Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Aircraft Energy Question

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Aircraft Energy Question

Old 7th Oct 2010, 21:17
  #1 (permalink)  
QJB
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aircraft Energy Question

Hi guys,

I wanted to get some clarification on a few things that have been bothering me recently:

1/ I know that an efficient aircraft has a high L/D ratio. Thus thrust provided by the engine is significantly less than lift that acts upon the aircraft. However from an overall energy perspective where does the energy for lift come from. Is it that burning fuel provides a certain amount of energy, this energy is used to create a total aerodynamic reaction from the aircraft (the result of pressure and shear distribution), the total aerodynamic reaction is then resolved into two forces lift and drag. However we consider lift as not taxing the aircraft because it does not impede horizontal motion? I hope I am being clear. Surely the energy for lift has to come from somewhere!

2/ I know that work = force x distance. Therefore if I push on one side of an object with force A and move is distance B the work done will be AB. However! If someone else pushes with an equal force on the opposing side there will be no movement and thus no work done. Therefore my question is, in level flight all the forces on an aircraft are balanced, there is no net force and thus no acceleration. How is it then that the aircraft can be said to be doing work and using energy? Is this something to do with frame of reference?

Cheers

J
QJB is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 21:38
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From my simple brain.... in unaccelerated S+L flight...
2. Think of Work as Drag x Distance .. you have to do work to overcome the drag. In a space rocket in a vacuum with the engine off no work is being done?
1. Lift is related to the Kinetic Energy of the a/c which the fuel provides by overcoming drag...
TyroPicard is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 21:51
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As I understand, the work is force times distance, but force in the equation isn't really (vector) sum of all external forces acting on the object in question, but only (again, vector) sum of all active forces acting on the object. As you probably know, for every action there is an opposite reaction (3rd Newton law), thus if act on an object with an active force, the reaction force formes in the opposite direction.

So basically, if you push an aircraft with force 1 kN for 100 meters, the work done is 100 kJ, even if the forces acting on the aircraft are in equilibrium (the resultant of all external forces acting on the aircraft is zero) and the aircraft is consequently moving at a constant speed.

As for the first question, it is very simple (or very complicated, but I'd rather use the simple explanation). To gain lift (or aerodynamic reaction, whatever you call it), you need difference between pressure on the top and on the bottom of the wing (Bernoulli's theorem) and usually this is created by exposing a wing profile to an airflow. In order to create an airflow, you have two choices: either fix the aircraft and move the air with a fan (for ex. wind tunnel), either move the aircraft through a still air (which is what we want to do, since aircraft are a means of travel). So if we want to move the aircraft through still air in order to create an airflow, we must create a force, which moves the aircraft in the desired direction (let's say forward) and that force is called thrust. And to create thrust force, we need to convert fuel into rotating force and create thrust either with turbojet engine either with a propeller (you could do a PhD in thermodynamics, but for the sake of argument it's really not worth going into details how fuel is burned).

So to summarize it: converting (burning) fuel creates thrust force, which moves aircraft through still air, therefor creating airflow to which wing is exposed, hence lift force (and drag of course) is created, and the aircraft flies.
FlyingStone is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 02:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NewEngland
Age: 57
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just energy consideration

One way to look at it is what is the potential energy of the aircraft; this is mass * gravity * height above ground, or mgh. In order to get a 500 Kg glider 3000 meters in the air, 500 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 3000 m ~ 15,000,000 = 15 Mega Joule has to be expended. With a glider that has 30:1 L/D, an extra 3% has to be spent overcoming drag. Assuming a motor glider, 15.45 Mega Joules, which is 15.45 Mega Watt Seconds. One horse power is 750 watts. So with a 45 Hp engine, climb to 3000 meters should be 8 minutes. (((500 * 3 000 * 10.3) / 750) / 60) / 45 = 7.62962963. But not all 45 Hp goes to forward thrust due to prop efficiency considerations, reality is more like 25 minutes.
used2soar is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 08:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So we are considering an aircraft in straight and level (un accelerated) flight.

Looking at the problem from the aircraft's frame of refrence, we resolve the forces into vertical and horizonal components.

In the vertical direction, weight is balanced by lift but there is no vertical motion so no work is done or energy consumed in providing lift per se.

In the horizonal direction however a certain amount of drag is an inevitable consequence of generating lift. To maintain equilibrium drag must be balanced by thrust. Thrust comes from a propellor or jet which works by causing air to accelerate (i.e. it adds momentum to a mass of air). Adding momentum to air requires energy and the energy comes from burning fuel.

