No one can explain WHY planes fly...

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by dragon2knight, Feb 5, 2020.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 5, 2020 #1

    dragon2knight

    dragon2knight

    dragon2knight

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
  2. Feb 5, 2020 #2

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    5,084
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I’m guessing that your question is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I hate seeing articles like this because the science of lift is very well known, especially if you stay clear of the chaotic (turbulent) nonlinear flows. That is why we can successfully design planes now and so successfully model their performance with computers. These types of articles are written to confound the very ‘lay’men that might read them.

    There are several mechanisms of lift, such as Bernoulli, downwash, vorticity, etc. some of them are additive and some of them are just different ways of expressing the same thing (in much the same way that 4 can be expressed as 2+2, 1+3, and 2x2). Engineers know the differences and how to apply them, so articles such as this are intended to confuse or written by someone that is confused.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
  3. Feb 5, 2020 #3

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    To paraphrase the reason for climbing mountains, planes fly because they can!!

    [Edit] And I see they make no mention of the downwash on the trailing edge of the wing!
     
    Hot Wings likes this.
  4. Feb 5, 2020 #4

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    6,964
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    That is, unfortunately, a typical Scientific American article. If you want a thorough assessment of the state of the art, I suggest a read of Doug McLean’s Understanding Aerodynamics.

    BJC
     
    dragon2knight likes this.
  5. Feb 5, 2020 #5

    stanislavz

    stanislavz

    stanislavz

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    100
    Location:
    Lt
    Ok. I will step in.

    Even my boy was able to see and feel it

     
    Norman likes this.
  6. Feb 5, 2020 #6

    dragon2knight

    dragon2knight

    dragon2knight

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
    Actually, that's a major part of the article...and even he doesn't quite explain it fully.
     
  7. Feb 5, 2020 #7

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,640
    Likes Received:
    2,532
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    "McLean’s complex explanation of lift starts with the basic assumption of all ordinary aerodynamics: the air around a wing acts as “a continuous material that deforms to follow the contours of the airfoil.”"

    IMHO this is where the problem starts - with an assumption that is incorrect. Scientists and engineers (especially engineers) like theories and equations that they can use to predict outcomes. If those equations are good enough for the project at hand we use them - but they may not reflect the true nature of nature.

    If you quit thinking about air as "flowing" and think at the molecular level where the air is made up of little particles of O2, N2 and some other bits, it can unify all of the various previous theories.
     
    bmcj and dragon2knight like this.
  8. Feb 5, 2020 #8

    dragon2knight

    dragon2knight

    dragon2knight

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
    I agree there. It's not like anyone is wrong, they aren't, but too many folks just want a quick and simple explanation and that might not happen simply because there are so many different parts to it.
     
  9. Feb 5, 2020 #9

    Pops

    Pops

    Pops

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7,505
    Likes Received:
    6,495
    Location:
    USA.
    Getting down to the lowest level. MONEY.
     
  10. Feb 5, 2020 #10

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    482
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    =thanks kinetic energy of air (thermic energy)

    velocitys of air particles are circa 500 m/s,one qubic meter of
    air contains circa 150 kJ energy !



    >3:30...
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
    Doggzilla likes this.
  11. Feb 5, 2020 #11

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    Aerodynamics is based on statistics.

    The particles behave in a certain way on the average.

    But the total system is chaotic. (Has anyone else here tried to read and understand Chaos Theory?) The equations work fine when operating in the linear region, but get too close to a singularity and it is impossible to predict what will happen. That is why computer programs work fine so long as you stay away from the critical angle of attack.

    [Edit] The correct term is "node". The term "singularity" is used in Quantum Physics.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
    dragon2knight likes this.
  12. Feb 5, 2020 #12

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    5,084
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    But everything is chaotic at a molecular level. Set a block of metal on a table and the contact forces are actually repulsive forces between moving atomic subcomponents. To say that aerodynamics is different than standard physics by calling it chaotic or working at molecular level is not entirely correct.
     
