User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 20386
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 01, 2009 6:17 am

So I know that on a low-mounted wing, an upward sweep of the wing provides stability by increasing the lift of the wing that is downwards during a bank.

So the 787 and 748 as described by Boeing have this crazy wing flex. In fact, most modern Boeing A/C have some pretty crazy wing flex. But the A380 doesn't.


A380's wings droop down on the ground and straighten out in flight.

I would think that the more flexed the wing, the less lift. So why this nutty wing flex on modern wings?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
wilco737
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:21 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 01, 2009 7:02 am



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):

Wing flex cannot be wrong. We try to copy the wings of a bird somehow and if you see a huge bird in the sky just soaring above us, then the wingtips are flexed up as well:



wilco737
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17578
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 01, 2009 7:11 am

I think you're talking more about curvature than flex. As I see it, curvature refers to the shape while flex refers to (variable) bending (flapping).

If the wings are built strong enough to flex significantly less, they will be much heavier. This means a loss of efficiency. I assume any loss of efficiency from flex is less than that loss.


Note also that the last few years of promo drawings from Boeing have shown a dramatic bend which may not quite correspond to reality.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 01, 2009 8:03 am

The idea would be to make sure that the flexed wing is in its most efficient shape. Think about bending an object, perhaps a plastic ruler, that has some inherent flex. If you supply a significant load, it will bend some, but still hold the load (up to the point where you break it, of course). If you made the ruler rigid enough to take the same load without any bending, it would be far heavier. Structurally this allows you to build some of the strength into the top part of the spar, which is then loaded in compression.

That being said, Boeing's art department appears to be taking a bit of license here, as regards the degree of flex.

This became an issue in the soaring community in the late eighties and early nineties, when a number of sailplanes were built with unusually (for the time) flexible wings. These bent to the desired shape when loaded in flight, but drooped very considerably when they weren't holding up the airplane - for example, when sitting on the ground. Endless debates raged over how to measure the wingspan of these aircraft. The "drooped" position on the ground, or the position the wings actually assumed in flight (or with the help of a burly pair of wing benders). Since most contest classes have rules on wingspan (15m being by far the most common), a few inches of droop related span could disqualify an aircraft.

The fashion for single cantilevered wings doesn’t exactly help the structural side here either.  Wink

The world is full of structures which don't take their design shape until loaded to their design points. One presumes that Boeing reaches a good compromise between weight, flexibility and aerodynamic efficiency.
 
DH106
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 01, 2009 8:27 am

Of greater efficiency impact than the bending is the way the wing twists in a wash out/in sense as that alters the wing's load distribution which in turn affects issues such as generated vortex strength and which area of the wing stalls first at high angles of attack. As Rwessel says, the wing is designed to be at it's most efficient aerodynamically under load.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 20386
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 01, 2009 9:07 pm



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 3):

That being said, Boeing's art department appears to be taking a bit of license here, as regards the degree of flex.

Not necessarily. Some of the engineering diagrams that I've seen with the 788 have shown that the wing flex is actually portrayed accurately.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sat May 02, 2009 3:49 am

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):

I think you're confusing a few different things here.

Most low-mounted wings have some dihedral built in - that is, in flight, they will be pointed upward at some angle from root to tip. Dihedral has to do with at what angle the wing is mounted on the fuselage.

The wings will flex upward under load. On swept wings. this will typically result in some amount of "washout". Washout refers to the angle of attack at the tip being less than the angle of attack at the root. When flexed under load, a swept wing twists in this way.

Washout has at least one advantage - since the root is at a higher angle of attack, it will stall before the tip. Thus, when the wing is first stalling, you'll still have roll control with the ailerons, which are out at the wingtip.

The A380 appears to have both dihedral and wing flex. Although the wings appear to droop downward when on the ground, in flight (as shown in the photo you posted) the wingtips are higher up than the root.

