oriol
Well-Known Member
Hi!
Roncz, in his sport Aviation articles, describes his effort to reduce Drag, by carefully matching the pressure distribution of his fuselage to the wing. That proves that analizing the details, can make a big difference.
This lead me to think about the difference, not only in weight but also in Drag, between going cantilever or strut braced?
I did a quick search on the net, to compare a strut braced Cessna 172, and a cantilever Cessna 210 Centurion.
Albeit the Centurion has not the same exact specifications of the 172, given that weight does not affect glide ratioand being the onlybdifference the wetted area, I expected that the glide ratio difference between both aircraft will illustrate the difference between clean (the 210 is both cantilever and retract) and non clean aerodynamics (the 172 has a fixed landing gear and strutted wings).
Surprisingly both aircraft have very similar glide ratios! In fact the 172 is slightly better. How is that even possible?!
210 L/D = 16 km/1,888 km = 8,75
172 L/D = 22,22 km / 2,38 km = 9,11
As always any comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Oriol
Roncz, in his sport Aviation articles, describes his effort to reduce Drag, by carefully matching the pressure distribution of his fuselage to the wing. That proves that analizing the details, can make a big difference.
This lead me to think about the difference, not only in weight but also in Drag, between going cantilever or strut braced?
I did a quick search on the net, to compare a strut braced Cessna 172, and a cantilever Cessna 210 Centurion.
Albeit the Centurion has not the same exact specifications of the 172, given that weight does not affect glide ratioand being the onlybdifference the wetted area, I expected that the glide ratio difference between both aircraft will illustrate the difference between clean (the 210 is both cantilever and retract) and non clean aerodynamics (the 172 has a fixed landing gear and strutted wings).
Surprisingly both aircraft have very similar glide ratios! In fact the 172 is slightly better. How is that even possible?!
210 L/D = 16 km/1,888 km = 8,75
172 L/D = 22,22 km / 2,38 km = 9,11
As always any comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Oriol
