4 views

Uploaded by Rogerio Guahy

Engenharia aeroespacial

save

You are on page 1of 14

R=19930091333 2018-03-16T23:48:19+00:00Z

· 077 14 1

**NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
**

FOR AERONAUTICS .

REPORT _ o. 265

**A FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION.l0F
**

GROUND EFFECT

By ELLIOTT G. REJD

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFlOE

WASHINGTON

lU1

PRICES SU J"CT - Gi

iI

kIn/hr S peed ______ ---------. chord length).---. = (it . AERODYNAMlCAL SYMB OLS V. FUNDAMENTAL AND DERIVED UNITS Metric English Symbol Unit Symbol Unit Symbol Lengtb ____ _ 1 meter ___________________ _ m foot (or mile) ____ _____ ft . W. a. for a model airfoil 3 in. b/e. line).mi. =mg mJc a. L. /sec _______ _________ f./hr. Chord length. Wing area. it.{ m/sec_~~~~====== . Cross .2 =32. absolute coefficient OD= ~ and at 15° C.Angle of downwash.) t sec Force _____ _ F weight of one !cilogram ____ _ kg weight of one pound lb. Weight.-~ 8ec. chord. normal pressure. H. a b sol ute coefficient corresponding numbers are 299. (or mi. Resultant force. P. ft.. Dihedral angle./hL ____ ______ _____ M. Standard density of dry air. Dynamic (or impact) pressure = ~ p V· .000. Moment of inertia (indicate axis of the g. Distance from c. Standard acceleration of gravity = 9... etc. 0° C: 255. where Z is a linear P -.wind force. Power__ __ __ P kg/m/sec_ _ _ ___ ______ _____ ___ __ __ ___ horsepower _ _ _____ ____ BP.) Time ______ _ second __________ ____ ____ _ second (or hour) _____ __ sec. sec.i.. Dc. OC=qS Op.V "Vl Reynolds Number. Lift. by proper sub- m/sec. 1. AERONAUTICAL SYMBOLS 1.80665 radius of gyration.00237 (lb.) {3.07651 Ib. to elevator hinge. 3. Angle of attack. or for a model of 10 cm chord 40 m/sec./ft .2255 1.3 J.iw). W S. GENERAL SYMBOLS. (Note that these coeffi. pan.000 o and 270. efficients Lc . . g. Coefficient of viscosity.specific weight of "standard" air. G.' dimension ./sec.--. Mass. k. 0.. Density (mass per unit volume). Angle of stabilizer setting with reference iw Angle of setting of wings (relative to thrust to lower wing. fl. Drag. _ = == _____________ __ ft.12497 (kg-m-' b. Aspect ratio ..1740 ft. to thrust line. 3 script). g. ETC. kg/ms = 0. 2).. 1'.000. 1 ) at 15° C and 760 mm =0. 100 mi. 8. P. . distance of O. Angle of stabilizer setting with reference to ti. from leading edge to cients are twice as large as the old co. P. absolute coefficient OL= ~ e. (or hr. 0. 2.=- 9 Sw. Gap . . p. 230.. Area.000 D. Center of pressure coefficient (ratio of R. ----. m. c. Tru'e air speed.

265 A FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION OF GROUND EFFECT By ELLIOTT G. REID Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory ---------- 40272. REPORT No.27 1 • .

Major General. PATRICK.. BURGES. avy Department. TAYLOR. GEORGE K. President. Director of A eronautical Research. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE J OSEPH S. Secretal·Y. L AND. Director. created by Hct of ('ongrcss appro\' d l arch 3. nited State Army. Se. B URGE S. for the supervision and direction of the scient ific study of the problems of flight. ecretary. Ohio. GEORGE K. Chief. MARVIN. Professor of Mechanical Engineering. WILLIAM F. C. STRATTON. D. D. nited State Arm~' . D. all of whom serve as s uch without compensation] CHARLES D. J ohns Ilopkills niversity. WJLLIAM A. GEORGE W. AMES. Baltimore. Physical Laboratory . JOHN F. A ssistant Secretary. MARVI ORVILLE WRI GIIT. S. Washingtoll. Sc. VICTORY. CURRY. J OHN F. Major. avy D epartment. D. D.. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 3341 NAVY B ILDl NG. E. J OSEPH S. S. Engineering Division.. Chief. LEWIS. D. alif. CHABLES D.. Chief of Air ervice. WASHINGTON. D. Director. Washington. Air 'cn' icc. [An independent GO\'ernment establishment. \Ya hington. ORVILLE WRIGHT. MASON M. DAVID W. LA ND. Chairman. WALCOTT. DAVID \¥. EMORY S. tan ford rniversi i y. Secretary. C. War D epartment.. WILLIAM A. Rear Admiral. D. c. S. PATRICK. D. D. B. D. CHARLES F . D. W. nited States Weat her Bureau . Chairman. D. Ph.. Captain. W. MOFFETT. C. CURRY. nited States J avy . Smithsonian Institutio n. Washington . D. Dayton. Bureau of Aeronautics. Mass. 'W ashington. TAYLOR.. \Vashingtoll. Washington. CHARLES F. 2 . AMES. Cambridge. Executive Committee. D URA'D.. M. Ohio. Ph. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. EMORY S. J OHN F. 1\lASO M. 1915. Md. Chief. Bureau of tandard. It co nsists of tweh'e members who are appointed by the President. Chairman. MOFFETT. Da~·ton. Eng . Bureau of Aeronautics. WALCOTT. nited State • a\·y. C. TRATTON.

bIe tho e of Reference 1. The other te ts consisted in mea UTing the R. In these tests the R. of a propeller which had been tested a described in Reference 6 were determined in level flight at everal peed. The results of other model te ts (R eference 3. when plotted in polar form. P. . The lack of general acceptance is prob- ably explained by the fact that no full scale test result have been published and that the methods u ' ed in some of the model te ts have been questioned on the ground of incomplete or incorrect simulation of the conditions of flight close to the ground. METHOD OF TEST! G The test consisted in determining the lift and drag characteristics of an airplane under two conditions : (1) At an altitude ufficient to avoid any pos ibility of ground influence. and air peed in level flights made very close to the ground (height of lower wing 5 to 9 feet). M. P. clo ely re em. The aerodynamic characteristics of thi airplane had been previously determined by glide tests which are described in Reference 6 but. 3 . M. t he theory has been neither well known nor generally accepted . Sevel'Cll aspects of ground e. The te t which form the subj ect of this report were made to determine the effects of prox- imity of the grOlilld upon the aerodynamic characteristics of a full-scale airplane. and (2) clo e to the ground. It is found that the drag of an airplane is materially reduced upon approaching the ground (mcZ that the reduction may be sati~factorily calculatecZ according to theoretical formula s. P. versu air-speed curve obtained from the original propeller test results. Wieselsberger (Reference 1). M. and 5). A Vought VE-7 airplane was selected for the tests. The experi- mental result are compared with theoretical calculations. REPORT No. 265 A FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION OF GROUND EFFECT By ELLIOTT G.ffect which have had much discu. The lift and drag characteristics of the airplane were calculated from these data by use of the previously established propeller thru t coefficients. The above-mentioned theory of ground influence on airfoil characteristics i developed in a paper by C. Rl~ID SUMMARY This report describes flight tests which were made with a Vought VE. it is an extension of the Lanchester-Prandtl theory and in it are utilized the basic concepts of the induced drag of multiplanes (Reference 2).7 airplane to determine the effects oj flying close to the ground. 4. It i assumed that there i no ground effect upon the propeller character- istics as the production of thrust involves only horizontal acceleration of the air. Lhe aerodynamic characteristics of an airplane undergo marked changes n('ar the urface of the earth. Although model test which appear to substant iate a certain well-founded theory of "ground effect" have been made.ssion are explained. However. li ttle ha been defInitely known concernin g eit her Lhe nature or the magnitude of these hanges. in order to make certain that the normal aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane had not changed. The e values were then compared with the ordinates of the R. check te ts were made at approximately 500 feet altitude. VVie elsberger presents monoplane model test results which agree very well with his theoretical calculations. INTRODUCTION IL i a well-known facL thaI.

7 airplane.I Low allilude tests :. -l.-------------- VV L:'t::: .. 5-9 " J.P. RE ULTS The re ult of Lho tests ar e pre en Led in Figures 1-3 ... a determined by the glide te t of R el'er en ce 6 and co nfirmed by the pre ent experiment. 5ff. t~--~~ " ..--' :""-VV' ~ ~I--' V~ ~ 1100 . I I • I I Check ~ f lights . ..0 /t?~ V 50 felf~o)Jo~)) I I 1 l . P. CL J.-9 .. . 5 fl.. '-'-'- /~/ V 1. 2 FIG.1 .. 500fl... versus air peed for 500 Ieet altitudc whi.llll J V II I IkI / " ..lji k..6 Itl 1/ . Vi:"" ... ~ 8 V O ~ 0 VV 0 ~/OOO ~ I"- 0 ° ..) ..1--" . t-. -. " 9 .... FlO. ----- ---. The R . .... ---- 1.1.. versu air..T'--. Three or four run were made at the same air speed but with different throttle etting. oltilude 500 ft ~ j. In the same illu tration are the polar which was derived from the low-altitude te t result and the polar which weI' j .. and the R.- . M.:. P.._ I--'l-.30 econds and the engine revolution for t he ame period w re r ecorded by an ob erver who l' ad th e fir-st from a 1300 J J J1 J ~r~JoU t1s~ ~ f-f.. yr .4 REPORT NATIONAL ADVI ORY COMMITTEE FOIl AEIlONA 'TICS Th detail of the method of obtaining the R.- Calculated (oif. ° :""-'((olfilude 5-9 ff.2 10 I o .ch wa obtained Irom the propeller tc t data. The gain or loss of altitude durin o. M.- . P. versu air-speed values in level flight at orne distance from the ground are given here because th e pl'oces may be applied to other work in which the arne problem exi ts.3 very ensitive altimeter and the econd from a direct-driven revolution counter. ~~ " - .l Test (oil.. 1.-1. :- I:: r- .--_ " " 5-9 " Calculoled (011. Thi method ha th e great advantage of elimi nating the nece sity of maintaining horizontal fli o-ht..0"1 . MP. The n ormal polar curve of the VE. M. 7 .... Test. In Figure 1 will be seen the curve of R..2 I-.. l'.r-. ..H.. for level flight wa obtain ed from a plot of al titude chan ge versu R.--I--' " J 1-.f-I. FIC....4 i . P. ./2 .... l-.::~ ~ 1--' .H.08 .~ 1200 ~ Test.. is hown in FiO'ure 2.peed curve of the low-altitude test. 1--' ° 50 55 60 65 70 75 Air speed./6 50 55 60 65 70 75 CD Air speed.8 40 . .v...) .. v ....) -------------- • " 7 . the corre ponding ch eck points. !l. P .

P. A striking example was recently observed at Langley Field when a heavily-loaded seaplane was taken off and kept in the air. may become of considerable importance. The possibility of obtaining an increased maximum speed by flying -very close to the ground has frequently been uggested.peed one. A FUT. the conclusion that the theory is atisfactorily accurate appears well justified. is so good at the low speeds that the apparent di erepancie at higher peeds are a cribed to experimental errors. The ordinates of the curve for 500 feet altitude vary 5 R. The formulas are ummarized in the appendix. would orne time drop to the ground withou t any warning such a a sudden change of angle or of air speed . although at a low air speed..tion of the theoretical formula. AHhough both theory and experiment indi ate a r eduction of induced drag a the ground i approached. The test how thi ratio to be increa cd from 9 to 12. from tho e of the previou ly established curve.peed flights were made at consistently greater heights than the low. This is only natural. DISCU S10 IL hould be understood. In thifigure the curve i faired to repre ent an average of the data and. when flying very low. there eern to be a criti al altitude. which con titute Figure 3 eorrespond to the polar curves of Figure 2. H. "Floating" during the landing glide is obviously caused by the in rease of the lift-drag ratio which occurs upon approaching the ground. Only the re uIt of flights in which the h eight of the lower wing had been e timated by the ob ervers to be between 5 and 9 feet (wheel 2 to 6 feet above the ground) arc plotted in Fio-me l. The fairing at the higher speeds may be eriticiz d on fir t inspection. If the induced power is an appreciable portion of the total power required by an airplane at maximum peed. The reduction of the power required for level flight. Thi con lu ion i sub tantiated by the fact that a careful comparison failed to reveal any measurable difference between the maximum speeds of the VE. tha~ the low-altitude curves are repre entati\Te of flight at approximately 7 feet from the ground. At the lo wer peds the curve repre ents a mean between the pre' iou and pre ent re ults. Thi will be the ca e only when the speed range of the airplane is com- paratively small. as hown in Figme 3.7. for about 10 miles. The ca e of the VE. an average height of about 7 feet.5 for the VE-7 airplane.. at the end of which distance orne of the load had to be di charged becau c it had not been po ible to gain enough altitude to allow a turn to be made afely. The climbing ability i affected to a large extent when the airplane is close to the ground. as the danger connected with striking the ground increase with the air speed. In yiew of the excellent correspondence oyer that range in which the experimental results are considered to be mo t accurate.7 i treated in the appendix.7 at approxi- mately 10 and 500 feet altitude. an airplane will "float" for some distance. therefore. It wa found that the VE. both in ab olute value and in shape. P. but it is felt that thi fairing is justifiable a the high. before comparin g the experimental and theoretical 1'e uH . D emon trations of this condition are frequently seen. or Ie s. or combination of altitude and air peed. The agreement of the experimental and theoretical curves. particularly if the available power is only slightly greater than the required power. the air speed gradually decrea ing. It has been noticed that light airplanes having large power loadings climb rapidly upon leaving the ground. M. everal pha e of ground effect can now be explained. at which orne radical change of air (low takes place. Pilot report that this is a frequent occurrence in landing. and the previou ly demon trated agreement of model test result with theory in the range not covered in the present tests. The curve of required thrust hoI' epower ver u au· peed. then an appreciable inerea e of maximum speed may be obtained by flying clo e to the ground. and then "pancake" for no . The experimental polar for low altitude is thu hown to be practically coincident with the normal one at low lift coefficient .L-SCALE INVESTIGATION OF GROUND EFFECT 5 derived from the normal one by applicl\. at peed above 60 M. but soon suffer a rapid reduction of climbing speed.

.. I ATIO AL ADVI ORY OMMITTEE FOR AERO AlJ'l'ICS. is the wing area. These picture. comment on a practical implification of the biplane computations is added. The component all have the arne sign and two arc consid red to be of equal value. e. or to only a f w. e. are pre ented here a an intere ting ide-light only. and to what extent the tend- ency to "pancake" depend on design. 1926. October 19.0. which are the first of their kind.7 b which applies over the range of hlb from 1/ 15 to 1/2 . the lift coefficients of the individual wings hould be taken into account. The value of (f may be computed from the formula h 1 . but in Figure 4 are some which were taken cIo e to the ground.6 BEPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS apparent rea on. b is the span. Discussions with several pilot have not made it clear wh ther this character- i tic i common to all type of airplane.05 + 3." OL i the lift coefficient. As the extent of the disturbance created by the wings of an airplane. The induced drag coeffici nt of a monoplane at height h/2 above the ground is OL2 S ( ) ODi= (1. However. CO CLUSIONS The induced drag of an airplane is reduced upon approaching the grolmd and the theory of Wie el berger ofrer a satisfftCtory explanation I1ncl method of calculation of the reduction. An attempt to obtain such information was made by photographing the pattern left in a smoke creen through which the airplane was flown.-h (2) 1. APPENDIX The following formulas and explanation are ummarized from Refer nee 1. The e are the reduction of the drag of the upper and lower wing brought about by the action of the images of lower and upper wings. However. Value of (f for ~ > ~ which occurred in the computation of this report were taken from a graphical extrapolation of the curve computed from (2) . LA GLEY MEMORIAL AERONAUTICAL LABORATORY. the reduction of induced drag which is calculated for a biplane with . . an alternative explanation of the cau c of ground effect could be made if the extent of the di turbance could be determined at altitude and do e to the ground. each wing icon idered a a monoplane which is influenced by the action of its own image in the ground plane as well as by that of the other wing. it i po sible that thi method may prove very useful.. is directly conne ted with the induced drag. i. Wiesel berger divide the reduction of induced drag into four parts-·j. VA.cr) 7r b2 1 wherein (fis the "inti uence coefficien t. respectively. Satisfactory picture have not yet been obtained at altitude. It would be intere ting to know whether the tall i more abrupt do e to the ground than at altitude. To be strictly accurate. a the photo- graphic study of air flow i now being pursued at numcrou laboratorie. LANGLEY FIELD. To compute the ground effect upon the characteristics of a biplane.66 b (f = . the qUl1ntity of air given downward momentum in producing the lift.

4.27. 6. Frolll cockpit of airplane }'IG .-Photographs or pattern left in sllloke screen b y I'E. (To rac~ p.i airr)lanc 40272.) .

.

B.27 of that without ground effect. ILP. 77.37 X (34 . or 1. L. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCE 1. 1925. The increase of maximum speed is therefore only 1.(5. M. Technical Memorandum No. H. P. 1922. The following value' arc assumed to be Lrue in Lhe absence of ground influence: V max = 120 M. OOWLEY.6 M. H. W. "The Ace. A. . N.76 = 136. P. ZAHM. REFERENCE 2. BEAR. the co fficient of induced drag of this airplane with its lower wing 5 feet above the grolmd i 0. A. B.3 p er cent. . A. P. Ground Effect on Wings.3.. The Lift and Drag of a Wing in Proximity to the Ground. and E. Reports and Memoranda No . Report No. L. A. 1920. 182. Propeller efficiency = 76 pel' cent. A suming that the power req uired varie with the cube of the peed. O. O. 7c 2= Munk biplane constant. A.2. Oonstruction Dep artment. LESLEY. A. The Induced Drag of MulLiplanes. A.3 = 121.. REFERE CE 5. !fERRILL. H . PRANDTL. 220. . A. 173.0) = 131. . = 180. 11. The theoretical calculation for the VE-7 are based on the average (or cellule) lift coefficient. 1924. The total power req uired is therefore.8 Vma z(5' ) = 120-V 131. P. and . A. F. Ground Influence on Aerofoils.6 M. Oomparison of T e ts on Air Propellers in Flight with Wind Tunnel Model T ests on Similar Forms. the induced power IS HP . E. at 120 M. 67." December.. The increa e of maximum speed obLaiuable by fl ying the VE. T echnical Note o. F. RAYMO D. . WIE EL BERGER. Oushioning Effect on Aeroplanes 0 10 e to the Ground.0 and the total power-required i HP r (5') = 136. b = span. O. BETZ. Wing R e i tance Near the Ground. Technical Note o. A. O.5 .7 wiLh it lower wing 5 feet from Lhe grollnd is calculuLed below. D RA D. Washington Navy Yard.(7. A. HP r = 180 X . McOook Field Memo- randum Report No. A. and R.)= 7.8 and the induced power is lV2 (2075)2 HP. A. According to the theory. 167. A. .11/><120 = 7. LOCK. A FULL-SCALE INVES'I'IGA't'ION OF GROUND EFFECT 7 wings of equal pan under the as umptiQn that the average lift coefficient applies to both wings i in errol' by only about 2 per cent if the lift oefficient of the individual wing differ by 20 per h cent at b = 0.3. REFERE CE 6. W. REFERENCE 3. 1926. H. Hence.27=2 . P..5 lV = weight. REFEREl CE 4. nited States avy. Ground Plane Influence on Airplane Wings. 1921. = 37c2b2V= 3 X 1.5 X . the maximum speed at 5 feet height is 3 1136. A. 754. 1920. Technical Report No. 1921.

l I j j I I I .

Z roiL _____ <I> u p LateraL _______ Y Y pitching ____ yawing _____ M Z----X pitch _____ a v q NormaL ______ Z Z N X---+Y yaw _____ 'l' w r Absolute coefficients of moment Angle of set of control surface (relative to neu- tral posi. Efficiency = T ViP.04 kg/m/sec. (Iudicate surface by proper subscript. P. Power. P ./sec. 1 lb. M. = 0.) 4. Diameter. Torque. I I y/"'-------~X '¥ Positive directions of axes and angles (forces a nd moments) are shown by arrows Aris Moment about axis Angle Velocities Force (parallel Linear to a xis) Designs. =0. Sym.r.-m 5..(compo. P". <1> . R. =550 lb.. \ \ \ . r.2046224 lb.4535924277 kg.) pa.i z t./ft. Zero torque. Pel Effective pitch 9 .sym bol P ositive Designa. = 2. Slip stream velocity.23693 mi. Sym- Designation Sym. N . Standard pitch.35 m = 5280 ft. 1 mi. Mean geometrio pitch. Inflow velocity. units used must be consistent. s. p. T. V'.tion) . 1 :mi. V". Effective helix anglo=tan-l (~) 2. = 1609. p/D. 1 kg = 2.44704 m/sec. Pitch ratio. 1 kg/m/sec. 1 m/sec. PROPELLER SYMBOLS D../hr.2808333 ft. R evolutious per minute. P.Angular bot tion bol direction tion bol nentalong axis) LongitudinaL __ X X r olling _____ L Y---. = 0. n. 1]. R evolutions per sec. \ ./hr.. (If "coefficients" are introduced all PVI Zero thrust. NUMERICAL RELATIONS 1 HP= 16. 1 m = 3 . .01315 HP. D.. Thrust.

\ .

- USARTL-TR-79-22A Aircraft Crash Survival Design GuideUploaded bysbondar
- Structural Design and Non-Linear Modeling of a Highly StableUploaded byAlexander Decker
- Center of Gravity Estimation and RolloverPreventionUploaded bymehediemran
- [IJCST-V6I4P4]: Taimaa Saleh, Kinda AboukassemUploaded byEighthSenseGroup
- Skylab 3 Voice Dump Transcription 6 of 9Uploaded byBob Andrepont
- uav2Uploaded bySatishReddy
- ADS 33E RotorcraftUploaded byEmmanuel
- Main Thesis ReportUploaded byRit Bangkruai
- CH3 Part2Uploaded byarash501
- science flight lesson planUploaded byapi-308418238
- Flight SimulatorUploaded byAlice Bot
- flight unit test 1Uploaded byapi-404607484
- Techniques for Measurement of Dynamic Stability Derivatives in Ground Test FacilitiesUploaded byeeebbbuuu
- Wave Drift Damping - NewmanUploaded byleandro_soares2000
- Aero PrimerUploaded bynavendu123
- X-15 Design ProposalUploaded byBob Andrepont
- Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control Selected Papers of the Third CEAS Specialist Conference on Guidance, Navigation and Control Held in ToUploaded byUma Mageshwari
- Flight Performance of a Package Delivery Quad Rotor BiplaneUploaded byBreno Brito Miranda
- Airbus A320 Flight Control LawsUploaded byKhurram Naseem
- Aerodynamic ForcesUploaded byRupam Pathan
- Aerodynamics Lab 2 - Airfoil Pressure MeasurementsUploaded byDavid Clark
- 83055408 Aircraft Design Project 2Uploaded bySandeep Nryn
- Part 5B - Lateral AutopilotUploaded byUmAr Malick
- Computational Analysis of a Wing OscillatorUploaded byebrahem_sahil5188
- CFD Simulations of Flow Over AirfoilsUploaded byahadtk1
- paper airplanes design and testUploaded byapi-239006348
- Pomme AeronauticUploaded byFabrice Nebesse

- Ada 294980Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Analise tecnica e fundamentalista.pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- - Marine CFD 2005 - 4th International Conference on Marine Hydrodynamics (2005, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects)Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Ada 360979Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Como Acumular Riqueza Nas Fases Da Vida GuiaInvestUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Design of a Wing Section in Ground Effect_ Application to High SpUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- (Aerospace Series) Denis Howe-Aircraft conceptual design synthesis-Professional Engineering Pub (2005) (1).pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Theory and Design of Air Cushion Craft[Yun].pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- teoria dos jogos 2.pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Design of a Hoverwing Aircraft .pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- 2014 SSCI GoldminerUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Ada 294979Uploaded byRogerio Guahy
- Groun Effect on a lift generating body[KOHFH].pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy
- nomenclaturanaval.pdfUploaded byRogerio Guahy

- SID RWY 13Uploaded byFranciscoJavierLópezMira
- Effect of Dimples on Aircraft WingUploaded byGRD Journals
- Chapter 3. Drag Force and Its CoefficientUploaded byashoku2
- EASA SIB in Flight Fuel ManagementUploaded byMarta
- aerospace.engineering..Aerodynamics.concepts.elements.and.ApplicationsUploaded byMaximilianTaillandier
- ASimple Estimation Procedure for Roll Rate DerivativesUploaded byyarara
- Aircraft Automatic ControlUploaded bycmpmarinho
- enciclopedia de astronomia 2003.pdfUploaded byelericsson
- AirForces Monthly M346Uploaded byAntonio Perez
- Tema-8-Flujo Externo y Capa LímiteUploaded byToni Torres
- Circle-Winged Plane - Hefferlin ManuscriptUploaded bymalty
- City Police Dispatch 155Uploaded byworkman75
- B737NG Air SystemsUploaded byMohamood Salman Siddiqui
- Ice & Rain ProtectionUploaded byAziz Aimad
- EN ROUTE LIMITATIONS.pdfUploaded byWIN MIN
- sertifikasi dan kelaikan udara v ngajarFFfeb2014.pdfUploaded byIndirfan Haerudin
- A320-Dual HYD FaultUploaded bytugayyoung
- Project 1794 Final DevelopmentUploaded byRealityviews
- Du CommunUploaded byWeritaLópez
- Soviet Space ProgramUploaded bystt112
- DGCA CPL Licence Conversion Sample DocumentsUploaded byAltivia Aviation Academy
- Cessna SKYHAWK.pdfUploaded byRA-04177
- LipeUploaded byArturo Piñol
- Rule: Airworthiness directives: BombardierUploaded byJustia.com
- Centre of Gravity QuestionsUploaded byKaran Malhotra
- Wallingre.Transporte aéreoUploaded byBarto Loco
- final-SM-2017-402Uploaded byHawk Gatus
- Modelling and Control of the SiMiCon UAVUploaded byJack Azad
- Proaereo_bueno Texto AmarilloUploaded byNachopop ToBar
- Peso-y-balanceUploaded byDaniel Cepeda González-Báez