aerodynamic slickness

[witrakw]

I plead ignorance to all but the basic tenets of aerodynamic efficiencies. However, one looks at the average GA airplane and sees that there are all sorts of blunt edges and air resistance inducing configurations.

A biggie is the shape of the anterior portion of the cessna type wing that is blunt as a baseball bat. Is there some aerodynamic reason for this shape or is it more a matter of difficulty in fabricating a more "sharp" and less air resistive shape?

Wouldn't a more aerodynamically shaped wing in the front add substantially to basic lift and STOL characterisitics without affecting speed?

If a simple reshape of the anterior edge of the cessna wing would help aerodynamic ability, then I can imagine some sort of simple long extruded "plastic" part that could be easily applied to the front wing.

Thoughts?

thanks bill

[Todd Peterson]

We are fortunate in that the Cessna wing has been well proven for the type of flying we do with our aircraft. The C182's have never been a high speed airplane but their speed range is hard to beat, along with their load carrying capabilities. The wing is not only a high lift wing for better slow speed performance but it also does adequately well for cruise. While the C182 is not approved for icing conditions those of us that have experienced ice in a C182 all say that it handles a bad situation very well.

We've all seen the sharp leading edges on some of the high speed wings out there and I'm sure that while they might have better high speed performance their bottom end flight characteristics and safety are not very desireable.

As everything in aviation is a compromise I think Cessna did pretty well with their wing design. Assuming the airplane is properly rigged the biggest factor in cruise speed is how they were built at the factory, something over which we have no control.