Jets and anhedral wings
#27
ORIGINAL: Woketman
Well then why not cut the wings in half and lighten the airframe? Because you would then have to land at a faster speed. Not a great trade off.
Well then why not cut the wings in half and lighten the airframe? Because you would then have to land at a faster speed. Not a great trade off.
The purpose of anhedral and dihedral is to deal with stability, not to make the plane land faster or slower, to lighten the airframe, or to make it stronger. As said earlier a by-product is slightly less tension on the wing as Shaun tried to allude to.
It's not wocket science... but it could be


#28

My Feedback: (6)
Well, the wing is not in tension. Its in bending, the by product of which is tension on one side (normally the bottom in straight & level flight) and compression on the other. Clipped wing cubs land slow enough that it don't matter, not so with most jets!
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fremont, CA
Interesting topic, I learn something new everyday.
I have been wondering what a swept back wing with anhedral would do for stall characteristics on an airplane such as a Gnat?
I found a picture of a Gnat that shows the anhedral angle a little bit, here it is.
I have been wondering what a swept back wing with anhedral would do for stall characteristics on an airplane such as a Gnat? I found a picture of a Gnat that shows the anhedral angle a little bit, here it is.
#31
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: West Linda,
CA
B could support more weight with all things being equal
B only needs more airspeed to generate the same lift as A just as any other "shorter" wing.
I have been wondering what a swept back wing with anhedral would do for stall characteristics on an airplane such as a Gnat
The landing loads are never in question - it's the high G loading that is the concern.
Dennis



