| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"cnctut" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2005 02:55:57 PM |
| Object: |
Physics for Geese |
I was reading the paper at a coffee shop and came across an article on
Canadian geese. An article asserted that by flying in a "V" formation
the gaggle could increase their range 71% over a single flying alone.
Can anyone take a stab at the math to prove or disprove? There doesn't
seem to be any goose NASCAR drafting to reduce AV^2 drag ;-). Comments
appreciated!
Tut
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 06:22:04 PM |
|
|
"cnctut" <cnctutwiler@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1129492557.388243.181090@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|I was reading the paper at a coffee shop and came across an article on
| Canadian geese. An article asserted that by flying in a "V" formation
| the gaggle could increase their range 71% over a single flying alone.
| Can anyone take a stab at the math to prove or disprove? There doesn't
| seem to be any goose NASCAR drafting to reduce AV^2 drag ;-). Comments
| appreciated!
|
| Tut
Vortex from the wing tip of the preceding goose.
The math is too hairy for me, you need a supercomputer, but it also
applies
to fighter aircraft and has been studied in wind tunnels.
Ever been in the vortex of a preceeding aircraft while landing at
Heathrow?
I have. It's scary.
Then there was the USAir Boeing 737-300 that went down at Hopewell,
Pa, in 1994, 3/4 mile from my home. It was suggested that it too was
caught
in a vortex, but the cause of the crash was never resolved.
You are asking for something simple, and it isn't.
http://ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/docket/d072.pdf
On September 8, 1994, at 1904 hours USAir flight 427, a
B-737-300, N513AU, crashed while maneuvering to land at the
Pittsburgh International Airport at Pittsburgh, PA. The airplane
was being operated on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan
under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal regulation
(CFR), Part 121, on a regularly scheduled flight from Chicago-
O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, to Pittsburgh.
The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and fire near
Aliguippa, Pa. All 132 persons on board the airplane were fatally
injured.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
17 Oct 2005 04:20:48 AM |
|
|
Then there was the USAir Boeing 737-300 that went down at Hopewell,
Pa, in 1994, 3/4 mile from my home.
**********
Damn! So close!!!! We could have all been spared seeing the word(?)
"phuckwit" in all of Amdro-cheese's posts.
There is no God.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cnctut" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 07:10:47 PM |
|
|
Androcles--
Thanks for the input--I'm not a "let's fly in wing tip vortices" fan
myself and that's why I suggested that it might cause a stability
problem for the gliding goose--but then, bumblebees can fly--go figure
;-)
Tut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 09:15:31 PM |
|
|
"cnctut" <cnctutwiler@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1129507847.751028.146010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles--
|
| Thanks for the input--I'm not a "let's fly in wing tip vortices" fan
| myself and that's why I suggested that it might cause a stability
| problem for the gliding goose--but then, bumblebees can fly--go figure
| ;-)
|
| Tut
Bumblebees are not fixed-wing gliders, they are helicopters.
So are humming birds, although they can adapt to fixed wing gliding.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 07:19:29 PM |
|
|
cnctut wrote:
Androcles--
Thanks for the input--I'm not a "let's fly in wing tip vortices" fan
myself and that's why I suggested that it might cause a stability
problem for the gliding goose--but then, bumblebees can fly--go figure
;-)
Tut
Great CDN goose joke -
You: Ever notice one side of the "V" is longer than the other?
Victim: Yeah! I have noticed that!
You: Know why that is?
Victim: No, why is that?
You: More geese on that side.
p
http://www.wawa.cc/goose/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "cnctut" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 07:35:25 PM |
|
|
platopes--
Read your Sault St Marie goose story--reminded me of a commerical
flight I took out of that great city back in the 70's. The airline--Air
Canada I think, but not sure--had no copilot for the trip to Chicago,
so the pilot asked me to copilot for him, so I did. That was the first
and last time I ever flew with that carrier ;-)
Thanks for the memories!
Tut
.
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
17 Oct 2005 03:56:23 AM |
|
|
cnctut wrote:
platopes--
Read your Sault St Marie goose story--
That wasn't actually my story. Mine has to do with hitch-hiking to
Wawa at age 19 with my best friend to visit my then girlfriend, who was
a Junior Ranger, clearing trails and such. It's full of bad sentences
like the previous one; getting picked up by my grade 13 music teacher's
father(!); flagging down an MNR truck in Wawa for the number of the
camp; discovering that my gal was away that weekend on a geography
field-trip; watching some disembarking people leave a bag of delicious
sandwiches behind just as we were dying of hunger on the train ride
home...
reminded me of a commerical
flight I took out of that great city back in the 70's. The airline--Air
Canada I think, but not sure--had no copilot for the trip to Chicago,
so the pilot asked me to copilot for him, so I did. That was the first
and last time I ever flew with that carrier ;-)
You didn't seek them out on purpose every time?
"Hey. Can I help fly the plane?"
Thanks for the memories!
The favour is returned.
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 03:42:59 PM |
|
|
cnctut wrote:
I was reading the paper at a coffee shop and came across an article on
Canadian geese. An article asserted that by flying in a "V" formation
the gaggle could increase their range 71% over a single flying alone.
Can anyone take a stab at the math to prove or disprove? There doesn't
seem to be any goose NASCAR drafting to reduce AV^2 drag ;-). Comments
appreciated!
Tut
Drafting--bicycle riders increase their range for the same reason.
Each rider or bird expends less engergy to achieve the same distance.
http://hermes.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/cycledraft.HTM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 03:45:21 PM |
|
|
cnctut wrote:
I was reading the paper at a coffee shop and came across an article on
Canadian geese. An article asserted that by flying in a "V" formation
the gaggle could increase their range 71% over a single flying alone.
Can anyone take a stab at the math to prove or disprove? There doesn't
seem to be any goose NASCAR drafting to reduce AV^2 drag ;-). Comments
appreciated!
According to a study quoted here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1608251.stm
large birds flying in close V-formation can save energy by being
allowed to spend more time gliding, less time flapping. Sort of like
getting a VW Beetle right behind a semi-truck barreling down the
interstate.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no shortage of propaganda citing
the increased efficiency of "team" formation flying as a reason for the
individual to fall in line and avoid finding its own way.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "cnctut" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics for Geese |
16 Oct 2005 04:18:50 PM |
|
|
Seems like "in line" vs "V" formation would provide even more time for
gliding if it were that simple--but then maybe it is. As I recall, the
article mumbled something about an updraft from the wingtip of the
forward goose as an explaination--to me, that would seem to make a
dymamic stability problem for gliding geese--perhaps not.
Thanks for the inputs everyone.
Tut
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
