Elliptical Wings
- Thread starter GrauGeist
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting design!
It has confirmed a suspicion of mine -- we really didn't see much use in the elliptical wing.
- Thread starter
- #23
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The years between WWI and WWII saw a fantastic range of wing configurations in an attempt to find the right combination for maximum performance.
It seems that the Europeans used the Elliptical or semi-elliptical in their designs more than U.S. designers. And I think that there is no coincidence that the P-35, P-43 and P-47 used that in their design, since the P-35 was designed by Alexander Kartveli, who studied aircraft design in Paris amd worked for French aircraft firms before coming to the states to work for Seversky.
Seversky became Republic, the P-47 was developed from the P-43, which in turn came from the P-35 and that was derived from the original Seversky SEV series...which had an elliptical design.
Crimea_River
Marshal
More accurately described as TWO ellipses but even so, the wings don't match mathematical ellipses. From this article: 'As British as Queen Victoria'
When something looks nice you have to have a name for it.
I did not know that detail about Kartveli.
Other than Berliner Joyce and Seversky/Kartveli, the only other elliptical winged designs that were produced seemed to be the Arup designs, the V-173, and XF5U that I know of. I assume there was some literature in the United States that covered elliptical wings as a possibility?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There's a long list of wing designs that were tried in the golden age of flight.
The Vought V-173 and X5FU weren't an elliptical design, they were a Circular design. Aurthur Sack built one also, known as the AS-6 and flew several times in 1944.
- Thread starter
- #30
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I don't know, Graeme, that illustration looks quite like a combination of elliptical type curves. 
Glider
Captain
When considering the wing it's important to recognise that the first priority is what you want the wing to do. The wing of an F15 doesn't have any similarity to that of a C17 they are designed to achieve different things.
The following link covers this for gliders, very different craft but the principals or aerodynamics are the same.
Of the gliders mentioned I did do an advanced aerobatic course in the Fox which was a lot of fun but isn't one I would choose to try a cross country in, do any thermalling and it definitely isn't for beginners. On the other extreme they mention the ETA glider with a hugely impressive glide ratio of 70. I haven't even seen an ETA but I did have a few flights in an ASH 25 with a 26m wingspan and a glide ratio of 60 which even today is pretty exceptional, that said, I really didn't like it at all. Thermalling was to me difficult (to be fair others did better than I did) it's roll rate was very slow and I found it cumbersome. Landing it with such a huge wing was daunting at the start but you got used to it, I wouldn't want to go near an ETA and to the best of my knowledge an ETA hasn't won a major championship yet, despite having on paper, the best performance
The morale is be careful what you wish for, the extreme performance is often a mirage, as it normally comes with limitations.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-most-efficient-glider-wing-design
The following link covers this for gliders, very different craft but the principals or aerodynamics are the same.
Of the gliders mentioned I did do an advanced aerobatic course in the Fox which was a lot of fun but isn't one I would choose to try a cross country in, do any thermalling and it definitely isn't for beginners. On the other extreme they mention the ETA glider with a hugely impressive glide ratio of 70. I haven't even seen an ETA but I did have a few flights in an ASH 25 with a 26m wingspan and a glide ratio of 60 which even today is pretty exceptional, that said, I really didn't like it at all. Thermalling was to me difficult (to be fair others did better than I did) it's roll rate was very slow and I found it cumbersome. Landing it with such a huge wing was daunting at the start but you got used to it, I wouldn't want to go near an ETA and to the best of my knowledge an ETA hasn't won a major championship yet, despite having on paper, the best performance
The morale is be careful what you wish for, the extreme performance is often a mirage, as it normally comes with limitations.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-most-efficient-glider-wing-design
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
1) If done right, it wouldn't. Remember, the Spitfire had an elliptical wing, but not an elliptical lift distribution. A linear taper would be easier to produce, so the same effort would give more Spitfires.
2) Probably neither, but it would be harder to make.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I don't understand why a linear taper Spitfire wing would be any easier to build. Especially if it used the same building technology and tooling. Once the tooling is set up to form the components and drill the rivet holes a wing can be built in any shape desired all the way to a Delta. The Spitfire contrary to what the internet thinks was not hand built by elves in a wooded glade it was built from panels and sections stamped out by giant flywheel presses. Castle Bromwich once it got into its stride in 1941 (only interrupted by bombing) was churning out Spits at over 4000 a year.
I was looking at this image, courtesy of the Journal of Aeronautical History (paper 2013/02)...
... and I've noticed that the spar was placed roughly where the 1/3 chord mark was with a longer and shorter ellipse ahead of and behind these points.
If one was to take an airfoil that was more like the P-51, would it produce a longer forward ellipse?
... and I've noticed that the spar was placed roughly where the 1/3 chord mark was with a longer and shorter ellipse ahead of and behind these points.
If one was to take an airfoil that was more like the P-51, would it produce a longer forward ellipse?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
No. Prandtl worked out the elliptical platfom based on a spanwise lift distribution; the details of the airfoil weren't considered.
The P-35 wing is essentially the same as the SEV-3 amphibian. It was designed circa 1931 by Seversky's first chief engineer Michael Gregor and Seversky himself. The S3 airfoil was designed at the same time by these two but not used until the AP-2 in 1937. Kartveli was trained as an electrical engineer and became an aeronautical engineer specializing in structural desgin. His actual knowledge of aerodynamics was limited. He did hold the patent for the S3 airfoil but his patent wasn't even filed until after the Seversky Aircraft Corp. was reorganized in Republic Aviation Corp. The patent apparently lists Seversky or his new business venture (I can't remember which) as the assignee.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
I think you have missed the point of Zipper's question.
Clearly the Prandtl planform has been designed in the knowledge that, realistically, a wing will be built with a more-or-less straight spar at the thickest point of the section. And as most pre-laminar aerofoils had their maximum thickness at around 20-25% chord, you end up with a planform made of two separate half-ellipses with a common major axis. If Prandtl had only been concerned with the aerodynamics, the planform would have been a simple ellipse with two axes of symmetry.
I would guess that if anyone bothered to make an untwisted elliptical wing with a section whose thickest point was at 50% chord, then it would be pretty much a true ellipse.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Monty Python never disappoints.
Same thing, however not all wings are the same. Most were twisted along the full length but some like the Fw 190 only had the twist inboard, the outer section of the wing was straight. (no twist)
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
