Downwind turns equal disaster??
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windshear doesn't always affect you. Never been flying on one of those days when the wind direction varies? Or flown close to hills or buildings, when the wind whips around them? That's windshear. It only affects you when you aren't expecting it. And it only affects your helicopter when it causes your airspeed to reduce below translational lift speed, and you don't realise it and add extra power. The same thing happens in a downwind turn if your airspeed reduces. The two are identical.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
There was an accident in the North Sea several years ago, with a Super Puma taking off in a very strong wind, and then turning downwind - the aircraft crashed into the water, and if I'm not mistaken, one of the causes was the turn before the aircraft had sufficient airspeed.
Consider if you are maintaining 60 KIAS directly into a 60 Knot wind - obviously, you have no groundspeed. Now you want to turn to go downwind. Anybody done it? What happens?
Consider if you are maintaining 60 KIAS directly into a 60 Knot wind - obviously, you have no groundspeed. Now you want to turn to go downwind. Anybody done it? What happens?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirley:
You are correct, wind shear will affect airspeed.
And the exact same effect of wind shear will be encountered whether you are turning down wind or up wind or cross wind or any combination thereof.
A suggestion for those of you who think turning downwind is dangerous if you maintain airspeed.....always fly into wind, that way you will get to see more places.
Oh by the way anyone here have any opinions on the flat earth theory ?
Chuck
You are correct, wind shear will affect airspeed.
And the exact same effect of wind shear will be encountered whether you are turning down wind or up wind or cross wind or any combination thereof.
A suggestion for those of you who think turning downwind is dangerous if you maintain airspeed.....always fly into wind, that way you will get to see more places.
Oh by the way anyone here have any opinions on the flat earth theory ?
Chuck
Shawn; yes, as I wrote earlier in this thread.
Wessex HC2, to get out of a glen in Scotland, to avoid flying backwards for about 2 miles.
Parameters were as earlier stated; IAS 60kts, gnd sp was about 10-15kts backwards. so w/v about 70-75kts. ht about 150ft.(low cloud)
Straight glen, no bends. It was clear-we had just flown up it (very slowly!)
briefed what to expect visually. Came to relative hover (75kts IAS). Turned very very slowly. Allowed d/w drift to accelerate very very quickly. Power came in to maintain ht as came to free air hover going d/w at 75kt g/s. Then accelerated to get a bit of air speed for comfort.
Wessex HC2, to get out of a glen in Scotland, to avoid flying backwards for about 2 miles.
Parameters were as earlier stated; IAS 60kts, gnd sp was about 10-15kts backwards. so w/v about 70-75kts. ht about 150ft.(low cloud)
Straight glen, no bends. It was clear-we had just flown up it (very slowly!)
briefed what to expect visually. Came to relative hover (75kts IAS). Turned very very slowly. Allowed d/w drift to accelerate very very quickly. Power came in to maintain ht as came to free air hover going d/w at 75kt g/s. Then accelerated to get a bit of air speed for comfort.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!! We have really got ourselves wrapped around the axel on this!!
Some points to recap:
1) A steady wind from any direction does not change the aircraft's performance in any way, no matter how you turn.
The aircraft is immersed in a fluid, and as long as its conditions are not changed with respect to that fluid, it will perform identically regardless of its direction in that fluid. The aircraft cannot tell what direction the wind is coming from, let alone change its climb performance as a result.
Shawn, when you told the wive's tale about the takeoff crosswind turn causing a loss of altitude, you fool yourself, and mislead everyone else. Same with the Super Puma accident. If the CAA decided a downwind turn is the cause of that accident, it says how little that particular examiner knows about aircraft performance!
2) If the wind has shear and gusts, this will affect the performance. Gusts and shear are not the same as turning the aircraft, they are examples of how the fluid can impart forces on the aircraft that support it. That is called lift, guys. If the velocity with respect to the fliud changes, the lift changes.
3) There might be way too much talk around here, and too little actual flying! Will someone please just take a flying machine out and turn it while trimmed at a steady altitude and speed?
4) The amount of phoney theoretical energy in "downwind turn is both measureable and large, and will show up if any of us would simply try it. The theoretical altitude loss cannot be hidden in a slow turn, it is not a small amount that gets buried in pilot technique.
In a 30 knot wind, there is a 60 knot speed difference between upwind and downwind(if you turn in a 30 knot wind while going at 120 knots, your groundspeed goes from 90 knots to 150 knots.) The difference in phoney energy, if you misapply Newton, is about 634 feet of altitude loss for an aircraft. Try the turn, trimmed, and see if there is ANY altitude loss or gain.