  13. Feb 5, 2020 #13

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    482
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    KASPERwing=
    AoA>30 deg, Cl>5 (Vmin >5 m/s)
     
  14. Feb 5, 2020 #14

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    Not sure I understand what you are getting at, BMCJ.

    What do you mean by "standard physics"? Newtonian? Newtonian physics works find so long as everything stays in the linear region of the chaotic system, and the "Goldilocks region"---not too big, not too small.

    A block of metal is a solid made of a crystalline structure, not individual independently moving molecules like a gas or fluid. At the scale you are talking about (block of metal on a table) the contact forces are mainly gravitational.

    Drifting off topic, by the way.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
  15. Feb 5, 2020 #15

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    fly2kads

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,501
    Likes Received:
    558
    Location:
    Justin, TX
    My gosh, those illustrated sidebars are rubbish.
     
  16. Feb 5, 2020 #16

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,927
    Likes Received:
    977
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    Science and technology advance in baby steps often with lots of faceplants.

    It is Newtonian physics F=MA just like everything else that isn't hot enough to fuse atomic nuclei or cold enough that electrons flow without resistance. A Mass of air is Accelerated more on one side of the wing and exerts a Force. Newton himself didn't understand the problem and applied his math incorrectly when he tried to calculate the force on a sail. About a hundred years later, Daniel Bernoulli, did understand the problem and applied Newton's equations correctly to show the relationship of velocity and pressure so now we can calculate the pressure on a surface if we know the velocity of the fluid (no need to count molecules) and vice-versa However Bernoulli dose not explain why the flow speeds up in one place and slows down in another (circulation), only what happens when something causes the speed or pressure to change. Any object in a fluid flow will have a stagnation point where the pressure of the fluid reaches a maximum (q (dynamic pressure)) and it accelerates away from that point and if the flow field that that object creates is asymmetric a force perpendicular to the flow will result. Another 100+ years and a guy named Ludwig Prandtel figured out that friction causes a boundary layer to form on the surface and that that thin layer is where all the magic happens. Then in the 1950s someone put a little windmill in superfluid helium and proved that without viscosity there is no lift. Here's a video where Alexander Lippisch demonstrates several methods to creat circulation:
     
    dino, fly2kads, dragon2knight and 3 others like this.
  17. Feb 5, 2020 #17

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    Can Bernouli or Prandtel predict exactly when the stall occurs. That is, when will the flow become turbulent?
     
  18. Feb 5, 2020 #18

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Armchair Mafia Conspirator HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    Transition to turbulent flow is not the same thing as a stall. Stalled flow is detached (really it's not flowing along the surface at all); attached flow can be either laminar or turbulent.
     
  19. Feb 5, 2020 #19

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    In either case, the flow has reached a "node" in the system, and switched from laminar to turbulent. That is chaotic behavior.
     
  20. Feb 5, 2020 #20

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,927
    Likes Received:
    977
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    No. Stall is a viscosity effect. Bernoulli's theorem doesn't have anything to say about viscosity, just speed and pressure outside the boundary layer. Not sure about Prandtl but I don't think he quite got to predicting when and where transition and separation would occur. Both of those are really hard problems. The NavierStokes equations can do it but that's super computer territory (or a couple of days to solve for a simple case on a high end desktop). Panel codes use a shortcut to estimate the thickness of the BL and where it will transition to turbulent but separation is still not well modeled.

    You seem to be confounding turbulence with stall. Stall is separated flow, a turbulent boundary layer resists separation from the surface better than a laminar BL but it also creates a lot more friction drag. When a boundary layer leaves the surface it separates the potential flow of the atmosphere from a small slug of air between itself and the wing. This isolated slug of air is turbulent but on average almost stationary relative to the wing so creates little friction but it's also low pressure so it creates pressure drag (low pressure on aft facing surfaces sucks in the wrong direction).

    Here's a video of Prandtl's original experiment showing circulation. The little vortex that gets shed from the trailing edge is what actually starts the circulation by pulling on the upper surface flow with the low pressure at its core thus accelerating the upper surface flow. After that it's a self sustaining feedback cycle. A new starting vortex will be shed every time the plane pitches up.

     

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white