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
|
|||
|
|||
induced airflow
I have never quite understood indiced airflow. Suppose there is an
multi-engine airplane with wing mounted engines. I've been taught that while the engine is running, there is a greater amount of airflow over the wing behind the prop. The prop is throwing air back over the wing which is creating more lift over that portion. If the engine were to quit, that increased airflow ceases, and the wing is creating less life, even thought the aircraft as a whole may not have lost any airspeed. Now imagine that same airplane had 50 engines on each side, totaling 100 engines total. Also imagine that the airfcraft is very very very light, say 100 lbs gross takeoff. If that plane was doing a run-up with all of it's 100 engines running full throttle (imagine this plane has super neodymium coated brakes), the enduced airflow over the wings would surely be enough to lift the plane right up, would it not? Acording to the induced airflow principle, upward force is being created by the airflow, is it not? Since very little force is needed to lift this plane off the ground, it should take off. But common sense tells us that it won't. Newton's first law says that for every action there is a opposite and equal reaction. As the induced airflow pushes up on the wing, it also pushes down on the engine, creating no net gain in lift. Is my line of thinking correct here? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
induced airflow
As the induced airflow pushes
up on the wing, it also pushes down on the engine, creating no net gain in lift. Is my line of thinking correct here? No. Consider an engine on each side, pointing upwards. Run the engine, and the plane lifts off like a helicopter. Now imagine the engines pointing forward, but with a big flap behind the engines to deflect the air downwards. (for simplicity's sake, no wing to speak of) The same thing happens, except that there is also some forward thrust (tether the plane for demo purposes). Retract the flap and you'll have no lift, but more forward thrust. The wing acts like the flap. It turns thurst into lift. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
induced airflow
"buttman" wrote in message oups.com... I have never quite understood indiced airflow. Suppose there is an multi-engine airplane with wing mounted engines. I've been taught that while the engine is running, there is a greater amount of airflow over the wing behind the prop. The prop is throwing air back over the wing which is creating more lift over that portion. If the engine were to quit, that increased airflow ceases, and the wing is creating less life, even thought the aircraft as a whole may not have lost any airspeed. Now imagine that same airplane had 50 engines on each side, totaling 100 engines total. Also imagine that the airfcraft is very very very light, say 100 lbs gross takeoff. If that plane was doing a run-up with all of it's 100 engines running full throttle (imagine this plane has super neodymium coated brakes), the enduced airflow over the wings would surely be enough to lift the plane right up, would it not? Acording to the induced airflow principle, upward force is being created by the airflow, is it not? Since very little force is needed to lift this plane off the ground, it should take off. But common sense tells us that it won't. Newton's first law says that for every action there is a opposite and equal reaction. As the induced airflow pushes up on the wing, it also pushes down on the engine, creating no net gain in lift. Is my line of thinking correct here? The opposite reaction is the downwash of air from the wing. So, with a light enough airplane and enough engines to move enough air over the wing, an airplane such as you describe could lift off without a takeoff roll... A number of aircraft have been flown over the years with "blown" surfaces, where air is siphoned off of a jet engine and piped out to the wings where it is directed over the wing, or more commonly, the flaps. The additional airflow creates more lift than would be generated by the aircraft's movement through the air. KB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
induced airflow
"buttman" wrote in message oups.com... I have never quite understood indiced airflow. Suppose there is an SNIP! As the induced airflow pushes up on the wing, it also pushes down on the engine, creating no net gain in lift. Is my line of thinking correct here? No. The number of fallacies in your hypotheses is overwhelming. Just one, for example the opposite reaction at the engine is the forward thrust versus your super brakes. Another...., the lift on the wings is counteracted by weight(gravity). Forget the engines altogether, tether your enormously (sic) light ship and rent a wind machine from Hollyweird. The ship will lift off the ground, not push the wind machine over. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aerodynamics of carrying water | Gene Whitt | Soaring | 54 | October 19th 05 07:24 PM |
Towing | Roger Fowler | Soaring | 6 | August 11th 05 04:25 AM |
Source of Induced Drag | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 2 | January 10th 04 12:18 AM |
Predicting ground effects on induced power | Marc Shorten | Soaring | 0 | October 28th 03 11:18 AM |
Did we decide if ballasted pullups are higher???????? | Lars Peder Hansen | Soaring | 22 | October 8th 03 12:45 AM |