![]() |
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm going to retract these comments about the thermal position relative
to the glider. The comments about how often I have to correct upwind are still right, but that perhaps it's because where I usually fly might have most of the thermals moving over the ground, rather than originating at point sources. I don't think the comments apply to the case Todd described, though they do seem to apply to what I encounter where I normally fly, and to the shape of some dust devils. These dust devils are moving over the ground, though more slowly than the wind aloft. The bottom 1000 feet or so appears to go straight up, then it bends over quickly until it's about a 10-30 degree angle with the ground, has a relatively straight portion, then it bends up and is straight again. I'm not sure of this, but perhaps the straight, bent over portion is elongating as it speeds up to match the wind speed, then begins to feed the upper air mass as I described below. The effect would be a thermal source that travels with the wind, but being fed by a slower moving source on the ground. Eric Greenwell wrote: T o d d P a t t i s t wrote: Eric Greenwell wrote: Once the thermal and the airmass are moving at the same speed, there would be no need to correct upwind. Imagine a 10 knot thermal being continuously generated from a quarry or other warm spot on the ground. Assume a 10 knot steady breeze with no speed change with altitude (no wind shear). In one tenth of an hour (6 minutes) the thermal will have risen to one nautical mile high (6,000') and its top will have drifted one nautical mile downwind of the quarry. Now imagine a glider at 6,000' that began to circle (in sink) directly over the quarry when the thermal started. The glider has a 2.5 knot descent rate when turning. In the absence of the thermal, in the same six minutes, the glider would be circling about 1500' lower and have drifted the same one nautical mile downwind of the quarry. Clearly, the descending downwind angled path of the glider (dropping from 6000' to 4500') and the rising downwind track of the thermal (rising from 0' to 6000') must cross, so what happens at that point? The answer is simply that the glider begins to rise as it descends into the rising air. However, it does not rise as fast as the thermal. It's still descending at the 2.5 knot descent rate relative to the rising 10 knot thermal. Each instant that the glider is in the rising air, it is descending slightly in the thermal, and each bit of descent takes it into air that left the ground later and was slightly farther upwind relative to where the glider started. This is where this model is wrong. What you describe is true near the ground, where the airmass speed exceeds the thermal source (the ground point) speed by 10 knots. At 1000', the airmass speed is still 10 knots, but the thermal speed is now (for example) 5 knots because the the wind has accelerated it; i.e., the airmass above 1000' is being fed by a _moving_ source, not a stationary one. At some point (I suggest 2000') the thermal has accelerated to the same horizontal speed as the air mass. At that point, the airmass above 2000' is being fed by a thermal source (the airmass at 2000') that is moving at the same speed it is. Eventually the glider drops out the bottom of the angled downwind, rising, path of the thermal (provided the glider makes no centering corrections) and it continues its downward and downwind drifting path, having been delayed as its descending path crossed the thermal's rising path. As long as the glider enters the thermal above 2000' (in this case), it will not drop out of thermal, since the thermal is moving at the wind speed. In fact, this is usually the case I encounter, because most of my thermals do not require an upwind correction. So far, no one has commented on my suggestion we measure the difference in the wind speed and the thermal drift by circling a few times after we leave a thermal, then comparing the drift from the flight trace later. Does anyone have a better idea? -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The United States Bronze Star Registry | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 20th 04 01:52 AM |
USA Bronze Badge test. | Thomas Knauff | Soaring | 9 | July 17th 04 03:13 PM |
PFC Lynch gets a Bronze Star? | Brian | Military Aviation | 77 | August 2nd 03 11:15 AM |