- #1

v_arsha

- 7

- 0

If someone could help me out, this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter v_arsha
- Start date

- #1

v_arsha

- 7

- 0

If someone could help me out, this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

- #2

physixlover

- 87

- 0

A good reason that some aerofoils have negative pitching moment is that lift is concentrated on the forward of the aerofoil that is 1/4 of the chord region.

Ref:

http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/configuration/tailless.html [Broken]

Ref:

http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/configuration/tailless.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

- #3

sweetiebyuty

- 3

- 0

For further studies, look on how the tailless aircrafts achieves longitudinal stability cos they are tail less.

Ref:

Basic Aerodynamics

My amazing sort of brain

Thx, be in touch if we need to discuss about this in detail......:)

- #4

- 3,374

- 1,116

For further studies, look on how the tailless aircrafts achieves longitudinal stability cos they are tail less.

Ref:

Basic Aerodynamics

My amazing sort of brain

Thx, be in touch if we need to discuss about this in detail......:)

Correct me if I am wrong, but in flight dynamics, a positive pitching angle refers to nose-up by convention. With that in mind, a negative pitching moment implies that the nose will be pushed up, not the tail.

Ref:

Basic math

- #5

viscousflow

- 272

- 0

Correct me if I am wrong, but in flight dynamics, a positive pitching angle refers to nose-up by convention. With that in mind, a negative pitching moment implies that the nose will be pushed up, not the tail.

Ref:

Basic math

Don't want to sound condescending but read your statement again, it makes no sense. sweetiebyuty's statement was correct, negative pitching moment is nose down or tail up while positive pitching moment is nose up or tail down.

This is the reason that for a stable aircraft, Cma is negative. Negative delta alpha gives a restoring (pitch up) motion and vice versa. My daily activities require me to have the aircraft stability reference frame in mind...

- #6

physixlover

- 87

- 0

- #7

- 3,374

- 1,116

- #8

sweetiebyuty

- 3

- 0

Hi..boneh3ad, sounds weird but good, can u make me clear about those words 'right handed and left handed co-ordinate systems', I never came through those words before in aircraft referencing...Thanks Bone

- #9

sweetiebyuty

- 3

- 0

Hi physics, I couldn't remember the exact formula, to be frank don't have time to search for that at the moment, but if u look at the formula, you'll get the variables which influences the pitching moment on the aircraft, hope it helps you out....Thanks

- #10

- 3,374

- 1,116

Hi..boneh3ad, sounds weird but good, can u make me clear about those words 'right handed and left handed co-ordinate systems', I never came through those words before in aircraft referencing...Thanks Bone

It is just in reference to the axes of the coordinate system you choose. In a right-handed coordinate system, if you take the cross product of the x-axis with the y-axis you will get the z-axis in the direction indicated by the right-hand rule. In a left-handed coordinate system the z-axis would go off in the other direction.

In other words, I was looking at the z-axis backwards.

- #11

RandomGuy88

- 406

- 6

- #12

mugaliens

- 193

- 1

Moments don't have a point. An airfoil's pitching moment imparts a torque to the fuselage to which its attached, regardless of where it's attached, and the moment remains contant throughout the length of the fuselage. A second moment exists because stability requires the center of gravity to be forward of the center of pressure.

Countering those downward moments (which pitches the tail up) requires the horizontal stabilizer to exert a counteracting downward force. This results in a stable configuration which tends to maintain the same airspeed at any given trim. This configuration exacts a penalty, however, for the horizontal tailplane incurs both parasitic as well as induced drag, while pushing downward, a force the wing has to counter with even more induced drag.

In contrast, canards exert an upward force. They still have parasitic and induced drag, but they're adding to the overall lift, rather than detracting from it, and thereby eliminate the twice the increased induced drag on the main wing. It's one of the reasons Rutan's canards have established many records for efficiency.

- #13

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

Moments don't have a point. An airfoil's pitching moment imparts a torque to the fuselage to which its attached, regardless of where it's attached, and the moment remains contant throughout the length of the fuselage. A second moment exists because stability requires the center of gravity to be forward of the center of pressure.

