PDA

View Full Version : OT has ever been built a plane with tiny holes like a golf ball?



raaaid
06-18-2006, 08:01 AM
a golf ball flies higher because the holes generate mini vortex like a wing generates a big one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg

notice how the air is not sent down as would be expected by newton but is spinned in a vortex creating antigravity as schauberger stated

the same that a golf ball clones the feather texture wouldnt it be posible to make this on a plane, what tries have been done on this sense?

have you ever heard of this tiny holes on a plane?

LStarosta
06-18-2006, 08:03 AM
Raaid stop being a n00b.

I can field mod your 109 to have tiny holes with my 'stang.

raaaid
06-18-2006, 08:07 AM
i dont fly 109 anymore it sucks, now i fly spit 25 lbs

climbs like a k4, fast as la7 and is as nervous as a wet cat, oh and it turns..., i love it, big cannons also

SeaFireLIV
06-18-2006, 08:07 AM
But wouldn`t we need a giant number 9 golf club to make our prototype tiny holes aeroplane work? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Expert golf players needed to answer new aircraft flight idea. Apply now!

LStarosta
06-18-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont fly 109 anymore it sucks, now i fly spit 25 lbs

climbs like a k4, fast as la7 and is as nervous as a wet cat, oh and it turns..., i love it, big cannons also

LoLoL!!111

NonWonderDog
06-18-2006, 11:21 AM
Well, I can't find specifics, but there have been boundary layer control devices in which ducts channel air from the front of the plane to many little holes on the top-rear quarter of the wing. There were others that used just the holes with a hollow chamber below to create suction and prevent separation.

Not really the same thing, but pretty close. I don't think anything really came of these systems, where aircraft are concerned. Wind tunnels are a whole different matter.

LStarosta
06-18-2006, 03:21 PM
HAY its open again.

RCAF_Irish_403
06-18-2006, 03:24 PM
the AC would only work if a Giant lined that sucka up and Let Rip with a mighty Swing

slipBall
06-18-2006, 03:24 PM
Now we can taunt him again,


Just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ploughman
06-18-2006, 03:32 PM
The golf ball doth not defy the laws of physics, be sure. And any golf ball would fall just like a nervous wet cat if in a vacuum just like Newton described. However, any trembling wet cat would behave rather differrently to a golf ball if it was tee'd off by Tiger Woods on the first at Augusta at a single bar of atmosheric pressure, weeny teeny little pocks in its surface or not.

Those pocks give the ball grip in the air, rather like the rough side of a not quite so new cricket ball, depending on the spin.

Keep reading, and keep asking Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaid. One day it'll come together.

MaxMhz
06-18-2006, 04:00 PM
Well I'll try to make a sensible reply (finaly) to the original poster's question...

Agolf ball with dimples will fly a lot further than one with a smooth surface. Why do you think they would make one with dimples otherwise? It would be a lot easier producing smooth ones... Even Barnes Wallis experimented with dimples in his "DamBuster" bombsto make them "skip" further through the air...

And Yes there have been experiments by NASA and major airline companies with perforated wings. The official term is "Suction-Type Laminar Flow Control" and the tests were very successfull. This phenomonon has been studied since before WW II

The wing vortex depicted in your picture is nowadays greatly reduced by using upturned wingtips as seen on allmost all big airliners these days, greatluy reducing the needed plane seperation and improving economy and range.


Here's a good read about Suction Type Laminar Flow research:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88792main_Laminar.pdf

And here's a link explaining why a golf ball flies further with dimples http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Sports/instructor/golf-01.html

AKA_TAGERT
06-18-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
a golf ball flies higher because the holes generate mini vortex like a wing generates a big one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg

notice how the air is not sent down as would be expected by newton but is spinned in a vortex creating antigravity as schauberger stated

the same that a golf ball clones the feather texture wouldnt it be posible to make this on a plane, what tries have been done on this sense?

have you ever heard of this tiny holes on a plane?
FOUR!
http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0511Nov/images/4%20Tiger%20Woods.jpg

Capt.LoneRanger
06-18-2006, 05:06 PM
Actually I thought this was a real idea for a second.

