An "unconventional" approach?

An "unconventional" approach?

Steve Seibel
www.aeroexperiments.org

September 16, 2006 edition

 

Is there anything "unconventional" about the "Aerophysics Exploration Pages"?

A few (not all!) of the concepts presented in the "Aerophysics Exploration Pages" are at odds with concepts presented in some (not all!) flight training manuals and handbooks on aerodynamics. Some of these areas of conflict are noted briefly within the tutorial pages, although our primary focus will be on simply presenting the clearest and most accurate view of the physics of flight. Interested readers can explore some of these areas of conflict in more detail by visiting the "Critiques" section of the Aeroexperiments website.

A few particulars: by not invoking "centrifugal force" during our discussions of turning flight, we're taking an approach that is a bit different from what finds in most flight training manuals for "conventional" aircraft as well as for hang gliders. Also, the emphasis on the "non-tangible" nature of gravity is somewhat out of the mainstream, though not entirely unique. Also, the observation that a pilot's pitch "coordination" inputs during turning flight act to prevent the glider from diving, but do not play a role in preventing the glider from "slipping", is quite different from what we read in nearly all past and present flight training manuals for hang gliding, at least in the US.

The observation that--when we take a "holistic" view of anhedral--a flex-wing hang glider has more anhedral with the VG loose than with the VG tight is quite "unconventional" and may be original to this author.

 

Advance to "Your thoughts are welcome..."

Up to the Aerophysics Exploration Pages index

Up to Aeroexperiments site map

Copyright © 2004 aeroexperiments.org