted by Confabulous
Speaking of x-plane and microlights, I wondered what the maximum level flight speed of a 450kg VLA would be, so I designed a rough model. It has an 80hp engine (neglecting cooling drag for the moment, also with retractable gear and a NACA23-016 shaped fuselage (carbonfibre, 0.012 Cd without any antennae, pure aerofoil shape)) the wings are NACA23016 (root) and NACA0009 (tip) with 1 degree of washout. Horizontal tail surfaces don't exist, the elevator is part of the aerofoil-shape fuselage. It's taildragger until I can figure out how to curb the psuedo-groundloop behaviour of the nosedragger!
Some interesting results...
(All results are at MAUW)
212KTAS at METO (1800ft, ISA standard)
184KTAS at 75% (1800ft, ISA standard)
1700fpm ROC @ 86KIAS
Stall is elevator limited at around 55kts (power off, flaps up)
Stalls at 28kts (power on, flaps down)
Just an excercise, but an interesting one!
(And yes, I know the Cd is very low, should be around 0.017, but it's only a rough model)
Some interesting results...
(All results are at MAUW)
212KTAS at METO (1800ft, ISA standard)
184KTAS at 75% (1800ft, ISA standard)
1700fpm ROC @ 86KIAS
Stall is elevator limited at around 55kts (power off, flaps up)
Stalls at 28kts (power on, flaps down)
Just an excercise, but an interesting one!
(And yes, I know the Cd is very low, should be around 0.017, but it's only a rough model)
- 75-100kn CAS maximum level cruise
- Climb ~800-1100 fpm at sea-level
- Stall at ~33 knots power off, flaps down
- Stall at ~30 knots power on, flaps down
- Stall may be elevator limited clean, but is likely to be around 38 knots.
G
Thanks G, at least that saves me wasting any more time on the concept 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by slowrotor
Interesting replies.
My plan is to build an ultralight with an aspect ratio 2.5 wing.
AR 2 or 3 is very common in RC models and the aircraft have amazing performance.
My plan is to build an ultralight with an aspect ratio 2.5 wing.
AR 2 or 3 is very common in RC models and the aircraft have amazing performance.
It depends how you define performance? Most of the low aspect ratio RC models are either deltas or similar. They are mainly highly aerobatic models with power to weight ratios approaching 1:1 or better. They have very high roll rates - sometimes able to roll 360 degrees in less than 1 second. Some are able to loop in just a few plane lengths. Part of their amazing performance is due to the prop wash - even the ailerons are in the prop wash!
The problem comes when the motor quits... You loose the prop wash over the controls (so some of your control authority vanishes) but the roll stability/instability is unchanged. It can also be tricky to get them to slow down without tip stalling.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
From: Ireland
As far as I'm aware models and full scale aircraft can't be compared due to scale effect, lower Reynolds numbers, huge props etc. Models can do things the real aircraft can't... its the same reason we can't make a Cessna size model of a hummingbird - scaling it up cancels out all the advantages. And as Genghis showed with my little concept, the simulator and real life don't always compare well.
(Although the MCR01 Ban-Bi shows 30% higher numbers then Genghis quotes, it's not really a typical microlight)
In theory, the higher the normal wing loading the faster the top speed, also you'd be able to make a low AR wing stiffer and stronger. Of course there'd be higher landing speeds and a rougher ride, but that's one of the many compromises
(Although the MCR01 Ban-Bi shows 30% higher numbers then Genghis quotes, it's not really a typical microlight)
In theory, the higher the normal wing loading the faster the top speed, also you'd be able to make a low AR wing stiffer and stronger. Of course there'd be higher landing speeds and a rougher ride, but that's one of the many compromises
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Well, technically you can scale from a model to a full-scale aeroplane (or vice versa), the problem is that the various characteristics scale at different rates. So, to carry out an effective scaling exercise you need a fairly high level of engineering knowledge - and even then the further you extrapolate data, the more potential for "gotchas".
G
G
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
Well, technically you can scale from a model to a full-scale aeroplane (or vice versa), the problem is that the various characteristics scale at different rates. So, to carry out an effective scaling exercise you need a fairly high level of engineering knowledge - and even then the further you extrapolate data, the more potential for "gotchas".
G
G
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
cwatters,
The RC models I referred to above are called "fun fly models" here in the U.S. They usually have an AR of 2.5 to 3 with rectangular wings. The deltas you mentioned would be extreme low aspect ratio (below 2) with quite different performance and possibly more inclined to tip stall than a rectangular wing.
This aspect ratio 3 seems to provide for extreme slow flight, lift off in one fuselage length and extreme maneuvering as you mentioned when fitted with large control surfaces. For a full size, the large controls would not be desired as it will not be designed for aerobatics.
But the rigid light structure is desired. Of course, with less power the climb would not be spectacular, but the stable slow flight is my primary interest. The models have thick cantilever wings and I would do the same. Most full size ultralights look something like your drawing with struts and wires everywhere. A thick cantilever wing is simpler to build and less drag. Thats why RC models are built with cantilever almost always.
Genghis,
I think the main consideration with scale is reynolds number. In that respect a low aspect ratio with wide chord wings has a favorable higher reynolds number. So what works for RC models should work well in full scale also, I think. If anyone has comments about why we don't see more aircraft of AR 2.2 to 3, please advise.
slowrotor
The RC models I referred to above are called "fun fly models" here in the U.S. They usually have an AR of 2.5 to 3 with rectangular wings. The deltas you mentioned would be extreme low aspect ratio (below 2) with quite different performance and possibly more inclined to tip stall than a rectangular wing.
This aspect ratio 3 seems to provide for extreme slow flight, lift off in one fuselage length and extreme maneuvering as you mentioned when fitted with large control surfaces. For a full size, the large controls would not be desired as it will not be designed for aerobatics.
But the rigid light structure is desired. Of course, with less power the climb would not be spectacular, but the stable slow flight is my primary interest. The models have thick cantilever wings and I would do the same. Most full size ultralights look something like your drawing with struts and wires everywhere. A thick cantilever wing is simpler to build and less drag. Thats why RC models are built with cantilever almost always.
Genghis,
I think the main consideration with scale is reynolds number. In that respect a low aspect ratio with wide chord wings has a favorable higher reynolds number. So what works for RC models should work well in full scale also, I think. If anyone has comments about why we don't see more aircraft of AR 2.2 to 3, please advise.
slowrotor
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
From: England
If slow flight is your target then you need an efficient wing and low wing loading.....just like a glider. "Plank" style Funfly models manage slow flght by having low wing loading, a reasonably thick section and an excess of power to counter the drag that causes.
