Roger, I tried my best even using an example to illustrate the point.
Your logic is flawed with many falacious premises. In order to avert
the complexity of refuting your conclusions drawn from the falacious
premises, Let me once again simply try to compare the Skypup and
the Cri Cri which weigh the same, fly the same speed but one having
a wing twice as large as the other. ( ie twice the wing loading )
or compare a leaf falling from a tree to a brick. Once again,
the key significant difference is wing loading. If you dont understand
the concept of wing loading please so state and we can focus there.
Go ahead if you wish, swat both example planes as they fly with a
gust of wind if the analogy helps.
With one having twice as large an area to "catch the gust" so to
speak, which do you think will be displaced the most or incur
the greatest G load.
Several years ago I compiled a collection of several dozen academic
tutorials and reviews on aerodynamics. If you wish to pursue these
in further detail send me a private email and I can forward them to you.
> > Here's the part that makes no sense to me...
> Hi James
> Because it's wrong. Your understanding is correct, as you first stated it,
> and Scott is talking nonsense.
> Ordinarily I wouldn't make a point of it (because I appreciate Scott's
> historical and photographic contributions on all the various groups and have
> no wish to diss him) but in this case his insistence on regurgitated
> half-understood theory of flight and structures is dangerous. We now have
> the situation of someone
> having had the right answer (you) beginning to vere off into the realms of
> half-arsed edmucation that may well, one day, cause you or someone else to
> have an accident by wrongly judging or analysing a situation. I've seen
> this happen more than once. Best to nip it in
> the bud.
> So I'll say it again. It's not about wing-loading. It's about inertia,
> the force it takes to displace an object. If the gust (think of a block of
> air in motion as a bat or a swatter) can easily displace an
> object because the object is lightweight then the structure of that object
> does not have much energy (resistance to movement) to absorb. It simply
> moves. If it could not be displaced so easily (because it was heavier or
> going faster) then its structure would have more energy to soak up and
> therefore it would have to be stronger. Thus, if you swat a bee and a fly
> with the same wing loading, in flight at the same time, the fly is less
> likely to suffer
> damage because it is lighter, has less inertia, therefore provides less
> resistance to being displaced, therefore less of the swatting energy will be
> absorbed into its structure. Whereas the bee, being heavier, will receive
> more of the swatting energy into its structure and will probably suffer
> damage. What if you swatted a fly and a seagul with the fly-swat, supposing
> they both had the same wing-loading and were moving at the same speed -
> would the gull be moved aside by the fly-swat? No, it would receive the
> full energy of the swat into its structure.
> This is why ultralight aircraft have a weight and a speed restriction - to
> reduce their inertia. It make them more easily displaced by the airmass and
> therefore less easily damaged than a heavier aircraft or a faster moving
> Link to Airchair main page for archives, files and photos
> Yahoo! Groups Links