Countering those downward moments (which pitches the tail up) requires the horizontal stabilizer to exert a counteracting downward force. This results in a stable configuration which tends to maintain the same airspeed at any given trim. This configuration exacts a penalty, however, for the horizontal tailplane incurs both parasitic as well as induced drag, while pushing downward, a force the wing has to counter with even more induced drag.

In contrast, canards exert an upward force. They still have parasitic and induced drag, but they're adding to the overall lift, rather than detracting from it, and thereby eliminate the twice the increased induced drag on the main wing. It's one of the reasons Rutan's canards have established many records for efficiency.

Hold on a moment. A moment in physics is the same at torque. No problem there, but the term 'moment' for engineers is ---well, it's something different, and poorly defined from what I can gather. And I've been doing a lot of time trying to do the gathering. The engineers who explain this "engineering momentum" on Wikipedia are useless (so what's new?) Answers.com has one idiot-answer.com from an individual who doesn't know sine from cosine. Same with Wikipedia. To make things worse, it may even vary from the US to England. If you could possibly clear up what in the blue-blazes an engineering moment is, I would be very grateful.

checkout this non-information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#Terminology"

The terminology for this concept is not straightforward: In the US, in physics it is usually called "torque" and in mechanical engineering it is called "moment".[2] However outside the US this varies. In the UK for instance, most physicists will use the term "moment". In mechanical engineering, the term "torque" means something different,[3] described below. In this article the word "torque" is always used to mean the same as "moment".

Last edited by a moderator:

- #14

- 3,374

- 1,116

Moments don't have a point. An airfoil's pitching moment imparts a torque to the fuselage to which its attached, regardless of where it's attached, and the moment remains contant throughout the length of the fuselage. A second moment exists because stability requires the center of gravity to be forward of the center of pressure.

Moments don't have a point at which they are applied, but they

Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" has a good treatment of airfoils, and Abbott and con Doenhoff's "Theory of Wing Sections" is a good comprehensive source on airfoils.

- #15

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

Then you would define moment as synonymous with a force couple.Moments don't have a point at which they are applied, but theydohave a point about which they were taken. In this case, that point is the point at which the airfoil is fixed. This is usually at x/c = 0.25, which corresponds to the aerodynamic center of a symmetric airfoil.

But now you seem to contradict yourself, or I'm really missing the point.About this point, the pitching moment coefficient doesn't vary with lift. about other points it does.

I have the text. I don't see 'moment' anywhere defined inAnderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" has a good treatment of airfoils, and Abbott and con Doenhoff's "Theory of Wing Sections" is a good comprehensive source on airfoils.

- #16

- 3,374

- 1,116

- #17

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

You have no idea do you? This is a science forum. What is you source?

- #18

- 3,374

- 1,116

In the case of a wing, the lift and drag represent continuous force distribution on the surfaces of the airfoil. Each point contributes to the whole moment on the wing, but how much depends on the point about which you are taking the moment.

The aerodynamic center is the point at which the moment coefficient doesn't change with the lift coefficient, or:

[tex]\frac{dC_m}{dC_L} = 0[/tex]

In other words, as you change angle of attack, your lift coefficient is changing but the moment coefficient doesn't change about the aerodynamic center. For a symmetric airfoil, the aerodynamic center is located at the quarter chord location, and for that reason, that is the point that us used to attach airfoils when used in wind tunnel tests.

Now, let me ask you, why on earth are you suddenly attacking me and my knowledge of the subject? What would motivate you to do this?

EDIT:Apologies if my LaTeX isn't working. It is sometimes a bit buggy on this forum.

- #19

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

All mimsy were the borogoves, and the moment raths outgrabe.

- #20

- 3,374

- 1,116

I fail to see how Lewis Carroll is relevant, but that's cool anyway.

- #21

mugaliens

- 193

- 1

Hold on a moment. A moment in physics is the same at torque. No problem there, but the term 'moment' for engineers is ---well, it's something different, and poorly defined from what I can gather. And I've been doing a lot of time trying to do the gathering. The engineers who explain this "engineering momentum" on Wikipedia are useless (so what's new?) Answers.com has one idiot-answer.com from an individual who doesn't know sine from cosine. Same with Wikipedia. To make things worse, it may even vary from the US to England. If you could possibly clear up what in the blue-blazes an engineering moment is, I would be very grateful.

An engineering moment is both a torque and a force which propogates along a physical body in the form of a shear stress. The term is usually used while describing a loaded beam fixed at one or both ends.

For example, if you twist a screwdriver, it's pure torque. You're applying forces around the circumference of the handle, but the forces in one direction are countered by equal forces in the opposite direction (a couple).

With a beam, however, it's different. Discounting the mass of the beam for the purpose of simplification, if you fix a beam of length L at one end, then apply a force F at the unsupported end, you're creating a moment in the beam where M=F*L

Force

V

---------------- Supported end

Both the moment and the force are countered by an equal but opposite moment and force at the supported end.

I was taught that torque and couple were interchangeable. It's been nearly thirty years since I took Statics, though!

- #22

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

The nth moment of A about p over the volume V:

[tex]\int^V Ar^n dV'[/tex]

where r is the displacement vector from the point p.

For an extended body, mass is the zeroth moment of density about a point p.

[tex]M = \int^V \rho r^0 dV'[/tex]

One of the unfortunate variants is the first moment of pressure, P about a point p over the surface A, of a volume. This is the aerodynamic moment. This is the moment under discussion.

[tex]\tau = \int^A P \hat{n}\ x \ r dA'[/tex]

This can be resolved to a torque. It is an unfortunate fact that this object is simply called 'the moment' when there are infinite others.

Last edited:

- #23

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

Now, let me ask you, why on earth are you suddenly attacking me and my knowledge of the subject? What would motivate you to do this?

Because you were mistaken in your statement, so I asked for a source--meaning a credible reference, rather than more equations.

All first moments of force, or pressure about a point can be resolved as a numerically equal to torque. A torque about a point can be resolved as a force through the point and a force couple. However, not all torques are force couples are usually not. A torque couple exerts no net force; the zeroth moment of force is zero.

- #24

- 3,374

- 1,116

Sure there are different types of moments. However, only a select few are actually useful in engineering practice. This thread asks about the one commonly called a "moment" in basically every engineering field. The other moments that are useful are generally referred to by their informal names such as "moment of inertia."

- #25

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

That may be, but you threw me off in identifying a moment with a force couple, which it is not. In the mean time, I've resolved the problem and no longer need any clarification.

However, you may care to look at various wing sections where the first derivative of moment is not a constant with either angle of attach or lift as you seem to believe. NACA 747-415 is a good example. This seems to go by the name static marginal.

- #26

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

When last I checked this was an aerospace engineering forum and I was answering a question about this particular application. The OP did no ask about the zeroth moment of density or the second moment of force or any less commonly used quantities. He asked about the pitching moment on an airfoil.I answered the question in terms of his question. It was a correct answer.

That may be, but you threw me off in identifying a moment with a force couple, which it is not. The OP is long gone, and I was interested in clarification of torque vs. moment. In the mean time, I've resolved the problem with credible sources and no longer need any clarification.

However, you may care to look at various wing sections where the first derivative of moment is not a constant of either angle of attach or lift as you seem to believe. NACA 747-415 is a good example. This quantity seems to go by the name static marginal.

Last edited:

- #27

- 3,374

- 1,116

Also, in pretty much any engineering field, the term "moment" is interchangeable with the first force moment. The only other moment with any real importance in engineering is the second density moment which is always just called the moment of inertia.

- #28

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

No, and this is the point. There is also the angular inertia, center of mass and total mass, and the moments involved in Euler buckling and torsional rigidity to obtain the radius or gyration.

Last edited:

- #29

- 3,374

- 1,116

This is particularly true in aerospace and mechanical engineering, which happens to be the forum we are currently in.

- #30

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

Two index entries for moment: Moment of inertia and Moment of momentum.

- #31

- 3,374

- 1,116

Right... both of those are named specifically as subheadings because they aren't treated the same.

Another list of books...

__In fluids:__

"Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics" by Karamcheti - Moment has its own entry in the sense I use it.

"Viscous Fluid Flow" by White - Moment is used as I have described it.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson - Moment is used in several contexts as I have described it.

"Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics" by Munson, Young and Okiishi - Separate entries for moment of inertia and moment of momentum as I have described.

"Theory of Wing Sections" by Abbott and Von Doenhoff - Moment is used as I have described; has a lot of stuff about pitching moments in particular.

"Low-Speed Aerodynamics" by Katz and Plotkin - Index doesn't refer to "moment" specifically, but points to moment coefficient. That section uses it as I have described it in relation to the pitching moment.

__Other areas of mechanics:__

"Dynamic Systems: Modeling and Analysis" by Vu and Esfandiari - Moment is used as I have described it and has a separate entry for moment of inertia.

"Classical Mechanics" by Taylor - Only refers specifically to moment of inertia

Those are the only books in arm's reach for me that talk about moments. All of them support me. I don't know how much more plain I can make it for you. In common engineering practice, the term moment refers to the first force moment. All other moments that are important are referred to by name.

Another list of books...

"Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics" by Karamcheti - Moment has its own entry in the sense I use it.

"Viscous Fluid Flow" by White - Moment is used as I have described it.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson - Moment is used in several contexts as I have described it.

"Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics" by Munson, Young and Okiishi - Separate entries for moment of inertia and moment of momentum as I have described.

"Theory of Wing Sections" by Abbott and Von Doenhoff - Moment is used as I have described; has a lot of stuff about pitching moments in particular.

"Low-Speed Aerodynamics" by Katz and Plotkin - Index doesn't refer to "moment" specifically, but points to moment coefficient. That section uses it as I have described it in relation to the pitching moment.

"Dynamic Systems: Modeling and Analysis" by Vu and Esfandiari - Moment is used as I have described it and has a separate entry for moment of inertia.

"Classical Mechanics" by Taylor - Only refers specifically to moment of inertia

Those are the only books in arm's reach for me that talk about moments. All of them support me. I don't know how much more plain I can make it for you. In common engineering practice, the term moment refers to the first force moment. All other moments that are important are referred to by name.

Last edited:

- #32

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

Right... both of those are named specifically as subheadings because they aren't treated the same.

Another list of books...

In fluids:

"Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics" by Karamcheti - Moment has its own entry in the sense I use it.

"Viscous Fluid Flow" by White - Moment is used as I have described it.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by Anderson - Moment is used in several contexts as I have described it.

"Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics" by Munson, Young and Okiishi - Separate entries for moment of inertia and moment of momentum as I have described.

"Theory of Wing Sections" by Abbott and Von Doenhoff - Moment is used as I have described; has a lot of stuff about pitching moments in particular.

"Low-Speed Aerodynamics" by Katz and Plotkin - Index doesn't refer to "moment" specifically, but points to moment coefficient. That section uses it as I have described it in relation to the pitching moment.

Other areas of mechanics:

"Dynamic Systems: Modeling and Analysis" by Vu and Esfandiari - Moment is used as I have described it and has a separate entry for moment of inertia.

"Classical Mechanics" by Taylor - Only refers specifically to moment of inertia

Those are the only books in arm's reach for me that talk about moments. All of them support me. I don't know how much more plain I can make it for you. In common engineering practice, the term moment refers to the first force moment. All other moments that are important are referred to by name.

I've already said 'moment' commonly refers to the first moment of force by convention.

- #33

- 3,374

- 1,116

- #34

Phrak

- 4,265

- 2

No it hasn't been your point all along. I made it first, and seem to have missed it. So what are you arguing about?

- #35

- 3,374

- 1,116

No it hasn't been your point all along. I made it first, and seem to have missed it. So what are you arguing about?

Claim what you want, that was not your point. I am done with this as it is going nowhere and serves no purpose.

Share:

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 693

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 358

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 379

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 701

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 269

- Replies
- 19

- Views
- 305

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 739