ASW 20 SPIN CHARACTERISTICS

Stalling of a wing is connected to AoA in the first place, nothing else.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Martin Gregorie" a écrit dans le message de
...
On 15 Jul 2004 06:43:05 -0700, (Andy Durbin)
wrote:

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message
. com...
In fact, if you think about it, there would be a change in AoA as the
wings returned to their normal 1g state. The AoA increase at the tips
would be greatest and negligible at the roots. How large an increase
are we talking about? Pretty darn small. An amusing exercise though. A
friend once figured out how thick a layer of material a tire leaves on
the road, given normal wear. This seems on the same order.


According to Thomas, Fundamentals of Sailplane Design, the wing twist
of the ASW-20 is 2.5 deg (page 210). Isn't twist designed into a wing
to prevent the tip stalling before the root? If my numbers were
derived for 68 knots instead of 40kts they give a result that is
similar to the designed-in wing twist. In other words, the wing flex
effect appears to completely offset the protection provided by the
wing twist.

If the pilot is pushing over hard the wing will be carrying a reduced
load. As a result the stalling speed will be reduced: remember that a
stall occurs when the wing fails to generate the lift needed to
support the current load on the wing and is only indirectly connected
with the AOA and Cl figures. In the case we're considering the stall
speed will be reduced below normal because the push-over is creating a
reduced G situation.

I haven't noticed you mention this factor. How does its inclusion
affect your calculation?

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:22:52 +0200, "Bert Willing"
wrote:

Stalling of a wing is connected to AoA in the first place, nothing else.

I must respectfully disagree - the load being carried by the wing is
at least as important as the AoA.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:22:52 +0200, "Bert Willing"
wrote:

Stalling of a wing is connected to AoA in the first place, nothing else.

I must respectfully disagree - the load being carried by the wing is
at least as important as the AoA.

I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case.

Stalling depends on the AoA, and only the AoA (Reynolds number effects
aside).

The amount of lift generated depends only on the AoA and the airspeed.

The amount of lift necessary to support the aircraft against an
acceleration of 1 gravity depends on the load being carried. For each
load there is a minimum airspeed below which the amount of lift
necessary to support that load against gravity can not be generated.
But if you don't insist on trying to support the load against gravity
(that is, trying to increase the AoA until sufficient lift is generated,
thus stalling the wing) then you can be in perfect control and not
stalled at as low an airspeed as you like.

Which brings us back to: stalling of a wing is connected to the AoA,
nothing else.

-- Bruce

Bruce Hoult wrote:

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:

...the load being carried by the wing is
at least as important as the AoA.

[snippage]

...if you don't insist on trying to support the load...then you can
be in perfect control and not stalled at as low an airspeed as you like.

Bruce, it would appear that you and Martin are in agreement.


Jack

Jack wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote:

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:


...the load being carried by the wing is

at least as important as the AoA.


[snippage]

...if you don't insist on trying to support the load...then you can

be in perfect control and not stalled at as low an airspeed as you like.

Bruce, it would appear that you and Martin are in agreement.

Appearances can be deceiving...

If you look at the Coefficient of lift diagrams for airfoils, you see
that it is dependent only on AOA, not load. In other words, a wing will
stall at the same AOA at .5 G, 1 G, 2 G, etc. I think this is what Bruce
is saying. Martin is wrong to say the load is as important as AOA, and
that is why some ras posters think we should have AOA indicators in our
gliders.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:52:50 -0700, Eric Greenwell
wrote:

Jack wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote:

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:


...the load being carried by the wing is

at least as important as the AoA.


[snippage]

...if you don't insist on trying to support the load...then you can

be in perfect control and not stalled at as low an airspeed as you like.

Bruce, it would appear that you and Martin are in agreement.

Appearances can be deceiving...

If you look at the Coefficient of lift diagrams for airfoils, you see
that it is dependent only on AOA, not load. In other words, a wing will
stall at the same AOA at .5 G, 1 G, 2 G, etc. I think this is what Bruce
is saying. Martin is wrong to say the load is as important as AOA, and
that is why some ras posters think we should have AOA indicators in our
gliders.

