Asymetrical Wing Lengths

• Jun 15, 2009

• #1

U

Ural Rider

Recruit

3

0

Jun 15, 2009

Connecticut

In the Squadron Signal book "Macchi C.205 Veltro Walk-Around", it mentions "As with all Macchi fighters, the C.205's starboard wing was 20cm shorter in span to compensate for propeller torque."
How common was this ?

 

• Jun 15, 2009

• #2

vikingBerserker

Lieutenant General

28,790

4,612

Apr 10, 2009

South Carolina

I've never even heard of that before.

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #3

mudpuppy

Senior Airman

653

17

Mar 6, 2008

Appalachian Foothills in Virginia

I'm with you fellas, on this one. I had never heard this either, not doubting what you'd read, Ural...just it comes as news to me. If the starboard wing was required to be a wee bit shorter to compensate for engine torque does this just represent an instability of the Macchi design or do other planes have the same problem.
I know there are some pilots and aviation engineers types around so I am quite curious to hear from them.
Regards,
Derek

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #4

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,751

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

I would not be surprised. I've heard of off setting the vertical stabilizer as well.

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #5

Marcogrifo

Airman 1st Class

285

4

Oct 1, 2006

Genoa, Italy

Yes, it's true: both Macchi's C.202 and C.205 (that were equipped with the same wing type) had asymmetrical wings for torque compensating.



Cheers

 

Last edited: Jun 17, 2009

• Jun 16, 2009

• #6

Lucky13

Forum Mascot

49,338

27,518

Aug 21, 2006

In my castle....

I'll be.....

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #7

comiso90

Senior Master Sergeant

3,583

23

Dec 19, 2006

FL

I wonder if there were any negative side effects?

i cant believe I didnt know about that...

.

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #8

C

Colin1

Senior Master Sergeant

3,523

15

Jan 2, 2009

United Kingdom

So how would that work?
Which wing would be shorter wrt prop rotation?

My take on torque-related problems is that the ground-handling characteristics got nastier, how would this help?

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #9

Soren

1st Lieutenant

6,457

25

Feb 6, 2005

As mentioned, it was to counter torque effects and yaw. The vertical stabilizer was slightly twisted to the left for the same reason.

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #10

vikingBerserker

Lieutenant General

28,790

4,612

Apr 10, 2009

South Carolina

Why do I picture two guys screwing up and making one wing longer then the other with one of them saying:

"it's to compensate for propeller torque.....really!"

 

• Jun 16, 2009

• #11

B

Butters

Senior Airman

347

2

Jan 25, 2009

South Shore of Nova Scotia

I never knew that, but then I'm not all that familiar with Italian fighters. Does anyone know if this was the case with any other fighters?

JL

PS: I seem to recollect that some fighters had the engine thrustline offset from the longitudinal axis of the fuselage to reduce torque effects. Is this true, or am I just confused again?

 

Last edited: Jun 16, 2009

• Jun 16, 2009

• #12

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,877

23,785

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

Blohn and Voss were working with Asymetrical configurations, although they took it to an extreme. Thier best known example would be the Bv141.

I think the BvP178 was the best looking of thier designs, though it didn't get past the testing stages.

 

Attachments

• BvP178.jpg

  11.7 KB · Views: 279
• BvP178-3v.jpg

  17.5 KB · Views: 215

• Jun 17, 2009

• #13

gumbyk

Master Sergeant

2,967

1,560

Apr 2, 2009

Blenheim

Butters said:

PS: I seem to recollect that some fighters had the engine thrustline offset from the longitudinal axis of the fuselage to reduce torque effects. Is this true, or am I just confused again?

Click to expand...

Butters, this is a fairly common design feature, not restricted to fighters.

Most aircraft, no matter how low-powered have either the vertical fin or the engine offset by a small (2-3º) amount. It's fairly hard to see, unless you are looking straight down on the aircraft when the cowls are off.