RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Magazine  
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
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Aerodynamics >> RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Magazine
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 12:00:52 AM   
Siefring



Posts: 152
Joined: 10/22/2003
From: Owings, MD, USA
Status: offline
I’ve discovered the true cause of lift. It is recycled Barber Shop Poles. The general public almost figured this out in the 1930’s because of the singularity at the pole. The “pole” terminology even made it into widespread scientific use. The stealthful aeroengineers of the 30s immediately added a pitching moment to keep the public in the dark. Fortunately for us, in the picture below, the structurally reinforced pole was photographed before it was painted sky-blue. The photo also proves that condensation accounts for all angle of attack effects on lift. The nice thing about this theory is that there is no need to revert to complicated aspect-ratio/wing-tip-vortex drag models.

Carl

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


< Message edited by Siefring -- 2/21/2005 12:32:11 AM >

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 151

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 12:37:51 AM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4700
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline
Good old Kai Tak.. too bad common sense closed it...
At an airshow at EAFB some years back, the SR-71 on display hadn't been vetted for keeping -all- its secrets secret!
This one was using the Rolls-Royce JWatt Mk VI steam combustor for power...

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Sparky Paul
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff

(in reply to Siefring)
       Post #: 152

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 12:50:23 AM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2720
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline
Carl,

Your picture shows the pressure drop over the top of the wing rather nicely.

(in reply to Siefring)
       Post #: 153

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Maga... - 2/21/2005 12:56:43 AM   
BMatthews



Posts: 9015
Joined: 10/4/2002
From: Burnaby, BC, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adam_one

No, because the wings are moving through the air mass that has inertia which delays the air's downward deflection.
The wings' down force is applied to the air mass along all its lower surface not only at the TE.


I have a little trouble in believing that the inertia of the air is such that at all speeds and angles of attack it'll happily delay it's reaction showing up until it reaches the trailing edge. That's just a little too convienent to fit to all airfoils and all chords. Rather it seems like the air off the upper surface has a strong downward component of either pressure or velocity that isn't allowed to show up as downwash until it's freed of the constraint of having an airfoil in the way.

_____________________________

Witty saying to be plagarized shortly.....

(in reply to adam_one)
       Post #: 154

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Maga... - 2/21/2005 1:35:04 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline
OK one last try,

Tim, Adam-one, others - Go to

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html

and read it.

Section 3.1 talks about upwash and downwash, stagnation lines, and some more stuff.

Section 3.2 talks about Pressure Patterns Near a Wing. Good figures. I'm including a good quote -

"There is a lot we can learn from studying this figure. For one thing, we see that the front quarter or so of the wing does half of the lifting. Another thing to notice is that suction acting on the top of the wing is vastly more important than pressure acting on the bottom of the wing. "

Keep in mind that the author is using the aero short cut with the word "suction" as a pressure lower than ambient (Pressurefreestream-Pressureabovewing) and "pressure under the wing" as higher than ambient (Pressureunderwing-Pressurefreestream). This is consistent with the concept that low pressures can't "suck" , they only allow other pressures to "push"

"At this angle of attack, there is almost no high pressure on the bottom of the wing; indeed there is mostly suction there.6 The only reason the wing can support the weight of the airplane is that there is more suction on the top of the wing. (There is a tiny amount of positive pressure on the rear portion of the bottom surface, but the fact remains that suction above the wing does more than 100% of the job of lifting the airplane.)7"

"This pressure pattern would be really hard to explain in terms of bullets bouncing off the wing. Remember, the air is a fluid, as discussed in section 3.6. It has a well-defined pressure everywhere in space. When this pressure field meets the wing, it exerts a force: pressure times area equals force."

Read the whole thing from top to bottom. It will give you the a simplified but accurate picture of the lifting process.

Section 3.15 is called Momentum in the Air. The following quote fits -

"Since force is just momentum per unit time, the same process can be described by a big “closed circuit” of momentum flow. The earth transfers downward momentum to the airplane (by gravity). The airplane transfers downward momentum to the air (by pressure near the wings). The momentum is then transferred from air parcel to air parcel to air parcel. Finally the momentum is transferred back to the earth (by pressure at the surface), completing the cycle. There is no net accumulation of momentum anywhere (in long-term steady flight)."

Finally here is a summary from the article - be sure and read the whole thing.

"3.16  Summary: How a Wing Produces Lift

* The flow pattern created by a wing is the sum of the obstacle effect (which is significant only very near the wing, and is the same whether or not the wing is producing lift) plus the circulation effect (which extends for huge distances above and below the wing, and is proportional to the amount of lift, other things being equal).

* A wing is very effective at changing the speed of the air. The air above is speeded up relative to the corresponding air below. Each air parcel gets a temporary change in speed and a permanent offset in position.

