If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Colin wrote: ... 1. A slipping turn can be made at a high bank angle and low airspeed. 2. Rate of turn is dependent on angle of bank and airspeed, such that the highest rate of turn is achieved with a high bank angle and a low airspeed. Brian illustrated this by inviting us to compare the rate of turn achieved by a C150 and a jet fighter at the same angle of bank. It has to be a slipping turn or we would stall, so the maximum bank which can be used is dependent on the amount of top rudder available. ... Ok, if you use the lift provided by the fuselage in a slipping turn, you can devote more of the lift provided by the wings for generating the centripetal force, by increasing the bank angle, and so the horizontal component of the wing lift. But you pay this by an increase in drag, i.e. more height loss. It is not obvious if the gain in time to turn override the increased rate of sink, but I have some argument that should show that the answer is no. The analysis of Dr. Rogers as well as my own one can be used in the case of a slipping turn can be used if you consider as bank angle not the geometric bank angle, i.e. the angle between the wing plane and the horizontal plane, but the aerodynamic bank angle, i.e. the angle between the total lift vector (wings + fuselage) and the vertical (well as we consider a glide it is rather total aerodynamic force than lift, but the difference between both angles can be neglected). In this case our common conclusion is again that the optimal (aerodynamic) bank angle is 90 degrees, although the geometric bank angle is higher, and we have to maximize Cl/(Cd^2) in Dr. Rogers' analysis, minimize Vz*V in my analysis. It is difficult to determine if you may have a higher max Cl/(Cd^2) with slip, but I have a good argument that we can't lower Vz*V. Remember in this analysis Vz and V are the horizontal and vertical speed at zero (aerodynamic) bank angle and the same angle of attack, i.e. what you find in an usual glider polar. In the case of a slipped turn, we should use a polar showing Vz versus V for a straight flight with the same slip angle. I never saw such a polar, but I think it is obvioous that at any speed V the vertical speed Vz is higher with slip than without it. i.e. the polar with slip is entirely below the polar without slip. Now the minimum of Vz*V for the polar without slip is where this polar is tangent to one of the hyperbolas Vz*V = constant, and except for the point of contact, the polar is entirely below this hyperbola. So the polar with slip is also entirely below this hyperbola, and no point of it can provide a value for Vz*V that is lower or equal to the the value on the hyperbola, i.e. the minimum of Vz*V obtained without slip cannot be obtained with slip. Er, yes ... But how does the result compare with a large tear-drop flown at normal glide speed, or for that matter, a smaller tear-drop flown with higher airspeed and more bank ? The point is how to complete a rapid 180 without spinning-in, and a full sideslip with small angle of attack precludes a spin. The author also encourages us to go out and try it, high up to begin with of course. - Colin. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
spaceship one | Pianome | Home Built | 169 | June 30th 04 05:47 AM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
using winch instead of aerotow | goneill | Soaring | 5 | August 27th 03 02:46 PM |