Negative angle of attack
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Prague
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negative angle of attack
Is it possible to achieve flying at negative angle of attack? Let's skip the part where it would be more like fall than a flight.
Sure in theory it is not a problem. I have airfoil, I put it into a wind tunnel and I can have any aoa I want.
But in reality? Let's asume I have normal real aircraft with some normal angle of incidence. My point is that even if I nose dive the flight path vector will be always "under" the airflow. I can imagine reaching negative alpha during the pushing. For a while but once I fly down it gets and stay possitive.
Even if I look at aoa indicators they have mostly only possitive values and books or so show you lift coeficient curve but I have not seen anything which shows how alpha changes in real flight.
I know it may look simple or ridiculous but I'm really not sure.
Sure in theory it is not a problem. I have airfoil, I put it into a wind tunnel and I can have any aoa I want.
But in reality? Let's asume I have normal real aircraft with some normal angle of incidence. My point is that even if I nose dive the flight path vector will be always "under" the airflow. I can imagine reaching negative alpha during the pushing. For a while but once I fly down it gets and stay possitive.
Even if I look at aoa indicators they have mostly only possitive values and books or so show you lift coeficient curve but I have not seen anything which shows how alpha changes in real flight.
I know it may look simple or ridiculous but I'm really not sure.
Moderator
I know it may look simple or ridiculous but I'm really not sure.
Not at all - the only silly questions are those we don't ask when we don't know the answer ...
Consider an aerobatic aircraft flying upside down in level flight - the wing sees a "negative" angle of attack. The forces are similar for both cases (positive and negative AoA) albeit that the fuselage attitude will differ, depending on the wing rigging incidence.
Often, the text books tend to show only the positive CL curves but you can find graphics for a wider AoA range. For instance,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...ft-coefficient
(you need to scroll down a bit and there is a useful graphic on the RHS of the page).
Not at all - the only silly questions are those we don't ask when we don't know the answer ...
Consider an aerobatic aircraft flying upside down in level flight - the wing sees a "negative" angle of attack. The forces are similar for both cases (positive and negative AoA) albeit that the fuselage attitude will differ, depending on the wing rigging incidence.
Often, the text books tend to show only the positive CL curves but you can find graphics for a wider AoA range. For instance,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...ft-coefficient
(you need to scroll down a bit and there is a useful graphic on the RHS of the page).
Is it possible to achieve flying at negative angle of attack? Let's skip the part where it would be more like fall than a flight.
Sure in theory it is not a problem. I have airfoil, I put it into a wind tunnel and I can have any aoa I want.
But in reality? Let's asume I have normal real aircraft with some normal angle of incidence. My point is that even if I nose dive the flight path vector will be always "under" the airflow. I can imagine reaching negative alpha during the pushing. For a while but once I fly down it gets and stay possitive.
Even if I look at aoa indicators they have mostly only possitive values and books or so show you lift coeficient curve but I have not seen anything which shows how alpha changes in real flight.
I know it may look simple or ridiculous but I'm really not sure.
Sure in theory it is not a problem. I have airfoil, I put it into a wind tunnel and I can have any aoa I want.
But in reality? Let's asume I have normal real aircraft with some normal angle of incidence. My point is that even if I nose dive the flight path vector will be always "under" the airflow. I can imagine reaching negative alpha during the pushing. For a while but once I fly down it gets and stay possitive.
Even if I look at aoa indicators they have mostly only possitive values and books or so show you lift coeficient curve but I have not seen anything which shows how alpha changes in real flight.
I know it may look simple or ridiculous but I'm really not sure.
Also parabolic flight can have a temporary negative AOA, as long as you push enough.
Most wings are designed to give positive lift at 0 AOA, but exactly at what (negative) G-load your AOA becomes negative is above my pay grade.
(I think the angle of incidence isn't relevant, the AOA is the angle between wing and air, the angle of the fuselage really doesn't matter for this...)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From video and stills showing unusual combinations of AoA and attitude.
AOA versus pitch
Pitch +5 AoA -15 (estimating AoA from smoke trail)
Check pitch - I have never flown inverted and I am not sure if I am describing the pitch correctly. Nose seems above horizon and so I think pitch is +ve.
AOA versus pitch
Pitch +5 AoA -15 (estimating AoA from smoke trail)
Check pitch - I have never flown inverted and I am not sure if I am describing the pitch correctly. Nose seems above horizon and so I think pitch is +ve.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: FL
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless an aircraft is specifically designed for aerobatics, it is likely that the wings will fall off at sustained negative g.
Fun fact, a wing cannot be stalled in a zero g state.
Fun fact, a wing cannot be stalled in a zero g state.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bucks
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a really interesting one.
All wings will produce SOME lift at zero AOA. Look at a typical lift curve slope, you have peak CL at something like 1.0 or so at an AOA of 15 degrees (just before the stall), and a CL of (in this example) about 0.1 at 0 degrees AOA. I don't have enough posts to post a link, so google is your friend!
Typical cruise AOA would be about 3-4 degrees, for a CL of, say, 0.4.
If we go to our lift equation, we can see that lift = 0.5 x CL x rho x S x V^2. Double the velocity, and you can quarter the CL for the same lift.
So if you are, say, in steady level flight at 4 degrees AOA, CL of 0.4 at 100 KIAS, then doubling your airspeed to 200 KIAS requires one quarter the CL, i.e. 0.1.
You are in steady level flight at 0 AOA with a CL of 0.1. Any faster, and you will be in steady level flight, with a positive CL, and a slightly negative AOA.
Magic!
All wings will produce SOME lift at zero AOA. Look at a typical lift curve slope, you have peak CL at something like 1.0 or so at an AOA of 15 degrees (just before the stall), and a CL of (in this example) about 0.1 at 0 degrees AOA. I don't have enough posts to post a link, so google is your friend!
Typical cruise AOA would be about 3-4 degrees, for a CL of, say, 0.4.
If we go to our lift equation, we can see that lift = 0.5 x CL x rho x S x V^2. Double the velocity, and you can quarter the CL for the same lift.
So if you are, say, in steady level flight at 4 degrees AOA, CL of 0.4 at 100 KIAS, then doubling your airspeed to 200 KIAS requires one quarter the CL, i.e. 0.1.
You are in steady level flight at 0 AOA with a CL of 0.1. Any faster, and you will be in steady level flight, with a positive CL, and a slightly negative AOA.
Magic!
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Bucks
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you should check the G limitations for a non aerobatic aircraft. Airliners are typically -1 G to +2.5 G when clean. While there are plenty of reasons why they will struggle with inverted flight, "wings falling off" is not one of them.
Moderator
Unless an aircraft is specifically designed for aerobatics, it is likely that the wings will fall off at sustained negative g.
Sec. 23.337
Limit maneuvering load factors.
(a) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n may not be less than--
(1) 2.1+ for normal category airplanes, except that n need not be more than 3.8 nor may it be less than 2.5;
(2) 4.4 for utility category airplanes; or
(3) 6.0 for acrobatic category airplanes.
(b) The negative limit maneuvering load factor may not be less than--
(1) 0.4 times the positive load factor for the normal and utility categories; or
(2) 0.5 times the positive load factor for the acrobatic category.
(c) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this section may be used if the airplane has design features that make it impossible to exceed these values in flight.
Limit maneuvering load factors.
(a) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n may not be less than--
(1) 2.1+ for normal category airplanes, except that n need not be more than 3.8 nor may it be less than 2.5;
(2) 4.4 for utility category airplanes; or
(3) 6.0 for acrobatic category airplanes.
(b) The negative limit maneuvering load factor may not be less than--
(1) 0.4 times the positive load factor for the normal and utility categories; or
(2) 0.5 times the positive load factor for the acrobatic category.
(c) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this section may be used if the airplane has design features that make it impossible to exceed these values in flight.
Aside from an AoA indicator calibrated to an airplane with effective flaps as described above, I cannot otherwise think of a reason for having an AoA indicator which read into the negative. I don't imagine that aerobatic pilots are considering the AoA indication during inverted flight.