Should airplanes be like golf balls?

Passengers want to fly direct. It the plane was like one of my golf balls they would only get to their destination after landing in the desert, bouncing off a few trees landing in the water and changing planes twice 🙂

Rgds Cking

Would you get gangs of kids jumping into lakes, diving to the bottom and then following you around shouting “wanna buy some nearly new airbuses, mister? – i’ve got a couple of 747 – 400’s as well!! ” 🙂

OR… when you next go on holiday, the plane lines up – the pilot opens the throttles – and the plane slews wildly into the air sideways and curves around until it is flying at 30 degrees to the runway. Over the intercom the pilot says “Damm…i sliced it!!” 🙂

Michael

Passengers want to fly direct. It the plane was like one of my golf balls they would only get to their destination after landing in the desert, bouncing off a few trees landing in the water and changing planes twice 🙂

Rgds Cking

Remember Barnes Wallis created ‘Highball’ which was a dimpled spherical design – similar in appearance to a golf ball – to use as a ‘bouncing bomb’ against axis forces in WWII. Showing that golf ball principles could be used on a larger scale to improve aerodynamics. Of course this couldnt be applied to aeronautics, but im just pointing out that scaling does work.

There is (and has always been) a huge effort put into scaling techniques and there is research everywhere. The simplest idea being wind tunnels? Scale models are analysed in conditions similar to large scale conditions and as such improvements can be made judging on similar effects.

You do not research boundary layer and turbulent vs laminar flow on a scaled airframe in a wind tunnel. Wind tunnels are good for reasearching the shape of the a/c. And wind tunnel always comes with errors which can be corrected due to lots of experience.
Wind tunnel, CFD and flight test are all needed.

indeed, what works at one size doesnt work at another…..unless you change the gas your in!! effects are not scaleable.

Remember Barnes Wallis created ‘Highball’ which was a dimpled spherical design – similar in appearance to a golf ball – to use as a ‘bouncing bomb’ against axis forces in WWII. Showing that golf ball principles could be used on a larger scale to improve aerodynamics. Of course this couldnt be applied to aeronautics, but im just pointing out that scaling does work.

There is (and has always been) a huge effort put into scaling techniques and there is research everywhere. The simplest idea being wind tunnels? Scale models are analysed in conditions similar to large scale conditions and as such improvements can be made judging on similar effects.

indeed, what works at one size doesnt work at another…..unless you change the gas your in!! effects are not scaleable.

Ok rite, if you have ever seen what a golf ball looks like (in detail), it has loads and loads of dents covering its surface (an almost if you like honeycomb surface) and apparently these so called “dents” act to create some sort of aerodynamic efficiency to the golf ball’s ability to reuce drag as it flies thorugh the air. My question is that, would future wing designs incoporate such a technique as to reduce drag on commercial aircraft? It would be weird to see dents in the wing of a plane that you may be travelling on, and also perhaps a bonus for your photo collection! But does this provide a new concept to aerodynamic efficiency? Does this have a place in the aviation industry? :confused:

Please check the internet for the word “Reynolds number”.

If I remember rightly… the dents in a golf ball are there to make the flow around the golf ball turbulent. If there is a turbulent boundary layer, this layer is more likely to stick to the golf ball. If this happens, the flow will not separate at the back of the golf ball (back being the direction away from which it’s flying), which reduces drag, and will make the ball fly farther.

This technique would not work well on an aircraft wing as for a wing, you want the smoothest possible shape to ensure that the boundary layer remains laminar, as this reduces drag. The golf ball needs the dimples as it’s not the most aerodynamic shape in the world, the wing is sheer brilliance in aerodynamic form and so doesnt need dimples!

Yeah that may well put passengers off! But check out this website http://science.howstuffworks.com/question37.htm I am no wizz at science (even though im studying it! 😮 ) but it does suggest that it reuces drag in some form. Anyway, just something to think about perhaps? :confused:

I may be wrong but I think the ‘dents’ need the ball to be spinning rapidly.

This might be a little offputting for passengers if it was carried over to an AEROplane. 😉

Moggy