RogerS
Established Member
AES":5iji8iiw said:
Most definitely, yes please, and many thanks for your contribution. Always willing to learn.
How does an aircraft's wing work?
- Thread starter RogerS
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Most definitely, yes please, and many thanks for your contribution. Always willing to learn.
CHJ
Established Member
Great contribution AES, been around aircraft all my working life, servicing, modifying them for research and major rebuilds, still can't get my head round the fact that a bit of wind can lift so many tons of assorted metal, nuts and bolts etc. into the air. (until a door slams that is)
All we want now is someone to come along and explain how a jet engine transfers the thousands of pounds of thrust to the airframe via individual components that could hardly stand a good car crash, including in most instances the couple of main support couplings usually no more than 15-20 mm dia.
Bit like the dis-belief when fitting a helicopter rotor head and its attendant operating linkages that are about a twentieth the diam of the tow hook on the back of a Car, does not get any easier to accept either when you try and install a heavy load under the chopper fuselage and have to take into account how much the cabin will distort so that it does not squash against the console you are about to fit inside.
All we want now is someone to come along and explain how a jet engine transfers the thousands of pounds of thrust to the airframe via individual components that could hardly stand a good car crash, including in most instances the couple of main support couplings usually no more than 15-20 mm dia.
Bit like the dis-belief when fitting a helicopter rotor head and its attendant operating linkages that are about a twentieth the diam of the tow hook on the back of a Car, does not get any easier to accept either when you try and install a heavy load under the chopper fuselage and have to take into account how much the cabin will distort so that it does not squash against the console you are about to fit inside.
AES
Established Member
@CHJ:
Thanks for the comment - I wasn't sure whether to write it or not (but being a Sunday and away from home I had the time). I didn't mean to pee anyone off - personally I thought the explanation about bolting the wings on loosely so that they flap as the aeroplane moves along the runway was FAR more amusing than my efforts ;-) And the one about the fan in front stopping so that the pilot starts sweating was a good one too.
Helicopters, ahhhh. I'm happy to say that I've never had all that much to do with them (IMHO the only machine known to man that needs to screw itself up to 106% of max power just to get off the ground)! Nasty, noisy, vibrating things! And their engines are even worse than fixed-wing aeroengines.
To whoever posted about the VC10, I do believe you're right, I'm pretty sure it was the first commercial aeroplane with a super-critical wing section (i.e. a reflex under-curvature towards the TE). Lovely aeroplane from the pax viewpoint (flown in them several times), and well-powered thrust-wise too, so nice performance (especially the Super VC10). But I've never worked on them myself and from what I've heard from an ex-BOAC colleagues, a PITA to work on, and not very economical either - typical of so many British aeroplanes unfortunately.
Anyway, some A310 etc pix coming tomorrow as promised.
Krgds
AES
Thanks for the comment - I wasn't sure whether to write it or not (but being a Sunday and away from home I had the time). I didn't mean to pee anyone off - personally I thought the explanation about bolting the wings on loosely so that they flap as the aeroplane moves along the runway was FAR more amusing than my efforts ;-) And the one about the fan in front stopping so that the pilot starts sweating was a good one too.
Helicopters, ahhhh. I'm happy to say that I've never had all that much to do with them (IMHO the only machine known to man that needs to screw itself up to 106% of max power just to get off the ground)! Nasty, noisy, vibrating things! And their engines are even worse than fixed-wing aeroengines.
To whoever posted about the VC10, I do believe you're right, I'm pretty sure it was the first commercial aeroplane with a super-critical wing section (i.e. a reflex under-curvature towards the TE). Lovely aeroplane from the pax viewpoint (flown in them several times), and well-powered thrust-wise too, so nice performance (especially the Super VC10). But I've never worked on them myself and from what I've heard from an ex-BOAC colleagues, a PITA to work on, and not very economical either - typical of so many British aeroplanes unfortunately.
Anyway, some A310 etc pix coming tomorrow as promised.
Krgds
AES
CHJ
Established Member
AES":362942g5 said:
Ironical that they would have a second life as a tanker support being such a gas guzzler.
Last one I had any involvment with was XX914 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Bedford.
Lightning: The T4 and T5 were two-seater trainer versions and were based upon the F.1A variant, think there is a T4 at cranfield. A favourite platform for reasearch projects if you could find a spare one.
Don't think it really needed wings as such, always seemed to be more like a guided engine to me.
