David From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 66 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
MY 10 year old son is doing a science project on " How airplanes fly." Does anybody have any good sources( websites, etc) that would help my son.
Thanks
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Msl747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 411 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
^^
Both of those are good sources, or you could try google. I think most of us on here could help him out with any questions he might have. I did a science project like this when I was younger. Have fun!
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
Quoting Msl747 (Reply 2): I did a science project like this when I was younger.
I didn't. We built a glider. We had built enough Speedee-Bilt balsa wood model airplanes to know what shape the wing should be and how to build it up. We used redwood "stickers" from the sawmill - like lath. For fabric we had some eighty year old, thoroughly rotted window shades.
For a launch site there was a cliff above the beach and ocean, about 150 feet high, on average. Plenty of vertical for a nice long glide flight.
Fortunately we never got foolhardy enough to get in and launch it. Not only was it too flimsy to support us, we'd completely overlooked primary flight controls.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1405 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 3): Fortunately we never got foolhardy enough to get in and launch it.
It looked like a Jenny with only the lower wing and no landing gear. Wheels were to be part of the launch ramp. Oh, and the wing and tail tips were just square. We weren't craftsmen or anything. The spar was a piece of redwood, which is very soft, and was about the thickness of three of your fingers. It was oriented horizontally intstead of vertically so its greatest strength would have been in crashing not in flying. That may have been precognition on our part.
As I said, no one ever had enough guts to try to fly it. I did lean out over the cliff once with a quarter sheet of plywood held in front of me. Leaned way out into the upslope wind. It was an excellent lesson in the practical side of L/D and, being young, I healed quickly.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Can't any one go in and edit wikipedia? I suppose you could fix the errors you found, but whoever put them there in the first place might undo your work...
727EMflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
I wondered what errors SlamClick found in wikipedia, so I started reading it.
Quote from the Wikipedia article:
A false explanation for lift has been put forward in mainstream books, and even in scientific exhibitions. Known as the "equal transit-time" explanation, it states that the parcels of air which are divided by an airfoil must rejoin again; because of the greater curvature (and hence longer path) of the upper surface of an aerofoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to "catch up" with the air flowing around the bottom. Therefore, because of its higher speed the pressure of the air above the airfoil must be lower. Despite the fact that this "explanation" is probably the most common of all, it is false. It has recently been dubbed the "Equal transit-time fallacy." There is no requirement that divided parcels of air rejoin again, and in fact they do not do so. Such an explanation would predict that an aircraft could not fly inverted, which is demonstrably not the case. The explanation also fails to account for aerofoils which are fully symmetrical yet still develop significant lift. Any textbook claiming to be a serious work on the topic will never promote the Equal Transit-time fallacy.
End quote.
I know people have heated discussions about Newton vs. Bernouli but that sounds down-right hostile! Maybe we as Anet should clean up this article???
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2184 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
I think it is a factual statement and very much to th point, except for perhaps the part about inverted flight faulting the equal transit time fallacy (a new term I hadn't heard before, but which I like).
Newton or Bernoulli, equal transit time is out the window whichever explanation you decide to adhere to.
Further, while "people" may have heated discussions about Newton or Bernoulli, aerodynamicists do not. In fact, Bernoulli and Newton both apply.
Cheers,
Fred
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting 727EMflyer (Reply 8): Therefore, because of its higher speed the pressure of the air above the airfoil must be lower. Despite the fact that this "explanation" is probably the most common of all, it is false. It has recently been dubbed the "Equal transit-time fallacy." There is no requirement that divided parcels of air rejoin again, and in fact they do not do so.
Wouldn't mass air flow account for symmetrical airfoils and inverted flight? IIRC, the mass air flow theory doesn't require the two parcels of air to rejoin, but states that air parcels above and below the wing must arrive at the trailing edge of the wing at the same time.
ReidYYZ From Kyrgyzstan, joined Sep 2005, 536 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 1207 times:
When I was a kid, I was told it was magic that kept airplanes flying. Also when i was a kid, we wore onions on our belts, because that was the style at the time. As far as Newton vs. Bernouli, a good old fashion knife fight would decide the winner, despite the 57 year age difference.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 66 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31228 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2184 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15906 posts, 
From Kyrgyzstan, joined Sep 2005, 536 posts, 
Helicopters don't fly at all of course. They're so ugly the ground repels them. Ok it's an old one...
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
