Forward-swept wing
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
A forward-swept wing or reverse-swept wing is an aircraft
Characteristics
The forward-swept configuration has a number of characteristics which increase as the
Main spar location
The aft location of the main wing spar would lead to a more efficient interior arrangement with more usable space.
Inward spanwise flow
Air flowing over any
With the air flowing inwards, wingtip vortices and the accompanying drag are reduced. Instead, the fuselage acts as a very large wing fence and, since wings are generally larger at the root, this raises the maximum lift coefficient allowing a smaller wing. As a result, maneuverability is improved, especially at high angles of attack.
Yaw instability
One problem with the forward-swept design is that when a swept wing yaws sideways (moves about its vertical axis), one wing retreats while the other advances. On a forward-swept design, this reduces the sweep of the rearward wing, increasing its drag and pushing it further back, increasing the amount of yaw and leading to directional instability. This can lead to a Dutch roll in reverse.[1]
Aeroelasticity
One of the drawbacks of forward swept wings is the increased chance of divergence, an aeroelastic consequence of the lift force on forward swept wings twisting the tip upwards under increased lift. On a forward-swept design, this causes a positive feedback loop that increases the angle of incidence at the tip, increasing lift and inducing further deflection, resulting in yet more lift and additional changes in wing shape. The effect of divergence increases with speed. The maximum safe speed below which this does not happen is the divergence speed of the aircraft.
Such an increase in tip lift under load causes the wing to tighten into turns and may result in a spiral dive from which recovery is not possible. In the worst case, the wing structure can be stressed to the point of failure.
At large angles of sweep and high speeds, in order to build a structure stiff enough to resist deforming yet light enough to be practicable, advanced materials such as carbon fiber composites are required. Composites also allow aeroelastic tailoring by aligning fibers to influence the nature of deformation to a more favorable shape, impacting stall and other characteristics.
Stall characteristics
Any swept wing tends to be unstable in the
However, if the aeroelastic bending is sufficient, it can counteract this tendency by increasing the angle of attack at the wing tips to such an extent that the tips stall first and one of the main characteristics of the design is lost, on a conventional wing the tips always stall first. Such a tip stall can be unpredictable, especially where one tip stalls before the other.
Composite materials allow aeroelastic tailoring, so that as the wing approaches the stall it twists as it bends, so as to reduce the angle of attack at the tips. This ensures that the stall occurs at the wing root, making it more predictable and allowing the ailerons to retain full control.
History
Pre-WWII studies
Belyaev, the author of the below mentioned DB-LK project, tested forward-swept wing gliders BP-2 and BP-3 in 1934 and 1935.[2][3] Other prewar design studies included the Polish PWS Z-17, Z-18 and Z-47 "Sęp" series.
World War II and aftermath
Forward-swept wings designs, some whose design had begun during the prewar period, were developed during World War II, independently in Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan, and the United States. An early example to fly, in 1940, was the Soviet Belyayev DB-LK, a twin-boom design with forward-swept outer wing sections and backwards-swept tips. It reportedly flew well. Belyayev's proposed Babochka research aircraft was cancelled following the German invasion.
Throughout World War II, numerous fighter, bomber, and other military aircraft can be described as having forward-swept wings, due to the average chord of their wings being forward-sweeping. However, these designs almost always utilized a rearward-swept leading edge, which would technically render them as high aspect ratio trapezoidal wings.
The American Cornelius Mallard flew on 18 August 1943. The Mallard was powered by a single engine, but it was followed by the Cornelius XFG-1 prototypes, which were flying fuel tanks, unpowered and designed for towing by larger aircraft. These Cornelius designs were unusual for being not only forward swept but also tailless.
Meanwhile in Germany, Hans Wocke was studying the problems of swept wings at the near-sonic speeds of which the new jet engines were capable. He recognised many of the advantages that forward sweep offered over the backwards-swept designs then being developed, and also understood the implications of aeroelastic bending and yaw instability. His first such design to fly was the Junkers Ju 287, on 16 August 1944. Flight tests on this and later variants confirmed the low-speed advantages but also soon revealed the expected problems, preventing high-speed trials.
Wocke and the incomplete Ju 287 V3 prototype were captured and, in 1946, taken to Moscow where the aircraft was completed and flown the next year as the
When the German research reached the United States after the war, a number of proposals were put forward. These included the
Post-WWII general aviation
Small amounts of sweep do not cause serious problems and even moderate forward sweep allows a significant aft movement of the main spar attachment point and carry-through structure.
In 1954, Wocke returned to the German Democratic Republic, moving to West Germany shortly afterwards and joining Hamburger Flugzeugbau (HFB) as their chief designer.[1] In Hamburg, Wocke completed work on the HFB 320 Hansa Jet business jet which flew in 1964. The forward sweep enabled the main spar to be moved aft behind the cabin so that the spar did not need to project into the cabin.
Moderate forward sweep has been used for similar reasons in many designs, mainly
Other examples include:
- The Mooney M20 series has a modest forward sweep, with the leading edge almost straight and the trailing edge and quarter-chord line swept.
- Cessna 182.
- CZAW Parrot[5]
- Bölkow Junior and ARV Super2 all have shoulder wingsfor increased visibility, necessitating forward-swept wings to allow the wing root to be positioned behind the pilots’ heads so it does not obscure the view to the side.
- Scaled Composites Boomerang, a prototype piston twin design which would allow for safe handling in the event of a single engine failure.
- PZL Bielsko SZD-50 Puchacz, multi-purpose two-seat sailplanes designed and built in Poland.
Fast jet
The large angles of sweep necessary for high-speed flight remained impractical for many years.
In the late 1970s,
Advances in thrust vectoring technology and a shift in air combat tactics toward medium range missile engagements decreased the relevance of a highly agile fighter aircraft.
In 1997, Sukhoi introduced the Su-47 fighter prototype at the Paris Air Show. It did not enter production, although it underwent a series of flight tests and performed at several air shows.
The KB SAT SR-10 is a prototype Russian single-engine jet trainer aircraft, fitted with forward-swept wings. It first flew in 2015.
In biology
Large-headed pterosaurs had forward swept wings in order to better balance in flight.[7]
See also
- Sweep theory
- Variable-sweep wing
References
Inline citations
- ^ a b Miller, J.; The X-Planes, Speciality Press, Second Printing (1985), pp. 175–177.
- ^ "Беляев БП-2(ЦАГИ-2)". www.airwar.ru.
- ^ "Механические птицы профессора Беляева / Авиация и время 2008 04". www.k2x2.info.
- ^ Russian Aviation Page: Sukhoi S-37 Berkut (S-32) Archived 2006-02-13 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "airplane.cz". www.airplane.cz.
- ^ NASA. "Dryden Fact Sheet - X-29". Retrieved 22 August 2005.
- ^ https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/10947/Hone%20The%20wingtips%20of%20the%20pterosaurs%202015%20Accepted.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [bare URL PDF]
General references
- Miller, J.; The X-planes, X-1 to X-29 (UK Edition), MCP, 1983, pp. 175–179.