Some points to recap:
1) A steady wind from any direction does not change the aircraft's performance in any way, no matter how you turn.
The aircraft is immersed in a fluid, and as long as its conditions are not changed with respect to that fluid, it will perform identically regardless of its direction in that fluid. The aircraft cannot tell what direction the wind is coming from, let alone change its climb performance as a result.
Shawn, when you told the wive's tale about the takeoff crosswind turn causing a loss of altitude, you fool yourself, and mislead everyone else. Same with the Super Puma accident. If the CAA decided a downwind turn is the cause of that accident, it says how little that particular examiner knows about aircraft performance!
2) If the wind has shear and gusts, this will affect the performance. Gusts and shear are not the same as turning the aircraft, they are examples of how the fluid can impart forces on the aircraft that support it. That is called lift, guys. If the velocity with respect to the fliud changes, the lift changes.
3) There might be way too much talk around here, and too little actual flying! Will someone please just take a flying machine out and turn it while trimmed at a steady altitude and speed?
4) The amount of phoney theoretical energy in "downwind turn is both measureable and large, and will show up if any of us would simply try it. The theoretical altitude loss cannot be hidden in a slow turn, it is not a small amount that gets buried in pilot technique.
In a 30 knot wind, there is a 60 knot speed difference between upwind and downwind(if you turn in a 30 knot wind while going at 120 knots, your groundspeed goes from 90 knots to 150 knots.) The difference in phoney energy, if you misapply Newton, is about 634 feet of altitude loss for an aircraft. Try the turn, trimmed, and see if there is ANY altitude loss or gain.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really like these debates, they sharpen all of us. I think there is lots of good knowledge, out there, just some shakey Physics!
Maybe wanking affects more than vision??
Maybe wanking affects more than vision??
Sayeth Shawn:
Unless I'm mistaken (and that certainly could be the case), my understanding of that crash was this:
Puma, at night/strong wind/low weather, going from one platform/rig to another directly behind. The crew took off, did the 180 successfully, but as they came screaming by the intended platform on the downwind at low altitude, the PF who was obviously looking outside at the rig and not at the ASI, decelerated causing what is believed to be the dreaded vortex ring state at which point they impacted the water.
At least, that's how I remember it.
I think Overpitched gets confused because wind is seldom completely steady like out over water. Gusts/up/downdrafts add to and detract from performance.
There was an accident in the North Sea several years ago, with a Super Puma taking off in a very strong wind, and then turning downwind - the aircraft crashed into the water, and if I'm not mistaken, one of the causes was the turn before the aircraft had sufficient airspeed.
Puma, at night/strong wind/low weather, going from one platform/rig to another directly behind. The crew took off, did the 180 successfully, but as they came screaming by the intended platform on the downwind at low altitude, the PF who was obviously looking outside at the rig and not at the ASI, decelerated causing what is believed to be the dreaded vortex ring state at which point they impacted the water.
At least, that's how I remember it.
I think Overpitched gets confused because wind is seldom completely steady like out over water. Gusts/up/downdrafts add to and detract from performance.
Overpitched
O.K. One last go (well maybe not the last!)
Imagine being a passenger in a hot air balloon. The balloon, once it has been launched and has stablised, will be travelling along with the wind. It will be travelling at the same speed and direction as the wind. When you stick your hand out of the basket, you feel no wind, none, yet you are travelling along across the ground.
Now just imagine the balloon has a really really big basket, big enough for you to go for a run round a circular running track. Set off at 20kts, you will feel a 20kt breeze on your face. Do you honestly believe that you will feel a different speed breeze on your face as you turn 'down wind'?
TeeS
O.K. One last go (well maybe not the last!)
Imagine being a passenger in a hot air balloon. The balloon, once it has been launched and has stablised, will be travelling along with the wind. It will be travelling at the same speed and direction as the wind. When you stick your hand out of the basket, you feel no wind, none, yet you are travelling along across the ground.
Now just imagine the balloon has a really really big basket, big enough for you to go for a run round a circular running track. Set off at 20kts, you will feel a 20kt breeze on your face. Do you honestly believe that you will feel a different speed breeze on your face as you turn 'down wind'?
TeeS
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TeeS :
Brilliant.
And if the earth were flat the balloon would ride the wind to infinity and beyond.
Nick :
Wanking has only a temporary affect on vision and just for a few seconds, I have been doing it for decades with no change in my vision at all. ( except for a few seconds. )
Brilliant.
