Coefficient of Drag of BC-12D?

[braol]

Does anyone have a good Coefficient of Drag number for the BC-12D? I was playing with some aerospace engineering websites and this number is important for lots of different calculations.

[Robert Lees]

I studied Aeronautical Engineering back in the very early Eighties, and with a degree in same it stood me in good stead.

Ten years later, I bought a BC-12D in 1991 and very promptly gave up about coefficients of this & that.

Having said that, the data for which you search is out there in the ether, but for the wing only I'm sure, not the rest of the airframe. But it's less than a Cub.

Rob

[Mark Bowden]

The BC12-D uses the NACA 23012 airfoil, which you may already know.

This website has a lot of open source info on the airfoil. http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/deta...l=naca23012-il

A Nasa report can be downloaded here. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930091603 Go to the pdf link on this page.

If you look at the horsepower to cruise speed ratio or just raw cruise performance on 65, 85 or 100 hp the Taylorcraft is one of the most efficent genaral aviation aircraft made.

[braol]

I'm just looking for an actual number so that I can play with some engineering equations that I thought were interesting.

[Scott]

Every Taylorcraft will be different. Too many variables.

Although there may be a number for the airfoil section, Taylor added wing area to preserve low speed handling and stall characteristics.

Rigging of the wings, flight controls, wieght & balance, wing root fairing fitment are all variables.
S

[Robert Lees]

The 23012 semi-symmetrical airfoil is used on a number of aircraft designs (like the Douglas DC3 outer wing and many Beech models). It's very efficient in terms of Lift/Drag ratio; it has a sharp stall characteristic (which makes [for example the Bonanza] drop a wing quite viciously upon stall. The Taylorcraft gets away with a relatively benign stall because of the low wing loading.

CG Taylor knew his stuff!

[braol]

...The Taylorcraft gets away with a relatively benign stall because of the low wing loading.

CG Taylor knew his stuff!

The amazing thing is that this was all figured out in the 1930's. I have a few antique airplane design and maintenance books from the 30's and the standards, tolerances, and best practices are almost identical today. About the only difference is in the area of electronics and lighting, the use of composite materials, and all the new chemicals. I'm still amazed at how much was learned about aircraft design in such a small number of years after the Wright Brothers first flew. Compared to a brand-new airplane, the Taylorcraft is obviously a vintage design, but the fit and finish of the materials, instrument panel, and such is as good as anything new (OK, maybe the doors could close and seal better.).

[Scott]

Well there's a life lesson in here somewhere.

Dispight the speed, range, efficiencies, easier to build and repair design of the Taylorcraft, (not to mention lower price) the Cub remains the darling.

Just proves that human decision-making is based on emotion. Form over function.

S

[braol]

The only thing I'd want from a Cub is the flaps...and maybe the parts availability.