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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
I put my monies on the elevator authority/AoA ratio. * *We fly above
the wing wake (USA...) in most cases, in relatively clean air, but sometimes in the clean air below it. *Box the wake, it will tell you where it is and where it isn't... That'll tell you where the expanding conical turbulent wake of the prop is ... there's also the smooth effect of the vortex sheet shed from the wing to consider. One useful interpretation of the induced drag is the effect the vortex sheet (modelled as tow tip vortices) has on the local angle of attack of the wing ... the same will apply to anything behind the tug ... like a glider ... Ian Not as I understand it, I am of the thought that the wake as we know it IS the sheet of downwash from the wings, and the propwash is quite insignificant compared with the disturbance from the wings, although usually residing somewhere within this greater wake although can be higher up too. If you are in a fabric ship, the propwash can sometimes be detected sometimes by the pulsation on the skin like a drumbeat, but in modern glass not so much. I've been wronger before, but my money is still on the elevator authority/AoA ratio. -Paul |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:23:37 -0700, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 14 Mar, 17:24, sisu1a wrote: Agreed. My money is on the towplane wake. I put my monies on the elevator authority/AoA ratio. Â* Â*We fly above the wing wake (USA...) in most cases, in relatively clean air, but sometimes in the clean air below it. Â*Box the wake, it will tell you where it is and where it isn't... That'll tell you where the expanding conical turbulent wake of the prop is ... there's also the smooth effect of the vortex sheet shed from the wing to consider. One useful interpretation of the induced drag is the effect the vortex sheet (modelled as tow tip vortices) has on the local angle of attack of the wing ... the same will apply to anything behind the tug ... like a glider ... As an approximation the downwash angle behind a wing is 1/3 of its AOA, so that will add something like 2 to 3 degrees nose-up attitude to the glider. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
On 14 Mar, 21:15, Derek Copeland wrote:
Most (sensible) people fly either above the tug's slipstream or below it. That's the propellor wake. There is also a much larger region of disturbed, but not turbulent, airflow caused by the action of the wing. As a rough guide, there are significant effects in a cylinder two wingspans in diameter (ie twice as wide as the wing) centred on the tug's flight path and extending back to the point where lift started being developed. In practice, of course, viscosity in the air damps it out, but it will still be a significant effect at the other end of the tow rope. (The other end of the wing's wake is the starting vortex on the runway. Nasty thing have happened to light aircraft which flew into a starting vortex.) In the first case the tug may be pulling the glider's nose down and in the second case up. It doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the way the glider flies. There is a theory, mostly believed in by the good folks of Oz, that low tow is slightly more stable. It makes sense. In low tow, the pull of the towrope is upwards, so it tends to pitch the glider nose up. If you sink a bit (with controls held steady) the pitching up moment increases and the glider climbs back to position. If you rise a bit the pitching up moment decreases and the control forces you have been using to balance it pitch the nose down and the glider falls back to position. High tow is just the opposite: glider rises, pitching up moment increases, glider rises, pitching up moment increases and so on until either (a) the glider pilot does something about it or (b) the tug pilot dies. OK, it's not quite that simple, or impossible to control (clearly), but a trimmed glider in low tow will generally be more stable than in high tow. I can't somehow imagine that the downwash from the tug has that much effect on a glider on the end of a 150ft rope! See above. The downwash from the wing of a 757 has a considerable effect several miles from the aircraft. Ian |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
On 14 Mar, 21:26, sisu1a wrote:
Not as I understand it, I am of the thought that the wake as we know it IS the sheet of downwash from the wings, and the propwash is quite insignificant compared with the disturbance from the wings, although usually residing somewhere within this greater wake although can be higher up too. Hmm. All I need to do is find a tug pilot who is willing to switch the engine off mid-tow and I can investigate this properly. Ian |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
At 11:24 14 March 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
Summary: in a steady climb or glide, the lift needed from a glider's wing is as equal to the weight as makes no difference ... Hmmm. In a glider with C of G in the correct place the tail plane will be producing a down thrust, hence the wing will need to generate lift greater than the weight of the glider when in more or less level flight. The more back stick, the more down thrust and the harder the wing will need to work to maintain level flight. Now my Discus turbo stalls in free flight in the low 40s (kts). With the engine out and the thrust line well above the fuselage, thus pushing the nose down, the best climb speed in the POH is given as 49 to 54 kts depending on weight. If I let if fall to about 45 kts it is still perfectly controllable - just less efficient. However aerotowing on the nose hook at that speed would not be a happy experience. I have never done a slow tow on a belly hook so don't know if the symptoms are the same. What I have observed on slow tows, and has been reported by others in this thread, is that the ailerons are ineffective, the glider tends to wallow, the stick is a long way back and the nose high - even though the speed is above the normal 1G stalling speed. These seem to be symptoms of an accelerated stall or incipient spin - but the rope pulling ahead seems to stop the glider rotating into a spin with the associated wing drop. I wish I knew the answer, but if I have the symtoms of an accelerated stall in more or less straight level flight above the 1g stall speed that sugests that the wing is generating more lift than the weight of the glider for some reason; if the stick is near the back-stop at 50 kts there is more elevator downforce so the wing will have to compenstate for that. The pull from the rope may be slightly down if I'm in high tow, especially with a long heavy rope with a slight bow in it, but to raise the stall speed from say 42 to 50 kts (* 1.2) is equivalent to an increase in load on the wing from 1g to about 1.4g. At a take-off weight of say 475 kg this is equivalent to an additional 190kg or another 418 lb. Where could this come from??? The downthrust from the elevator fighting the tow rope? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
