Aerodynamics Discuss the concepts of aerodynamics here

Downwind Turns

Old 03-01-2009, 05:38 PM
  #51  
cbatters
Super Contributor
 
cbatters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,050
Default

Originally Posted by slipstick View Post
Now I have no trouble following your maths but there is one thing that's causing me a problem. Why on earth (or in the air) would I want to consider KE relative to the ground ? AFAICS neither the plane nor the air its flying in have any connection with the ground so can you please explain why you want to use a ground reference ?

If you use the airmass as the reference the answer comes out rather different. Airspeed starts at 20, after the turn it ends up at....oh look, still 20. No change in speed, no change in KE relative to the airmass and since the plane flies in the airmass not on the ground...

Steve
KE of the plane is not relative to "ground" or airmass and has nothing to do with windspeed or groundspeed. It has to do with an object with mass and velocity anywhere in our universe. Windspeed and groundspeed are independent of the the plane which is still goverened by the laws of physics. Accelerating an object in space requires energy.



Clint

Last edited by cbatters; 03-01-2009 at 05:54 PM.
cbatters is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 05:43 PM
  #52  
cbatters
Super Contributor
 
cbatters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,050
Default

Originally Posted by Sabrehawk View Post
Sorry, but I simply am not wrong friend. And wont appoligize for being right, only for being curt. And I've done that aready.
An engineering degree hasn't anything to with this.
There is no point to argue, it is all aviation fact.

Ok, im done. If you aren't willing to confirm what I've said, then I can help you no further.
You continue your disparagement with your sarcasm (or perhaps you are only being curt. ) Clearly I am not your friend and you have no interest in helping me. Your only interest is espousing that you are right and others are wrong.

Personally, I would prefer to listen to the guy that has a Masters Degree in Aerospace Engineering espousing laws of physics. I think we could learn something from him.


New thread for people who believe in the laws of Aerodynamics AND Physics

http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/show...651#post573651
cbatters is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 05:50 PM
  #53  
Sabrehawk
Member
 
Sabrehawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle, Wa. USA
Posts: 647
Lightbulb

Then listen to this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Langewiesche
Sabrehawk is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:28 PM
  #54  
Buck Rogers
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 511
Default

Originally Posted by slipstick View Post
Now I have no trouble following your maths but there is one thing that's causing me a problem. Why on earth (or in the air) would I want to consider KE relative to the ground ? AFAICS neither the plane nor the air its flying in have any connection with the ground so can you please explain why you want to use a ground reference ?

If you use the airmass as the reference the answer comes out rather different. Airspeed starts at 20, after the turn it ends up at....oh look, still 20. No change in speed, no change in KE relative to the airmass and since the plane flies in the airmass not on the ground...

Steve
Because we are observing the plane from the ground, not the air mass and what we are interested in is the planes position relative to the ground.
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:30 PM
  #55  
cbatters
Super Contributor
 
cbatters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,050
Default

Originally Posted by Sabrehawk View Post
Confident I will enjoy his book but seriously doubt there is a chapter entitled, "Differences when flying model airplanes" or "Flying your Cessna in a hurricane."

I seriously doubt the average Cessna pilot reverses directions 180 degrees in a couple seconds but this is common when flying highly maneuverable model airplanes. (And wind speed has much less impact when flying many times the speed of the wind.)


Clint

PS: Keep an eye on your plane the next time you are flying into the wind slighly above stall speed and abruptly turn down wind. Feel free to post back if you notice it loses a little altitude like the rest of us have observed. (Sorry if I seem curt. )

Last edited by cbatters; 03-01-2009 at 07:37 PM.
cbatters is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:00 PM
  #56  
rebell
JustFlying
 
rebell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 93
Default

Whichever theory you believe, are you willing to get into a light aircraft and literally put your life on the line to prove it? Do a very slow, just above stall speed, downwind leg parallel to the runway, skip the base leg and turn 180 deg into the final leg for landing. Remember, you will not have enough height to recover should (and it will) something go wrong. Be sure to have you life insurance paid-up before doing so. Many pilots and their passengers died this way.
rebell is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:20 PM
  #57  
Buck Rogers
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 511
Default

After slipsticks comment I think I now have a better idea of why there is a difference in oppinion.

The way I was looking at it the plane was turning round a fixed point in space - I imagine a lot of RC pilots actually try to fly this line. If you work out the same situation relative to the wind than the centre to the turn appears to be moving and this means the turn is not at a constant rate. So to complete to downwind turn you need to turn tighter than if it was up wind (relative to the air mass that is)

So the reason you lose more height on the down wind turn is because you are turning tighter (the equivalent of more acceleration).

