you're writing all this BS with confidence of someone who does it on regular basis in RL. Are you a real pilot, Squirl? I bet every money you're not. I am. Controlling an airplane with 1 wing left is NOT POSSIBLE in any way in RL. There is no way you could react in time to the huge force trying to roll your aircraft around after wing is missing. Even if you somehow did, there is no way you could balance this force by using elevator. And even if you did it, there is no way to maintain control over aircraft with remaining 1 aileron and rudder. In RL that is. Extra 300 flying at "knife edge" does not make a "single winged flight", it still has 2 wings!! (I love you're logic). F15 has wide fuselage which is designed that way that it also generates lift, it also has 2 very powerful engines in distance from each other (which enables differential steering) and power boosted controls, all of which enables the f15 to remain in the air after losing part of wing. single engined motor airplane, especially 5ton WW2 fighter wouldn't have a chance to do something similar. Period.
Read this, (it is important to this discussion): You should know that the above description is perfectly true. At 400 km/h, an airplane's elevator can prevent the wings of the airplane from providing enough lift to raise the wheels from the ground. It can therefore be assumed that a pilot has extensive control over lift as long as he can move the elevator. My question to you is this: What will happen if the pilot of a one-winged plane pushes the elevator control forward and brings the lift of the remaining wing to zero? Will the spiral stop then? The elevator can reduce the force of the remaining wing to 0. I think that almost anything can balance 0.
helicopters and so... hi stec, i am absolutely stunned about your ignorance! just to make you understand, step outside your door this autumn and watch, how maple-trees release those millions of one-winged seeds for a safe land, well alive to grow up next spring! and please don't think of argueing with helicopters, centuries ago old squirl da vinci had already construction plans for choppers without stabs... dear stec, by studying the above example of natural one-wing-flights, even you can't deny that any (eventually occuring) abrupt changes in torque or (rare) cases of imbalanced forces after a sudden rupture of just one wing could easily be equalized by the pilot climbing to the far end of the remaining wing! or to the opposite end of the elevator, depending if he wants to continue flight with wing-up or -down (for a better landing i recommend the upside-variant, although water-ditching with wing-down may continue in some excellent surfing-experience: 'i love the smell of napalm in the morning..') weia, stec... think a bit, before you write such counterproductive posts, pls!
Yeah exactly Ledada. I mean... It's obvious that as long as a plane has elevators these two control surfaces are sufficient to maintain axial stability. In the end, what keeps the plane airborne at higher speeds is of course the elevator. The wing's lift is of no importance as soon as a plane's airborne. Oh, darn, I must be wrong, squirl said that wing-loading is a very important factor in turning rate and radius. (It is) But clearly, he's messing up the implications of this. You know what the escape velocity is of an object taking off from the Earth squirl? Do you? You know that if your lift drops (lose a wing) you'll need something to tilt your nose up (or your engine's thrust vector down)? Under your logic a plane with one wing is less stable than a plane with two wings, and a plane with no wings, is more stable than a plane with one wing, and can maintain it's lift well enough. This is not true however, to tilt the nose up the plane will give up its ability to sustain flight for a prolonged period of time. Sure, maybe in the circumstances and the design of an F-15 there's still enough lift/engine control to keep the plane airborne... but the F-15's got a whole different power to weight ratio than a Zeke. And I doubt a Zeke will sustain flight for long. In fact, its speed will drop so rapidly because it needs to keep the nose up to point the thrust vector down (to compensate for the loss of lift (fuselage doesn't suffice)). After this the speed has dropped further, into the area where lift is of much more importance than engine power... and it's sort of a vicious circle. Under your assumption if I farted hard enough I'd fly up in the sky and could almost keep myself airborn by flapping my arms... BTW, I already know how I'm all wrong on anything and everything and that whatever I say comes from a bad source and can't be scientifically backed <Z>
Cos I have better things to do with my time right now, and because you still havent shown 1 single example of a WWII plane performing a 1 wing landing. On this basis, I say it could not happen, despite what you think theoretically could happen.
I could answer this by quoting something which I have already said, but I will instead quote another person who states why one-winged flight is possible: I do not pretend that there are no disadvantages of trying to fly an airplane on its side, it is very difficult! Producing lift with a fuselage can be an elusive accomplishment. Keeping the nose at a positive angle of attack is also a demanding task. Maintaining airspeed while at the same time providing for the demands of lift and nose attitude might seem to be impossible. But while you eagerly point out all the difficulties which arise from losing one wing, there are some advantages. What are they? The text below describes how the loss of a wing can actually be beneficial to flying in a knife-edge. It matters little whether a knife-edged plane has one or two wings. In a knife-edge a wing acts as a vertical stabilizer, not as an airfoil. A plane needs only one vertical stabilizer to fly. A second vertical stabilizer adds only drag. Stunt planes keep both of their wings in knife-edge passes for obvious reasons - no sane pilot wants to attempt flight with one-wing. Therefore knife-edge stunt planes, for the sake of safety, have one additional "vertical stabilizer," with the unnecessary drag it brings. On the other hand, when a plane has only one wing, the pilot's only knife-edge option is to fly with only one vertical stabilizer. While having one wing is a handicap for normal flight, it actually helps the pilot fly a knife-edge. Like Vadim Maksimento said, the asymmetric drag helps to keep the nose of the aircraft above the horizon. One-wing knife-edge flight also has roughly one half of the wing form drag and wing skin drag. So if an Extra 300L can fly a knife-edge with two wings (it can), it should be able to fly a knife-edge more easily with one wing. It would be able to better maintain its nose attitude and would be capable of higher speeds, thanks to the reduction of drag from the loss of its wing. These higher speeds will allow the creation of more lift meaning that a one-winged knife-edged Extra 300L could fly either at a lower angle of attack at a higher speed or increase the angle of attack to climb in the knife-edge. So it seems our one-winged A6M already has a factor in its favor when it comes to maintaining flight, but there is yet another advantage the A6M has over the Extra 300L: the A6M is a higher performance aircraft. The A6M3 has superior power loading and is capable of a higher speed. Superior power loading helps the A6M3 maintain its positive AoA. Higher airspeeds allow the A6M3's fuselage to produce more lift. So the obvious difficulties which arise from attempting one-wing flight in a knife-edge (producing lift with the fuselage, maintaining airspeed, etc.) are all overcome with the "advantages" created when one wing is lost.
But still it has never happened, so again I would have to say that whilst you believe theoretically it is possible (and I dont), you can offer no instances of when this occured. Considering the skills of pilots in WWII and the frequency with which this type of incident occured, I am sure if it were possible there would be at least one documented instance. Dont you agree that it is strange that, if it were possible, it never actually happened? Especially when you try to make out that it can be done with relative ease?!?
hell I wasn't suppose to say anything more here, but I can't stop myself: "Never get in to an argument with a stupid person.....they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!"
Despite knowing nothing about aerodynamics, I know I can safely argue this point, for the simple reasons stated above. Not to mention that it is laughable for someone to state that 1 wing flight is easier than 2 wing flight, under any circumstances.
Do you think no one has landed a one winged plane because they are just to afraid? Why try and ditch something that in your mind is fucked up, when you could try and bail out instead? Seeing as in my mind I can only see a plane with 1 wing that originally had 2 flying verticly "wing pointing up" then it is hard to see how the only control left to make lift with being the rudder would be very hard indeed. But over a fall from 10's of 1000's of feet, could it not be possible to figure a good balance to atleast get the plane to fly, if not land?
...but I have shown examples and proven that an inferior aircraft can fly with one wing. If the Extra 300L can fly with one wing, then the A6M3 (with its superior performance) should also be able to fly with one wing. It is like saying that if a blind mountain climber can climb Mount Everest, then a person with eyesight must obviously be capable of doing so.
I dont remember you showing where the Extra 300L had flown with one wing, only an F15?? And even then, the 300L is a stunt plane, designed to be as aerodynamically clean as possible, so I dont believe it could even compare to a zeke. The second argument is irrelevant though.
And wtf has a mountain climber got to do with the aerodynamical performance of a one-winged plane?? Didnt you read what I wrote?? IT NEVER HAPPENED. NEVER!! To anyone else, given the fact that there were perhaps thousands of instances where wings were lost in planes and the pilot never managed to land, then this would be a simple fact to grasp. You are obviously completely unwilling to do so, cos your so humble and smart that you obviously know best.
Oh and btw, you dunno how much pleasure im getting at the moment knowing you are ferociously searching through any literature that you can lay your hands on (and maybe Allsop too? ) to try and prove us wrong. Meantime, i'll just go and crack open another beer and wait for your next argument
You say that you actually have a purpose in life, yet you write statements such as the one above. Glas ignores science, posts only to be critical of others' research and only quotes history when it benefits him. Sounds just like a certain "someone" on the FH to me. Against- Poles: Snakeye, -al---, graatz, --q---, -frog-, makcarpik, --stec, spuint Spaniards: Broz Frenchmen: tigrou Finns: airfax Scots: Glas (note the disproportionate number of Poles) Neutral- Red Ant, lonerb, Zembla JG13 For- Vadim Maksimenko, squirl Between the "for" and "against" factions, Vadim and I are the only ones who are actually engaged in aerodynamic research. We also happen to think that one-wing flight is possible. I would, however, like to see PressLuftHammer's opinion on this matter.
I count only one wing in both of these pictures. The fuselage is the only "wing" in a knife-edge. So, actually, it can be said that any plane is flying with one wing if it is successfully flying in a knife-edge.
One-winged flight is possible in Warbirds 3 as well. One can see the rudder deflection which is necessary to maintain a positive AoA for the fuselage.
Well, lets just hope that glas can reply in less than 5 different posts in sequence next time. Glas- since you seem to be a fan of "occurance" let me lay this on you....Thousands of people die of gunshot wounds, some people die from being shot in the foot, others live after being shot in the head. I will repeat once more, and hopefully this time it will enter youre head- If you were a pilot, and your plane lost a wing- do you A: Jump B:Try and ditch the plane with one wing? I guarentie that 100% of pilots checked box A- and if you say otherwise, I would have to retort with a healty "put the Ajax down", as it is not a healty substitute for cocaine.
Squirl, I'm not arguing that flying with one wing is impossible. I'm just asking you how to survive ditching with one-winged plane which has speed of 400 km/h or so.
