Post some really dull facts and figures about aeroplanes.

[Ayahuasca]

Data was input into the Tornado GR1's computers by means of an old fashioned tape cassette.

[Ayahuasca]

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

[eccles]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

GreenV8S said:

Surely there's scope to hook some sort of adapter so the hand crank could be driven by a drill or similar?]

Nope.
Both the wind down systems on the flaps and U/C are a big f off bell crank - an electric drill wouldn't come close.

Not strictly true...... We used to use a large right angled windy drill to move the flaps up and down once the initial rigging was done as there's not much 'weight' to them, however this wasn't nearly man enough to do the undercarriage , and if you've fitted new ballscrews and shoes then it was bl**dy hard by hand!

[dr_gn]

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

[eharding]

dr_gn said:

Im all ears...

Oh God, not again.

Look, for one more bloody time - it doesn't matter how big your ears are, you're still not going to take off while running on that treadmill down at the gym. Got it?

[Ayahuasca]

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

[GreenV8S]

Ayahuasca said:

Now we believe that this is bks.

[dr_gn]

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

You mean this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UlsArvbTeo

...effect is bks?

More good explanation here:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.h...

I thought it was a combination of the above and Newton's third law?

I'm sure NavierStokes will give us the definitive answer.

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st October 13:01

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st October 14:53

[rhinochopig]

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

Indeed surely everyone knows that the top of the wing is painted in butter. As we all know, a slice of bread always falls butter side down. Thus the repulsion between the earth and the non buttered side generate lift.

The pilot has to be careful though as the plane has a tendency to flip. It is was learnt early on that by making the wheels out of cats feet, in the event of a flip, the aircraft will return to the wheel down position.

[RizzoTheRat]

At Mach 2 Concorde was over 6 inches longer than when it was stationary.

[PRTVR]

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

Sorry you failed with this post, it's not dull, it answers a question I asked a long long time ago at school, when this was been explained, how do planes fly upside down, if the shape of the wing remains the same, lift must be down from the main part of the wing, never got an answer to the question.

Phil

Edited by PRTVR on Sunday 1st November 08:45

[dr_gn]

PRTVR said:

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

Sorry you failed with this post, it's not dull, it answers a question I asked a long long time ago at school, when this was been explained, how do planes fly upside down, if the shape of the wing remains the same, lift must be down from the main part of the wing, never got an answer to the question.

Phil

Edited by PRTVR on Sunday 1st November 08:45

Simple answer - angle of attack and/or incidence.

What happens in level flight when you push the stick forward : the nose goes down. Invert the aircraft and push the stick forward and the aircraft will obviously either maintain or gain altitude. It's simply a matter of trim to fly upside down.

The efficiency of the wing when inverted will be reduced on most sections (to varying degrees depending on the what the aircraft is designed to do) apart from on the fully symmetrical secions used on aerobatic aircraft which will fly just as well inverted as upright. All you do is change the pitch trim.

[rhinochopig]

dr_gn said:

PRTVR said:

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

Sorry you failed with this post, it's not dull, it answers a question I asked a long long time ago at school, when this was been explained, how do planes fly upside down, if the shape of the wing remains the same, lift must be down from the main part of the wing, never got an answer to the question.

Phil

Edited by PRTVR on Sunday 1st November 08:45

Simple answer - angle of attack and/or incidence.

What happens in level flight when you push the stick forward : the nose goes down. Invert the aircraft and push the stick forward and the aircraft will obviously either maintain or gain altitude. It's simply a matter of trim to fly upside down.

The efficiency of the wing when inverted will be reduced on most sections (to varying degrees depending on the what the aircraft is designed to do) apart from on the fully symmetrical secions used on aerobatic aircraft which will fly just as well inverted as upright. All you do is change the pitch trim.

Simple experiment - stick flat hand out of window on moving car - tilt hand up, hand is pushed up. Tilt hand down, hand goes down.

[nc107]

RizzoTheRat said:

At Mach 2 Concorde was over 6 inches longer than when it was stationary.

it also has the same effects on your personal appendages, which is why more members of the "mile high club" did it in Concord than any other 'plane.

[MikeCR]

A Jumbo Jet uses 17 tonnes of fuel just to get air born

[rhinochopig]

MikeCR said:

A Jumbo Jet uses 17 tonnes of fuel just to get air born

Is that for European or US passengers though?

[Bosshogg76]

A taileron quadroplex actuator fails at 2.8 lines of failure, and uses a ball bearing to achieve this.

When you fill to spill a tornado gearbox, Engos will still tell you can fit more in.

A 6pm start for a 8pm Walk, will result in a slip to the right and 10pm walk to land at dinnertime. Queue much joy and happiness in the crewroom.


GR4 Tailerons will fit on an F3 and the CSAS will sort out the handling difference, until an observant linie spots the huge gap between the inboard edge and the airframe.

Edited by Bosshogg76 on Sunday 1st November 19:54

[Lefty Two Drams]

When I first flewa chipmunk (age 13) I wasn't physically strong enough to unbuckle the harness by myself. I'd have been proper fked if we had to bail out

[navier_stokes]

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

You mean this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UlsArvbTeo

...effect is bks?

More good explanation here:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.h...

I thought it was a combination of the above and Newton's third law?

I'm sure NavierStokes will give us the definitive answer.

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st October 13:01

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st October 14:53

For inviscid, incompressible, steady flow over a 2D aerofoil then Bernoulli's equation perfectly describes flow along a streamline (around the aerofoil). In these circumstances the aerofoil surface is a streamline and so you can calculate the pressures (if the velocities are known) and therefore the force (lift/drag) acting upon the aerofoil

To solve the flow around an aerofoil in this state (incompressible or not) you really need to use Euler's equations however (along with a few others). This has been the basis of numerical wing design since wing design has been done computationally (i.e. for about 4 or 5 decades). Bernoulli's equation is a 1D simplification of Euler's equations.

Obviously in reality the flow is not inviscid and steady but for high Reynolds number flight this method is pretty accurate, enough so that almost all large commercial/military planes made since the 50's (at a guess) will have had some design input from it. It is still used now in design, compared to more advanced methods because it is a hell of a lot quicker.

[dr_gn]

navier_stokes said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

dr_gn said:

Ayahuasca said:

Most of the information ever published on how an aeroplane's wing generates lift is scientifically wrong.

Im all ears...

From the Wright Bros to just recently, every book on aerodynamics talked about the Bernouli (sp) effect with the air over a curved surface (the top if the wing) moving faster than the air below it thus creating a pressure differential that pushed the wing up.

Now we believe that this is bks.

You mean this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UlsArvbTeo

...effect is bks?

More good explanation here:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.h...

I thought it was a combination of the above and Newton's third law?

I'm sure NavierStokes will give us the definitive answer.

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st October 13:01

Edited by dr_gn on Saturday 31st October 14:53

For inviscid, incompressible, steady flow over a 2D aerofoil then Bernoulli's equation perfectly describes flow along a streamline (around the aerofoil). In these circumstances the aerofoil surface is a streamline and so you can calculate the pressures (if the velocities are known) and therefore the force (lift/drag) acting upon the aerofoil

To solve the flow around an aerofoil in this state (incompressible or not) you really need to use Euler's equations however (along with a few others). This has been the basis of numerical wing design since wing design has been done computationally (i.e. for about 4 or 5 decades). Bernoulli's equation is a 1D simplification of Euler's equations.

Obviously in reality the flow is not inviscid and steady but for high Reynolds number flight this method is pretty accurate, enough so that almost all large commercial/military planes made since the 50's (at a guess) will have had some design input from it. It is still used now in design, compared to more advanced methods because it is a hell of a lot quicker.

Thank God for that - I though for a minute that every aircraft currently flying was going to fall out of the sky because someone had discovered the design equations were wrong.

Phew.