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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
At 07:11 04 January 2011, Derek C wrote:
On Jan 3, 11:30=A0pm, ProfChrisReed wrote: It seems to me that increased AoA must be a very large part of the cause. Imagine you are flying free @55kt. You have a sink rate of, say, 1.5kt. Now you are on tow, again @55kt, but this time the combination is climbing @5kt. Your wings are generating 6.5kt more lift than in free flight, and must therefore be at a substantially higher AoA. Additionally, the faster you are climbing (in still air) the greater the AoA must be for you to keep station with the tug. I fly an Open Cirrus, towing from the C of G hook without ballast, and never experienced this at my previous club which had a Citabria tug. My current club has a Pawnee, and I have from time to time felt the tow was too slow because the controls felt mushy and the glider wallowed about, feeling as if it was close to the stall. The Pawnee climbs much faster than the Citabria. If in addition the tug's slipstream imparts a downward flow to the airmass, even more lift and higher AoA is required. I had a high tow behind a 180 hp Piper Super Cub (a fairly slow tug) to practice aerobatics in a K21 on Sunday. The nosehook on the K21 is situated under the nose, just in front of the nosewheel, and I was flying it solo. For the last thousand feet of the tow the airspeed dropped to about 56 knots and I got the same symptoms as described above. The normal free flight stalling speed for a K21 is only about 39 knots, and I had no problems in the early part of the tow when the airspeed was 60+ knots. If the glider feels as though it is close to the stall, then it probably IS close to the stall! Derek C yes, but the critical question is is it the same kind of stall? A straight stall in a K21 is pretty benign, with no particular tendency to drop a wing. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
At 04:54 04 January 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 1/3/2011 8:10 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Jan 3, 5:23 pm, " The rate of climb is strictly a factor of the power available. More powerful towplane = faster rate of climb......lift on the glider's wing, and the towlane's wing stays practically constant, therefore the angle of attack is just about constant. It is the climb angle (direction of flight) which changes with power, not the AoA. Cookie Ugh? The glider is flying, the towplane is not dragging the glider up an incline. If the combination is going up faster (=steeper climb rate/ angle) then both aircraft wings are generating more lift and they get this this from some combination of increased AoA and airspeed. The more powerful towplane may allow both aircraft to fly at an increased AoA and overcome the associated drag. The increased climb angle comes from the increased lift. Assuming a constant airspeed means all the increase is coming from an increase in AoA and the more powerful towplane thrust is offsetting the increased drag. I'd be interested to see an explanation of any other way of generating an increase in climb angle without increasing the lift of the glider and/pr towplane. Actually, I do think the towplane is pulling the glider up an incline! The flight path is inclined, and the towplane is the only one that can provide the force. In fact, I think the lift required *decreases* with increased climb rate during tow! How could that be? The tow rope provides some of the force needed to hold the glider in the air. Imagine an extreme tow, a 50 knot airspeed, but climbing at 35 knots (45 degree angle). The tow rope is providing 70% of the force holding the glider in the air, so the wing needs to supply only 30% of the force. Or imagine a really extreme, vertical tow: all the force required to keep the glider moving steadily through the air is provided by the towrope/towplane, and none by the wing. Let the games begin! -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) stirrer! This will run and run ... please no-one mention Bernoulli |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
On Jan 4, 7:27*am, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 01:01 04 January 2011, wrote: On Jan 3, 3:34=A0pm, Doug Greenwell *wrote: At 19:12 03 January 2011, Craig wrote: On Jan 1, 3:06=3DA0am, Doug Greenwell =A0wrote: At 21:47 31 December 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:09:08 -0800, Derek C wrote: On Dec 31, 6:19=3DA0pm, bildan =3DA0wrote: On Dec 31, 4:40=3DA0am, "Doug" =3DA0wrote: As an aerodynamicist/flight dynamicist recently re-soloed after 25 years off, people keep asking me hard questions. =3DA0One that h= as come up recently is why a heavy glider on tow feels horrible, but thermalling in the same glider at lower speeds is fine? (see also Mike Fox's article on aerotowing in the October issue of S&G). I did some calculations, and I reckon it's probably due to the tug wing wake (tip vortices generating a downwash inboard, upwash outboard) changing the lift distribution on the glider wing - with an increased angle of attack out at the tips reducing aileron effectiveness. =3DA0There's possibly an interesting academic research project here, but it's always best to get a reality check first .. Is poor handling at low speed on tow a common experience? =3DA0I'd appreciate any thoughts/comments/war stories ... particularly bad tug/glider/speed combinations, incidents of wing drop during a tow etc etc? Doug Greenwell I suspect, but can't know unless I flew with you, that you are unconsciously trying to "steer" the glider with ailerons. =3DA0Overuse of ailerons is very common and it makes aero tow 'wobbly'. =3DA0If you consciously use rudder to aim the nose at the tug's tail and just keep the same bank angle as the tug with ailerons, it might work better. Wake effects are generally favorable if you stay at the right height relative to the tug. =3DA0Using a slightly higher tow position can sometimes help a lot. The tip vortices rotate inward above the propwash which, if allowed to do so, will drift the glider to the center position and help keep it there. =3DA0I haven't noticed any tendency for them to yaw a glide= r towards a tugs wing tip.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There was a debate on our club forum about why gliders feel uncomfortable on slow tows that are still well above their normal stalling speed. We think the answer is that the glider is being asked to climb with the tug providing the thrust via the rope. The glider is still effectively in free flight and therefore has to fly at a greater angle of attack for a given airspeed to produce the extra lift for climbing. Hence its stalling speed is somewhat increased. If the tug's downwash field extends back far enough to include the glider, its AOA will be relative to the downwash streamlines. Add the downwash angle to the climb angle of the tug-glider combination will mak=3D e the glider look quite nose-high to its pilot. =3DA0 I know that the downwash angle is roughly 1/3 of the wing AOA at 4-5 chords behind the wing, i.e. about where the tailplane is, but not what its angle might be at the end of a tow rope. -- martin@ =3DA0 | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 | The downwash angle doesn't change much past the tail, and a half to a third of the tug AoA is a good first guess. My modeling suggest that there does seem to be an overall reduction in th=3D e glider wing lift (downwash over the centre wing having more of an effect than upwash over the tips), so the glider requires another degree or two in AoA - so feeling even more nose-up to the pilot! Many thanks to the aerodynamics folks for cogent replies. =A0From a structures and vectors standpoint, the greatest amount of downward catenary force possible from the rope is the rope's own weight (in other words, damn little). =A0 If the towplane and glider are at exactly the same elevation the vertical component of the catenary force equals half the rope weight. =A0Any other vertical forces imparted to the sailplane result from the vector generated by the relative positions of the towplane and glider. Kudos to Doug for the stimulating discussion. Thanks, Craig It's been very interesting - and sparked off a few potentially very interesting research topics (typical academic - always an eye to the next journal paper!) Good point on the rope forces - I hadn't looked at it that way, but as you say any bow in the tow rope won't actually have a significant effect on the static forces/moments on the glider .. just as well, because it's quite difficult to calculate the shape once you take drag forces into account! Doug- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Actually, 5 or 10 pounds of down force at the glider's nose would be significant. * Every loosen your shoulder belts and lean forward?.....this little weight shift will change pitch and speed. Now with a cg hook ...probably not significant. Cookie true - but it would take a very small elevator deflection to trim it out- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah.........Hey, I am not saying that this is the answer to the question........I have yet to see any answer which fully explains the phenomon........I am just bringing up this issue of the tow rope because it was brought up in the earlier discussion. It is just one of the "suspects" in the investigation. We all agree that at a given speed, faily slow, that a glider handles fine in gliding flight, and has troubles on tow at the same speed. So there are obvious differences during tow.........the tow rope hooked to the nose is one, along with all the others we have discussed, like down wash, vortex, etc....... Cookie |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
At 08:57 04 January 2011, BruceGreeff wrote:
