booooo!!! bridewell totally inaccurate descriptions of turns / forces / physics

[TXaviator]

:-(

he just drew a diagram that shows "centrifugal" force.

and is asking people "why does the ball go to the outside of the turn?"

its NOT "CENTRIFUGAL FORCE"!!!

its the side of the airplane accellerating toward the center of the turn

[Screaming_Emu]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

:-(

he just drew a diagram that shows "centrifugal" force.

its the side of the airplane accellerating toward the center of the turn

pretty sure its the same damn thing

[UAL747400]

Well a skidding turn is that because centrifugal force is greater than the horizontal component of lift. Or the horizontal component of lift is less than centrifugal force, either way you look at it.

So I'd say both of your explanations are the same thing essentially.

Now if he said centrifical force or something crazy like that, then I'd be upset.

[SteveC]

For a little more information on centrifugal *force*, head over to this thread, and start reading about post #13 or so. Then if you have more questions the guys that were posting there are really, really good at this stuff.

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by SteveC

For a little more information on centrifugal *force*, head over to this thread, and start reading about post #13 or so. Then if you have more questions the guys that were posting there are really, really good at this stuff.

no no, thats just it!! i have a plenty good grasp of physics. (i read the thread as well and was happy to see someone dropping the hammer on the "centrifugal force" idea)

there IS NO "centrifugal force" and its inaccurate to draw it as a totally real force on a force diagram. there is NOTHING pushing objects outward from the center of the turn.

[TXaviator]

and why cant i edit my first post to correct the language?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

no no, thats just it!! i have a plenty good grasp of physics. (i read the thread as well and was happy to see someone dropping the hammer on the "centrifugal force" idea)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The suggestion was for Emu and 747. I knew that you were aware of the conundrum, thus your rant.

<edit to add:>

and why cant i edit my first post to correct the language?

Timed out. Fixed it for ya.

[Screaming_Emu]

yeah there is no "force" per say, but centrifugal force is just the name given to the apparent force created by the plane pulling into the turn. Who cares what you call it, its just a name for an 'apparent force'.

[Dj To Rule]

For those who are behind in phsyics.

Centripetal is the force that causes the turn to occur, and your Horizontal Component of lift provides this.
Thats why you turn, you accelerate into the turn. Centrifugal is a pseudo force. It does not exist in reality.
To give you a clear idea.
When you accelerate in a car, the force is forward, your body was sitting still and the seat accelerates into you, you feel like you got swung back into the seat, however you did not move backwards relative to the ground. There is no force pushing you in the seat like psuedo drag.

[Dj To Rule]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

One or the other "exists", not both. Otherwise, they cancel. In general, centrifugal force is considered a "fictitious" force.

Centripetal force is the force that accelerates the aircraft toward the center of the circle and is provided by the horizontal component of lift. A proper diagram should only represent this force, because there is no force that opposes it. A turn consists of a constant acceleration towards the center of the turn, so there are no balanced forces in the horizontal plane.

What we call centrifugal force is merely the result of our inertia slamming us into the bottom of our seats as the airplane accelerates in the opposite direction.

Now, if you want to conduct your analysis from inside the airplane, then centrifugal force can be considered real, but that's a frame of reference shift. Aircraft mechanics is usually analyized by an outside observer, so centrifugal force should not be considered.

Perfect response from other thread

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by UAL747400

Well a skidding turn is that because centrifugal force is greater than the horizontal component of lift. Or the horizontal component of lift is less than centrifugal force, either way you look at it.

So I'd say both of your explanations are the same thing essentially.

Now if he said centrifical force or something crazy like that, then I'd be upset.

this is totally untrue.

if there was some other force toward the outside of the turn that was GREATEr than the force pushing toward the inside of the turn, the moving body would then cease to move toward the center, and instead head off in a new direction AWAY from the previous center.

[UAL747400]

Wow, I had forgotten all about that stuff. It's writen right here in my physics notes. However, I think for instructional purposes, I'll stick with what the FAA says. Unless I have a student that wants to know more in depth whats really going on.

[TXaviator]

just know in your heart, that the FAA is flatly WRONG about it.

[undsioux1]

you guys want an educated answer, just go to odegard 2nd floor and ask ben trapnell about it. im sure he would be more than happy to explain it fully.

half the professors on campus will say centrifugal force exists, others will say its purely inertia. its a topic similar to lift, many people think bernoulli's principle is the sole explanation. others say its purely neuton, and even more say its a combination of both. keep in mind all these ideas are THEORIES, a definate answer is not proven. as far as classes go, believe whatever your professors teach you. it will show on your block exam grades. but most importantly keep an open mind. if you havent taken a aerodynamics class (102 block doesnt count), then your ideas of bernoulli's principle is most likely mislead. take a class and develop your own opinion of what is true.

[CaptainChris87]

why are you bashing on Bridewell? he is an excellent professor one of the kindest more streight-forward ones out there in not just aviation but in terms of higher-level education in itself. His tests are difficult but if you show up for retakes show him you want to pass and get it done he will by all means lend you a hand, not everyones perfect he answerd the question in an educational mannar and not just a random guess or an answer like some young 22 yr old "cocky" UND CFI would. and I mean as long as you can turn the airplane in a way it would not be unsafe and still have full control of the aircraft,as well as have a general knowledge of the concept behind it thats the main key right? if you want to know vectors and ratios pertaining to G's and rates of turns and anymore in depth material then switch to Physics.

[TXaviator]

i did not personally attack bridewell. i stated that his given explanation of the "why" behind how an aircraft turns is fundamentally flawed.

ill gladly answer whatever he/the FAA wants to get the points for the answer, but i just have a problem with giving out information that is simply untrue. either tell the correct 'why', or just say 'the why is not really relevant, but these are the results that you must recognize and react to'

[TXaviator]

i did not personally attack bridewell. i stated that his given explanation of the "why" behind how an aircraft turns is fundamentally flawed.

ill gladly answer whatever he/the FAA wants to get the points for the answer, but i just have a problem with giving out information that is simply untrue. either tell the correct 'why', or just say 'the why is not really relevant, but these are the results that you must recognize and react to'

[CaptainChris87]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

i did not personally attack bridewell. i stated that his given explanation of the "why" behind how an aircraft turns is fundamentally flawed.

ill gladly answer whatever he/the FAA wants to get the points for the answer, but i just have a problem with giving out information that is simply untrue. either tell the correct 'why', or just say 'the why is not really relevant, but these are the results that you must recognize and react to'

werd (Smoking bandito avatar) heh.

[Dj To Rule]

Originally Posted by CaptainChris87

werd (Smoking bandito avatar) heh.

Yea Yea SPEECH! Just like your avatar Chris!

Many great proffessors out there, but Trapnell and Foltz are the trusty ones I speak to, the phy dept, and engineering for anything science related.

[JaceTheAce]

Originally Posted by Dj To Rule

Yea Yea SPEECH! Just like your avatar Chris!

Many great proffessors out there, but Trapnell and Foltz are the trusty ones I speak to, the phy dept, and engineering for anything science related.

Foltz is probably the best instructor I've had so far here at UND.

[Farva]

....cant beat foltz...

[Snickersnwa]

Originally Posted by Farva

....cant beat foltz...

"Suzy," I agree with ya! haha...

[Farva]

hahaha good one mike, that name will never let me down