Why does an Airplane turn?

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
looproll
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:51 pm

Post by looproll »

Lets get back to the important issue here. "

It is not the question of how an airplane turns it is :

" Can you turn it accurately and make it go exactly where and how you want it to "

I find this hand wringing about the physics of the turn to be no need knowledge if you can't use the controls to accurately fly...

...Far to many instructors are not only unable to teach accurate flying they are unable to demonstrate it in the first place.
Why settle for mediocrity in ground OR flight training? It was a simple question that started this thread and will all the imaginative answers, it makes me wonder what other ideas pilots have about flying.

What makes the systems in your aircraft tick? Well as long as you know what buttons to push in what sequence and you control it smoothly and accurately, then you need not know HOW it works, right? Hands and feet skills are great but my favorite flyers are the ones who have brains AND skills. Don't you guys want to be the one with sweet skills AND great knowledge? When did background knowledge become a "nice-to-know" thing? As for the practical skills of flying, there is only so much an instructor can do for you. Gotta get out there and master it yourself.

I'm sure there are a lot of qualified instructors out there that can't teach or fly very well, so students need to know they have a choice. When I was training, I was assigned an instructor and that was it. I thought it was gospel, but I was just a kid. I had some pretty good instructors, but the greatest learning in my flying has been achieved from experience.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

My comment was made to enforce the simple fact that all the book learning on earth is not worth anything in an airplane if you are not able to control it properly in flight.

I did not nor do not suggest that the physics are not important, rather I was stating the most important issue is being skilled in the actual flying of an airplane.

Any newby to aviation would get an excedrin headache reading all the hand wringing about the fine points of physics in this discussion and may become discouraged by thinking you need a doctorate in aerodynamics and physics to fly an airplane.

The truth is you are really not much more than a truck driver with some extra training in the pitch mode when you learn to fly.

Cat.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
PilotFlying
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: As close to home as the # gets me...

The Simple Answer

Post by PilotFlying »

What many others here are trying to explain in loooong paragraphs with endless technical jargon, I can explain without even a single word.

Image

There you have it. Plain and simple. The theories of horizontal components of lift etc. etc. are all correct, but only partly. That simply explains what causes the aircraft to sideslip, but not what causes it to TURN.

Regards,

:D
---------- ADS -----------
 
Blakey
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 970
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:33 pm
Location: Ontario

Post by Blakey »

And so a B2 turns why?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you!
User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Post by Flying Low »

OK...picture a B2 in a side slip.

You only get one guess as to which side of the aircraft creates more drag.

The B2 uses split ailerons in lieu of the rudder to create drag on one side of the aircraft in order to coordinate a turn and provide yaw stability.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
User avatar
looproll
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:51 pm

End of Discussion

Post by looproll »

Let's beat this horse some more... are you numbskulls going to disprove NASA?

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turns.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turns.html

"A fundamental aircraft motion is a banking turn. This maneuver is used to change the aircraft heading. The turn is initiated by using the ailerons or spoilers to roll, or bank, the aircraft to one side. On the figure, the airliner is banked to the right by lowering the left aileron and raising the right aileron. The lift of the wings of the aircraft is a vector quantity which is always directed perpendicular to the flight path and perpendicular to the wings generating the lift. As the aircraft is rolled, the lift vector is tilted in the direction of the roll. We can break the lift vector into two components. One component is vertical and opposed to the weight which is always directed towards the center of the earth. The other component is an unopposed side force which is in the direction of the roll, and perpendicular to the flight path.

As long as the aircraft is banked, the side force is a constant, unopposed force on the aircraft. The resulting motion of the center of gravity of the aircraft is a circular arc. When the wings are brought level by an opposing motion of the ailerons, the side force is eliminated and the aircraft continues to fly in a straight line along a new heading. Notice that the rudder is not used to turn the aircraft. The aircraft is turned through the action of the side component of the lift force. The rudder is used during the turn to coordinate the turn, i.e. to keep the nose of the aircraft pointed along the flight path. If the rudder is not used, one can encounter an adverse yaw in which the drag on the outer wing pulls the aircraft nose away from the flight path."

END OF F*CKING DISCUSSION on what makes an airplane turn. Abandon your weather-cocking BS!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Post by EPR »

Looproll has it right. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Post by Flying Low »

Looproll:

There has to be more to it than simply the horizontal component of lift.