One last clarification - in a bank, both wings are still producing the same lift. The lift vectors are tilted, but they still add up to a vector that is pointing out of the top of the fuselage. However, in a bank, the tilted lift vector will induce a sideslip. The resultant velocity vector, in turn, will produce more lift on the downward wing, producing a restoring roll moment.

Edited to add stuff I forgot:

In the most basic structural sense, wing flex is necessary. If wings were brittle, they'd just snap under high loading. Their ability to flex under load allows them to carry said load with less supporting structure (which equals less weight).

[Edited 2009-05-01 20:50:44]
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 20386
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sat May 02, 2009 4:28 am



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):


In the most basic structural sense, wing flex is necessary. If wings were brittle, they'd just snap under high loading. Their ability to flex under load allows them to carry said load with less supporting structure (which equals less weight).

Well yes, obviously. But now it seems like it's being designed in on purpose.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19304
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sat May 02, 2009 6:17 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):


In the most basic structural sense, wing flex is necessary. If wings were brittle, they'd just snap under high loading. Their ability to flex under load allows them to carry said load with less supporting structure (which equals less weight).


Well yes, obviously. But now it seems like it's being designed in on purpose.

That was true many years ago also. Manufacturers had different ideas. You may not have flown on a 707 or DC-8 but one of the most noticeable differences as a passenger was the very flexible wings on the 707 compared to the DC-8. In turbulence it was actually somewhat disturbing if you were sitting near the front of the 707's wing where you could see the engines bouncing around in all directions while the wing was also flexing very noticeably. That was much less apparent on the DC-8 which seemed to have significantly stiffer wings than the 707. Obviously Boeing and Douglas had different ideas about wing stiffness.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sat May 02, 2009 4:51 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
Well yes, obviously. But now it seems like it's being designed in on purpose.

It is designed in on purpose. If you did your aerodynamics to the jig position (the position of the wings when they're built) your aerodynamics would be completely off once the thing took to the air. No commercial jet has a wing stiff enough that you can ignore the effect of flex and still get good aero data, so you have to design for it.

Tom.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sat May 02, 2009 9:03 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):

One last clarification - in a bank, both wings are still producing the same lift. The lift vectors are tilted, but they still add up to a vector that is pointing out of the top of the fuselage. However, in a bank, the tilted lift vector will induce a sideslip. The resultant velocity vector, in turn, will produce more lift on the downward wing, producing a restoring roll moment.

Would it be right to say that a more flexible wing would reduce this "sideslip" effect? Would a reduction of this be something desirable on a wing?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sat May 02, 2009 11:05 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 10):
Would it be right to say that a more flexible wing would reduce this "sideslip" effect? Would a reduction of this be something desirable on a wing?

I can't see any reason why a more flexible wing would reduce the sideslip.

The sideslip is caused by the resultant lift vector (taking both wings into account) being tilted to the side in a bank. Some of the force that was holding the plane up is now pulling it to the side as well. That won't change with a more flexible wing.

Besides which, the existence of the sideslip is what gives the airplane stability in the roll axis. In one sense, commercial airplanes don't actually have direct roll stability - flying at a bank angle by itself doesn't cause the airplane to return to zero bank. Whereas, flying at some yaw angle or pitch angle relative to the airflow will cause the airplane to want to return to straight, level flight.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
movingtin
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:03 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sun May 03, 2009 4:10 pm

Lockheed has proved that a stiff wing is not desirable over the long term. Their wings are notorious for cracks.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sun May 03, 2009 4:55 pm

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 11):

What I had in mind is an aircraft with, say, a 5 degree wing flex doing a 5 degree bank, and the downward wing essentially being parallel to the ground, meaning the vectors would be perpendicular to the ground (thus no sideslip from this wing?). . . but then as you said, they are not fixed parallel to the ground, but more with the banking. I think that's where I went wrong.

So I assume the wing flex does not affect the lift vectors? I.e, when the 787 is flying straight, there is no counteracting sideslip from both wings because of their flex?

[Edited 2009-05-03 09:58:57]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sun May 03, 2009 7:13 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
So I assume the wing flex does not affect the lift vectors? I.e, when the 787 is flying straight, there is no counteracting sideslip from both wings because of their flex?

