Propeller design rethought

Most manufacturers design propellers in the same way and they read the old books and reports and the prop gets no more than 80-85% efficiency at best. It is written in books that propeller efficiency will be about that at best and it is left often open how low it can be at worst.

Here is an interesting article about a guy that made a prop that was 90 percent efficient by not abiding the "old truths" but thinking out of the box:

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-02_elippse.asp

Having a strong taper certainly makes sense since the propeller tip travels very much faster than the root through the air. Also the old saying that single blade prop is most efficient does not make sense if you think it in detail: the air that enters in the next blade is not the same air that went through the previous blade because of the forward movement of the aircraft. This could be extrapolated in a such way, that the faster the aircraft travels, the more blades the propeller can have without sacrificing the propeller efficiency. This should not actually require very high mathematics, but I am quite sure that it could be estimated with simple calculations where the downwash of the previous blade goes in relation to the next blade on the speed range intended for the aircraft being designed.

High altitude propeller will require some additional thinking for the tip chord because the Reynolds number will become low if the chord is this short. The TAS is much higher at high altitude, therefore the air travels faster through the prop, that would mean that the prop could have more blades. The high altitude propeller does not require full efficiency at low altitude because to be able to operate at high altitude, there needs to be a lots of excess thrust available regardless.

High altitude flight Re, new airfoil KS415/14.3

The Reynolds number at very high altitude is very low. Here is an article about airfoil study for 60000 ft altitude flight. My previous airfoils are not very suitable in a small aircraft at 60000 ft, they require longer chord to be efficient. I made series of new airfoils for short chord and high altitude and ended up with the KS415/14.3.

Example:
altitude = 20000 m
velocity = 80 m/s
wing chord = 0.8 m (80 cm)
=>
Re = 396331.94
M = 0.2711

Therefore it is beneficial that the airfoil used in this kind of aircraft is such that provides maximum L/D at low Re, here around 400000.

Here are some simulations:

Then some airfoils that I created:
http://www.katix.org/karoliina/airfoils/KS414.dat
http://www.katix.org/karoliina/airfoils/KS415%2014.3.dat
http://www.katix.org/karoliina/airfoils/KS416%2014.20.dat

KS416:

More simulation at low Re, two conditions: 80 m/s at 600000 ft and 111 m/s (400 km/h) at 60000 ft:

Added case 154 m/2 (300 kts) at 60000 ft:

Of these, the KS415 exhibits the lowest drag. Here is the geometry of the KS415:

Here is a smoothed version of KS415/14.3:
http://www.katix.org/karoliina/airfoils/KS415_14_3sm.dat

And simulation for a Reynolds number range:

High altitude without turbo

I was thinking one day about the Bohannon B1. It is basically a modified RV (Harmon rocket something) with very high power to weight ratio and that's it. This plane climbed to something like 14 km.

So consider this (high excess power) case hypothetically:
- Airplane with high aspect ratio (low span loading) with high power engines with high power to weight ratio. Example: Chevrolet LS9 (600 hp).
- If the plane can maintain level flight with minimal power. 35000 ft we have remaining power 0.2 * 600 = 120 hp.
- Diamond flies nicely with 120 hp, actually 90 hp is quite sufficient for it for normal cruise speed. With lower span loading much less should keep the plane level.

So now the naysay would be "nah, LS9 can not sustain 600 hp continuous without breaking". However, 120 hp is hardly 600 hp continuous even if the engine is at full throttle and giving all it can at the altitude. It is still stressed only for the 20 percent power.

Same engine, with single stage turbocharger, it should be possible to extend this quite a bit further. With two stage turbocharger even higher altitude should be possible, 70000 ft might be feasible given that the other challenges that come with the altitude are solved somehow.

So you could have a 1200 hp airplane with 240 hp used at altitude for cruise (in case of twin). This should give a quite generous cruise speed at the altitude given that the props are big enough (disc loading low enough).

KS400 airfoil

Airfoil



KS400 wing at altitude 20 km, speed = 155 kts



Here is the dat-file. Download it here: KS400.dat

Works from Re 500 000 up.

More simulations to follow later.

Ar-drone flying

I referred to the AR-drone in previous article about flying car. We produced a short video about Ar-drone flying:
http://www.vimeo.com/16147472

iPad provides control input (which direction one wants to go) and the computer inside the AR-drone provides artificial stability (so it is very easy to fly unlike RC-helicopters).