On 15 Mar, 00:45, Big Wings wrote:
At 11:24 14 March 2009, The Real Doctor wrote: Summary: in a steady climb or glide, the lift needed from a glider's wing is as equal to the weight as makes no difference ... Hmmm. *In a glider with C of G in the correct place the tail plane will be producing a down thrust, hence the wing will need to generate lift greater than the weight of the glider when in more or less level flight. If the glider has been well designed,. the tail will be producingupboard no down- (or up-) thrust at best L/D. The tail load is still small as the speed varies from best L/D: look at how small tails generally are and how light the fixing compared to those of the wings. Very ball park figures: the tail is typically 1/15 of the span of the wing and 1/2 of the chord. That's 1/30 of the area, so all other things being equal you wouldn't evry expect the tail to produce more than about 1/30 of the lift the wing can. So even in the worst case - a high speed dive or zoom) the tail force probably doesn't change the wing loading by more than +/- 3%. The more back stick, the more down thrust and the harder the wing will need to work to maintain level flight. Remember, by the way, that in normal flight the tail produces *down* force in a dive (stick forward) and *up* force in a zoom. Yes, it's cambered the wrong way - don't dive or zoom, kids, it ain't efficient. What I have observed on slow tows, and has been reported by others in this thread, is that the ailerons are ineffective, the glider tends to wallow, the stick is a long way back and the nose high - even though the speed is above the normal 1G stalling speed. *These seem to be symptoms of an accelerated stall or incipient spin - but the rope pulling ahead seems to stop the glider rotating into a spin with the associated wing drop. It would be interesting to know if the glider really *is* near the stall or if it just exhibits some of the characteristics of being near the stall. Hmm, there's an interesting experiment there ... I'm not sure that I'd care to do it. The behaviour of the Pirat on aerotow is rather different, by the way. At low speeds it handles very nicely, but if the tuggy is a bit enthusiastic the ailerons get horribly heavy and ineffective. Quite the opposite of wallowing, really. At the same speed off tow they are light and responsive. I'm guessing that the tug downwash affects the centre of the wing more, effectively increasing the washout. Meanwhile, I just cajole tuggies into flying with the CHT just below the red ... Ian |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
At 13:43 14 March 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
Bad example, since tow planes pull - give or take a wee bit - horizontally, regardless of climb angle. Well, our tow plane certainly does not pull horizontally! I figure it pulls at about a 10:1 angle or about 5.5 degrees. So if you didn't like my last example here is some more for you: If we took a 900# glider and pulled it up at 5.5 degrees climb angle, the lift would be 895#...... Just for ****s and giggles, if we had a (lot) more more powerful towplane we could get the following: Climb angle 10 degrees......lift 886# Climb angle 20 degrees......lift 845# Climb angle 30 degrees......lift 779# Climb angle 40 degrees......lift 689# Climb angle 50 degrees......lift 578# Climb angle 60 degrees......lift 450# Climb angle 70 degrees......lift 307# Climb angle 80 degrees......lift 156# Climb angle 90 degrees......lift 0# As climb angle increases, lift decreases! Same for dive angle! Granted, at "normal" climb and descent angles the reduction in lift is tiny, but it is a reduction non the less. Just trying to dispell the rumor that lift somehow must increase in a climb. Cookie |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
At 17:24 14 March 2009, sisu1a wrote:
But typically glider's noses, on tow, are unnaturally high (and thus AoA is higher...) for a given airspeed, Not true! The angle of attack does not have to be high just because the nose is high. The direction of flight is forward and upward. The angle of attack is the angle of the wing VS the oncoming airflow, NOT the angle of the nose relative to the ground. Remember the towplane is adding power (thrust) to the equation. With lots of power, a plane and climb rapidly with a relatively low angle of attack. (so can a glider on tow) A glider being towed at a relatively high speed will have a relatively low angle of attack. A glider being towed at a relatively slow speed will have a relatively high angle of attack. This is independant of the angle of the glider's nose to the ground and independant of the glider's climb angle (Direction of flight). Cookie |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
I took a good look at the geometry of my tow today. The tow line
appeared to be pulling down on the nose at about an angle of twenty degrees. At 65 knots, the tow line formed a catenary to the towplane with significant sag in the line. It should be possible to model the angles of the line and angles of attack of the towplane and glider, but I suspect some of the simplistic arguments have not explained the phenomenon because they haven't taken full account of the complex geometry of the tow. At around 50 to 55 knots, I am unable to maintain high tow and sink into low tow with no elevator authority and reduced aileron control. My free-flight stall speed is below 40 knots. Gurus please explain. Mike |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
motorgliders as towplanes
You are confusing a lack of elevator authority with stalling. The two are
completely different phenomenon. Mike Schumann "Mike the Strike" wrote in message ... I took a good look at the geometry of my tow today. The tow line appeared to be pulling down on the nose at about an angle of twenty degrees. At 65 knots, the tow line formed a catenary to the towplane with significant sag in the line. It should be possible to model the angles of the line and angles of attack of the towplane and glider, but I suspect some of the simplistic arguments have not explained the phenomenon because they haven't taken full account of the complex geometry of the tow. At around 50 to 55 knots, I am unable to maintain high tow and sink into low tow with no elevator authority and reduced aileron control. My free-flight stall speed is below 40 knots. Gurus please explain. Mike |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seeking towplanes for Region 9 | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | May 17th 06 12:03 AM |
US:Restricted Towplanes | Judy Ruprecht | Soaring | 8 | November 5th 04 11:27 PM |
Standard Nationals Need Towplanes | C AnthMin | Soaring | 5 | July 14th 04 12:46 AM |
Take-upReels on Towplanes | Nyal Williams | Soaring | 9 | April 21st 04 12:39 AM |
Helicopters and Towplanes | Burt Compton | Soaring | 6 | September 11th 03 05:21 PM |