Quote:
|
All I am saying is the 'reason' the inner wing was swept to correct the cg,
|
No the reason the inner wing was
not swept is due to stability and control issues with engine nacelles. Tractor propellers and jet intakes forward of the CG exhibit a destabilizing force at high coefficients of lift. In a turn, the destabilizing force in wing mounted nacelles is not symetrical.
Adding sweep lowers and flattens the CLmax but extends the available angle of attack so that the wing achieves more angle for a lower coefficient. In otherwords, it increases the destabilizing force of the nacelles.
Mtt did not sweep the inner wing to reduce this effect. In the second design, they did not add sweep only because they understood the basic's of swept wing theory. Unlike anybody in the mainstream aircraft designers of United States or Great Britain at the time.
After flight testing though, the original high aspect ratio wing design CG limits were not suitable for the higher mach limits the outboard sweep allowed.
As an aircraft enters transonic flight, the progression of the normal shock moves the AC rearward reducing the elevators effectiveness.
Additionally, the downwash angle behind the wing is decreased due to the seperated flow behind the normal shock. This increases the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer which is the main cause of mach tuck.
An airplane originally designed to have a straight wing would need to expand the forward CG limits if you are to increase the elevators effectiveness if you are going to fly in the transonic realm.
Quote:
|
and 'reason' the outer wing was swept to correct the air separation..
|
Well duh....
What do you think raising critical mach number is all about?? That is the whole point of adding sweep!!
Behind the normal shock is seperated flow.
If we increase the critical mach, we reduce the amount of seperated flow on the wing.
