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
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Hi,
Student pilot here, self-teaching using the Jeppensen Private Pilot Kit after taking ground school. I read in the book that combustion "creates" energy, which is technically not true, but I decided to ignore it since the pictures are sooo pretty. Now, in Chapter 3, section about airfoils, it actually says: "In addition to the lowered pressure, a downward-backward flow of air also is generated from the top surface of the wing. The reaction to this downwash results in an upward force on the wing which demnstrates Newtons' third law of motion. This action/reaction principle also is apparent as the airstream strikes the lwoer surface of the wing when inclinded at a small angle (the angle of attack) to its direction of motion. The air is forced downward and therefore causes an upward reaction resulting in positive lift." IMHO, the latter part of this paragraph is correct, but the former part is wrong. Obviously, any air above the wing can only result in a force downward on top of the wing. The only force causing the plane to want to move upward comes from beneath the wing. The effect of any air above the wing is to cause rarefication above the wing, resulting in lower pressure, thereby giving the 14.7lbs/in^2 (plus) to do its work. That "reaction" coming from downward movement of air seems just plain silly to me. I am also inclined to take issue with the explanations of Bernouilli's Principle which I see often in the literature, but that's a different subject. [Note, I don't doubt Bernouilli's Principle, I just think there is more to it than the way it is being described in context of flying.] -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote: Obviously, any air above the wing can only result in a force downward on top of the wing. The only force causing the plane to want to move upward comes from beneath the wing. The effect of any air above the wing is to cause rarefication above the wing, resulting in lower pressure, thereby giving the 14.7lbs/in^2 (plus) to do its work. That "reaction" coming from downward movement of air seems just plain silly to me. Then why does the wing stall and cease lifting when flow separates from the upper surface? -- Dan T-182T at BFM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi, Student pilot here, self-teaching using the Jeppensen Private Pilot Kit after taking ground school. I read in the book that combustion "creates" energy, which is technically not true, but I decided to ignore it since the pictures are sooo pretty. Now, in Chapter 3, section about airfoils, it actually says: "In addition to the lowered pressure, a downward-backward flow of air also is generated from the top surface of the wing. The reaction to this downwash results in an upward force on the wing which demnstrates Newtons' third law of motion. This action/reaction principle also is apparent as the airstream strikes the lwoer surface of the wing when inclinded at a small angle (the angle of attack) to its direction of motion. The air is forced downward and therefore causes an upward reaction resulting in positive lift." IMHO, the latter part of this paragraph is correct, but the former part is wrong. Obviously, any air above the wing can only result in a force downward on top of the wing. The only force causing the plane to want to move upward comes from beneath the wing. The effect of any air above the wing is to cause rarefication above the wing, resulting in lower pressure, thereby giving the 14.7lbs/in^2 (plus) to do its work. That "reaction" coming from downward movement of air seems just plain silly to me. I am also inclined to take issue with the explanations of Bernouilli's Principle which I see often in the literature, but that's a different subject. [Note, I don't doubt Bernouilli's Principle, I just think there is more to it than the way it is being described in context of flying.] -Le Chaud Lapin- Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm sure you would have passed me up as a potential flight instructor. :-)))) -- Dudley Henriques |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 2, 9:06 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote: Obviously, any air above the wing can only result in a force downward on top of the wing. The only force causing the plane to want to move upward comes from beneath the wing. The effect of any air above the wing is to cause rarefication above the wing, resulting in lower pressure, thereby giving the 14.7lbs/in^2 (plus) to do its work. That "reaction" coming from downward movement of air seems just plain silly to me. Then why does the wing stall and cease lifting when flow separates from the upper surface? Because the situation of rarefication no longer exists during a stall, or is significantly abated. When plane is on the ramp, pressure above and below the wing are equivalent. When plane is flying certain critical speed, there is, IMO, pinching that occurs at the leading edge of wing. This area of high pressure results in a tendency for air to flow away from that pressure point in all directions. 1. Flowing forward is not an option - that would make pressure situation worse. 2. Flowing backward, toward the empennage, is not an option. The leading edge of wing is there. 3. Flowing upward is possible, since above-the-pressure-point pressure is less than that induced at pressure point. 4. Flowing backward is possible, since below-the-pressure-point pressure is less than that induced at pressure point. But here is the catch. If you take an umbrella, open it, find a friend with extremely long arms, and ask him to yank the umbrella toward his torso in one, quick, abrupt motion, he will feel a force immediately. The umbrella might even invert if the impulse is strong enough. [Sidenote: In the 1970's, I convinced small children that they could fly if they jumped of 7ft brick wall with umbrella. Very amusing to see their faces when they hit ground going just about as fast as they would have without umbrella.] The force that is felt is due to pressure building under the curved part of umbrella. But even if the pressure did not build from compression, a force would still be felt, becaue the force that was equalizing the pressure under the curved part will have been removed. And now the $1,000,000 point: The air on the "outside" of the umbrella does *NOT* instantaneously fill the void that is created by yanking the umbrella. A finite amount of time is required for such air to rush in. If the unbrella is pulled at even a low speed, the net effect can be felt. Pull it fast enough, and it will invert or snap. This is, IMO, a more illustrative way of looking at aerodynamics above the wing than the canned Bernouilli speech. 1. The pinchage creates pressure. 2. A void is created over the wing, provided that plane is moving fast enough that air high above win cannot rush in. 3. Air at back of wing participates in futile effort to fill the void. But the most important thing is the pinchage. That pinching results in high net speed of air molecules backward. Any air above wing that tries to rush in and fill void is bombarded backward before it can "touch" the upper surface of wing. I speculated that, if this point a view were correct, gliders should have short chords with very long spans, which, of course, is true. About stalling: When the angle of attack is too great, the pinchage is still present, and depending on the shape of the leading edge, the backward flow is still pressent, but not at the right angle relative to wing, and certainly not flowing backward enough to stop the onrush of air coming from above at back of wing. In the air comes, rushing in, and pressure builds on top of wing. But there is an ace in hole. Some books say that a plane will stall if AOA is above critical angle. I do not think this is quite true. It would seem that, worst-case-scenario, the dynamics above the wing become royal mess at huge AOA. However, that mess will be less than static pressure, and there will still be compression beneath the wing. So if thrust is great enough, airplane should be able to do whatever it wants. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com: On Oct 2, 9:06 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote: "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote: Obviously, any air above the wing can only result in a force downward on top of the wing. The only force causing the plane to want to move upward comes from beneath the wing. The effect of any air above the wing is to cause rarefication above the wing, resulting in lower pressure, thereby giving the 14.7lbs/in^2 (plus) to do its work. That "reaction" coming from downward movement of air seems just plain silly to me. Then why does the wing stall and cease lifting when flow separates from the upper surface? Because the situation of rarefication no longer exists during a stall, or is significantly abated. When plane is on the ramp, pressure above and below the wing are equivalent. When plane is flying certain critical speed, there is, IMO, pinching that occurs at the leading edge of wing. This area of high pressure results in a tendency for air to flow away from that pressure point in all directions. 1. Flowing forward is not an option - that would make pressure situation worse. 2. Flowing backward, toward the empennage, is not an option. The leading edge of wing is there. 3. Flowing upward is possible, since above-the-pressure-point pressure is less than that induced at pressure point. 4. Flowing backward is possible, since below-the-pressure-point pressure is less than that induced at pressure point. But here is the catch. If you take an umbrella, open it, find a friend with extremely long arms, and ask him to yank the umbrella toward his torso in one, quick, abrupt motion, he will feel a force immediately. The umbrella might even invert if the impulse is strong enough. [Sidenote: In the 1970's, I convinced small children that they could fly if they jumped of 7ft brick wall with umbrella. Very amusing to see their faces when they hit ground going just about as fast as they would have without umbrella.] The force that is felt is due to pressure building under the curved part of umbrella. But even if the pressure did not build from compression, a force would still be felt, becaue the force that was equalizing the pressure under the curved part will have been removed. And now the $1,000,000 point: The air on the "outside" of the umbrella does *NOT* instantaneously fill the void that is created by yanking the umbrella. A finite amount of time is required for such air to rush in. If the unbrella is pulled at even a low speed, the net effect can be felt. Pull it fast enough, and it will invert or snap. This is, IMO, a more illustrative way of looking at aerodynamics above the wing than the canned Bernouilli speech. Nope, it's not the same at all. 1. The pinchage creates pressure. 2. A void is created over the wing, provided that plane is moving fast enough that air high above win cannot rush in. 3. Air at back of wing participates in futile effort to fill the void. But the most important thing is the pinchage. That pinching results in high net speed of air molecules backward. Any air above wing that tries to rush in and fill void is bombarded backward before it can "touch" the upper surface of wing. I speculated that, if this point a view were correct, gliders should have short chords with very long spans, which, of course, is true. About stalling: When the angle of attack is too great, the pinchage is still present, and depending on the shape of the leading edge, the backward flow is still pressent, but not at the right angle relative to wing, and certainly not flowing backward enough to stop the onrush of air coming from above at back of wing. In the air comes, rushing in, and pressure builds on top of wing. But there is an ace in hole. Some books say that a plane will stall if AOA is above critical angle. I do not think this is quite true. It's precisely true since th ecritical angle is defined by the stall. Bertie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 3, 1:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
"In addition to the lowered pressure, a downward-backward flow of air also is generated from the top surface of the wing. The reaction to this downwash results in an upward force on the wing which demnstrates Newtons' third law of motion. This action/reaction principle also is apparent as the airstream strikes the lwoer surface of the wing when inclinded at a small angle (the angle of attack) to its direction of motion. The air is forced downward and therefore causes an upward reaction resulting in positive lift." I blame the lift pixies myself |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 2, 10:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
But there is an ace in hole. Some books say that a plane will stall if AOA is above critical angle. I do not think this is quite true. It's precisely true since th ecritical angle is defined by the stall. What is the definition of a stall anyway? I'm saying that, if you take a plane with certain critical angle, throw away engine, put on an engine that can generate 10x the thrust, the plane should still fly, even if you exceed critical angle. These books imply that the critical angle is angle at with bad things happen above the wing, and because of that, the plane will fall. I'm saying that, you can have all the bad things happen above the wing and still be able to keep the plane aloft due to compression that occurs beneath the wing. Of course, I have only been doing this officially 7 weeks, so I might be wrong. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 2, 10:33 pm, george wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: "In addition to the lowered pressure, a downward-backward flow of air also is generated from the top surface of the wing. The reaction to this downwash results in an upward force on the wing which demnstrates Newtons' third law of motion. This action/reaction principle also is apparent as the airstream strikes the lwoer surface of the wing when inclinded at a small angle (the angle of attack) to its direction of motion. The air is forced downward and therefore causes an upward reaction resulting in positive lift." I blame the lift pixies myself LOL. This flying business is a bit too fascinating. I'm having trouble concentrating on my day job. In no other hobby has the opportunity arisen to apply essentially everything technical I have ever learned. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, electronics, computation...it's all there. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 2, 10:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm sure you would have passed me up as a potential flight instructor. :-)))) I nominate Anthony! Heh. I knew going into ground school that the focus would be flying, not aero/astro, so I was not disappointed with the course. By rushing us, the instructor gave us a broad overview of what we should know. This has been hugely beneficial for my learning. Makes going through it again, slowly, with physics book nearby very pleasurable. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
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 |
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 |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |