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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
F1y1n wrote:
high angles of bank and slow speeds (and ergo light weights too), the inner wing is significantly slower than the outer wing, and tacking on some knots is most efficient (to keep the length of the inner wing nicely above stall)... Mark Boyd I don't believe your argument is correct. What determines the lift and drag coefficients is angle of attact, NOT airspeed. This is true, and if the glider is at a certain pitch angle straight, level, and coordinated in still air, both wings are at the same AOA. If the two wings are at different airspeeds, like in a turn or skid, the two wings are at different angles of attack. The inner wing is flying at the same angle of attack as the outer wing, think about it. Not if the wings are at different airspeeds. This is how we do a spin. One wing is "more" stalled than the other wing (i.e. has a higher AOA because it is the inside wing, and has less airspeed). A turn is similar in the sense the wings are at different airspeeds (but the same pitch angle), but in a turn, it isn't true that both wings are stalled (that is the difference between a turn and a spin). Speeding up won't make you climb better. Err...well, we are trying to sink less. If the wingspan is very short, the point on the polar is the same for every part of the wing. If the wingspan is long and in a turn, different parts along the wings are flying at different airspeeds, and are at different "efficiencies" and points along the polar. The goal is to minimize the average sink rate along the wing. The best way to do this is to strongly avoid the back side of the polar (which drops off steeply), which is the inner wing in the turn. If we fly a little faster than recommended IAS (from the "G" table for bank) then a larger portion of the long inner wing is near the min-sink point, and the outer wing, although not optimally efficient, is just displaced a little way along the front side of the min-sink curve (which is a little flatter). The amount of extra speed that is optimal should be based on wingspan, the polar, and the bank angle. The magnitude of this speed "correction" is something I have yet to calculate, but thank you to the folks who have corrected some of the previous attempts to calculate it... |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I don't believe your argument is correct. What determines the lift and
drag coefficients is angle of attact, NOT airspeed. The inner wing is flying at the same angle of attack as the outer wing, think about it. Speeding up won't make you climb better. In fact, the inner wing is not flying at the same airspeed. It has the same angular speed, but it is transribing a smaller circle than the outer wing and thus going a shorter distance in the same amount of time. Both wings are sinking at the same rate, therefore, since the tangential (straight line) speed of the inner wing is lower, its angle of attack is higher. Same thing happens at the wheels of your car, which is why you need a differential gear, to accomodate the difference in speed between the inside and outside wheels during a turn. The outside wheel travels a greater distance, though both have the same angular speed. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
You are confusing AOA with sink rate. The sink rate is the same across
the airfoil, but AOA is dependent on sink rate and forward speed, so: If an airfoil has a forward motion of 10 and sink rate of one, then its angle of attack can be measured -- about 5.7 degrees. If we then slowed its forward speed to 9 while maintaining a sink rate of 1, the angle of attack would be higher: 6.3 degrees. We agree that the angular speed is the same across the span. We agree "that the inner wing is flying slower." The sink rate is the same across the span. As you've stated, this is a given: the wings are fixed to one another. Since AOA is dependent on both sink rate and forward speed, then the inside wingtip must have a higher AOA. Inner wing slower, higher AOA. Outer wing faster, lower AOA. Lift is dependent on both AOA and speed. So even though the outer wing is at a lower angle of attack, it is moving through the air more rapidly, and producing slightly more lift than the inner wing. With resulting overbanking tendency. Balance this knowledge against the sailplane's response to a turning stall. Inner wingtip typically drops first. Why? Because it has a higher AOA. No aggrevation from the aileron required. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
F1y1n wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:40252a00$1@darkstar... In a coordinated turn both wings are at the same AOA (please see my reply to the other post in this thread). In an uncoordinated turn this is not the case. Think of the direction of the airflow over the wing - in a coordinated turn the airflow is always from the same direction regardless of position on the wings; in an uncoordinated turn this is not so, hence the AOA will be different. I was talking about coordinated turns only (and I presume you were too in your original post). Hmmm...a little history. All of this argument came up because we were discussing spins, and a bunch of posters were talking about skids being the cause, and some of us (the other posters) thought it was more due to aileron stall and different airspeeds of different wings in steep banks. So we're trying to calculate the magnitude of the airspeed difference caused by bank angles in steep turns with long wings, vs. that caused by skids. How significant is a skid vs. bank? Is it a skid or an accelerated skid (coarse use of rudder) that's causes these spins? Clearly the effect of bank on precipitating a skid is a little surprising to other posters as well. It was interesting and novel to me as well a few days ago... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
F1y1n wrote:
This I do not agree with. The angle of attack of both wings is the same. It always helps my understanding to look at limiting cases. If you take the wingspan to an extreme, the inner wing would reach all of the way to the center of the circle, and its airspeed would be zero. It would be descending, though, so its AOA would be 90 degrees. Certainly different from the outer wing. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:44:54 -0700, "Bill Daniels"