This component, if acting through the C of G of the aircraft can only pull the aircraft sideways and in no way creates a turning moment. If fact, since most aircraft have the C of P (the point through which this component acts) located behind the C of G, the turning moment created exclusively by this component would turn the aircraft in the opposite direction to the bank.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
User avatar
PilotFlying
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: As close to home as the # gets me...

Post by PilotFlying »

Absolutely! Flying Low has nailed it.

looproll, however, is not INCORRECT, and nor is NASA for that matter (I would hope not!). They are simply skipping over a step that is overlooked by the majority of people. It's like saying the alphabet is ABYZ and omitting the CDEFG...TUVWX.

The horizontal component of lift IS in fact what initiates the sequence of events that result in an aircraft turning. But the weather-cocking effect is what produces the actual change in heading.

Use the analogy of a car. If you could attach a rope to the side of your car and (with tremendous force) pull it sideways, would the rope alone cause your car to turn? Not unless the tires catch the pavement or some external force is applied to change the car's heading. In the case of an airplane, the horizontal component of lift is the rope, and the resulting drag created by the resistance of the vertical stabilizer and aft end of the fuselage to move sideways through the air is the force causing the change in heading.

"END OF F*CKING DISCUSSION on what makes an airplane turn. Abandon your weather-cocking BS!"

I don't think there's a need for this BS to end. It's a great topic, about which many people have been mislead (or maybe better to say UNDERlead, if there is such a word). Keep the debate going. It's good for the brain, and I think everyone can benefit from it.

Regards,

8)
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
looproll
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:51 pm

Post by looproll »

Yes it's an interesting topic. Wolfgang Langewiesche would agree with your explanation as in his book," Stick and Rudder". It was first written in 1944, though.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" It was first written in 1944, though. "

Yeh, but the dumb fu.ks who learned back then didn't really understand, how airplanes flew.

To bad they couldn't have learned from all the real pros that are in aviation today.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
looproll
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:51 pm

Post by looproll »

I'll buy your explanation worded as follows:


In a banked turn, the force which causes the airplane to turn is the horizontal component of lift, with the vertical stabilizer providing a stabilizing tendancy to align the aircraft with the path of flight.


I think that makes it clear in my mind what you're trying to say while legitimizing the fact that without the inward force from lift, there is no banked turn.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by looproll on Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
looproll
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:51 pm

Post by looproll »

" It was first written in 1944, though. "

Yeh, but the dumb fu.ks who learned back then didn't really understand, how airplanes flew.

To bad they couldn't have learned from all the real pros that are in aviation today.
I think it's a really good book. Didn't you learn to fly back then, Cat? I have no doubt that anyone that has survived in aviation since the '40s is a super-duper aviator. :prayer:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotFlying
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: As close to home as the # gets me...

Post by PilotFlying »

In a banked turn, the force which causes the airplane to turn is the horizontal component of lift, with the vertical stabilizer providing a stabilizing tendancy to align the aircraft with the path of flight.
I'll buy that!

I too think highly of "Stick & Rudder" - a good read for any pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 »

PilotFlying wrote:Use the analogy of a car. If you could attach a rope to the side of your car and (with tremendous force) pull it sideways, would the rope alone cause your car to turn?
Yes it would.

Let's not forget that the car (if we're comparing to an aircraft) is also moving forward because its thrust is greater than its drag. The summation of the horizontal turning force (the rope) and the thrust would be a vector pointed somewhere between the two. This would tangential to the arcing path the car would now be making, and constantly changing direction towards the inside of the turn as the car turns.

Once again, I think there is significant confusion between the concept of the aircraft moving in a circular path as a whole, and what happening with the nose of the aircraft.

Incidentally PilotFlying, your picture link is broken. Any chance it can be fixed if it's something important to your case?
---------- ADS -----------
 
duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 »

looproll wrote:In a banked turn, the force which causes the airplane to turn is the horizontal component of lift, with the vertical stabilizer providing a stabilizing tendancy to align the aircraft with the path of flight.
Actually, this is quite a good summary. Well said.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotFlying
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: As close to home as the # gets me...

