On Wednesday 28 July 2004 22:47, Jon S Berndt wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:28:55 +0200
>   Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jon S Berndt wrote:
> >>No, not really. See:
> >>http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-consistent
> >
> >Try this for a start:
> >
> >An airflow over the wing is causing the downwash at the end of the
> >airfoil. The airflow below the wing is now kind of captured between
> >the airfoil and the layer(s) of air underneath itself.
> >
> >In this situation it can go in just two directions, up or down, The
> >majority of the flow will go down, bu a tiny fraction of the
> >molecules has to go up. If the number of molecules that go up is high
> >enough it will lift the airfoil up with it.
> >
> >This is really what DaVinci already had discovered back in
> >1530-something.
> Which is why he never flew. See the argument about "bullets" in the
> link provided, above.
> In the case of the airflow below the wing, it's not really "trapped".
> It gets out of the way, below. Also, consider the wing of a B-52. I
> believe it is entirely possible that a wing such as that on the B-52
> can have a lower surface that is parallel to the airflow, but still
> provides lift. That's because it's _mostly_ (or entirely) the
> "sucking" action above the wing that contributes the most to lift.
> Jon

Although it might not be accurate in my model, the B-52 wing is set at six deg 
incidence, and while it does fly a little nose-down in some circumstances, 
six deg worth would be worrying;)   Heh - not that I haven't seen some of my 
FDMs for it do exactly that:)

I guess that the lower trailing edge (flaps up) could approach it though...

Re the comment made about flying inverted, here's an interesting pic of 
Geoffrey Tyson flying the SR-A1 inverted.  Check out the apparent AoA, the 
wing incidence and the elevator deflection:)



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to