* Bernoulli’s principle asserts that a given parcel of air has high velocity when it has low pressure, and vice versa.

* Below-atmospheric pressure above the wing is much more pronounced than above-atmospheric pressure below the wing.

* There is significant upwash ahead of the wing and even more downwash behind the wing.

* The front stagnation line is well below and behind the leading edge.

* The rear stagnation line is at or very near the trailing edge. The Kutta condition says the air wants to flow cleanly off the sharp trailing edge. This determines the amount of circulation.

* An airfoil does not have to be curved on top and/or flat on the bottom in order to work. A rounded leading edge is a good idea, but even a barn door will fly.

* Air passing above and below the wing does not do so in equal time. When lift is being produced, every air parcel passing above the wing wing arrives substantially early (compared to corresponding parcel below the wing) even though it has a longer path.

* Most of the air above the wing arrives early in absolute terms (compared to undisturbed air), but this is not important, and the exceptions are doubly unimportant.

* Lift is equal to circulation, times airspeed, times density, times wingspan.

* Well below the stalling angle of attack, the coefficient of lift is proportional to the angle of attack; the circulation is proportional to the coefficient of lift times the airspeed.

* Air is a fluid, not a bunch of bullets. The fluid has pressure and velocity everywhere, not just where it meets the surface of the wing.

* There is downward momentum in any air column behind the wing. There is zero momentum in any air column ahead of the wing, outboard of the trailing vortices, or aft of the starting vortex.

* Vortex lines cannot have loose ends; therefore you cannot produce lift without producing wake vortices.

* Induced drag arises when you have low speed and/or short span, because you are visiting a small amount of air and yanking it down violently, producing strong wake vortices. In contrast there is very little induced drag when you have high speed and/or long span, because you are visiting a large amount of air, pulling it down gently, producing weak wake vortices."

So this is a good read, If you are really interested in how the whole thing works with respect to wing and airplane stuff read the whole site at -

http://www.av8n.com/how/#contents

I don't know if I have the strength to draw the correct vector figure..
Tim, Adam-one, read the above site and then come back and talk. Adam-one your concepts are just all wrong. You are saying blow down on the airfoil and it will lift. Not in this universe. Honestly guys read the stuff in the site above, it will give you the start of understanding.










_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to BMatthews)
       Post #: 155

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 1:37:47 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline
Paul, I knew it had to be something like that, real jets couldn't have let it fly otherwise.


_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to Tall Paul)
       Post #: 156

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Maga... - 2/21/2005 3:55:14 AM   
Tim Green


 

Posts: 122
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Madison, OH, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ben Lanterman
I don't know if I have the strength to draw the correct vector figure..
Tim, Adam-one, read the above site and then come back and talk. Adam-one your concepts are just all wrong. You are saying blow down on the airfoil and it will lift. Not in this universe. Honestly guys read the stuff in the site above, it will give you the start of understanding.


I never said anything about blowing down on something (you suggested an airfoil) to make it rise. But I did say that the object doing the blowing down would rise. There's a tremendous difference between these two statements.

Take an air hose, and point it down. In your hand, you'll feel the hose push your hand up. That's the reaction. The action is the air going down.

Angle the airhose down 10 degrees from horizontal, and there's still a vertical upward push against your hand.

Then I stated that this is useful in modeling the effect of downwash on a wing. The airhose angled below horizintal, and the downwash along top surface of a wing, will both have an upward vertical component acting against the object causing the air to move down. For an airhose, this is the hoze nozzle itself. For a wing, it's the wing.

If an airhose causes air to move down, the air hose will react by moving up.
If a wing causes air to move down, then the wing will react by moving up.





(in reply to Ben Lanterman)
       Post #: 157

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Maga... - 2/21/2005 4:43:36 AM   
Tall Paul



Posts: 4700
Joined: 6/23/2002
From: Palmdale, CA, USA
Status: offline
Tim, the air in the hose is contained like the propellant in a rocket motor, until it leaves the hose.
There's no such containment for the air above or below the wing. It's free to move until its pressure is the same as the surrounding air.
The air over/under the wing isn't reacting the same as from the hose.. restrict the nozzle on the hose, the response to the hose increases..
I'm not sure what the equivalent analogy to flight would be.. except possibly that more speed/lift has a greater downwash, but downwash only affects the tail.
....
Thinking on this, I recall hearing of a test Boeing ran on a 707? to see if it was practical to bail out of the cabin using a door aft of the wing.
To those of us who flew in test planes this had a bit of importance..
A group of experienced skydivers were used..
The first guy did a super leap out, and ran smack into the exhaust of #2 engine... like the air coming out of a hose.. he was handled poorly by the exhaust.
The next guys dropped out directly, no heroic leaps, and weren't beaten up by the wing downwash.
When it came time to test the L-1011, we had several Boing guys on the program, who related this experience. In the #1 Tristar then, an escape tunnel was built n the forward cabin, with the exit underneath the plane, with explosive bolts holding it in place.
The drill would have been to find -your- parachute which you had adjusted to fit before takeoff in the rack, put it on, grab the pole in the middle of the escape tunnel and slide down that out the plane.
This was never tested... but over the years it was installed, it was interesting to observe the paint on it erode, as if it was used a lot... never could figure this out.
On the rest of the planes, which were destined for delivery to the customers, we had the parachute rack, and the promise the plane would be configured to make an aft cabin exit safe. Right!!!!
One of the flight members -always- put on his parachute before the plane took off.. and kept it on the whole flight.
The rest of us just hoped...

