I like to also think that it only increases the shower of anti skid they get when I no grade into the one, in full blower
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation (Part 3)
- Thread starter Top_Gun_1_0_1
- Start date
I like to also think that it only increases the shower of anti skid they get when I no grade into the one, in full blower
As an example, the TC-12 needs to get up to 96 knots (110 mph) before we takeoff (max gross weight, approach flaps set). That does not necessarily mean we need to be rolling down the runway at 96 knots, only that the wind passing over the wings is moving at 96 knots. So if we have a headwind of 10 knots, then we only need 86 knots of forward motion over the ground. In an extreme scenario, if we had a 96-knot headwind, the wings should generate enough lift on their own without ANY forward motion and would start lifting us off the ground from a standstill (see video).
During the Falklands War the Argentine carrier supposedly couldn't launch a strike against the Royal Navy task force because they couldn't get enough wind over the deck. That it was a WWII vintage carrier with a very old catapult and old aircraft didn't help but it shows you how important wind can be for a carrier. The Russians and Chinese carriers could have a similar issues without catapults.
UW14
Member
Should have parked it on a massive treadmill
.I see, very interesting.
The reason why I thought wind blowing towards the aircraft could make takeoff more difficult was that it would counteract the engines' ability to propel the aircraft forward. Basically that wind blowing towards the aircraft will make it where the engines have to work harder to get the aircraft to move forward. However I hadn't thought that this wouldn't matter as much because the wind blowing under the wings helps with the lift, so the speed to takeoff can be reduced. Remember that what may seem like common sense to you as a pilot is not necessarily going to be common sense to a non-pilot.
I can see why they require training before one can fly an aircraft
The reason why I thought wind blowing towards the aircraft could make takeoff more difficult was that it would counteract the engines' ability to propel the aircraft forward. Basically that wind blowing towards the aircraft will make it where the engines have to work harder to get the aircraft to move forward. However I hadn't thought that this wouldn't matter as much because the wind blowing under the wings helps with the lift, so the speed to takeoff can be reduced. Remember that what may seem like common sense to you as a pilot is not necessarily going to be common sense to a non-pilot.
I can see why they require training before one can fly an aircraft
Actually, it's the air flowing over the wings that creates lift. Airfoil shapes cause the air to move faster over the top than under, thus creating an area of lower pressure over the wing that "pulls" the wing up. The physics work the same no matter how that airflow is generated - whether by engine thrust or wind or by spinning round as in a helicopter. How do you think gliders fly, after all?
Also on JFK during her last cruise. Old boat, dragging screws, leaky cats, hot and humid days. Several days in the Gulf all the launches but the S-3s and light-loaded Hornets were scrubbed because they couldn't get the launch envelope.
Is it the air over the wings or a combination of the air flowing under and over the wings? I actually did know about the air flowing over the top creating lower pressure (Bernoulli's principle), however I also assumed the air under the wing helped too. I assumed that with adequate air flowing under the wings, the plane would angle the flaps to then take off into the air, but had to maintain forward motion to be able to keep adequate air flow under the wings.
You would be incorrect Sir. Don't know why my questions are troll-y.
Meh, I disagree. I still think the reason airplanes fly is "mostly magic."
And I have no fucking idea why helicopters fly.
Flaps are not required to take off. Flaps change the amount of lift (and drag) the wing is producing. This allows for lower takeoff speeds and consequently lowers the distance required to take off. You're right about Bernoulli's principle, but the lowering of flaps is probably closer to Newton's third law, which is also a valid explanation of lift. Air flows over the top of the airfoil and is accelerated downward, and the reactionary force is upward on the wing. Neither Bernoulli's principle nor Newton's third law is sufficient to fully explain lift on its own, there are elements of both.
But that's a bit more detail than I've ever been expected to know on the subject. Knowing the effect of flaps on approach/stall speeds and descent profile, sure. Pressure differentials and reactionary forces? Not so much. For more practical knowledge, check out Ch. 4 of the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (the whole thing is free to download online):
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...on/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK - Chapter 04.pdf
Thank you for the link.