Sure, Cl is dependent entirely on AoA, but is not a linear
relationship throughout the range:

- It is linear at small angles.
- When the AoA is high enough for the upper surface flow
to start to separate the Cl tends to a constant value with
increasing AoA.
- If the AoA continues to increase even further you reach
a point at which the Cl starts to decline, reaching zero
at an AoA of 90 degrees.

However, my understanding is that a stall occurs when the lift
generated by the wing drops below the load the wing is required to
support.

For a given wing the generated lift is proportional to the Cl and to
the square of the speed, so at a fixed AoA you can reduce the speed
until the lift is no longer sufficient for flight, at which point the
wing stalls. If the aircraft weight is reduced then so is the stalling
speed: it doesn't matter whether this reduction is due to dumping
ballast or to pushing over to generate reduced G forces. If you put
water in a glider you raise its stalling speed but you don't
necessarily change the AoA at which it stalls.

Hence my comment that the load on the wing is as important as AoA for
*stalling* behaviour. I was not talking about the aerodynamic
characteristics of the wing section - of course!

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Martin Gregorie wrote:
If you look at the Coefficient of lift diagrams for airfoils, you see
that it is dependent only on AOA, not load. In other words, a wing will
stall at the same AOA at .5 G, 1 G, 2 G, etc. I think this is what Bruce
is saying. Martin is wrong to say the load is as important as AOA, and
that is why some ras posters think we should have AOA indicators in our
gliders.


Sure, Cl is dependent entirely on AoA, but is not a linear
relationship throughout the range:

- It is linear at small angles.
- When the AoA is high enough for the upper surface flow
to start to separate the Cl tends to a constant value with
increasing AoA.
- If the AoA continues to increase even further you reach
a point at which the Cl starts to decline, reaching zero
at an AoA of 90 degrees.

However, my understanding is that a stall occurs when the lift
generated by the wing drops below the load the wing is required to
support.

This is the usual result of a stall, and is what occurs in the typical
training situation, but it isn't the definition of a stall. Generally, a
stall begins when the airflow starts to separate from the wing at
increasing AOA. It is this separation that keeps the lift from
increasing and sets the maximum lift coefficient.

A wing can be stalled and still produce plenty of lift; for example, in
a high speed pull up done with too much elevator can stall the wing, but
the stalled wing will still have more lift than the weight of the
aircraft because of the high speed.

In a high speed climb after rapid pull up, pushing the stick enough to
give zero G will reduce the lift to zero, but the wing is not stalled
(the airflow is well attached - no separation) even though it can not
support the glider.


For a given wing the generated lift is proportional to the Cl and to
the square of the speed, so at a fixed AoA you can reduce the speed
until the lift is no longer sufficient for flight, at which point the
wing stalls. If the aircraft weight is reduced then so is the stalling
speed: it doesn't matter whether this reduction is due to dumping
ballast or to pushing over to generate reduced G forces. If you put
water in a glider you raise its stalling speed but you don't
necessarily change the AoA at which it stalls.

Hence my comment that the load on the wing is as important as AoA for
*stalling* behaviour.

Perhaps I don't understand this correctly: by load, do you mean
different G loads, or just different aircraft weights? By *stalling
behavior*, do you mean how rapidly the aircraft responds as it stalls,
the amount of buffeting, how the nose is, or...?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article ,
Martin Gregorie wrote:

Sure, Cl is dependent entirely on AoA, but is not a linear
relationship throughout the range:

- It is linear at small angles.
- When the AoA is high enough for the upper surface flow
to start to separate the Cl tends to a constant value with
increasing AoA.
- If the AoA continues to increase even further you reach
a point at which the Cl starts to decline, reaching zero
at an AoA of 90 degrees.

I'm with you on all that.


However, my understanding is that a stall occurs when the lift
generated by the wing drops below the load the wing is required to
support.

