It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Old Channel Wing

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Does anyone still remember the Channel Wing. Is anyone still doing research in this forgotten field. It was said that at low power the channel wings added lift would actually make the plane lift off the ground.






posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It was an interesting idea that never panned out. Channel wings, along with ducted fans, are only really efficient at specific speed ranges. The channel wing only offers higher propulsion efficiency at very low speeds. It was also more difficult to build and the weight pretty much negated any lift effects. From a practical view I'd also be worried about losing airflow over the prop at high AoA, especially during takeoff.


Ox

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Probably a long forgotten field.. Unfortunately... Seems like maneuverability could have been very low.. And why on earth would someone want to keep researching something that old and obsolete when they can spend money on faster more effecient engines and aircraft... The military wants power, not luxury and the airlines want capacity not luxury..



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I havent seen that thing since i was a kid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I last seen it in my small blue 'observers book of aircraft' 1960s edition!!!!!!!!



Whoever brought this up

WELL IN!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Custer were an interesting company.

Just some random thoughts on bringing it up to date:

1) Modern composites potentially reduce the weight issue
2) It may be good at operating speeds associated with UAVs - so maybe suitible there.
3) Lifting body concepts were new back then, could it now be mounted in a lifting body fuselage?
4) What effect do modern propellers have on the potential of this arrangement?
4)It is said to have STOL properties -is it better than other inherently STOL arrangements?

BUT, it looks like a high AOA disaster waiting to happen.

Other Channel wing pics:


Custer
1939: National Aircraft Corp (fdr: Willard R Custer), Hagerstown MD. 1951: Construction by Baumann Aircraft Corp, Santa Barbara CA.
CCW-1 1942 = 1pCmwM; two 75hp Lycoming O-145. Willard Custer; US patent #1,708,720 in 1929. Experiment in a half-barrel STOL wingform based on, in Custer's words, aerophysics as opposed to aerodynamics: "The CCW is an aircraft, not an airplane. It does not plane the air to fly... rather it brings the air to the lift surfaces, and reduces pressure in order to fly at 8 to 11mph." POP: 1; ff: 11/12/42 (p: Willard Custer), in a solo flight that was quite unintentional. Custer, a non-pilot, taxied the plane in a demonstration for financial backers, and suddenly became airborne. A hard landing that followed, collapsing one gear, did not dampen his backers' enthusiasm.

CCW-2 1948 = Evolution of CCW-1 as a test bed used an uncovered Taylorcraft BC-12 fuselage. POP: 1 [N1375V]; ff: 7/3/48 (p: Harold Custer). Flown for about 100 hours of testing, with take-offs and landings made in 45' to 65'. Despite the claim of flying "better than conventional aircraft," it was calculated that a stock Piper Cub was more efficient, lifting 18lbs/hp versus the Channel Wing's 11lbs/hp.

Custer CCW-2 / CCW-5 [N1375V] / [N6257C] (Eaton Chronicles / Bob O'Hara coll)

CCW-5 (Baumann Corp) 1951 = 5pCmwM rg; two 225hp Continental O-470 pusher; span: 41'2" length: 28'9" load: 2400# v: 220/180/15 (>original est: 300/260/x) range: 1680 ceiling: 20,000'. The final version of Custer's STOL theory used a Baumann Brigadier fuselage and tail group; ff: 7/13/53 (p: Walker J Davidson). POP: 2, [N6257C, N5855V], the second of which was built in 1964. Although several firms expressed interest in producing the plane, all failed to provide funds because of various financing difficulties.

From www.aerofiles.com...

Cool topic though.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well... there is research related to the field - boundary layer ingestion.

I think the main work was done by a man named Goldstein, I'm really not sure on that though - could check later.


Basically, a specially designed turbine is embedded in the uppersurface of the wing - bit like the B-2, however, it can handle the crap air of the boundary layer and doesn't need to split it off like conventional turbines. This thus enhances the effects of the bound vortex (which is where subsonic lift comes from) and also reduces boundary layer drag.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I'll have to agree with planeman. Although it looks like a turkey in those old pictures, modern day materials and propulsion could make it viable for specific roles.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
In terms of aircraft layout, the channel wing creates complications.

Here is an artist’s impression of the channeled wing being applied to a UAV:

Note how the ducts would limit the field of view of any belly mounted surveillance device, such as the typical turret mounted multi-spectrum optics commonly employed in UAVs. The rounded ducts would also be inherently highly reflective to radar waves.

It would require a very unorthodox layout to incorporate it into as single engine design:

The necessity of a wing spar through the arc of the channel makes it difficult to position the wings anywhere other than immediately adjacent to the channel –this creates centre of gravity (COG) complications and an unconventional layout, such as the canard design here, is needed. In such a configuration, you have to ask yourself why not to go the whole hog and have a ducted fan.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Did Escher design the tail on the single engine UAV?

[edit on 30-1-2006 by Nacnud]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nacnud
Did Escher design the tail on the single engine UAV?

[edit on 30-1-2006 by Nacnud]

No, I did.
The tail is drawn correctly, it is an inverted 'V' from the front and slopes back from the side.

I often take the oportunity to slip in a few design thoughts just to see for myself how they'd look when I illustrate other points. That tail configuration is of interest because it could be a lifting-surface (needs canards thus making the rear control surfaces 'positive' like on the Avanti). the original reason I came up with it was due to stealth but in the illustration it isn't stealthy (angle of join must be less than 45degrees).

[edit on 30-1-2006 by planeman]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join