Protip to make your planes look at least 20% cooler

[peachoftree]

It's super simple, just tilt up the wingtips by about 30 degrees to get a super cool looking effect.

before:

after:

[selfish_meme]

I calculate that as only 10% cooler

[FlipNascar]

In real aircraft you would do that to help make it more aerodynamically efficient by reducing the wingtip vortices, and subsequently it is possible to see fuel savings around the 1% mark when you add that to a conventional airliner. And sure "Wow 1%"... But if your fuel bill is already in excess of $1 million, maybe saving 1% isn't so shabby after all eh?

Here's a wiki link about Lift-induced drag

[Kuu Lightwing]

[peachoftree]

I just knew it from the meme, I had no idea it was from MLP

[Kuu Lightwing]

Heh, yep, that's an old MLP meme.

I do that too sometimes, usually if I have engine nacelles embedded in wings.

[Sharpy]

Heh, yep, that's an old MLP meme.

I do that too sometimes, usually if I have engine nacelles embedded in wings.

Nacelles in wings make you unwittingly use MLP memes?

[Xyphos]

[mikegarrison]

In real aircraft you would do that to help make it more aerodynamically efficient by reducing the wingtip vortices, and subsequently it is possible to see fuel savings around the 1% mark when you add that to a conventional airliner. And sure "Wow 1%"... But if your fuel bill is already in excess of $1 million, maybe saving 1% isn't so shabby after all eh?

Here's a wiki link about Lift-induced drag

Um ... no. In a real airplane that would not increase aerodynamic efficiency. The loss of aspect ratio is a bigger effect than the winglet effect. In other words, for aerodynamic efficiency the optimum angle for the winglet is to be flat -- i.e. a wingtip extension.

There are reasons for winglets in real life, but mostly they have to do with wings that are either constrained in span (e.g. have to fit into airport gates) or wings that are already designed (i.e. the winglet is an add-on). There are also some structural reasons for using winglets instead of extending the wingspan, because wing root bending moment will be less with a winglet than a span extension, due to the shorter lever arm.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Nacelles in wings make you unwittingly use MLP memes?

Yeah, kinda.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/gyropedia/images/d/df/Images-.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120223043506

Darn, I actually forgot how cute can they be...

[hugix]

And to top it of, place a communotron 16 antenna (the small one) on the wingtips pointing forward. Then extend it.

[cantab]

Not only does this look cool, it can also improve roll stability, for the same reason dihedral angle does.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've been going the other way, starting to angle the wingtips down:

Not sure where that falls on the coolness calculation.

[Goddess Bhavani]

If I loop the wings all the way around, do I get like, infinite coolness points? The wingtips are endlessly tilted upwards until they form a circle, creating ridiculous performance for a short wingspan design. I heard in real life, the excessive coolness also reduces drag by eliminating wingtip vortices. How cool is that!?

(Yes the design flies, surprisingly well. Video here: https://youtu.be/hgf7d8KfZdM

[moogoob]

That tactic IS useful for getting your tailfin off the middle of the craft to make way for dorsal and ventral vertical launch boosters. Currently a victim of the "probe core attached to a cargo bay explodes for no reason in the upper atmosphere" bug, the Nastybird 2 will fly again some day.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[FlipNascar]

Um ... no. In a real airplane that would not increase aerodynamic efficiency. The loss of aspect ratio is a bigger effect than the winglet effect. In other words, for aerodynamic efficiency the optimum angle for the winglet is to be flat -- i.e. a wingtip extension.

There are reasons for winglets in real life, but mostly they have to do with wings that are either constrained in span (e.g. have to fit into airport gates) or wings that are already designed (i.e. the winglet is an add-on). There are also some structural reasons for using winglets instead of extending the wingspan, because wing root bending moment will be less with a winglet than a span extension, due to the shorter lever arm.

I wasn't clear, apologies. What I was trying to say, and clearly I failed, was that adding a winglet to the existing wing... blah blah

Surely the winglet - or whatever device goes there - does help because you are then reducing the vortices at the wing tip. And therefore you have increased aerodynamic efficiency. Or that's how I remember it...

[theend3r]

Um ... no. In a real airplane that would not increase aerodynamic efficiency. The loss of aspect ratio is a bigger effect than the winglet effect. In other words, for aerodynamic efficiency the optimum angle for the winglet is to be flat -- i.e. a wingtip extension.

There are reasons for winglets in real life, but mostly they have to do with wings that are either constrained in span (e.g. have to fit into airport gates) or wings that are already designed (i.e. the winglet is an add-on). There are also some structural reasons for using winglets instead of extending the wingspan, because wing root bending moment will be less with a winglet than a span extension, due to the shorter lever arm.

You can also use Google.

[Red Iron Crown]

Indeed. Tip winglets are so good at reducing drag (and thus operating costs) that they are often retrofitted to older planes that already fly well.

[Falcon Coupe]

I've been going the other way, starting to angle the wingtips down:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot47.png

Not sure where that falls on the coolness calculation.

One Milllllliion!

You wouldn't happen to have a craft file would you? I love the XB-70, should even make my own as my next ssto.

[Red Iron Crown]

One Milllllliion!

You wouldn't happen to have a craft file would you? I love the XB-70, should even make my own as my next ssto.

It's not in a state I would like to share just yet. Currently it has an all turboramjet propulsion system, I think if I replaced them with Rapiers it would SSTO without much trouble. The new Mk1 cockpit teased for 1.1 looks like it would be a closer match to the real thing, I'll likely revise the vessel then.

It not being ready for release will not stop me from teasing you further, though.

(Asymmetric flameout is apparently still a thing.)

[peachoftree]

I did this just to make this plane look cool, but for whatever reason, they finally made my plane able to reenter without stalling all over the place! It was the first time I didn't have to use my engines during final approach since 0.90!

[mikegarrison]

https://theflyingengineer.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/technology.jpg

You can also use Google.

Is it OK if I use my 30 years of professional experience as an aeronautical engineer rather than Google? Taking an existing wingtip and bending it up would hurt induced drag.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been going the other way, starting to angle the wingtips down:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot47.png

Not sure where that falls on the coolness calculation.

A Valkyrie model. Nice.

The purpose for the drooping wingtips on the Valkyrie had to do with something entirely different than winglets. It was intended to make the XB-70 into a waverider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WaveRider

I've seen that airplane in person, at the USAF museum in Dayton. It's spectacular.

- - - Updated - - -

If I loop the wings all the way around, do I get like, infinite coolness points? The wingtips are endlessly tilted upwards until they form a circle, creating ridiculous performance for a short wingspan design. I heard in real life, the excessive coolness also reduces drag by eliminating wingtip vortices. How cool is that!?

There is name for that design: biplane.

If you completely eliminate the vortices from the wing, you would also completely eliminate lift. (IRL, anyway. I don't think KSP even models vortices.) But that kind of a design doesn't eliminate the vortices, because the flow field from the upper wing partially cancels the flow field from the lower wing, thus acting in net total as if it were a single wing.

Edited August 22, 2015 by mikegarrison

[theend3r]

Is it OK if I use my 30 years of professional experience as an aeronautical engineer rather than Google? Taking an existing wingtip and bending it up would hurt induced drag.

People are never too old to learn. Also, if you're implying that those dozens of articles are wrong then that's pretty bold.

If you completely eliminate the vortices from the wing, you would also completely eliminate lift.

I have a hard time imagining a wing with 0 lift.

[mikegarrison]

People are never too old to learn. Also, if you're implying that those dozens of articles are wrong then that's pretty bold.

I'm giving you a free chance to learn. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Here, let me show you a couple of real-world airplanes, both derivatives from the same parent.

This airplane was designed to use the existing wing (more or less) but to have a wingtip device that improved L/D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#/media/File:P-8A_Poseidon_VX-20_Squadron.jpg

So was this airplane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:ILA_Berlin_2012_PD_070.JPG

The difference is wingspan. The Navy plane has a wingspan of 37.6 meters. The commercial plane has a wingspan of 35.9 meters. The commercial plane is designed to fit into ICAO class C airports, which handle airplanes with wingspans of "24m up to but not including 36m". Obviously the commercial plane is "MAX"ed out for wingspan. But without that restriction, the very same company chose a different design for the Navy plane. Why? Because wingspan extension beats winglets for L/D -- if you can do it. The Navy plane also features "raked" wingtips, which is a different method of wingtip vortex control. But crucially, it adds wingspan. For induced drag, wingspan is better than winglets.

[mythbusters844]

I'm giving you a free chance to learn. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Here, let me show you a couple of real-world airplanes, both derivatives from the same parent.

This airplane was designed to use the existing wing (more or less) but to have a wingtip device that improved L/D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#/media/File:P-8A_Poseidon_VX-20_Squadron.jpg

So was this airplane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#/media/File:ILA_Berlin_2012_PD_070.JPG

The difference is wingspan. The Navy plane has a wingspan of 37.6 meters. The commercial plane has a wingspan of 35.9 meters. The commercial plane is designed to fit into ICAO class C airports, which handle airplanes with wingspans of "24m up to but not including 36m". Obviously the commercial plane is "MAX"ed out for wingspan. But without that restriction, the very same company chose a different design for the Navy plane. Why? Because wingspan extension beats winglets for L/D -- if you can do it. The Navy plane also features "raked" wingtips, which is a different method of wingtip vortex control. But crucially, it adds wingspan. For induced drag, wingspan is better than winglets.

Thanks for the interesting explanation. One question, do winglets also add lateral stability?