justifidejoe
Well-Known Member
The Dornier Seastar is, to me, a very intriguing configuration.
Ultimately, my question is: Do you think such a configuration could be made more efficient (in terms of drag) than the Rutan Boomerang configuration? Let's remove the sponsons and streamline the fuselage for a non-amphibian design.
My comments:
Your thoughts?
Ultimately, my question is: Do you think such a configuration could be made more efficient (in terms of drag) than the Rutan Boomerang configuration? Let's remove the sponsons and streamline the fuselage for a non-amphibian design.
My comments:
- Like the Boomerang, this configuration has only 2 nacelles (1 for engines, 1 fuselage). A 'conventional' twin has 3. I think this is one of the major contributors to the Boomerang's efficiency.
- According to this thread, a pylon wing could significantly reduce the induced drag of the fuselage/wing intersection. A mid-wing design (a la Boomerang) has significant induced drag, according to this thesis.
- Don't have to worry about spar carry-through with regards to fuselage arrangement.
- A SeaStar-like configuration could have laminar flow over a vast majority of the wing.
- Furthermore, the fuselage would be out of the prop wash, meaning laminar flow on at least a portion of the fuselage. And much less turbulent flow over the remaining non-laminar portion, right?
- The tail would still be in the prop wash, beneficial for avoiding deep stall, flight control.
- Fantastic visibility
- Probably pretty quiet (rear prop may be noisy)
- If FIKI is a concern, avoid the need for icing protection on the props, as the rear prop would be in the heat wash from the engines.
Your thoughts?
Last edited:
