![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Baker wrote:
In a glide in a low wing aircraft: Total aerodynamic force (lift and drag!) ^ | | M (Centre of Mass) | C (Centre of Aerodynamic Pressure) | | Weight (no down arrow head... ...sorry) Now remember, the aircraft must be descending to make this work. The above diagram is simplified too soon in the analysis. You may as well have dispensed with the weight and aerodynamic forces too, as they contribute nothing to your subsequent argument since you never vary them. Now if you add thrust at the "drag line" (the line through the CoP parallel to the aircraft's motion): Total aerodynamic force ^ | | M (Centre of Mass) | (Thrust)--C (Centre of Aerodynamic pressure) | | Weight You can align the engine any way you want and it will still create a pitch up, right? Sure - and the object will rotate about M until it reaches a rotation speed in equilibrium with air drag (by definition, the only point where we are allowed to add that drag component is at point C): Total aerodynamic force ^ | | M (Centre of Mass) | (Thrust)--C--(air drag) (Centre of Aerodynamic pressure) | | Weight But: Total aerodynamic force ^ | | (Thrust)--M (Centre of Mass) | C (Centre of Aerodynamic Pressure) | | Weight Add the thrust at the centre of mass, and you get no pitching moment. The diagram above is of a system that isn't in equilibrium. Furthermore, there is no vector we can anchor at C that brings it into equilibrium - if we add a vector so that we get a pure couple, like so: Total aerodynamic force ^ | | (Thrust)--M (Centre of Mass) | C--(air drag) (Centre of Aerodynamic Pressure) | | Weight ....then the _couple_ rotates the aircraft around M in a counterclockwise direction (i.e. pitch down!) Your force diagram is flawed because it makes incorrect assumptions about the location of C at equilibrium and the direction of the total aerodynamic forces. Running the thrust line through M does _not_ guarantee you wont get any couple. In fact none of the diagrams you or I drew are complete and do not accurately capture the reality. Center of mass changes with each flight and even during flight, and center of pressure changes with aircraft orientation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
thrust line for engine and not mounting engine on this thrust line | tommyann | Home Built | 8 | December 15th 06 03:31 PM |
Has something changed | [email protected] | Soaring | 10 | May 3rd 05 08:34 PM |
High thrust line on canard design? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 4 | March 5th 05 03:06 AM |
Getting students to line up with the center line | BoDEAN | Piloting | 27 | April 21st 04 11:23 AM |
I want to tell you something that has changed my life! | C J Campbell | Owning | 11 | January 29th 04 11:34 PM |