Timeline for Why do missiles typically have cylindrical fuselage and not a fuselage that generates more lift?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2023 at 12:39 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 227 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2023 at 12:35 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @Urquiola The SR-71 bottom was shaped to avoid horizontal radar reflections. Lift at supersonic speed is determined by angle of attack and at high Mach (>2) area ruling is no longer necessary. The fuselage shape has little influence; one configuration where shaping the bottom (of the wing and intakes, however) helped was the XB-70. The Me-262 fuselage was shaped to accommodate two turbojets F-80 style, but during engine development they grew in diameter so they had to be hung under the wings. Fuselage shape was kept to avoid lengthy redesign. | |
| Mar 10, 2023 at 9:04 | comment | added | Urquiola | Yes! But X-15 had a cylinder, no area ruled fuselage, while SR-71 had the lower side shaped as a high speed boat, it seems generating some lift, besides the Reynolds number issues. Does a half cylinder shape, round side up, deserves testing vs a vulgar round fuselage? Me-262 fuselage was somehow a Rouleaux triangle, as Wankel engine Rotor. Did it generate lift? Blessings + | |
| Nov 6, 2022 at 13:20 | comment | added | Romeo_4808N | Actually, if I recall correctly, the big reasons for a cylindrical cross-section are that it has the highest volume to surface area ratio, which is good for reducing drag with the additional bonus that a cylindrical structure is very rigid and resilient to bending moments and torsion. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 15:09 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 254 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2022 at 13:15 | comment | added | sophit | I'm not happy with the very first part of your answer: can you please update it with the good point of @U_flow? | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 10:12 | comment | added | U_flow | @PeterKämpf I did not want to look like a copy cat :D. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 9:52 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 7:56 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 625 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 7:49 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @TonyStark At high dynamic pressure everything will produce ample lift. Now the goal has to be to do so with minimal drag. Using proper wings makes lift production very efficient, and the cross section of the fuselage will not have much influence here. As a slender body the fuselage produces lift mostly where its width increases, regardless of cross section shape. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 7:10 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | @U_flow: Good point! No need to ask for permission, though. | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 22:05 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | @johnDanger: There are submarines with dedicated vertical missile launch systems, but there are also submarines where the torpedo tubes are the only way to launch something out of the boat. | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 21:02 | comment | added | johnDanger | Aren't cruise missiles generally launched vertically (unlike torpedos)? Or are you saying they repurpose torpedo tubes as vertical launch tubes? | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 20:15 | comment | added | U_flow | @Peter Kämpf the aeroshell and the cylinder containing the rocket fuel are normally not the same. If it were, you would see an racetrack containing conduits for ignition and actuators, like you see on big rockets (like the Falcon 9). I would therefore put this down as an "argument" rather then an reason... With your permission I would extend my answer with this "argument" | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 20:03 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2022 at 19:57 | comment | added | Tony Stark | I am not thinking of a blended wing design, more like a flat bottom and a curved upper surface, maybe some splines on the side. I aim to fit it in the same profile as a conventional cylinder. Also, can you please clarify on why producing lift is trivial? The way I see it, a pure cylinder can be Aerodynamically optimised such that it produce more lift, less drag, and the internal volume is not less than 90% of a cylindrical profile. | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 17:56 | history | answered | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |