Subject:
|
Re: Historical fudging...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:38:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
717 times
|
| |
|
|
"Hendo (John P. Henderson)" wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> > >
> > > That's why you make composite wings ;-)
> > >
> > > Actually, current research is moving away from the "ugly" or "dirty" flaps to wings
> > > that flex. Less drag, more control.
> >
> > Hmmm... wouldn't composite wings prove too costly for large passenger planes?
> > They sure look like they can improve performance, and that is an invaluable
> > factor when we are talking about fighter-jets (for instance). But would the
> > increased cost be compensated by the decrease in fuel consumption, in the
> > case of civilian airplanes? If not, few companies would actually buy such
> > aircrafts for commercial duties! Maybe some corporate jets, yes...
>
> I suspect aircraft are expensive either way. The real question I would have
> is what would the psychological impact be on passengers who look out and see
> the wing of the aircraft bending up and down a lot? They might get
> additionally unnerved when they remember that some of the fuel tanks are
> inside of those bending wings. ;o
The article I was reading was mentioning that the amount of flex needed in a wing was FAR
less than the movement of a flap, as the wing surface was much larger than the flaps, and
slight flexing made quite a difference in the airflow over the wing.
I seem to remember the article mentioning that you may not even see the flex. But it
definitely wouldn't be like a gull flapping by ;-)
I wish I could remember the magazine and month. Probably Popular Mechanics or Popular
Science a few months back, but I was just reading it in the store to chew up some time.
> It is kind of like the fictional Asimov Robots or Red Dwarf mechanoids where
> android designers scrapped more realistic human-like designs because they
> made people insecure that they could not see the difference between robots
> and people. Sometimes the best thing technologically is not the best thing
> sociologically.
Ah, but if they can't see the wing flex?
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Historical fudging...
|
| (...) I suspect aircraft are expensive either way. The real question I would have is what would the psychological impact be on passengers who look out and see the wing of the aircraft bending up and down a lot? They might get additionally unnerved (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
