RE: Suggestion for moderators  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       


The JETLEGEND CT-114 SNOWBIRD OR CAF Color.... SHIPPPING DISCOUNT AVAILABLE .....
Seller:  FlyingboyD
Details:   $1,660.00   |  11/27/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Aerodynamics >> RE: Suggestion for moderators
Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Suggestion for moderators - 5/31/2004 12:10:45 AM   
C Earnest



Posts: 60
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Fairview, UT, USA
Status: offline
Shoe,

None, unfortunately. I had my OCS/flight school application approved and all tests except physical passed and the Marine Corps (Navy) docs found a touch of a color perception problem so it was a no-go. They said if I really wanted to pursue it that perhaps the Army would let me fly helos. Since I had already been to Vietnam as a tactical air control radio operator (1965) and since the year was 1969 and the bullets were flying even thicker than '65, I politely declined their offer. I finished my 12 years as a Marine Corps radar/computer technician and got out. I am just a (former---lost my medical) private pilot with a deep curiosity about and interest in aerodynamics and Naval Aviation history. BTW, I would have given my left .... to have attended flight training with the best. Their "Handbook for Naval Aviators" was the aero-standard for a long time and I would love to have another one. (All deference to the U.S.Air Force (my bro' was a U-2 pilot), Army, and Coast Guard pilots out there; you are all great and God Bless you one and all!!) My apologies to all for a definite off-topic post, but I did not want to leave a false impression with anyone.

C. Earnest

_____________________________

"CV in sight"

(in reply to Shoe)
       Post #: 151

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/6/2004 2:28:23 AM   
EagleOne



Posts: 370
Joined: 5/18/2003
From: Curitiba, PR, BRAZIL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dick Hanson

Well --- I am not sure -
On full scale stuff like airliners absolutely CG is very important - When I started travelling a lot - we frequently had to "move to the front , please --".

But just take a real look a t a extremely lightly loaded , highly powered plane -these types act very indifferently to cg .
Why?
take the "impossible" plane which weighs nothing -bu is say - 500 sq inches--
There is no inertia if it weighs nothing - so control inputs simply have to keep it flying at angles whch do not exceed stall.
Impossible?
OK let's make it weigh a gram - now it is heavier than air .
again inertia is extremly low making it still very controllable even with the entire 1 gram situated at the rear.
I thought some guys who were into abstract thought ,would see that .
Too heavy - cg is of no value
absolutely - why bother
My point was -- fix the real problem .
I certainly did no expect some of the comments I got -
but I asked for it . Should have seen em coming.
Hving read some other threads on really odd tstuff - I thought this would be fun.


You were doing really well, up to the point you said that a zero-weight airframe would have no inertia....Ouch that hurt!!
Inertia depends on mass, which is completely indenpendent from weight. Weight depends from mass, since it's a force represented by the product of mass and the gravity acceleration, but not vice-versa. See a satelitte orbiting the earth. Has it got weight?? No, otherwise it wouldn't be orbiting. Now has it got mass?? Yes, it's composed of matter, and matter has mass. Has it got inertia?? Yes!! Try imparting a rotation motion to it and see if it will stop after you quit applying the force to make it rotate. Momentum conservation law...

OK, since I don't mean any insult to you, just a constructive critic, I will try to correct that. Our hypothetical (although not that hypothetical, this is perfectly possible to be done, but not practical, there's a difference there) zero-weight airframe if had a low mass too, would have a low inertia. Zero inertia, I may be wrong but that is really impossible, even light has got it inertia (NASA is researching laser powered planes....). But I see your point. Zero weight, no center of gravity, since there's no gravity acting on it. So if there is no CG, how can it be critical?? In this situation, the center that comes into play is the center of mass, as someone has already mentioned in this thread. And it radically changes the laws governing flight, I can only thoerize about them based on my limited knowledge.

If the point people here is trying to make is that only careful designed planes will fly, they are wasting their time. Everything moving through air, by displacing it, generates lift. Everything. Now, if that lift is enough to raise the object from the ground is another story, but that lift is there. Ever seem a racing car "take-off"?? I have a pretty good video of one and I can post if anyone wants to see it. Want a more practical example, and easily done at home?? While driving your car, put your hand out of the window, like it was a wing. Go increasing the speed and when you get to somewhere around 45-50 mph, the lift generated it is enough that you don't need to force your arm to be straight. Your hand is "flying". Adjust the lift by changing your hand's AoA (Angle of Attack).