Locally, lift is essentially normal to the wing surface. Overall lift is just the integration of all the local lift vectors over the wing...since wing flex changes the normal direction, it also changes the lift direction. As the wing flexes more, you get more sideways force from each wing but, in straight and level flight, they balance so you don't get any sideslip.

Tom.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 20386
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Sun May 03, 2009 9:01 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):
As the wing flexes more, you get more sideways force from each wing but, in straight and level flight, they balance so you don't get any sideslip.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):

Locally, lift is essentially normal to the wing surface.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it this way. I viewed the underside of the wing as a high-pressure area and the upward bend as allowing this pressure to act less.

Either way, the less horizontal a section of wing is, the less upward force it generates. If a given section of wing at 45% to horizontal is locally producing 2 N of force normal to the wing, it will only produce √2 N of true upward force and another √2 kn inwards, which will be balanced by the same inward force on the opposite wing.

This, to me, strikes me as inefficient. It means that you're dumping upward force and allowing it to produce an inward force that does nothing except require additional structure to withstand that "squeeze" force.

Now, I'm obviously wrong or Boeing would have stiffened the wing more. So why am I wrong?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Mon May 04, 2009 2:10 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):

This, to me, strikes me as inefficient. It means that you're dumping upward force and allowing it to produce an inward force that does nothing except require additional structure to withstand that "squeeze" force.

If you look at the wing purely from a lift-generation point of view, you're absolutely right.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Now, I'm obviously wrong or Boeing would have stiffened the wing more. So why am I wrong?

Because the objective of the wing isn't maximum lift, it's maximum L/D for the entire aircraft.

Reducing wing flex requires stiffening the wing, which adds weight. That drives you to a larger and draggier wing. A perfectly flat wing also provides no roll stability, so you end up spending more weight/cost somewhere else to restore the lost stability.

The "sweet spot" for the entire design is somewhere between the extremes of a perfectly flat wing and a massively bent U-shaped one, which is what we see in service.

Tom.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Mon May 04, 2009 2:15 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
This, to me, strikes me as inefficient. It means that you're dumping upward force and allowing it to produce an inward force that does nothing except require additional structure to withstand that "squeeze" force.

Now, I'm obviously wrong or Boeing would have stiffened the wing more. So why am I wrong?

In addition to what Tom said, the amount of material you need to add to prevent a long, relatively thin beam from bending is pretty prohibitive.

And then you have to provide even more material so that it can meet the required safety factor for accelerations (such as turbulence) without snapping off.

It's not a linear relationship, because for every pound of material you add to prevent bending at a certain location along the span, you have to add more material at all points inward (spanwise) just to support it.

At the flex angles we're talking about, that would far outweigh whatever structure is required to allow the wing to bend.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Mon May 04, 2009 2:22 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
The "sweet spot" for the entire design is somewhere between the extremes of a perfectly flat wing and a massively bent U-shaped one, which is what we see in service.

I think people are reacting to a perceived change towards the U-shape, prompted by computer renderings of the 787 and 747-8 in flight. In reality, I doubt we'll see any discernible difference between the 787 and, say, the 777. In testing, the 777's wingtips deflected 24 feet at 3.85 g; the 787's were predicted to go 26 feet at 3.75 g. That makes the 787's wings only about 10% more flexy than the 777's.

That won't prevent folks from seeing what they want to see... pictures of first flight are sure to elicit comments about that insane wing flex! (never mind that it will be a gentle take-off well below MTOW)
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Mon May 04, 2009 3:43 am



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 18):
I think people are reacting to a perceived change towards the U-shape, prompted by computer renderings of the 787 and 747-8 in flight. In reality, I doubt we'll see any discernible difference between the 787 and, say, the 777.

I'm not sure about that...whatever optimization is done between stiffness, weight, and aerodynamic efficiency has got to take the material properties as an input. Since the 787 wing uses a fundamentally different material than the 777 wing, it wouldn't surprise me much to find out that the optimal point for a 787 is a different amount of flex.

