6
$\begingroup$

Given that a stall results from the airflow over the top of the wing separating from the wing at high angles of attack, would it be possible to prevent, or at least ameliorate, a stall by deflecting the airflow downwards into the "dead zone" behind the wing using a curved/angled vane located just above the leading edge of the wing?

A rough illustration of what I'm thinking about:

what I'm thinking about

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is this structurally viable? And even with the deflected air, would it retain a sufficient velocity to maintain lift anyways? Interesting in theory but I've been doing some work on my own on boundary layer airflow and you'd be surprised how much these surfaces slow down and create secondary flows, which I GUARANTEE you will eliminate effective lift. $\endgroup$
    – Jihyun
    Sep 18, 2018 at 3:51
  • $\begingroup$ Roll back the title if you don't like it. $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    Sep 20, 2018 at 15:47

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

This is a very good idea and has already been done. It is called a slat and is positioned ahead of the wing where it will do a better job of turning the airflow and not causing the slat to stall, as shown on your diagram. Slats allow a 10-12 degree higher angle of attack before the wing stalls. Fixed versions in this more forward position have lower drag in cruise.

enter image description here

source

The reason a more forward placement is superior can be seen in the streamlines of the airfoil at high AoA. The inlet gap between the slat and wing is located right at the airstream stagnation point. This is where air pressure is greatest, enhancing the operation of the slat.

enter image description here

source

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sanchises The AoA when climbing will be lower that in S&L flight only if the attitude of the plane is kept constant during the climb; but we usually pitch up the plane when climbing, and that increases the AoA significantly... $\endgroup$
    – xxavier
    Sep 18, 2018 at 7:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, most large aircraft have them. $\endgroup$
    – Cpt Reynolds
    Sep 18, 2018 at 15:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sanchises Climbing at cruising speed is an enroute activity where changes in AOA are a fraction of a degree. That is not the intent of this diagram. This is from a STOL aircraft manufacturer whose products climb and descend steeply. This type of climb requires power and takeoff speed are low, so there is neither the possibility or desire to climb at cruising speed. Slow takeoff, climb and descent use high AOA to get the necessary lift. The situation is similar for airliners but the climb and cruise speeds are multiplied by some large number. No aircraft takes off or lands at cruising speed. $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    Sep 18, 2018 at 16:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sanchises When climbing with a pitch-up attitude, the AoA is higher the more pronounced that pitch-up attitude is. The fact that the prop thrust may reduce the necessary lift from the wings has nothing to do with the obvious fact that the relative wind strikes the wind at a much higher AoA. That's due to the pitch-up attitude... I use to fly a 'Savannah' STOL and know that situation first-hand. $\endgroup$
    – xxavier
    Sep 18, 2018 at 18:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm just saying that the diagram would be better labelled "high AOA" instead of "climb". Fact is, the "climb" situation in this diagram applies just as well to a short field landing. $\endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    Sep 18, 2018 at 18:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .