Whale Flippers Make Better Airplane Wings

phreakmonkey writes "The bumpy, ridged surface on humpback whale flippers provide more lift, less drag, and exhibit better stall characteristics than traditional aircraft wing designs, according to Duke University, West Chester University, and the U.S. Naval Academy. This could help improve the design of airfoils used on everything from aircraft wings to underwater vehicles. The results were published in the May 2004 issue of Physics of Fluids and reported on Innovations Report."

Comments

bumps

[OmniVector]

i'm not really an expert on the physics of aerodynamics but wouldn't bumps be completely contradictory to things like fluid dynamics? I can understand the whale flipper shape making a difference, but the bumps just seem like unnecessary drag.

Re:bumps

[ajax0187]

I would imagine it's just from a practical standpoint. An airplane wing can cause different effects depending on its airspeed (i.e. the most efficient airfoil shape at 150 knots is different than the most efficient shape at 1150 knots). Even though the dimples might create more lift at low airspeed, once you start approaching subsonic/supersonic conditions, the drag they produce would be more trouble then it's worth. And how exactly can you get rid of them? You can't (at least not at our present level of technology), and so we stick with more conventional flaps and spoilers.

Squishy bits?

[sithkhan]

Just out of curiousity, are the bumps and nodes alluded to in the article made of flesh? Isn't flesh compressable? Would this not have an effect upon the properties of the foil in question? I think it would be difficult to replicate these qualities. but I am not an aeronautical engineer, nor am I a rocket scientist. I'm only a humble chemist.

A quibble

[Spamalamadingdong]

We haven't improved the overall efficency of wing design for some time. (That's why a 1967 Cessna 172 and a 2003 Cessna 172 have nearly identical wings.) This may change that.

I'd put that down to the requirements for FAA type certification rather than limits of knowledge or design. You can buy all kinds of flap- and aileron-gap seals and other cleanup hardware for Cessnas, but you can't get them installed at the factory. If the company doesn't find those relatively simple additions worthy of inclusion in the aircraft as shipped, why would they redesign the wing and have to go through all the required testing and paperwork?

If Cessna really wanted to clean up their aerodynamics, they would have gone where the Stallion went. Looks like a Skylane, but goes one heck of a lot faster.

I look forward to experimenters trying to apply the knowledge learned from the whale investigators, though. If drag can be reduced by 8%, it means several percent less fuel required to cover the same distance (induced drag would not be reduced, only parasite drag).

Reminiscent of Airbus trials with "shark skin"

[rv8]

Airbus was conducting trials many years ago with a covering that was striated like shark skin. They measured small drag reductions, but I haven't read anything about the concept in recent years. I suspect Airbus found that it was hard to keep the surface maintained properly.

http://www.spc.org.nc/coastfish/News/Fish_News/84/ Shark-skin-planes.htm
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/2000/Tu scano/Applications.htm

Re:Learning from nature

[John Hasler]

"Learning from nature" is what science _does_.

So Long and thanks for all the.....

[Anonymous Coward]

But you missed the opportunity to play off the fact that the researcher's name is, no joke, Frank Fish

dmanny