Regarding Wing-Design
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
There is supposed to be less drag at the intersection of a mid mounted wing vs a low mounted wing. Notice that most mid mount wings don't use large (or any) wing fillet unlike low wing (or high wing) designs. One reason for the gull wing on the Corsair was to "fool" the air flow into behaving like the wing was making a 90 degree intersection with the fuselage like a mid wing design.
A big disadvantage is that the wing spars/structure went right through the middle of the fuselage and not across the bottom or top, taking a big chunk out of the internal volume. That or you designed a tricky load bearing structure with a hollow center that connected the wing halves together.
A big disadvantage is that the wing spars/structure went right through the middle of the fuselage and not across the bottom or top, taking a big chunk out of the internal volume. That or you designed a tricky load bearing structure with a hollow center that connected the wing halves together.
The Halifax had higher drag than the Lancaster in part because because of the high wing set up, the Halifax was a much roomier plane without that spar though.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,056
- Jun 25, 2013
Disadvantages of a mid-wings include:
- The aircraft requires either long, heavy landing gear or fuselage mounted gear.
- For transport aircraft, the spar either goes through the cabin or it requires quite heavy ring frames.
- One on the reasons the Lockheed Lancer went to a high wing was to get rid of ring frames needed to carry the wing loads around the engine.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Interference drag increases between two planes. e.g. between the wing and fuselage, as the angle varies from perpendicular.
- Thread starter
- #6
But by cutting volume, it loses it's worth unless you basically merge the spars with some nicely beefed up fuselage frames?Shortround6 said:
And I guess creating a double-telescoping landing-gear strut wouldn't be the best choice?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,056
- Jun 25, 2013
They would be heavier than gear that's shorter.
wuzak
Captain
Wouldn't say there was much difference in wing location btween teh two
Both are slab sided with the wing coming in at roughly 90°.
GregP
Major
The Handley Page Heyford eliminated the wing-fuselage drag entirely for the lower wing.
and the Handley Page HP. 42 eliminated the wing-fuselage drag of the upper wing entirely.
Neither the Heyford nor the HP.42 were fast (rather obviously), 120 mph top speed for the HP.42 and 142 mph top speed for the Heyford. No particular point, I just thought it was interesting that the same company had designs with both upper and lower wings clear of he fuselage.
The Bristol F2B had BOTH wings clear of the fuselage.
and it wasn't any faster than contemporaries. Another one with seemingly no fuselage-wing drag that wasn't particularly fast was the McDonnel XP-67 "Bat.
It didn't prove to be all that fast with regards to contemporary offerings. You have to pay attention to the overall design, not just the wing-fuselage drag. No particular point here, just interesting shots of different wing-fuselage joint or lack thereof.
A great example of mid-wing is the Bell X-1.
Now THAT's a mid-wing if I ever saw one, and we KNOW it is supersonic. But this high-wing is more than twice as fast.
Again, no particular point other than illustration of different wing-fuselage intersection. They managed to get ALL types of wing-fuselage intersections to work just fine.
Cheers.
and the Handley Page HP. 42 eliminated the wing-fuselage drag of the upper wing entirely.
Neither the Heyford nor the HP.42 were fast (rather obviously), 120 mph top speed for the HP.42 and 142 mph top speed for the Heyford. No particular point, I just thought it was interesting that the same company had designs with both upper and lower wings clear of he fuselage.
The Bristol F2B had BOTH wings clear of the fuselage.
and it wasn't any faster than contemporaries. Another one with seemingly no fuselage-wing drag that wasn't particularly fast was the McDonnel XP-67 "Bat.
It didn't prove to be all that fast with regards to contemporary offerings. You have to pay attention to the overall design, not just the wing-fuselage drag. No particular point here, just interesting shots of different wing-fuselage joint or lack thereof.
A great example of mid-wing is the Bell X-1.
Now THAT's a mid-wing if I ever saw one, and we KNOW it is supersonic. But this high-wing is more than twice as fast.
Again, no particular point other than illustration of different wing-fuselage intersection. They managed to get ALL types of wing-fuselage intersections to work just fine.
Cheers.
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 801
- Mar 16, 2014
Its speed was not helped by the engine - the experimental Continental XIV-1430-17/19 inverted V-12 engines. The engines were only delivering 1,060 hp (790 kW), well short of their promised 1,350 hp (1,007 kW) rating in May-1944. The final version of the XIV-1430 was supposed to develop 1,600hp (this version actually began flight-testing in late 1943 in the XP-49) - but full power was not achieved from the test articles before the entire engine was canceled in mid-1944.
The XP-67 was canceled in September 1944 after an engine fire gutted the fuselage, engine, nacelle and starboard wing of the sole XP-67.
And as for the F-15... the lower surface of the wing joins this funny sculptured fairing cleanly:
The FAST (fuel and sensor tactical) pack attached to the sides of the F-15Es (they can also be fitted to F-15Cs) clean up the wing-fuselage junction considerably:
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #11
GK,
The upper of the two Eagles is one of the original test jets in Air Superiority Blue with test orange. It has the modified horizontal tail but still has the unmodifed wing tips. The Strike Eagle is flying with CFTs (conformal fuel tanks) but none of the US versions had sensors in them.
The C models were all delivered with CFTs but the only unit to fly with them regularly was the Keflavik based 57th FIS. Also the Israelis modified their A/B models to take the CFT. Required upgraded gear/brakes which the USAF did to our jets as well.
Cheers,
Biff
- Thread starter
- #13
I would have thought they'd have used a darker color, more like the RAF's PRU Blue (IIRC, the whole point of the F-15's large wing area was to allow for both high sustained agility that persisted right on up above 30,000 feet).
Provide it's not classified, were there any downsides to carrying the CFT's over not carrying them? The only thing I can readily think of is the weight of the tanks, they seemed more streamlined overall.
Why would the CFT's require a modification to the landing-gear?
Zipper,
I can't answer the why's on color choice. It didn't stay long and has been grey or some shade of that ever since.
The wing tips were modified for I think high AOA maneuvering. Also, I stated the horizontal tails were modified, and that is true however that photo only shows the saw tooth modification and not the angled line on the outside edge (matches what the wing tips were mod'd to). Look up a F15 silhouette and you can see what it is I'm speaking to.
The CFT phase came and went before i really started flying the Eagle. The standard for training was a single centerline tank, and that gradually shifted to two wing tanks. I think the CFT's would work, but by then were all beyond repair and eventually scrapped. If we get new build F15's, which is being considered, my bet is they will come with those tanks installed and used on a regular basis.
The A model landing gear / brakes were not able to bear the load of a 3 drop tank 8 missile equipped load out. The C model was built to do that from the beginning, and the A/B model mod'd to do it later. C/D also came plumbed for the CFTs.
Cheers,
Biff
