Timeline for What aerodynamic implications would a fictional two-pronged fuselage have?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2018 at 5:16 | vote | accept | Lucas Flicky | ||
| Oct 28, 2016 at 13:44 | history | bounty ended | Lucas Flicky | ||
| Oct 26, 2016 at 12:00 | comment | added | Cooper | @LuftBier Quite right, but as a side effect of this it allows more aircraft mass to be placed further forwards. The nose wouldn't pitch down when the canards stalled if the centre of gravity wasn't in front of the wing roots. | |
| Oct 26, 2016 at 11:32 | comment | added | LuftBier | As far as canards are concerned, I believe the true purpose is to prevent an unrecoverable stall. They are normally set a few degrees higher than the wing so that they stall before the wing does. When the canard stalls, the nose drops, the aircraft picks up airspeed, increasing lift and returning the aircraft to stable flight. | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 16:14 | vote | accept | Lucas Flicky | ||
| Oct 28, 2016 at 13:44 | |||||
| Oct 25, 2016 at 16:13 | comment | added | Lucas Flicky | This also explains why flying-wing planes has the optimal lift x drag balance, since there's no fuselage body at all | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 16:06 | comment | added | Cooper | That's it, yes. Think of the wings being the centre pivot of the see-saw! | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 16:05 | comment | added | Lucas Flicky | oh, i get it. i indeed misinterpreted a part. so the lift must be applied in the same spot the extra weight is being carried. | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 16:03 | comment | added | Cooper | @LucasFlicky Careful, it sounds like you're perhaps misinterpreting my explanation? Wings generate lift, which counters mass. Wings situated at the front will counter weight at the front; wings nearer the back would be necessary to counter weight at the back. It's a delicate see-saw of forces! | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 13:28 | comment | added | Lucas Flicky | this detail about having a heavier back and need protruded wings to balance it out is a really nice thing to have in mind. plus the fact that would be an attack exclusive model due to low maneuverability and mandatory possession of weapons. | |
| Oct 25, 2016 at 8:37 | history | edited | Cooper | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 454 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2016 at 8:30 | comment | added | Cooper | @jamesqf Yes, absolutely. In fact, the pilot in the P-38 is already seated quite far back - just about in line with the leading edge of the wings. In this case it's the weight of the armament in the nose that counters the weight of the cockpit. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 17:01 | comment | added | jamesqf | Interesting. Suppose you combined that with a P-38, by moving the pilot's pod back a bit? | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 14:41 | history | edited | Cooper | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added some thought with respect to question edit.
|
| Oct 24, 2016 at 12:50 | history | answered | Cooper | CC BY-SA 3.0 |