Laminar Flow Airfoil

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If you can visualise the Tempest wing where it bolts onto to the centre fuselage space-frame being flush butted together under the monocoque Fury fuselage, you will get the picture. For all intents puposes inc' aero proflies armament etc they are pretty much the same [with the naval caveat, natch].
 
The Tempest does have a greater wing area/span : a consequence of fuselage joint/effective wing root width differential, however the aero-aspects of the wing are indeed, virtually identical to the Fury;

Fury span 38' 4.75"; area 280 sqft.
Tempest 41'; area 302 sqft.

If you look at an underneath plan-view, the comparison shows the identical landing gear layout to be almost meeting in the centre on the Fury, vs the wider-set extra span-wise distance of the Tempest tubular fuselage centre section arrangement.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
The Tempest center section is MUCH wider than the fuselage, so your visualization cannot be correct.

So, does anybody know the span of the Tempest center section?
Click to expand...

In fact Greg is right in that the Fury/Sea Fury didn't quite use the Tempest wing panels, but adapted modified outer panels to a different, narrower centre-section:



Dimensions of Fury/Sea Fury major components: one major problem is that the centre section is given as 18' wide, while the outer (folding on Sea Fury) wing panels are 11' 6" (x2 = 23') so overall wingspan = 41', which just happens to be that of the of the Tempest! Wingspan of the Sea Fury was 38' 4.75". Thus the centre section was more likely to be 15' 4.75" wide - the 18' centre section is more likely to be the Tempest's width, noting that the Tempest had a wheel track of 14' 10.5".



(Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury, Kev Darling, Crowood 2003, pages 140-141)
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, there's a diagram, that graphically shows the text visualisation, with the Fury utilizing virtually wholesale the aero/armament/under-cart wing componentry of the Tempest, as suggested, earlier..
 
As for Sea Fury being naval aircraft: it 1st took the basic Tempest airframe to be modified, and THEN we can call it naval fighter. Not like this: Sea Fury was all of the sudden a naval fighter, and by default it is better for that purpose than a shoehorned/modified land-based fighter. In other words, I'm interested in particulars that enabled the Sea Fury to become one of the best post-war naval fighters. Bill mentioned one thing: raised pilot's position, allowing for better over-nose view field. Another thing that comes to mind is roll rate at low speeds, so any good data about that is welcomed. Anything else (apart from engine type) that could set apart the two fighters?
 
I would look at the aileron size to get clues regarding low speed roll response - would also look at wing wash out to get an idea regarding tip control at low speed.
 
drgondog said:
I would look at the aileron size to get clues regarding low speed roll response - would also look at wing wash out to get an idea regarding tip control at low speed.
Click to expand...

According to the schematics Aozora kindly posted, the Sea Fury aileron's span was 98 in, vs. 83.3 in (6ft, 11 3/8 in) at P-51D. The aileron's chord was 25 inch, the same value for P-51D seem like only half of that (area was 6.7sq ft). Ie. ailerons of the Sea Fury have had the area was 17 sq ft, if my math is okay. The wing areas are 280 sq ft for S. Fury and 235.75 sq ft for P-51D. Wing span was 38' 4.75" vs. 37.03 ft, S.F. vs. -D.
 
You must be very careful comparing speeds between aircraft,particularly different types and drawing such broad conclusions. There are many,many factors involved.
I am reminded of a story told by Murry White who worked as Ernie Mansbridge's assistant on the Supewrmarine Spitfire. The prototype K 5054 had only managed a disappointing 335 mph flown by Quill on 27th March 1936. Supermarine decided to fit their own propeller,with modified tips. At 1800 hours Quill took of for another series of tests. It was White who calculated the new true air speed,his calculation checked by Mansbridge. This time K 5054 managed 349.5 mph, very close to Mitchell's estimate.
That's nearly 15 mph simply by changing the propeller.

White's reaction also gives an idea of how fast this was at the time.

"I went to Ernie and told him that I had made a mistake,but couldn't see where. He looked through my figures and said that I hadn't made a mistake,and that my figures were exactly right,and was what they expected. I said I thought it would have been more like 250 mph,but he said that if it had been it wouldn't have been very good,350 mph was what they were aiming for."

Cheers
Steve
 
Look what Roy Lopresti did with the humble Globe Swift.

By changing the location of the wing-fuselage joint, he added some power and rewrote the performacne. The old Globe Swift had 125 HP and went 140 mph. The Swift Fury has 200 hp and goes 222 mph with basically the same airframe except for drag reduction. Without the drag reduction I'd expect maybe 163 mph. But with Lopresti's genius, he added another 60 mph or so.

The same can be done with fighters if the original design has flaw, and they all did to various degrees.
 
Last edited:
This is the first time I have heard the B-24's Davis-wing referred to as a "laminar-flow" wing. Laminar flow wings, like the P-51's, have the thickest portion of the chord moved further back from the leading-edge. The B-24 Liberator wing (Davis-Wing) was VERY thick at the leading-edge. It always made me, wonder how that airplane generated lift and got into the air with those thick/blunt leading-edges.
 

Actual laminar flow was not as good as testing showed. Often 30-50 % less when in good condition. Peeling paint and dents can really screw things up.
But the B-24 wing was supposed to be about 50% better than the 'standard' wing before airflow turns turbulent for the rest of the flow over the wing.
Total drag reduction is going to be smaller but the Davis Wing offers more volume of fuel storage with the same or less drag. It is known that the wing did not give the anticipated performance in practice. P-51 didn't either. At best it gave laminar airflow over about 40% of cord. Careful sanding of the paint on the insignia on the wing was needed to even get that.
Since the Davis was not really a normal wing we are faced with either sticking it in the laminar flow catagory or coming up with a new category. Semi-laminar flow? Partial laminar flow (but to be accurate, all laminar flow wings are partial, they just differ in how long they can maintain it).
 

There is a chapter is this book that discusses the B-24 airfoil: What engineers know and how they know it : analytical studies from aeronautical history : Vincenti, Walter G. (Walter Guido), 1917-2019 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Germany goes for centrifugal flow turbojet engines?
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
13K
GrauGeist
S
Research/theory on propeller shapes and airfoils?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Engineman
E
S
P-40 with laminar flow wing?
Replies
10
Views
3K
peperez
P
C
Italian Air Force Training Flow before and during WW2?
Replies
0
Views
647
Clown
C
L
354th FG record of missions flown
Replies
0
Views
677
LukeFF
L
Menu
Log in
Register