< Message edited by Tall Paul -- 2/21/2005 4:56:15 AM >


_____________________________

Sparky Paul
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff

(in reply to Tim Green)
       Post #: 158

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Maga... - 2/21/2005 5:36:06 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline

"I never said anything about blowing down on something (you suggested an airfoil) to make it rise. But I did say that the object doing the blowing down would rise. There's a tremendous difference between these two statements."

You said -

"This is the key point - this next paragraph. Be sure you understand it before you reply ...

Think of it as a physical air nozzle pointed slightly down, placed on the top of the wing right where the top of the wing changes from horizontal to slightly down, and you'll get the idea. That's where it does it's work, providing the downward action momentum vector, to which the wing reacts with an upward momentum vector. "

I apparently misunderstood the words??

"........ The airhose angled below horizintal, and the downwash along top surface of a wing, will both have an upward vertical component acting against the object causing the air to move down. For an airhose, this is the hoze nozzle itself. For a wing, it's the wing."

Ok, as Paul said the rocket nozzle analogy does not apply here the way you have presented it. But even so - you say the air is bowing along the top surface of the wing and blowing downward because the back of the wing is angled and that is producing a down force vector and one horizontal. But that force is pushing on the top of the wing!! That is pushing the wing down!!! How is that changed to a force lifting the wing?? For your model to be true it must be able to supply a force pushing up on the wing at the 25% chord location.

If your wing had the hose and nozzle glued to the upper surface and air was being blown along the top, guess what. It will increase the lift. But that is adding mass and velocity to the system. It isn't allowed in the pure wing lifting case. The air moving along the upper surface does not act like the nozzle analogy. You simply have it wrong.

Since you didn't read the other site how about looking at this image? Read the notes, straight from NASA and this site

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html





Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize



_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to Tim Green)
       Post #: 159

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 5:41:28 AM   
dick Hanson



Posts: 10192
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: slc, UT, USA
Status: offline
I guess there is some tip vortex from my 8 ounce model - how do I measure it ?
I am worried sick about this -----

_____________________________

I am watching you
Libby

(in reply to Ben Lanterman)
       Post #: 160

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 5:59:01 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline
Dick you should be, it will knock over a dust particle.

Hey I found another site for Tim. It is called Interactive Airfoil Analysis. I love it. You can click on the two blue squares and change the shape of the airfoil, goes back and forth and up and down. It will show the change in (not downwash) but pressures on the top and bottom of the airfoil.

Tim it is interesting that they consider the pressures significant in this little exercise rather than show downwash effects isn't it.

Go to -

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/

Go down to 5.6 on the right hand side index. The figure that comes up with red pressure and blue airfoil is the one you want. Move those squares. Look at the other sections as you do also.




_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to dick Hanson)
       Post #: 161

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 6:11:59 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline
I found another thing for Tim

http://www.ecs.syr.edu/centers/simfluid/red/af.html

Let it load. Then you can put in an airfoil number across the top, and click the buttons across the bottom.

It will show the airfoil, an angle of attack indicator, the pressure coeffiecients above and below and the distribution.

Some of the pressures will "suck" your fillings out.

Here is a sample run, it is great for knowing the pressures on all kinds of 4 and 5 digit naca airfoils, cool stuff.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize



_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to Ben Lanterman)
       Post #: 162

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 6:28:07 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline
There are some really interesting photos of Downwash at this site... No theory just great airplane photos.

http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/gallery/JAS_landing.jpg


_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to Ben Lanterman)
       Post #: 163

RE: Jef Raskin article on aerodynamics in Fly RC Mag... - 2/21/2005 6:48:21 AM   
Ben Lanterman



Posts: 1286
Joined: 10/27/2002
From: St. Charles, MO, USA
Status: offline
Also go to here,

http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/aero/

I used to run the computer program at McDonnell Douglas that used the Vortex Lattice Method talked about in Part 3.

This site is a little more math intensive but is very accurate. I recommend it.

So Tim and Adam-one, when you have caught up on your math and physics, come back and we can talk about the concepts you are missing.



_____________________________

Ben Lanterman

(in reply to Ben Lanterman)