Tom.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Mon May 04, 2009 3:51 am

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):



Quoting Movingtin (Reply 12):
Lockheed has proved that a stiff wing is not desirable over the long term. Their wings are notorious for cracks.



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 17):
And then you have to provide even more material so that it can meet the required safety factor for accelerations (such as turbulence) without snapping off.

I think this is the key to it all. The wings of an airliner need to be flexible to a certain degree to minimise the stresses caused from absorbing the energy due to sudden displacements.

If for example the wing was very stiff, any flexing of the wing would be arrested in a very short time period. This would probably generate quite high stresses in the wing structure. If a certain amount of flexibility is allowed, the time period over which energy can be absorbed is extended, thus, the stresses generated in the structure should be reduced.

A good analogous example to this would be the difference between falling 5 metres onto a reinforced concrete slab compared with a trampoline. Obviously, too much flex is also undesirable not only from the aerodynamic point of view, but possibly from the structural point of view, as you would then have too little structural damping in the wing.

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2009-05-03 20:55:04]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Topic Author
Posts: 20386
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Tue May 05, 2009 4:12 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 20):

I think this is the key to it all. The wings of an airliner need to be flexible to a certain degree to minimise the stresses caused from absorbing the energy due to sudden displacements.

Well, that's reasonable, I agree. Having the wings snap off an aircraft generally makes the manufacturer look pretty silly.

But Airbus went for a straight wing inflight with the A380. They did this by designing the wing to droop downwards on the ground. The wing is flexible, but its flight-neutral position is roughly straight, as shown in the pic I posted. I'm sure it flaps like a bird in turbulence, but in straight and level flight, it is straight.

For the A350, they have the same upward sweep that Boeing has on the 787 and 748. And I can't figure out why the change.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Tue May 05, 2009 4:57 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21):

But Airbus went for a straight wing inflight with the A380. They did this by designing the wing to droop downwards on the ground. The wing is flexible, but its flight-neutral position is roughly straight, as shown in the pic I posted. I'm sure it flaps like a bird in turbulence, but in straight and level flight, it is straight.

As is stated in another thread, the "gulling" effect of the A380's wing on the ground (the outward droop) is probably due to the need to have adequate space for the 4 giant engines.

A side effect of that would be that the wing flexes to a relatively straight position once loaded inflight (instead of being straight on the ground and flexing to an upward-curved shape once loaded).

As long as the wing is adequately flexible, and has adequate dihedral, it doesn't really matter if it's straight or curved inflight. I'm sure the design engineers knew how it would act on the ground and inflight.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 3:29 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 22):

Any chance it could have been a way to perhaps shorten the wingspan a bit? On a straighter wing, if your lift vectors are less sideways, I would think you could have a smaller wing. . though not necessarily a shorter one.

Would it be significant, though? Maybe as part of an overall effort to reduce wingspan?

[Edited 2009-05-05 20:30:38]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 4:25 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23):

Any chance it could have been a way to perhaps shorten the wingspan a bit? On a straighter wing, if your lift vectors are less sideways, I would think you could have a smaller wing. . though not necessarily a shorter one.

Would it be significant, though? Maybe as part of an overall effort to reduce wingspan?

You know, I really have no idea. I doubt it would be significant, as such. At least, that'd be my first guess, for the following reason:

The A380's wingspan (and that of any other future commercial airplane under current standards) is governed by the 80 meter (262 foot) box. The A380's wiingspan is less than a foot under this limit.

However, consider that the wingspan limit is in place due to ground maneuvering obstacles (i.e. taxiway clearance, gate space). So whatever flexing happens in-flight ought not to affect it.

That said, in the game of advanced airplane design, you want to make sure you use whatever benefits you possibly can to maximize efficiency.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9605
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 6:01 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):

What I had in mind is an aircraft with, say, a 5 degree wing flex doing a 5 degree bank, and the downward wing essentially being parallel to the ground, meaning the vectors would be perpendicular to the ground (thus no sideslip from this wing?). . . but then as you said, they are not fixed parallel to the ground, but more with the banking. I think that's where I went wrong.

