A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Polar Analysis from flight logs?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 05, 09:02 PM
Greg Arnold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If the sensor is aiming straight down, at a glide angle of 40/1 the air
is going 40" aft for every 1" that it rises relative to the instrument.
If the sensor is aimed slightly aft (1/40, whatever that is in
degrees), the air won't be rising at all relative to the sensor. Right?

So isn't angle crucial?

Also, can the sensors measure speed when the air mostly is going
crossways in front of the sensor?

  #2  
Old January 2nd 05, 12:32 AM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greg Arnold wrote:
If the sensor is aiming straight down, at a glide angle of 40/1 the air
is going 40" aft for every 1" that it rises relative to the instrument.
If the sensor is aimed slightly aft (1/40, whatever that is in
degrees), the air won't be rising at all relative to the sensor. Right?

So isn't angle crucial?


OK, I'm persuaded! It now appears the sensor would need to be aimed up
or down rather accurately, or the at least the angle off vertical
measured accurately. Dang - that's harder. Perhaps the inertial system
would be a reasonable way to achieve this, or maybe differential GPS
system with antennas on the nose and tail.


Also, can the sensors measure speed when the air mostly is going
crossways in front of the sensor?


I think it depends on the sensor: some are optimized for speed in line
with the beam, some for speed perpendicular to the beam (cross wind
measurement, like for bullets). Perhaps there are ones that can read the
vector wind? I have no idea how much crossways speed the various sensors
can tolerate.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA
  #3  
Old January 2nd 05, 12:54 AM
Greg Arnold
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I think it depends on the sensor: some are optimized for speed in line
with the beam, some for speed perpendicular to the beam (cross wind
measurement, like for bullets). Perhaps there are ones that can read the
vector wind?



If so, you would just need a single sensor facing forward. You still
would have the problem of getting it perfectly horizontal, though.


I have no idea how much crossways speed the various sensors
can tolerate.



I am betting that these sensors can only measure speed directly toward
or away from the sensor. Sort of like a radar gun. So I am not
understanding how they could measure a glider's sink rate.

  #4  
Old January 2nd 05, 10:00 PM
Bob Salvo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It seems to me that having the sensor hanging freely like a pendulum
(pointing down) would make it measure the vertical component.

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...

OK, I'm persuaded! It now appears the sensor would need to be aimed up
or down rather accurately, or the at least the angle off vertical
measured accurately. Dang - that's harder. Perhaps the inertial system
would be a reasonable way to achieve this, or maybe differential GPS
system with antennas on the nose and tail.



  #5  
Old January 2nd 05, 11:24 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Salvo wrote:
It seems to me that having the sensor hanging freely like a pendulum
(pointing down) would make it measure the vertical component.

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...

OK, I'm persuaded! It now appears the sensor would need to be aimed up
or down rather accurately, or the at least the angle off vertical
measured accurately. Dang - that's harder. Perhaps the inertial system
would be a reasonable way to achieve this, or maybe differential GPS
system with antennas on the nose and tail.


Maybe that would be good enough - especially for flying in smooth air,
like wave flying or early morning test flights. Or, maybe these units
would measure quickly enough, all you'd need would be occasional 5-10
seconds of smooth air.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights Geoffrey Sinclair Military Aviation 3 September 4th 09 06:31 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 Mark Oliver Aerobatics 1 October 5th 04 10:20 PM
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP vvcd Piloting 0 September 22nd 04 07:13 PM
AmeriFlight Crash C J Campbell Piloting 5 December 1st 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.