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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article ,
Robert Moore wrote: Orval Fairbairn wrote In the case of the firefighting plane, if it was flying level and dropped a large weight (slurry), the wings would have the same load, either with or without the dropped weight. Other airframe components, such as engine mounts, fixed equipment, crew, however, would experience a sudden increase in G loading. If the plane was flying at too high speed, sudden updrafts/gusts could overload the wings. Say What!! You may know what you are trying to say, but it sure didn't come out making sense. From Wikipedia: The g-force experienced by an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall. The term g-force is considered a misnomer, as g-force is not a force but an acceleration. You probably meant to say "wings would have the same LOAD FACTOR". Clearly, the load supported by the wing of a loaded aircraft is more than the wing loading of an empty aircraft even though both are experiencing only 1g. If the pilot doesn't reduce the angle of attack (amount of lift produced by the wing)as the load is dropped, the wing root will experience an increase in g-force. G-force is equal to the actual lift being produced by the wing (at that angle of attack and airspeed) divided by the weight being lifted. From a aerodynamic viewpoint, the smart thing to do would be to push- over (reduce the angle of attack) just as the fire retardant is released, thereby reducing the g-force on the wing root. This, however, tends to prevent the retardant from exiting the aircraft. What the pilots seem to be doing is pulling up AND turning at the point of drop and thereby making a bad situation even worse. Bob Moore It is a paradox here. Structurally, a wing really doesn't care WHAT the G-force is! All the structure is concerned about is the amount of stress on its components. A wing carrying, say 200K#, which suddenly drops 100K# will pull 2G, but the STRESS on the wings remains 200K#. Other components of the aircraft will experience 2G, but the wing's stresses remain the same. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "Mike Ash" wrote Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. It does seem counter-intuitive. I had problems with the concept when it came to explaining max maneuvering speed. I had it explained to me, something like this: You are cruising along at low weight, and hit a strong upward air column, suddenly. With a light wing loading, the strength of the updraft will make the machine move upward rapidly, which will cause a G to register on your G meter. Now, you take the same plane, loaded to max weight and going the same speed as before. You hit the same updraft, but the plane has a higher wing loading, and higher mass, but the same wing area, so it will accelerate upwards more slowly. That will register a lower G on your meter. Same force applied to the higher mass is equal to less acceleration, as shown in F=MA. Up to this point I agree with you. The more heavily loaded plane, hitting the same updraft, will accelerate more slowly due to F=ma. In thinking about max maneuvering speed, the more gradually you move into an updraft, the less force will suddenly be applied, and I think another factor comes into play in this. The same wing with a higher wing loading will not be as efficient at creating more lift. It will slip, or "mush" through the air more at higher wing loading. Here I disagree. A more heavily loaded wing is just as efficient at creating lift as a lightly loaded wing. The lift produced by a wing is dependent on factors like airspeed, angle of attack, airfoil shape, density, etc., but it is not dependent on the loading. No matter what the loading, the maximum amount of lift that can be produced at a certain airspeed is the same. In the more lightly loaded airplane this translates to more gees, and more force on structural members holding fixed objects, but it does *not* translate into more force on the wings themselves. The more lightly loaded aircraft may well experience structural failure at lower speeds than the published Va for max gross weight but that structural failure will be in something other than the wing spars, which by definition can take the load they're experiencing. I believe the same factor took place in the fire fighting airplane that pulled the wing off. With the lighter load, the wing slipped less, and created more lift at the lighter weight. It changed direction much more quickly, which converts to higher G's, which broke it's wing. I don't know. I hope to always (usually?) explain things in the least technical way possible. That is the teacher side of me trying to make things make sense to people who are not experts in the subject that I am attempting to explain. It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm all wet. Something must make it true, because that is what people say who know how to make fancy math work as related to aeroplanes. An explanation that's compatible with what I'm saying and that's mostly compatible with what you're saying is that the wings were caused to generate more lift after the airplane released its load, either because of changes in CG or because the pilots pulled back in order to start a climb. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Sep 13, 9:54*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article , *"Morgans" wrote: "Mike Ash" wrote Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. *It does seem counter-intuitive. *I had problems with the concept when it came to explaining max maneuvering speed. I had it explained to me, something like this: *You are cruising along at low weight, and hit a strong upward air column, suddenly. *With a light wing loading, the strength of the updraft will make the machine move upward rapidly, which will cause a G to register on your G meter. Now, you take the same plane, loaded to max weight and going the same speed as before. *You hit the same updraft, but the plane has a higher wing loading, and higher mass, but the same wing area, so it will accelerate upwards more slowly. *That will register a lower G on your meter. *Same force applied to the higher mass is equal to less acceleration, as shown in F=MA. Up to this point I agree with you. The more heavily loaded plane, hitting the same updraft, will accelerate more slowly due to F=ma. In thinking about max maneuvering speed, the more gradually you move into an updraft, the less force will suddenly be applied, and I think another factor comes into play in this. *The same wing with a higher wing loading will not be as efficient at creating more lift. *It will slip, or "mush" through the air more at higher wing loading. Here I disagree. A more heavily loaded wing is just as efficient at creating lift as a lightly loaded wing. The lift produced by a wing is dependent on factors like airspeed, angle of attack, airfoil shape, density, etc., but it is not dependent on the loading. No matter what the loading, the maximum amount of lift that can be produced at a certain airspeed is the same. In the more lightly loaded airplane this translates to more gees, and more force on structural members holding fixed objects, but it does *not* translate into more force on the wings themselves. The more lightly loaded aircraft may well experience structural failure at lower speeds than the published Va for max gross weight but that structural failure will be in something other than the wing spars, which by definition can take the load they're experiencing. I believe the same factor took place in the fire fighting airplane that pulled the wing off. *With the lighter load, the wing slipped less, and created more lift at the lighter weight. *It changed direction much more quickly, which converts to higher G's, which broke it's wing. I don't know. *I hope to always (usually?) explain things in the least technical way possible. *That is the teacher side of me trying to make things make sense to people who are not experts in the subject that I am attempting to explain. *It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm all wet. Something must make it true, because that is what people say who know how to make fancy math work as related to aeroplanes. An explanation that's compatible with what I'm saying and that's mostly compatible with what you're saying is that the wings were caused to generate more lift after the airplane released its load, either because of changes in CG or because the pilots pulled back in order to start a climb. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Mike, dropping the load would have in itself resulted in a pitchup even if the pilots did not pull back on the yoke. It was trimmed for flight with one load, so the AoA would have been greater than needed without that load.When the load was dropped that trim would have suddenly cause a pitch up, and the sudden pitchup would have suddenly increased lift, and the bending moment on the wing spar since the airplane could not react immediately to new upward thrust.. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Sep 13, 7:48*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , *Robert Moore wrote: Orval Fairbairn wrote In the case of the firefighting plane, if it was flying level and dropped a large weight (slurry), the wings would have the same load, either with or without the dropped weight. Other airframe components, such as engine mounts, fixed equipment, crew, however, would experience a sudden increase in G loading. If the plane was flying at too high speed, sudden updrafts/gusts could overload the wings. Say What!! You may know what you are trying to say, but it sure didn't come out making sense. From Wikipedia: The g-force experienced by an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall. The term g-force is considered a misnomer, as g-force is not a force but an acceleration. You probably meant to say "wings would have the same LOAD FACTOR". Clearly, the load supported by the wing of a loaded aircraft is more than the wing loading of an empty aircraft even though both are experiencing only 1g. If the pilot doesn't reduce the angle of attack (amount of lift produced by the wing)as the load is dropped, the wing root will experience an increase in g-force. G-force is equal to the actual lift being produced by the wing (at that angle of attack and airspeed) divided by the weight being lifted. From a aerodynamic viewpoint, the smart