Straight-Tapered Wings/Rhomboid Wings and Supersonic Flight

[Jane-DoH]

What kind of wing works better when flying subsonic and supersonic

1.) A straight, tapered wing similar in basic plan-view to the X-3 or F-104

2.) A rhomboid wing similar in plan-view to the F-23


R.C.

[kenparry]

works better

???

It would help if you could explain more of what you mean. Are you talking about L/D ratio, max lift, min structural weight, internal stowage volume, or something else? All those, and more, are design and performance considerations.

[Jane-DoH]

Ken Parry

It would help if you could explain more of what you mean. Are you talking about L/D ratio, max lift, min structural weight, internal stowage volume, or something else? All those, and more, are design and performance considerations.

1.) Which wing produces better L/D ratios at Mach 0.6 to 0.9 at

• Sea-level
• 25,000 feet
• 35,000 feet

A: A thin, straight, tapered-wing similar in plan-view to the X-3 or F-104?
B: A rhomboid-wing similar in plan-view to the F-23?

2.) Which wing produces better L/D ratios at Mach 0.90 to 1.2 at

• Sea level
• 25,000 feet
• 35,000 feet
• 45,000 feet

A: A thin, straight, tapered-wing similar in plan-view to the X-3 or F-104?
B: A rhomboid-wing similar in plan-view to the F-23?

3.) Which wing produces better L/D ratios at Mach 1.8 to 2.2 at

• 35,000 feet
• 45,000 feet
• 55,000 feet
• 65,000 feet

A: A thin, straight, tapered-wing similar in plan-view to the X-3 or F-104?
B: A rhomboid-wing similar in plan-view to the F-23?

4.) Which wing produces better L/D ratios at Mach 3.0 at

• 60,000 feet
• 65,000 feet
• 75,000 feet
• 110,000 feet

A: A thin, straight, tapered-wing similar in plan-view to the X-3 or F-104?
B: A rhomboid-wing similar in plan-view to the F-23?

[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.

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.

And Mach would seem to influence the planform much more than altitude, don't you think? Altitude influences the need for lower wing loading, thus (for a given GW) the required wing area.

[barit1]

And the very low aspect ratio probably is chosen more for dynamic reasons rather than steady-state performance. Concentrating the mass closer to the c/l means lower roll inertia, thus faster roll response.

[Jane-DoH]

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.

[barit1]

a rhomboid wing like the F-23 is larger than the wing of the F-104

Somewhat in direct proportion to their gross weights. Remember the F-104 was called "missile with a man in it" - terrific zoom climb because of the hotrod engine, but hardly an efficient cruise vehicle. Although, the F-104A when upgraded to the late-60s J79-19 would indeed "supercruise" - the first operational fighter to do so.

In either case, F-104 or F-23, efficiency (in terms of fuel burn) is hardly #1 priority, given their missions.

[18-Wheeler]

Although, the F-104A when upgraded to the late-60s J79-19 would indeed "supercruise" - the first operational fighter to do so.

The second in fact, the English Electric Lightning was the first.