User talk:Nbach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Slipstream from a glider tug
Interesting! The FAA diagram clearly shows the wake from the wingtips, but I can counter with the BGA's Instructor Manual and Ken Stewart's "The Glider Pilot's Manual" ISBN 1-8433-6078-0, both of which attribute at least some of the turbulence to the propeller. I have amended Gliding to be ambiguous until I can consult a few more people. JMcC 10:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that wake turbulence from a heavy aircraft is a big issue. Controllers give 737s a short delay so they can land after 747s. At Lasham Airfield we get a few airliners coming and going each week and if we are landing at about the same time, they get a very wide berth. However for small aircraft that are not rotating/flaring, it should be a much smaller effect. The club's AGM distracted me so I was not able to ask on Saturday. JMcC 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am not disgreeing; I just don't know. Yes, we have to box the wake as well. I will ask around about its source. JMcC 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hello again, I asked someone who should know. He got a first class degree in aeronautical engineering from a top British university (Imperial College), he is the training captain for a large airline, a tug-pilot and a fellow gliding instructor. His reply was:
-
- Does the FAA know anything about aviation? There will be some vortices from the tug but the vortices are weak for a low aspect ratio wing. The prop wash would be a much larger contributor. It may be possible to establish an energy balance to deduce the relative contribution
-
- Engine power = rate of change of potential energy + form drag x speed + induced drag x speed + power lost on propwash
-
- Induced drag coefficient = lift coefficient ^2/ Pi /Aspect ratio
- I will leave you to do the sums!
- Pete's idea of 'sums' usually involves differential equations. He knows what he is talking about. JMcC 08:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