Last edited by Rivet gun; 8th Oct 2010 at 09:04.
Rivet gun is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 09:29
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: abu dhabi
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
try wikipedia...works wonder!!
syedo is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 11:45
  #7 (permalink)  
QJB
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thrust comes from a propellor or jet which works by causing air to accelerate (i.e. it adds momentum to a mass of air)
Ok so would this be more correct: The engine burns fuel and a percentage of the energy from this process is used by the propeller to give air momentum and as an equal and opposite reaction the aircraft moves fwd.

Theoretically with a wing of infinite span and non viscous incompressible flow there will be no drag due to there being no shear forces and pressure forces balancing out. In this way couldn't you say that lift is proportional to the energy imparted to the airflow as a consequence of the propeller.

Obviously for a real flow there is drag, but still doesn't the energy for lift still come from the engine?
QJB is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 12:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,783
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
doesn't the energy for lift still come from the engine?
Yes it does.

I think your confusion comes from thinking that because the FORCE of thrust is less than the FORCE of lift, the ENERGY put into thrust can't produce the ENERGY needed to supply lift.

Not so- to give a very simple example of a device that puts less force in than it gets out, give me a lever, a fulcrum and a place to stand......
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 14:50
  #9 (permalink)  
jtt
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if you look for the energy you can't think about the aircraft alone - it's flying throught the air and what happens to the air must also be taken into consideration. You are correct that in level, non-accelerated flight the energy of the airplane doesn't change. As you wrote the work done is the product of force times displacement. And in level, non-accelerated flight both the vertical forces (gravity and lift) as well as the horizontal forces (drag and thrust) cancel exactly (otherwise the airplane would accelerate, i.e. it would start to rise or fall or get slower or faster). And since there's no net force no work is done and the energy of the airplane remains unchanged. This doesn't depend on the reference system, in each reference frame the net force on the airplane is zero.

Things are different for the air you're flying through. The air you hit must be shoved out of the way (and to get it to start moving it must be accelerated). The air going through the engines gets accelerated, thereby generating the thrust that balances the drag. And the air flowing around the wings gets pushed downwards, producing the lift that keeps you up against gravity. Whenever something is made to move energy is needed (if you accelerate something from zero speed to a speed of v the energy required to do so is half its mass times v squared, i.e. the kinetic energy it obtains). And this is where all the chemical energy from the fuel goes to (disregarding losses) - it ends up in accelerating the air you're flying through.

The drag the airplane experiences has two components. First there's the "normal" drag (also sometimes called "profile drag") that also would be there without wings, it's due to the air getting pushed out of the way and friction with the body of the airplane. And then there's the so called "induced drag" which results from the wings pushing air downwards. Normal drag roughly increases with the square of the speed of the airplane while the induced drag drops with speed (always assuming level flight at all speeds and adjusting the AoA to maintain level flight). At low speeds the induced drag is the major contribution to the total drag, at higher speeds it's the "normal" drag. And at one speed there's a "sweet spot" where the total drag has a minimum, and that's the speed for the best L/D ratio.
jtt is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2010, 22:20
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
lift (and drag) force and energy (or power)

Originally Posted by jtt
And the air flowing around the wings gets pushed downwards, producing the lift that keeps you up against gravity. Whenever something is made to move energy is needed (if you accelerate something from zero speed to a speed of v the energy required to do so is half its mass times v squared, i.e. the kinetic energy it obtains). (...) And then there's the so called "induced drag" which results from the wings pushing air downwards.
Hi jtt, excellent explanation!

It just reminds me of an analogy that I found enlightening at the time. A parcel of air with mass m that is pushed downwards at a speed v represents a momentum of m * v, which equals its contribution to the lift force and, as you say, that requires an energy of 0,5 * m * v-squared. The power ( = energy per unit time) required to produce the lift force is "induced drag" force times the airplane velocity. That energy-per-unit-time should equal the energy required for "pushing air downwards". An equation that is not easy to solve, because the air mass involved is infinitely large, the 'induced' velocity asymptotically approaching zero with increasing distance from the airplane. However, if the induced drag corresponds to an elliptical lift distribution over the wing span, and if one crudely assumes that the "air mass" (per unit time) is that passing through a circular area normal to the free stream with a diameter equal to the wing span, and that it is pushed downwards at a uniform 'induced' velocity 'v', then it can be shown that the two energies (per unit time) are equal.

regards,
HN39

Last edited by HazelNuts39; 12th Nov 2010 at 11:58.
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 19:36
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,780
Received 106 Likes on 50 Posts
Surely the energy for lift has to come from somewhere!
QJB - if you climb onto a table - where does the energy to hold you above the floor (the "lift") come from?
Checkboard is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 20:02
  #12 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
A chair, or static system, has a focal density that stabilizes the mass.
"Air" or in the case of flight, a dynamic system, does the same thing, exactly. Newton applies.