wrote: Interesting. There aren't many of us left who flew the LK-10. Did you fly one in OZ or in the US? My primary trainer was a "double-bubble" flat topped LK-10. N22U once graced the cover of the cross country chapter of the SSA soaring handbook. The one I flew was the only one imported into Oz. I think it was imported in about 1954 or so by the late Ric New. He flat topped it and put on the double bubble in consultation with Dr Raspet. The rear seat bubble could be replaced by a flat plate without bubble for solo flight. The Gliding Club of Western Australia bought it in 1964 or so and the write off was in 1971. I flew my first contest in it in 1969 when I was just 21. I once heard Jack Laister tell that the LK-10 was itself a modification of his "Yankee Doodle" single place competition glider designed while he was a teenager. The US military asked him to design a two-place trainer in the early 1940's. Jack said he just straightened out the gull wings and stretched the fuselage behind the wing to make room for a rear cockpit and the Yankee Doodle became the military LK-10 or TG-4. I spun both N22U and another LK-10 still in the original configuration. Both left no doubt that mis-handling them would kill. I sometimes had the hair-raising feeling that the glider was actively trying to kill me. That experience left me with a wariness of low and slow flying that is still with me. I'd like to see that wariness passed along to a new generation of pilots. I think it saved my life on several occasions and might save some of theirs too. We sure were wary about it and maybe that is what needs to be passed on. For all the full spin training that is done in the UK there still seem to be stall/spin accidents. I suspect that just like in Oz the full spin training tends to substitute for departure avoidance training. Mike Borgelt |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Trouble is we don't know how many general spin accidents there would have been if no instruction were given in full spin recovery. There are many (many) more private/club single seat gliders that we might assume are not used for spin TRAINING. Is there any data to provide an idea of the ratio of training vs single seat spin incidents relative to the number of flights? Even this isn't the answer, since the training mission is spinning, vs the unintended end of a flight with a spin. Yes, solid spin avoidance training is critical, but if that habit fails to prevent one, where's the experience to get out of it quickly? Overall, I think a good measure would be training related spin-ins per 1,000 training flights vs spin accidents per 1,000 solo flights. (You could argue ~ x10 factor for the training since maybe 1 in 10 training flight involve spinning.) Andrew Nairn wrote: I too am astounded that more is not done by the worthy's in our sport. Between 1987 and 1997 there were 34 fatal accidents in the UK. 4 in Puch's and 3 in Pirats. That's one in five! There are many ways to dismiss the figures but like it or not, these airplanes are killing people and out of all proportion. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
The point I'm replying to is:
I'm convinced that in very long wing gliders at high angles of bank and slow speeds (and ergo light weights too), the inner wing is significantly slower than the outer wing, and tacking on some knots is most efficient (to keep the length of the inner wing nicely above stall)... I grant you that the AOA is slightly higher for the inner wing due to the contribution from the sink, but this is negligible. Consider a 45deg bank, 45 knots. The turn radius (at the fuselage) is about 50 meters, so for a 15-m glider the speed of the outer wingtip is about 50knots, and the speed of the inner wingtip is about 40knots. If the sink rate in this configuration is 1.5 knots, the difference in AOA for the two wingtips is about 0.4 degrees. You will notice that (for a good reason!) this is much less than the typical twist of a wing. You cannot stall the inner wingtip in a steep turn without stalling both wing roots first! For the same reason, the inner wingtip is NEVER on the back side of the polar when thermaling. If it was the wing roots would already be stalled. To answer the original question - should one speed up when thermalling with a steep bank - the answer is no. There are too many factors that come into play - the twist of the wing as a function of position, the wing profile as a function of position, the drag produced by the aileron deflection needed to correct for the overbanking tendency as a function of speed, and so on. In the end, these effects will tend to cancel each other: if you speed up a little to bring the wing roots to the front side of the polar you will a) create more drag on the wing tips and b) need more aileron input to correct for the overbanking torque and hence create more drag. I suspect that amount by which one should speed up or slow down to optimize the sink rate in theory will be much smaller than the speed of the turbulent currents in the thermal, and thus utterly irrelevant in practice. Your time will be better spent flying cleanly and in the core of the thermal rather than trying to nail the speed to within 0.2 knots. (Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message . com... You are confusing AOA with sink rate. The sink rate is the same across the airfoil, but AOA is dependent on sink rate and forward speed, so: If an airfoil has a forward motion of 10 and sink rate of one, then its angle of attack can be measured -- about 5.7 degrees. If we then slowed its forward speed to 9 while maintaining a sink rate of 1, the angle of attack would be higher: 6.3 degrees. We agree that the angular speed is the same across the span. We agree "that the inner wing is flying slower." The sink rate is the same across the span. As you've stated, this is a given: the wings are fixed to one another. Since AOA is dependent on both sink rate and forward speed, then the inside wingtip must have a higher AOA. Inner wing slower, higher AOA. Outer wing faster, lower AOA. Lift is dependent on both AOA and speed. So even though the outer wing is at a lower angle of attack, it is moving through the air more rapidly, and producing slightly more lift than the inner wing. With resulting overbanking tendency. Balance this knowledge against the sailplane's response to a turning stall. Inner wingtip typically drops first. Why? Because it has a higher AOA. No aggrevation from the aileron required. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Spin Training | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 25 | April 12th 04 02:11 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |