Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: FLYING MACHINES was physics of flight



At 11:01 AM 8/22/99 +0100, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
Many of us are not equipped to teach physics and engineering of
flight quantitatively.

Fluid dynamics is a tricky business, no doubt about it.

But "flying machines"; are too important to be ignored.

Agreed.

So let me outline an elementary approach which I hope is
not too dangerous (in terms of leading to misconceptions). Would
such approach be acceptable? Why not? What is a better sequence?
It is only a sketch.

1) Free fall in empty space.

OK.

Call the net force m*g a "thrust".

That's unnecessarily nonstandard terminology. m*g is conventionally called
"weight". There is something else called "thrust". See
http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/4forces.html

2) Vertical fall through air. Thrust = m*g- resist = m*g -"lift".
The terminal velocity of a parachute can be controlled by
increasing the lift force (large surface area).

Again, that is unnecessarily nonstandard terminology. An aerodynamic force
component in the same direction as the motion is called "drag". Same
reference.

3) A horizontally pushed rock, first without air resistance then
with such resistance. The concept of the range of "flying" is
familiar. The air resistance force has two components, vertical
(lift) and horizontal (drag).

OK, although your typical rock doesn't produce enough lift for steady
horizontal flight. Are you envisioning a steady horizontal push, or a
steady horizontal motion, or both, or what?

4) A horizontally pushed paper airplane. How does it differ from
a rock? The shape is different but it is still a projectile. It has
wings, stabilizer, fin, etc. They help to increase the lift and to
minimize the drag. The initial speed is no longer the only factor
by which the range can be modified. Larger wings are needed
to keep the range constant when the mass becomes larger.

The lift on the airplane is not really analogous to the drag on the rock.

5) A glider pulled by a long horizontal rope. The speed is adjusted
to make m*g = lift.

OK, good, weight=lift is characteristic of steady horizontal nonturning flight.

Stability of orientation is controlled by the
pilot

...and by the inherent stability properties of the airplane...

acting on numerous fins (ailerons, elevators, stabilizer,
etc.) Stick a hand out of the window of a moving car to experience
the effect of a relative velocity. [In a wind tunnel the craft is
often suspended while the speed of the wind is changed to
measure the air resistance forces (lift and drag).]

OK.

6) We assumed, so far, that air is at rest with respect to the ground,
there is no wind. A glider does not create wind in front of itself.

Fine.

7) The rope is disconnected from the glider. Same as in 4 above.

OK.

8) The rope is disconnected from the glider but the wind is blowing
toward the craft. The wind is deflected down by the body of the
aircraft and this produces an additional lift. This is soaring.

This is misleading. By Galileo's principle of equivalence, gliding in a
steady horizontal wind is not materially different from gliding in calm air.

There is even a possibility to increase the horizontal speed here
and to climb, or to soar in directions other than toward the wind.
Things become complicated but at least we can understand why
the elevation does not have to decrease progressively, as in 4
and 7.

Gliding in a steady horizontal wind *does* require steady descent, to pay
for drag.

8) Self-propelled airplane in steady horizontal flight. Some kind
of a thrust force is needed (instead of the rope). A propeller
pushing air backward (like water is pushed back while rowing
a boat, by spinning its paddle wheel, etc.) is added. Or a jet
engine acting as a "super-fast" machine gun firing "molecular
bullets". Things become more complicated but the basic four
forces are always the same (thrust, drag, weight and lift).

Fine.

9) A helicopter can be seen as an aircraft with spinning wings.

Yes.

The
role of its spinning blades is to produce both the lift and the
drag (pushing air down and backward).

Drag does not push the air backward. It's just the opposite: drag pushes
the *aircraft* backward.

A complication
resulting from the dependence of the relative speed on the
distance from the axis of rotation can be ignored in the
qualitative analysis.

Whatever. There are many more significant complications that are being
ignored.

10) This introductory discussion should give you some general
ideas about "flying machines". The mathematical theory of
flight is very complicated but you must know it to become a
designer of real airplanes and helicopters. Words can lead to
mathematics but they can not be used as a substitute for it.
Fortunately, even non specialists can understand general
principles of aeronautics.

OK.

======================

There's nothing wrong with this approach as far as it goes. (You can
easily repair most of the defects pointed out above.) But it leaves out
some important points. In particular, there's a pretty big difference
between lift and drag. Real wings have *amazingly* good lift-to-drag
ratios, and saying the airplane and the rock are "just projectiles" misses
the point.

Finally, this doesn't sound like a *physics* explanation. It seems to say
"the airplane flies because it flies". It offers no particular insights --
even qualitatively -- as to how the lift or drag should depend on size,
airspeed, shape, angle of attack, air density, or anything else.