If you are turning round a fixed point relative to the air mass then there is no extra loss in height on the down wind turn.

So the question is where do we assume the centre of the turn is, around a fixed point in space or around a fixed point relative to the air mass?
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:22 PM
  #58  
capt. crash
is cooler than you
 
capt. crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 366
Default

someone just got pwned!

not sure who though lol!
keep up the fighting!
capt. crash is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:35 PM
  #59  
HX3D014
Member
Thread Starter
 
HX3D014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia Sydney
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers View Post
I think cbatters is on the money here. Yes, the plane does not know the wind but the fact remains that it has to accelerate when making the turn. It might be better to think about this problem in terms of conservation of energy.

In your example the plane is travelling at 0 mph ground speed in the up wind direction and 40 mph ground speed on the down wind leg. Therefore there is a change in the planes energy state if you consider the kinetic energy (relative to the ground).

If KE = 1/2 m x V^2

lets assume the plane weight 1kg then

The in the up wind state KE = 1/2 x 1 x 0 = 0

In the down wind state th lane is travelling at a ground speed of 40 mph or 17.9 m/s

That means now the KE = 1/2 x 1 x 17.9^2 = 160 Jules

So where did this energy come from? The planes power was set to equal the drag at 20 mph IAS and this has not changed during the manoeuvre. There could be an exchange from the planes potential energy (as a result of altitude) to the planes KE which would explain a loss in height. The only other way you can balance the equation is to add power during the turn.
That energy is an illusion.
Else you need to think of the energy in an upwind turn. and work an average. (Even then you would need to think of the Energy of the Air with the ground and work that in there as well.)

It is more accurate to work the Energy between the items exerting some sort of forces on the Aircraft.

Bryce.
HX3D014 is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:36 PM
  #60  
Sparky Paul
Super Contributor
 
Sparky Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,116
Default

Originally Posted by rebell View Post
Whichever theory you believe, are you willing to get into a light aircraft and literally put your life on the line to prove it? Do a very slow, just above stall speed, downwind leg parallel to the runway, skip the base leg and turn 180 deg into the final leg for landing. Remember, you will not have enough height to recover should (and it will) something go wrong. Be sure to have you life insurance paid-up before doing so. Many pilots and their passengers died this way.
.
This scenario relates the airplane's position to the ground.
Because any wind would be moving the airplane away from the desired position relative to the runway threshold, the turn is altered to suit.
The result seen most often at the toy airplane field is a tip stall and crash.
Were the plane left its own devices, the turn would be completed with the plane further downwind than desired.
It's this ground reference that confuses people.
Free flight airplanes circling in thermals don't accelerate at all even though they're in continuosly circling flight. They have no controls to change anything from the trimmed condition.
A r/c model flier -must- relate his plane's position to his fixed location. The brighter ones acknowledge the need to accommodate the effect of the plane moving with the air mass when mamuvering the plane relative to himself, with elevator and power changes.
Were these not needed, the plane would fly at whatever attitude it is trimmed to, until the pilot interferes with control inputs.
Sparky Paul is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 08:39 PM
  #61  
rebell
JustFlying
 
rebell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 93
Default


This scenario relates the airplane's position to the ground.

That is correct, at some time during the flight the aircraft must relate to the ground. Aerobatic pilots get judged by their manoeuvres relative to the ground. Pylon racers fly their aeroplanes relative to the ground based pylons, so his turn is relative to the ground.

This argument will continue forever. In most peoples vision, a good turn is one that can be judged from the ground or from his plane relative to the ground, not the same way like it will be done by a free flight model. Like you say, a free flight model only see the wind it is flying in as its reverence point, and it (the reverence point) is moving all the time. It will experience no dangers in a turn. A manned or RC aeroplane has human input who is using reverence points relative to his vision, and that is mostly a fixed point on the ground. The human input changes the situation and that is where the danger come from.

Look at birds when flying low, they mostly fly with a fixed ground based reverence point and there is continues control inputs to correct for changing wind conditions. High flying vultures don’t use the ground as reverence and fly / glide with much less effort and drift with the wind, not much control input there. Until they come near the ground that is.
rebell is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:11 PM
  #62  
HX3D014
Member
Thread Starter
 
HX3D014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia Sydney
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by rebell View Post

That is correct, at some time during the flight the aircraft must relate to the ground. Aerobatic pilots get judged by their manoeuvres relative to the ground. Pylon racers fly their aeroplanes relative to the ground based pylons, so his turn is relative to the ground.

