7
$\begingroup$

Things like the Concorde and Tu-144 and many other supersonic craft need a wing that has good high-speed and good low-speed performance. After all, it needs to be able to take-off and land. Good low-speed performance is achieved with things like flaps, slats, and the wing shape itself.

But let's just say, hypothetically, you don't need good low-speed performance at all. So no such compromises in the wing shape. What would an ideal Mach-3 wing look like?

The goal is to have a wing with the highest lift-to-drag ratio at Mach 3.

I chose Mach-3 because that seems to be the limit on what jet aircraft have been put into production (MiG-31, SR-71) (which does not count experimental aircraft).

I'm interested in conventional designs, not things like the Blended-Wing-Body. So presumably this ideal aircraft would look similar to the Concorde or Tu-144.

Some things I've noted over the years:

  • The X-15 had a "wedge" shaped vertical stabilizer with a flat back. You can see it in photos. They said it was because the flat back produces more stability for less drag at high mach. Would a mach-3 wing also have a thick, flat trailing edge?

  • Ogival Delta seems very popular for large sophisticated supersonic aircraft. Never understood why that is exactly, since the pure delta triangle is easier to manufacture and bear loads easier.

  • The XB-70 Valkyrie had folding wings to give it anhedral, supposedly to capture the shockwave and thus be a wave-rider, which is more efficient. I've noticed the Concorde also has slightly drooping wings near the tips.

Note: I don't need a complete 3D model of the wing shape. I'm more interested in things like what planeform it has, what anhedral/dihedral if any, etc.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not an aerodynamics engineer, but I suspect there's not a single "ideal" wing. Even if you did the airspeed, there are other parameters you need to trade off between. Do you want maneuverability, fuel efficiency, payload... $\endgroup$ – yshavit Aug 13 '17 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @yshavit Ah, don't need maneuverability. Was thinking simply to get the max lift-to-drag ratio. will edit. $\endgroup$ – DrZ214 Aug 13 '17 at 21:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think this is a valid question; we know for subsonic flight the ideal wing is infinitely long and narrow, so how would it look for supersonic flight? $\endgroup$ – Sanchises Aug 13 '17 at 21:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Looking beyond aircraft design into the design of large missiles may give a good indication of what such a craft might look like. Those are after all vehicles designed for such speeds, reached after a very short boost phase after launch which is typically performed during ballistic flight rather than controlled. $\endgroup$ – jwenting Aug 14 '17 at 9:02
8
$\begingroup$

One Mach 3 design which did not care about low speed characteristics was the Lockheed Q-12 / D-21 reconnaissance drone, which used a Marquardt RJ-43 ram jet for propulsion and had a flight Mach number of up to 3.5. It was initially air launched from the back of an A-12 / M-21 and crashed when fuel ran out. The purpose was deep penetration of hostile airspace to perform photographic reconnaissance in pre-satellite days. When later the launch aircraft was switched to the B-52, the D-21 needed an enormous booster to bring it up to its cruising speed of Mach 3.35.

This should be closest to a uncompromising Mach 3+ design; however, it drew massively on the aerodynamic work with the A-12 / SR-71, so probably the solution space was restricted from the start.

D-21 three side view

D-21 three side view (picture source). The anhedral was needed to compensate for the rolling moment of the high tail in sideslip. An even more uncompromising design would had used a smaller vertical and an equal fin on the lower side and no anhedral. The lower side fin, however, would had made the air launch from the back of the A-12 impossible.

All surfaces had sharp trailing edges. A wedge-like cross section like the tail of the X-15 only starts to make sense at speeds in excess of Mach 5 when using drag for directional stability is more effective than adding more tail surface.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wow that's quite a drone. Flight ceiling 29 km, speed Mach 3.35, range 5,550 km. My only concern is that stealth shape may have necessitated some compromise in the wing shape. I read the wiki article but all it had to say was The Q-12...used key technology from the A-12 project, including...radar cross-section reduction design features. $\endgroup$ – DrZ214 Aug 14 '17 at 2:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ heh, so this ridiculous toy from my childhood was not as ridiculous! 3djoes.com/uploads/1/3/3/9/13396852/5617750_orig.jpg $\endgroup$ – Kevin Milner Dec 6 '17 at 18:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.