0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Barman on May 14, 2007, 12:45:59 PMQuote from: BouncerA stationary aircraft facing a headwind speed exceeding its lift factor will take off. Conversely an aircraft facing downwind would never take off. That is the reason why aircraft always face into the wind to take off, thus reducing the effort required.No. If you think about it? Once the airspeed over the wing (from the headwind) is sufficient to overcome its mass it would indeed momentarily lift off the ground but then be blown backwards?Only if the aircraft were tethered would it be able to lift upwards in a strong wind.Irrelevant I know but I thought I?d mention it?Not if it were under full power and only restrained by the wheel resistance. As soon as the craft leaves the ground the wheel effect will cease and normal forward momentum - relational to the air flow - would commence. You said yourself that an aircraft can fly 'backwards' in relation to the ground. so as soon as the ground effect is removed it leaves the equation. as long as lift is maintained it will fly. Lift is defined by adequate airflow not forward momentum.Using your model a glider would not work.Seeing as you want to argue about something.............
Quote from: BouncerA stationary aircraft facing a headwind speed exceeding its lift factor will take off. Conversely an aircraft facing downwind would never take off. That is the reason why aircraft always face into the wind to take off, thus reducing the effort required.No. If you think about it? Once the airspeed over the wing (from the headwind) is sufficient to overcome its mass it would indeed momentarily lift off the ground but then be blown backwards?Only if the aircraft were tethered would it be able to lift upwards in a strong wind.Irrelevant I know but I thought I?d mention it?
A stationary aircraft facing a headwind speed exceeding its lift factor will take off. Conversely an aircraft facing downwind would never take off. That is the reason why aircraft always face into the wind to take off, thus reducing the effort required.
I don't understand what is happening so I don't really think I can become involved.
Quote from: Bar Wench on May 14, 2007, 01:53:24 PMI don't understand what is happening so I don't really think I can become involved. That's never ever stopped any woman getting involved.
Quote from: Barman on May 14, 2007, 02:56:49 PM Stop sneaking these foreign emoticon icons in when I'm not looking The engines wern't running, they were stationary along with the rest of the aeroplane
Quote from: Bouncer on May 14, 2007, 03:07:30 PMQuote from: Barman on May 14, 2007, 02:56:49 PM Stop sneaking these foreign emoticon icons in when I'm not looking The engines wern't running, they were stationary along with the rest of the aeroplane Then it wouldn't fly with a strong headwind.
Quote from: Barman on May 14, 2007, 03:12:46 PMQuote from: Bouncer on May 14, 2007, 03:07:30 PMQuote from: Barman on May 14, 2007, 02:56:49 PM Stop sneaking these foreign emoticon icons in when I'm not looking The engines wern't running, they were stationary along with the rest of the aeroplane Then it wouldn't fly with a strong headwind. Just stop it. You are not intimidating me with whacky wotsits! The engines were stationary but the props weren't!They were whizzing around flat out! Now THAT'S better
