did induced drag kill bi-planes and tri-planes?

beasly

beasly

Well-Known Member
I have always assumed so, but I don't know.


Jenny:

thumbnail.aspx





Sopwith:


thumbnail.aspx




:dunno:
 
Pitts, Stearman, Waco are still flying and even the Great Lakes is back in production.

Of did I miss something ?
 
CFI A&P said:
Pitts, Stearman, Waco are still flying and even the Great Lakes is back in production.

Of did I miss something ?
Click to expand...


But, they ain't making new ones.

Why?

My hunch is that the extra wings add drag that bog down modern engines.

ERAU guys/gals probably do this post for homework.
 
Let me one up myself with this 200 winged extremely aerodynamic "airplane" box
1907multiplane.jpg

supposedly it flew for a massive 500'
 
flymike said:
supposedly it flew for a massive 500'
Click to expand...

Just before the pilot pulled the wrong cable and closed the venetian blinds, causing an immediate stall. A witness said, "The pilot never knew what hit him. He was flying blind."

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
 
RDoug said:
Just before the pilot pulled the wrong cable and closed the venetian blinds, causing an immediate stall. A witness said, "The pilot never knew what hit him. He was flying blind."

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

good one.. I lol'd a little
 
beasly said:
But, they ain't making new ones.
Click to expand...

Pitts, Waco and Great Lakes are still in production. Even though they've changed hands a couple times. The New Waco is even available IFR certified. /G with Garmin on board.

The cost of skilled labor to produce fabric airplanes probably has something to do with it's current popularity.
 
I would imagine it's not so much a question of induced drag, but the fact that they can now get a single set of airfoils to do what previously took a pair(or more).

And the post about two sets of wings bogging down modern engines??? Are you suggesting that old engines were stronger?
 
The bonus in lift is not enough to usually warrant the increased costs of another wing. When you were trying to get all the lift you could it was a consideration. Economics killed the biplane.

Also, they don't scale up very well in size.
 
jwp_145 said:
I would imagine it's not so much a question of induced drag, but the fact that they can now get a single set of airfoils to do what previously took a pair(or more).
Click to expand...



SpiraMirabilis said:
The bonus in lift is not enough to usually warrant the increased costs of another wing. When you were trying to get all the lift you could it was a consideration. Economics killed the biplane.
Click to expand...

It also has to do with pure aerodyamics as well. The addition of a second (or third) wing ends up disrupting the airflow around each wing in a negative manner.
 
Itchy said:
Parasitic drag, not induced, is really the answer to the question.
Click to expand...

Ya all of those bluff-bodied wires and cables used for structural strength surely didn't help the parasitic drag of them, so I'd guess that as soon as structural technology could do away with the wires, they did.
 
Once people figured out you could produce the same amount of lift with just a monoplane, that became the more popular design. It is much easier to see. And yes they do produce more drag, guide wires and struts are draggy as hell. Refer to my avatar if you think I prefer monoplanes to bi-planes ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top