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

poor lateral control on a slow tow?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 6th 11, 04:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andreas Maurer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 345
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote:


There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird &
Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying wing
glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of 5.8
towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!).


Coooooooooool.



He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often
uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due to
ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the glider
span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different.


Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that
huge propellor might have an influence, too.


Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free on
the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all lateral
and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed
spinning this aircraft.


Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow
plane.

Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that
flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight.


Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to
spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM



Andreas

  #2  
Old January 6th 11, 04:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Doug Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote:


There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird &
Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying

wing
glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of

5.8
towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!).


Coooooooooool.


every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like!




He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often
uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due

to
ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the

glider
span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different.


Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that
huge propellor might have an influence, too.


Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too.


Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free

on
the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all

lateral
and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed
spinning this aircraft.


Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow
plane.

Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that
flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight.


Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to
spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM



Andreas



That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black
Arrow

  #3  
Old January 6th 11, 05:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Derrick Steed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

What do you expect from the juvenile mentality of the top gear presenters?
I'll bet they switched the explosive bolts for standard ones.

Derrick.

At 16:40 06 January 2011, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote:


There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird &
Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying

wing
glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of

5.8
towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!).


Coooooooooool.


every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like!




He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often
uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due

to
ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the

glider
span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different.


Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that
huge propellor might have an influence, too.


Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too.


Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free

on
the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all

lateral
and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed
spinning this aircraft.


Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow
plane.

Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that
flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight.


Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to
spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM



Andreas



That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black
Arrow



  #4  
Old January 6th 11, 06:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

On Jan 6, 9:40*am, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote:


There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird &
Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying

wing
glider in 1946. *This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of

5.8
towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). *


Coooooooooool.


every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like!





He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often
uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due

to
ground effect. *In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the

glider
span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different.


Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that
huge propellor might have an influence, too.


Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too.









Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free

on
the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all

lateral
and longitudinal control was lost. *Robert Kronfield was later killed
spinning this aircraft.


Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow
plane.


Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that
flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight.


Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to
spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM


Andreas


That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black
Arrow- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


What about Skynet? I worked the Skynet 4 program.

Andy
  #5  
Old January 6th 11, 06:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
sisu1a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

What about Skynet?

Talk about thread drift! The Terminator has nothing to do with this
discussion thank you very much.
  #6  
Old January 7th 11, 10:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Doug Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

At 18:20 06 January 2011, Andy wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:40=A0am, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote:


There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird &
Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying

wing
glider in 1946. =A0This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio

of
5.8
towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!). =A0


Coooooooooool.


every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like!





He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often
uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be

due
to
ground effect. =A0In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to

the
glider
span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different.


Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that
huge propellor might have an influence, too.


Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too.









Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown

hands-free
on
the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all
lateral
and longitudinal control was lost. =A0Robert Kronfield was later

killed
spinning this aircraft.


Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow
plane.


Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model

that
flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight.


Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to
spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpJdrlWR-yFM


Andreas


That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on

Black
Arrow- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


What about Skynet? I worked the Skynet 4 program.

Andy

true - I should have one british satellite on a british launcher!

  #7  
Old January 7th 11, 11:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default poor lateral control on a slow tow?

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:13:49 +0000, Doug Greenwell wrote:

true - I should have one british satellite on a british launcher!


Launched in 1971 and its still up there. Its radio was still working in
2006. Its orbit is expected to decay around 2106. Not too dusty for the
second attempt at launching a satellite.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
 




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
another poor man's car engine conversion jan olieslagers[_2_] Home Built 19 February 22nd 09 03:49 PM
Poor readability Kees Mies Owning 2 August 14th 04 04:22 AM
Poor Guy Bob Chilcoat Owning 6 July 17th 04 06:45 PM
I'm grateful for poor people who are willing to murder & die Krztalizer Military Aviation 0 April 20th 04 11:11 PM
Concorde in FS2002: No lateral views A. Bomanns Simulators 3 July 19th 03 11:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:03 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.