There is not side slip caused, but everyone is ignoring a very important factor that is related. In commercial airplane design, you want both wings to angle up at a small angle. If they angle up, you get positive stability. If turbulence or something causes the plane to slightly roll, the plane will naturally right itself to level since the lowered wing will have a lift force normal to it which is opposite to the force of gravity while the upper wing will have a lift force at an angle. The lowered wing therefore will do a better job at providing lift relative to gravity and the plane will automatically right itself.

Positive stability is important in all civilian aircraft except for sport planes. Military aircraft typically have a straight level wing and in some cases a downward sloped wing so that they can turn tighter, faster and easier.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):

This, to me, strikes me as inefficient. It means that you're dumping upward force and allowing it to produce an inward force that does nothing except require additional structure to withstand that "squeeze" force.

It is inefficient and results in a larger wing than necessary. However, the extra weight of stiffening the wing to reduce flex is not worth the drag penalty.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 6:27 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 22):
A side effect of that would be that the wing flexes to a relatively straight position once loaded inflight (instead of being straight on the ground and flexing to an upward-curved shape once loaded).

On a somewhat unrelated note: an equally interesting phenomenon that is easily visible on the A380 is that the wing also twists under load. On the ground, the outboard engines are pitched a couple of degrees up, and in the air everything straightens out.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © DONGMIN



(edit: could the magnitude of this twist have something to do with the aft loading from the supercritical airfoil?)

[Edited 2009-05-05 23:30:40]
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 4:13 pm



Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 25):
There is not side slip caused, but everyone is ignoring a very important factor that is related. In commercial airplane design, you want both wings to angle up at a small angle. If they angle up, you get positive stability. If turbulence or something causes the plane to slightly roll, the plane will naturally right itself to level since the lowered wing will have a lift force normal to it which is opposite to the force of gravity while the upper wing will have a lift force at an angle. The lowered wing therefore will do a better job at providing lift relative to gravity and the plane will automatically right itself.

That's not the way I've always learned it, in terms of roll stability.

Far as I can tell, there pretty much has to be a side-slip caused. If the lift vector is pointing partially to one side, the airplane is going to move that way.

I'm not sure I see what you mean by:

"The lowered wing therefore will do a better job at providing lift relative to gravity and the plane will automatically right itself."

Without any sort of slip, both wings are still producing the same force. The resultant vector is now not pointed straight up. For every pound of force that the downward wing is generating toward a roll-restoring moment, the upward wing is generating just as much in a roll-increasing moment.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 4:50 pm



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 18):


That won't prevent folks from seeing what they want to see... pictures of first flight are sure to elicit comments about that insane wing flex! (never mind that it will be a gentle take-off well below MTOW)

Most flex doesnt occur at MTOW, its normally at MZFW as the fuel in the wings acts as bending relief.

Fred
Image
 
Max Q
Posts: 5830
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 9:43 pm

Interesting subject, the 727 has very flexible wings and a stiff fuselage whereas the MD80 has a very flexible fuselage with a stiff wing.


The 72 had a much better ride, not scientific perhaps but it appears the more flexible the wing the better ride you will enjoy.


A great example of this is on the Queen of the skies, the 747 has a very flexible wing.


As an additional note, later model 747's have their engine's 'drooped' slightly so they are perfectly aligned with the Airflow in cruise.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
airbuske
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:36 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Wed May 06, 2009 11:49 pm

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 27):

Far as I can tell, there pretty much has to be a side-slip caused

I think he means that lateral stability rolls the plane to stop sideslip. (which is correct)

[Edited 2009-05-06 16:51:42]
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17578
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Thu May 07, 2009 5:55 am



Quoting Max Q (Reply 29):
The 72 had a much better ride, not scientific perhaps but it appears the more flexible the wing the better ride you will enjoy.

