[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bottom winglets
Laurence W. Coen wrote:
> I remember reading a letter some time ago in one of the aviation magazines that was in response to an previous article that stated that lower winglets didn't seem to make much difference. He went on to say that he had removed the lower winglets from his Long E-Z in an attempt to increase cruise speed. Not only was his cruise not improved, he experienced an uncommanded roll to inverted while performing a low speed steep turn. Luckily he had enough altitude to survive and tell his tale. He also said that he didn't fly the plane again until the lower winglets were back on. While it's true this guy could have made the whole thing up, it was a factor in helping me to decide to keep my lower winglets. That and the fact that I don't think I'm smart enough to second guess Burt Rutan.
Oh, here we go again! THE LONG EASY IS VERY DIFFERENT AIRPLANE.
Burt told Dan and I the Velocity wouldn't work at all and told Beech the StarShip was going to be great. He is a truely great engineer but none of us are perfect. Besides all aircraft are compromises. The Long Easy is more fun to fly than the more stable Velocity.
The Long Easy has:
Winglets tilted in...de-stablizing roll...quicker roll rate and more fun.
Outer wing section airfoil not drooped...causing wing rock at low speed.
Smaller, flatter strake...higher aspect ratio wing combination and totally different characteristics at higher angles of attack.
Smaller canard with more sensitive airfoil.
A box fuselage with blunt nose that creates turbulance on the all so critical wing root area.