Timeline for Why does the left-backswept wing have more leading edge suction on an oblique wing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2 at 16:12 | comment | added | ROIMaison | @mins I had a similar issue when I read the quote. I think they mean the trailing edge when they say "root". Then it would make more sense. In my opinion, one does not cause the other, it's all happening due to the crossflow. Like I said in the answer, the boundary layer thickens, so the curvature of the airfoil decreases, leading to a reduced lift & reduced peak. Presumably, the effect is less present at the rear, as the curvature is already lower, leading to a relative increase. | |
| Dec 2 at 15:50 | comment | added | mins | Thanks for your answer. I've some difficulty to understand the paper: "The aerodynamic load of the right forward-swept wing is concentrated on the wing root; thus, the leading-edge suction of the right wing tip and the lift coefficient decrease". Let's assume the load is redistributed to the root, still the "thus" in the citation is not obvious. I can understand this changes the wing moments, but that doesn't explain why the lift coefficient and/or the LES coefficient decreases overall. Why would the lift at the tip "count" more than the lift at the root? | |
| Dec 2 at 15:05 | comment | added | ROIMaison | Thickening/thinning depends on the direction. In general, there is an obstruction in the center that prevents crossing from the other side (either a mirror plane or the fuselage). If inboard flow drives particles to the centerline, these particles cannot go anywhere, resulting in an accumulation of air particles; a thicker boundary layer. Conversely, in the case of outboard flow, the air particles are driven outboard. They cannot be easily replaced and the boundary layer becomes thinner. | |
| Dec 2 at 14:54 | comment | added | Wyatt | I’m sure I’m misinterpreting something, but why does the cross flow thin the boundary layer? I thought any flow that wasn’t exactly perpendicular to the chord would thicken the boundary layer? (I did read the linked answer) - Edit: I just re-read the quote in your answer, and that made sense, but why does the cross flow at the root thin the boundary layer? | |
| Dec 2 at 14:49 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 27 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 14:33 | comment | added | ROIMaison | @mins I realized I misunderstood some text in the original paper. I rewrote the answer to focus on the chordwise distribution of the effects. | |
| Dec 2 at 14:31 | history | undeleted | ROIMaison | ||
| Dec 2 at 14:31 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 538 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 13:33 | history | deleted | ROIMaison | via Vote | |
| Dec 2 at 13:26 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 212 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 13:21 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 212 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 13:12 | comment | added | ROIMaison | Sorry, forgot to paste the part of the paper that relates lift to leading edge suction | |
| Dec 2 at 13:11 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 11:59 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 10:16 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 408 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 10:07 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 9:58 | history | edited | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 323 characters in body
|
| Dec 2 at 9:50 | history | answered | ROIMaison | CC BY-SA 4.0 |