The Physics of Flying
11-25-2012 | 10:50 PM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: The Physics of Flying
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no "Team Futaba" shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no "Team Futaba" shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
11-26-2012 | 12:36 AM
#28
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Houston, TX
RE: The Physics of Flying
Does castor oil have anything to do with it? Well, yes it does, see how the physicists squeak when they don't get enough!
Actually, I wish to add another very good source of information. This is about full scale, but the physics are the same. Very helpful to me.
http://www.av8n.com/how/
Bedford
Actually, I wish to add another very good source of information. This is about full scale, but the physics are the same. Very helpful to me.
http://www.av8n.com/how/
Bedford
11-26-2012 | 01:02 AM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: The Physics of Flying
Do the classic aerodynamics physics account for the fact that you can not scale down gravity, air molecules or time with miniature airplanes...?
Those books still say that deltas need special airfoils with reflex to fly level....
Those books still say that deltas need special airfoils with reflex to fly level....
11-26-2012 | 06:36 AM
#30
My Feedback: (11)
RE: The Physics of Flying
If you are trying to understand it at the mathematical level:
anyone who starts out with F=MA stay clear, they will bore you with their highschool physics and mislead you with ignorance. Not saying f=ma is wrong, but its way way too simplified to even come close.
You will need a solid understanding of differential equations which requires strong algebraic and calculus skills. Any other way is hand waiving and not a real solid understanding of anything.
anyone who starts out with F=MA stay clear, they will bore you with their highschool physics and mislead you with ignorance. Not saying f=ma is wrong, but its way way too simplified to even come close.
You will need a solid understanding of differential equations which requires strong algebraic and calculus skills. Any other way is hand waiving and not a real solid understanding of anything.
11-26-2012 | 06:46 AM
#31
RE: The Physics of Flying
Whichever direction the Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is. 
Spend 4 years there. Whatever you do do not take seriously any information from the myriad of "experts" in any hobby forum. 
Spend 4 years there. Whatever you do do not take seriously any information from the myriad of "experts" in any hobby forum.
11-26-2012 | 06:48 AM
#32
My Feedback: (11)
RE: The Physics of Flying
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
Whichever direction the Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is. [img][/img] Spend 4 years there. Whatever you do do not take seriously any information from the myriad of ''experts'' in any hobby forum. [img][/img]
Whichever direction the Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is. [img][/img] Spend 4 years there. Whatever you do do not take seriously any information from the myriad of ''experts'' in any hobby forum. [img][/img]
11-26-2012 | 06:51 AM
#33
Junior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Germantown,
TN
RE: The Physics of Flying
ORIGINAL: Steve Steinbring
You can stall an airplane at any attitude, at any airspeed, when you exceed L/D max which is the lift to drag ratio!
You can stall an airplane at any attitude, at any airspeed, when you exceed L/D max which is the lift to drag ratio!
<br type="_moz" />
11-26-2012 | 07:03 AM
#34
Senior Member
RE: The Physics of Flying
ORIGINAL: Old Fart
If you're just beginning,and a bit nervous,it could mean whats IN the seat of your pants..that don't smell much like castor oil
If you're just beginning,and a bit nervous,it could mean whats IN the seat of your pants..that don't smell much like castor oil
Jeesh, a guy asks a perfectly askable question and some ofthe answers discuss the physics of loaded diapers. AMAZING....some folks have entirely too much time on their hands
11-26-2012 | 07:05 AM
#35
RE: The Physics of Flying
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no "Team Futaba" shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no "Team Futaba" shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
But I do agree that aerodynamic schooling can only get one part of the answer - practical experience gives the rest and that is where the ART comes in. But don't mistake ART in one area (speed or power) as having complete practical knowledge of flying.
11-26-2012 | 08:34 AM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: The Physics of Flying
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
Speed and power are NOT complete aerodynamics. The F-104G had razor sharp wings and a big engine that allowed it to ''fly'' very fast. But ''fly'' it did not. It was fondly called the ''missle with man in it'' because if it lost power it dropped like a rock. Flying is the art (yes, art) of getting a 750,000 pound airplane off the ground with only 250,000 pounds of thrust. That is aerodynamics.
But I do agree that aerodynamic schooling can only get one part of the answer - practical experience gives the rest and that is where the ART comes in. But don't mistake ART in one area (speed or power) as having complete practical knowledge of flying.
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no ''Team Futaba'' shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no ''Team Futaba'' shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
But I do agree that aerodynamic schooling can only get one part of the answer - practical experience gives the rest and that is where the ART comes in. But don't mistake ART in one area (speed or power) as having complete practical knowledge of flying.
I'll make you the same offer, a simple speed contest with a limited power source. It's a nice, simple opportunity to demonstrate how a classically trained aerodynamicist should be able to blow the doors off some bumpkin who got his knowledge off the back of a Wheaties box.
Don't you think so..?
11-26-2012 | 09:04 AM
#37
RE: The Physics of Flying
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
I wouldn't dare challenge an aerodynamicist to a payload competition. Of course as modelers, that's the exact sort of airplane that most of us choose not to either build or fly.
I'll make you the same offer, a simple speed contest with a limited power source. It's a nice, simple opportunity to demonstrate how a classically trained aerodynamicist should be able to blow the doors off some bumpkin who got his knowledge off the back of a Wheaties box.
Don't you think so..?
ORIGINAL: rgburrill
Speed and power are NOT complete aerodynamics. The F-104G had razor sharp wings and a big enginethat allowed it to ''fly'' very fast. But ''fly'' it did not. It was fondly called the ''missle with man in it'' because if it lost power it dropped like a rock. Flying is the art (yes, art) of getting a 750,000 pound airplane off the ground with only 250,000 pounds of thrust. That is aerodynamics.
But I do agree that aerodynamic schooling can only get one part of the answer - practical experience gives the rest and that is where the ART comes in. But don't mistake ART in one area (speed or power) as having complete practical knowledge of flying.
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no ''Team Futaba'' shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
This thread is about aerodynamic schooling. I challenged it's merits in terms of both time expended and also in terms of practical, real world application.
A speed contest between two .061 [1cc] powered planes is the purest, most basic form of practical knowledge applied...NO...?
There is only the stop watch, the doppler recordings and the onboard telemetry to dispute....no judges, no politics, no white loafers and no ''Team Futaba'' shirts.
If 1cc is too small for you, then we could shift up to 6.5 cc [.40] size. That would UP the ante though.
But I do agree that aerodynamic schooling can only get one part of the answer - practical experience gives the rest and that is where the ART comes in. But don't mistake ART in one area (speed or power) as having complete practical knowledge of flying.
I'll make you the same offer, a simple speed contest with a limited power source. It's a nice, simple opportunity to demonstrate how a classically trained aerodynamicist should be able to blow the doors off some bumpkin who got his knowledge off the back of a Wheaties box.
Don't you think so..?
