Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:00:03 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2384121@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.8.186; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net
From: "terrence o'neill" <troneill@charter.net>
References: <list-2362901@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Drag coefficient
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Bob,
Thanks for the info on L2 drag.
Always heard that windmilling props make a lot more drag than stopped props.

I like to use Hoerner's approach in his Fluid Dynamic Drag book... wetted 
area, with numbers from a variety of complete airplanes.
He gives  a Cd total wetted area of .004 for P-51, .005 for the Bonanza, and 
.009 for the Cessna 170.
For a Cd wingarea, he gives .017 for the P-51, .016 for the Bonanza, and 
.029 for the C-170.

I suspect the Cd wet for the L235/320 should be somewhere between .004 and 
.005... and was looking for some confirmation.

Terrence
L235/320 N211AL


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bob mackey" <n103md@yahoo.com>
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 05:43 PM
Subject: [LML] Drag coefficient


>
> I can't separate drag coefficient and area, because I haven't measured
> the area, but we don't really need to. The equivalent (total) drag area
> is:
>
>   C*A = Drag / ((rho*v^2)/2) = 0.343 m^2 = 3.7 ft^2
>
> Which is quite a bit greater than the ~1.6 that Paul Lipps sees in cruise.
> I'll take that to mean that the prop/engine drag is about 2.1 ft^2
> equivalent drag area, assuming his airframe and mine are otherwise 
> similar.
>