And if the earth were flat the balloon would ride the wind to infinity and beyond.
Nick :
Wanking has only a temporary affect on vision and just for a few seconds, I have been doing it for decades with no change in my vision at all. ( except for a few seconds. )
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick...
So how does disymetry of lift and retreating blade stall fit into all this ?? If a plane can't tell its turning downwind why does the blade have less lift on the retreating(downwind) side ??
Your point about conducting the experiment in flight is valid obviously but there may be reasons why the changes are not detectable to the pilot. I might find myself right where Aristotle did. Good experiments wrong answer.
So if we are not operating according to Newtons first law
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
I would like to know under which law we are operating just for my own benefit and interest.
TeeS
I understand what you are saying but it's not relevant as the balloon has no airspeed. The balloon and the wind have the same relative motion... unlike a moving helicopter or a plane that are moving relative to the wind not floating along with. Now give your balloon 20 knots of airspeed and run around inside it. Tell me you won't notice a difference running into the wind or downwind.
Whirly...
Thanks for the ideas but I don't think you have it clear in your own head. You seemed to be contradicting yourself( as a lot of people seem to have so far in this discussion ) or was that the other whirly sitting on the other side of the fence.
So how does disymetry of lift and retreating blade stall fit into all this ?? If a plane can't tell its turning downwind why does the blade have less lift on the retreating(downwind) side ??
Your point about conducting the experiment in flight is valid obviously but there may be reasons why the changes are not detectable to the pilot. I might find myself right where Aristotle did. Good experiments wrong answer.
So if we are not operating according to Newtons first law
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
I would like to know under which law we are operating just for my own benefit and interest.
TeeS
I understand what you are saying but it's not relevant as the balloon has no airspeed. The balloon and the wind have the same relative motion... unlike a moving helicopter or a plane that are moving relative to the wind not floating along with. Now give your balloon 20 knots of airspeed and run around inside it. Tell me you won't notice a difference running into the wind or downwind.
Whirly...
Thanks for the ideas but I don't think you have it clear in your own head. You seemed to be contradicting yourself( as a lot of people seem to have so far in this discussion ) or was that the other whirly sitting on the other side of the fence.
Last edited by overpitched; 25th Feb 2004 at 05:09.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overpitched:
1) The lift on the blades is equal. That is why you don't roll upside down.
2) Newton had it right, of course! You can't apply his laws selectively. As you have stated, the first law does nicely. In a downwind turn, there is no disturbing force on the aircraft (other than its tilted lift vector). The "wind" exerts no force on the aircraft, and so the aircraft sees no acceleration in any direction. Draw a free body diagram of the aircraft in flight, see the lift, drag, weight, thrust. Where is the wind??
Aristotle tried to answer this and was quite wrong (in fact, Galileo had to refute Aristotle, and was pounded for trying!).
The downwind does not make you fall, and the boat going upstream needs no more power (someone posted that a while back!!)
This is complex stuff, and can't easily be transmitted in printed word. Needs at least 3 beers and 2 fully articulated wrists to explain most of this. Lets get some, OK?
1) The lift on the blades is equal. That is why you don't roll upside down.
2) Newton had it right, of course! You can't apply his laws selectively. As you have stated, the first law does nicely. In a downwind turn, there is no disturbing force on the aircraft (other than its tilted lift vector). The "wind" exerts no force on the aircraft, and so the aircraft sees no acceleration in any direction. Draw a free body diagram of the aircraft in flight, see the lift, drag, weight, thrust. Where is the wind??
Aristotle tried to answer this and was quite wrong (in fact, Galileo had to refute Aristotle, and was pounded for trying!).
The downwind does not make you fall, and the boat going upstream needs no more power (someone posted that a while back!!)
This is complex stuff, and can't easily be transmitted in printed word. Needs at least 3 beers and 2 fully articulated wrists to explain most of this. Lets get some, OK?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
thank you nick, it sure gets frustrating reading some of these posts and makes you wonder what goes on in helicopter theory classes.
there are also a few flying instructors around that have such a distorted view of helicopter aerodynamics and physics that they don't give a lot of the greener pilots a proper perspective of the helicopters true capabilities. this fact is demonstrated in this forum by the majority of aerodynamic questions asked by licenced pilots (?) and a lot of the answers put forward.
hey, i certainly don't mean any disrespect to any one and it does take some experience to understand that a helicopter will do anything you ask of it as long as you keep within the performance limits imposed on it.