No, a stall is when increasing AoA decreases lift. There might well
still be more lift that the weight of the aircraft, especially at high
speed. The only reasons to avoid such stalled flight a

- high drag and thus inefficient
- the aircraft is unstable in roll, making it difficult or
impossible to control.

Presumably you've seen aircraft such as the F/A-18 demonstrate a slow
pass at very high and stalled angle of attack? They are getting some of
their support from the downward component of the engine thrust, of
course, but with an AoA of, say, around 30 degrees it would need a
thrust:weight ratio of around 2 in order for thrust to be enough to
support the entire aircraft weight. It would also require *huge* drag
in order to avoid accelerating at such a thrust level. The F/A-18 has
nowhere near that amount of thrust, so the majority of the support is
clearly still coming from the stalled wings. In that situation the
aircraft is unstable, and would probably be improssible to fly like that
without the computer reacting very quickly to unwanted rolls.

So the F/A-18 can be happily flown in steady-state stalled straight and
level flight primarily because of the computer control and also because
the extra drag is less than the engine thrust available.


For a given wing the generated lift is proportional to the Cl and to
the square of the speed, so at a fixed AoA you can reduce the speed
until the lift is no longer sufficient for flight, at which point the
wing stalls.

Well, ... no :-)

If you maintain a fixed AoA, and the speed is such that the lift is less
than the weight of the aircraft then the aircraft will start to follow a
downwards parabolic path (not as sharply downwards as in a zero-G
pushover, but similar).

What happens next depends on what else (if anything) you are holding
constant.

Suppose, for the sake of concreteness, that you are initially flying
straight and level at 60 knots and you then fix the AoA such that the
wings are producing only half the lift required to support the glider.

Normally a glider will accelerate, increasing the lift (and drag, but
not by much). The extra lift will cause the path to become less sharply
curved downward and things will come to equilibrium (or oscillate
around) the point where the combined lift and drag are equal and
opposite to gravity. For a typical glider polar curve this will happen
at an airspeed of around 1/sqrt(0.5) times 60 knots, or 85 knots, plus
or minus a little due to drag.

So all you've acheived is to change the trimmed speed from 60 to 85
knots.

Or, look at it the other way around. Maybe you were flying straight and
level at 85 knots, and then you somehow instantly decrease the airspeed
to 60 knots (maybe a gust up the tail). The lift is no longer
sufficient to maintain level flight. But the glider doesn't stall. It
just drops the nose and accelerates until it has returned to the trimmed
speed of 85 knots.

In no way are the wings ever stalled.


If you stipulate constant speed as well as constant AoA (presumably via
some large and adjustable drag, magical or otherwise) then the flight
path will become steeper until the combined lift and drag vectors are
again exactly equal to and opposite the gravity vector. This will
result in a much steeper flight path, but still stable.

Let's suppose again that you are at 60 knots and reduce the AoA to
produce only half the lift required for flight and then continue to
maintain exactly 60 knots somehow. Alternatively, suppose you're flying
trimmed for level flight at 85 knots and then apply airbrakes to reduce
and maintain 60 knots, while keeping the same trim (AoA).

What happens?

The AoA/speed are insufficient for flight at 60 knots and so the nose
drops. If you draw up the force vectors then you will find that the
glider will stablize in a 60 degree descent at your desired constant 60
knots. Lift (from the wings) is still 0.5 of the weight just as it was
initially (but it's in a funny direction, tilted 60 degrees forward from
vertical). Drag (from the airbrakes) is 0.866 of the weight, tilted 30
degrees from vertical. The horizontal components of lift and drag are
equal and opposite and cancel out. The vertical force to oppose gravity
comes 25% from the wings and 75% from the airbrakes.

In no way are the wings ever stalled.


No matter what you do, if you start with the wings not stalled then
there is nothing you can do that will stall them while all the time
keeping the AoA constant.

If you see the nose drop and don't like it and pull back on the stick to
try to prevent it then that is an entirely different matter -- you're
increasing the AoA which certainly *can* stall the wings.

-- Bruce