Post by PilotFlying »

Let's not forget that the car (if we're comparing to an aircraft) is also moving forward because its thrust is greater than its drag. The summation of the horizontal turning force (the rope) and the thrust would be a vector pointed somewhere between the two.
I agree completely with this statement.
This would tangential to the arcing path the car would now be making, and constantly changing direction towards the inside of the turn as the car turns.
I don't fully agree with this statement. This WOULD be true if the person holding the rope was stationary at a point, and yes, the car would then follow a circular path around that point. But if we are comparing the rope to the horizontal lift component on an airplane, the force is not stationary at a point, but rather constantly acting perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft - or car - and thus simply resulting in a path somewhere between forward and straight sideways. In the case of an aircraft, this would be a sideslip.

The link appears fine on my end, but you should be able to find it at http://stencilwithstyle.com/LL%20393%20 ... 20vane.gif It's simply a picture of a weather vane, which illustrates the principle that is responsible for turning the sideslip discussed above into an actual change in heading, or turn.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
ZLIN 142C
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: CYYC

Post by ZLIN 142C »

Since I started reading this thread I've been thinking about this topic quite a bit, and these are my thoughts.

I think the concept of horizontal/vertical lift from the banked airfoil is pretty well understood and accepted by everyone here. So let's look at the forces involved in a left turn, for example.

The wing is banked left, therefore the wing generates a portion of its lift in a left direction. This wants to draw the wings horizontally to the left. The center of gravity of the aircraft is ahead of the center of pressure, so there is a tendency for the nose to want to turn right. The effects of aileron drag and the greater induced drag of the higher wing also produce a right-turning tendency. To counter this, we need a stabilizing force, not only to cancel the right-turning tendency but also to induce a left-turning force.

This is where the tail comes in. The tail in a conventional aircraft provides both yaw and pitch stability and control. Most here have correctly noted that the vertical stab/rudder will weathercock the aircraft into the turn because of the effect of the relative wind. You could also say that the rudder holds the tail still while the wing moves horizontally away from it. In a shallow turn, this is most likely the most significant component of the turning tendency. But it's not the only force involved.

There is more than one airfoil on an aircraft. Everyone forgets about the horizontal stab and elevator. In level flight, this surface balances the nose-down pitching tendency (caused by having the C of G forward of the Center of Pressure) by generating its own lift, in the opposite direction of the lift generated by the wing. The elevator, of course, controls the wing's angle of attack by varying this downward lift component.

When you roll into a left turn, the horizontal stab's lift can also be split into horizontal and vertical lift components. And in a left turn, the horizontal component of the h-stab's lift is to the right. Thus, you have the wing pulling itself left and the tail pulling itself right. And the aircraft (naturally) changes direction. Beyond about 45 degrees of bank, I suspect that this is the most significant turning force at work.

Going one step further, in order to maintain altitude in a turn you apply elevator to "hold the nose up." This has the effect of driving the wing to a higher AOA and increasing the vertical lift vector to balance the aircraft's weight. It also increases the wing's horizontal component of lift and thus its left-turning tendency. The elevator does this by increasing its own "negative" angle-of-attack and both it's vertical and horizontal lift vectors, thus increasing the tail's right-turning tendency. In a steep turn, the vertical stab's primary job is maintaining yaw stability. The "weathercocking" tendency of the tail is a function of the relative wind acting on the horizontal stab and that airfoil's own horizontal lift component.

Of course, all this talk of the physics of flight can easily mask the real issue - that the skills of flying are mostly about balance, feel and timing, and that developing a feel for the aircraft is more important than understanding the mechanics of it. I still think it's important though, and part of being a well-rounded pilot.

Stick and Rudder is excellent; I have it in my own library. Wolfgang understood what many fail to - that angle-of-attack and balance are the most fundamental aspects of flight. Everyone should read it.

I'm pretty sure Cat was being sarcastic. :wink:

Cheers, all. 8)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Understanding begets harmony; in seeking the first you will find the last.
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6324
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Post by ahramin »

PilotFlying and Flying Low, may i respectfully suggest that you guys are confusing the dog and the tail. Which wags which?