thing to do would be to push- over (reduce the angle of attack) just as the fire retardant is released, thereby reducing the g-force on the wing root. This, however, tends to prevent the retardant from exiting the aircraft. What the pilots seem to be doing is pulling up AND turning at the point of drop and thereby making a bad situation even worse. Bob Moore It is a paradox here. Structurally, a wing really doesn't care WHAT the G-force is! All the structure is concerned about is the amount of stress on its components. A wing carrying, say 200K#, which suddenly drops 100K# will pull 2G, but the STRESS on the wings remains 200K#. Other components of the aircraft will experience 2G, but the wing's stresses remain the same. -- Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me. Wouldn't there also be a torsion moment caused by the pitch up, i.e., the configuration of trim for level flight would create a nose/pitch up after release, increasing AOA rapidly and 'twisting' the wings off at the roots? The wings would actually be trying to increase AOA ahead of the more massive fuselage. Or, if not torsion then indeed it was more like an updraft in that the rapid pitchup increased the AOA at such a rate as to literally 'blow' the wings off. Picture it as an effect similar to holding your hand outside the car window then quickly rotating it for a positive AOA. It can quickly get away from you and give you a wrenched shoulder... Don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud Here's a good article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../?tag=untagged |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article
, a wrote: On Sep 13, 9:54*pm, Mike Ash wrote: In article , *"Morgans" wrote: "Mike Ash" wrote Makes sense to me. Seems like there are several potential explanations: sudden flexing of the wings like I said, sudden pitch up like you said, or simply CG changes causing increased load on the wing. Lots of ways for this failure to occur given a weakened wing, but the idea of the wings failing under constant load with more Gs due to less weight doesn't seem to make sense. *It does seem counter-intuitive. *I had problems with the concept when it came to explaining max maneuvering speed. I had it explained to me, something like this: *You are cruising along at low weight, and hit a strong upward air column, suddenly. *With a light wing loading, the strength of the updraft will make the machine move upward rapidly, which will cause a G to register on your G meter. Now, you take the same plane, loaded to max weight and going the same speed as before. *You hit the same updraft, but the plane has a higher wing loading, and higher mass, but the same wing area, so it will accelerate upwards more slowly. *That will register a lower G on your meter. *Same force applied to the higher mass is equal to less acceleration, as shown in F=MA. Up to this point I agree with you. The more heavily loaded plane, hitting the same updraft, will accelerate more slowly due to F=ma. In thinking about max maneuvering speed, the more gradually you move into an updraft, the less force will suddenly be applied, and I think another factor comes into play in this. *The same wing with a higher wing loading will not be as efficient at creating more lift. *It will slip, or "mush" through the air more at higher wing loading. Here I disagree. A more heavily loaded wing is just as efficient at creating lift as a lightly loaded wing. The lift produced by a wing is dependent on factors like airspeed, angle of attack, airfoil shape, density, etc., but it is not dependent on the loading. No matter what the loading, the maximum amount of lift that can be produced at a certain airspeed is the same. In the more lightly loaded airplane this translates to more gees, and more force on structural members holding fixed objects, but it does *not* translate into more force on the wings themselves. The more lightly loaded aircraft may well experience structural failure at lower speeds than the published Va for max gross weight but that structural failure will be in something other than the wing spars, which by definition can take the load they're experiencing. I believe the same factor took place in the fire fighting airplane that pulled the wing off. *With the lighter load, the wing slipped less, and created more lift at the lighter weight. *It changed direction much more quickly, which converts to higher G's, which broke it's wing. I don't know. *I hope to always (usually?) explain things in the least technical way possible. *That is the teacher side of me trying to make things make sense to people who are not experts in the subject that I am attempting to explain. *It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm all wet. Something must make it true, because that is what people say who know how to make fancy math work as related to aeroplanes. An explanation that's compatible with what I'm saying and that's mostly compatible with what you're saying is that the wings were caused to generate more lift after the airplane released its load, either because of changes in CG or because the pilots pulled back in order to start a climb. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Mike, dropping the load would have in itself resulted in a pitchup even if the pilots did not pull back on the yoke. It was trimmed for flight with one load, so the AoA would have been greater than needed without that load.When the load was dropped that trim would have suddenly cause a pitch up, and the sudden pitchup would have suddenly increased lift, and the bending moment on the wing spar since the airplane could not react immediately to new upward thrust.. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Nope. The lift remained the same, but the weight changed, resulting in a pitch up. Inertial/torsional accelerations came into play upon the pitch up -- whether or not they played a significant factor in the accident remains to be seen. According to what I read on the accident, the wings failed at the central wing box, which had not been inspected according to standard schedules. Apparently there were cracks in that section that propagated and failed the wing. Sudden gust/updraft loadings are fairly common in the vicinity of such major fires and probably were the significant factor in the accident. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:42:06 -0400, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: Nope. The lift remained the same, but the weight changed, resulting in a pitch up. Inertial/torsional accelerations came into play upon the pitch up -- whether or not they played a significant factor in the accident remains to be seen. According to what I read on the accident, the wings failed at the central wing box, which had not been inspected according to standard schedules. Apparently there were cracks in that section that propagated and failed the wing. Sudden gust/updraft loadings are fairly common in the vicinity of such major fires and probably were the significant factor in the accident. now that last paragraph I could well believe. to infer that the stresses increased because the weight being carried reduced, I find implausible. why are there no recordings of heavily overloaded ww2 bombers collapsing on bomb release? didnt happen. Stealth Pilot |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
On Sep 15, 8:33*am, Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:42:06 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote: Nope. The lift remained the same, but the weight changed, resulting in a pitch up. Inertial/torsional accelerations came into play upon the pitch up -- whether or not they played a significant factor in the accident remains to be seen. According to what I read on the accident, the wings failed at the central wing box, which had not been inspected according to standard schedules. Apparently there were cracks in that section that propagated and failed the wing. Sudden gust/updraft loadings are fairly common in the vicinity of such major fires and probably were the significant factor in the accident. now that last paragraph I could well believe. to infer that the stresses increased because the weight being carried reduced, I find implausible. why are there no recordings of heavily overloaded ww2 bombers collapsing on bomb release? didnt happen. Stealth Pilot WW2 bombers did not release all of their load at the same instant, and they probably had better inspections than did this C130. Look at the video, you will see the start of the pitch up when the load is released, and in the next instant the wings are gone. You'll have to slow down the video, but it's there. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:42:06 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote: Nope. The lift remained the same, but the weight changed, resulting in a pitch up. Inertial/torsional accelerations came into play upon the pitch up -- whether or not they played a significant factor in the accident remains to be seen. According to what I read on the accident, the wings failed at the central wing box, which had not been inspected according to standard schedules. Apparently there were cracks in that section that propagated and failed the wing. Sudden gust/updraft loadings are fairly common in the vicinity of such major fires and probably were the significant factor in the accident. now that last paragraph I could well believe. to infer that the stresses increased because the weight being carried reduced, I find implausible. Not in the wings themselves -- they carry the same aerodynamic load; however, inertial/torsional loads from fixed equipment in the wings (engines, propellers) transmit into the wing box structure with sudden changes in G loading and attitude. why are there no recordings of heavily overloaded ww2 bombers collapsing on bomb release? didnt happen. Stealth Pilot -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Vne, Val and lift?
"Stealth Pilot" wrote why are there no recordings of heavily overloaded ww2 bombers collapsing on bomb release? didnt happen. Plus the fact that the average life of a bomber before it was destroyed was 17 missions, on many types in many theatres. They were all practically new aircraft, in comparison to the C-130 in the video. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Come lift a cup with Joe Rasymas! | Fred | Soaring | 5 | October 24th 06 08:42 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |