which in turn equates to 6,076.1155 feet

I just love it when people talk in tongues ...

Very good observation about the distances being greater at altitude. If you drew a line 30,000 feet up in the air at your takeoff and landing points you technically cover a little bit more distance than if you were at sea-level the whole time.

Is that maybe why when they fly from LON to NY say, and take aboard an atomic clock and then say, that they have gained or lost x minutes of time, and then start to assume that in travelling from A to B one`s body/time/zone. . . /thing slows down or speeds up. . ?

Its funny how they never calc the angle at altitude thus increasing the ground distance (experiemnt) take two small knitting needles, one large orange, place the knitting needles in the orange like a pair of alien type antennae splaying apart from the centre at approx 20 degrees offcentre (you might be better using the sine from the suraface of the Earth, or not . .) - voila! dist between needles at the suraface of the orange is x and the dist between the two needles at altitude above the orange (i.e., at the ends of the needles) is greater.

So. . . .to go from a to b at altitude will take longer even though the distance is 2geographically the same but it is not the same from a Spherical Geometric point of view. ( I bull---t) Except that the distance at altititude is further than at the surface, this is NOT bull---t and all the navigation caluclations are based on measuremnt on the surface.

That is why they think your time/clock alters when you travel and that time slows down or speeds up. . . ah well, these are probably the same people that believe in the displacement theory.

Sorry, I, I just had to share that with you guys, its Jane, she has inspired me to be a scientist - I think she is building either a new ICBM or alternately a new space craft which needs little fuel.

Upper Air

Technically, the fact that you cover a slightly greater distance up at altitude, then running right along the surface of the earth would slightly increase the effects of jet-lag when you're going from east to west, and slightly reduce the effect of jet-lag when you're going west to east.

Ya got me! I'm building me a spaceship! Rather than moving around the universe, it moves the universe around the ship :}

Robyn..the last idea is classified. Best move on.

DERG

Understood

if anyone would like to see how wing loading tests were originally done, find the movie, "China Clipper" and watch how they put sand bags on the wings until they (the wings) break.

caaaraaachk

sevenstrokeroll:

Nope. You're describing the ultimate load structural test. No aerodynamics anywhere in sight. An aircraft can have great structural strength but terrible flight performance (or vice versa...).

yup...you are right...but its really cool

No ? I thought the sandbags simulate aerodynamic loads.

regards,
HN39

The way I see it...
 

Robyn

If you look at a video on youtube of the B787 testing ...as the 'plane rotates..ahem..takes off from the ground you see the wings BEND.

It is though like a toy with invisible strings: pulls the whole mass, prolly 300 tonnes, pulled up by the wing tips. Do you agree?

Now I make that 150 tonnes per wing. The wing area is more near the "root" where the wing comes out of the fuselage, so there it is really strong. Then at the end where the winglets are, it is delicate and I guess that is why it bends more.

Then we have all the other wing shapes too...like the old Delta wings on our V bombers here in the UK and same as Concorde. I am sure they did bend a little but nothing like we see now with the B787 or the A380 or that huge Antolov Russian transport 'plane.. Do you agree?

Regards

DERG

Yes, that's because the fuselage doesn't produce any significant lift so it weighs down the mid-section of the plane, the wings on the other hand are lifting so you get a bend. The wing gets progressively more flexible at the tips so you get more flexing there.

A delta is a naturally more rigid structure than a swept wing as I understand it. I think it has something to do with the fact that by having no trailing edge aft sweep you naturally get less flexing because more of the overall wing's chord connects to the fuselage.

Most larger spans flex more than smaller ones; also most modern airliners use composites much more frequently in the design. They can flex more than metals can and maintain structural integrity if I recall.

Just went through the process of logging in and getting back here, now what was it I wanted to say? Old age y'know. Shouldn't be allowed but I don't care much for the alternative.

Oh, yes. I think bendywings are affected by national history. During the thirties there were some wing failures on British projects, and people tried to make the wings much stronger, confusing this, as drawing offices will, with making them more rigid. Bristols ended up with the extremely rigid Pollicut wing that was used in everything, Bombay, Britain First, Blenheim, Beaufighter, Bolingbroke, Beaufort, Buckingham, Buckmaster, Brigand, Freighter, Wayfarer to name the ones that sprng readily to mind. Avros did much the same in the Vulcan, and I don't recall the Comet, Valiant or Victor being particularly flexible. It was Boeing, after a visit to Bristols, who had the bright idea of making the wing flex along its length whilst importantly maintaining its torsional rigidity, mostly, but allowing the big forward masses, aka engines, to twist the wing for gust alleviation, which was what Bristols were doing by a different method when they visited and saw the Brabazon alleviator, which so far as I know never worked in flight.