RogerS
Established Member
My favourite factual story about the Lightning (can't remember which book it was in) was regarding a senior ground engineer who was investigating poor thrust. There were all sorts of restrictions regarding taxiing under full thrust for obvious reasons but for some reason (the exact details escape me) but said engineer found himself hurtling down the runway and up to take-off speed....which is exactly what he had to do otherwise the plane would have ploughed into some buildings at the end of the runway. No helmet. Ejector seat disabled. Fortunately at the time ground crew were given very rudimentary flying lessons and so he had the basics and managed to land it after a few attempts!
mailee
Established Member
Very interesting thread this, I am learning a ton of information. BUT! don't get into jet turbines....those things are alchemy! :shock: I understand the basic principle but how they work???? Oh one question though, why do airliners have two ailerons on each wing? :?
AES
Established Member
@RogerS:
Yup, it's a true story. If I remember rightly (though I can be correted) it was at Lyneham in Wiltshire which although mainly a Transport Command station at thje time was also an MU (RAF "Maintenence Unit" used for Heavy Maintenence Visits - i.e. "deep" servicing).
If you're interested in the "Frightening", which Jonzjob obviously is, then there is a good website at: http://www.aviation-picture-hangar.co.uk/Lightning.html
That's one of several sites and it includes the "non-pilot" pilotted Frightening story. For Jonzjob: that site (and others linked to it) will also show you what the wing section of that aeroplane really looked like. Also Jonzjob, if you can find a copy of the November 1964 "Aeromodeller" mag it was well drawn there too (Cox was the artist I believe), though I stand to be corrected on that).
Krgds
AES
Yup, it's a true story. If I remember rightly (though I can be correted) it was at Lyneham in Wiltshire which although mainly a Transport Command station at thje time was also an MU (RAF "Maintenence Unit" used for Heavy Maintenence Visits - i.e. "deep" servicing).
If you're interested in the "Frightening", which Jonzjob obviously is, then there is a good website at: http://www.aviation-picture-hangar.co.uk/Lightning.html
That's one of several sites and it includes the "non-pilot" pilotted Frightening story. For Jonzjob: that site (and others linked to it) will also show you what the wing section of that aeroplane really looked like. Also Jonzjob, if you can find a copy of the November 1964 "Aeromodeller" mag it was well drawn there too (Cox was the artist I believe), though I stand to be corrected on that).
Krgds
AES
RogerS
Established Member
Continuing the aviation theme, there have been a few excellent TV programmes recently. One was from the Engineering Giants series and featured the almost complete strip-down of a BA Jumbo as part of the 5/6 year maintenance cycle. Fascinating programme. And then the two-part series on Jets...part 1 was all about our fighter aircraft etc post-war and part 2 - commercial jets. Featured the author of an excellent book 'Empire of the Skies'. WE really had some talented engineers and designers then (well, we still do) and an amazingly fertile aviation industry. I'll never forgive Wilson cancelling TSR2. And that miserable eejit from Cambridge (now dead) who took it upon himself to go round the world telling countries about how bad the sonic boom of Concorde would be.....turnip...traitor!
AES
Established Member
@mailee:
Not all aeroplanes (airliners) have two ailerons on each wing - please wait until tomorrow's pix (I do hope they haven't moved the A310 overnight)!
And to add to the "mysteries" of roll control, modern aircraft have both Spoilers and Speed Brakes on the upper surfaces of the wings. And in high speed cruise flight the Spoilers often "float" to assist the ailerons with the roll control. "My" Boeing 737 is a typical example (as are all B737s) and you should see the "Heath Robinson" mechanical mixers on the B737 - hiding in the RH Main Landing Gear Bay, which, with a series of "strings, pulleys and bellcranks", "mix" the amount of Spoiler movement of the "real" ailerons according to the speed of the aeroplane). But still, IMHO, it's better than the "plastic fantastic Scarebus" with it's multiude of invisible electrons wizzing silently along bits of wire - can you tell that I'm a mechanical bloke and not an avionics "fairy" at heart can't you?
Perhaps we'll get to gas turbines at a later date (not this trip from me though), although Bernoullui will stand you in good stead understanding those too.
Try that web link I posted yesterday.
Krgds
AES
Not all aeroplanes (airliners) have two ailerons on each wing - please wait until tomorrow's pix (I do hope they haven't moved the A310 overnight)!
