An aviation expert reminded me that a propeller is a wing.
While I understand that propellers use similar principles to generate force, it muddied the definition of a rotary wing aircraft vs a fixed wing aircraft. If the propeller of a fixed wing aircraft is considered a wing, what is the distinction between the two? Is it how much surface area each type of wing works on? Is it the direction of force?
I think most people would say the answer is no. Consider the dictionary.com definition as it relates to Aeronautics:
9. Aeronautics . a. one of a pair of airfoils attached transversely to the fuselage of an aircraft and providing lift. b. both airfoils, taken collectively.
The wings are the big airfoils which are responsible for generating most of the vertical lift.
A colloquial test of this definition would be to grab a CFI and ask him/her to "point out the wings on this airplane to me." They won't point out the propeller. (Not a scientific experiment)
However, both wings and propellers are airfoils (and so are the other wing-like surfaces such as the vertical and horizontal stabilizers). You might get some disagreement about whether those other surfaces are wings, but I believe the answer is still no. There is nothing to be gained by calling them wings, and only leads to ambiguity. We already have a word which describes lifting surfaces in-general, and again, it's airfoil.
After doing a little more research, I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably no. Since wings produce lift, I would argue that a propeller is not a wing since it does not produce lift, but thrust.
Since thrust is pretty much always perpendicular to lift, I can't see how the propeller would ever actually produce lift.
An aviation expert reminded me that a propeller is a wing.
This is not false- a wing generates lift by creating a pressure difference, in the same way a propeller does. Wing typically refers to the structure lifting the main weight of the aircraft, while a propeller generates thrust, so from definition it's probably incorrect, from a theoretical standpoint it's the same principle.
While I understand that propellers use similar principles to generate force, it muddied the definition of a rotary wing aircraft vs a fixed wing aircraft.
A fixed wing aircraft will move at speed to generate sufficient lift to get airborne. A helicopter will be able to lift off vertically by spinning the blades quickly enough, which will have the same effect as moving forward.
If the propeller of a fixed wing aircraft is considered a wing, what is the distinction between the two? Is it how much surface area each type of wing works on? Is it the direction of force?
Propeller thrust is directed forwards. In level flight it contributes very little to lifting the plane up- that's left to the wings to do.
Rotary wing aircraft's blades do really work as a propeller: By increasing the angle of attack on one side, you generate more thrust, and the helicopter flies in the direction you want it to, since there's a force vector in that direction.
Distinction between the two: Rotorcraft generate the thrust to lift off themselves. A propeller generates the thrust (and in turn speed) necessary to create lift over fixed surfaces.
Is a propeller a wing? Maybe. It depends on how pedantic you feel like being about your definitions.
A propeller is certainly an airfoil (usually several of them - each blade is an airfoil, and you can have one blade, two, three, four, or more attached to a hub).
A wing is also an airfoil.
Aerodynamically a wing and a propeller function the same way: Air moves over the surface of the airfoil(s), producing "lift". In the case of the wing the lift is mainly vertical and we call it "lift", while in the case of a propeller it's mainly horizontal and we call the resulting force "thrust" instead.
My two cents, ignoring all the dictionary pedantry? A propeller is an airfoil, but it is not a wing.
If I'm flying along and my propeller magically vanishes I'm now flying a really inefficient glider.
My day is ruined and when I catch the guy with the genie-in-a-lamp who wished my propeller away I'll probably beat them up, but I have a fair chance of putting the aircraft on the ground without killing myself or anyone else.
If I'm flying along and my right wing magically vanishes the genie-posessing miscreant is safe as I'm almost certainly going to die. All the lift from the remaining wing is going to try to flip the aircraft over, and I'm nowhere near skilled enough to keep control with a missing wing and land safely.
Since no one else mentioned this, I thought I would. Wilbur Wright, of the Wright brothers, said that a propeller was nothing more than a twisted wing.
If you accept his analogy, then the twisted wings that compose a propeller are clearly specialized wings, but they do generate a differential in air pressure above/in front of and below/behind as the surface moves through the air. That is what a wing does.
An aviation expert reminded me that a propeller is a wing. While I understand that propellers use similar principles to generate force, it muddied the definition of a rotary wing aircraft vs a fixed wing aircraft. If the propeller of a fixed wing aircraft is considered a wing, what is the distinction between the two? Is it how much surface area each type of wing works on? Is it the direction of force?
The Soloy Dual Pac apparently allows two engines to rotate one propeller -- here's a picture of it on an Otter: Is this recognised as a centreline thrust twin engine aircraft, a "standard" twin engine aircraft or just an aircraft with a single engine for FAA certification? What about for pilot licensing?
I'm just wondering because the wing isn't fixed, but they aren't rotary-wings either.
Air Force One is obviously a big deal. We close terminals and implement other seemingly crazy safeguards against terrorist attacks while the president is en-route to an airport. How does ATC protect the president whilst in the air? I have heard of TFRs for "VIP in the area" reasons — is that for AF1? I am guessing that the aircraft identification is blocked, but wouldn't they still need to have the transponder on for TCAS? Specifically, the Wikipedia page on Air Force One has the following quote: Air traffic controllers gave Air Force One an ominous warning that a passenger
The alpha vane is an external probe used to measure the angle of attack. I have been trying to understand how exactly it works, but I can't find any clear explanation or simulation. Is the vane static or dynamic i.e. does it rotate along its central axis? Given that it has a significant surface area, I think that it would either: Rotate because of the force/drag exerted by the airflow, and give an angle of attack proportional or equal to its angle of rotation Measure the force being exerted on it via a force sensor embedded in the surface Is either of these correct? In short, how
I was once (like ten years ago) on a transpacific flight with Northwest from KIX/RJBB to KDTW on a Boeing 747 and our flight as delayed at the gate for about an hour because of some issue with a "floating horizon". Is that a malfunction with the attitude indicator? What exactly went wrong? It sounded like they fixed it by swapping out a component, maybe the instrument itself?
I've seen on numerous different constant-speed propeller aircraft and different pilots using different RPMs during the cruise phase on a propeller aircraft. What dictates the RPM used during normal cruise operations, and why is that the case? Often there are multiple possible throttle/RPM combinations that deliver the same power, so where would you pick one or the other?
Just what the title states. Since the Wright brothers, aviation technology for fixed-wing craft has advanced by an order or more. Rotary wing craft on the other hand (I know little about aviation; please correct me!) have advanced significantly by way of lift capacity, and maneuverability. Yet velocity has achieved nothing like the kind of advance seen in case of fixed-wing craft. Is a rotary wing craft capable of supersonic flight? How is it limited by contemporary technology?
Some aircraft have pusher type propellers. In what ways is it different from a tractor type propeller? What's are the advantages and disadvantages over a tractor type.
According to Wikipedia: Some aircraft are able to safely use reverse thrust in flight, though the majority of these are propeller-driven. Many commercial aircraft cannot use reverse thrust in flight What are the repercussions to using reverse thrust while airborne?