basic questions get asked and should be answered basically but most times they get muddied and go off at a tangent distorting the original question making it pretty impossible for the questioner to fathom. it's not rocket science, helicopters work aerodynamically today exactly the same way they did when they were invented.
i will add that when i did my training all those years ago we did practical training and very little theory, what theory i did do was more operational stuff, air law etc. i learnt the theory much later.
i would have thought that by today that the game would have been lifted.
there are also a few flying instructors around that have such a distorted view of helicopter aerodynamics and physics that they don't give a lot of the greener pilots a proper perspective of the helicopters true capabilities. this fact is demonstrated in this forum by the majority of aerodynamic questions asked by licenced pilots (?) and a lot of the answers put forward.
hey, i certainly don't mean any disrespect to any one and it does take some experience to understand that a helicopter will do anything you ask of it as long as you keep within the performance limits imposed on it.
basic questions get asked and should be answered basically but most times they get muddied and go off at a tangent distorting the original question making it pretty impossible for the questioner to fathom. it's not rocket science, helicopters work aerodynamically today exactly the same way they did when they were invented.
i will add that when i did my training all those years ago we did practical training and very little theory, what theory i did do was more operational stuff, air law etc. i learnt the theory much later.
i would have thought that by today that the game would have been lifted.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry whirly I wasn't trying to give you a hard time its just that you said......
Windshear doesn't always affect you. Never been flying on one of those days when the wind direction varies? Or flown close to hills or buildings, when the wind whips around them? That's windshear. It only affects you when you aren't expecting it. And it only affects your helicopter when it causes your airspeed to reduce below translational lift speed, and you don't realise it and add extra power. The same thing happens in a downwind turn if your airspeed reduces. The two are identical.
You seem to be saying that the laws of motion only apply to you under certain conditions. Now I agree that you may only be able to feel them under certain conditions but if they apply, they apply
Imabell
What are you saying... Snell didn't teach me proper
Windshear doesn't always affect you. Never been flying on one of those days when the wind direction varies? Or flown close to hills or buildings, when the wind whips around them? That's windshear. It only affects you when you aren't expecting it. And it only affects your helicopter when it causes your airspeed to reduce below translational lift speed, and you don't realise it and add extra power. The same thing happens in a downwind turn if your airspeed reduces. The two are identical.
You seem to be saying that the laws of motion only apply to you under certain conditions. Now I agree that you may only be able to feel them under certain conditions but if they apply, they apply
Imabell
What are you saying... Snell didn't teach me proper
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Overpitched,
If you are flying in an unaccelerated mass of air (unaccelerated means it is not changing velocity), it doesn't matter what the speed of the air is. The helicopter (or bird, or balloon) will not know or be affected by the speed of the airmass. Airspeed is airspeed - if you fly 50 KT airspeed surrounded by a 50 KT southbound airmass, the helicopter will not handle, respond, or perform any differently than if the airmass was not moving. The only way you would know if the airmass was moving would be by looking at a ground reference (or a GPS). Turning downwind has no meaning under these circumstances - there is no "downwind" in a constantly-moving mass of air unless you choose to reference it to the ground.
Ride in a hot-air balloon and you'll decide that maybe the air isn't moving at all, in fact the Earth is turning and the air is still. IT DOESN"T MATTER, until you are trying to fly consistent GROUNDSPEED instead of airspeed.
Inertia only rears its head if the airmass accelerates (changes speed or direction), i.e., wind shear, thermals, wind gusts, downdrafts, etc. That WILL affect performance no matter what maneuver you may be performing at the time. If you are turning downwind and the wind suddenly increases, the inertia of the helicopter initially resists the acceleration, so there is a brief decrease in airspeed (the lighter the aircraft, the briefer the change). This is a result of a CHANGE in the air's speed - if the air's speed remains constant, their is no such inertial effect.
OK, now on to the theory of quantum strings....
If you are flying in an unaccelerated mass of air (unaccelerated means it is not changing velocity), it doesn't matter what the speed of the air is. The helicopter (or bird, or balloon) will not know or be affected by the speed of the airmass. Airspeed is airspeed - if you fly 50 KT airspeed surrounded by a 50 KT southbound airmass, the helicopter will not handle, respond, or perform any differently than if the airmass was not moving. The only way you would know if the airmass was moving would be by looking at a ground reference (or a GPS). Turning downwind has no meaning under these circumstances - there is no "downwind" in a constantly-moving mass of air unless you choose to reference it to the ground.
