![]() |
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Does this mean that airplanes cannot fly upside down, or does the shape of the wing change when the airplane rolls over? Colin Good question. In most aircraft, the airfoil shape does not change. However, assuming that an airplane maintains level flight at +5 degrees AOA relative to the horizon, and then rolls over upside down, what is its new AOA? That would neg. 5 degrees. Gravity aside, the plane would fly in a downward direction because the air flowing over the "upper" surface of the airfoil would still be traveling at a higher rate relative to the "lower" surface. Of course, if a pilot rolls her plane over and then pushes forward on the stick, that would produce a positive AOA relative to the horizon. How much would be enough to increase the flow over the "lower" surface of the wing (now sunny-side up) than on the "upper" surface? I dunno. Push the stick forward till we quit flying down toward the dirt. Some planes, and some helicopters, have semetrical airfoil wings. They achieve a differential airspeed/pressure by flying at a positive AOA. So why is AOA so important? If the leading edge is up, and the trailing edge is down, doesn't that mean that the wing is still forcing air down as it travels through the air? Maybe somewhat, but that's not where the magic is. Its all about the relative difference in airspeed and therefore air pressue. Since AOA directly effects airflow over the wing, is it not reasonable to think that it alone could produce enough of a difference in speed/pressure to sustain flight? Old Regallo wings could/would change shape. Google "luff-dive" sometime. Things get ugly in a hurry when your airfoil reverses its loveley curved shape and slams you into the ground with over 300 lbs of force. Been there. Done that. Lived. By the way, I'm not professing to know much more about aerodynamics than what was discovered in the Wright wind tunnel. But I'm pretty well convinced by those results that most airplanes do not stay in the aloft by forcing air downward. Now here's a simple 19th Century way to prove the point. Attach a length of yarn to the "lower" surface of a slow-flying plane. Watch the yarn and see what direction it takes in flight. Is it straight back? Or is it down? If air is indeed being forced downward by the wing, shouldn't we be able to see the results in the yarn? Harry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Propellors for sale | Jean-Paul Roy | General Aviation | 0 | July 15th 04 02:33 PM |
Propellors for sale | Jean-Paul Roy | Owning | 0 | July 15th 04 02:32 PM |
Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?) | Ken Sandyeggo | Home Built | 13 | August 6th 03 06:37 AM |
Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?) | Ken Sandyeggo | Rotorcraft | 2 | August 6th 03 06:37 AM |
Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?) | Mark Hickey | Rotorcraft | 4 | August 1st 03 05:20 AM |