There are planes with fuselages that are not smooth, but added with small lines, like the skin of a shark. It reduces turbulences and saves energy. A similar effect is true for the holes in a golf-ball.

BUT !

Due to these micro-turbulences, there is no airstream that might produce lift. Remember, a golf-ball has no wings?

AND!

We come into the area of complete non-sense, when somebody says these micro-turbulences cause the molecules to rotate so fast they produce anti-gravity. Once you learn to respect mass, inertia and gravitation, you'll see why these things are so absolutely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Zeus-cat
06-18-2006, 05:20 PM
notice how the air is not sent down as would be expected by newton but is spinned in a vortex creating antigravity as schauberger stated

Last time I hit a golf ball it fell to the earth after 200 yards (OK, probably more like 50 yards). However far I hit it, it didn't defy gravity. Just because something behaves a bit differently than you expect it to, doesn't make it defy the laws of physics.

If something as easy to do as hitting a golfball destroys Newtonian physics, doesn't it make sense that we would have discarded Newton and his "crackpot" ideas years ago???

AFSG_Bulldog
06-18-2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:

have you ever heard of this tiny holes on a plane?

Only after a major hail storm. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
06-18-2006, 06:22 PM
deep down, i knew this was about anti-gravity

AKA_TAGERT
06-18-2006, 06:50 PM
Tiger Woods won the war.. be sure

Taylortony
06-18-2006, 06:51 PM
The picture you posted is due to the high pressure on the lower surface of the wing spilling into the low pressure area on the top surface, this causes a vortex and creates drag, to alleviate this modern airliners simply add a wing fence on the tip, ie they bend the wing up, this reduces the air spilling over the end and reduces drag...


But as to your question, yes you are getting there, Yes you do use vorticies to improve efficency, we use lift kits that are vortex generators, the one we fitted to a Cessna 340 increased the max all up weight, shortened the take off run and improved fuel efficency, works in a similar fashion but involves sticking small knife edge blades to the wing surfaces.................

see http://www.microaero.com/
http://www.microaero.com/pages/v_howvgswrk.html

Similarly Learjet use small triangular shaped strips spaced along the wings perpendicular to the airflow on the laminar wing, these to produce a vortex that pulls the boundry layer back onto the wing where it starts to break away, this renergises the laminar airflow increasing performance of the wing.........


On a similar vein the F16 is being trialed with micro holes on the wings which will suck the airflow down onto the wing surface and improve efficency at high speeds...

see

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HSR-Wings.html

Dimples would do a similar job to the above but would not be possible to really retrofit unless......... ball pein hammer anyone?

kajr
06-18-2006, 08:00 PM
-
They are not called "holes", they are "dimples".

darkhorizon11
06-18-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
The picture you posted is due to the high pressure on the lower surface of the wing spilling into the low pressure area on the top surface, this causes a vortex and creates drag, to alleviate this modern airliners simply add a wing fence on the tip, ie they bend the wing up, this reduces the air spilling over the end and reduces drag...


But as to your question, yes you are getting there, Yes you do use vorticies to improve efficency, we use lift kits that are vortex generators, the one we fitted to a Cessna 340 increased the max all up weight, shortened the take off run and improved fuel efficency, works in a similar fashion but involves sticking small knife edge blades to the wing surfaces.................

see http://www.microaero.com/
http://www.microaero.com/pages/v_howvgswrk.html

Similarly Learjet use small triangular shaped strips spaced along the wings perpendicular to the airflow on the laminar wing, these to produce a vortex that pulls the boundry layer back onto the wing where it starts to break away, this renergises the laminar airflow increasing performance of the wing.........


On a similar vein the F16 is being trialed with micro holes on the wings which will suck the airflow down onto the wing surface and improve efficency at high speeds...

see

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HSR-Wings.html

Dimples would do a similar job to the above but would not be possible to really retrofit unless......... ball pein hammer anyone?

The F-16XL was flown back in the 90s but that program is long gone now AFAIK. The concept there was completely different.

The dimples on a golf ball as it spins create turbulent non laminar flow which is good at lower speeds because it increases skin friction drag a bit but decreases overall pressure drag.