The fact that the "Air has no shape" is irrelevant. Besides, prove that the fluid is shapeless!! There is no mystery. The aircraft creates its own support (by the combustion of fuel) in an infinitely sequential manner.

To go to the extreme, one can say without fear that the chair is not fixed, it is moving!

airbear
 
Old 9th Oct 2010, 20:24
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I know that work = force x distance
The key that you may be missing is that it's force x distance in the direction of the force.

In the case of lift, there is no movement in the direction of the lift, so no work is done.

In the case of drag, the aircraft moves in direction of the thrust, and therefore work is done by the thrust (against the drag). It's immaterial that the forces balance, you still do work when you move in the direction of the force.
bookworm is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 21:30
  #14 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hmmm.

Resisting gravity with an equal force up is not work? None of the four arrows in the classic "image" is actually straight. They are all curved, this is true regardless the genesis of the diagram. In any dynamic system, there is no "fixed" image such that the forces are all "equal". Each vector is a curve, though the motive is to portray a "snapshot". I'm disappointed the "theoretical is eliminated" in the classic portrayal of the four horsemen.

That there is no "movement" means there is no "work"? Hold your fist at arm's length for twenty minutes and say there is no effort (work) involved.

If it helps, consider walking, which is technically simply falling and catching one's fall.
A hover is only slightly challenging, but is perhaps easier to envision.

just a little devil's advocacy, as it were.
 
Old 10th Oct 2010, 01:12
  #15 (permalink)  
QJB
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now I'm even more confused haha. I think I understand JTT's explanation though. So although no work is being done on the aircraft (ie. its kinetic and potential energy remains unchanged) work is being done on the air and therefore energy from the fuel is being consumed in proportion with the rate of change of momentum.
QJB is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2010, 11:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So although no work is being done on the aircraft (ie. its kinetic and potential energy remains unchanged) work is being done on the air
It's not strictly true to say that no work is being done on the aircraft. The engine does work on the aircraft, and if thrust equals drag, the aircraft does work on the air at the same rate. Thus the energy of the aircraft doesn't change. If you were to consider the aircraft climbing instead, thrust exceeds drag and the engine does more work on the aircraft than the aircraft does on the air. Thus the aircraft gains potential energy.

and therefore energy from the fuel is being consumed in proportion with the rate of change of momentum.
Fuel is consumed in (approximate) proportion to the work the engine has to do on the aircraft in either of the above cases.
bookworm is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2010, 01:40
  #17 (permalink)  
jtt
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not strictly true to say that no work is being done on the aircraft. The engine does work on the aircraft, and if thrust equals drag, the aircraft does work on the air at the same rate. Thus the energy of the aircraft doesn't change.
When the energy of the aircraft doesn't change then no work has been done on it per definition (at least in the language of physics). And there is neither change of kinetic nor potential energy of the aircraft in level, non-accelerated flight...

I think we don't have to discuss the "normal drag", i.e. the drag that also woul be there if the aircraft wouldn't have wings. A certain amount of the thrust is required to balance this drag.

The tricky part seems to be the relation between lift and "induced drag". To get a clearer picture let's forget for a moment about moving forward and consider a (hovering) helicopter.

Or better let's start with a helicopter that sits on a supporting platform. I guess you'll agree that the platform doesn't do work on the helicopter, despite keeping it a bit above the floor. The platform exerts an upward force on the helicopter (otherwise the helicopter would succumb to gravity), but the helicopter doesn't move up or down and there is no motor or anything similar in the platform that would use energy to do any work. The legs of the platform just rest on the ground, exerting a certain force on the ground that is balanced by a contrary force from the ground. The molecules in the legs of the platform experience a force from above that is balanced by an equal force by the molecules below them. Nothing moves, so no work is done anywhere and no energy is needed.

Now remove the platform. Unless you switch the helicopters motor on it will fall down - the molecules of the air aren't tightly bound to each other, so there are no strong forces to keep them in place - they easily can get out of the way to make room for the now dropping helicopter.

What does the rotor do? It accelerates air downwards. When running at the right speed the helicopter won't climb or fall, so its potential energy doesn't change and thus no work is done on it (same as with the aircraft in level, non-accelerated flight). All the energy the motor gets from the fuel (if we don't consider thermal losses, friction in the motor etc.) goes into pushing air downwards. Due to Newton's principle that actio equals reactio the force the air experiences from the rotor (which is the mass of the air times its acceleration) is offset by an equal but opposite force on the rotor (and thereby the helicopter). If this upward force on the rotor is equal to the gravitational pull the helicopter simply hovers.