The car and the rope analogy is almost a good one (as good as any analogy can be: not very). If you have a rope 90° to the direction of the travel of the car and you give it a pull, you will change the direction of the car. Because the direction of the car has changed, and the rope is always 90° to the direction of the car, the rope has changed direction too. If the car was going north and the rope was pulling east and it changed the direction of the car 5°, the car is now going 005° and the rope is pulling from 095°. If you now pull the rope again, the car is going 010° and the rope is pulling 100°. And so on around the turn. If you take the limit of this equation where the inerval between pulls is zero, you get the derivative which is the actual turn of the car with a constant pull on the rope.

This in itself is what makes an airplane turn. Period. As looproll has been trying to get through to you guys. But there are more factors and forces acting in a turn than just the horizontal component of lift. If this were the only thing happening you would get a very sloppy turn. As you pull back on the stick to increase lift (because some of your lift is now turning you instead of holding you up) the tail pulls down and the nose goes up and sideways (from a level reference) in the direction of the turn. Remember that the center of gravity is forward of the center of lift. This causes a torque which the downwards force of the tail overcomes. The tail is always creating a force which keeps the nose up, and in a turn keeps the nose up and in the direction of the turn.

But this too is not enough to keep the airplane in perfect coordinated flight so you have to put a little bit of rudder in to keep the aircraft from skidding sideways as it turns. Not to make the airplane turn, to keep it coordinated while it turns.

Weathercocking is what happens when something in uncoordinated, which does not happen in a properly executed turn.

Please do not confuse one small reactive control for the turn itself. If you keep the wings level and try to turn, you will have a very tough go of it. Especially in a glider without the slipstream to weathercock you. If however, you roll the aircraft and push the rudder the wrong way, you will still get a poor but useable turn in the desired direction.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6324
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Post by ahramin »

One last crack at the weathercockers. In a turn the horizontal component of lift is changing the direction of the aircraft. In other words turning it.

In a loop the vertical component of lift is the piece changing the direction of the aircraft. The extra lift generated by the increased aoa changes the direction of the aircraft, which changes the direction of the lift, which changes the direction of the aircraft, ect ad nauseum all the way around until you complete the loop. Just like a turn.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Post by Flying Low »

ahramin:

The whole car/rope thing doesn't make sense on it's own. If you pull on the rope it forces the car to slide side ways. Let's say the car is heading directly north. The rope is 90 degrees out to the left of the car. I apply enough force to pull the car 5 feet left. Regardless of the forward speed of the car the result of this force is that the car is now still facing north and 5 feet left of its original track. There is no force involved in this example that causes the car to rotate around it's normal axis and change it's heading.

The combined effect of the horizontal component of lift, the forward speed of the aircraft, the tendency of the tail to follow the nose "weathercocking" and the input of rudder all contribute to the coordinated turn. By physics alone, the horizontal component of lift and the forward speed only result in a side slip.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Post by Flying Low »

In a loop the vertical component of lift is the piece changing the direction of the aircraft. The extra lift generated by the increased aoa changes the direction of the aircraft, which changes the direction of the lift, which changes the direction of the aircraft, ect ad nauseum all the way around until you complete the loop. Just like a turn.
Agreed. However, without the "weathercocking" and/or rudder input there is no reason that the aircraft would turn and change the direction of the horizontal component of lift. As I mentioned above, the forward speed, horizontal component of lift, "weathercocking" and rudder are all required for a coordinated turn. You could turn the aircraft without bank using only rudder and thrust (uncomfortable but it can be done). No horizontal component of lift required!

Therefore as in the example of the loop how about this:

The forward speed of the aircraft plus the horizontal component of lift create a slip that is coordinated by the natural stability of the aircraft ("weathercocking") and the rudder input. This turns the aircraft in the direction of the slip and changes the direction of the horizontal component of lift thus creating a slip that is coordinated by the natural stabilty of the aircraft.....ad nauseum.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
goldeneagle
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

Re: End of Discussion

Post by goldeneagle »

looproll wrote:Let's beat this horse some more... are you numbskulls going to disprove NASA?
Ok, I glanced thru this thread for the firs time today. wow, has it ever got me wondering what schools actually teach these days. Wish I had looked earlier, love these kind of discussions.

