![]() |
| 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 |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Jan 26, 5:19 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:03:04 -0800 (PST), wrote: And if the CG is moving horizontally at 100 knots, where is the rotation point now? As soon as rotation starts, the aircraft begins to change its flight path, and any determination of rotation point, whether it's the CG or CP or any other point, becomes very hard to determine and might be irrelevant. I would prefer to think of the fixed end of the flight path radius (which is also changing) as the airplane rotates, just like one of those complicated cabinet door hinges that has two arms and four pivot points. Where is the rotation point of that door? There is no fixed point. Dan clueless. you'd never have understood the propeller like the wrights did because you cant simplify situations until the problem becomes solveable. finding a solution to a problem is often a matter of thinking about it with just the relevant factors at play. the answer to your door problem lies in understanding that there are multiple hinge points that each act in a simple manner. the frame of reference is moving at 100 knots. the aircraft rotates about it's centre of gravity (centre of mass). You are assuming that the aircraft rotates about its CG as it would in space. But we're NOT in space, and lift and drag and various vectors all come into play here. As the aircraft rotates nose-up, CL (coefficient of lift) increases; CP shifts forward; the relationship between CG and CP changes because of the CP shift, and especially so if the CG is well above or below the CP; the tail's downforce increases, adding another vector to the whole thing. Then we have thrust and drag trying to rotate the airplane around some other point. We can't consider mass alone if we're trying to figure a rotational point. If mass is all you're concerned with, then the CG is good enough. I'd rather have more than mass acting on my airplane; it flies better that way. Kerschner likely has something to say on it. I'll have a look. Dan |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| a question for the aeronautical engineers among us | Tina | Piloting | 10 | November 4th 07 01:56 PM |
| Are flight engineers qualified to fly? | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 14 | January 23rd 07 08:39 PM |
| Aerodynamic Drag | Kyle Boatright | Home Built | 7 | September 26th 05 04:34 AM |
| Aerodynamic Simulation of Standard Cirrus Glider | Jim Hendrix | Soaring | 13 | November 10th 04 12:38 AM |
| Airfoil aerodynamic simulator... | Thomas J. Paladino Jr. | Piloting | 4 | May 17th 04 03:41 PM |