Thinking out of the box: The case for flying car

I have been thinking what would make "flying cars" feasible. I think the answer is pretty much that it needs to be VTOL. Anything that lands on runway will become very complex design mechanically. A real solution would be to land on the car anywhere, e.g. shop parking lot - otherwise it would be just a clumsy non-optimal airplane.

So what are the breakthroughs needed for this? I doubt that the internal combustion engines can do this ever very well and turbines are out of question as well because nobody can afford flying to shop with turbine power. So I think this will require electric motors and advanced battery technology. Hybrid design could possibly work too.

Large helicopter propeller blades will become a problem when landing on congested place and it would cause also safety issues. You could hit something with the rotating prop and newspapers would be full of horrific accidents very soon. Someone sliced somebody or sliced somebody's house or whatever. The props should be shrouded for safety of general public. Then how many props? One prop and it will require tail and tail rotor. Not so nice. Coaxial rotors, that would be better but still will require one to be helicopter pilot. I think the case of how it would work is very simple, and the case example already exists in small scale as sort of "RC copter":
http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa/

So computer controlled fly by wire and the user would be just selecting to go forward or backward or up or down or to rotate. Computer handles the rest. Each prop would have electric motors, big ones instead of the small ones found from the little thing. This plane could even have small wings, which could be optimized for cruise only (and not for landing at all) and could be possibly pivoting - when airspeed increases less vertical thrust would be needed. This could be "the flying car" that everybody can control. Not everybody can become a helicopter pilot or even airplane pilot - requirements are all the time becoming more and more and less and less will ever succeed to become pilots (from those who dared to start the training), but anybody that can drive a car, can select up, down, turn left, turn right, go forward, go backwards. This thing could be done so that all "flying cars" would have a data link to other "flying cars" nearby. The computer could automatically avoid collisions without the need of centralized air traffic control at all. Actually air traffic control is a system that can not scale to the level of cars are used on the roads, no matter what. The only way to manage the huge amount of traffic is to not have centralized control at all, but the control would need to be between the aircraft and it would need to be automatic data link, not this antiquated AM radio we are using to call ATC. I think it would be reasonable to make the system such that there could be as many flying cars in the air than there are cars on the ground now. Traffic congestions could be easily avoided because there is lots of space in the vertical plane in the air (when we forget about airspace altitudes and minimum altitudes etc.).

The four rotor configuration would also solve the problem of placing ballistic parachute. It could be directly at the CG and it could be even made automatic, if something fails, parachute would be pulled right away.

So what would be needed:
- lightweight electric motors with high power (already possible with today's technology)
- fly by wire system (already possible with today's technology)
- data link to other aircraft (would be already possible with today's technology)
- combustion engine to charge batteries (already possible with today's technology)
- high capacity light weight batteries (this might require next generation batteries to have good enough usefulness)

For these to be good for mass market, the following points must be considered:
- it must not require pilot's license
- it must not require medical of any kind
- it must not be over-regulated, otherwise it will never gain any popularity
- it needs to be very much automatic and very easy
- there must not be super-restrictive regulation where one can land and take off, the usefulness of this concept depends on possibility take off and land from and to everywhere, it would make no sense to take off from airport and to land to airport
- it would not replace airplane, instead one could fly with this kind of machine to airport to get far away with the airplane, I don't see that this kind of design could be made ultra long range and super fast.
- it is unavoidable that this design actually requires more space still than a car, quite large diameter props needs to be used for efficiency. However, each of them would be more reasonable size compared to one helicopter rotor and less expensive to manufacture. Also four rotors provide more thrust and lower disc loading than a single rotor.

Then how these could be manufactured?
- For mass market I think they should be pressed with 3d molds from aluminium with monococue type construction like cars are made of steel. This should be feasible with today's technology because Piaggio P-180 Avanti is manufactured from this type of aluminium construction.
- There could be no rivets and there could be no hand layup in anywhere in the structure to make the price down
- The price of high capacity batteries must drop to get the price down
- the electric motors are inexpensive to manufacture in great volumes
- prototype could be composite construction

So I don't believe in Möller's design as such (combustion engines driving ducted fans), but this slightly different version (with helicopter like but shrouded rotors) could possibly be feasible. And these could be made aesthetically to look very stylish unlike helicopters, and they could have bigger mass market appeal also because of that.

Hybrid aircraft ideas, continued from the previous article

The previous article received lots of very good comments, and since my reply to one comment became too long, I decided to post a new article about it.

One reader proposed either push-pull hybrid where one engine would be diesel and the other would be electric motor. There was another possibility also considered, with coaxial propellers the same thing. This is a valid point and would work. There are some challenges on it therefore here is some cons I considered and hereby listed for this setup:

I may post this as a separate article also because otherwise it possibly does not get read by that many:

This is reply to a commenter for the earlier article:
There is a little incompatibility here that I don't see how to overcome:
- the diesel engine operates at medium rpm which requires reduction drive
- the electric motor can designed to be direct drive and low rpm without need for reduction unit

Having series hybrid there is weight penalty of two brushless DC motors and the engine and the battery, but no other systems. The engine runs the brushless DC motor without reduction gear and the motor that is used as generator can be designed to operate at the rpm the engine operates. The other motor which drives the prop can be made to operate at low rpm.
-> this sytem has NO:
- weight penalty of reduction gear unit
- reliability penalty of reduction gear unit
- need for propeller clutch and the associated reliability penalty and weight penalty
- need for drive shaft to achieve aerodynamic cowling shape

You already listed the most of the pros for the diesel direct drive. I list the cons:
The diesel direct drive cons:
- would not work without clutch, the power pulses would make the prop come off in flight if it did not fail on ground testing already
- does not get necessary power to weight ratio from the engine because of the need to run it at low rpm because of the prop requires low rpm
- weight penalty of the additional gear reduction unit
- reliability penalty of the additional gear reduction unit
- weight penalty of the clutch
- reliability penalty of the clutch (in Thielert engines they have failed now and then, especially in the original design, the latest engine models might have addressed this issue but I am not sure)
- added complexity for the conversion, this is a major consideration in homebuilt experimental since added complexity can add lots of cost in terms of labor if it goes very much beyond "I can do that myself".
- aerodynamic cowling shape may require drive shaft, and reliable drive shaft has been proven to be hard to design and manufacture such way that it would be 100% reliable
- the diesel engine is harder for the prop than a electric motor because of power pulses (even with clutch) and more expensive propeller is needed than would be needed with the electric motor alone.


There is however a case what has not been talked about for your case:
- planetary gear system for driving the electric motor and the diesel engine at the same time - Toyota Prius hybrid synergy drive thing. That is about bullet proof and single point of failure will not stop the prop, one motor is enough to continue driving the prop.
- This of course has associated weight penalty. On Toyota Prius it does not matter, but on aircraft it does matter.

Case for push-pull:
- To avoid drive shaft, the diesel engine would need to be the front engine.
- case for achieving any kind of laminar flow to the fuselage would be pretty much lost
- inefficiency problems on the rear prop because of the front prop. I have not quantified this on the other hand, apparently nobody is able to answer how much is the penalty, it is not even exact in literature.

Nice collection of tech papers (3LS and more)

Here is a yet another collection of tech papers, however, in this time in a quite hand-picked manner - those most interesting ones (Voyager liquid cooled engines, Rotary engines, three lifting surfaces papers etc.):

http://www.protonet.org/doc/

Go to get them, good stuff.

Approved some comments in old posts

Sorry for not being very active on this blog lately because I have been busy (work, summer vacation (I have been busy (work, current airplane, summer vacation etc.). I noticed that there were plenty of not yet approved comments. Sorry for the delay, I have been busy. Your comments are now approved and after you have been approved once, I think you can comment without prior approval in the future. Thanks for writing comments!

Using Teknodur polyurethane paint like topcoat, two layers of paint to finished surface without any pinhole problems

I have noticed (well, might be that it is a usual way to use it but I just haven't heard of it) that Teknodur polyurethane paint that can be used to paint composite structures like those on experimental aircraft, can be applied with brush and then perfected with sanding like on applying topcoat (/gelcoat) on a sailplane.

This just works for me, please do not follow if you are not willing to take the responsibility of potentially ruining your paint:
0. Do not use base paint or raw epoxy method, you don't need to fill pinholes, just forget about pinholes with this method! In other words, you can directly apply like this on top of smooth sanded dry micro or automotive polyester filler!
1. Apply thick layer of Teknodur 2 component polyurethane paint (e.g. white) on top of the composite structure. Any other similar polyurethane paint works too (I have also tested with Hempel 2-component boat polyurethane paint). Base paint is not necessary, the Teknodur takes on a bare epoxy surface which is sanded to dull (be sure it is sanded to dull, if it is not, then it will not take, but peels off). Do not use solvent to make the paint thinner, the thick property is desirable. The thick paint blocks the pinholes on the surface below.
2. Let it cure and then inspect. Look, 1 layer of paint and no pinholes! There may be runs, but you can get rid of the runs easily!
3. Wet sand the surface smooth. Use quite coarse grit at this point.
4. Add second layer of Teknodur paint. You can use a bit solvent now, and you will get no pinholes. Try to avoid runs more carefully at this time.
5. Wet sand to completely smooth finish.
Use all available wet sand paper grits up to 2000 if you can find 2000 grit. 1200 grit is fine though.
6. Use polishing compounds to finish the surface to high gloss.
7. Add vax and polish.

A little bit tedious with all the wet sanding, but on the other hand: full control over pinholes, no base needed, and most sanding goes to the paint without harming the critical glass/carbon fabric under it.

I am just in middle of painting a little composite part this way and I have noticed that it works. Before you ruin any large parts by using a method where the paint is misused and done differently than all painters will teach you, please try it to some scrap part first. I have finished two scrap parts like this and they have been in the snow and ice the whole winter without any harm done to the paint surface, so I would guess that this sanding method does not ruin the paint.

I am not sure, but it could be that:
- You would be even better off if you first apply a very thin layer of paint that enters the pinholes. Sand dull. Then don't care about the pinholes, just add the thick layer of paint on top of the thin layer.

On the base and on the first layer, the sanding result does not need to be smoother than 240 grit. Anything more than that is waste of time because the thick paint rounds the minor irregularities.

Pros:
- Polyurethane paint is easy to sand, very very very very easy compared to sanding epoxy
- Runs on polyurethane paint is no big deal, just sand them off in a minute and you are done!
- Quick to finish
- The thick paint is very weather resistant and is as smooth as you sand it

Cons:
- The layer of paint becomes pretty thick and it is heavy, and in some cases might be undesirable.

Idea: Series hybrid in airplane using auto engine and avoiding the pitfalls of auto conversions

I have been thinking this back and forth now quite some time. This idea is quite simple, the purpose is to fix the most critical problem with auto conversions, achieve better aerodynamics, propeller placement and mass and inertia distribution.

Auto conversions most often fail, no surprise, because of the reduction gear or belt. The core engine is not the root cause in the problems and many problems with the reduction belt or gear system can not be seen beforehand because the dynamics of the vibrations of the engine, propeller and their inertia forces affecting each other is a bit more complicated than one could think at first - it is not that simple to make these parts to last for hundreds or thousands of hours.

So we came up (with Kate, we usually talk with Kate about these things and we kind of invent these things together, I usually happen to be the one who writes them down - and it is usually so that Kate is the opponent into which I test my idea's feasibility before I write it here) with the idea of having a auto engine, possibly a diesel engine, running at constant power, most likely exactly at the optimum point of the engine, always. Then all the power variation would come from the electric motors which would drive the propellers. The idea is that the diesel engine only runs a generator.

The downside of this idea is the additional weight from the generator, batteries, motor controllers, electric motors and the props (depending how many electric motors are used, it is also possible to use just one if that is preferred). However, there are two several things possibly good about this:

- First the diesel engine burns less fuel, resulting smaller fuel tanks.
- Secondly the gearbox system is saved. The gearbox system can be very heavy duty in a high power aircraft engine and they still have tendency to fail. Possibly something like 40-50 kg is saved straight away.
- Thirdly the aerodynamic advantage - optimal aerodynamic shape without using long extension shafts and couplings to deal with the dynamics of the rotating shaft connected to a non-optimally rotating propeller and the power pulses of the diesel engine. Now there is the chance to put the engine anywhere in the airframe where it best fits and propeller drive don't need to be considered at all.

Then there is the redundancy thing. Brushless DC electric motors usually never fail, but the prop can still fail in bad circumstances. Therefore having two independent props for the one diesel engine could be advantageous. Same thing with the batteries - if the diesel engine fails, the batteries could be sized such that the aircraft can fly without the diesel engine for example for 30 minutes in level flight. That might be enough in most cases to get safely on the ground, except on middle of an ocean. The most likely place for the engine to fail is the takeoff. This takeoff stress would never happen with this engine configuration - the engine would be run always at optimum and safe power, never on takeoff power. The extra power for the takeoff can be easily taken from the batteries if they have proper capacity and the electric motors are powerful enough. On takeoff the batteries at full power are not discharging that quickly, because the diesel engine is recharging the batteries at the same time. The takeoff power can be rarely used for longer than 5 minutes on an aircraft equipped with Lycoming engine either, so having a limited period of time for the full power is not that big problem.

Generator and electric motor can have very high efficiency, and the gap to a efficiency of a reduction belt system is not that great. Best electric motors (though heavy ones) are around 98% efficient.

On descent the diesel engine could be shut down providing there was enough battery capacity. The motors could actually regenerate also batteries when the pilot wants to decelerate the plane.

Maintenance cost would be like a single engine aircraft, but the reliability geared towards a twin. Of course there is the one little fine print: the battery pack is expensive and it has an expiration time and date, unfortunately. But nothing is perfect and without compromises.

Any comments about this idea? This surely would not be a racer as the power to weight ratio would be rather poor, but anyhow I am thinking, providing it would be efficient enough to climb adequately, this would be a quite economical thing to fly and also easy conversion-wise, almost stock auto engine would be okay, no reduction gear and prop installation and an assembly that takes the push or pulling loads, would be needed. Also waiting on the airport would not waste any energy, since props can be completely stopped when the plane does not need to move. For example Lycoming IO-360 consumes about the same amount of gasoline per hour when waiting on IFR clearance on the ground than our Toyota Prius car on highway. Consuming zero amount of fuel when still on the ground, but still being ready, would save some liters.

And answer to the question, why diesel and not gasoline when gasoline engines can be run very lean and quite great specific fuel consumption values can be achieved in optimal conditions - it is quite simple: availability of the 100LL/Avgas seems to be becoming poor. There has been three 100LL operators in Finland, but two of them decided to discontinue this year. There is only one left. When that only one decides that it is not profitable enough, there is no 100LL available for anybody and the whole country's fleet of Lycoming and Continental based planes are grounded. The Jet-A1 is not going anywhere, so engine that can burn the jet fuel would be a safe bet. Jet engine, turboprop, or turbofan are out of the question because those are not available in meaningful sizes and power classes - there is not a small turbofan that would have high pressure ratio and bypass ratio available, nobody manufactures such a thing. And it is unlikely anybody will in the future because this personal flying all is a very niche market unfortunately until it changes for better (if it ever does).

The implementation possibilities have challenges; namely no such electric motor available (would require custom motors possibly), etc. And the weight also causes penalty for the efficiency and speed of the plane. But the power to weight ratio will be with this arrangement a lot better than on a pure electric aircraft. And pure electric aircraft is feasible, why an electric aircraft with a generator and a fueltank added would not be.

And by the way, even if it is first of April at the time of writing this, this blog post is not an April fool.

Rutan Proteus photo collection

NASA has nice photo collection. If you like the looks of the Proteus (in my opinion it is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever done), have a look:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Proteus/index.html

Airplane design from structural efficiency point of view combined with aerodynamics point of view - multi-domain optimization

So far I have been looking only the aerodynamics side, but it is quite evident that compromises are needed on the aerodynamics side to achieve the best structural efficiency. I think one good example is Virgin Global Flyer (Scaled Composites model 311). I have not analysed yet the structure, but common sense says that trimaran has weight placed more evenly along the wing span avoiding a very large point load in the middle where the single fuselage would normally exist. The trimaran may have more wetted area than a single fuselage, but on the other hand, weight savings in the very high aspect ratio wing and space gains for the extra fuel are in this concept very important factors.

I find the trimaran configuration quite interesting - several different engine placement configurations for example can be used with this configuration without changing the aerodynamic shape of the concept very much. It is also interesting because it allows placement of the main gear away from the center fuselage and thus provides greater stability on the ground when the aspect ratio is high even if there is fuel placed to the wings very far away from the center of gravity. And as can be seen the same design suits several different missions: Global Flyer is very much like White Knight 2 with SpaceShipTwo under it on the center. Almost the same configuration, adapted to different kind of mission for very different kind of parameters (Global Flyer = long range cruise, White Knight 2 = optimized for climb).

Global flyer drawing Google found from some site
Wikipedia has another great photo, this is from front

The configuration is not really so new and not so unproven either, as people might expect, here is one example where a similar configuration has been used a long time ago:
Northrop Widow
The only difference here is that the Northrop Widow was optimized for different mission than either of the abovementioned and that it had piston engines in front of the outer "fuselages" which were interconnected from the tail section similarly than in Adam A500 whereas the Global Flyer and White Knight Two have two separate tails. It is quite apparent why the tails are separate in these aircraft - because the outer fuselages are placed so widely apart from each other, connecting the tails would have made the tail unnecessarily large which would have caused negative effect for the drag despite it would have had fewer intersections. On the other hand, I have been looking different HALE concepts, and it is quite apparent that the number of intersections is not the major drag source in high altitude aircraft, but the induced drag is, and to minimize induced drag, more intersections can be allowed as the penalty from them is lesser than limiting the aspect ratio would be. This is why there are even some concepts considered at the moment which have wing struts - even if everybody knows that they produce drag, in some concepts, the significance of that drag can be proportionally small whereas the increased aspect ratio has major effect on minimizing the total drag of the aircraft. HALE aircraft have to be quite different than those which are designed to cruise at low altitude, the drag percentages of each contributors are quite different and "one size does not fit all".

It is quite interesting area to explore when the structural efficiency is added to the equation in addition to the aerodynamics and the result is a compromise on both structures and aerodynamics instead of being optimized for either aerodynamics or for structures. The mission parameters tend to heavily affect both and best suited results can be achieved by combining these two and by knowing the intended use exactly, potentially bigger gains can be realized than in a concept that is a general purpose in everything (GA = GENERAL aviation).

Austin's jet design

x-plane.com website had looked a bit boring lately, Austin's long and interesting changelogs are hidden deep under the menu structure, looks like a design of a web designer lately.

But luckily yesterday I realized that Austin had added a link on top of the page. Small link on top of the web designer blob and that goes directly into an interesting page. Now today there are two links (as there is 9.50 beta for X-plane available too), but this one was particularly interesting in the topic of this blog: The Laminar Research X-1 Cavallo is conceived

Why Diamond uses Wortmann FX63-137?

I have been thinking over and over again why Diamond has chosen the Wortmann high lift airfoil FX63-137 on its aircraft. However, I am suspecting what might be the reason (not confirmed though since anybody on Diamond booth e.g. in Oshkosh is usually never able to answer to my questions). Here is my theory about it:
- The FX63-137 has high L/D at fairly high alpha and thus Cl (as the airfoil is such that the Cl rises rapidly as a function of alpha). This is maybe not the best configuration for cruise where a low drag bucket at low Cl is desirable. On an airfoil which has best L/D at low Cl, the climb has more D component (because high lift devices cause drag) and while getting more L with high lift devices. It might be close to the optimal climb optimisation on the chosen aspect ratio on those planes and compromise is drawn to cruise and it is not seen as a bad thing because competition is not faster but usually slower, it does not take so much to win e.g. a C172 in efficiency and speed after all. So it might be that with a lower drag cruise airfoil e.g. DA42NG with the very heavy diesel engines might have somewhat poorer climb rate on single engine situation or it might not climb alltogether if the airfoil was not optimised to provide low drag on high Cl.
- Comparison between the DA40 and Cirrus SR20 kind of potentially shows this: the Diamond shows significantly better climb rates with a quite similar AR and quite similar wing loading (SR20 takes some toll on that, but not that much in comparison if a light loaded SR20 and heavy loaded DA40 is compared), despite of the fact that the SR20 has more sophisticated flaps and the SR20 has 20 hp more engine power available.
- This can be also evidenced on best climb rate speed: with similar wing loading, the best climb rate speed is much higher on the SR20 than it is on the DA40, which partly indicates that the sweet point in the L/D occurs at lower alpha on SR20 than on DA40. SR20 also requires quite accurate angle of attack and thus speed to climb optimally whereas the DA40 is not that critical which would also indicate that the low drag bucket of the FX63-137 is broader than on the (according to UIUC data site) Roncz airfoil on the SR20.

So this is just my home-brewn theory style thinking, is based on collected information and my experience with flying the Diamond DA40, DA42 and Cirrus SR20 and SR22. I might be wrong as always, but here is some food of thought if you have been thinking why there is this airfoil with high L/D at high Cl and the airfoil also has fairly high pitching moment which some find undesirable because of for example trim drag.