![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 10, 7:08*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Ballast towards the wings tips increases the g-limit at any given weight versus ballast towards the wing root. It may or may not affect the flutter limits - but my initial hypothesis would be that it reduces the natural frequency of the wing in bending which would probably help on flutter. This sounds backwards to me. Won't that move the flutter speed to a lower speed? I seem to recall one concern with adding winglets to older gliders is the potential lowering of the speed for flutter onset. Hmmm...maybe you're right. I'm not an expert on aeroelastics. My thinking was that flutter at its core is like a mass-spring-damper system. Given that the input aerodynamic forces don't change with mass loading, adding mass to the wing ought to make it respond less in bending to the input force because it has more inertia. I would expect most of the bending resistance would be structural (spring) resistance rather than inertial (mass) resistance, so the effect could be small. The lower natural frequency of the wing would correspond to a lower speed for flutter onset, but the aerodynamic forces would be lower as a function of the square of the speed, so what's the net effect? With enough mass might you not get any flutter at all? May there also be harmonic effects related to how many bending "waves" you get along the span? In any event, I think the main effect is the increase in g-limit due to the reduced bending loads from the change in spanwise weight distribution. 9B |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:07:43 -0800, Andy wrote:
Hmmm...maybe you're right. I'm not an expert on aeroelastics. My thinking was that flutter at its core is like a mass-spring-damper system. Given that the input aerodynamic forces don't change with mass loading, adding mass to the wing ought to make it respond less in bending to the input force because it has more inertia. I would expect most of the bending resistance would be structural (spring) resistance rather than inertial (mass) resistance, so the effect could be small. The lower natural frequency of the wing would correspond to a lower speed for flutter onset, but the aerodynamic forces would be lower as a function of the square of the speed, so what's the net effect? With enough mass might you not get any flutter at all? May there also be harmonic effects related to how many bending "waves" you get along the span? I remember hearing a talk about this a few years ago. Anything that moves the wing section CG forward relative to the effective CP will reduce the tendency of the surface to flutter - hence lead in control surface leading edges and the recommended lead in the tip LE of the modified ASW-22. All modern gliders carry water in front of the spar. As a result the CG moves forward and you'd expect some increase on the speed at which flutter starts. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 11, 12:57*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote: On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:07:43 -0800, Andy wrote: Hmmm...maybe you're right. *I'm not an expert on aeroelastics. My thinking was that flutter at its core is like a mass-spring-damper system. Given that the input aerodynamic forces don't change with mass loading, adding mass to the wing ought to make it respond less in bending to the input force because it has more inertia. I would expect most of the bending resistance would be structural (spring) resistance rather than inertial (mass) resistance, so the effect could be small. The lower natural frequency of the wing would correspond to a lower speed for flutter onset, but the aerodynamic forces would be lower as a function of the square of the speed, so what's the net effect? With enough mass might you not get any flutter at all? May there also be harmonic effects related to how many bending "waves" you get along the span? I remember hearing a talk about this a few years ago. Anything that moves the wing section CG forward relative to the effective CP will reduce the tendency of the surface to flutter - hence lead in control surface leading edges and the recommended lead in the tip LE of the modified ASW-22. All modern gliders carry water in front of the spar. As a result the CG moves forward and you'd expect some increase on the speed at which flutter starts. -- martin@ * | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org * * * | The only glider wing flutter I've seen is that DG-100 video that shows asymmetric flutter with a fair amount of aileron involvement. Aileron flutter is driven by the lack of mass balance because the aileron is hinged at the leading edge. The wing itself is "hinged" more about the spar I think (not really a hinge I know). This would seem to be more "mass balanced" so adding weight in the D-tube may or may not produce the same effect. 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing | Stealth Pilot[_2_] | Home Built | 195 | December 16th 09 03:17 AM |
Wanted: Schempp Hirth Wing Ballast Cap | Paul Cordell | Soaring | 7 | August 17th 07 08:30 PM |
Fin/wing water ballast ratio? DG-300 | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | May 2nd 06 06:52 PM |
747 weight distribution | Robin | General Aviation | 25 | June 22nd 05 03:53 AM |
Distribution of armor on a B-52 | B2431 | Military Aviation | 12 | August 16th 04 09:07 PM |