![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Fred wrote:
Just got asked this question, didn't have a quick and easy answer. How do you explain it? Although this thread is now pretty old, I would like to add my contribution, for 2 reasons. The first one is that nobody among the contributors made a clear distinction between two effects involved in this process. The second one is to try to share with all the readers of this newsgroup a quantitative estimate of one of these two effects. The two effects among which I want to make a distiction a 1) the pitch stability of the glider tend to keep it at the same angle relatively to the air airstream, as long as the pilot doesn't move any control that would change that. The thermal make a change in the direction of the airstream, the stability of the glider make it follow this change by pitching down. This is a cause of long term airspeed increase. 2) even in the absence of the first effect, e.g. if the pilot reacts to the pitch down tendancy (that's what I teach to my students: don't let the thermal accelerate your glider, otherwise it will throw you outside by increasing your turn radius), there is a change in the aerodynamic force (vector sum of lift + drag) which causes an immediate acceleration. Now let's have a closer look on the 2nd effect. In order to make a rough estimate of this effect, I want to do some first order approximations. i.e. neglecting what I consider as second order quantities. More precisely I will consider some quantities as "small" compared to others, and second order quantities are those which are "small" compared to some one which is already "small". As primary small things I will consider that drag is small compared to lift, and the vertical speed of the thermal (increase) is small compared to the airspeed. The first thing caused by the thermal is to change the relative wind in force and direction. As the thermal velocity is almost perpendicular to the initial velocity, the change in force is a second order change, so I will only consider the change in direction. The change in direction causes an identical change in angle of attack. This change causes a change in the aerodynamic force. As before the thermal the aerodynamic force was exactly opposite to the weight, so that the sum of all forces was zero, after the change, the net resulting force causing an acceleration is just the (vector) difference beteween the new aerodynamic force and the previous one. For a quantitative estimate, as we usually count (and feel) acceleration in "g" rather than in m/s² (or ft/s² for metrically challenged people), what is interesting is the relative change in this force, this gives directly the accelaration in g. There is a change both in direction and in intensity. Both changes are small, so the new direction is close to the previous one. So the change in direction provides mainly an horizontal component of the differential force an the change in intensity mainly a vertical componemt, mainly being understood as: the difference with the real change is a second order quantity and may be neglected. I assume that the glider was near its best L/D speed. In this case the change of L/D when there is a small change of angle of attack is a second order change. So we neglect it, i.e. we consider that the angle between the aerodynamic force and the direction of the relative wind doesn't change. So the change in direction of the aerodynamic force is the same as the change in the direction of the relative wind. This change in radians is the ratio Vz/V of the thermal velocity to the airspeed, so this is equal to the first order to the horizontal relative change in force dFh/F and to the horizontal accelaration in "g". Now what is the vertical accelaration? To the first order the relative change dFv/F is equal to the relative change of the lift coefficient dCl/Cl. The lift coefficient Cl is near 1 at best L/D, so we may focus on the absolute change dCl. The aerodynamic litterature says that for a thin plate the theorical value of dCl/da (da being the change of angle of attack) is 2pi, and "The result, that CL changes by 2pi per radian change of angle of attack (.1096/deg) is not far from the measured slope for many airfoils" (http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...atresults.html). This is for an infinite aspect ratio, there is a correction factor of AR/(AR+2) for finite aspect ratio AR which is so close to 1 for the usual aspect ratio of most gliders that we can assumme it is 1, especially if we approximate 2pi by 6. So the vertical acceleration is roughly 6 times Vz/V and 6 times the horizontal acceleration. This explains (if such an explanation was needed :-) that we mainly feel the vertical acceleration. A glider flying at 50 knots and encoutering a 1 knot thermal (again for metrically challenged people) will roughly accelarate by .02 g horizontally and .12 g vertically. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An odd clearance...can anyone explain? | Andrew Gideon | Instrument Flight Rules | 32 | September 18th 04 09:35 PM |
TEC, can anyone use small words and explain this to me? | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | November 16th 03 05:51 PM |
Please explain | T3 | Military Aviation | 28 | November 14th 03 11:11 PM |
Can anyone explain what TFR's are supposed to do? | Corky Scott | Piloting | 33 | October 23rd 03 12:42 PM |
Can someone explain wing loading? | Frederick Wilson | Home Built | 4 | September 10th 03 02:33 AM |