And to add to the "mysteries" of roll control, modern aircraft have both Spoilers and Speed Brakes on the upper surfaces of the wings. And in high speed cruise flight the Spoilers often "float" to assist the ailerons with the roll control. "My" Boeing 737 is a typical example (as are all B737s) and you should see the "Heath Robinson" mechanical mixers on the B737 - hiding in the RH Main Landing Gear Bay, which, with a series of "strings, pulleys and bellcranks", "mix" the amount of Spoiler movement of the "real" ailerons according to the speed of the aeroplane). But still, IMHO, it's better than the "plastic fantastic Scarebus" with it's multiude of invisible electrons wizzing silently along bits of wire - can you tell that I'm a mechanical bloke and not an avionics "fairy" at heart can't you?
Perhaps we'll get to gas turbines at a later date (not this trip from me though), although Bernoullui will stand you in good stead understanding those too.
Try that web link I posted yesterday.
Krgds
AES
mailee
Established Member
Thanks AES. It is indeed an interesting subject. I am assuming that the larger inboard ailerons are used at slower speeds and the outer ones at high speeds? All of my knowledge of aeronautics comes from flying model aeroplanes so I am no expert but find it an interesting subject. I do agree with you about the fly by wire though as anything mechanical is fine until you computerise it and then the trouble starts. :roll:
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 5,288
- Reaction score
- 364
There have been several replies since I started doing this earlier, so I hope that I'm not redoing too much here..
Mailee, there are indeed high and low speed ailerons, but the low speed ones are on the wing tips where they have most leverage and are most effective at low speed with the hugh speed ones almost like barn doors further towards the wing roots. Unless you go to things like the B52 which doesn't have ailerons as such. It has 'spoilers' on the wing tips which are panels in the upper face of the wing tips that lift into the airflow and literally spoil the lift there causing that wing to drop. It will also have the effect of stopping 'adverse yaw', oh hell, what have I started now!! where with normal ailerons the down going one causes more drag as well as pushing the wing up. This causes the tip to be pulled backwards and makes the plane yaw (turn in the horizontal plane) in the opposite way to the way the aircraft is trying to turn. That causes lots of drag on the whole aircraft apart from making the turn very tatty!
33 MU R.A.F. Lyneham used to do the major servicing on Lightnings in the 60s/70s. One of the problems was that if you put the 2 RR Avons into reheat the breaks were not man enough to hold it so after the Major servicing they were taxied out onto runway, normally by a qualified driver/pilot. On the occasion you refer to the aircraft was wanted toot-sweet so a Winco pilot who was qualified on Lightnings, but hadn't flown one for quite a while, volountered to do the test. He took it out onto the runway, no canopy, wooden dining type chair to sit on and opened it up. There was a problem and it wouldn't come out of reheat so he had two choices, either to lift off or to plough through the woods in the valley at the end of the runway. He took of, did a circuit, managed to stop the reheat and landed safely. He was given a sevear repremand and a comendation. He was also said to have gone gray haired in that one flight!!! I can't remember the exact date but it was somewhere around 1965 while I was stationed there..
I have no idea why anyone, especially an electrician, would find a VC10 difficult to work on? They probably never worked on Britannias or Balfasts? :mrgreen: I throughly enjoyed my 5 years on them both with a spanner in hand and flying in them. The original R.A.F. 10s were a cross between the normal and super 10s with normal fuz with an aluminium floor and big freight door, super wings, engines and tail with the fuel tank in the fin. They also had reverse on all 4 engines. We lost one of ours to Boscome Down for the RB211 engine tests. It had the RB211 on the Starboard side and flew quite happily on just that one engine. On one of the tests they opened the 211 up to full power and actually bent the engine mounts slightly. They only did that once.
If the VC10 had been allowed to be developed it probably have had 2 RB211s and been wide bodied. The same goes for Concord Mk2 as shown in the model that's held at the Bristol Aero Museum, Kemble. They were both before the event of bypass engines and were very sucessful and so were killed!
This is the model and not a Concordsky
Sorry about the photo quality, but go and have a look for yourselves..
