OK,
Here are links to a few drawings of the full size airplanes mentioned in previous posts as supposedly having an expanding width fuselages. By an “expanding width” fuselage, I am referring to a fuselage that increases in width from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. Click on any, or all. Some like the Cherokee are constant width from the leading edge to the trailing edge. Others, like the Lancair IVP, start contracting before the trailing edge. I didn’t find a good 3-view of a Lancair 200, 320, or 360, but I recall them as being smaller versions of Lancair’s flagship airplane.
1966 Piper Cherokee 160 hp
http://www.aircraftpaintschemes.com/...AircraftID=122
Mooney 20JMSE
http://www.aircraftpaintschemes.com/...AircraftID=176
Beechcraft Bonanza V35B
http://www.aircraftpaintschemes.com/...AircraftID=198
Lancair IVP
http://www.aircraftpaintschemes.com/...AircraftID=352
Stoddard-Hamilton Glasair III
http://www.aircraftpaintschemes.com/...AircraftID=191
Area Rule fuselage – An interesting pair of pictures of the original F102 and the improved F102A. However it would appear that the librarian that composed this web page didn’t really know what they were putting together, since the photos are switched. I’m sure that NASA knew the difference.
http://www.1903to2003.gov/essay/Dict...le/DI103G1.htm
And finally the spam can designs did not typically pinch the fuselage behind the wing since they are built primarily from planar sheets of aluminum. As such, compound curves are expensive since it would require a much greater skill level and/or cost. So most of the fuselages have more or less a straight line from the wing to the tail. Perhaps that’s why they were so often referred to as a “tailcone”.
But composites have allowed aircraft like the Lancair’s to really reduce the surface area behind the wing. Since this is typically in turbulent air, it is an effective method of drag reduction.
And Gary, 1:05’s and 1:06’s are incredible, but I think with a expanding width fuselage you could go better. I want your airfoil, your engine, your thumbs, and your caller.
As far as the contour of the planform, Ed’s photo shows the basic concept. There are several variations of the concept to experiment with to find the optimum design, but my testing over the years have convinced me of the benefits over traditional designs. But currently I am more concerned with the side view in terms of local flow with the up-wash and down-wash from the wing at different angles of attack. There are some interesting effects, especially with the shorter fuselage designs.
Still standing.