This argument will continue forever. In most peoples vision, a good turn is one that can be judged from the ground or from his plane relative to the ground, not the same way like it will be done by a free flight model. Like you say, a free flight model only see the wind it is flying in as its reverence point, and it (the reverence point) is moving all the time. It will experience no dangers in a turn. A manned or RC aeroplane has human input who is using reverence points relative to his vision, and that is mostly a fixed point on the ground. The human input changes the situation and that is where the danger come from.

Look at birds when flying low, they mostly fly with a fixed ground based reverence point and there is continues control inputs to correct for changing wind conditions. High flying vultures don’t use the ground as reverence and fly / glide with much less effort and drift with the wind, not much control input there. Until they come near the ground that is.
None of this will prove that there is more or less force energy needed for an upwind turn v a Downwind turn. (They do look different from the ground and so if you are talking about following a pattern on the ground then they are completely different in force and complexly different in how you fly them)

Like I said. Keep a Conscious mind on the throttle and the rate of turn.

Turn later when doing a downwind turn (180) and turn Earlier when doing an Upwind turn (180).

PS if you keep the G readings in the Aircraft and the Radius of the turn the same for upwind and down wind you will never get a matching ground track.
HX3D014 is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:15 PM
  #63  
Figure.N9ne
Super Contributor
 
Figure.N9ne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,138
Default

this is an RC forum, and we're dealing with small planes that fly slowly for the most part. when a beginner is making a turn and looking at the plane from the ground, he'll want it to look the same both upwind and downwind. which can in turn result in the plane turning too fast in the downwind turn which can result in a stall which makes it more dangerous for a beginner specially when flying in a park and you dont have the luxury of allowing the plane to make as wide of a turn as it would like.
Figure.N9ne is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:47 PM
  #64  
HX3D014
Member
Thread Starter
 
HX3D014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia Sydney
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by Yaniel View Post
this is an RC forum, and we're dealing with small planes that fly slowly for the most part. when a beginner is making a turn and looking at the plane from the ground, he'll want it to look the same both upwind and downwind. which can in turn result in the plane turning too fast in the downwind turn which can result in a stall which makes it more dangerous for a beginner specially when flying in a park and you dont have the luxury of allowing the plane to make as wide of a turn as it would like.
How can a Plane Turning at one end at one rate look the same as a plane turning at the other end at a different rate?

That is the Problem or the Error so to speak. The beginner is fixating on the ground. it is the illusion of speed that caused the Beginner to put wrong control inputs in and allow the plane to stall. The same input on an up wind turn would still result in a stall.

if it is you like to fly the plane safely then you must understand that there is also a danger at the other end. (thus the wind being windy is a hazard to the park flyer regardless of which way you turn).
when you say wide. what do you mean ?
HX3D014 is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:53 PM
  #65  
Sabrehawk
Member
 
Sabrehawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle, Wa. USA
Posts: 647
Lightbulb

And yet still they are indeed aircraft, and follow the same rules as any other. For they all, no how big or small, fly in the same air and are affected by it in the same manner.

The throttle still works the same, the wings, the tail and the powerplant all follow the same rules as any aircraft.

The throttle is not a speed control, and the elevator is not an up or down control. Yes, going up is the initial reaction to up elevator but not the final. The final reaction is a reduction in airspeed, and the altititude remains steady. Unless of course you pull it back too far, the you go down not up.
Yes, and increase in airspeed is the initial reaction to an increase in throttle but also not the final. The final is a climb, airspeed settles back to what it was before the throttle was increased.

And as for the stall, that can come from only one thing. Excessive angle of attack. At any speed, any attitude.
Sabrehawk is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:57 PM
  #66  
pd1
Still Learning
 
pd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 4,098
Default

Maybe this might help, maybe not.

When the plane is flying with level wings all lift is opposite gravity.
When a plane turns, some lift is directed to one side to turn the plane.
FAA calls this the horizontal component of lift.

If you subtract the lift for the turn from the overall lift against gravity, the plane will descend.

To compensate we increase the angle of attack of the plane.
If we started out close to the critical angle of attack( the angle that airfoils stalls at)
the increase in pitch can cause a stall.

The airspeed can indeed drop if you change the angle off attack in a turn, you create more lift, you create more drag.
Add to that the perspective that the plane looks as if it's accelerating turning downwind and you are set up nicely for a stall.
pd1 is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 10:06 PM
  #67  
Figure.N9ne
Super Contributor
 
Figure.N9ne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,138
Default

Originally Posted by Sabrehawk View Post
And yet still they are indeed aircraft, and follow the same rules as any other. For they all, no how big or small, fly in the same air and are affected by it in the same manner.

The throttle still works the same, the wings, the tail and the powerplant all follow the same rules as any aircraft.

The throttle is not a speed control, and the elevator is not an up or down control. Yes, going up is the initial reaction to up elevator but not the final. The final reaction is a reduction in airspeed, and the altititude remains steady. Unless of course you pull it back too far, the you go down not up.
Yes, and increase in airspeed is the initial reaction to an increase in throttle but also not the final. The final is a climb, airspeed settles back to what it was before the throttle was increased.

And as for the stall, that can come from only one thing. Excessive angle of attack. At any speed, any attitude.
while this is all correct, you tell any of this to a beginner that asks for advice on what to do when turning with the wind and he'll probably walk away from the hobby.

you tell a beginner that the throttle controls altitude and when his plane is heading for the ground he'll add throttle and you can see where that will end.

you tell a beginner that speed is controlled by the elevator and when he wants to go faster he'll push up on that stick, and you can see where that will end.

these concepts are all very needed in full scale but just overly complicate a simple and fun hobby for most.

meanwhile, you tell the beginner to add a little throttle while making the turn down wind and he'll be happy and more than likely have a very successful flight and not feel like he needs a doctorate in aerodynamics to play with his toy plane.
Figure.N9ne is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 10:09 PM
  #68  
Buck Rogers
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 511
Default

Originally Posted by HX3D014 View Post
That energy is an illusion.
Else you need to think of the energy in an upwind turn. and work an average. (Even then you would need to think of the Energy of the Air with the ground and work that in there as well.)

It is more accurate to work the Energy between the items exerting some sort of forces on the Aircraft.

Bryce.
That energy is very real and not an illusion. Just think if the plane was to crash into you. On the up wind leg the speed will be a lot less - or in the case of the example it would be 0 mph and would never reach you.

On the down wind leg the plane would hit you at 40 mph - I guarantee you you would feel the energy.
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 10:16 PM
  #69  
Sabrehawk
Member
 
Sabrehawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle, Wa. USA
Posts: 647
Default

Originally Posted by Yaniel View Post
while this is all correct, you tell any of this to a beginner that asks for advice on what to do when turning with the wind and he'll probably walk away from the hobby.

you tell a beginner that the throttle controls altitude and when his plane is heading for the ground he'll add throttle and you can see where that will end.

you tell a beginner that speed is controlled by the elevator and when he wants to go faster he'll push up on that stick, and you can see where that will end.

these concepts are all very needed in full scale but just overly complicate a simple and fun hobby for most.

meanwhile, you tell the beginner to add a little throttle while making the turn down wind and he'll be happy and more than likely have a very successful flight and not feel like he needs a doctorate in aerodynamics to play with his toy plane.

Ahhh, but this is not the beginner forum.
Thats just it, what makes sense to the beginner is the wrong thing to do, if a students plane is coming down too fast he does indeed need to increase throttle to arrest the descent.
I know that seems contrary to common sense, but it is so.

There is a tendency for the beginner to resist adding throttle because he stll thinks it will speed him up, and it simply isnt so. So long as he continues to think this way, he will continue to stall his plane on approach having the throttle closed and trying to control his descent with the elevator.
Sabrehawk is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:02 PM
  #70  
HX3D014
Member
Thread Starter
 
HX3D014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia Sydney
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers View Post
That energy is very real and not an illusion. Just think if the plane was to crash into you. On the up wind leg the speed will be a lot less - or in the case of the example it would be 0 mph and would never reach you.

On the down wind leg the plane would hit you at 40 mph - I guarantee you you would feel the energy.
until then it is not affecting the Forces on the Aircraft required to make an increase or decrease in the "KE differences between the Aircraft and Ground"

That Force has no influence on the Aircrafts Flight behaviour. (has a lot on the crash behaviour).

PS the pic is just a pic. not relevant to this post.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Down Wind Turns.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	14.6 KB
ID:	95176  
HX3D014 is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:14 PM
  #71  
Buck Rogers
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 511
Default

Originally Posted by HX3D014 View Post
until then it is not affecting the Forces on the Aircraft required to make an increase or decrease in the "KE differences between the Aircraft and Ground"

That Force has no influence on the Aircrafts Flight behaviour. (has a lot on the crash behaviour).

PS the pic is just a pic. not relevant to this post.
The force on the aircraft to bring about a change in the KE is the G of the turn.

This is what I think is happening:

Assuming the plane is being made (by the pilot) to turn around a point on the ground and it is in a moving body of air the G of the down wind turn will be different from the G of the up wind turn.

This is because the turn relative to the air mass will not be a constant turn as it is centred on a point on the ground and not on a point within the air mass. This is where the difference is between a manned aircraft and an RC aircraft. A Pilot in a manned aircraft will bank and maintain a turn relative to the air mass but an RC pilot will probably fly relative to their position on the ground.
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:30 PM
  #72  
HX3D014
Member
Thread Starter
 
HX3D014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia Sydney
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers View Post
The force on the aircraft to bring about a change in the KE is the G of the turn.

This is what I think is happening:

Assuming the plane is being made (by the pilot) to turn around a point on the ground and it is in a moving body of air the G of the down wind turn will be different from the G of the up wind turn. Very True. (But the Change in the Kinetic energy between the Plane and the Ground is as Relevant to the Change in the KE between the Plane and a Passing Bird. they have no affect on each other till impact)

This is because the turn relative to the air mass will not be a constant (Constant to what?) turn as it is centred on a point on the ground and not on a point within the air mass. (I am confused here, could you retype this, I don not want to presume )

This is where the difference is between a manned aircraft and an RC aircraft. A Pilot in a manned aircraft will bank and maintain a turn relative to the air mass but an RC pilot will probably fly relative to their position on the ground. (this is true and can be done with proper IAS and Throttle management, but the Rate of turn will be sacrificed in that case. there are other combinations and some lead to stall )
Bryce.
HX3D014 is offline  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:28 AM
  #73  
cbatters
Super Contributor
 
cbatters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,050
Default

Case I
Plane flying 20 MPH into a 20 MPH headwind (airspeed = 20, groundspeed = 0)
hard turn left 90 degrees
Airspeed = 0
hard turn another 90 degrees
Airspeed = -20


Case II
Plane flying 20 MPH with 20 MPH tail wind (airspeed = 20, groundspeed = 40)
Hard turn left 90 degrees
Airspeed = 20 MPH
hard turn another 90 degrees
Airspeed = 40 MPH

And if you don't think the kinetic energy is different, consider the case if the wind suddeny stopped. With the plane flying into the wind it would drop straight down . In the case of the plane flying with the wind, the plane would continue flying.


FYI - Just came back from party with two private pilots. (My nephew is attending Riddle) I asked if they notice a difference when turning upwind and downwind when winds are >30 knots and the response from both was yes.
cbatters is offline  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:41 AM
  #74  
HX3D014
Member
Thread Starter
 
HX3D014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia Sydney
Posts: 453
Default

Originally Posted by cbatters View Post
Case I
Plane flying 20 MPH into a 20 MPH headwind (airspeed = 20, groundspeed = 0)
hard turn left 90 degrees
Airspeed = 0
hard turn another 90 degrees
Airspeed = -20


Case II
Plane flying 20 MPH with 20 MPH tail wind (airspeed = 20, groundspeed = 40)
Hard turn left 90 degrees
Airspeed = 20 MPH
hard turn another 90 degrees
Airspeed = 40 MPH

And if you don't think the kinetic energy is different, consider the case if the wind suddeny stopped. With the plane flying into the wind it would drop straight down . In the case of the plane flying with the wind, the plane would continue flying.


FYI - Just came back from party with two private pilots. (My nephew is attending Riddle) I asked if they notice a difference when turning upwind and downwind when winds are >30 knots and the response from both was yes.
Starting from the first Fault. how do you get 0 airspeed.
HX3D014 is offline  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:49 AM
  #75  
pd1
Still Learning
 
pd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 4,098
Default

Originally Posted by cbatters View Post
Case I
Plane flying 20 MPH into a 20 MPH headwind (airspeed = 20, groundspeed = 0)
hard turn left 90 degrees
Airspeed = 0
hard turn another 90 degrees
Airspeed = -20


Case II
Plane flying 20 MPH with 20 MPH tail wind (airspeed = 20, groundspeed = 40)
Hard turn left 90 degrees
Airspeed = 20 MPH
hard turn another 90 degrees
Airspeed = 40 MPH

And if you don't think the kinetic energy is different, consider the case if the wind suddeny stopped. With the plane flying into the wind it would drop straight down . In the case of the plane flying with the wind, the plane would continue flying.


FYI - Just came back from party with two private pilots. (My nephew is attending Riddle) I asked if they notice a difference when turning upwind and downwind when winds are >30 knots and the response from both was yes.
I agree with your nephew, there is a difference turning in a thirty knot wind. The turns are either elongated or compressed depending on your turn direction.

But the wind will not drop your airspeed. The airspeed is unaffected by steady state wind.
Groundspeed is.
Wind shear or turbulence is another matter.

Paul
pd1 is offline  

Quick Reply: Downwind Turns


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.15248 seconds with 12 queries