bityman
Member
I read a thread on this forum the other day about swept wings. After chewing on Orion’s response for a few days, I thought out another question. Of course, now I can’t find the thread that I was reading, so I’m forced to start a new one.
This is where the details aircraft fundamentals really need to be clarified by an expert. I think that there’s been a good discussion of why swept wings, for the average home builder, are not necessary and just add complexity, but now the question is “what really constitutes a sweep?” I think everyone is acquainted with the idea of sweep, but is a tapered wing that maintains a trailing edge perpendicular (in plan form) to the fuselage center line, a swept wing (it woudl amount to a very elongated delta)?
Moreover, if a tapered wing is used, what is the best arrangement? Should the wing be symmetric front to rear (in plan form)? Should the leading edge be perpendicular to the fuselage center line (P-51) or the rear (something like an ME-262)? Or is it entirely determined by the thickest part of the wing in order to keep the spar as perpendicular the fuselage centerline as possible, so the mass moment of inertia of the spar is optimized/maximized by eliminating the twist that seems true sweep would impart. Most of the WWII warbirds used a wing with a near perpendicular leading edge, even thought the later fighters were flirting with trans-sonic speeds in dives. Was this because of airframe simplification, lack of understanding or some other reason?
This is where the details aircraft fundamentals really need to be clarified by an expert. I think that there’s been a good discussion of why swept wings, for the average home builder, are not necessary and just add complexity, but now the question is “what really constitutes a sweep?” I think everyone is acquainted with the idea of sweep, but is a tapered wing that maintains a trailing edge perpendicular (in plan form) to the fuselage center line, a swept wing (it woudl amount to a very elongated delta)?
Moreover, if a tapered wing is used, what is the best arrangement? Should the wing be symmetric front to rear (in plan form)? Should the leading edge be perpendicular to the fuselage center line (P-51) or the rear (something like an ME-262)? Or is it entirely determined by the thickest part of the wing in order to keep the spar as perpendicular the fuselage centerline as possible, so the mass moment of inertia of the spar is optimized/maximized by eliminating the twist that seems true sweep would impart. Most of the WWII warbirds used a wing with a near perpendicular leading edge, even thought the later fighters were flirting with trans-sonic speeds in dives. Was this because of airframe simplification, lack of understanding or some other reason?
