Degree of Sweepback?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is quite a lot on wikipedia - search for "swept wing". Design speed has a lot to do with it, whether transonic or supersonic. I suggest you have a good read and then return if you need further explanations!
TP
TP
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids
Age: 49
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard that one of the reasons for the degree of sweep on the 747 was hangar size (more sweep equaling shorter wing span), though I am skeptical. If anyone can documentably confirm or refute I would be grateful.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Increasing the sweep while maintaining the same wing span and the same root and tip chord achieves absolutely nothing compared to increased span.
Increased span gives more wing area (more lift) and a higher aspect ration (more efficient lifting). But generally does nothing for you at high Mach.
Increasing sweep at fixed span gives no change in area and worse high lift characteristics but gives better high speed (Mach) drag.
I can't conceive of any circumstances where you'd want more span, and decide to settle for more sweep instead; if anything, they are opposing effects, not complementary.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: us
Age: 45
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the swept back wing is to make sure the tips stay out of the wake of the shock wave.due to the speed closer to the speed of sound. the faster the plane goes the more swept back it is with relation to the amount of lift needed.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the swept back wing is to make sure the tips stay out of the wake of the shock wave.due to the speed closer to the speed of sound. the faster the plane goes the more swept back it is with relation to the amount of lift needed.
If yes how do you explain the F-104?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading "Building the 747", it was surprising to find out that the sweepback of the 747 was a compromise. Designers wanted the plane to go faster than the 707 which had a sweepback of 35 degrees, so 40 degrees was picked. However the engineering for a 40 degree sweep was too complex so they settled at half way 37.5 degrees.
Since then, I imagine there's somewhat more theory behind the degree of sweep.
Since then, I imagine there's somewhat more theory behind the degree of sweep.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the swept back wing is to make sure the tips stay out of the wake of the shock wave.due to the speed closer to the speed of sound. the faster the plane goes the more swept back it is with relation to the amount of lift needed.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's so stupid...
Brian, what happens on all those swept back planes that are never intened to break Mach? Sweeping a wing has to with peformance, more sweep, less drag, higher Vmo speeds for a given max thrust is one perameter...but one get's higher stall speeds in the clean configuration...they get that back with flaps, slats, ect...so they can land with that swept wing. If you sweep a wing too much, take off and landing distances can get unrealisticaly long and also maybe the engines needed can't push such a low drag, low lift wing through the air to carry the load desired. There is a place where the amount of sweep, the lift devices available, the load desired, the engines installed, altitudes flown, fuel amount burned and carried...all add up to a plane that can take off and land at acceptable speeds and distances, fly for acceptable ranges, have decent handling chararistics that Joe Pilot Typed Yesterday can fly it, and carry a few people in back that are paying for all this in a safe, fast enough, efficient enough manner. All while complying with all the FAA type certificated requirements that planes need to go through.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're talking about sub-sonic aircarft, would I be right in saying then that a compromise needs to be reached...
In sweeping the wings back to enable Mcrit to be increased, a concession is made with respect to the amount of lift produced, as the swept wing has a lower lift coefficient than a rectangular one. The faster the aircraft goes (in terms of mach number), the more the wings have to be swept back to delay shock waves being formed. A certain amount of lift is required for an aircraft at a certain weight, so the wings can't be swept back too much otherwise this lift won't be produced (keeping all other things constant). With extra sweep, you would therefore need to travel faster, which would then require more sweep to delay the shockwaves ...and the viscious circle continues...
Is it just a question of finding (well, getting the engineers to figure out)the optimum angle of sweep to meet the requirements of cruising at a certain sub-sonic mach number, at a certain weight?
In sweeping the wings back to enable Mcrit to be increased, a concession is made with respect to the amount of lift produced, as the swept wing has a lower lift coefficient than a rectangular one. The faster the aircraft goes (in terms of mach number), the more the wings have to be swept back to delay shock waves being formed. A certain amount of lift is required for an aircraft at a certain weight, so the wings can't be swept back too much otherwise this lift won't be produced (keeping all other things constant). With extra sweep, you would therefore need to travel faster, which would then require more sweep to delay the shockwaves ...and the viscious circle continues...
Is it just a question of finding (well, getting the engineers to figure out)the optimum angle of sweep to meet the requirements of cruising at a certain sub-sonic mach number, at a certain weight?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
redhouse,
The lift problem isn't at high speed, thats taken care of by V^2. It's the take off and landing bit that's the problem.
Of course you can always go the way of the F111, B1, Tornado and have a swing wing.
The lift problem isn't at high speed, thats taken care of by V^2. It's the take off and landing bit that's the problem.
Of course you can always go the way of the F111, B1, Tornado and have a swing wing.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much runway acreage is available? The shortest runway in your route system will usually limit the amount of sweepback. Look at the DC-9/MD80 family - very modest sweepback, well suited to shorter fields.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor CA 95492
Age: 97
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choosing sweep angle for commercial/business jets is a compromise between critical mach number and maximum lift coefficient. Increasing sweep increases the former (allowing increased cruise speed) but decreases the latter, resulting in worse field performance. So it is not surprising that short range aircraft generally have less sweep than long range ones, because high cruise spped is less important than field performance.
Very high sweep combined with high aspect ratio can produce serious structural problems like wing divergance(bending moment causing increased incidence at tip)
Keith
Very high sweep combined with high aspect ratio can produce serious structural problems like wing divergance(bending moment causing increased incidence at tip)
Keith
