I tend to cover a large variety of space and aviation topics, though I'm not opposed to other subjects as well. Much like my flight instruction job, I try to bridge the gap between complex topics and more common experiences. If even one person finds this helpful, then I have accomplished my goal. Thank you for the visit and have a great rest of your day.
Thanks a lot for all infos :) A newer concept that I discovered recently on the WWW is the Synergy Prime, a weird looking aircraft which combines in its "wings" both vertical & horizontal surfaces in a continuous surface !!! What do you think of that concept ??? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lMklmhXGcJQ.html
Sorry for the unlike, but i think there are very aerodynamic stuff missing in your analisys, maybe you can get some help from someone very experiencied in cfd
Corrections of Errors: 1. A second class medical is acceptable for SOME international for-hire flying for a commercial pilot. Not all countries will accept it, but for a commercial pilot hired to fly a private aircraft, a second class medical may be sufficient depending on the nation. A first class is required for airlines and especially flying internationally for an airline.
6:30 Couldn't they "round" the top edge of the doors to create a pseudo-fairing to 'smooth' the airflow where that from the door and wingroot intersect? They could fill the 'void' volume created at the top with soundproofing rubber or foam strip that would further enhance the airflow, sound, and air pressure differentials experienced inside of the cabin.
I’m doing my ppl right now and have already gone over all of this, but this is a great way to recap, keep them coming!! Hopefully you can go over the turning tendencies on the next one!
Formerly active Mooney pilot - some time in 20B, C, E, F and J. Re comment about width I found the Mooneys pretty identical to the Cherokees I got my ratings in, BUT for me the lower seating position is what made the Mooney feel tighter to me. I loved them all, but the longer F and the J most. However, I also really liked the fast and super reliable gear bar best.
I have a 1968 M20F Executive. I love this airplane. It is rock stable as an IFR platform. I does what you tell it to do, very responsive to control inputs. Definitely feels like a sports car. 150kts on 10gph. It's a good tall person's airplane. I'm 6'4" and I have to move the seat up to reach the rudder pedals. It is not a wide airplane, however. Very few AD's comparatively speaking. I have the electric gear which I prefer to the manual, however, this increases maintenance somewhat.
Hi, very interesting and helpful. What do you think or a wingtip root mounted propeller, mainly in the pusher configuration? Do you think this can reduce vortices? I understand that this is not able to provide a rudder effect but I am considering drone designs where the effect of a rudder comes from vectoring fans, these may even be on the wing tip. I am hoping that pusher configuration has the same effect as a puller configuration at reducing vortices but with laminar flow wing. In thinking about your design, I wonder if suction within the wing via a very slender fan and holes to suck boundary layer off could also eliminate interference drag at the winglet root.
When you asked this I immediately thought of Think Flight and RC Test Flight. They do videos like this and I found one that somewhat answers this exact question. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Vi9FqIAG0Rg.htmlsi=ojulLXlNsmQ6u1S5 Based on that, I think you get benefits of tip mounted props even in the pusher configuration. They are small benefits, but drag reductions nonetheless. Having some kind of active suction to reduce pressure increases at the joint is an interesting idea. Unfortunately it is too much for most CFD tools as you have to choose between an internal or external analysis. Such a test would involve both. I’m sure there is a way to do it, but I think practical testing on drones would be the best way. Another thing to consider is would the fans draw more power and therefore consume more fuel than a more efficient winglet intersection? These are fascinating questions to think on. I wish I could give a better answer than more questions.
Do you think that you're findings would apply to a blended winglet? I've noticed on the blended winglet that the upper winglet has a sharper (lower number) angle than the lower winglet. I ask, because I want to build composite wings for an RV-6, and incorporate a blended winglet. I would appreciate any input that you might have.
What aircraft are you flying where you calculate minimum takeoff and landing speed? I have never come across it in the POH for any aircraft I have flown. Most simply have a rotation speed
@@denemesurumu7001 minimum takeoff and landing speeds apply to jet and airline transport aircraft. I have not had the opportunity to fly any of those yet so I’m not qualified or experienced enough to answer this question properly, but I did find an article on it that goes over doing the calculations for a B737. Even so, this is for calculating V1, VR (rotation speed), and V2. V2 is probably the closest to what I would call a minimum takeoff speed. The plane will fly at a lower speed, but not well. V2 is about the slowest a pilot would want to be on takeoff. Landing typically would be no slower than VREF which would have its own chart. It all depends on the specific aircraft and conditions that day. For the small planes I fly, we are simply given VR, VX (max climb angle speed), and VY (max climb rate speed) for the maximum weight of the aircraft and we use those every time. I hope that helps. Article: wiki.ivao.aero/en/home/training/documentation/Use_of_takeoff_charts_B737
I have been wearing earplugs under my headset for years, so I have done both. I read in an aviation medicine textbook that it decreases fatigue from flying which sounded crazy, but it actually does work. Some of the fatigue from flying long days is from noise, so less noise helps some. To answer your question you should know that I have after market ear seals on my H10 and that has helped slightly with their passive noise canceling. Now for the comparison with earplugs worn under the two: H10 with stock ear seals and One X with noise canceling turned off are about the same noise level (uncomfortably loud for me) H10 with aftermarket ear seals has better passive noise canceling than the One X with active turned off (still unpleasantly loud) One X with noise canceling turned on is much better, but still not quite as good as I had hoped (loud, but bearable) For a long time after buying the One X I regretted not buying the Bose A20, but then I got a job flying multi-engine pistons and realized where the One X truly shines: it does a fantastic job of canceling the sound from two props out of sync. It makes the multi sound like a single and I really have to listen closely to get the two props synced. Pilots flying with me who have the A20 seem to be bothered by out of sync props far more than I do, and if I had to guess, I would say it is because of the noise canceling on the One X (I certainly notice if I forget to turn it on). I have purposely never worn an A20 with the noise canceling turned on because I'm afraid I would want one, so I can't say for sure, but just from seeing how pilots with them respond to out of syn props, I think I made the right choice going with the One X.
@@WalkerWeathers I’m about 1 month away from taking my PPL Checkride, so flying solo XC with no one to talk to other than ATC had me thinking about comparing the H10 and the One X with earplugs and I would agree with your assessment of the noise levels. When I started my flight training in a Cherokee I used the schools passive headsets but with the engine noise, needing to concentrate to hear and learn aviation lingo was more difficult. I then bought the One X after my instructor recommended I get an ANC headset to help with hearing the radios. I wanted to save some money so I opted for them over the Bose A20. After wearing the One X with ANC I thought it was still very loud maybe 20-30% less engine rumbling noise vs ANC off. Then I got the idea to wear foam earplugs underneath my headset after needing to use them during fireworks on New Years. I first tried Yellow 3M foam earplugs that my dad gets for free at work. Made a huge difference in noise reduction maybe 40-50% reduction, but they were uncomfortable after a while. So I bought Moldex Sparkplugs and found them to be even quieter than the 3M ones and more comfortable. It looks like you use the same brand as well. I’ll ask a friend to borrow his Bose A20 to compare with the One X side by side next time I fly. Also would you recommend the aftermarket ear seals? Are they the Oregon ones? Is it just the seal or is it a different ear cup foam as well?
I like that you even mentioned "diminishing returns", which are returns, nonetheless. Modern designs like the Boeing 787 wing, seem to indicate that the largest practical radius is optimal. A square has more perimeter than its inscribed circle. Besides reducing interference drag, increasing the winglet radius also reduces frontal area. Less frontal area means less drag. Structurally, it results in less mass, less cost in (composite) material, and the removal of a difficult-to-layup joint.
Oh man. Starting a really cold engine like this is horrible for the engine and can put many 10's of hours of wear on it with just one cold start. Serially cold started engines have a slim chance to make it to TBO. An engine heater will quickly pay for itself if you need to cold start.
I use XFLR5 airfoil analysis and CFD. It is opensource as well. I made like one video on it for a demo haha. It will graph Cd, Cp etc. Its worth looking into. I am watching your videos because i have never used CFD software, even though i understand the math very well, i just have not applied it yet. So hopefully i can understand what you are doing haha
Your first born and then some… that’s a Dynon system, with the navigator, you are probably looking at $50k. I’ve learned that whatever the cost of the hardware, you’re looking at least another 50% for installation cost.