Chris As I understand things - you are confusing climbing with vertical acceleration. While flying without vertical acceleration within the performance available to gliders (I.e. constant vertical speed, modest climb angles, tiny descent angles) the wing has to support pretty much one glider weight (1g*mass). This is true whether you are gliding at 1:nn, towing behind an anaemic cub at 9000" density altitude, or screaming skywards behind a turbo Cmellak (Zlin 37). All that changes is the angle your flight path makes relative to the ground. While the rate of climb may seem significant it has nothing to do with AoA. So - the flight path angle to any given frame of reference is largely irrelevant to the AoA required. The AoA required is dependant on many things - as I understand it these include - - the Cl of the wing, - relative velocity of the air over the airfoil, - relative density of the air, - the surface area of the wing - the force it must support. The force it must support will vary slightly depending on the vector of force applied by the propulsive device. This could be an engine, a tow plane or gravity. But it is only significant for one propulsive tool I am aware of - winching does involve a short period of significant vertical accelleration. In the transition from the initial climb to the steep climb part of a winch launch the accelleration changes from ~1g to about 2g. So the wing has to generate enough lift to generate the force to change the flight vector - for a short while the AoA is high, close to the ground. If it goes wrong here the prospects for a stall are good. In the steep climb the angle described by the flight path relative to the ground can easily reach 45 to 50 degrees, but the AoA on the wing remains constant. It will be supporting a constant about 1g after the transition. The bending moment on the wing root is higher for reasons related to where the winch vector is applied, and to the direction and magnitude of that force, but this is not the load the wing must support. As the glider has no significant vertical acceleration, the wing is aerodynamically supporting a constant ~1g. (It must be a little higher because of the added component of the winch force vector normal to the wing) Of course - the angle that the flight path can make relative to the ground is proportional to the excess power available - hence the low rate of climb behind the cub, versus the extreme angle on a winch. Aerodynamics guys - Am I confused? Bruce -- Bruce Greeff T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57 No - that's a pretty good summary. Specific excess power (excess power/weight) is a standard parameter used to define military aircraft performance, characterising the ability to change energy (height/speed) as fast as possible. Winch launching is very different from aerotow because the flight path is curved and hence you are accelerating all the time, even after transition. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
On Jan 4, 7:23*am, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 23:30 03 January 2011, ProfChrisReed wrote: It seems to me that increased AoA must be a very large part of the cause. Imagine you are flying free @55kt. You have a sink rate of, say, 1.5kt. Now you are on tow, again @55kt, but this time the combination is climbing @5kt. Your wings are generating 6.5kt more lift than in free flight, and must therefore be at a substantially higher AoA. Additionally, the faster you are climbing (in still air) the greater the AoA must be for you to keep station with the tug. I fly an Open Cirrus, towing from the C of G hook without ballast, and never experienced this at my previous club which had a Citabria tug. My current club has a Pawnee, and I have from time to time felt the tow was too slow because the controls felt mushy and the glider wallowed about, feeling as if it was close to the stall. The Pawnee climbs much faster than the Citabria. If in addition the tug's slipstream imparts a downward flow to the airmass, even more lift and higher AoA is required. In a steady climb (or descent) lift is very close to being equal to weight, even taking account of tow rope inclination. *You don't need extra lift to climb, you need extra thrust to increase potential energy. (A pull-up or zoom climb is different, because in this case you are trading speed for height). The Pawnee is a significantly heavier aircraft than the Citabria, so would generate stronger tip vortices at a given tow speed, and hence have more effect on a glider behind it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, to be exact the lift, is the cosine of the (climb or descent) angle x the glider's weight. This works out to 99 "point something" % for reasonable climb or descent angles.............that tiny difference may or may not be significant depending on what we are looking at. But it is reasonlble to say "lift = weight" or lift "just about = weight" Cookie |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
