EAS *[p2*d1*T1/p1d2*T2]^.5/c0 [T2/T1],...the missing ' T's' and they stay missing:)

Hi PA

Why are you focused in dynamic pressure in the Lift ecuation?

Dynamic pressure is a magnitude of its own, whether there is an airplane or not. S and CL have nothing to do with it, except if you are calculating the required q for a given airplane, configuration and Lift.

q= 1/2 * rho * TAS^2

EAS = TAS * sqr root of sigma. By definition.

Now:
MN = TAS/(sqr root of theta)
MN= [EAS/sqr root of sigma]/(sqr root of theta)
since delta=sigma*theta
MN= EAS/sqr root of delta----------No T, of course.

(where sigma= rho/1,225 kg/m3, delta=p/1013,25 Hpa and theta= T/288ºK)

how could something be dynamic if it does not exist?

TAS squared and density

delta = hPa/Hpa*K/K= no dimensions at all....???

---I think I put that in:}



I'm still not sure what you mean????

do you mean? PA

The relative magnitudes delta, sigma and theta have no dimensions. They are ratios: for instance, delta=0.5 means 50% of standard sea level pressure.

What I mean is what I said in previous posts:
- We agree, basically. T has nothing to do with the EAS, MN and FL relation.
- EAS is not a velocity.

I just pointed out that dynamic pressure, which of course exists, is a magnitude per se. It's mathematical formula has nothing to do with S or CL. It is only a matter of air velocity and density. You seem to extract q from the Lift formula, which is not correct in this case in my opinion.

Microburst2002 my bad: I meant just 'q' it is a force of habit to put SCl I get what you mean now:p

you fly by EAS: the wing flies by TAS:ok:

PA

Seeing as of late how the engineering laboratory reports that I have to grade have been coming back with some 'interesting' derivations',...in considering these 'interesting formulations' I sometimes find the student's 'original source'

and the 'new source' in the topic of aerodynamics is mostly wrong:yuk::*,...and even when it is somewhat ok the symbolgy used in the equations is mostly WRONG:*:yuk:


it seems 'this source' was used on here to 'formulate a 'newstyle derivation'
I think a better source for non-engineers was profered by_ JT and actaully his explainations are quite simpler and not in a muddle as is ususal with this 'new style' source ,...

generally after the report receives an F

I will always allow it to be redone for a better grade--and that 'source' forever disappears:suspect:



here's much better advice
PA:)