![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 16 Oct, 16:17, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 16, 6:31 am, Thomas wrote: On 9 Oct, 21:08, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: You may want to check out my web pageshttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/bernoulli.htm andhttp://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/drag.htmfor a closer examination of the physics behind the aerodynamic lift and drag. The main point I am making there is that it is physically nonsense to claim that changing merely the tangential velocity of the air stream relative to the surface would in any way produce a resultant force (at least for a non-viscous gas). What one needs for a pressure change (and thus a force) on the surface is a change in the numbers and/or the velocity of the molecules hitting it, i.e. it is only the vertical component of the velocity that is relevant here. Only this can produce the lift for an airfoil, either because of the increased number of collisions on the lower side or the decreased number of collisions on the upper side (both situations lead to a lift). I agree, but there are some that seem to think the contrary, as you know, with the Coanda effect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect The Coanda effect is only due to the viscosity of the gas/fluid and thus would not appear for a non-viscous gas, but the aerodynamic lift does (so the Coanda effect can not possibly be an instrumental cause for the latter). Based on the simple kinematical model for the change of the molecular collision rates with the wing surface, one can indeed get a good estimate for the lift of Boeing 747 for instance: consider first a plate of a size 1 m^2 moving head-on with a velocity of 250 m/s in air; air has a number density of about 10^25 molecules/ m^3 (at 10,000 m), so in 1 sec the plate will be hit by 10^25*250 = 2.5*10^27 molecules. If you assume that each molecule has a weight of 4.5*10^-26 kg, this means that the force on the plate is 2.5*10^27 *4.5*10^-26 *250 = 5.6*10^4 N = 12,600 lb. Of course, the wing surface is not directly facing into the airstream but only at a very shallow angle. Let's assume that this angle (the average slope of the upper wing surface) is about 5 deg; this means that the force calculated above has to be multiplied by a factor sin(5)*cos(5) to obtain the lift and by a factor sin^2(5) to obtain the drag force, which results in about 1,100 lb and 95 lb respectively. Now this would be for a wing surface of 1m^2; however the total wing area of the Boeing 747 is 541 m^2 (see http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=100 ), so the forces become about 600,000 lb for the lift and 50,000 lb for the drag (by the wings). Note that this figure for the lift force is pretty close to the maximum weight of a 747 (considering the crude nature of the derivation, in particular the assumption of a 5 deg angle for the slope of the upper wing surface). I just read both your web pages. BTW, your explanation of d'Alembert's Paradox and the blow-over-paper- attached-to-table experiment could both use diagrams. I am trying the blow over the paper experiment now and I am not sure if I am doing it as you described. Could you provide a more vivid description so I can make sure? Well, the point is that the commonly given example with blowing over the sheet of paper only works because (due to the orientation of the paper surface) you are blowing away from the paper. The (on avarage) initially stationary air molecules will thus be pulled with the air molecules coming out of your mouth, i.e. away from the paper, which will thus create a corresponding reduction of the number of molecules near the paper surface, i.e. a pressure reduction. However, this all can only happen a) because of the viscosity of the air (the molecules coming out of your mouth collide with the air molecules, and b) because you are blowing to a certain degree away from the paper. Would you blow exactly parallel to the surface of a flat sheet of paper, nothing would happen at all (it is obvious that if the sheet would lift up at the 'downstream' end, it would be pushed right back again into a position where the surface is parallel to the airstream (as this is the force free equilibrium position)). So since this effect (llike the Coanda effect) relies on the viscosity of the air, it has nothing to do with the aerodynamic lift (which also would occur if the air was completely inviscid). Thomas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot's Assistant V1.6.7 released | AirToob | Simulators | 2 | July 7th 07 10:43 AM |
A GA pilot's worst nightmare? | Kingfish | Piloting | 49 | February 1st 07 02:51 PM |
Pilot's Political Orientation | Chicken Bone | Piloting | 533 | June 29th 04 12:47 AM |
Update on pilot's condition? | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 11 | April 13th 04 09:25 PM |
Pilot's Funeral/Memorial | TEW | Piloting | 6 | March 17th 04 03:12 AM |