Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Much Lift Does The Fuselage Provide?  
User currently offlineCoolGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 414 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8011 times:

Of course it has a shape that seeks to lessen drag to the best extent possible, but does the fuselage of an aircraft provide any lift? My guess is yes to a small degree.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8005 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
Does the fuselage of an aircraft provide any lift?

No... they do not offer an airfoil to provide the lift. I think only on the Shorts 330/360 does.... I was told it was as much as 20%.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7996 times:

It Doesnt need to be an aerofoil to create at least some lift. Any angle of attack to the airflow above 0 will cause an upward force and if the journey for the air over the top is longer than that underneath again "some" lift will be created. The 747's upper deck for example creates some lift. Insignificant compared to the wing of course but it is there.

User currently offlineCoolGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 414 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7996 times:

Any shape that cuts through the air will provide lift in one direction (or none if the shape is just right). Since the top sides of aircraft seem to be more curved than the bottom, that should provide some lift (and some substantial but necessary drag).


Edit: Hotelmode, you beat me to it. I just wonder how significant or insignificant that amount is.

[Edited 2007-08-02 20:23:58]

User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1609 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I happen to have a Beech Super King Air 200 CFD solution open on my computer right now. It says that the wings are carrying 80.4% of the total lift, the horizontal tail is carrying a download that is -.2% of the total lift, the nacelles (including overwing portion) are carrying 9.5% of the total lift, the vertical tail (including the bullet fairing at the top) is carrying .3% of the total lift and the fuselage is carrying the remaining 10% of the total lift. The fuselage needs to carry some lift, otherwise you won't have any lift carry-over and the induced drag will be high.

User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7960 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Reply 3):
Edit: Hotelmode, you beat me to it. I just wonder how significant or insignificant that amount is.

I dont know, I currently fly the pax 747-400, one of my friends is now on the freighters (short upper deck) and claims there's a small but discernable difference in aircraft behaviour especially at low speed. I would be interested to see if the trim postion for an identical load distribution is different on the freighters.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 717 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't some aerobatic aircraft have fuselages that are shaped like aerofoils to provide lift when the bank angle is around 90? Or is that just a myth?


Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7922 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 4):
I happen to have a Beech Super King Air 200 CFD solution open on my computer right now.

Do you have any examples from other aircraft? What do you think the Shorts 330/360 would be?

Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 5):
I would be interested to see if the trim postion for an identical load distribution is different on the freighters.

Me too. The freighter has a shorter hump, so it seems logical that there would be some difference....


2H4




Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7830 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
What do you think the Shorts 330/360 would be?

I have heard figures of 20 to 25 percent as well. The struts and gear fairings provide about another 10 percent.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7770 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Reply 3):
Since the top sides of aircraft seem to be more curved than the bottom, that should provide some lift (and some substantial but necessary drag).

Even if the fuselage was symmetric you'd still get some lift, at least on airliners, because virtually all of them cruise with a few degrees of nose-up pitch.

If you happen to get some lift form the fuselage it's an OK bonus, but it's not really a good idea to design for it. The wing is far more efficient at producing lift than the fuselage; you want to get as much lift there as you can.

Tom.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7750 times:

The fuselage does create lift (and sideforce). Particularly true for missiles, where a large proportion of lift comes from the body (some only have small control fins at the rear).

Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 5):
I dont know, I currently fly the pax 747-400, one of my friends is now on the freighters (short upper deck) and claims there's a small but discernable difference in aircraft behaviour especially at low speed. I would be interested to see if the trim postion for an identical load distribution is different on the freighters.

Possibly, but the aerodynamic differences between 747-400 and 747-400F do not begin to appear until about Mach 0.6 and above (according to Boeing). Just as likely to be a difference in behaviour due to the different inertia with main deck cargo.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineBritJap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 280 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7720 times:

As others mentioned the fuselage certainly does generate some lift.

At this years Paris air show the C-27 gave an awesome display involving at one point a pass during which it was banked at a crazily high angle. The commentator mentioned that during this manoeuvre the aircraft was generating a lot of its lift from the fuselage.


User currently offlineStil From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 345 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7657 times:

Well, if there's some condensation over the fuselage, there should be some low pressure and some lifting


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Josep Tomas - Iberian Spotters



Stil



....... Gueropppa! ......
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7628 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
Of course it has a shape that seeks to lessen drag to the best extent possible, but does the fuselage of an aircraft provide any lift? My guess is yes to a small degree.

This depends ofcourse on the aircraft type and tyhe conditions. As said,under an angle most normal fuselages provide some lift.

The Shorts SC.7 Skyvan partially uses the lifting body principle as the fuselage generates 30% of the lift.

A lot of fighters have a lifting fuselage incorporated in the design, like the F-16


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1609 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
What do you think the Shorts 330/360 would be?

I don't know. I have the geometry, but have never built a CFD model. Someday....

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
Do you have any examples from other aircraft?

747:
Wings: 89.5%
Fuselage: 13.1%
Horizontal Tail: -3.7%
Vertical Tail: .1%
Nacelles and Pylons: 1%

P-51D:
Wings: 92.9%
Fuselage: 7.7%
Horizontal Tail: -.7%
Vertical Tail: .1%


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7482 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Boy, it sure would be interesting to see the numbers for the F-104, what with those tiny playing cards wings...

2H4




Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7429 times:

Take a look at a photo of the old F-14. Note how its fuselage has an airfoil shape to it.

I was once told that by a ex-Navy mechanic, whom stated that the F-14's fuselage provides a substantial amount of lift...it in conjunction with the swing wing, gave the F-14 awesome low-speed handling characteristics.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 717 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't forget the story of the F-15 that made it home with only one wing!


Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7387 times:

Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 2):
if the journey for the air over the top is longer than that underneath again "some" lift will be created

There's four often given explanations for lift. Two are true, and go hand in hand. Two are right out wrong, and that's one of them. There's a long thread on this in the forum archives somewhere.

Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 5):
I dont know, I currently fly the pax 747-400, one of my friends is now on the freighters (short upper deck) and claims there's a small but discernable difference in aircraft behaviour especially at low speed. I would be interested to see if the trim postion for an identical load distribution is different on the freighters.

The big difference from an aero point of view, as I heard it, was that the longer hump made the aircraft more area-ruled, thus decreasing mach drag significantly.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineBomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7383 times:

The fuselage doesn't always have to be in the shape of an airfoil to generate lift. Wings obviously create a huge low pressure zone over the top of them. This low pressure zone can also extend upwards of the wings several feet. the area of the fuselage directly over the wing is affected greatly by this low pressure zone. It is because of this low pressure zone that most of the fuselage created lift is in-fact helping the aircraft stay airborne.

The is a great model of this somewhere on the internet showing where the high and low pressures are on an aircraft. I just couldn't find it.  drunk 

Peace  box 



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7349 times:

Quoting FredT (Reply 18):
The big difference from an aero point of view, as I heard it, was that the longer hump made the aircraft more area-ruled, thus decreasing mach drag significantly.

The difference in behaviour is noticed in low-speed

Quoting FredT (Reply 18):
discernable difference in aircraft behaviour especially at low speed.

I reckon the 747-400 which has the longer bulb, has less separation, because there is less curvature


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7341 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20):
The difference in behaviour is noticed in low-speed

Then I'd go with the suggestion made by another poster: Mass distribution effects and/or effects of the other changes to the airframe/controls. Not that it really matters one iota.  Smile

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 20):
Quoting FredT (Reply 18):
discernable difference in aircraft behaviour especially at low speed.

I reckon the 747-400 which has the longer bulb, has less separation, because there is less curvature

That is not me you were quoting.



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1609 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bell P-39Q Airacobra:
Wings: 88.5%
Fuselage: 10.1%
Horizontal Tail: .9%
Vertical Tail: .5%

Bell P-63 Kingcobra:
Wings: 100%
Fuselage: 8.5%
Horizontal Tail: -9.1%
Vertical Tail: .6%

Supermarine Spitfire IX:
Wings: 97.6%
Fuselage: 11.9%
Horizontal Tail: -9.5%
Vertical Tail: 0%

Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-8:
Wings: 96.1%
Fuselage: 7.2%
Horizontal Tail: -4.6%
Vertical Tail: 1.3%

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D-9:
Wings: 87.9%
Fuselage: 13.3%
Horizontal Tail: -2.4%
Vertical Tail: 1.2%

Mooney M252:
Wings: 94.8%
Fuselage: 10.0%
Horizontal Tail: -4.8%
Vertical Tail: 0%

Cessna 441:
Wings: 81.4%
Fuselage: 12.2%
Horizontal Tail: -4.7%
Vertical Tail: .2%
Nacelles including overwing portion: 10.9%

Questair Venture:
Wings: 90.7%
Fuselage: 17.5%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Horizontal Tail: -8.2%

Wittman W-10 Tailwind:
Wings: 114.5%
Fuselage: 13.5%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Horizontal Tail: -14.0%
Landing Gear: -1.1%
Strut: -10.9%
Note how everything is fighting on this one

Sabreliner 40:
WIngs: 84.9%
Fuselage: 13.9%
Horizontal Tail: -2.5%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Nacelles and Pylons: 3.7%

Sabreliner 60:
Wings: 87.3%
Fuselage: 14.0%
Horizontal Tail: -3.6%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Nacelles and Pylons: 2.3%

Sabreliner 65:
Wings: 95.8%
Fuselage: 13.7%
Horizontal Tail: -12.0%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Nacelles and Pylons: 2.5%

Sabreliner 75:
Wings: 86.6%
Fuselage: 13.9%
Horizontal Tail: -3.2%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Nacelles and Pylons: 2.7%

Sabreliner 80:
Wings: 85.3%
Fuselage: 13.9%
Horizontal Tail: -2.0%
Vertical Tail: 0%
Nacelles and Pylons: 2.8%

The Sabreliners are all trimmed to the same flight condition. Note how the lift sharing varies model to model.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Much Lift Does The Fuselage Provide?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Power Does The Engine Of A 340-600 Got posted Tue Jan 11 2005 09:50:58 by Skippy777
How Much More Does It Cost To Containerize An A320 posted Mon Jun 18 2007 18:18:48 by B6ramprat
How Much Do All The Avonics Cost On An Aircraft? posted Mon Feb 26 2007 21:06:50 by CoolGuy
How Much Space Does A Sea Plane Need To Takeoff? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 22:17:49 by Fll2993
How Much RWY Does A 744 Use? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 04:08:57 by Jetmatt777
How Much Memory Does Avionics Consume? posted Thu Jun 29 2000 22:55:07 by 9A-CRO
How Much Does Crew Know About The Landing? posted Mon Nov 7 2005 11:19:29 by D5DBY
How Long And How Much Does It Take To Paint A Plan posted Thu Jan 25 2007 06:12:38 by FL370
How Long Does The FAA Keep Records Of Arrivals? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 16:34:55 by Lenbrazil
How Much Does A 707 Weigh? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 01:39:19 by Sfomb67
How Much Power Does The Engine Of A 340-600 Got posted Tue Jan 11 2005 09:50:58 by Skippy777
How Much Fuel Does A 777/330 Burn? Pls Help posted Sun Oct 2 2011 15:07:16 by kevin
Does The Compressor Provide Net Forward Thrust? posted Thu Dec 31 2009 01:20:51 by Faro
How Much More Does It Cost To Containerize An A320 posted Mon Jun 18 2007 18:18:48 by B6ramprat
How Much Do All The Avonics Cost On An Aircraft? posted Mon Feb 26 2007 21:06:50 by CoolGuy
How Much Space Does A Sea Plane Need To Takeoff? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 22:17:49 by Fll2993
How Much RWY Does A 744 Use? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 04:08:57 by Jetmatt777
How Much Memory Does Avionics Consume? posted Thu Jun 29 2000 22:55:07 by 9A-CRO
How Much Does Crew Know About The Landing? posted Mon Nov 7 2005 11:19:29 by D5DBY

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format