![]() |
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 8, 12:49 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Does anyone know of documentation that supports the idea showing the pilot the AOA will actually improve a glider pilot's thermalling? Or even that the range of AOA needed to be "efficient" is too small for a pilot to obtain it easily by using airspeed, or by just looking out the canopy, once he's flown the glider enough to be familiar with it? Eric, when we fly airspeed while thermalling we are actually trying to fly AOA. We start with the minimum sink speed (specifically, the point on the polar we want to thermal at), add speed for ballast, then add speed for bank angle, then come up with an adjusted airspeed that approximates our ideal AOA for the selected gross weight and bank angle. Using AOA directly (once one has chosen where on the polar one wants to thermal at) eliminates the need to make all those guesses. The wing does it all, automatically. Guess what - when you fly attitude - "what feels right" - in a thermal, glancing at the airspeed to see what it is - you are flying AOA! For example, I couldn't even find a mention of AOA in "Fundamentals of Sailplane Design" when discussing thermalling. Circling efficiency is discussed (page 63-65), but without mention of AOA, which suggests to me that it's not the important factor. Climb performance, which is what we really are after, is very dependent on the thermal shape (pages 65-66). Circling at the best AOA doesn't give you the best rate of climb; instead, the circling radius is the most important factor. I disagree. Thermalling at the most efficient bank angle/AOA for the size of the thermal is the most important factor. Waddling around a knot above the stall with landing flaps down will give me the smallest circling radius, but a horrible climb rate. Look at the "rate of sink versus turn radius" table like the one on page 64 of "Fundamentals...". Does anyone know if the optimum is always at the same AOA? And if not, what the range of AOA is for the table? My guess it that the optimum AOA may vary based on turbulence, but only a very small about - probably less than can be accurately flown by the average pilot in a typical thermal. And this would only be for airfoils that are susceptible to turbulent flows. In most cases, the AOA range for effective Cl max (which I assume is close to the optimum for min sink and thermalling) is probably big enough to be measured and flown accurately. Regardless of the answer is to the question above, what would be useful would be two additional tables "rate of sink versus turn radius". One table would use an AOA greater (say, 3 degrees) than optimum; the other table would use an AOA smaller by the same amount from optimum. This would give us an idea of how sensitive circling efficiency is to AOA errors. If performance is not sensitive to the AOA, there is no need to look for an indicator of it. A stall warning device would still be useful, but it doesn't have to be based on AOA: it just needs to tell you when the wing is getting close to a stall. If performance is not sensitive to the AOA, we wouldn't need an airspeed indicator! At low speeds, that old ASI is at best a poor compromise - the only good thing about it is that is doesn't fail often (although, the only instrument I've ever had fail in a glider was the airspeed indicator). And how can anything tell you the wing is getting close to the stall without measuring AOA? Excessive AOA is what defines a stall. Airspeed is just an approximation - and can easily trick you. Try landing back after a low altitude rope break full of ballast, if you haven't flown wet in a while. Slow to the airspeed you are used to using to turn back and you will get a big surprise! In the same situation, slow to the same AOA, and you have the same margin over the stall you had dry. This isn't opinion, it's basic aerodynamics. I think the lack of references to angle of attack in gliding publications is largely due to the fact that AOA is still mainly limited to military jets and expensive airliners/biz jets. Most general aviation pilots never have a chance to be exposed to the joys of knowing exactly what their wing is doing. Or not doing, as the case may be! Funny thing is, the common Cezzna uses a crude AOA sensor for it's stall warning (the little paddle on the leading edge). Kinda like audio varios - once you try it, you'll never want to go back to airspeed as a low speed control instrument. Any real aero majors lurking out there, please join in! Cheers, Kirk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stalls - Angle of Attack versus Vstall | [email protected] | Piloting | 44 | October 6th 06 01:26 AM |
preferrred bank angle indicator? | Matt Herron Jr. | Soaring | 34 | July 10th 06 02:22 PM |
Need glider airspeed indicator | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | June 21st 05 09:57 PM |
Glider vs. Power Pattern Bank Angle? | Jim Vincent | Soaring | 28 | June 15th 04 03:41 PM |
Lift and Angle of Attack | Peter Duniho | Simulators | 9 | October 2nd 03 10:55 PM |