[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

*To*: jrccea@bellsouth.net*Subject*: Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)*From*: Erik Boehm <erikboehm07@yahoo.com>*Date*: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:41:45 -0700 (PDT)*Cc*: dinosaur@usc.edu*In-reply-to*: <02f401c92312$93b70b40$5b2e0741@lela>*Reply-to*: erikboehm07@yahoo.com*Sender*: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Im pretty sure this isn't true due to the exponential nature of drag forces relative to velocity, but rather is a good approximation for small % changes in weight. The vertical descent rate, delta h, has a linear relationship with the delta energy, obviouslyby the factor mg. However, to maintain the same glide, if the vertical rate doubles, the horizontal must double as well. This results in 4x as much drag, with only 2x as much change in potential energy to make up for that drag, the aircraft will decelerate, and its glide will be worse(at that angle of attack). For lower values, like 10% more weight, the glide doesn't change appreciably. For a given angle of attack(AoA) 10% more weight needs 10% more lift, which is a factor of airspeed squared, so it must fly ~3.16% faster, but will have 10% more drag, as work done is proportional to force (over a distance), 10% more "work" is done, and it must use up 10% more PE, and thus sink 10% faster. 103.16/110 = .9378 -> call it 94% the previous glide for a 10% increase in weight. For something getting a 20:1 glide, a 10% increase in weight only brings that down to about 18.76:1 for the same AoA. This could possibly be increased by flying at a higher AoA to decrease parasitic drag, however this AoA will be higher than optimum AoA of the lighter wing loading. As most designs don't get best glide right above stall speed, there is some "slop" such that a 10% increase in weight doesn't mean a sqrt(10%) increase in best glide speed(with an accompanying 10% increase in descent rate). Still, glide is reduced somewhat --- On Tue, 9/30/08, jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net> wrote: > From: jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net> > Subject: Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing) > To: erikboehm07@yahoo.com > Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu > Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 8:38 AM > That energy can also come from atmospheric shears as well as > from delta h. > As an aside, one of the interesting things about gliding > flight is that > glide angle and glide range are not decreased with > increasing weight. For a > given planform, increasing the weight increases both the > sink rate and the > airspeed by exactly the same amount, so the glide angle and > range remains > unchanged. > JimC > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Boehm" <erikboehm07@yahoo.com> > To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>; > <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:40 AM > Subject: Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? > (archeopteryx climbing) > > > > More generally regarding powered flyers and gliding > .... if their minimum > > energy output to maintain level powered flight is X > watts, then when it is > > not powering its flight(flapping, a propellor, etc), > those X watts are > > coming from a change in potential energy, ie delta h > (height in: PE = > > mgh). > > The more energy intensive the flying must be, the > faster it will sink > > while gliding, but it can still glide.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)***From:*jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net>

**References**:**Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)***From:*jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Fw: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)** - Next by Date:
**Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)** - Indexes: