Some kind of autopilot?

Well put Yurgon +1

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yurgon,

To put it differently: If I fly into a headwind, will that affect the Angle of Attack the same way that flying in a crosswind affects the Angle of Sideslip?

Not relative to the ground, what is your Angle to the relative wind.

Surprised no one in how many post? brought up the actual aeronautical term keel effect.

"When an aircraft is in a sideslip, these surfaces generate sidewards lift forces"

Yurgon, I was called out by Frederf few pages back, when mixing wind navigation in with aircraft Aerodynamics.

We are discussing exactly this post below by BigDuke6ixx, specifically the highlighted bit about Aerodynamics.

Only when in yaw.. As we have been trying to get across to you, the wind (movement of the atmosphere in relation to the ground) is not felt by the aircraft in flight as an aerodynamic force. The only 'wind' that the aircraft in flight feels aerodynamically is the relative wind. The green arrows in that diagram represent the relative wind. The direction of flight of that plane is the inverse on the green arrows.

 

All the wind does is change the ground track and groundspeed.

 

A little confusing here? Which wind is which lol? Wind atmosphere?

Quote "Wind atmosphere is not felt by the aircraft in flight as an aerodynamic force"

Quote "The only 'wind' that the aircraft in flight feels aerodynamically is the relative wind."

Quote "All the wind does is change the ground track and groundspeed" How does this line work in with the line above? "feels aerodynamically is the relative wind"

I'm not concerned with ground track or the planet's surface. Only what is aerodynamically happening to the (aircraft in motion) through this (relative wind that's in motion).

No need to spam the forum with "noise" you can just post the small quote out of the FAA handbook you wanted to show me, I can lookup the rest of the noise.

 

You should read this section from page 396:

 

Effect of Wind

 

• Movement of the air mass in reference to the ground

• Forward movement of the aircraft through the air mass

 

Actually, these two motions are independent.

 

The only thing you need from the "Effect of Wind section" out of the Pilot's Handbook is.

"Actually, these two motions are independent."

Plus this one line from NASA weather cocking article.

Quote

"The wind introduces an additional velocity component perpendicular to the flight path, as shown in the middle of the figure."

Also show in the picture below.

Picture above from the FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Page 118

What does this aircraft above, aerodynamically "feel" from it's "relative wind" when at constant speed, accelerating into it or the relative wind is changing?

"These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind."

Quote FAA Pilot's Handbook

"A high wing aircraft always has the tendency to turn the longitudinal axis

of the aircraft into the "relative wind", which is often referred to as the keel effect."

This is straight from the book guy's FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge

What this all started with on page 3.

Sorry to push the point, but there is zero tendency for an aircraft in flight to point its nose into wind. The only wind the aircraft sees is the relative wind (airspeed over the wings).

Post 201 below

 

When both winds are applied at once (forward flight in cross wind) both winds apply torquing forces on the tail to attempt to point the airplane's nose into the direction each wind is coming from. Wind from each is applying a greater force on the tail than the nose at all times (even when beta is zero). The airplane is therefore subject to yaw torque in both directions at the same time by the wind of motion and the environmental wind. These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind. Despite achieving a balance in forces, the crosswind is applying a force on the tail to rotate the airplane forever and always but it cannot do so because there is another wind trying to do the opposite.

 

Full post 201

 

 

The wrongheadedness of the above post is just breathtaking and the conclusion at the end mind-numbing.

 

 

Biggest load of tosh I have ever read.

 

But if your plane is taxying you would be exactly right.

 

Quote

"Effect of Wind"

• Movement of the air mass in reference to the ground

• Forward movement of the aircraft through the air mass

Actually, these two motions are independent."

.

Not relative to the ground, what is your Angle to the relative wind.

Good point, let's define relative wind.

In aeronautics, the relative wind is the direction of movement of the atmosphere relative to an aircraft or an airfoil. It is opposite to the direction of movement of the aircraft or airfoil relative to the atmosphere. Close to any point on the surface of an aircraft or airfoil, the air is moving parallel to the surface; but at a great distance from the aircraft or airfoil the movement of the air can be represented by a single vector. This vector is the relative wind or the free stream velocity vector.[1]

 

The angle between the chord line of an airfoil and the relative wind defines the angle of attack. The relative wind is of great importance to pilots because exceeding the critical angle of attack will result in a stall, regardless of airspeed.

I think the article lacks the Angle of Sideslip, and AFAIK the chord line is usually also used to show the AoS rather than the AoA, but other than that it sounds fine to me.

Anyway, what should really get the message across is the next paragraph:

Relative wind is also used to describe the airflow relative to an object in freefall through an atmosphere, such as that of a person's body during the freefall portion of a skydive or BASE jump. In a normal skydive the vertical descent of the skydiver creates an upward relative wind. The relative wind strength increases with increased descent rate.

I really don't know what else to say.

Wind is movement of air across the planet's surface.

Relative wind is the movement of air as seen from an aircraft (or skydiver, or whatever object that moves through the air).

When the wind is not blowing (0 m/s), an aircraft could still be traveling in a sideslip.

When the wind is blowing (30 m/s), an aircraft could still be traveling with no sideslip whatsoever.

These two definitions of "wind" are only really connected when the aircraft is not free to move within the air mass.

Great, that's another way to understand what Frederf wrote.

The only thing I would take from the "Relative wind" wiki that is important to the aircraft aerodynamically when flying in it.

Wiki "Relative wind"

"It is opposite to the direction of movement of the aircraft or airfoil relative to the atmosphere."

"The movement of the air can be represented by a single vector. This vector is the relative wind or the free stream velocity vector."

 

Back to the steady state situation...

 

You can think about an airplane moving in a crosswind in two ways: that the airplane is subject to two winds simultaneously from two sources or that it is subject to a single wind which is a combination of the two.

 

In the two-winds manner of thinking there is a wind opposite to the direction of motion. For example if the airplane is traveling south to north this is effectively a wind from north to south. Additionally there is a second wind which is the air movement which one would feel if the airplane was not in motion. Examined separately it should be clear that the airplane will be torqued to point directly into that one wind.

 

When both winds are applied at once (forward flight in cross wind) both winds apply torquing forces on the tail to attempt to point the airplane's nose into the direction each wind is coming from. Wind from each is applying a greater force on the tail than the nose at all times (even when beta is zero). The airplane is therefore subject to yaw torque in both directions at the same time by the wind of motion and the environmental wind. These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind. Despite achieving a balance in forces, the crosswind is applying a force on the tail to rotate the airplane forever and always but it cannot do so because there is another wind trying to do the opposite.

 

 

The one-wind interpretation is to consider the wind due to motion and the environmental wind and call it "relative wind." It is mathematically identical to the two-wind interpretation and reaches the same conclusion. When the airplane is crabbed into the crosswind only wind, relative wind, is straight down the airplane longitudinally and there is no yaw torque.

 

 

Deciding which of these two interpretations is correct is unhelpful. They are both valid.

If you are driving straight down the highway and there is a crosswind at 45 degrees. There is a torque down the side of the car and you correct it by hold this torque into it with the steering wheel.

Now lets turn up the wind and put this car on Ice at 200 MPH. You are hitting this crosswind at 200 MPH, this starts pushing the car into side slip and adds more torque into this relative crosswind until the balance, if you want to stay on the highway you the pilot will need to add more rudder torque, so you can continue straight down the ice highway, the same as landing an aircraft.

Now if the highway turns more side on into the relative wind, more torque is applied. These change in forces just happen, the pilot is unaware because of Directional stability. If you don't add even more torque into this wind, you will start side slipping off the highway path, just like a plane does in relative wind.

Where will it pivot from into this side slip.

Frederf Quote "These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind."

I would like to see a rally car driver pull that off with no tire studs lol.

Having a longer wheel base car from CG and a nice big tail fin, like the pic below would help the rally car driver a lot with directional stability.

.

 

 

Quote

 

"Effect of Wind"

 

• Movement of the air mass in reference to the ground

• Forward movement of the aircraft through the air mass

 

Actually, these two motions are independent."

 

 

.

And the FAA section The Effect of Wind continues thusly:

It makes no difference whether the mass of air through which the aircraft

is flying is moving or is stationary. A pilot flying in a 70-knot gale would be totally unaware of any wind (except for possible turbulence) unless the ground were observed. In reference to the ground, however, the aircraft would appear to fly faster with a tailwind or slower with a headwind, or to drift right or left with a crosswind.

In other words, the pilot would not see any crosswind induced slip being registered on her/his slip indicator. But if she/he was low and visual with the ground s/he would notice the crosswind induced drift acting upon her/his ground track. You can try this yourself in DCS of course.

Now, you also claim the a headwind increases a plane's airspeed, but the FAA are very clea about this:

3, an aircraft flying eastward at an airspeed of 120 knots in still air has a groundspeed (GS) exactly the same—120 knots. If the mass of air is moving eastward at 20 knots, the airspeed of the aircraft is not affected, but the progress of the aircraft over the ground is 120 plus 20 or a GS of 140 knots. On the other hand, if the mass of air is moving westward at 20 knots, the airspeed of the aircraft remains the same, but GS becomes 120 minus 20 or 100 knots.

So, ask yourself this: if a headwind does not add addition airspeed to an aircraft in flight, how can a crosswind cause any yaw? It cannot of course, the FAA are very unambiguous in that they state very clearly that the wind only affects groundspeed and ground track.

Is the penny any closer to dropping for you?

You have move back to Flight Navigation in "relative wind".

I'm only interested about aircraft Aerodynamics in this "relative wind" that has been discussed here.

I have already stated, the pilot is unknown to this constant Aerodynamically applied force (torque) to the aircraft, that changes.

So you guy's sticking with...

 

Once the Aircraft is Airborne the Wind doesnt apply any force unless there is a shear layer or turbulence as the Aircraft is already moving within the Air. The only forces are Thrust Drag and Lift and weight plus the adjustments you make with the controls. Wind per se has no effect what at all on the Aircraft aerodynamically.

You are just moving with you speed in the air plus the speed of the Air. An Airliner in a 150 knot jetstream has zero affect vs an Airliner in still air handling wise. Forces only change when the wind velocity itself changes.

Page 9

 

Only when in yaw.. As we have been trying to get across to you, the wind (movement of the atmosphere in relation to the ground) is not felt by the aircraft in flight as an aerodynamic force. The only 'wind' that the aircraft in flight feels aerodynamically is the relative wind. The green arrows in that diagram represent the relative wind. The direction of flight of that plane is the inverse on the green arrows.

 

 

All the wind does is change the ground track and groundspeed.

You both still disagree with the post below by Frederf, as seen by your comments below:

 

I should amend my previous conclusion about the response from an airplane subject to crosswind suddenly. I said that the heading will respond by changing the heading without changing the course. I.e. the airplane will pivot into the wind changing heading but not changing course.

 

The more careful look at the situation is that the effect will be a mixture of course and heading change. While the heading change is occurring due to yaw stability, there is some lateral acceleration. This lateral acceleration changes the course. The nose position that results in no beta angle to the air flow will not be the crab angle for the initial course but the course that has developed during the time the airplane was responding in heading.

 

An airplane with low yaw stability and low resistance to lateral acceleration will change course due to a sudden onset of crosswind and do little change of heading. Conversely an airplane with high yaw stability and high resistance to lateral acceleration will mostly pivot into the wind with minimal course change.

 

---

 

Back to the steady state situation...

 

You can think about an airplane moving in a crosswind in two ways: that the airplane is subject to two winds simultaneously from two sources or that it is subject to a single wind which is a combination of the two.

 

In the two-winds manner of thinking there is a wind opposite to the direction of motion. For example if the airplane is traveling south to north this is effectively a wind from north to south. Additionally there is a second wind which is the air movement which one would feel if the airplane was not in motion. Examined separately it should be clear that the airplane will be torqued to point directly into that one wind.

 

When both winds are applied at once (forward flight in cross wind) both winds apply torquing forces on the tail to attempt to point the airplane's nose into the direction each wind is coming from. Wind from each is applying a greater force on the tail than the nose at all times (even when beta is zero). The airplane is therefore subject to yaw torque in both directions at the same time by the wind of motion and the environmental wind. These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind. Despite achieving a balance in forces, the crosswind is applying a force on the tail to rotate the airplane forever and always but it cannot do so because there is another wind trying to do the opposite.

 

 

The one-wind interpretation is to consider the wind due to motion and the environmental wind and call it "relative wind." It is mathematically identical to the two-wind interpretation and reaches the same conclusion. When the airplane is crabbed into the crosswind only wind, relative wind, is straight down the airplane longitudinally and there is no yaw torque.

 

 

Deciding which of these two interpretations is correct is unhelpful. They are both valid.

 

 

The wrongheadedness of the above post is just breathtaking and the conclusion at the end mind-numbing.

 

 

Biggest load of tosh I have ever read.

 

But if your plane is taxying you would be exactly right.

 

Picture above from the FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Page 118

What does this aircraft above, aerodynamically "feel" from it's "relative wind" when at constant speed, accelerating into it, relative wind is changing or you are moving around in it?

Just a simple comment on the above?

 

When both winds are applied at once (forward flight in cross wind) both winds apply torquing forces on the tail to attempt to point the airplane's nose into the direction each wind is coming from. Wind from each is applying a greater force on the tail than the nose at all times (even when beta is zero). The airplane is therefore subject to yaw torque in both directions at the same time by the wind of motion and the environmental wind. These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind. Despite achieving a balance in forces, the crosswind is applying a force on the tail to rotate the airplane forever and always but it cannot do so because there is another wind trying to do the opposite.

BigDuke6ixx "wrongheadedness and the conclusion at the end mind-numbing"

WindyTX "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read."

Correct?

Do you know of any aeronautical engineers here, that we can ask?

.

So you guy's sticking with...

 

 

 

Page 9

 

 

 

 

You both still disagree with the post below by Frederf, as seen by your comments below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picture above from the FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Page 118

 

 

What does this aircraft above, aerodynamically "feel" from it's "relative wind" when at constant speed, accelerating into it, relative wind is changing or you are moving around in it?

 

 

Just a simple comment on the above?

 

 

 

 

BigDuke6ixx "wrongheadedness and the conclusion at the end mind-numbing"

 

WindyTX "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read."

 

Correct?

 

 

Do you know of any aeronautical engineers here, that we can ask?

 

 

.

Windy is an exmilitary pilot and a current 777 jockey with 10,000hrs, his opinion not good enough? Like I said, I'll bet my house on you being wrong.

Instead of desperately trying to prove us wrong, which has taken you down more rabbit holes than a hungry weasel, you should do yourself a favour and at least try to understand why we are correct.

Let him explain to me then, what the picture above means then?

Then ask him if he still wants to stick with.

WindyTX "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read." about Frederf's post.

Simple right.

This is not about wining or losing for me, as it seems to be for you.

I like to learn about this aero stuff, when time permits, I want to know what is right or wrong, pass the noise you have been posting .

If some of Frederf's post is incorrect, or "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read" if you are this 10,000 hour 777 pilot?

Tell me what's not right in it, instead of fobbing it off with just a rude comment.

.

Let him explain to me then, what the picture above means then?

 

Then ask him if he still wants to stick with.

 

WindyTX "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read." about Frederf's post.

 

Simple right.

 

 

This is not about wining or losing for me, as it seems to be for you.

 

I like to learn about this areo stuff when time permits, I want to know what is right or wrong, pass the noise you have been posting .

 

 

If some of Frederf's post is incorrect, or "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read" if you are this 10,000 hour 777 pilot?

Tell me what's not right in it, instead of fobbing it off with just a rude comment.

 

 

 

 

.

The picture shows the relative wind hitting the fuselage and fin with enough aerodynamic force to bring the plane back into alignment with the relative wind and into a state of directional stability.

From the same page:

If an aircraft is flying in a straight line, and a sideward gust

of air gives the aircraft a slight rotation about its vertical

axis (i.e., the right), the motion is retarded and stopped by

the fin because while the aircraft is rotating to the right, the

air is striking the left side of the fin at an angle. This causes

pressure on the left side of the fin, which resists the turning

motion and slows down the aircraft’s yaw. In doing so, it

acts somewhat like the weather vane by turning the aircraft

into the relative wind.

(Wind from each is applying a greater force on the tail than the nose at all times (even when beta is zero). The airplane is therefore subject to yaw torque in both directions at the same time by the wind of motion and the environmental wind. )

and one more please...

Like I said, I do like to make sure I'm learning the right stuff here.

If some of Frederf's post is incorrect, or "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read" if you are this 10,000 hour 777 pilot?

Tell me what's not right in it, instead of fobbing it off with just a rude comment.

.

and one more please...

 

Like I said, I do like to make sure I'm learning the right stuff here.

 

If some of Frederf's post is incorrect, or "Biggest load of tosh I have ever read" if you are this 10,000 hour 777 pilot?

 

Tell me what's not right in it, instead of fobbing it off with just a rude comment.

 

 

 

.

What's not right is his faulty reasoning that the wind and relative wind both combine to act upon the plane in flight with a net aerodynamic force, like they definitely do on the ground. Sure, an in flight gust will have an aerodynamic effect but that will only be transient and the aerodynamic force of the relative wind will put the plane back into a directional stable state. Note that after regaining directional stability, the plane might not be on the same heading as before. Think of gusts and general turbulence as being like bumps and potholes in the road.

Are you any clearer now?

Late here, got to go.

Re read his post and think about this constant torque, does this torque change just turning in this relative wind. After posting above, do you still think the air frame has no torque force from this relative cross wind.

Post later tomorrow.

Cheers

.

It's what makes an aircraft stable right.

Late here, got to go.

 

Re read his post and think about this constant torque, does this torque change just turning in this relative wind. After posting above, do you still think the air frame has no torque change from this relative wind.

 

Post later tomorrow.

 

Cheers

.

 

It's what makes an aircraft stable right.

What he said:

When both winds are applied at once (forward flight in cross wind) both winds apply torquing forces on the tail to attempt to point the airplane's nose into the direction each wind is coming from. Wind from each is applying a greater force on the tail than the nose at all times (even when beta is zero). The airplane is therefore subject to yaw torque in both directions at the same time by the wind of motion and the environmental wind. These two torques achieve a balance at some heading angle in between pointing at each source of wind. Despite achieving a balance in forces, the crosswind is applying a force on the tail to rotate the airplane forever and always but it cannot do so because there is another wind trying to do the opposite.

This is wrong. A steady crosswind only has a navigational effect on a plane in flight.

From the FFA book:

Even though the aircraft does not float freely with the wind, it moves through the air at the same time the air is moving over the ground, and thus is affected by wind. Consequently, at the end of 1 hour of flight, the aircraft is in a position that results from a combination of the following two motions:

 

• Movement of the air mass in reference to the ground

 

• Forward movement of the aircraft through the air mass

 

Actually, these two motions are independent. It makes no difference whether the mass of air through which the aircraft is flying is moving or is stationary. A pilot flying in a 70- knot gale would be totally unaware of any wind (except for possible turbulence) unless the ground were observed. In reference to the ground, however, the aircraft would appear to fly faster with a tailwind or slower with a headwind, or to drift right or left with a crosswind.

We know that any disturbances in yaw, like from a gust, will be neutralised by the relative wind as it flows around the aircraft and restores direction stability.

This is not that difficult it is High school physics you keep showing pictures of Stability and Slip Angle , nothing to do with wind over the ground. So yes the post about wind applying a torque force on an aircraft in steady state flight is still a load of Tosh. Which I felt was quite polite really.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This is not that difficult it is High school physics you keep showing pictures of Stability and Slip Angle , nothing to do with wind over the ground. So yes the post about wind applying a torque force on an aircraft in steady state flight is still a load of Tosh. Which I felt was quite polite really.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Indeed and this new aerodynamic theory is definitely not modelled in DCS, so all its proponents need to go and file a bug report, that's if they actually have the courage of their convictions, of course, and if they have time inbetween Flat Earth and new Earth Science conventions.

Lets try a different example.

Several times in this rather lengthy thread I have read opinions about that if the atmospheric wind would affect the aircraft during cruise the effects would be so small that the pilot would not be able to notice those in fighter jet speeds. Since all aircraft follow the same rules lets change the fast fighter jet to a sailplane flying at 50kts IAS. Now if we consider that the glider would climb to a higher altitude in a mountain wave (so no unrealistic airstart) and would experience a slowly increasing headwind up to lets say 100kts. Now what would happen when the pilot tries to turn the aircraft to a crosswind or even a tailwind heading if the relative wind would consist of two parts which are the atmospheric wind and the airflow caused by the forward motion of the aircraft? To me it seems that if the proposed theory would be true the pilot couldn't manouver the aircraft at all as the directional stability would be so great that whenever the aircraft would start to turn off the headwind heading it would simply turn back to it. And since we cannot cherry pick this relative wind theory to only work on crosswind what would happen when the pilot turns (if we consider that he is actually able to maneuver the glider) to a straight tailwind in a situation where the wind velocity is greater than aircraft forward speed. That would mean the "relative wind" would actually come from behind and the sailplane would obviously stall since the wings need relative wind from the front to provide lift.

In real life a freely flying sailplane would have none of these problems. The pilot would be and is able to continue to fly his machine at 50kts IAS in an airmass which is travelling at 100kts (other words for a 100kts wind) and maneuver the aircraft just the same as he could in an airmass which is stationary (zero wind). How do I know it? Experience. I have flown gliders in winds stronger than the glider's airspeed with no problems. These problems would be more real if the glider was attached to the earth with a long cable like a kite... but it is not.

You can think that the aircraft flies in a very big box of calm air and the relative airflow is what happens inside the box. When it is flying in the box of calm air if it happens to have some sideslip angle then the directional stability kicks in and straightens the aircraft back to the relative airflow so all the pictures about the relative airflow hitting the stabilizer were correct. Now if there happens to be wind all the wind does is that it moves the big box of air at the wind speed to the wind direction but to the aircraft inside the box the air in the box is still calm air. The atmospheric wind does not affect the relative airflow.

So as you guys can see the proposed theory of relative wind consisting of both the atmospheric wind and the airflow caused by the forward motion of the aircraft creates so absurd problems that it simply cannot be true and that is why Windy and several other pilots say that it doesn't work that way.

Also couple of times it has been mentioned that the pilot trims the aircraft so that the wind doesn't have an effect anymore. This really doesn't happen. Aircraft trims are not used to trim off the effects of the atmospheric wind (well.. since there aren't any). Let's again take a glider example. Gliders generally don't have aileron or rudder trims and still the pilot is able to fly the glider on a crosswind heading with ailerons and rudder centered and still have the ball or the string in the middle (which means coordinated or balanced flight). So no need to trim the aircraft any differently when flying in crosswind, headwind or tailwind. It works the same even when having an engine or engines in the aircraft.

I hope I made some sense with my examples and didn't stir the pot too much.

I have decided that thread is just a wind up to see how much time someone can make us spend helping someone understand a basic principle of flight. The glider example above is good but you forgot about the sideslip, when be tries to turn cross wind. Just kidding we have used numerous examples like this to no avail. So at this point the only answer is if you really believe that the Wind affect the flying of an Aircraft Aerodynamically once it is clear of the ground go talk to a pilot face to face as you wont believe the pilots on this forum. Would it help if I told you I have a degree in Aeronautical engineering from Cambridge or would that make things worse, like me being a pilot with 36 years experience.

And there you go I wasted another 5 minutes I just cant seem to help myself.

Thank you sydost,

Thanks for taking the time to explain this properly and in a professional manner, with all the noise and condescending trolling comments going on, it was really doing my head in and messing me up here.

Like I said to BigDuke6ixx a page back, I like learn about this aero stuff, only when time permits and wanted to explain equilibrium properly to others.

I think it would not have been so bad if approached from the start in a more professional way as you have done here.

Cheers

Sorry WindyTX, you are right.

You just come across as a trolling load of tosh.

Which I felt was quite polite really.

.

And all this time no-one has mentioned the dreaded downwind turn! Shocking!

David OC, to put it bluntly, you are wrong. That's OK, but listen to what your friends are trying to explain. Learning is fun!

Relative wind has NOTHING to do with meteological wind - when the aircraft is AIRBORNE. When an aircraft is on the ground, then meteological wind affects it like a sailboat.

Now if you really want to get confused, lookup what happens to the relative wind that is felt by a foiling racing sailboat going downwind...

Vulture.

Professional Navigator and Commercial pilot with considerable time in everything from fast jets to slow gliders and sailboats. And have actually had the farmer ask me, as I stood in a field after landing my glider due to a "momentary lapse of skill", "What happened, did the wind quit?".

And all this time no-one has mentioned the dreaded downwind turn! Shocking!

 

David OC, to put it bluntly, you are wrong. That's OK, but listen to what your friends are trying to explain. Learning is fun!

 

Relative wind has NOTHING to do with meteological wind - when the aircraft is AIRBORNE. When an aircraft is on the ground, then meteological wind affects it like a sailboat.

 

Now if you really want to get confused, lookup what happens to the relative wind that is felt by a foiling racing sailboat going downwind...

 

Vulture.

 

Professional Navigator and Commercial pilot with considerable time in everything from fast jets to slow gliders and sailboats. And have actually had the farmer ask me, as I stood in a field after landing my glider due to a "momentary lapse of skill", "What happened, did the wind quit?".

Yep, With all the misdirection of information here and me not exactly sure if thes guy's were help me or trolling with the condescending communication, I'll put my hand up and say I started to get messed up with some of this, thanks to sydost I see what I was starting to do now.

As I said only few pages back here.

 

"I agree with all of you guys in what you are trying to explain here in you're context."

 

"I was sitting on the fence trying to workout what was going on, and to what context all you guys are trying to explain your point, in context to...?"

This is not about wining or losing for me, as it seems to be for you.

 

I like to learn about this aero stuff, when time permits, I want to know what is right or wrong, pass the noise .

Thanks Kirk66

.

Yep, With all the misdirection of information here and me not exactly sure if thes guy's were help me or trolling with the condescending communication, I'll put my hand up and say I started to get messed up with some of this, thanks to sydost I see what I was starting to do now.

 

As I said only few pages back here.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Kirk66

 

.

The only misdirected information was coming from you and your side. You even managed to take FAA explanations and misinterpret them. All through this you have failed to even bother to check your theories directly in DCS. So don't blame others for your own inability to think things through logically, understanding relevant information, test, observe correctly and form fact based conclusions.

This is way back, almost when I first looked at this thread. LOL

Should have stopped reading more into....

So the aircraft does use a weathervane or weathercocking affect for it's own directional stability control using it's own man made wind of 150 knots etc.

 

20 knot wind @ 30 degrees offset, will have little affect against where this 150 knot Dart is pointing. It will have an affect on the side slip, while on its way to the target bullseye.

That's it.

Thanks BigDuke6ixx, like I said before, I needed to get this back right in my head.

.

Good

Hey now you understand I am happy I have spent years Instructing and different students get on with different instructors its not unusual. Just glad you get it. Now go try some 20kt crosswind landings and you feel all the Wind effects

It is funny tho, I had it right in my mind at the start, then so many different ways and different points of view are thrown around here in the mix, things can start getting confusing it seems, even from the knowledgeable people here. All I really wanted here, was to put the information right in the right context for all here to easily learn from or if I have to explain it.

Imagine how confusing it would be reading this thread, if very new to aviation or flight simming, it would be. :cry: LOL

Thanks WindyTX

I definitely wasn't sure if you were being serious or not.:)

Sorry about the remark before WindyTX, just a little heads up on how it looks, if your on the other side of it.

.