Isn't lift part of drag?

On Apr 26, 7:58*am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On one
page,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...y.boeing_dream...,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. *Did I
misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.

On Apr 25, 12:47*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

There are a lot of trade offs,

Not always. There is no trade off between a model-T and a modern car.
Technology innovation allows for increased efficiency that does not
necessarily require any trade-off other than the RND time required to
develop.

-Robert

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

wrote in message
news:5d0da5e0-2006-442e-8e74-
.
..
On Apr 25, 10:55 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Apr 25, 5:23 am, es330td wrote:

Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
one

page,http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/.../gallery.boein
g_dream..., they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
drag. Did I misunderstand?

It could be more efficient. The Mooney wing produces more lift for
the amount of drag than a Cessna wing.

-Robert

From the original statement, it seems clear that they're
referring to the increase in efficiency that come from aspect ratio.
I wonder, now, if that increased span was made possible with the use
of composites instead of aluminum? Longer wings flex more, and
aluminum fatigues faster, I think, than composite construction. And
carbon or aramid fibers are stronger per unit weight than aluminum.

Dan

There are a lot of trade offs, and the gate spacing might also be
larger at the airports that the Dreamliner is expected to serve.
Also, IIRC, a few years ago, Boeing talking about future aircraft with
folding wing tips to overcome some of the spacing problems at the
gates. I also agree with you, that advances in materials also play a
major role.


It's not going to be that big. The widebody Busses ( A 330 and 340) are
already massive with a much larger span than the 747 so it shouldn't be
an issue.

Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:4dd3ec0a-5ece-405f-9103-
:

On Apr 25, 12:47*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

There are a lot of trade offs,

Not always. There is no trade off between a model-T and a modern car.

There is, actually. You can drive a Model T across a field that even a jeep
would get bogged down in.

Also Ts are much more fun to drive.

Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
one page,

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...y.boeing_dream
liner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If
this is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag.
Did I misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design. Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the
design of the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients
and make the wing more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing
an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the
tip of the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
heard.

That's just because you're too dim to undestand the instructions on how
to open up your pop tarts.


Bertie

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 26, 7:58*am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On
on
e
page,

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ry.boeing_drea
m...
,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
drag. *Did I misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
desig
n.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of
the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and
make the win
g
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when
doing an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply
present the tip o
f
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a
distinct difference between an article on wing design written for
Fortune as opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately
expressed by it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -


Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser?

He does, actually. And nothing you can say to him will convince him
otherwise. It's the very essence of what it is to be a k00k.

Bertie

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 7:58 am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
page,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...y.boeing_dream...,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the
wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the
wing
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip
of
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately expressed by
it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -


Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
news

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
news:9aeabecd-d09c-46f0-9a11-7d1e15c45ff2
@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
.. On Apr 26, 7:58 am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
one page,

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ry.boeing_drea
m...,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
drag. Did I misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of
the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and
make the wing
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when
doing an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply
present the tip of
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a
distinct difference between an article on wing design written for
Fortune as opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately
expressed by it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -


Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??


Marbles would be my guess.


Bertie

listen to dudley dooright he is a senior

Dudley Henriques formulated the question :
The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the wing
could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the wing more
efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip of the
iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as opposed
to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:20:48 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

es330td wrote in
:

Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
page,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/....boeing_dreaml
i
ner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
misunderstand?


Well, it's a trade off. it's possible to do both by various means.
arifoil selection, planform and so forth. It'd be more correct to say
that they're eliminating unneccesary drag.


Bertie

no.
it would be valid to say that they were using a geometry with less
induced drag. drag isnt necessary or unnecessary it is drag.
you cant eliminate it, all you can do is try hard to find the design
shape that has the least of it.

....got you on a slip of the keyboard :-)
you'll hate me now. :-)
Stealth Pilot