forward acting weight vector?
08-13-2008 | 10:09 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: FO
I think I'd call it inertia. In what context was this?
I'm no physics guy (so I'm thinking back to high school), but seeing force is mass X acceleration, it makes some sense.
To be technical, weight has to do with gravity, so forward acting weight makes no sense to me.
I'm no physics guy (so I'm thinking back to high school), but seeing force is mass X acceleration, it makes some sense.
To be technical, weight has to do with gravity, so forward acting weight makes no sense to me.
08-14-2008 | 12:17 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Desk
I'm assuming this is stemming from a discussion about the 4 forces. We all remember that the sum of all forward forces equals the sum of all rearward forces. Due to gravity, weight plays a role in this equation when not in level flight. For example, in a descent, weight does not act parallel to the vertical axis, but rather slightly in front of it. This means that technically, part of the weight of the airplane is adding to the thrust component. The exact opposite is true in a climb, where weight adds to the drag component.
08-14-2008 | 10:25 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
From: USAF
weight vectors are present in precession. Weight vectors are almost always directly down (towards the force, gravity)
Forward acting weight vector is basically the other "engine" Wolfgang Langewiesche was talking about in "Stick and Rudder". It is actually better represented as angular momentum as it is a conserved value as a vector product.
