Straight-Tapered Wings/Rhomboid Wings and Supersonic Flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight-Tapered Wings/Rhomboid Wings and Supersonic Flight
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Parry
1.) Which wing produces better L/D ratios at Mach 0.6 to 0.9 at
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
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
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
B: A rhomboid-wing similar in plan-view to the F-23?
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.
- Sea-level
- 25,000 feet
- 35,000 feet
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
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
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
B: A rhomboid-wing similar in plan-view to the F-23?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barit1
I was talking about the Northrop F-23 wing-design not the F-22, though I suppose both are rhomboid
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?
Sorry, Ken asked if I explained more of what I mean in terms of performance figures so I put in both Mach and altitude.
True, but a rhomboid wing like the F-23 is larger than the wing of the F-104
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.
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.
And the very low aspect ratio probably is chosen more for dynamic reasons rather than steady-state performance.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a rhomboid wing like the F-23 is larger than the wing of the F-104
In either case, F-104 or F-23, efficiency (in terms of fuel burn) is hardly #1 priority, given their missions.
Although, the F-104A when upgraded to the late-60s J79-19 would indeed "supercruise" - the first operational fighter to do so.