Ride in a hot-air balloon and you'll decide that maybe the air isn't moving at all, in fact the Earth is turning and the air is still. IT DOESN"T MATTER, until you are trying to fly consistent GROUNDSPEED instead of airspeed.
Inertia only rears its head if the airmass accelerates (changes speed or direction), i.e., wind shear, thermals, wind gusts, downdrafts, etc. That WILL affect performance no matter what maneuver you may be performing at the time. If you are turning downwind and the wind suddenly increases, the inertia of the helicopter initially resists the acceleration, so there is a brief decrease in airspeed (the lighter the aircraft, the briefer the change). This is a result of a CHANGE in the air's speed - if the air's speed remains constant, their is no such inertial effect.
OK, now on to the theory of quantum strings....
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, If nothing else you have made me do some study... Good thing I have a couple of days off.
You said..
The aircraft is immersed in a fluid, and as long as its conditions are not changed with respect to that fluid, it will perform identically regardless of its direction in that fluid.
Now if Velocity is a vector quantity which refers to "the rate at which an object changes its position." The air has one velocity and the aircraft has another eg. air- 50 knots from the north aircraft-100 knots(gps) to the north... differential 150knots relative(airspeed) & if
Acceleration is a vector quantity which is defined as "the rate at which an object changes its velocity." The aircraft turns and tracks south the difference in relative motion is now 50 knots so at least 1 of 2 things must happen, either the airspeed reduces or the aircraft accelerates to 200 knots(GPS).
Back to Newtons first law
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Therefore if the airspeed stays constant and the thrust stays constant the acceleration of the aircraft would come from an unbalanced force which must be the reduction of Air Resistance Force.
Newtons second law
The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
Air Resistance Force
Fair
The air resistance is a special type of frictional force which acts upon objects as they travel through the air. Like all frictional forces, the force of air resistance always opposes the motion of the object. This force will frequently be neglected due to its negligible magnitude. It is most noticeable for objects which travel at high speeds (e.g., a skydiver or a downhill skier) or for objects with large surface areas.
Flingwing If as you say
it doesn't matter what the speed of the air is. The helicopter (or bird, or balloon) will not know or be affected by the speed of the airmass. Airspeed is airspeed - if you fly 50 KT airspeed surrounded by a 50 KT southbound airmass, the helicopter will not handle, respond, or perform any differently than if the airmass was not moving.
Why is inertia only important if the velocity of the air changes... surely if ANYTHING changes you have changed the relative velocity between the aircraft and the air.
you also say
Airspeed is airspeed - if you fly 50 KT airspeed surrounded by a 50 KT southbound airmass, the helicopter will not handle, respond, or perform any differently than if the airmass was not moving.
And you are right... but that is not ALL we are talking about we are talking about going from travelling 50 kt in one direction to travelling 50 kt in the other direction. Assuming that aircraft performance, lift or aerodynamics are not affected by compass heading it makes no difference to the laws of physics whether you encounter a tailwind of 50 kt by turning the aircraft or by turning the wind (windshear) accept for the time spent in the turn.
You said..
The aircraft is immersed in a fluid, and as long as its conditions are not changed with respect to that fluid, it will perform identically regardless of its direction in that fluid.
Now if Velocity is a vector quantity which refers to "the rate at which an object changes its position." The air has one velocity and the aircraft has another eg. air- 50 knots from the north aircraft-100 knots(gps) to the north... differential 150knots relative(airspeed) & if
Acceleration is a vector quantity which is defined as "the rate at which an object changes its velocity." The aircraft turns and tracks south the difference in relative motion is now 50 knots so at least 1 of 2 things must happen, either the airspeed reduces or the aircraft accelerates to 200 knots(GPS).
Back to Newtons first law
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Therefore if the airspeed stays constant and the thrust stays constant the acceleration of the aircraft would come from an unbalanced force which must be the reduction of Air Resistance Force.
Newtons second law
The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
Air Resistance Force
Fair
The air resistance is a special type of frictional force which acts upon objects as they travel through the air. Like all frictional forces, the force of air resistance always opposes the motion of the object. This force will frequently be neglected due to its negligible magnitude. It is most noticeable for objects which travel at high speeds (e.g., a skydiver or a downhill skier) or for objects with large surface areas.
Flingwing If as you say
it doesn't matter what the speed of the air is. The helicopter (or bird, or balloon) will not know or be affected by the speed of the airmass. Airspeed is airspeed - if you fly 50 KT airspeed surrounded by a 50 KT southbound airmass, the helicopter will not handle, respond, or perform any differently than if the airmass was not moving.