On Jan 4, 7:38*am, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 07:11 04 January 2011, Derek C wrote: On Jan 3, 11:30=A0pm, ProfChrisReed *wrote: It seems to me that increased AoA must be a very large part of the cause. Imagine you are flying free @55kt. You have a sink rate of, say, 1.5kt. Now you are on tow, again @55kt, but this time the combination is climbing @5kt. Your wings are generating 6.5kt more lift than in free flight, and must therefore be at a substantially higher AoA. Additionally, the faster you are climbing (in still air) the greater the AoA must be for you to keep station with the tug. I fly an Open Cirrus, towing from the C of G hook without ballast, and never experienced this at my previous club which had a Citabria tug. My current club has a Pawnee, and I have from time to time felt the tow was too slow because the controls felt mushy and the glider wallowed about, feeling as if it was close to the stall. The Pawnee climbs much faster than the Citabria. If in addition the tug's slipstream imparts a downward flow to the airmass, even more lift and higher AoA is required. I had a high tow behind a 180 hp Piper Super Cub (a fairly slow tug) to practice aerobatics in a K21 on Sunday. The nosehook on the K21 is situated under the nose, just in front of the nosewheel, and I was flying it solo. For the last thousand feet of the tow the airspeed dropped to about 56 knots and I got the same symptoms as described above. The normal free flight stalling speed for a K21 is only about 39 knots, and I had no problems in the early part of the tow when the airspeed was 60+ knots. If the glider feels as though it is close to the stall, then it probably IS close to the stall! Derek C yes, but the critical question is is it the same kind of stall? *A straight stall in a K21 is pretty benign, with no particular tendency to drop a wing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - When I have my students practice "slow flight"in the '21, they have trouble maintaining directional control, even though there is little tendancy for wing drop. Zig Zagging around in free flight is not a major problem, and maybe not even noticable, compared to what a little zig zag looks like on tow. Cookie |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
OK..........how about this for (simple) explaination?
"Climbing in descending air" (that's what I get from all of the complicated explainations of down wash, vortex etc.) I think that if we compared a motor glider climbing at say 50 MPH and 500 FPM to the same glider on tow at the same climb angle and rate, and if we assume the air behind the tow plane is moving downward.......... Then the glider on tow would have a larger AoA.....??? Cookie |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
poor lateral control on a slow tow?
Thanks Martin
I did use the "vector" word talking about the winch case - because the cable has mass (our steel cable is ~150Kg so not insignificant) and there is a pull at a downward angle. At top of launch cable angle approaches 90 degrees to fuselage - If you want proof look at one of the videos on you tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Qh95I_YM0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np8OGPZ2pvE As Doug Greenwell points out - there is constant acceleration on winch launch because the flight path is curved, describing a horisontal S. I don't know how what magnitude the acceleration has, but subjectively it is only significant in the brief rotation to steep climb, and possibly on the level out if you are less than smooth... Generally it is a relatively small change from a little over 1g to a little under 1g at release. Anyone have the maths capability to calculate for a known situation? Cheers Bruce On 2011/01/04 1:43 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:57:01 +0200, BruceGreeff wrote: Of course - the angle that the flight path can make relative to the ground is proportional to the excess power available - hence the low rate of climb behind the cub, versus the extreme angle on a winch. Aerodynamics guys - Am I confused? Sounds fair to me except that you omitted two fairly significant forces: - the weight of the cable - the tension in the cable. Both will add to the load carried by the wing. The tension should add a fairly constant load to the wing once the glider has rotated into full climb since the throttle setting remains fairly constant[*] from rotation until the glider is near the top, but the effective cable weight will increase as more of it is lifted off the ground and then as the whole cable gets closer to vertical. [*] this is true on a calm day but is obviously incorrect in the presense of turbulence or a significant wind gradient. -- Bruce Greeff T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
another poor man's car engine conversion | jan olieslagers[_2_] | Home Built | 19 | February 22nd 09 03:49 PM |
Poor readability | Kees Mies | Owning | 2 | August 14th 04 04:22 AM |
Poor Guy | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 6 | July 17th 04 06:45 PM |
I'm grateful for poor people who are willing to murder & die | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 0 | April 20th 04 11:11 PM |
Concorde in FS2002: No lateral views | A. Bomanns | Simulators | 3 | July 19th 03 11:33 AM |