Jane-Doh

you really love planes...I'm surprised you never had any flight training-nice to see :)

Gust alleviation
 

Mike-wsm
I never thought about the natural wing-twist natural gust alleviation movement. Of low-slung engines.
You learn something every day......Thanks

mike-wsm

I didn't know the engine pods were used to twist the wing leading-edge down in responses to gusts. I just thought the engines weighed the wings down so they wouldn't flex up as much.

Mass-balanced control surfaces have been an aeronautical design feature for eight decades - maybe more. It provides dynamic stability, more flutter margin.

Mounting engines ahead of the flexible wing, on pylons, is no different in principle.

Er, rather more than eight decades, more like 250 million years, the mesozoic Pterodactyl had an aerodynamic and mass balance behind its head to allow it to move its beak sideways in flight.

I stand corrected. :D:O

I think there were others (than Boeing) well aware of nodal placement of masses, torsional gust alleviation etc in the 50's and 60's.

An interesting sidelight: When Boeing initially proposed a 707-based AWACS airframe, new engines were proposed: more efficient, lighter weight, etc. Boeing was concerned that if they were TOO light, ballast would be needed to insure dynamic stability.

In the end, they reverted to the tried and true JT3D/TF33. That is, until the CFM56 retrofit came along.

The Pterodactyl was not strictly speaking, a flyer. It could not take off, but had to find a cliff or hill to launch from, to soar. Those finger thingies at the LE joint are graspers to climb with. The Alien Head helped reduce drag. Launch, hike, Launch, hike, Launch hike, etc. Kinda like hang gliding.

Plenty of hang glider flyers use the same site for takeoff and landing, it's called slope soaring. And when they're airborne they seem to think they're flying.

Many birds use slope soaring, a gull rarely flaps its wings except for t.o. and l., and uses cliffs and seashore features to gain height. Pelicans seem to fly all day in line-ahead formation using wave soaring. Glorious to watch the whole formation wing over one by one from one wave to the next.

I somehow think a pterodactyl would be a little vulnerable when hiking and would prefer to return to base by air. Good energy management would permit excursions to lower levels and return to base. Dunno what they used to feed on, could they catch 'insectosaurs' in midair or did they grab ground-based food?

mike-wsm

"Insectosaurs"? Last I checked arthropods were around way before reptiles were -- they were just insects.

Yes, and ptera nippo appears to be eating one!

I love my arthropods too, crustaceans in particular -- usually get 'em at a seafood restaurant. They go great with butter.

my kind of wing loading
 

I remember those days. Hughes Air West, PSA and Air California with a crew of hotties. The trouble is they are still flying and the only requirement is to fit through the window exit.

mike-wsm

I just thought of something. The earth is not a perfect sphere, it's diameter and circumference across the equator is larger than the poles which has to do with the earth's rotation.

Regardless to compute the differences of altitude you'd take the planet's circumference, which is pretty easy to compute (πD); you'd take the planet's circumference at altitude ([D+2(Altitude)]π); then divide the circumference of the planet at altitude by the circumference of the planet at sea-level.

At that point you multiple that number by the length of your trip.

Circumference of Earth at Sea Level (Across Equator) = 40,075 kilometers
Altitude of 35,000 feet = 11,000 meters
Altitude of 60,000 feet = 18,288 meters
Circumference of Earth at 11 kilometers = 40,144 kilometers
Difference in Circumference @ 11 kilometers = 69 km
Circumference of Earth at 18.288 km = 40,187 kilometers
Difference in Circumference @ 18,288 meters = 112 km

So theoretically, for a flight that would traverse 10,000 km on the ground right along the equator, you would travel about 10,017.22 kilometers by air if you were flying at 35,000 feet; and 10,027.95 kilometers if you were at 60,000 feet. Of course this is theoretical because you'd have to take off, climb to altitude, then descend; you would also have to fly right along the equator with no deviation (no northwest/northeast/southwest/southeast); to make it even more complex many airports are not at sea-level, and flights usually don't involve a constant climb and descent rate.