Keith
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,715
- Vessel Name
- Anastasia III
- Vessel Make
- Krogen 42
There is no such thing as gravity. The earth sucks.
how much hp to plane?
- Thread starter Daddyo
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Nomad Willy
Guru
John,
That may be a very good point about the beam being missing from the prop calculator form. If one had a 1 to 1 relationship between the beam and length and more than a bit off on trim it would be almost impossible to plane.
FF,
Feb 05 in PMM there is an article on the Shannon SRD 38. This is a very modern RD hull that works very well. The RD boats of old called Sea Bright Skiffs are'nt as efficient as a conventional hull as there is more wetted surface and the aft section presents too many places where the water needs to change directions too abruptly. The Shannon dosn't have this problem and at moderate speeds is more efficient. I think your'e talking about the Sea Bright types that have a whole sack full of advantages** .. but not efficiency.
Eric Henning
That may be a very good point about the beam being missing from the prop calculator form. If one had a 1 to 1 relationship between the beam and length and more than a bit off on trim it would be almost impossible to plane.
FF,
Feb 05 in PMM there is an article on the Shannon SRD 38. This is a very modern RD hull that works very well. The RD boats of old called Sea Bright Skiffs are'nt as efficient as a conventional hull as there is more wetted surface and the aft section presents too many places where the water needs to change directions too abruptly. The Shannon dosn't have this problem and at moderate speeds is more efficient. I think your'e talking about the Sea Bright types that have a whole sack full of advantages** .. but not efficiency.
Eric Henning
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
Am I reading this correctly - "there is no good theory on gravity?" FF is that your "final answer?"
Yes , we can work with 32ft /sec , but ca't explain yet WHY.
For folks that believe the top surface of the wing is important I suggest you look up Lanier.
Seems Mr. Lanier invented the ice cream cone , and got very rich.
As he was tossing them out a window one day he discovered that cones closed on the top fell faster than the open ones.
LIFT difference had to be the answer , so he had built an entire series of small air craft with conventional wings , that were left uncovered on top!
The most interesting part was with this configuration the planes did not stall or spin.
The then concluded (like the FAA about todays commercial seat occupiers) that pilot training would not be needed , and folks could drive air cars with almost no training.
More power goes up , less power goes down, done.
He even had plans for gas stations next to highways , so folks could IFR distance driving (IFR = I Follow Roads)..
70 % of the lift from the upper surface ?, not always.
FF
Yes , we can work with 32ft /sec , but ca't explain yet WHY.
For folks that believe the top surface of the wing is important I suggest you look up Lanier.
Seems Mr. Lanier invented the ice cream cone , and got very rich.
As he was tossing them out a window one day he discovered that cones closed on the top fell faster than the open ones.
LIFT difference had to be the answer , so he had built an entire series of small air craft with conventional wings , that were left uncovered on top!
The most interesting part was with this configuration the planes did not stall or spin.
The then concluded (like the FAA about todays commercial seat occupiers) that pilot training would not be needed , and folks could drive air cars with almost no training.
More power goes up , less power goes down, done.
He even had plans for gas stations next to highways , so folks could IFR distance driving (IFR = I Follow Roads)..
70 % of the lift from the upper surface ?, not always.
FF
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,196
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
Regarding gravity cannot be explained:
32 ft/sec/sec (the correct terminology) is* explainable and understood - at least to the extent NASA, Einstein*et al need to understand it. For hundreds of years many learned scholars doubted Newton's findings, falling back on the "you can't explain to me" logic that permeated the times. The ability to read and write, do complex math and understand the relationship between mass, acceleration and force led to f=ma. This relationship*took the physics world by storm several centuries ago. And then came along the theory of relativity with the notable e=mc2 100 years or so ago. And integral to each is "m" or mass.
Which leads us to why a heavy motor boat needs more HP to go fast than a lighter boat of the same hull and prop shape - "m." And explains why a fast light trimaran recently set an Atlantic crossing record of about 32 knots - average speed! Yes, the trimaran relied upon lift - "f" - using those things called sails or better known as vertical wings - indeed having greater pressure on one side of the sail as compared to the other.*
Now for "a" - I'm outta here!
-- Edited by sunchaser on Saturday 26th of September 2009 08:25:11 AM
32 ft/sec/sec (the correct terminology) is* explainable and understood - at least to the extent NASA, Einstein*et al need to understand it. For hundreds of years many learned scholars doubted Newton's findings, falling back on the "you can't explain to me" logic that permeated the times. The ability to read and write, do complex math and understand the relationship between mass, acceleration and force led to f=ma. This relationship*took the physics world by storm several centuries ago. And then came along the theory of relativity with the notable e=mc2 100 years or so ago. And integral to each is "m" or mass.
Which leads us to why a heavy motor boat needs more HP to go fast than a lighter boat of the same hull and prop shape - "m." And explains why a fast light trimaran recently set an Atlantic crossing record of about 32 knots - average speed! Yes, the trimaran relied upon lift - "f" - using those things called sails or better known as vertical wings - indeed having greater pressure on one side of the sail as compared to the other.*
Now for "a" - I'm outta here!
-- Edited by sunchaser on Saturday 26th of September 2009 08:25:11 AM
Nomad Willy
Guru
Yea Friendly Fred,
Your'e right. There are many or so theories about lift** ..* I even have my own** ..* has to do w inertia, and if it's right it's supports your missing upper surface idea. I noticed on one of the hang gliders I flew wrinkles on the upper leading edge tward the tip didn't seem to cause tip stalling or any other strange stuff and the wing was of very high performance for it's type. Seems to me we talked about this for about a month quite awhile back.