Mailee, there are indeed high and low speed ailerons, but the low speed ones are on the wing tips where they have most leverage and are most effective at low speed with the hugh speed ones almost like barn doors further towards the wing roots. Unless you go to things like the B52 which doesn't have ailerons as such. It has 'spoilers' on the wing tips which are panels in the upper face of the wing tips that lift into the airflow and literally spoil the lift there causing that wing to drop. It will also have the effect of stopping 'adverse yaw', oh hell, what have I started now!! where with normal ailerons the down going one causes more drag as well as pushing the wing up. This causes the tip to be pulled backwards and makes the plane yaw (turn in the horizontal plane) in the opposite way to the way the aircraft is trying to turn. That causes lots of drag on the whole aircraft apart from making the turn very tatty!
33 MU R.A.F. Lyneham used to do the major servicing on Lightnings in the 60s/70s. One of the problems was that if you put the 2 RR Avons into reheat the breaks were not man enough to hold it so after the Major servicing they were taxied out onto runway, normally by a qualified driver/pilot. On the occasion you refer to the aircraft was wanted toot-sweet so a Winco pilot who was qualified on Lightnings, but hadn't flown one for quite a while, volountered to do the test. He took it out onto the runway, no canopy, wooden dining type chair to sit on and opened it up. There was a problem and it wouldn't come out of reheat so he had two choices, either to lift off or to plough through the woods in the valley at the end of the runway. He took of, did a circuit, managed to stop the reheat and landed safely. He was given a sevear repremand and a comendation. He was also said to have gone gray haired in that one flight!!! I can't remember the exact date but it was somewhere around 1965 while I was stationed there..
I have no idea why anyone, especially an electrician, would find a VC10 difficult to work on? They probably never worked on Britannias or Balfasts? :mrgreen: I throughly enjoyed my 5 years on them both with a spanner in hand and flying in them. The original R.A.F. 10s were a cross between the normal and super 10s with normal fuz with an aluminium floor and big freight door, super wings, engines and tail with the fuel tank in the fin. They also had reverse on all 4 engines. We lost one of ours to Boscome Down for the RB211 engine tests. It had the RB211 on the Starboard side and flew quite happily on just that one engine. On one of the tests they opened the 211 up to full power and actually bent the engine mounts slightly. They only did that once.
If the VC10 had been allowed to be developed it probably have had 2 RB211s and been wide bodied. The same goes for Concord Mk2 as shown in the model that's held at the Bristol Aero Museum, Kemble. They were both before the event of bypass engines and were very sucessful and so were killed!
This is the model and not a Concordsky
Sorry about the photo quality, but go and have a look for yourselves..
CHJ
Established Member
I think the museum is in Bldg 150 (hangar) my old main workshop, the only building I've ever had to manage that had power sources from two different grid supplies to meet the power load should we loose one areas grid whilst in the middle of critical heat treatment or autoclave programs.
Must visit one of the days, it's 18 yrs since I last entered it, could not bring myself to walk over there the couple of times I've nipped over to the steam fair or air days.
Must visit one of the days, it's 18 yrs since I last entered it, could not bring myself to walk over there the couple of times I've nipped over to the steam fair or air days.
AES
Established Member
Well Ladies & Gents,
If any of you have been waiting all agog for some aeroplane pix this mrning I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you.
NO, they didn't move the aeroplanes overnight; and YES, I've got what I think will be some quite nice pix in the camnera right now. BUT, being a dozy old so-and-so now and then, AES has not got the special USB/mini USB lead here, so he can't download the pix off the camera onto the laptop so that he can upload them here.
Very sorry - I'll get the pix up here within the next few days (as soon as I can get my a**e into gear).
Krgds
AES
P.S. Didn't know about the Museum at Kemble. Must try and go there sometime.
P.S.S. I really don't know about the VC10 myself, and my (2 colleagues actually) who did work on them (and not leccys by trade BTW) did tell me they were a PITA. They were probably comparing them mainly with Mr. Boeing's aeroplanes (B707 and on) which although can be a bit of a pain at times are/were generally much better for servicing and access and economy than British aeroplanes. I can confirm that generalisation from my own experience too (e.g. BAC 1-11, BAe 146/RJ).
Cheers
If any of you have been waiting all agog for some aeroplane pix this mrning I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you.
NO, they didn't move the aeroplanes overnight; and YES, I've got what I think will be some quite nice pix in the camnera right now. BUT, being a dozy old so-and-so now and then, AES has not got the special USB/mini USB lead here, so he can't download the pix off the camera onto the laptop so that he can upload them here.
Very sorry - I'll get the pix up here within the next few days (as soon as I can get my a**e into gear).
Krgds
AES
P.S. Didn't know about the Museum at Kemble. Must try and go there sometime.
