.

.

All things hang gliding. This is the main forum. New users, introduce yourself.

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By waveview
#397855
This is the video refered to in the link above:
[youtube]
[/youtube]
User avatar
By peanuts
#397865
suggested reading: STICK AND RUDDER
by WOLFGANG LANGEWEIS


there's a reason that they're called aero PLANES
By ksglider
#397879
Hi All;

Here is a very interesting video. It's a little long but well worth watching. If one was ever to listen to anyone about this subject, then this man is the one.



Doug
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#397881
ksglider wrote:Here is a very interesting video. It's a little long but well worth watching.
:ditto:
I saw this a few months ago. When I saw this thread, I thought I should try to find it again and post it, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Thanks ksglider for posting it.
User avatar
By dbotos
#397883
Here's a short related video I found interesting:

[youtube]
[/youtube]
User avatar
By hgldr
#397889
Doug,
That's a good video from Boeing's Doug McClean. I left a note on the youtube comments reflecting the miscperception which we always hear, that speed causes low pressure for some unknown mysterious reason. Simple fact which McClean points out is that differential pressure on opposing sides of each infinitesimally small parcel of air (or of ANYthing for that matter) cause acceleration, and the integral of acceleration is velocity. This is actually what Bernoulli originally wrote but, repeated incorrectly in many books is that, "speed causes pressure".
- Darrell
User avatar
By adyr
#397897
speed causes low pressure for some unknown mysterious reason
It's not actually 'unknown', it would be the conservation of energy.

Letting aside the gravitational potential energy which for a wing that's quite small and almost horizontally oriented so the differences in height are small enough to be quite safely ignored, you have the (macroscopic) kinetic energy of the gas (/volume) and the pressure, which is potential energy/volume (it translates to microscopic kinetic energy of the molecules but you can ignore that for now).

To conserve the total energy, if one goes down, the other must go up (this has some simplifying assumptions built in, as 'incompressible' fluid flow).
The reason is not so mysterious.

A description of fluid flow by words tends to have some mistake in it, because one tries to explain a complex phenomenon by some simple means. A more correct answer just gives out the Navier-Stokes equations allowing people to stare at them helplessly :)

And not even those are entirely correct :P
User avatar
By waveview
#397898
It's sounds like a bit of a mistery about what keeps us all up in the air? These hang gliders are even more improbable after listening to the physics involved. 8)
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#397899
Conservation of energy tells you that it must happen but doesn't do a very good job of telling you why it happens (in my opinion).

The most intuitive explanation I've heard goes something like this...

Start with the following...
Definition: Acceleration is any change in speed OR direction of motion of a mass. A curved path is the result of acceleration toward the inside if the curve.
Premise 1: A force is required to cause a mass to accelerate.
Premise 2: Forces come in equal and opposite pairs.

A wing is curved. Air mass flowing under and over the wing follows the same curves. Since the air is flowing a curved path, it is accelerating toward the inside of the curve, and so must be experiencing a force in that direction. That force is matched by an equal and opposite force on the wing.

dbotos's video is a great graphical version of this same explanation.
User avatar
By SeeMarkFly
#397904
How about if you suck the air off the top of the wing?


[youtube]
[/youtube]
User avatar
By adyr
#397908
why it happens
Physics does not answer to the question 'why', it only gives description of 'how'. The 'why' goes to philosophy or religion :)
A wing is curved.
Not necessarily. A flat, plane wing can fly just fine. It's not as good as a profiled one, but still it can fly.

To understand how things go one has to think in terms of the particles involved, about the collisions among them and with the wing...
User avatar
By TjW
#397917
adyr wrote:
why it happens
Physics does not answer to the question 'why', it only gives description of 'how'. The 'why' goes to philosophy or religion :)
A wing is curved.
Not necessarily. A flat, plane wing can fly just fine. It's not as good as a profiled one, but still it can fly.

To understand how things go one has to think in terms of the particles involved, about the collisions among them and with the wing...
Worse, a wing that does have camber can still fly when it's upside down.
User avatar
By CHassan
#397919
waveview wrote:It's sounds like a bit of a mistery about what keeps us all up in the air? These hang gliders are even more improbable after listening to the physics involved. 8)
Hang gliders don't fly at all. They always fall.
User avatar
By RobertKesselring
#397920
adyr wrote:A flat, plane wing can fly just fine. It's not as good as a profiled one, but still it can fly.
TjW wrote:Worse, a wing that does have camber can still fly when it's upside down.
Yes. You can get lift with almost any airfoil if you set the AoA such that the airflow gets curved downward. Using flat or inverted airfoils will incur more drag, but as long as you can maintain airspeed against the increased drag, it will still fly. The important thing is getting that downward curvature in the airflow.
User avatar
By Nigel Hewitt
#397923
I always worry that the wind tunnel image, although useful gives a wrong impression. The air isn't flowing over the wing, it was just sitting there, minding its own business when this wing rushed past and threw it about. Yes, we know that on short scales there is no difference between who is moving but lift and drag make more 'sense' when you look at what you leave behind. Air has been accelerated forwards, 'dragged' along by the wing and accelerated downwards 'lifting' the aerofoil. It will all settle down in time and get back to what ever it was doing before but we have extracted some mass times acceleration style forces from it as we passed.

The whole 'how far does the air travel?' question is a fallacy that comes from this image. The air isn't flowing over the wing. It is being pushed out of the way and accelerated. The air that goes over the wing and the air that goes under it were once adjacent but have now been pushed apart and have no interest in getting back together. The air going over the wing is not 'going faster', the air under the wing is just being dragged along more and accelerated.

I'm not sure what is a good image to help understand it. We humans tend to apply our simple world ideas to complicated things like this and even as a time served physicist I catch myself doing it at times. Looking at the pressure tells you where the lift comes from and the pressure tells the air how to move.
By ksglider
#397925
Nigel;
Nigel Hewitt wrote:I always worry that the wind tunnel image, although useful gives a wrong impression. The air isn't flowing over the wing, it was just sitting there, minding its own business when this wing rushed past and threw it about. Yes, we know that on short scales there is no difference between who is moving but lift and drag make more 'sense' when you look at what you leave behind. Air has been accelerated forwards, 'dragged' along by the wing and accelerated downwards 'lifting' the aerofoil. It will all settle down in time and get back to what ever it was doing before but we have extracted some mass times acceleration style forces from it as we passed.

The whole 'how far does the air travel?' question is a fallacy that comes from this image. The air isn't flowing over the wing. It is being pushed out of the way and accelerated. The air that goes over the wing and the air that goes under it were once adjacent but have now been pushed apart and have no interest in getting back together. The air going over the wing is not 'going faster', the air under the wing is just being dragged along more and accelerated.

I'm not sure what is a good image to help understand it. We humans tend to apply our simple world ideas to complicated things like this and even as a time served physicist I catch myself doing it at times. Looking at the pressure tells you where the lift comes from and the pressure tells the air how to move.
I like your way of looking at this.

I especially like your last phrase. It's kind of like the really simple explanation of The General Theory of Relativity, "Mass tells space how to 'bend'; 'bent' space tells mass how to move".

Fun stuff to talk about . . .

Doug
By ksglider
#397926
SeeMarkFly;
SeeMarkFly wrote:How about if you suck the air off the top of the wing?

[youtube]
[/youtube]
Look up the topic of the Custer Channel Wing. Very interesting concepts from the 1950's. As I remember, there was a BIG increase in lift at very low speeds, but LARGE drag at cruise speeds.

Again, fun stuff to talk about . . .

Doug
User avatar
By aeroexperiments
#397928
For an exhaustive on-line discussion questioning the idea that the production of lift inevitably involves giving some momentum to the surrounding airmass, see this topic on a model-airplane forum http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthre ... tum-Survey and other related threads in the "Modeling Science" area.

I haven't followed the whole discussion very closely, but I've noticed that "ShoeDLG"'s posts are usually enlightening.

Steve
Nigel Hewitt wrote:I always worry that the wind tunnel image, although useful gives a wrong impression. The air isn't flowing over the wing, it was just sitting there, minding its own business when this wing rushed past and threw it about. Yes, we know that on short scales there is no difference between who is moving but lift and drag make more 'sense' when you look at what you leave behind. Air has been accelerated forwards, 'dragged' along by the wing and accelerated downwards 'lifting' the aerofoil. It will all settle down in time and get back to what ever it was doing before but we have extracted some mass times acceleration style forces from it as we passed.
User avatar
By SeeMarkFly
#398033
ksglider wrote:Custer Channel Wing. Very interesting concepts from the 1950's. As I remember, there was a BIG increase in lift at very low speeds, but LARGE drag at cruise speeds.
The Fanwing promised STOL freight carried short distances (no high speed flight needed) but the amount of space needed to "safely" land is still way more land-use that could be used to park trucks (that could drive there in less time it was needed to load a plane, taxi out, takeoff, land, unload, and refuel).
http://www.fanwing.com/

Limitations:

The throttle directly affects the pitch. This means increased throttle can decelerate the aircraft.

Glide-ratio in case of power-failure is low (about 1:3) but if the rotors are allowed to auto-rotate, it can still glide.

Previous attempts using the Coanda/Magnus effect failed because the rotating parts caused gyroscopic effects which impaired maneuverability.
Attachments
Fanwing.jpg
Fanwing.jpg (75.59 KiB) Viewed 922 times

Not real sure what "re-exported" them me[…]

Ride the Cloud

On the Devil's Dyke, a huge stone age earthwork ne[…]

Nice! Reminiscent of NMERider's flight video from […]

Questions on e-power

I am looking into e-power and have some questions […]