When looking at the silhouette of a DC-3, one can clearly see that the wings are swept. This design is from 1935, before the high-speed research work on wing sweep was ever implemented, and the DC-3 was not very fast anyhow.

Leading edge sweep was 14 deg and trailing edge 0 deg, so the quarter chord wing sweep was 10.5 deg, not inconsiderable, and causing some of the ugly stall behaviour associated with wing sweep. A 1938 NACA video of a DC-3 stalling here, a bit lengthy but it illustrates the tip stalling first, then the aileron.

None of the benefits and some of the drawbacks - why did the DC-3 have wing sweep?

enter image description hereImage Source

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Notice how the trailing edge is at a right angle to the fuselage, which simplifies the aileron design. My first instinct says the design was settled on a tapered wing and they had to choose which wing edge would be at a right angle to the fuselage, and went with the trailing one. Overall that amount of sweep is neglegible. $\endgroup$ – AEhere supports Monica Aug 25 '17 at 6:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Many other aircraft had tapered wings at the time. The DC-3 had 14 deg leading edge, 0 deg trailing, resulting in 10.5 deg at quarter chord line. The Fokker 100 has 15 deg at quarter chord, flies at Mach 0.77. $\endgroup$ – Koyovis Aug 25 '17 at 6:45

The wing was swept to move the center of lift back, closer to the center of gravity. When the design of the DC-1 was advanced to a point where the center of gravity became clear, a redesign of the wing-fuselage intersection would had been more effort, so the outer wing panels were swept back a little.

From this website by Jeff Lucker:

the unique and characteristic swept wing of the DC-3 was an attempt to keep the wing in its original location as the center of gravity moved toward the rear.

When Douglas produced new variants (DC-2 and DC-2 sleeper, a.k.a. DC-3), they kept the proven layout.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why did they do that, instead of putting a plug in front of the wing, I wonder. $\endgroup$ – Koyovis Aug 25 '17 at 12:11
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @Koyovis: At those times the fuselage was aerodynamically shaped and not meant to be extended. Every bulkhead was different (a tradition which became a liability for the Constellation later). Only with pressurization and the rationalization in production during the war did the preference shift to cylindrical fuselages. $\endgroup$ – Peter Kämpf Aug 25 '17 at 17:57

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.