Scudrunners

[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.

What is the component over the airfoil of a delta wing? or, if we had a wing that was inside the cone of action that had a sweep angle of 0.0001 R?


Not sure if it has been said,, but penicillin is a pretty cool one...

"Look here... two dimensional representations don't give a rat's ass about sweep.  Chord-thickness ratio (fineness) is all we care about."

you need to go back to school mr pie....  it is not possible to have a cambered wing flying at >M1... 

[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.

" b) flying a cambered wing supersonic is impossible - it certainly isn't."

You better write a letter to lockheed.... they have it all wrong...

In the meantime, keep working on designing your supersonic aircraft with straight, cambered wings.

[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.

[quote]Incidentally (since you brought up Lockheed), the SR-71 also has conical camber.[/quote]

I wonder if the wings of the SR 71 and F 15 fly in the cone of action...