[quote author=Strega link=topic=562.msg2464#msg2464 date=1439519833]
see below
[/quote]
Yes. Anderson stipulates that *IF* the wing is inside the mach cone the *COMPONENT* of airflow normal to the leading edge is subsonic. That doesn't mean the airflow is subsonic. It also only applies to a wing without a fuselage. On a full aircraft, the mach cone starts at the nose, so the wing can have less sweep and still be inside the mach cone. That reduction in sweep means that under some circumstances there can still be a supersonic normal component of flow.
Accidental Discoveries:
- [b]The X-Ray[/b] (although that wasn't in the 20th century)
- [b]Viagra[/b] -- Developed to treat chest pain.
Accidental Discoveries of the 20th Century
-
Conflicting Traffic
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 9:23 pm
[quote author=Strega link=topic=562.msg2495#msg2495 date=1439705569]
you need to go back to school mr pie.... it is not possible to have a cambered wing flying at >M1...
[/quote]
Um ... no. Under the linear approximations of potential flow theory, camber doesn't [i]contribute[/i] to lift at M > 1. This doesn't mean that [b]a)[/b] camber doesn't contribute to lift when non-linear effects are accounted for (it may or may not), or [b]b)[/b] flying a cambered wing supersonic is impossible - it certainly isn't.
The F-15 has conical camber, so at least part of the wing is cambered. I'm pretty sure it can fly supersonic.
you need to go back to school mr pie.... it is not possible to have a cambered wing flying at >M1...
[/quote]
Um ... no. Under the linear approximations of potential flow theory, camber doesn't [i]contribute[/i] to lift at M > 1. This doesn't mean that [b]a)[/b] camber doesn't contribute to lift when non-linear effects are accounted for (it may or may not), or [b]b)[/b] flying a cambered wing supersonic is impossible - it certainly isn't.
The F-15 has conical camber, so at least part of the wing is cambered. I'm pretty sure it can fly supersonic.
-
Conflicting Traffic
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 9:23 pm
[quote author=Strega link=topic=562.msg2517#msg2517 date=1439858464]
You better write a letter to lockheed.... they have it all wrong...
[/quote]
There's a difference between 'impossible' and 'inefficient'.
Speaking of efficiency, the conical camber is used to reduce drag due to lift at supersonic speeds. To be honest, I don't know the specifics of how it works, but it's there.
If you want to make the claim the Lockheed says that supersonic flight with camber is impossible, you might want to back that up. Just some flippant remark "well Lockheed says ..." is meaningless. Argument from authority is really not an argument at all.
Incidentally (since you brought up Lockheed), the SR-71 also has conical camber.
You better write a letter to lockheed.... they have it all wrong...
[/quote]
There's a difference between 'impossible' and 'inefficient'.
Speaking of efficiency, the conical camber is used to reduce drag due to lift at supersonic speeds. To be honest, I don't know the specifics of how it works, but it's there.
If you want to make the claim the Lockheed says that supersonic flight with camber is impossible, you might want to back that up. Just some flippant remark "well Lockheed says ..." is meaningless. Argument from authority is really not an argument at all.
Incidentally (since you brought up Lockheed), the SR-71 also has conical camber.
