Unicorn Blogs

Quick Search Posts
Quick Browse Posts

Yawn Drag

Posted by UniBoffin at 22:00 on 23rd September 2008 in UniBlog

Yawn Drag

Now on the naïve principle that honesty is the best policy, I’m going to confess that mathematically uninclined readers might find this particular blog pretty hard going.

This is not only because of its reckless descent into a tedious mire of aerodynamic explanation and calculation, but also because it touches on those banes of your schooldays, sines and cosines. What can I say but sorry? Anyway, assuming that warning doesn’t induce you to depart and see what’s new and exciting on YouTube, or at least cut to the chase of my third-from-last paragraph below, here goes:

So in my last blog I took a look at how, when it comes to darts, aerodynamic drag is basically a puny, insignificant kind of a force which can only cower abjectly when its much more extrovert rival, lift, conceptually swaggers up and kicks sand in its face.

But, although they might appear mismatched rivals for your attention when it comes to affecting your darts, drag and lift are not entirely unrelated. In fact, for a dart flying along at an angle of yaw, lift can generously stop being a bully and help to compensate for drag’s innate lack of machismo. This is partly due to trigonometry, but mostly due to a woeful lack of scientific precision in my terminology.

Drag and lift are properly defined as mutually perpendicular, one going back down the line of flight and the other going at right angles to it. Strictly speaking, therefore, neither can contribute to the other, but they can be transformed into a slightly different pair of mutually perpendicular forces. For symmetric projectiles, these are called the axial and normal forces, with the former being reassuringly along the axis of the barrel and the latter at right angles (that’s “normal” in maths-speak) to it. At very low yaw, axial force is thus closely allied to drag and lift to normal force. As the yaw increases, though, the first relationship is in the divorce courts a long time before the second!

For a typical dart thrown at 6m/s, the axial force (and drag) at zero yaw will be around 0.15gms (approximately 0.0015 Newtons for the SI units devotees amongst you – either way I told you it was puny!). With no yaw, of course, a perfectly straight dart won’t have any normal force or lift, but for, say, 15 degrees of yaw and standard size flights, the normal force will be around 1gm, nearly seven times the zero yaw drag.

Now that level of yaw will hardly alter the axial force, and similarly the lift will be only fractionally less (about 7% - as those of you who are into those pesky sines and cosines and have a frankly weird obsession for “resolving” forces can testify) than the normal force. The drag, on the other hand, will rise meaningfully from its beach towel and draw itself up to an almost non-puny height of 0.4gms, getting on for three times its zero yaw value. From there it can at least stare lift in its midriff rather than its knee!

Although this increase in drag is caused by a component of normal force and not of lift, as we’ve seen, at moderate yaw angles these two forces are numerically not very different. The additional drag is thus somewhat carelessly referred to as “lift-induced”, maybe because this is punchier (and better to hyphenate) than “normal force-induced”.

Thus the drag of a dart in flight will be the sum of two components, the zero yaw drag and the “yaw drag”, which can be loosely regarded as mainly due to lift. At moderate yaw angles, the lift and the component in the drag direction of its normal force associate are both usually pretty much proportional to the yaw (an assumption known as linearization), which means that the yaw drag tends to vary as yaw squared.

Using this principle, by a bit of mathematical jiggery-pokery (integrating sine squared, if you must know) it can be shown that, neglecting yaw damping for a moment, a dart which has a not unreasonable peak yaw of 30degs will, averaged over a yaw cycle, have the same drag as one travelling at a constant 15degs. For the example above, this means it will have nearly triple the drag it had at zero yaw and its fractionally longer time of flight will cause it to drop 2 to 3mm more at the board due to gravity.

This effect may still be significantly less than the possible deviation due to lift, but, unlike straightforward zero yaw drag, it too will be dependent on any vagaries in the yawing motion and can thus contribute a little to inaccuracy.

So there you are – at least one component of drag does matter (a bit) in darts after all, but that component is only really lift in disguise! That’s why darts with very big flights can seem too “draggy” and why no amount of skin friction mitigation or any other form of straightforward drag reduction would make much difference to that.

Phew! At last our journey to reaching that passingly-interesting conclusion is complete. Please accept my abject apologies for any boredom you’ve had to suffer along the way - I fear that the motivation for the title of this blog will by now have become distressingly clear!

