Jon Berndt wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:20 PM
You might want to change the date on your PC.
Who should do that ?
-Fred
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Jon Berndt wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:20 PM
You might want to change the date on your PC.
Who should do that ?
-Fred
-|steve|- HGMINFO
See the date at top.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:20 PM
You might want to change the date on your PC.
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:44:19 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Erik
(Ever used the bicycle to cycle up a steep hill?)
..is overhang steep enough? ;-)
(or did you mean hangover ..?)
:-)
On a bicycle?
..yup. Classic case of _find_-a-way and
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:26:48 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:44:19 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Erik
(Ever used the bicycle to cycle up a steep hill?)
..is overhang steep enough?
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:48 -0400, Ampere wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On July 28, 2004 03:06 pm, Jon S Berndt wrote:
So, from the point of view of the horizontal stabilizor, that pesky
downwash happens because wings really suck. ;-)
I guess that's one of the reasons
Erik Hofman writes:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:48 -0400, Ampere wrote in message
On July 28, 2004 03:06 pm, Jon S Berndt wrote:
So, from the point of view of the horizontal stabilizor, that pesky
downwash happens because wings really suck. ;-)
I guess that's one
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Erik
(Ever used the bicycle to cycle up a steep hill?)
..is overhang steep enough? ;-)
On a bicycle?
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 22:44:19 +0200, Erik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
Erik
(Ever used the bicycle to cycle up a steep hill?)
..is overhang steep enough? ;-)
On a bicycle?
..yup. Classic case of _find_-a-way and stay-_off_-the-brakes
to pull G's, but
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way, even
though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And please
include the coriolis effect in your explanation (now that
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:48 -0400, Ampere wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On July 28, 2004 03:06 pm, Jon S Berndt wrote:
So, from the point of view of the horizontal stabilizor, that pesky
downwash happens because wings really suck. ;-)
I guess that's one of the reasons why some
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:47:43 -0400, David wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jim Wilson wrote:
This suggests that both bernoulli and the pushing (gravity) are at
play, depending on the airfoil. My (uneducated) guess is the
pushing is almost all of it and that the bernoulli effect only
Lee Elliott wrote
Sent: 28 July 2004 21:32
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Taildragger takeoff and landing
On Wednesday 28 July 2004 01:45, Andy Ross wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Have I had this backwards all along? I knew of the
incidence angle
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:55:09 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
That's because it's _mostly_ (or entirely) the sucking action above
the wing that contributes the most to lift.
No, that is the *result* of lift, not the *cause*.
No, you're mixing up
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight ball. How do those
things
curve?
I wouldn't know. I haven't thought about that one yet. My first
impression would be that of the cohesive and adhesive forces again.
Erik
Tony Peden wrote:
I hope you guys realize that this is an ages old debate that still goes
on in the relevant academic circles.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with fixing this for once and for all isn't
there? :-D
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Erik Hofman said:
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight ball. How
do those things
curve?
I wouldn't know. I haven't thought about that one yet. My first
impression would be that of the cohesive and adhesive forces again.
Well Jim's make
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:01:28 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight
ball. How do those things curve?
Well Jim's make it up as you go along Physics manual says that there is
greater pressure against the air
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:01:28 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Berndt wrote:
One more thing: think of a baseball or better yet a lightweight
ball. How do those things curve?
Well Jim's make it up as you go along Physics manual says that
there is
greater
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way, even
though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the coriolis effect in your explanation (now that it
is implimented
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way, even
though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And please
include the coriolis effect in your explanation (now that
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way,
even though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the coriolis effect in your
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way,
even though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:34:16 -0500
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, then how do you explain a frisbee that can curve either way,
even though it's always thrown with the same direction of spin. And
please include the
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:37:08 +0200
Boris Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like it when people share their valuable experiences ... :-)
So, the next time I'm there I'll be careful !
Why? You won't hit anything! :-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:38:44 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Now I start to wonder why we always smash our probes on the surface
of Mars).
NASA does it by design.
(Well ... except for the Mars Polar Lander.)
:-)
Jon
___
Flightgear-devel
David Megginson wrote:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled
with the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a good
Jim Wilson wrote:
You are right, that doesn't sound right. At least if a positive value did
point down, it would be in conflict with the AOA parameter. That said, are
you sure the DC-3 is supposed to have a negative incidence? I just looked up
the p51 and the diagram clearly shows a positive
David Megginson said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
You are right, that doesn't sound right. At least if a positive value did
point down, it would be in conflict with the AOA parameter. That said, are
you sure the DC-3 is supposed to have a negative incidence? I just looked up
the p51 and the
Jim Wilson wrote:
Excellent, thanks for the clarification. Just looking at the cub you can see
down-wash is a major design feature. The DC-3 has a high tail, but I can see
the incidence in the main wing is pretty high. I wonder what happens when you
increase the wing incidence and set the
Matthew Law wrote:
It seems much, much better to me. However, I can sit at minimum power
with the brakes on in nil wind and rock from one main wheel to the other
using the ailerons. I can also lift the tail off the ground at minimum
power. I'm not sure if that is a side effect of what you've
David M. wrote:
I'm getting seriously out of my depth here, since I didn't even take high
school physics, but as far as I understand the most important part of lift
is the suction created by the partial vacuum *above* the wings -- that means
that wings are pulling air down more than pushing
-Original Message-
From: Jon Berndt
Sent: 28 July 2004 3:47 pm
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Taildragger takeoff and landing
snip
I've heard it described several ways (lift); I think you're
pretty close. I don't know if
I'd say partial
Richard Bytheway said:
-Original Message-
From: Jon Berndt
Sent: 28 July 2004 3:47 pm
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Taildragger takeoff and landing
snip
I've heard it described several ways (lift); I think you're
pretty close
David Megginson wrote:
I'm getting seriously out of my depth here, since I didn't even take high
school physics...
Just a lurker at present until I can find a way to contribute more
usefully but try this...
http://www.av8n.com/how/
HTH
-|steve|-
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:25:31 -
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard Bytheway said:
Well as a physicist (but with no formal aeronautical education), I
always
think of it as the wing is pushing air down, which causes an equal
and
opposite force (to quote Newton) of the air pushing the
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100
SGMINFO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
I'm getting seriously out of my depth here, since I didn't even
take high
school physics...
Just a lurker at present until I can find a way to contribute more
usefully but try this...
Jim Wilson writes:
Well as a physicist (but with no formal aeronautical education), I always
think of it as the wing is pushing air down, which causes an equal and
opposite force (to quote Newton) of the air pushing the wing up. Hence
acrobatic aircraft with symmettrical wings can
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:15:04 -0400
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a 100 year old argument :-)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/airfoil.html
If you really want to know read everything you can wriiten by
Koukowskii and Prandtl
Is light a wave or a particle?
:-)
Jim Wilson wrote:
This suggests that both bernoulli and the pushing (gravity) are at play,
depending on the airfoil. My (uneducated) guess is the pushing is almost all
of it and that the bernoulli effect only augments:
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/exhibits/planes/planes_1c.html
There's a
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100
SGMINFO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
I'm getting seriously out of my depth here, since I didn't even
take high
school physics...
Just a lurker at present until I can find a way to contribute more
usefully but try
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:52:24 -0400
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The important thing to note is that the airflow *above* the wing also
curves down, not just the airflow below it. That is why, even with
the same incidence angle, the hstab sees a different angle of attack
in the
On Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:35, Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:15:04 -0400
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a 100 year old argument :-)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/airfoil.html
If you really want to know read everything you can wriiten by
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:15:04 -0400
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a 100 year old argument :-)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/airfoil.html
If you really want to know read everything you can wriiten by
Koukowskii and Prandtl
Is light a wave or a
David Megginson wrote:
The important thing to note is that the airflow *above* the wing also
curves down, not just the airflow below it. That is why, even with the
same incidence angle, the hstab sees a different angle of attack in the
wings' downwash even if it is level with or slightly above
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:56:59 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the reason why pressure is build up underneath the
wing (pushing the airfoil up on air molecules == force).
No, not really. See:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-consistent
Excerpt:
Of course,
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:56:59 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the reason why pressure is build up underneath the
wing (pushing the airfoil up on air molecules == force).
No, not really. See:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-consistent
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
Lee Elliott writes:
My 2p on the 'does lift suck or blow',
On more refined aerofoils most of the lift comes from the leading edge region,
where the acceleration is highest, although some of the more recent
'super-critical' aerofoils produce lift further back.
There again, while I'm
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Which is why he never flew. See the argument about bullets in the link
provided, above.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20031201/leonardo.html
In the case of the airflow below the wing, it's not really trapped. It
gets out of the way, below.
But it will encounter a force
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
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:55:09 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
That's because it's _mostly_ (or entirely) the sucking action above
the wing that contributes the most to lift.
No, that is the *result* of lift, not the *cause*.
Erik
No, you're mixing up cause and
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:16:05 +0100
Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Getting back on topic, I think everyone agrees that the horizontal
stabilizer on a typical plane (excluding t-tails) should be seeing downwash
-- in other words, its relative wind will not be the same as the relative
wind seen by the wings. For JSBSim, we don't have to worry about this,
Getting back on topic, I think everyone agrees that the horizontal
stabilizer on a typical plane (excluding t-tails) should be seeing downwash
Yes. _When_ there is positive lift being generated by the wing.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
That's because it's _mostly_ (or entirely) the sucking action above
the wing that contributes the most to lift.
No, that is the *result* of lift, not the *cause*.
Erik
No, you're mixing up cause and effect.
One more thing:
I guess that's one of the reasons why some planes use canards. =P
Regards,
Ampere
On July 28, 2004 03:06 pm, Jon S Berndt wrote:
So, from the point of view of the horizontal stabilizor, that pesky
downwash happens because wings really suck. ;-)
___
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:28, Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:56:59 +0200
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the reason why pressure is build up underneath the
wing (pushing the airfoil up on air molecules == force).
No, not
Tony wrote:
I hope you guys realize that this is an ages old debate that still goes
on in the relevant academic circles.
I've heard about the debate on whether it is circulation or the pressure difference
that
causes lift. I've never heard it argued that mechanical deflection is the cause for
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 22:46, David Megginson wrote:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled with
the YASim files a lot in the
David Megginson wrote:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled
with the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a good
David Megginson said:
I've been frustrated with the tendency of the DC-3 (--aircraft=dc3) to
noseover during the takeoff and landing rolls, and of the J3 Cub
(--aircraft=j3cub) to nose over during wheel landings. I've fiddled with
the YASim files a lot in the past but have never found a
Jim Wilson wrote:
Have I had this backwards all along? I knew of the incidence angle
on the hstab, but always thought that positive values meant the
leading edge was higher than with a negative incidence angle
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about the Y
axis, which in
Andy Ross wrote:
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about the Y
axis, which in YASim's coordinate system points out the left wingtip.
So a positive incidence points down. Unless there's a sign bug (or
three, or five...) in there somewhere.
A positive incidence points down?? So
Andy Ross said:
Jim Wilson wrote:
Have I had this backwards all along? I knew of the incidence angle
on the hstab, but always thought that positive values meant the
leading edge was higher than with a negative incidence angle
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about
David Megginson said:
Andy Ross wrote:
The number is a (conventional, right handed) rotation about the Y
axis, which in YASim's coordinate system points out the left wingtip.
So a positive incidence points down. Unless there's a sign bug (or
three, or five...) in there somewhere.
A
66 matches
Mail list logo