Now let's get back to an aircraft in flight. The main mental stumbling block seems to be how vertical lift translates into horizontal induced drag and vice versa. It can be bit mysterious since one hardly ever sees the air moving over the wing getting pushed down. But, on the other hand, it's an everyday experience that applying a force in horizontal direction moves something vertically - just think of a simple pulley.

With a pulley you can pull down e.g. a helium balloon by exerting a horizontal force. Of course, then there's also a force on the pulley - the vertical force that pulls down the balloon results in an equal upward force on the pulley. That force is counteracted by the mounting of the pulley.

Now mentally replace the balloon by an air mass and the pulley by the wing of an aircraft. The situation is the same - pulling down some air mass results in an upward force on the wing. Now the wing isn't fixed to some mounting that keeps it from moving up but for that we've got gravity. And, of course, we still need a horizontal force to induce the pulling, and that comes from the thrust produced by the engines. So the "induced drag" is actually nothing else than the the force needed to "pull down" the air "around a corner", redirected by the wing like a pulley does, which in turn keeps the aircraft away from terra firma.

Admittedly, pulleys don't resemble wings much;-) And, of course, the way a pulley works is a bit different from what a wing does and there's no rope to be seen or pulled on easily. I just did bring in the pulley to illustrate that it's not unheard of that a horizontal force is "turned" into an downward force, which then has some repercussions on what (pulley/wing) does the "redirection" of the force.

Now, how a wing does the pulley's job on air is a different story. And it's immaterial to the discussion about where the energy of the fuel goes to, so I won't try to go into that here. But if you want to get a feeling for what a wing actually does with the air take a spoon, go to the kitchen or bathroom, open a tab and move the backside of the spoon slowly sideways into the water stream and see what happens;-)

Regards, Jens

PS: Concerning the argument that one has to use some effort to hold up something heavy with ones arms and thus work is being done: this doesn't coincide with the definition of "work" used in physics - but then concepts in physics are somethimes a bit counterintuitive. The main problem here is that human muscles aren't meant to exert a constant force for long times. A muscle isn't a steel scaffolding, muscles are dynamical systems that can keep up a contraction only for short times. Then they automatically relax. And when one notices that they relax one has to apply a conscious effort to make them contract again (and muscles don't like that for extended times, so it starts to hurt). So in the case of holding something up one actually may do some work, but just because when the muscles relax the load drops a bit and then gets lifted up again a bit...
jtt is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2010, 02:38
  #18 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello Jens

Are we introducing the "Coanda" effect on the spoon? The wing behaves more like an inclined plane (alpha) than a NOTAR. Redirecting airflow is not much more complex than this, although it is possible to introduce more complex considerations. I appreciate your introduction of the hovering helicopter; moving air around keeps us all in business. Likewise, a simplistic view of muscle kinesiology is perhaps helpful. The far end of the discussion involves the tax on all movements, entropy. A stable or "unaccelerated" airframe in flight resists the acceleration of gravity in its simple expression. Can we call the resistance against 16ft/sec/sec work? I would. Similarly, forward motion is put in the bank. This is the interesting part of the hover. Work is being "done" on the air. The third law doesn't need name tags, it all adds up in the end.

The "four vector" diagram is wanting a fifth, where is the "lift" vector pushing down on the horizontal Stabilizer? There are others. Thanks for your comments.

rgds, bill

Last edited by bearfoil; 11th Oct 2010 at 02:49.
 
Old 11th Oct 2010, 08:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bearfoil
The far end of the discussion involves the tax on all movements, entropy.
Right, the thermal energy in the fuel ultimately ends up heating the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by bearfoil
where is the "lift" vector pushing down on the horizontal Stabilizer?
It is part of the resultant lift force generated by wing+fuselage+tail that balances the weight (and moments, but those include thrust and drag as well).

regards,
HN39

Last edited by HazelNuts39; 11th Oct 2010 at 08:42. Reason: entropy
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2010, 09:41
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool Nice question...

Second part: you mean no net accn due to gravity, stable level flight. So you have the mass of the aircraft in equilibrium with the lift of the wings. So LIFT L is balanced by mass M and gravity g.

so L=Mg

Where does the energy to enable the above to work. For most powered flight from chemical release of combustion. For a jet engine this goes SUCK SQUEEZE BURN BLOW
Thrust.

Other methods: jump of a cliff in a hang glider: gravitation potential..you worked to get up on the cliff LOL. Your legs. A tow rope. A pull from another aircraft. Rocket propulsion as in Fat Albert.

Main thing about energy is that it transfers. Never lost only traded from one sort to another.

Need to consider stress and strain on the airframe too, a bit like the fulcrum in your question.
DERG is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.