Why is inertia only important if the velocity of the air changes... surely if ANYTHING changes you have changed the relative velocity between the aircraft and the air.
you also say
Airspeed is airspeed - if you fly 50 KT airspeed surrounded by a 50 KT southbound airmass, the helicopter will not handle, respond, or perform any differently than if the airmass was not moving.
And you are right... but that is not ALL we are talking about we are talking about going from travelling 50 kt in one direction to travelling 50 kt in the other direction. Assuming that aircraft performance, lift or aerodynamics are not affected by compass heading it makes no difference to the laws of physics whether you encounter a tailwind of 50 kt by turning the aircraft or by turning the wind (windshear) accept for the time spent in the turn.
Last edited by overpitched; 25th Feb 2004 at 10:13.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overpitched,
The place you have to work on in your logic is that you are still feet flat on the ground, looking at the aircraft in wind, and seeing this wind as some kind of force on the aircraft. This is fundamentally flawed. AS the wings and rotors see it, the air is just there, all around, and its relative motion is caused by the engine. The wind is useless as a force generator once the aircraft has lifted off the earth. Please try not to see the wind as pushing on the aircraft, it does not.
Ask this question: If I tried to fly a stringless kite, how might it fly? Unless the string is tied to the earth, the kite simply flutters down, as it has no airspeed.
The place you have to work on in your logic is that you are still feet flat on the ground, looking at the aircraft in wind, and seeing this wind as some kind of force on the aircraft. This is fundamentally flawed. AS the wings and rotors see it, the air is just there, all around, and its relative motion is caused by the engine. The wind is useless as a force generator once the aircraft has lifted off the earth. Please try not to see the wind as pushing on the aircraft, it does not.
Ask this question: If I tried to fly a stringless kite, how might it fly? Unless the string is tied to the earth, the kite simply flutters down, as it has no airspeed.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In nil wind if I was flying thru the sky(space) heading south at 100 knots in a 206 at 1400 kg my momentum would be M X V = 140,000 kt/kg
Add a 50 kt tailwind I'm now flying thru the sky at 150 knots in a 206 at 1400 kg my momentum is 210,000kt/kg
The practical application from the pilots point of view is that in both cases he is doing 100kias. From a physics point of view the momentum of the aircraft would increase turning downwind & decrease when turning upwind and that can only be caused in this case by accelleration. Which means unballanced forces.
If the wind was not a force that acts on an aircraft to either assist it or hinder it then navigation would be a hell of a lot easier.
Nick.. The problem I'm having seeing it from your point of view is you seem to be treating the aircraft as if it has no motion relative to the air.
If you pick a fixed spot in the air say a hot air balloon floating with the wind. wind is 50 knots from the north so the balloon is heading south at 50 knots. Agreed ?
I'm in a 206 heading north but at 100 kias. I decide to fly around the balloon and head back south. To maintain a constant speed relative to the balloon all I have to do is fly in at 100kias and back out at 100kias simple
But what I have done with regard to the laws of motion is fly in at 50 knots accelerate and fly out at 150 knots. As I haven't changed power or attitude the force that provides the acceleration can only have come from the wind.
Add a 50 kt tailwind I'm now flying thru the sky at 150 knots in a 206 at 1400 kg my momentum is 210,000kt/kg
The practical application from the pilots point of view is that in both cases he is doing 100kias. From a physics point of view the momentum of the aircraft would increase turning downwind & decrease when turning upwind and that can only be caused in this case by accelleration. Which means unballanced forces.
If the wind was not a force that acts on an aircraft to either assist it or hinder it then navigation would be a hell of a lot easier.
Nick.. The problem I'm having seeing it from your point of view is you seem to be treating the aircraft as if it has no motion relative to the air.
If you pick a fixed spot in the air say a hot air balloon floating with the wind. wind is 50 knots from the north so the balloon is heading south at 50 knots. Agreed ?
I'm in a 206 heading north but at 100 kias. I decide to fly around the balloon and head back south. To maintain a constant speed relative to the balloon all I have to do is fly in at 100kias and back out at 100kias simple
But what I have done with regard to the laws of motion is fly in at 50 knots accelerate and fly out at 150 knots. As I haven't changed power or attitude the force that provides the acceleration can only have come from the wind.
Last edited by overpitched; 25th Feb 2004 at 14:01.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just using a speed reference that we are all familiar with. It wouldn't matter what fixed point anywhere you used in that instance the nett difference in momentum would be 70,000kt/kg and its the nett change in momentum that concerns us here