P.S.S. I really don't know about the VC10 myself, and my (2 colleagues actually) who did work on them (and not leccys by trade BTW) did tell me they were a PITA. They were probably comparing them mainly with Mr. Boeing's aeroplanes (B707 and on) which although can be a bit of a pain at times are/were generally much better for servicing and access and economy than British aeroplanes. I can confirm that generalisation from my own experience too (e.g. BAC 1-11, BAe 146/RJ).
Cheers
Peter T
Established Member
Unfortunately, being a high bypass turbofan, the RB211, or any of it's more modern counterparts, would not work at supersonic speeds.
This was always a problem for Concorde. It had to use noisy, relatively inefficient military engines. Even these engines cannot work with inlet air at supersonic speeds. The air intakes are designed to slow the air to subsonic speeds before it reaches the compressor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Concorde fan and was saddened when it was withdrawn from service, particularly as I never got the chance to fly on one!
This was always a problem for Concorde. It had to use noisy, relatively inefficient military engines. Even these engines cannot work with inlet air at supersonic speeds. The air intakes are designed to slow the air to subsonic speeds before it reaches the compressor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Concorde fan and was saddened when it was withdrawn from service, particularly as I never got the chance to fly on one!
bugbear
Established Member
Peter T":3gndypp9 said:
It just proves that all sophisticated engineering is a big exercise in robbing Peter to pay Paul, which involves rather subtle skill and judgement.
BugBear
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 5,288
- Reaction score
- 364
I'm not sure about the building number Chas, but I did get a HUGE b00l0king for digging a trench and laying a power line from the far corner of it across to where XM496, Britannia, was parked about 150 yards away. I went across a corner of the old Roman road that runs through the airfield!! The fact that the peri track and the runway cut huge great chunks out of it seem to have gone un-noticed :mrgreen: When I pionted that out to the person yelling at me he went quiet! .!
This was the very last flying Britannia and I finished up as th eleky on it for yet another 4 years. It was one of the R.A.F. fleet at Lyneham http://www.xm496.com . It is still the only 'live' Brit in the world. There are others around, but none have all of their Bristol Protius engines let alone all in running condition.
Sorry if I gave the impression of the RB211 and Concord, but there was an engine on the drawing board for the Concord II . What with Boeing yelling that nobody ever wanted to fly supersonic, that is while they couldn't match it, but now they are using Concordski to try to do just that along with their new attempt with the hypersonic jobbie using ram jets.. They don't mind supersonic air coming at them..
This was the very last flying Britannia and I finished up as th eleky on it for yet another 4 years. It was one of the R.A.F. fleet at Lyneham http://www.xm496.com . It is still the only 'live' Brit in the world. There are others around, but none have all of their Bristol Protius engines let alone all in running condition.
Sorry if I gave the impression of the RB211 and Concord, but there was an engine on the drawing board for the Concord II . What with Boeing yelling that nobody ever wanted to fly supersonic, that is while they couldn't match it, but now they are using Concordski to try to do just that along with their new attempt with the hypersonic jobbie using ram jets.. They don't mind supersonic air coming at them..
CHJ
Established Member
Jonzjob":2zd5590r said:
I don't doubt you got in trouble for that, the Foss Way that does indeed run right alongside bldg 150 is a protected site, being one of only a few sections of the Roman road that still contains the original construction details. For many years it was still designated a public right of way for pedestrians that air traffic had to manage across the runways.
Attachments
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 5,288
- Reaction score
- 364
That's XM496 just off the western corner of the hanger and I had the trench cut almost in a straight lint to the tail of the Brit and believe me I did get a rollocking for it. Not that I was too worried, you can't sack slaves you have to sell 'em.
A bit closer look.
It's been moved again since I've been over here and it now resides over the other side of the runway, I think, on the ole Red Arrows flight line? There somewhere? Working on that didn't arf bring back some memories
A bit closer look.
It's been moved again since I've been over here and it now resides over the other side of the runway, I think, on the ole Red Arrows flight line? There somewhere? Working on that didn't arf bring back some memories
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 5,288
- Reaction score
- 364
I've just found this link. Fantastic and well worth the watch. A good demo of elevons too :mrgreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbaQo6nM ... ure=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbaQo6nM ... ure=relmfu
RogerS
Established Member
What a shame. Kemble is now closed to the public. Wonder what the sponsors think?