The electric fuel pump uses electricity so I only wanted to use it to get fuel pressure to push some fuel into the engine. All low wing airplanes that I know of have at least two fuel pumps: the electric one and another that is turned by the engine. When the starter turns the engine the engine turns the other fuel pump, so the electric one is only really needed at first. It is used during takeoffs, landings, and maneuvers for safety in case the other one breaks, but technically the engine will run just fine with just the engine-driven pump
@@WalkerWeathers Thank you! I thought that there was no mechanical pump on an aircraft engine because they are very unreliable compared to electric ones.
@@I___electric pumps may be a little more reliable but when they fail it's usually immediate. Mechanical pumps almost always fail gradually, allowing pilot to notice. Also they don't stop when the battery fails.
Apparantly you are not too familiar with the Mooneys... - I own and fly a Mooney M20F for more than 10 years now and it hurt seeing you starting the engine...
I appreciate that you enjoyed having the privilege to fly a vintage M20F. It is indeed one of the finest 200hp singles ever made. Fast, efficient, and a good load hauler (mine will take 800lbs in the cabin over 500nm). Reliable, durable and reasonable to maintain (though tight to work on). Unfortunately, it takes more than a hundred to really get to know a bird. Lots of misstatements/understandings. The tail is vertical to facilitate max rudder authority at high AOAs as is the forward slant of the tail. Mooneys do fiume in cross winds, but pilots might not. I have landed my F in components approaching 40kts. I would not recommend it but it is possible. NO Mooney has gear “locks” in the wing. Electric and Manual gear systems are the same except for the the actuator (motor vs arm). The system is locked by going over center. 65kts is not slow. You are flying 1.3Vso for MGW (2740lbs) is 70kts. This plane is likely ~600lbs under gross with pilot in the video. 1.3Vso would be closer to 60kts. As was mentioned earlier, the electric pump is used to prime. Leaving the boost pump on while cranking is not a normal starting procedure. I won’t pick any more knits on power settings and procedures, but you are leaving speed on the table. It’s 150-155kt bird at the altitudes you are flying. I’m glad you liked the airplane. They are very nice to fly and a joy to travel in. Good luck in your future flying endeavors.
65kts very slow? Hello says Cessna 150's-182's (in the 40's). Mine (172N) would stall at 43kts. Only time I've ever carried over 60kts over the numbers is if the crosswind was over 20kts.
I wonder what results you would get with fences added to the underside of the wing. Perhaps the stall is partially due to vacuum created by the air on the underside running spanways toward the wing tips? Just a thought. People report better performance with the fences so maybe you should rerun your wing with them.
Very good work!! My work in RF has me running lots of 3D electromagnetic simulations using Ansoft HFSS. Also I run multi-dimensional simulations of circuits using Keysight ADS and Cadence Spectre. So I totally get the trades between accuracy, simulation size, time, and tool capabilities - along with licensing restrictions. Kudos to you for persistence and for developing good insight. I think what happens a lot with running simulations is that one’s biological neural net gets trained. That training, I think, is a primary benefit of using simulators. They may not always provide accurate results. But they will definitely educate your mind about trends. A lot of times this training on trends and principles leads to innovation. Again, great work well explained.
Good vid, thanks! Well, sadly, I`m not smart or aviation engineer, but if there is no need for vertical stabilisers at the ends of the wings, it`s easier to make the end sections of wings in such a way, that they do not produce lift.
4:50 It's a common misconception that Bernoulli's Principle produces sufficient lift to allow an airplane to fly. It does not. Newton's 3rd Law (action/reaction) is the main source of lift. This is why aircraft with symmetrical wings fly just fine, and why aircraft can fly inverted. You could accelerate an aircraft with a traditional wing at zero AoA down a runway all day long and it will never take off, until you increase the AoA sufficiently that the force of the air hitting the bottom of the wing exceeds the value required for flight.
