Aerodynamics of high-winged fighters.

[tomo pauk]

The LaGG-3 was not that large of an airframe amd accepted the Su-2's engine/cowling well enough.

It was slightly bigger than the I-185, and Su-2's (Soviets were calling the ASh-82-powered Su-2 as Su-4) engine was both smaller and lighter than the M-71 engine.

 

[spicmart]

The 14-cylinder ASh-82 was smaller and lighter than the 18-cylinder M-71. Yak-3U was outfitted with a bigger wing than the 'normal' -3s, 17.15 sq m (same area as with legacy Yak fighters like the -1, -7 and -9; also same wing span; my speculation: perhaps the wing was just carried over from these fighters?) vs. 14.85 sq m.



Yakovlev's engineers did the similar job with the Yak-3.



Speed of the Yak-3U was on par with La-7 prototypes, while later in timing - the -3U 1st flew after the war.

Thanks for the info. Reminds me of rechecking first.

Was the Yak-3U essentially a Yak-9 then?

 

[tomo pauk]

Was the Yak-3U essentially a Yak-9 then?

Wing, fuel tanks and landing gear of Yak-9 + better part of fuselage of Yak-3 + front part of the La-7?

 

[GrauGeist]

It was slightly bigger than the I-185, and Su-2's (Soviets were calling the ASh-82-powered Su-2 as Su-4) engine was both smaller and lighter than the M-71 engine.

However, going from the Klimov (at 30 inches wide) to the Shvetsov (at 49 inches wide) was no easy feat, as the LaGG-3 had a rather narrow fuselage.

 

[tomo pauk]

However, going from the Klimov (at 30 inches wide) to the Shvetsov (at 49 inches wide) was no easy feat, as the LaGG-3 had a rather narrow fuselage.

A few sheets of metal to streamline the affair?

 

[GrauGeist]

A few sheets of metal to streamline the affair?

Or duct tape and issuing several Hail Marys

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not many were operational, but there was at least one more:



View attachment 693906

And provided we allow both twin engines and never seing operative service, there's this:

But they all need wing struts.

 

[special ed]

Mainly because of the wing root shape to allow pilot visibility, just as with the PZL 7, 11, & 24.

 

[Hardrada55]

Aviolanda fighter

Hi, does anyone know more info about the Aviolanda single-seat gull-wing fighter ?,I just have a picture to its mock-up.

ww2aircraft.net

Kinda get the picture of a high wing Dewoitine 520.

 

[SaparotRob]

Cool drawing.

 

[special ed]

Bill Barnes?

 

[Just Schmidt]

I knew I'd forgotten one, or possibly suppressed. The Arsenal delanne 10

 

[GrauGeist]

I knew I'd forgotten one, or possibly suppressed. The Arsenal delanne 10

View attachment 694286

That's almost as weird as the French Payen Pa-22...

 

[J_P_C]

aerodynamics is ever point of discussion and hard to quantify factor, but weight is easy one. Major factor for preference low wing layout is huge weight saving over high wing layout (i mean single engine, propeller driven and high performance airplanes in other cases trade may looks different).

 

[tomo pauk]

Major factor for preference low wing layout is huge weight saving over high wing layout

The high-wing PZL P.24 was lighter by some 10% (empty) than the low-wing Fokker D.XXI, per Wikipedias of the respective countries.

 

[Shortround6]

The high-wing PZL P.24 was lighter by some 10% (empty) than the low-wing Fokker D.XXI, per Wikipedias of the respective countries.

The low wing layout should save weight if the planes used identical construction.
The PZL P.24 was all metal.
The PZL P.24 used stressed skin in the rear fuselage.
The Fokker used wooden wings and steel tube fuselage.

With major differences in construction location of wings and landing gear becomes very hard to judge.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P.24 was considerably lighter than the Fw159, both being comparable in construction.

 

[J_P_C]

The P.24 was considerably lighter than the Fw159, both being comparable in construction.

it is matter of design standards - in those days PZL design team have used 1.4 safety factor vs.1.5 being used in germany, next thing is that Polish designs lacked all necessary safety features - no inertial gas installation, no armour, no fire extinguishing system, no self sealing fuel tanks.. but Poland also had ones of the finest structural engineers of those days - all this combined created weight difference between mentioned types.

 

[J_P_C]

The low wing layout should save weight if the planes used identical construction.
The PZL P.24 was all metal.
The PZL P.24 used stressed skin in the rear fuselage.
The Fokker used wooden wings and steel tube fuselage.

With major differences in construction location of wings and landing gear becomes very hard to judge.

when you are trying to exceed 400km/h in horizontal flight retractable landing gear is must have - this is heavy and complex thing to do with high wing layout. Next thing is ground clearance - thing which is needed is large diameter propeller - again it is much easier with low wing layout

 

[thunderbird]

high winged airplanes actually have lower interference drag and better span efficiency than low winged monoplanes. But along with shorter landing gear, i suspect better visibility for the pilot is another strong reason for low wing monoplanes, at least for those aircraft where the cockpit sits over/under the wing.