That’s all for now folks – bet you can’t wait for my next exciting instalment!

There are 5 comments to this post

Posted by Caleb Keen at 16:27 on 30th September 2008

Hi UniBoffin,

I''ve been throwing with the Sigma Pro for a few weeks, and while I love the dart I hate how much it tears up my flights. I know this is being corrected with the new Sigma 950 but my question has to do with how having a chewed up trailing-edge of your flight affects the aerodynamics of the dart. In other words, if the leading-edge of the flight is perfectly fine, does it really matter that the trailing edge looks like a rat chewed on it for awhile?

Posted by Paul Bryant at 18:48 on 1st October 2008

Hi again Mr Boffin,
Many thanks for another great article - more like that would suit me fine! I''m still absorbing the latest info and will no doubt have questions sooner or later, but right now I''d like to revisit a query you previously covered for me - fin count.
If I can try to summarise your answer: less than 4 fins would be worse as there would be a greater difference between the lift/drag in one orientation than in the other compared to 4 (?), and more than 4 isn''t practical because of current shaft designs?
If I''ve understood correctly this would seem to suggest that more than 4 would actually be better, assuming something like the American Dyna-star shaft / flight system that allows for an arbitrary number of fins?
And if more is better (and possible), then what is the optimal number? I can see that there would come a point when the extra fins interfered with the lift produced, but what about the drag?
I do note that every missile I can find a picture of only has 4 fins - but nowhere explaining why!
And that brings to mind a couple of further points (sorry!): If the dart''s flight is negatively affected by fin rotation, then the ultimate flight path would be a dart (at least fins) that did not spin at all, but hit the board in exactly the same orientation as at the start of its flight path? And second best would be a flight path that had the dart landing in the same orientation after an exact number of revolutions? I''ve tried throwing ''non-spinners'' and there is _always_ a little rotation - which would have to be the worst-case scenario (from ''+'' to ''x'' only) as the deviation would never have the chance to even itself out? Which suggests that imparting ''some'' spin is recommended? And that keeping your flights ''square'' - or using moulded ones is important? (So Phil Taylor doesn''t just like the taste?)
How do spinning flights affect the above? Could you design a flight with a system that kept the fins in the same orientation during flight regardless of barrel rotation (rotating shaft with one heavy ''keel'' fin or stabilising fins on one of the fins)?
I reckon that''s enough question marks for this month lol,
Thanks again,
Paul

Posted by Paul Bryant at 12:36 on 3rd October 2008

Me again - last message this month, honest! It occurred to me that if the progression: 2 fins better than 1 / 3 fins better than 2 / 4 fins better than 3 does in fact continue past four, then the downside is that flight blocking would increase along with fin count. I''ve mentioned this annoying factor before, but a new (to me) solution came to mind: perforated flights. At its simplest if a flight was perforated down the spine each fin could rip completely off if stuck. Alternatively they could be perforated to split into feather-like vanes. Either way a player would go through a lot more flights (though the first way would be the worst) not necessarily a bad thing for a company that sells flights, and I think that if you asked most players whether they''d rather their darts were deflected and they saved flights or their darts hit the target and they lost a flight most would go for the latter.
Thus even in an extreme example with e.g. 360 fins spaced at 1 degree increments (~zero lift / ~max drag?) an incoming dart would still get through.
Finally, while researching fin count I Googled a patent proposal that claimed that an odd fin count (5 or 7) was inherently more stable than any even fin count (though this was missiles not darts) - comments?
That''s it for now, promise!
Paul

Posted by Larry Broome at 19:56 on 9th October 2008

Hi UniBoffin! Like Caleb I''ve been playing with the Sigma Pro for a few weeks now and even after the first week the trailing edge of the pro flights were ragged. Judging by the consistent scores I''m getting I''m going to guess that you''ll say this doesn''t have too much affect on accuracy. Still the rapid wear of the flights is of some concern since the Sigma stems and flights aren''t going to be available in Canada till end of October which I''m sure has been pretty tough of the early adopters here since they were released last year. That being said these are probably the best darts I''ve ever used...great job UniBoffin!

Posted by bob at 02:42 on 11th October 2008

Looks like the 950s are starting to hit the streets. Any thoughts on doing these in a golden finish?

Leave a comment
Please leave your details and message below.
Name 

Email (this will not be published) 

Message