With that said, now that we know that anything will fly, we have to adjust the thing to it's mission. The 3D foamie is perfect for what it does, that is, wild, tumbling, and agile flight at low Reynolds. Try putting a super-critical, super-high Reynolds, laminar flow airfoil on it, and it will lose it's ability to perform it's mission well, because the airfoil that works better in that situation is the flat-plate, leave the super-critical airfoil to critical speeds (approaching the speed of sound) that it's designed to work at. Pick the flate-plate for critical speeds and you get the same situation, the wing won't work for what it's supposed to do. In a super-critical wing that is to create the maximum amount of lift with the minimum of drag possible (high L/D ratio). Will this wing fly in low Reynolds condition? Yes it will, but not as efficiently as it would at critical speeds. Will the flat-plate fly at critical speeds?? Yes, but again not as efficiently as it would on low Reynolds.


_____________________________

"I didn't fail, I just found 10 000 ways that didn't work"

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 152

RE: basic - 6/6/2004 3:28:53 PM   
adam_one


 

Posts: 410
Joined: 2/26/2003
From: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Status: offline
Dick Hanson's limit theory (as the wingloading approaches zero the CG becomes irrelevant) is true, but cannot be applied to conventional airplanes, which are subject to the earth's gravity force and always need airspeed to keep flying.
quote:


Dick Hanson wrote:

take the "impossible" plane which weighs nothing -bu is say - 500 sq inches--
There is no inertia if it weighs nothing - so control inputs simply have to keep it flying at angles whch do not exceed stall.
Impossible?
OK let's make it weigh a gram - now it is heavier than air .

That assumption is not correct.
An airplane that weights one-gram may be lighter than the air (it depends on ratio weight/volume).
E.g. a balloon weights much more than one gram but still is lighter than the air.

Anyhow, an "airplane" that weights zero is no longer flying like a conventional one, because such an "airplane" doesn't need wings at all, it just hangs in the air like a balloon.
Such an "airplane" will never ever stall, just because - no weight - no stall.

_____________________________

http://adamone.rchomepage.com

(in reply to EagleOne)
       Post #: 153

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/6/2004 3:44:13 PM   
dick Hanson



Posts: 10203
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: online
well -an empty balloon may weigh a gram -but it can be filled with light gas to almost zero weight on any scale under conventional weighing conditions.
Not that tht matters
My point was that as we approach zero wingloading-the HARD rules soften/change -and when extremely light -the aircraft is far less critical to cg -
you can calculate till hell freezes over but in actual practice the airplane is still flyable as it moves along.
It is not a Piper Cub -or a hands off glider but it is still an airplane
maybe not one you would like .But still a powered , heavier than air machine.

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to adam_one)
       Post #: 154

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/6/2004 4:33:22 PM   
adam_one


 

Posts: 410
Joined: 2/26/2003
From: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Status: offline
quote:


Dick Hanson wrote:
well -an empty balloon may weigh a gram -but it can be filled with light gas to almost zero weight on any scale under conventional weighing conditions.

An empty balloon that weights one-gram will still weight at least one-gram after it has been filled with light gas, despite the scale will show less weight due to the Archimedes' principle:
A buoyant force is exerted on an object submersed in a fluid. The pressure beneath the object is larger than the pressure above. The resultant force on the object is upward, opposing the force of gravity.
When an object is partially or fully submerged, the buoyant force, or apparent loss in weight, is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.

quote:


Dick Hanson wrote:
My point was that as we approach zero wingloading-the HARD rules soften/change -and when extremely light -the aircraft is far less critical to cg -

That's a much less controversial assumption, which has already been addressed several times here in this thread.
Below are some of the postings:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1194659/anchors_1579840/mpage_2/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1579840

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1194659/anchors_1611105/mpage_2/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1611105

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1194659/anchors_1614766/mpage_2/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1614766

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1194659/anchors_1797383/mpage_3/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1797383

_____________________________

http://adamone.rchomepage.com

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 155

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/6/2004 9:38:29 PM   
dick Hanson



Posts: 10203
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: online
Please - -That does not even apply --The bouyancy thing written in blue is obvious - anyone knows that a blimp or a balloon has mass -but the weight relative to the air is less.is obvious
This is just semantics -
come on I am trying to examine how light wingloading changes the generally accepted "hard and fast rules ".

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to adam_one)
       Post #: 156

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/6/2004 10:57:25 PM   
adam_one


 

Posts: 410
Joined: 2/26/2003
From: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Status: offline
quote:

Dick Hanson wrote:
come on I am trying to examine how light wingloading changes the generally accepted "hard and fast rules ".

I wouldn't say that there are any hard and fast rules regarding CG location.
For a conventional airplane to be positive stable in pitch, its CG most be ahead of the airplane's Neutral Point NP.
The distance between CG and NP is called static margin and is expressed as percentage of the main wing's MAC.
The static margin may be between 5% and 15% of the MAC, so there's plenty of room to play here (no hard rules).
When the static margin is zero (CG coincident with NP) the aircraft is considered
"neutrally stable".
Which means that the spot you choose for your CG within the stable range is to some extent up to your personal preference - how you want your plane to handle.

Low wingloading gives you low stall speed, but it doesn't make your plane positive stable if its CG is located aft the NP, this is a rule that applies to any airplane that's heavier than the air, including your light wingloading foamies.
Since they have low wingloading, they can fly slower without stalling, which gives you more time to react and make corrections.
Anyhow it would be much interesting to know how close your foamie's CG actually is to its NP.

< Message edited by adam_one -- 6/7/2004 12:14:34 AM >


_____________________________

http://adamone.rchomepage.com

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 157

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/7/2004 12:14:09 AM   
dick Hanson



Posts: 10203
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: online
I never even intimated that the planes were more stable - really -
My whole thought was that as one reaches for zero wingloading - the CG becomes less critical - I called it less important and of no importance at all in some instances.
I can't prove anything with a calculation on this -and no one has ventured a relevant calculation against the thought.
Why even bother .
I did say I thought the plane would be flyable at "zero" wingloading (weighing nothing).
It is a whimsical thought sure - but I see no reason it would not fly ---with constant corrections of course .
I see thrust becoming the all important factor in the equasion and lift reduced to zero importance. (nothing to lift.)
BUT - the surfaces would still be used --to control flight directiuon.
Now call it an airplane - call it an elephant - I don't care -
it is heavier than air (one 1/100 of a gram is till a +) and is powered.
For damn sure it is NOT a conventional airplane - I never intimated that either .
good fun tho ---

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to adam_one)
       Post #: 158

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/7/2004 12:32:09 AM   
adam_one


 

Posts: 410
Joined: 2/26/2003
From: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Status: offline
But that's nothing new, Dick.
Once upon a time there was a flying ship called Zeppelin, it carried lots of people, weighted hundreds of kilos, was controllable and still it was lighter than the air - yes it was!
Now, how can you conceive a plane weighting just 1/100 of a gram and being heavier than the air, is just beyond my wildest imagination.
But why don't you make us a surprise? - show us one

_____________________________

http://adamone.rchomepage.com

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 159

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/7/2004 2:31:59 AM   
dick Hanson



Posts: 10203
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: online
I give up -the whole thing was hypothetical.

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to adam_one)
       Post #: 160

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/7/2004 7:56:59 AM   
davidfee



Posts: 691
Joined: 6/21/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline
Dick,
Can you post a scale drawing of one of your foam 3D models, with the CG labeled... just so the pencil pushers can do the math and see how things look?

thanks,
-David

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 161

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/7/2004 12:38:41 PM   
antter


 

Posts: 23
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: KuressaareSaaremaa, ESTONIA
Status: offline
Hello guys,

I see this discussion is really vivid.

Just was thinking about- if CG does not matter, does then existence of stabilisator (tail surfaces) matter? Obviously the fin is good to have for control.
But just mix the ailerons to be flaperons and you will be fine without the tail.


I am really newcomer to aerodynamics, but my gut feeling say, that very light plane with lot of thrust (twice the weight) is flying more in a way the Extra is flying the knife edge. And wingloading is not a major player there- the thrust is. I dont know if there is a defined static margin for an aeroplane to be stable in the knife edge regime. I doubt.

Given the low weight and low wingloading it actually might be of benefit to have unstable aircraft- pilot can deal with gusts and turbulence of the air with better control response. And to have stability in this size- it will only help in calm weather or indoors.

But to really answer if CG matter- why not to compare time in the air for airplanes of the same wing area and same weight, same engine and battery, one with oldfashioned CG and other with random CG. Or maximal distance flown. Perhaps also in different weather conditions (indoors vs outdoors).


I think even small size aircraft will fly more efficiently when stable.

Zero weight does not apply to aeroplanes- definition of airoplane is that it is heavier than air. And it fly only because air has mass. Go to orbit in outher space- no gravity and no air, and no thrust from propeller.
By saying zero weight- what you really mean is to have infinite thrust to weight ratio, low weight only helps to keep things slow, otherwise there is no difference with the bigger plane (except Re number and its consequences).
This beast with rocket engine will propably be stable and controllable as long center of drag is behind the center of thrust (if such thing can be defined- it is CG normally).


Once upon a time in between sessions in the school i made a paper plane (actually during the session). It happened to be precisely balanced- i could leave it in the air (without throwing) in what ever position- nose down, nose up, side up or upside down- it always returned to perfect straight gliding flight from height of less than 3 meters. It was simply beatiful- if I only could repeat this with something bigger. The plane was propably around 1-1,5 grams heavy and had approx one square decimeter of wing area, and it was delta- aspect ratio much less than one.

Hopefully we will find the thruth about the gravity and its center.

Happy flyings.

(in reply to C Earnest)
       Post #: 162

RE: Suggestion for moderators - 6/7/2004 1:21:17 PM