Solving forward sweep problems by using tapered thickness

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Doggzilla, Nov 29, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Nov 29, 2019 #1

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    414
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Was just thinking about forward sweet wings and something occurred to me.

    If the CG of the aircraft is anywhere near the center of the wing, making the inboard portion of the wing thicker would make the wing vastly more statically stable.

    Since the portion behind the center is the inboard section of forward swept wings, making the inboard wing thicker has the effect of more lift/authority from the rearward section at a given AoA.

    Therefore, tapering the thickness should make a forward swept wing statically stable instead of unstable and prone to divergence, no?
     
  2. Nov 29, 2019 #2

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,687
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Location:
    CT, USA
    A thicker airfoil won't necessarily produce more lift at a given AOA, camber more significant. Moving the wing center of lift forward also won't necessarily make the aircraft more stable than moving the CG forward. Also consider that a thinner section at the tips means the tips may stall first.
     
    cheapracer likes this.
  3. Nov 29, 2019 #3

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    414
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    For forward sweep that is a good thing.

    Forward swept wings suffer from divergence which makes them unstable and prone to backwards tumbles. Tips stalling before the rear/center of the airfoil means it would not suffer divergence at high AoA near stall.

    Center of lift would shift backwards during stall instead of forward.
     
  4. Nov 29, 2019 #4

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    3,261
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    What "problems" with forward swept wings and stability are you attempting to solve?

    The lift slope of ALL foils (in 2D measurement)is about 0.1096/degree. Thickening or thinning the airfoil does not change this. Going to 3D airfoils, where we have tips and leakage around the tips, the entire wing's lift slope is reduced in relation to the aspect ratio of the wing. An aft swept wing tends to act like it has a little less AR than one with its 1/4 chord line perpendicular to flight direction. I suspect that a forward swept wing will act like it has a little more AR, but in neither case will that have much influence upon stability.

    If you have a problem with stability in pitch, we need to address issues of where the wing and other surfaces are in setting the neutral point. If the aftmost CG is not adequately forward of the neutral point, you can either move the aftmost CG forward or shift the neutral point aft. The two prominent ways to shift the NP aft are to select more tail volume or shift the wing aft. This applies to the forward swept wing just as well to any other wing. Shift it aft for more stability in pitch. The center of lift and pitching moment for a forward swept wing is found the same way it is found for all other wings...

    Billski
     
  5. Nov 29, 2019 #5

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    962
    Location:
    Warren, VT USA
    Interesting idea. Front load an airfoil with lots of camber at the tips. Farther back at the root. Don't think that really works in the end but interesting thought. Center of area will probably drive the overall dynamics.
     
  6. Nov 29, 2019 #6

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,201
    Likes Received:
    2,401
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    The tip chord can be made smaller than the root chord with ordinary planform taper. This would make those forward swept tips stall slightly sooner than a constant chord. Not that a few degrees sweep are any problem.
     
  7. Nov 29, 2019 #7

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,873
    Likes Received:
    5,483
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Presuming the wings don't rip off the aircraft - the most-likely outcome - what you're describing is an aeroelastic effect, and not stability effect per se. The stability of the aircraft is indifferent to whether the wing is swept forward, swept aft, or not swept at all. It's very useful - and important - to keep the two concepts separate. Making the root section thicker won't really change the lift curve slope of the wing in that spanwise region, meaning the effect you're hoping for won't happen. Billski is setting you straight on this - calculate your design's stability strictly through the positions of the neutral point and the center of gravity, which is almost entirely dependent on planform. If you also have aeroelastic effects driving unwanted pitching moments, those need to be analyzed and dealt with separately.

    Strictly true, but then you'd also lose virtually all hope of roll-axis control as the stall progresses, and the likelihood of asymmetric tip stall in the "real world" means the airplane will drop a tip in most stall scenarios. These are exactly the reasons we want to avoid "tip stall" and have the wing stall from the root outwards.

    Forward-swept-wing divergence issues are best dealt with by tailoring the structure of the wing to not diverge. That's usually done by adjusting the layup schedule of a composite wing so that the flexural center of the tip section is ahead of the quarter-chord point of the airfoil. Under loading, the tips then will either maintain a constant angle of incidence, or decrease their incidence slightly under load.
     
    mcrae0104 likes this.
  8. Nov 30, 2019 #8

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,687
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Location:
    CT, USA
    This.
     
  9. Nov 30, 2019 #9

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,493
    Likes Received:
    3,848
    Location:
    Australian
    I actually like Zenith's solution on the CH650 which is opposite, the spar is straight (constant height), and the wing tapers in on the rear edge, gradually increasing the wing's thickness percentage to the tip.

    CH650 wing.jpg

    CH650 wing 2.jpg
     
  10. Nov 30, 2019 #10

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    414
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    If I understand correctly the idea is to make the area behind the spar larger so that when it’s under heavy lift it bends nose down instead of nose up. The X-29 had something similar.

    I was considering having elevators on the outboard section to provide canard like control ahead of the CG, and having ailerons mid wing closer to mid chord so they are aligned with CG and have a better yaw moment. Probably a tail elevator on the inner trailing edge that works opposite if needed.

    The outboard elevators would produce a force on the trailing edge, helping to counteract aero elasticity bending the leading edge.

    Outboard split flaps or emergency spoilers would also probably serve as a good way to reduce the risk of divergence as well.

    All of these would clearly have to be tested on models to judge performance.

    Slightly off topic, I have considered using fixed tricycle landing gear as an inverted V tail, just spread wide. Combining them into one part like Rutan did for his tip gear.

    Can’t use tip gear on forward sweep for obvious reasons, but tricycle gear is actually in a very good position to serve as additional control surfaces.

    Or just to act as a good source of static stability. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a moving surface.

    I don’t really trust small models because of how different the Reynolds numbers make them handle, but I would definitely like to try out something large.

    With so many different configurations it’s going to have to be modular as well.
     
  11. Nov 30, 2019 #11

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    As Topaz states, there are 2 different "divergence" issues .

    Aeroelastic divergence, which can be dealt with by changing the torsional stuffness, not the area behind the spar, as I understand it.

    Pitch stability "divergence" where the root stalls first, pitching the wing nose up as the tips are still flying. As Topaz says, you don't want tip stall either. Because the elevators are in the center section, so they have the greatest leverage, a center section stall does more than move the lift forwards, it also kills the up elevator aerodynamic see-saw effect, pitching the nose down. You want to tailor those opposing effects to get the pitch stability results you want.

    A little washout in the wing helps with reducing tip stall/spin, and the Aeroelastic divergence issue.

    I like the inverted V tail gear/vertical fin idea. Forward swept wings have the YAW stability issues the reverse of swept wings. On a swept wing the wing yawed back has less frontal area than the leading wing giving a kind of dihedral restorative effect in yaw. Forward swept wings have the opposite and need a vertical stabilizer to counter act that.

    I'm doubtful about elevators outboard. To get a canard effect you'd need a lot of sweep. In most forward sweep designs, the tips end up with the trailing edge fairly near the CG. So you'd have little leverage in pitch with elevators near the tips.
     
    Doggzilla likes this.
  12. Nov 30, 2019 #12

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,341
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Re: wing tip landing gear.

    Technically you could make tip mounted gear in tail dragger configuration like a Rutan Quickie, but forward swept wings usually have more dihedral than a straight wing, so tip mounted gear would be long and higher drag, and the drag is in a lousy place. So I agree it's a bad idea! :)

    Swept wings, otoh tend to have anhedral, but tip mounted gear puts landing loads way out on your wing spar, a bad idea, and in a motor glider design with a 45-50 foot wingspan taxiing would be a nightmare.

    On the Quickie, Rutan was pushed into tip mounted gear by the desire to reduce weight and drag by the low power available in the Onan RV generator engine specified by the customer. Probably not his best idea ever. ;)
     
  13. Nov 30, 2019 #13

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,741
    Likes Received:
    6,526
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Jim Bede frequently suggested that E-AB airplanes with tapered wings should use the same basic airfoil, but increase the percent thickness along the span to have a thicker section at the tip, rather than use washout, to achieve a more pleasing stall.


    BJC
     
    Doggzilla and cheapracer like this.
  14. Nov 30, 2019 #14

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    cheapracer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,493
    Likes Received:
    3,848
    Location:
    Australian

    Yes, I taught him well. I remember all those long conversations in the 60's on the Internet showing him what was what, "Build a small jet I told him, people will love you for it". Yes, I remember it well.


    Because of my rib system, I can simply laser cut all those individual ribs out with ease, I no need no steekin form blocks.

    HS rib fitup.jpg
     
    Doggzilla, stanislavz and BJC like this.
  15. Nov 30, 2019 #15

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    414
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    After thinking this all over the safest design is probably neither trailing or tip elevators.

    Tip elevators would result in rolling if there is even slight yaw, and trailing edge elevators may stall, as others have stated.

    I think either the inverted V tail or having the elevator behind the prop like the “Aussie plank” would be the safest to guarantee pitch control.

    The landing gear has to be there anyways, might as well make it serve two purposes.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white