 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / September 2009Any aviation engineers here? Swept wing piston fighters ?
was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an article about swept and movable wings.. got me thinking. With the 262 and 163 in production during the war and the F-86 soon after, if the concept of swept wings have been more understood, would it have made any performance improvements for prop fighters? In any case, this sounds like a great "what if" project. A swept wing P-47 sounds like fun. Craig > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Craig With Bell Aircraft, the P-52 pusher, and the original P-59 pusher both had lightly swept wings. And in 1946, they converted a P-39 to have the same swept wings that were designed for the X-2. I also have a drawing of the XS-1 (X-1) with forward-swept wings. I know - that last wasn't prop-driven, but I thought I'd throw it in..... > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Craig Actually, if you look at a Spitfire, it had/has a slightly forward swept wing - elliptical planform, but the mean cordline is forward swept a bit; mostly from about mid-span to the tips. Which contributes to handling ability in roll at higher AOA, or nearer to stall - and roll is life in a dogfight. I doubt a prop fighter would have gained much (if anything) from having a swept wing - mostly because of the tendency of a swept wing to pos-versely snap roll when yawed, and the fact that piston pilots like(d) to slip and yaw all over the place to fool their opponents (as well as to get into tight airfields). Getting out of control in the middle of a fight don't help you...at all.  Signature- Rufus Getting out of control in the > middle of a fight don't help you...at all. > > -- > - Rufus that's what I tell the wife all the time..... > Getting out of control in the > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > that's what I tell the wife all the time..... sleep on the couch much? ;) > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Craig Generally, the benefits of a swept wing are largely wasted on the typical subsonic aircraft design. You need the higher speeds of the transonic region and above to reap the performance benefits of the swept wing and the area rule. Worse yet, the trade off with a swept wing is typically poor low speed performance. WmB > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Craig The two that spring to mind are the prototype Me 262 and the Japanese Shinden. They weren't greatly swept but they do fit the spec. Neither was tested enough to say much about. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Craig There were structural reasons for sweepback too. The 262 was swept because of that. Sometimes sweepback can move CG to a better location than hacking the fuselage to place the wing at a proper AC and CG location. It IS possible that properly shaped (partially swept or curved) prop blades may have increased speed by delaying critical mach on blades. The Soviets did a lot of work on that. However, you quickly were running into a region of diminishing returns. BTW, NACA did fly a P-63 with swept wings to take airflow measurements on a swept wing airplane. And of course, the DC-3/C-47 had sweepback, but again it was a slight sweepback for structural/CG reasons. And of course, the DC-3/C-47 had sweepback, but again it was a slight > sweepback As does the AT-6/SNJ & the P-64. Don't forget nearly all of the light airplanes, like Cessnas, Pipers & Beeches, have swept vertical surfaces. I think that's pretty much for aesthetics as the performance on straight-tailed & swept tail Cessna 182s & 172s is about the same, the bigger performance difference coming in with the straight-back versions as opposed to the ones with the cut down fuselage & rear windows, the former design being a bit faster. > > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "Don't know of any fighters - but the B-36 was originally all prop and had swept wings - so there must have been some advantage - maybe range. > "Don't know of any fighters - but the B-36 was originally all prop and had > swept wings - so there must have been some advantage - maybe range. hmm...I'd consider that a "straight" wing design, even though it does have some sweep to it. look up YB-60, which was an all-jet b-36 variant. That's more of what I think of when somebody says "swept" >> "Don't know of any fighters - but the B-36 was originally all prop and had >> swept wings - so there must have been some advantage - maybe range. > > hmm...I'd consider that a "straight" wing design, even though it does have > some sweep to it. look up YB-60, which was an all-jet b-36 variant. That's > more of what I think of when somebody says "swept" That is a swept wing, in truth. "Sweep" refers to the angle of the mean chord line from the longitudinal axis - not the leading or trailing edges. So while it's not a large sweep, the B-36 does have a swept wing. More than likely in the interest of CG, structure, or picking up a bit of lateral stability. Signature- Rufus A lot of carnard designs have swept wings. See these examples http://www.vectorsite.net/avcanfit.html Obviously most are protoypes but the Beech Starship is production at least. Cheers, Nigel __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4419 (20090912) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com > was reading the current issue of Invention and Technology with an > article about swept and movable wings.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Craig The wing on Tupolev's "Bear" (Tu-20?/Tu-95?) was definitely what I'd call swept, and that was prop-driven, even if it wasn't piston-powered! Gaz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.