|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
 This 1937 Bf-109 tail, is swept at 56.66°. I'v heard that swept wings were first used in 1942, on the Me-262. Most planes had a swept vertical stabalizer, even the real early ones. No this makes me think, were swept surfaces known of? Intresting.  Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way home, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV. |
||
|
You mean like this?
1910 : The Short-Dunne 5, Tailless Biplane  |
||||
|
 |
My great grandfather loved airplanes.
He once told me, when I was young, that he drew up a design for a delta wing around 1920, long before they were conceived that I know of. -PC Performance Aficionado and proud forum member since 2001 |
|||
|
 |
ive heard over comms that pranking the forum is a passtime with some
im a 15 year old btw |
|||
|
 |
Obviously swept for CoG reasons.
Or was it?  Airspeed, altitude, or brains; you always need at least two. |
|||
|
 |
Up until the Me-262, all swept surfaces were for aesthetics only.
Good hunting, Cajun76  Magnum-PC.comCheck it, bleed. Bro... was ON! Didn't trip. But the folks was freakin', Man. Hey, and the pilots were laid to the bone, Homes. So Blood hammered out and jammed jet ship. Tightened that bad sucker inside the runway like a mother. Sheet. - Airplane II |
|||
|
Owl, the vertical stabilizer on the 109 you illustrate has a swept leading edge, but that does not make it a sweep wing/airfoil. The actual sweep wing concept employs both the leading and trailing edges swept in the same direction, and it's this design that offers aerodynamic advantages.
Simply, this works by "tricking" the air flowing over and under the wing and making it "think" the wing is thinner than it actually is. The result is higher enabled speeds and reduced drag with the same amount of lift, but this also forces you to land at higher speeds than with a conventional straight wing of the same chord, thickness, and surface area. At the same time you're gaining slightly more wing surface area per volume of air whilst not actually physically increasing the wing surface area. I hope that's not confusing!  ------------------------------ "It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF." -- Zeus-cat |
||||
|
 |
Also, it should be pointed out that below a certain speed sweeping the leading edges of the stabilizers actually results in poorer performance. Hence the seemingly forward swept empannage of Al Mooney's designs. A nice comparison can also be made between Cessna's C150 and C172 series in which the original straight (that is, leading edge perpendicular to the aircraft's longitudinal axis) vertical stabilizer was replaced with a swept surface. They didn't go any faster.
Having your thoughts governed for correct content by a bunch of university prigs and wannabe dictators at home is anti-freedom. -Edie Ernst |
|||
|
|
|
And, while we're at it, has anyone besides me noticed that the vertical stabilizer of the MD80 is very reminiscent of a crescent wing? I wonder if they did that on for aerodynamic reasons, to make more room for actuators, or both?
Having your thoughts governed for correct content by a bunch of university prigs and wannabe dictators at home is anti-freedom. -Edie Ernst |
|||
|
I'm guessing it was a consequence of making more room inside the top of the vstab for the elevator hardware.
------------------------------ "It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF." -- Zeus-cat |
||||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
