Does the walkable area produce less lift?

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,463
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
This is gonna sound random but humor me.

We we're taught that one effect of icing, even light icing is that the roughness can disturb airflow. Reducing lift.

If so, is the walkable portion of a low wing throwing away potential lift? Is it a meaningful amount of lift?
 
Pi1otguy said:
This is gonna sound random but humor me.

We we're taught that one effect of icing, even light icing is that the roughness can disturb airflow. Reducing lift.

If so, is the walkable portion of a low wing throwing away potential lift? Is it a meaningful amount of lift?
Click to expand...
Probably. Probably not. It's creating additional drag also.
 
Pi1otguy said:
If so, is the walkable portion of a low wing throwing away potential lift?
Click to expand...
So you're saying high wings are better? :)

It's probably worth noting that wing walk surfaces are usually not that close to the leading edge.
 
Pi1otguy said:
is the walkable portion of a low wing throwing away potential lift?
Click to expand...
Considering most wing walk is applied next to the fuselage and in the prop wash area on a single, I'd bet the prop would have a bigger effect on lift at the wing walk area than the wing walk itself.
 
I'm sure the walkway surface creates drag and may impede potential lift, but it represents a relatively small area of the overall wing, is in an area of the wing that may not be an optimal airfoil due to fairing transition, and may be affected by fuselage effects.
 
The wing walk is generally aft of the leading edge where the flow is already turbulent. Farther forward where the flow is still laminar it would have more effect.

On the so-called "laminar flow" airfoils it would have more effect, but still probably not all that significant.
 
The effect of roughness depends on where it is located and what kind of angle of attack you are flying at. A wing walk that is mostly behind the spar will be a little drag, but likely not much loss of lift.
 
Based on my Mooney and my previous Cherokee I'd say less lift is unlikely. More drag is likely but since it is located aft of the turbulent trip point, not as much as you would think. I liken it to dimples on a golf ball.

Ice on the wings is different because it encompasses all if the upper surface of the wing.
 
Last edited:
I would say it depends on the plane, but at the end of day, it would be negligible.
 
When we added the pilot's side door and wingwalk on the the Mooney Ultras, the most noted effect was from the additional step on the pilot's side, not the wing walk.
 
It getting that much lift from that area anyway
 
The interference drag from the wing to fuselage surfaces meeting is probably more significant for most airframes in that area.
 
Wouldn’t they (plural, as in Grumman) be vortex generators?:p
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of that Seinfeld bit... why don’t they just make the entire plane out of the black box?
 
Cherokees can have vortex generators that sit in front of the wing walk area. Especially useful for short tails. Then the air aft would already be turbulent. Put wing walk on the leading edge, then it would be problematic.
 
I’m pretty sure it causes the air molecules on top of the wing to slow down. This causes the air molecules on the bottom of the wing to arrive at the trailing edge before the ones on top. This creates lots of confusion for the air molecules which causes them to question the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

42
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top