Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step

[bozon]

Area is not shape nor does it define shape. It is just area.

All the physics and detail goes into Cl. Ugly physics is always in the dimentionless factors of any equation, All the factors with dimentions are almost always trivial - this is called dimention analysis. The  the area is just a scale factor. It need not even be a real area of the wing, just a square of some well defined length of some part of the wing. Once you find out (no matter how) CL for specific shape of wing, it will be the same CL if you scale the wing size by factor of 2. The lift produced will be scaled by factor of 4 however through this length scale squared (dimention = area). You may choose to define it as the span, the width at half the span or the thickness.

Look at this simple example. We want lift which is a force, dimention = mass*length/time^2.
We know it should depend on the r = mass density of the air [mass/length^3], and on the V = velocity [length/time] and maybe another mysterious parameter...
To be able to produce something with force dimention we have to square the velocity to get the time^2 dimention, we have to multiply by density to get a mass dimention and the extra parameter has to be of length^2 dimention - lets call it S. So from dimentions alone I can guess that lift has to look like:
L = r * V^2 * S *(dimentionless coefficients)
Note that S does not have to be the real area of the wing, just a squared length scale. All the actual details of the exact shape of the wing and aerodynamics will go into dimentionless factors. Only thing to keep in mind when scaling things is that there might be other dimentionless numbers that need to be conserved (like the Rynolds number).

Bozon

[BlauK]

Sorry Waffle,
The right answer is B. The solid red line has the same angle on both sides of teh window.



Why is the line of sight originating from different place inside of the cockpit with YOUR red and white lines. You are supposed to keep the eye in the same place in both cases to be able to compare them

Also your blocked FOW should be on the OUTSIDE of the cockpit, not inside.
Honestly Waffle... are you playing some major joke on me .. candid camera somewhere?

[Waffle]

Which Is why i said "a - the dotted red line, or whichever angle is the same as the angle on the inside"

The blocked feild of view is representing what you would see....the inside of the frame...no light / sight passes through that. Hence the label "feild of view blocked by outer frame". So the pilots head would have to be to the left of the white line to see anything useful when the line is at the outer frame.

The reason the lines move is because a pilot can move his head, and also to show where the line of sight "from the outside looking in " would be. IE - where the pilot would have to have his head in order to see/ Also - it's not in scale at all..

[Tilt]

Yeah waffle............

The inner bars will define the window or orifice ......... .refraction will add  a lenslike quality depending upon the angle of view.

In your animated giff the frame would be a constant but the field of view thru it would change  depending upon the thickness and distance the head is held from it.

Because its flat the magnifying effect only occurs at the edges and is subject to the distance the head is held (generating the refractive angle ) from the glass.

[BlauK]

So what is your drawing presenting or claiming or proving?

- no light passes to the area you have marked grey? Not even from straight ahead? Must be a black hole or something

- you can move your head left, from red line to white line... and then with the refraction the frame block one's view from this better position (white)  just as much as without refraction from the previous worse (red) position... eh?


Should we end here or should we keep on playing? Have you counted how many people in this and the previous threads have supported the theory you have presented? How many have agreed that the refraction offers more viewing angle and area?

Dont you think some other people would have already challenged the refraction drawings if I had just imagined them? Someone like gripen would surely have argued against them if there was something to challenge.

But maybe you already agree with the B-answer and will eventually see what it means. S!

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Can you point out the tips of the helicopter area or the 747 used in this example please and how the differences are accounted for in your formula by using raw area??

Nonsense. We need only know the reference area (usually wing planform area or what ever), geometry does not matter at all in the Cl calculation I linked. It simply gives the required Cl for given lift despite what ever is the geometry of the wing.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Area is not shape nor does it define shape.  It is just area.  

We don't need to know geometry of the wing to calculate required 3D lift coefficient.

Originally posted by Crumpp

It is not 3D theory, however as it does not account for the shape of the wing.

It's pure and plain 3D and no calculation gives more accurate result.

gripen

[Waffle]

Originally posted by BlauK
So what is your drawing presenting or claiming or proving?

- no light passes to the area you have marked grey? Not even from straight ahead? Must be a black hole or something


 

Light = sight....can't see without reflective light. Light wont pass through the metal frames.

so you're saying the pilots got a wonder woman plane and they can see throught the metal frame?

What it's proving is the basis of your drawing about suggesting there is magical feild of view growth, which there isnt.

Also you'll notice on the 45 degree drawing, when it's closest to the outer frame, the area thats not blocked by the inner braceing....

That would be the the view that would make the "rails" seem to be inset (ot thinner, as some would want to believe)

[BlauK]

Waffle,
-keep the eye in same place! We are not arguing about what one can see from one position compared to another. The question is about what one can see from one place with and without the armoured glass!
-make the inner attachment strip thinner like you can see in the photograph (it does not even precent seing the side of the armoures glass.. and if that is you point, let's not yet argue about it, just accept it for now)
-then compare the field of view OUTSIDE of the cockpit with and without refraction!

You got all the ingredients already, you are just confusing which pot to put them into!

Here is teh test for you:
Without the armoured glass one cannot see the green dot (P1) from the eye position marked with white! You can rotate the eye, but not move it to another place!
If one has the armoured glass with refractions, Can he see the green dot? Yes or No?

Please draw the answer on the pic below!

[Waffle]

now we'll see what hapeens on rotation.

[HoHun]

Hi Waffle,

>The angle will be the same going through a piece of glass with parallel edges.

You're right with regard to the angle, but the displacement really makes a difference here.

Just imagine a pilot with a laser pointer mounted on his head.

Case A: No armour glass is installed. The pilot is pointing the laser beam at the very edge of the canopy frame. The beam just hits the frame, so you have a laser dot there, and that's it.

Case B: The armour glass is installed now. The pilot aims the beam at the same angle as before. The beam enters the glass now and is inevitably refracted towards the centre of the windshield. It's not as far out as the beam that was just stopped, so it's not stopped. Upon exiting, it is refracted outwards again back to its original angle.

As this original angle was too large to allow passage of the laser beam without the refractive armour glass, the laser beam is projected to a point that was obscured by the frame before.

The conclusion is that the armour glass does indeed result in a larger field of vision. (The geometry is the same regardless of the way the light passes through the glass.)

Does it sound logical if explained this way? :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Krusty]

If you take that white line, unedited, and rotate it at the eye-point, the end of it will touch the P1 and you still won't bump into the frame.

[Waffle]

[Waffle]

Originally posted by Krusty
If you take that white line, unedited, and rotate it at the eye-point, the end of it will touch the P1 and you still won't bump into the frame.

but you're forgetting the refraction angle which will change as it goes through the glass.

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by KAntti



BTW I'll add this link for you and others interested in the actual characteristics of 109's. From the mouths of the pilots them selves:
(theres even an Stall performance report conducted by RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

I am generally not a 109 enthusiast, but I'd hate to think that ANY AC would be given LESS, OR MORE performance in AH than it in reality deserves.

Interesting Virtual pilot site.

Again, this article is not and does not try to be a complete study. Far from it. It is fragmented and might seem as one sided.

That said what i found interesting was the opinions differ with pilots.

Visability sucked. Visability wasn't that bad.

Slats were good. Slats were bad.

109s could out turn spits during BoB but not later models of Spit.

The 109 was wonderful. The only good thing about the 109 was the cannon and engine.

109 turned great. 109 didn't turn well.

All from guys who flew them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder apparently.

[BlauK]

Waffle,
I said, dont move the eye
Only rotate it!

.. but anyways. You are already close to the solution. You already got more viewing angle. Congratulations!

In other words, what yuo see is what you get! Now look again at those pich where the vertical frames appear thinner!