While the effect is to increase the Renyolds Number (and lift) you have at the same time a reduction in camber which has the effect of reducing lift (for a given AoA). The end result is anybodys guess I would say unless referring to a particular case tested in a tunnel.

Hi Brian, I take your point, unless the shape of the wing is modified to allow for the loss of camber?
I was just trying to give a simple and backed up, (Davis), reference that might be suitable for an interview.

I went to an airshow at Thorny Island way, way back and when a Swift flew over I asked, "Why the swept back wing?" and the answer from an RAF chap nearby was, "So that it can go faster".

Advantages include.

a. Increased Mcrit (due to reduced effective thickness to chord ratio).
b. Increased Lateral Stability.
c. Increased Directional Stability. But b and c do not necessarily result in
an overall improvement because of the greater tendency to Dutch Roll.
d. Reduced tendency to structural divergence (one way flutter), so the
structure can be lighter.
e. Increased stalling angle (but this is offset by reduced Cl at any given
angle of attack so the downside is an overall increase in Vs.
f. Less profile drag (but at the expense of greater induced drag) due to
reduced aspect ratio)

Hi guys and gals,

Way too late to help the OP, but as I'm having to read up on swept wings myself, the following might be useful to someone, somewhen?

One of the multiple choice questions in the aerodynamics section of the exam I'm currently swotting up for reads*:

Modern airliners have high aspect ratio swept wings. This solution:
a) is a good compromise on condition that the sweep does not exceed approx. 30 to 35°
b) increases the critical Mach number whilst minimising drag
c) ensures fuel economy at high subsonic speeds
d) all of the above are true, but the structure of a swept wing requires reinforcement compared to a straight wing

The answer is....




....d)

*free translation from the original French :{