Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
? About Center Of Lift  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Is it safe to assume that if the center of lift moves back on a wing as the speed passes Mach 1, that it changes position gradually and not suddenly?

Furthermore, if the speed continues to rise, how far back will the center of lift go?


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

On Concorde the centre of lift moves rewards gradually,but no linearly, as the aircraft accelerates. By the time the aircraft reaches Mach 2 the centre of lift has moved rearwards by approx 6 feet, which is why fuel is pumped to the rear tanks so as to try and move the Cof G rearwards by an equal amount and so keep the aircraft trimmed.
Regards Little vc10


User currently offlineSeagull From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1337 times:

However, the answer is that it is NOT safe to assume that, it depends on the design of the aircraft.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Okay, it's not good practice to assume, I guess.

What if the speed continues to rise, say beyond Mach 3/4/5..etc., how far back will the center of lift go?

Is there a limit, I think that's what I'm asking.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

Well, the only way you'll go Mach 5 is outside the earth's atmosphere, for all practical purposes, so the wing won't be lifting at all. You'll be following a ballistic trajectory and dependent on an RCS (reaction control system) to maintain directional stability. Even better, you will have figured out a way to get Congress to fund one last X-15 flight.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

ThirtyEcho, don't you think Mach 5 (about a mile per second) is too slow to fly outside the earth's atomosphere, especially since the Space Shuttle must be going at Mach 25 AND 450,000-feet to maintain an orbit?

Realistically, A plane moving at the upper Mach's should fly in the altitude range of 150000 feet where the air is 1000 times thinner than surface airdensity, hence the speed needs to be increased to maintain a flight.

Like Concorde, it's center of lift might move back farther, but by how much? Consider this pix of the Hypersoar,



then imagine a tailcone at the end so it would represent a future commercial trasport. Now suddenly the plane is backheavy since the presumed center of lift is approximately in the middle and the wieght may be at the 2/3rds mark. So my guess is a temporary wing-fin should lift the back end at low speeds and as it goes faster the change in the center of lift should rebalence it.

Does that make sence, or have I still lost you guys?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

Uh, Lephron, I said "for all practical purposes." This is true and at 150,000 feet (actually lower) there is no such thing as aerodynamic lift. That is why the high altitude versions of the X-15 needed RCS systems. I think that you are thinking of escape velocity to escape the Earth's gravity.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

ThirtyEcho:

Okay, explain this to me:

When NASA did supercomputer windtunnel tests of the X-30 @ escape velocity while in the atomospheric range of 250,000ft, the model showed a fiction air temperature of 3000 centigrade. If there is no atomosphere to support aerodynamic lift, then there should also be no friction due to the atomosphere.

The idea that there is air-supportable lift at 80,000 where the SR-71 has gone and not at higher altitudes doesn't make sence.

Granted this was done in a cybertunnel, the X-43 will experience a similar situtation as it flies @ Mach 5 at 110,000 feet later this year. Have you seen this thing? It's built around it's engine, an airbreather, a scramjet. As the air gets compressed by the forward section of the vehicle, the reaction is that it pops up -- as forward lift. That thing would go completely out of control if it had only forward lift.





Pertaining to my original question, the center of lift must move back far enough so the plane is balanced; or is that wrong?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic ? About Center Of Lift
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Center Of Gravity VS. B1 Bomber posted Thu Mar 18 2004 13:31:01 by Techrep
Question About Picture Of The Day posted Sun Jan 18 2004 21:07:59 by Chi-town
Confusus On The Concept Of Lift posted Mon Feb 24 2003 06:49:13 by SSTjumbo
Question About Uniforms Of Airline Pilots. posted Mon Oct 28 2002 07:48:13 by Bravo45
Center Of Gravity posted Fri Jan 4 2002 00:04:27 by Notar520AC
Need Help On Figuring Coeff Of Lift W/o WindTunnel posted Fri Dec 14 2001 09:01:04 by Lehpron
Usage Of Center Tanks On B737 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 18:21:15 by A300605R
SFC Of Russian Engines : Question About D-18T posted Sun Aug 6 2006 13:40:46 by A342
OEB About The Center Tank Pumps On A320 Family posted Sat May 20 2006 13:33:00 by Wing
About The Retreading Of Aircraft Tires posted Tue Aug 13 2002 01:43:31 by Bio15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format