barit1
F-104 wing is not that much different in plan from the F-22, except for the tip chord as a % of root chord.
I was talking about the Northrop F-23 wing-design not the F-22, though I suppose both are rhomboid
The vertical plane of max thickness is nearly straight (i.e. little sweepback) in both cases. Both present a need for more aggressive area rule in the fuselage.
Yeah, but the high-taper of a rhomboid wing would mean the shockwave would be in front of it until a higher mach number was reached, no? Wouldn't that mean less trim-drag until the shockwave went past the leading-edge?
And Mach would seem to influence the planform much more than altitude, don't you think?
Sorry, Ken asked if I explained more of what I mean in terms of performance figures so I put in both Mach and altitude.
Altitude influences the need for lower wing loading, thus (for a given GW) the required wing area.
True, but a rhomboid wing like the F-23 is larger than the wing of the F-104
And the very low aspect ratio probably is chosen more for dynamic reasons rather than steady-state performance.
I never really thought of that -- I simply thought lower aspect ratio was more conducive to low-speed performance. Admittedly putting all the mass in the middle with small wings will make you roll faster so long as the ailerons are at the tip and the wing doesn't twist too much.