Has anybody here ever heard of the 'weight and balance' of an aircraft. That's where we figure out the location of the center of gravity. In _most_ flight configurations, there is some distance longitudinally between the CG and CP (center of pressure). Location of CG seems to be rather important in airplanes, otherwise they wouldn't make us calculat it for every flight. In normal level flight, there is a lift component from the flying surfaces, it's normally in the 'up' direction, and located between 25 and 42% of chord on the wing. Gravity provides a 'down' force located at the CG. There is some distance between these forces, so you get a rotational force result at the CG, even tho the forces are essentially balanced in magnitude. The purpose of the tailplane is to provide a force vector at some distance removed, which can counteract the rotational force, and you end up with a system in equilibrium in the pitch plane. If you remember studying how levers work in high school physics, then you know, the amount of force required from the tailplane is a function of how much distance between the various vectors.

Looproll is right with the quote from nasa, but, it's simplified. When you roll the aircraft and apply a little back pressure, and 'keep it flying level', the vertical components of the lift vectors remain in balance with the weight vector, net result, no pitch change. BUT, the horizontal component of lift from the wing and tail surfaces are of significantly different magnitude with a displacement from each other. Tally up all the forces involved, and you will see the system is not in equilibrium on the horizontal plane, and motion will be the result. The motion is a rotation in the horizontal plane, in laymans terms, a turn. In reality, wing provides an 'up' force, and the tail is normally producing a 'down' force. Try this as an exercise, put a pencil on the table. With your fingers, push one end of the pencil east, and the other end west (simulating the horizontal components of wing/tail forces on an airplane in a bank). The pencil will quickly become aligned in a different direction, it turned. The horizontal force component from the wing is 'pulling' in toward the center of the turn, the horizontal force on the tail is 'pushing' out away from the turn.

It's early, and I'm still working on the wake up coffee, so, mind me if the above is not totally coherent, but I think it's a reasonable 'simplified' explanation of the math concepts in play.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotFlying
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: As close to home as the # gets me...

Post by PilotFlying »

I admit that the car and rope analogy I used is probably not the best. I think it's caused more confusion than enlightenment. I was using that analogy simply to demonstrate the fact that a horizontal force on an object alone will not cause it to turn. As Flying Low stated, this will result in a sideslip. And nothing more. Add to it now an additional force - in the case of an aircraft the weather-cocking effect, or as some people would prefer to call it, the stabilizing tendency to maintain the longitudinal axis in line with the flight path - and then, and only then, do you actually have a turn. I don't disagree with the fact that if you step on the rudder and skid that aircraft around the corner, it will also change it's heading. But that is a whole new ball game, and that's not what the main debate here is about.

I think readers are misinterpreting the car analogy because they are thinking that if they actually DID try this, the car would turn. And turn it would, unless the rope was attached precisely so that the reaction forces between the tires and the pavement below were perfectly (and I mean perfectly) balanced on either side of the rope. And practically speaking, this would be nearly impossible to do. If there is even the slightest imbalance between these forces, the car's heading will in fact change. This force is what then could be equated to the weather-cocking force causing the airplane's change in heading. Maybe this analogy would be better understood if you imagine the car on ice.

ahramin states that
If you have a rope 90° to the direction of the travel of the car and you give it a pull, you will change the direction of the car.
What force is it, though, that is changine the car's direction? The horizontal force alone would not cause this.

Are we having fun yet? :wink: :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 »

PilotFlying: your disagreement with my explanation of the car example is answered quite correctly by ahramin. And I had a feeling your graphic (which is working now) wasn't super-important but I didn't want to miss anything.

Flying Low: your analysis of the car example is just a beginning. Imagine the car did just that, how did it get to its new position, a diagonal path to the northwest, right? Now the rope (horizontal lift force) has to be 90deg to that diagonal path, so it's very slightly west-southwest. Assuming the amount of the two forces (thrust and rope) haven't changed, the new path will be more west than the last time. Now the rope has to be 90deg again to the new path and you keep doing this over and over again. The resulting overall path will be a poor approximation of a curve made up by straight lines. But this really all happens simultaneously so it is a real curve. (If you don't believe this, then try drawing it out.)

PilotFlying and Flying Low: notice we are talking about the travel of the aircraft as a whole, its change in track not heading. The airplane will make a curved path as viewed from above and end up on a new track using the horizontal component of lift, even if the nose is pointing in all kinds of crazy directions. However, it will be a really crappy inefficient turn, which is why we need the stabilizing influence of the vertical stab and rudder use to coordinate the turn. As ahramin implied, the tail does not wag the dog.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”