This works great at low speed flight but high speed flight the increase in pressure drag is huge and its pointless.

The dimples are designed as such because the ball is spinning. Aircraft do use this concept raid, they are called vortex generators and usually take the form of little wedges or V's in the leading edge of the wing. This creates the turbulent flow around the wing which energizes the boundary layer at slow speeds, like dimples on a golf ball.

Good question Raid this concept is brought up often in a college level aerodynamics class.

AKA_TAGERT
06-18-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Good question Raid this concept is brought up often in a college level aerodynamics class. Dang..

So no chance of anti-gravity?

I was hoping raaaid was right.. because if he was I was going to make a cool mill by marketing a new weight loss program.

Basically eat what ever you want.. and keep eating until you get dimples on your legs.. then just spin around while your standing on the scale, as you spin the vortex due to the cottege cheeze thighs would create anti-gravity thus making fat chicks float and thus weight less.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-19-2006, 01:53 AM
Since cellulite create such dimples on a human skin, it would probably be enough to simply stand in the wind, while checking your weight.

Great idea, Tag ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

raaaid
06-19-2006, 05:21 AM
interesting concept that one of the vertical piece on the wing tip to reduce vortex trails

but, does it reduce lift? otherwise why isnt used in all the planes

and why this vertical piece isnt just desplegated when is needed, landing?(where the vortex trails are dangerous)

hey i may just have reinvented something, plegable wing tip vortex trail spoilers

raaaid
06-19-2006, 08:52 AM
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5.htm

baalbek a wall with a 800 tons stone of one piece, that sounds like antigravity to me

BSS_Goat
06-19-2006, 09:00 AM
Why don't they put screen doors on submarines to equalize the pressure and lessen the need for a such a thick hull?

Freelancer-1
06-19-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5.htm

baalbek a wall with a 800 tons stone of one piece, that sounds like antigravity to me

If you look carefully at the photo, you will see that the wall is, in fact, dimpled.

Is this proof of your theory? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rattler68
06-19-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
a golf ball flies higher because the holes generate mini vortex like a wing generates a big one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg

notice how the air is not sent down as would be expected by newton but is spinned in a vortex creating antigravity as schauberger stated

the same that a golf ball clones the feather texture wouldnt it be posible to make this on a plane, what tries have been done on this sense?

have you ever heard of this tiny holes on a plane?

Not holes, but trapezoidal plates...

Vortex generators are small plates about an inch deep standing on edge in a row spanwise along the wing. They are placed at an angle of attack and (like a wing airfoil section) generate vortices. These tend to prevent or delay the breakaway of the boundary layer by re-energizing it. They are lighter and simpler than the suction boundary layer control system described above.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Wing34.htm

NonWonderDog
06-19-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
interesting concept that one of the vertical piece on the wing tip to reduce vortex trails

but, does it reduce lift? otherwise why isnt used in all the planes

and why this vertical piece isnt just desplegated when is needed, landing?(where the vortex trails are dangerous)

hey i may just have reinvented something, plegable wing tip vortex trail spoilers


It's a bit more complex than that. Wingtip vortices decrease the efficiency of the affected area, increasing drag for the same amount of lift.

Adding wingtip fences does NOT prevent wingtip vortices, but it does reduce the percentage of the wing that is affected by the wingtip vortices. This leads to an overall decrease in drag. HOWEVER, if you took the wingtip fence off and added the same length on to the end of the wing instead you would get exactly the same effect... but better. Turned-up wingtips are used instead of higher aspect ratio wings because they take up less hanger space. Hanger Floor Area = Money.

raaaid
06-19-2006, 02:19 PM
i see its quite complex but for those who say antigravity isnt posible how could the wall from baalbek been built with blocks of 800 tons each

we cant do that today a wall with 800 tons blocks how did the ancients rise that weight?

lbhskier37
06-19-2006, 02:33 PM
You can raise as big a block of stone as you want, you just have to really want to raise it. If you would've paid attention in grade school science class you would've heard of these devices called inclined planes, they can do some amazing things.