Slatted Wing V's Non-Slatted Wing
Slatted Wing V's Non-Slatted Wing
Out of curiosity I've been researching LE slats on wings. Got me thinking about the higher end of the light jets.
Typical aircraft is the Phenom 300. An 18,000 lb airframe with moderate wing sweep.
Some questions I have but can't find a definitive answer for.........yes, I have gone through all the aerodynamic theory etc.
Are slatted wings much heavier, obviously more complex/expensive to manufacture, is the maintenance costs increased by a large/small amount.
Does the machanism under the skin take up enough room to impinge on fuel capacity in a relatively small wing.
Are there any potential handling characteristic drawbacks that prompt a manufacturer to stick with a hard wing.
Is it more corporate philosophy than engineering. Light jets in the 60's all had slats, (Falcon 10 etc) but they have lost favour.
These questions came to mind after reading the accident report of a Phenom 300 runway over run at Elk River as well as all the technical reprts on the NTSB accident docket.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/0...300-n413n.html
Supplimentary questions.
The Phenom 300 seems to have smallish speedbrakes and no ground spoilers. Using the Pilatus PC-24 as an example, which has significantly greater spoiler area (ie greater ability to apply weight to the wheels).Is the phenom short of liftdump due to no ground spoilers. Additionally, the PC-24 has dual main wheels v's the Phenoms single tyre arrangement. Does a dual tyre leg have much more braking capability? I suspect yes, but can't find any data to back up my assumption.
There does seem to be a pattern of runway over run incidents with the Phenom 300, especially on wet or contaminated runways.
Typical aircraft is the Phenom 300. An 18,000 lb airframe with moderate wing sweep.
Some questions I have but can't find a definitive answer for.........yes, I have gone through all the aerodynamic theory etc.
Are slatted wings much heavier, obviously more complex/expensive to manufacture, is the maintenance costs increased by a large/small amount.
Does the machanism under the skin take up enough room to impinge on fuel capacity in a relatively small wing.
Are there any potential handling characteristic drawbacks that prompt a manufacturer to stick with a hard wing.
Is it more corporate philosophy than engineering. Light jets in the 60's all had slats, (Falcon 10 etc) but they have lost favour.
These questions came to mind after reading the accident report of a Phenom 300 runway over run at Elk River as well as all the technical reprts on the NTSB accident docket.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/0...300-n413n.html
Supplimentary questions.
The Phenom 300 seems to have smallish speedbrakes and no ground spoilers. Using the Pilatus PC-24 as an example, which has significantly greater spoiler area (ie greater ability to apply weight to the wheels).Is the phenom short of liftdump due to no ground spoilers. Additionally, the PC-24 has dual main wheels v's the Phenoms single tyre arrangement. Does a dual tyre leg have much more braking capability? I suspect yes, but can't find any data to back up my assumption.
There does seem to be a pattern of runway over run incidents with the Phenom 300, especially on wet or contaminated runways.
Last edited by nomorecatering; 16th Oct 2023 at 13:49.
They may have been a gimmick rather than a necessity to be more like the big jets.
There are costs and weight and additional concerns for safety against unequal deployment that may outweigh the novelty.
There are costs and weight and additional concerns for safety against unequal deployment that may outweigh the novelty.
I was always impressed with the supercritical wing on the Lear 45 that flew with flaps only down to a Vapp of about 120 it’s and cruised up to FL510 in the .76 range. Still seriously impressive field performance too.