I suppose it makes sense. Since the wings are the main interface with the air, if they flex this will tend to smooth out vibrations. Like shocks in a car.

Then again too elastic might mean some never-ending vomit inducing pogo motion like on a 70s Chevy But I digress.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Thu May 07, 2009 9:51 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):

Washout has at least one advantage - since the root is at a higher angle of attack, it will stall before the tip. Thus, when the wing is first stalling, you'll still have roll control with the ailerons, which are out at the wingtip.

I do not believe this is correct. The 707, I know, had two sets of ailerons, one inboard and one outboard. The outboard ones are only used at low speeds; at altitude and at high speeds only the inboard ones are used. The reason is that at high speeds the outboard ones only twist the wings (due to their flexibility), but at low speeds because of the reduced lift they are needed because the inboard ones do not have enough authority. I don't know for sure, but I believe that all Boeing planes have a similar system. As to the original question, the more flexible the wings, the smoother the ride in turbulence, which also reduces the load shocks to the structure. The wings are in effect acting like springs.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 08, 2009 12:23 am



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
I do not believe this is correct. The 707, I know, had two sets of ailerons, one inboard and one outboard. The outboard ones are only used at low speeds; at altitude and at high speeds only the inboard ones are used. The reason is that at high speeds the outboard ones only twist the wings (due to their flexibility), but at low speeds because of the reduced lift they are needed because the inboard ones do not have enough authority. I don't know for sure, but I believe that all Boeing planes have a similar system. As to the original question, the more flexible the wings, the smoother the ride in turbulence, which also reduces the load shocks to the structure. The wings are in effect acting like springs.

I'm not entirely sure how that contradicts what I said.

Stalls tend to happen at slower speeds - at which point you'll be using the outboard ailerons. If the wing stalls from the tip inward, you'll lose most of your roll control right away, which is not desirable.

Besides which, I don't actually know where each commercial airplane wing stalls first (I'd be somewhat surprised if it was designed to be at the tip). I was talking about an advantage of washout - that's it  Smile
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 08, 2009 10:07 am

The more flex

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I would think that the more flexed the wing, the less lift

I would think so too, from a simple geometrical point of view.

The more flex, the less vertical component of lift; for a given amount of lift, you can make a wing smaller if it is substantially horizontal in stable flight. A wing which droops on the ground for example and flexes so that it is more or less horizontal in flight (like the A380) can be built with less area than a wing which flexes significantly upward in flight (like the 748). In this case, practically all of the wing area will be contributing to the net vertical lift vector.

Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 08, 2009 1:47 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 33):

I'm not entirely sure how that contradicts what I said.

Stalls tend to happen at slower speeds - at which point you'll be using the outboard ailerons. If the wing stalls from the tip inward, you'll lose most of your roll control right away, which is not desirable.

Actually, at high altitude stalls are a real concern-ever hear about the "coffin corner"? The inboard ailerons would be in use there.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12039
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 08, 2009 4:57 pm



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 35):
Actually, at high altitude stalls are a real concern-ever hear about the "coffin corner"? The inboard ailerons would be in use there.

Yes, I have. But airliners don't fly anywhere near the coffin corner.

Your approach speed has to be 1.3*V_stall. I'd imagine your cruise speed is generally going to have quite a bit more margin.

I believe the FAA also requires that CL_buffet be at least 1.3*CL_cruise - but I'm not sure on that one.

That said, on most Boeing airliners I've seen, the inboard ailerons aren't at the wing root - they are probably at about 1/3 span - behind the engines.

On Airbii, the newer jets just have a two-surface outboard aileron, I believe, the inner part of which is used at high speeds.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5051
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Is Wing Flex Ineffecient?

Fri May 08, 2009 5:30 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 36):
Yes, I have. But airliners don't fly anywhere near the coffin corner.

As I understand it at maximum altitude they are often very near it, the 727 in particular. I believe it only had about a 20kt window at maximum altitude. Newer airliners probably have more margin.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: torch1007 and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos