Bf 109F & G wing area.

That is great. It solves a problem in control line flying contests where wing area is measured.

We need some Drgndog input here...

Biff

Depending on the wing intersection with the Fuselage, High, mid or low wing, the flow characteristics will be different. Possibly the high wing might be the most efficient at higher AOA. Many modern fighters essentially have this configuration. Structural and mission factors will also be a significant factor here, spar location and landing gear length for a transport may be important factors. For a fighter visibility an essential.

I have flown a lot of airplanes, especially with age they develop greater differences. I was rather amazed that back in the 50's Cessna was able to shove 180's out the door using generic weight. Model changes can introduce significant differences. The 747-100-200-300 shared the same wing and flew much the same, though the addition of more power was a welcome characteristic. For the 400 not only more power was available the wing incidence was increased slightly. At cruise this resulted in a more level deck angle with less drag. Also on Approach a flatter deck angle at the same AOA with better visibility and an easier flair maneuver. The 747-8/Intercontinental had a new wing but was still a nice, if more leisurely flier without the power/weight ratio of the -400. They added some hidden "fly by wire" stuff such as the "fair assist" so little hard to estimate the base aerodynamics.

As far as WWII fighters are going, most shared a similar planform, so generally wing area can be compared somewhat. Fillets and detail work do matter.

An era with engineers running around with sliderules and adding machines, the prototypes typically needed a lot of development. Maybe the F6F an exception, being a pretty good airplane "out of the box". Stats of some interest, but pretty approximate in their utility, as was even flight test with a overworked pilot with a knee board and a pencil.

T

GregP said:

Well, the leading edge of the windscreen is at the wing's training edge. So the fuselage between the wings is just a cylinder (or close to it). There is no lift over the top of that fuselage as there is in all real production WWII fighters with bulging canopies over the wing that create some lift at almost any speed.

Still, it gets treated like every other airplane and the wing area includes the fuselage.

Click to expand...

Hello GregP,

The XP-37 still has a camber on the upper surface of the fuselage. it is just a bit further back than usual. Perhaps it can be considered a "Laminar Flow" Fuselage?
Seriously though, if the camber of the fuselage is considered as contributing to lift, then how does one measure the wing area of a typical Transport or Bomber with a mostly cylindrical fuselage and no significant large bulges on top?

This is a bit off topic, but how does one measure the wing area of something like the HL-10 or M2F3 lifting bodies?

- Ivan.

MiG-3,

BiffF15 said:

We need some Drgndog input here...

Biff

Click to expand...

Biff,
I regard Bill's opinion very highly. I am quite sure he has some serious input.
At this current time I am going with the Bf 109 G-6 documents listing that I am
currently studying of 173.34 sq. ft. for the Bf 109G-6

I just had a colonoscopy (alien anal probe), so I am not allowed to elaborate
any kind of reasoning at this time. I am not allowed to drive my Mini Cooper S
or even something more simple like an F-22 Raptor.
So for tonight I must sign off (mostly because I am allowed to finally eat something
after 2 days.)

Love you guys. See you tomorrow, Jeff

CORSNING said:

Biff,
I regard Bill's opinion very highly. I am quite sure he has some serious input.
At this current time I am going with the Bf 109 G-6 documents listing that I am
currently studying of 173.34 sq. ft. for the Bf 109G-6

I just had a colonoscopy (alien anal probe), so I am not allowed to elaborate
any kind of reasoning at this time. I am not allowed to drive my Mini Cooper S
or even something more simple like an F-22 Raptor.
So for tonight I must sign off (mostly because I am allowed to finally eat something
after 2 days.)

Love you guys. See you tomorrow, Jeff

Click to expand...

TMI.

P-39 Expert said:

TMI.

Click to expand...

Well, you're gonna have that from time to time.

While we're on the subject, last year I went to the Dr. because I was having trouble swallowing. He wanted to get a good look at my esophagus so he scheduled me for the 'scope. He then asked me if I had had a colonoscopy and I admitted that I had not (I was 66 at the time).

So he scheduled me for both at the same time. Praying that they didn't use the same instrument for both.

Now THAT's TMI.

Well now, I believe we have just jumped track and are no longer on topic.



But then again, I have had three alien anal probs and one endoscopy.

Maybe it is time we fight back...?

S&W M&P AR-15 Sport IIhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjjxMWh2rPeAhXMy4MKHZ_KDZAQwqsBMAR6BAgAEAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5I-hoDVrPnU&usg=AOvVaw3bnladvGIX2fh-F8Tlpg46

I think in that case they just keep going till they see the light at the end of the tunnel...

As to wing area in comparing aircraft performance, so many variables are present as to make anything less than 5% not a significant figure.

I have some beefs with the parameters used by MS FS series, but for the most part pretty good flight dynamics can be done. Much more important is the shape and magnitude of the lift curve and the drag parameters. Other factors such as Moments of inertia, effectiveness of control response (things such as aileron balance tabs). These same things were equally important in the real aircraft.

Airplanes are a balance of parameters, optimized for some mission profile, they aren't equally good at everything. Tactics is attempting to utilize the good points.

Cheers: Tom

CORSNING said:

Well now, I believe we have just jumped track and are no longer on topic.

Maybe it is time we fight back...?

S&W M&P AR-15 Sport IIhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjjxMWh2rPeAhXMy4MKHZ_KDZAQwqsBMAR6BAgAEAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5I-hoDVrPnU&usg=AOvVaw3bnladvGIX2fh-F8Tlpg46

Click to expand...

Interesting video. Doesn't really say much though. Nice price.
This video is a bit more impressive. I prefer the standard trigger guard though.

- Ivan.

From an aerodynamics viewpoint, wing are is merely a reference area used to determine the value of the nondimensional coefficients, for instance, Drag force = Cd x density/2 x reference area x velocity squared. For most airplanes, this includes the fuselage area between the wings. So the "right" wing area is the number the aerodynamics used in their calculations. The fillets, the round tips, flap area, wing position all may affect how much lift, how much drag, etc, but the wing reference area is just a number. It is usually close to the projected gross area.

One example of a gross difference in wing area and reference area is the F-14. The wing reference area is the area defined by the sweep of the wings in the forward position and included that projection to the centerline. Ignores the wing strakes, center body and nacelles completely, even though all, including the forward fuselage, generate lift. (and drag, etc).