Apr 05, 2006, 11:33 AM Registered User Joined Apr 2006 100 Posts Discussion Best L/D Ratio Correct me if im wrong, but if you look at wind tunnel tests and take down a number of cl points with their corresponding cd values in excel, then in the next row divide cl/cd, you will come up with L/D ratios. Right? I know these are not corrected values for wing planform, but to me the best L/D ratio for any airfoil I have looked at comes at a cl of at least 0.6. The value of the CL goes even higher when correcting for wing planform and aspect ratio... and those high CL's correspond to angles of attack at about 4-6 degrees. Am i totally off base on this?
 Apr 05, 2006, 11:52 AM Registered User DC Joined Sep 2005 250 Posts What are some examples of numbers you have for C_l and C_d? Where are you getting these numbers? From somebody's wind tunnel data?
 Apr 05, 2006, 01:07 PM Registered User Joined Apr 2006 100 Posts Here is a sample of my results. You can see the best L/D ratio is about 0.9 in this case, but it goes down with corrections. It was my understanding that gliders are trimmed to fly at the best L/D ratio... the high cl is produced at high angle of attack
Apr 05, 2006, 01:36 PM
Ascended Master
Palmdale, CA
Joined Oct 2000
13,621 Posts
You have to look at the polars to see how the airfoil performs..
Seling 3021...

Where the drag is the least...
from:http://www.nasg.com/afdb/index-e.phtml

# Images

 Apr 05, 2006, 01:49 PM Registered User Punta Gorda, FL Joined Apr 2002 4,952 Posts "Here is a sample of my results. You can see the best L/D ratio is about 0.9 in this case, but it goes down with corrections. It was my understanding that gliders are trimmed to fly at the best L/D ratio... the high cl is produced at high angle of attack" I think you mean lift coefficient 0.9. Some trim conditions are near L/D in cases. Other trim conditions are for minimum sinking speed conditions. Some trim conditions are for high speed conditions. For a whole glider, L/G= Cl/(Cdo + Cdi + Cdp). Cdo is for the airfoil. Cdi is for the planform including: sweep, aspect ratio, taper ratio, twist, angle of attack. See: http://aero.stanford.edu/WingCalc.html Cdp is for fuselage, vert. tail, horz. tail and etc. Cdp=Cdf(Af/Aw) + Cdv(Av/Aw) + Cdh*Cdhi(Ah/Aw) + etc. Last edited by Ollie; Apr 05, 2006 at 02:05 PM.
Apr 05, 2006, 01:55 PM
Registered User
DC
Joined Sep 2005
250 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gsr916 Here is a sample of my results. You can see the best L/D ratio is about 0.9 in this case, but it goes down with corrections. It was my understanding that gliders are trimmed to fly at the best L/D ratio... the high cl is produced at high angle of attack

Am I blind, or am I reading L/D's in the 20-30 range right on your spread sheet? I must be missing something.
Apr 05, 2006, 01:56 PM
Registered User
DC
Joined Sep 2005
250 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by space_case Am I blind, or am I reading L/D's in the 20-30 range right on your spread sheet? I must be missing something.
0.90 ? You must be looking after the decimal point? Look further to the left!
 Apr 05, 2006, 02:12 PM Registered User Joined Apr 2006 100 Posts I know the L/D's are high, but they are highest when cl is 0.9. that is damn near the stall angle of the wing though. With cl of 0.2 or 0.3, the profile drag is the least, but induced drag isnt necessarily the least. Maybe model aircraft designers dont look at the actual L/D ratio, but rather just the area in the bucket when the cd is lowest. In our senior project report, we can certainly pick a smaller angle of attack (corresponding to lower cl) but the speed will be higher... Not neccessarily what we want but... I have just read in many locations that gliders are normally trimmed at best L/D Ratio, which corresponds to 7 degrees incidence in my case.
 Apr 05, 2006, 02:19 PM Registered User Ireland, Kildare, Leixlip Joined May 2002 6,443 Posts I take it you're saying that the max Cl/Cd on the table (37.50) occurs at Cl of 0.9 and that this corresponds to an angle of attack of about 4 to 6 degrees? Do I understand that correctly? If so that doesn't seem impossible. What's the aerofoil you're getting these numbers from and what sort of range are the Reynolds numbers for these tests? (are we talking 10,000 or 20,000,000?) Aidan P.S. you seem to have cleared up the first part while I was typing
 Apr 05, 2006, 02:59 PM B for Bruce The 'Wack, BC, Canada Joined Oct 2002 14,564 Posts Uh... bear in mind that you're not taking into account the airframe parasitic drag in all this. Add in that and you probably end up with a more typical Cl where the L/D is optimized. Best airframe L/D is always shown in those typical little graphs where the Cl/Cd and the airframe drag rise from opposite sides of the chart and intersect at the crossover where the best AIRFRAME L/D is located. This typically happens at a far lower Cl than the Cl/Cd occurs. Besides, I was under the impression that L/D is only a whole airframe sort of parameter. Cl/Cd is the airfoil only and is not the same thing as the L/D.
 Apr 05, 2006, 04:47 PM Registered User Joined Apr 2006 100 Posts actually I did take account for parasitic drag of the airframe, just not in those numbers. Regardless, i get results that neccessitate high angles of attack. The wind tunnel drag coefficient was corrected for aspect ratio and parasitic drag. Even if the best L/D is at around 0.8 or so, the angle of attack that would induce stall isnt too far off the angle of attack imposed by the wing incidence... Anyone know of any wing incidences for full size sailplanes? Maybe those are higher. Wikipedia says that an average incidence is around 6 degrees, but I don't know if that is 100% trustworthy. the reynolds # for the wind tunnel test i looked at was for Re = 100,000. Re=200,000 was not far off, and our plane will operate inbetween those values.
 Apr 05, 2006, 04:49 PM Registered User Joined Apr 2006 100 Posts oh, also... I looked at wind tunnel test data in the back of the book: Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, by Martin Simons
Apr 05, 2006, 05:27 PM
Needs brain lubrication
Aachen, very western Germany
Joined Dec 2004
1,394 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gsr916 Am i totally off base on this?
I don't think you are.

I don't know why around 6° shouldn't be correct?
Those figures seem all reasonable to me.
What exactely makes you doubt them so much?
Well, besides the fact, that one generally should't trust blindly in figures, of course.

biber
 Apr 05, 2006, 05:50 PM Registered User Punta Gorda, FL Joined Apr 2002 4,952 Posts A wing has angle of attack is for summing two parts. The angle of attack for the airfoil and induced angle of attack. The induced angle attack is proportional to Cl^2 and inversed to aspect ratio. Incidence is for rigging on the ground or into the shop. The angle of attack of the airplane is measured to the air speed in the direction the path of the aircraft from the air mass. See: http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html
Apr 05, 2006, 07:36 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2006
100 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by biber I don't think you are. I don't know why around 6° shouldn't be correct? Those figures seem all reasonable to me. What exactely makes you doubt them so much? Well, besides the fact, that one generally should't trust blindly in figures, of course. biber
I am doubting my results because EVERYONE is telling me that a glider should have an angle of incidence between 1-2 degrees. I've measured some of my plans at home and they are around 1-2 degrees too. The gliders seem to fly fine at those trims, but i dont think it is the most efficient flight. But nonetheless, that is why i doubt the results so much. I was expecting to come up with an incidence around 1-2, and instead I get 6-7 for each airfoil i look at.