Eric Henning
Your'e right. There are many or so theories about lift** ..* I even have my own** ..* has to do w inertia, and if it's right it's supports your missing upper surface idea. I noticed on one of the hang gliders I flew wrinkles on the upper leading edge tward the tip didn't seem to cause tip stalling or any other strange stuff and the wing was of very high performance for it's type. Seems to me we talked about this for about a month quite awhile back.
Eric Henning
There is only one thing a person needs to know about why a wing develops lift and that is that a wing moves air down. An airplane flies not because of the Bernoulli Theorem but because of Newton's law of action and re-action. The Bernoulli Theorem or Principle is just one factor that helps a wing move air down, but the bottom line is that a wing moves air down with a force that opposes the weight of the airplane. You can design a wing to fly with no difference between the upper and lower surfaces at all--- remember the little flat wing, balsa wood, rubber-band powered airplanes we used to build?
A sailboat sail operates the same way. The sail, using a variety of aerodynamic and physical principles, moves air down, or away in this case, and this force in combination with the hull, keel, etc. design moves the boat forward.
We have a terrific piece of film in our library illustrating the moves-air-down principle of lift. It's of the prototype 757 skimming the top of a flat cloud layer. The camera plane was out front of the 757 looking straight back at it and when you see the reaction of the cloud layer behind and under the plane, the whole lift thing instantly becomes crystal clear. NASA and the National Air & Space Museum both use the "moves air down" explanation of lift on their websites.
I have a drawing sent to me by one of the at-the-time chief aerodynamicists at NASA which illustrates what a 747 wing would have to look like to develop enough lift to fly using the Bernoulli Theorem alone. In order to get the required pressure differential, the upper surface of the wing would have to have a curve on it that stuck up higher than the tail. Needless to say, this configuration would generate so much drag the airplane would never be able to get off the ground.
So a plane does not fly because there is lower pressure across the top of the wing, it flies because the wing, for a whole host of reasons, moves air down with the same force required to oppose the weight of the plane.
As FF said, there have been wings designed with no upper surface at all. Many of the early planes, including the Wright's, had only a single surface--- the upper and lower surfaces of the wing were exactly the same. The first successful seaplane, Fabre's Hydravion in France, not only had a single-surface wing but had a thick cross-hatched box beam at the leading edge that stuck up above the wing. Using the Bernoulli Theorem plus the smooth-airflow-over-the-top idea, this wing should not have flown at all, but in fact it flew very well. Because, regardless of how many "rules" it broke, it moved air down with the same force as the weight of the plane.
A sailboat sail operates the same way. The sail, using a variety of aerodynamic and physical principles, moves air down, or away in this case, and this force in combination with the hull, keel, etc. design moves the boat forward.
We have a terrific piece of film in our library illustrating the moves-air-down principle of lift. It's of the prototype 757 skimming the top of a flat cloud layer. The camera plane was out front of the 757 looking straight back at it and when you see the reaction of the cloud layer behind and under the plane, the whole lift thing instantly becomes crystal clear. NASA and the National Air & Space Museum both use the "moves air down" explanation of lift on their websites.
I have a drawing sent to me by one of the at-the-time chief aerodynamicists at NASA which illustrates what a 747 wing would have to look like to develop enough lift to fly using the Bernoulli Theorem alone. In order to get the required pressure differential, the upper surface of the wing would have to have a curve on it that stuck up higher than the tail. Needless to say, this configuration would generate so much drag the airplane would never be able to get off the ground.
So a plane does not fly because there is lower pressure across the top of the wing, it flies because the wing, for a whole host of reasons, moves air down with the same force required to oppose the weight of the plane.
As FF said, there have been wings designed with no upper surface at all. Many of the early planes, including the Wright's, had only a single surface--- the upper and lower surfaces of the wing were exactly the same. The first successful seaplane, Fabre's Hydravion in France, not only had a single-surface wing but had a thick cross-hatched box beam at the leading edge that stuck up above the wing. Using the Bernoulli Theorem plus the smooth-airflow-over-the-top idea, this wing should not have flown at all, but in fact it flew very well. Because, regardless of how many "rules" it broke, it moved air down with the same force as the weight of the plane.
It's been my observation-- and from what I've read by marine architects--- that you are correct. I suppose you could force a boat like a GB onto a full plane if you put huge engines into it, but for the types of engines typically used in today's "trawlers," even the relatively high-power engines, they cannot force the hull to go fast enough to achieve a true plane.* The deep forefoot and keel of the typical trawler-type boat adds a great deal of drag, so a sort of plowing "semi-plane" is the best these boats can achieve.
The main benefit of the semi-planing hull on a trawler-type boat is that it can be driven faster than hull speed.* So even though there is a significant fuel burn penalty, one can have the advantages of a trawler-type hull (large interior volume, heavy, stable) but still cruise at higher than glacial hull speeds.* For example, the stock GB42 of the late 90s/early 2000s with Cat 400-something horsepower engines could cruise at about 14-15 knots.* It burned 23-25 gallons an hour to do it, but you got where you were going sooner than if you ran the boat at 9 knots and some 8 gallons per hour.* To people who have limited time available, the ability to get to and from their destination quickly is an advantage as it gives them more time to spend at their destination.
*
